Submarining

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**beast_gts**

Does anyone have a clear, concise definition of submarining? I think I understand it but I'm not 100% sure.

TIA!

**Audustum**

It's when you make sure to win your match but do it by as a low a score as possible so the common tournament matchmaking system will pair you against the weakest bracket possible (pairings are based at least in part on battlepoints commonly).

**insaniak**

It can also refer to deliberately losing your first (usually random draw) match in order to get weaker pairings in second and subsequent matches. I don't think I'd ever actually heard anyone use it to refer to winning by a small margin before.

**Overread**

Essentially its about playing less than your best in early matches so that you rank in a lower skill group for the mid and latter matches.

That idea being that by the time you hit the latter matches you should (in theory) have a higher skill level than your opponent, making it easier to win when you play to your best.

People can do it any time, but often when there are prizes at lower "skill" ranks. The player determines that they can't likely win at the middle or top table; so they submarine early matches to rank into the lower skill group and then play their best in the matches that matter to win and take a prize - or to just take a "win" in that grouping.

**Jarms48**

insaniak wrote:
It can also refer to deliberately losing your first (usually random draw) match in order to get weaker pairings in second and subsequent matches. I don't think I'd ever actually heard anyone use it to refer to winning by a small margin before.

I suppose it really depends on how large the tournament really is, and if there's multiple brackets of prizes to consider.

If there's a lot of players, then you may want to still be in the middle of the pack. As there's a greater chance of the best players being dispersed at the top.

**beast_gts**

Thanks. I'd heard it in the context of 'managing' your score so you'd have a more favourable match-up next game.

The reason for asking is the 'discussion' around what Mani Cheema (Glasshammer Gaming) did at the weekend - was it submarining and/or a WAAC move?

Mani wrote:I would like to address the slight controversy that happened this weekend and also get the community’s thoughts on how it should be treated / resolved for future events.
When reading the lists and rulespack for a tournament I was attending I noticed that several of the top players were using clever lists that countered mine. I also saw that playing those lists in the last two rounds (due to the missions) were my best chance at winning against them. To try and make that happen I started walking off objectives in games when I knew I was ahead. It’s something I’ve seen a lot in the many years I’ve been attending tournaments and have always considered it tactical play (the trade off being that if you lose a game you fall to the bottom of the 5-1 bracket and have no chance to podium).
I ended up receiving a yellow card (an auto loss for my next round) in the 4th round for what I did in my game 1. At this particular event the TO was the only person who could submit scores and when questioned why I had scored low I explained my intentions which the TO ok’d. After game 2 I was asked to stop walking off objectives which I stopped doing immediately and went on to score as many points as I could for the remainder of my games. Even though I went on following the TO’s instructions the next day it was decided that I was going to score 0 for my game regardless of the 100-17 score line.
I’m not here to rant about who is right or wrong, I just want to point out that this was a misunderstanding between a player and a TO about not scoring the maximum points available and hopefully have something official announced by the ITC to make sure this is handled better in future events.

**Overread**

It's one of those things that's hard to rule on

On the one hand you can see it as a tactical play to better your personal chances of winning by viewing the event as a series of matches not just each individual match on its own. Then attempting to engineer your result to best match the overall win you want.

On the other its seen as being in the same as "throwing a match" (which essentially it is). The idea being that a person won't bring their A game to every match in a series of matches is generally frowned upon.
Many also see it as being like "Noob stomping" when someone can work it so that they lose early games to score low and end up higher skilled against lower skilled people.

It's also exceptionally hard to prove at times, esp in many events because you need a lot of games viewed on one player ot see if they are underplaying their skill level or if perhaps they are just lucky in a few key matches and otherwise not a great player etc...

**Slipspace**

At least in this case the player concerned was completely up front about what they were doing. I can think of numerous ways you could achieve the same result in a much more subtle way. I think the TO in the above situation handled this completely wrong. It's fair enough asking a player not to deliberately lower their own score once you know they're doing it, but handing out a sanction way after the fact is pretty poor, IMO. I also wonder if the player's reputation worked against him here. He's a pretty well-known tournament player who consistently does well so I can see why a TO may have questioned an unusually close result from his early games but how do you determine if any other players are doing the same? I'd also say that while it doesn't seem to be against the rules it does feel like it's pretty disrespectful to your opponent.

In this specific case it sounds like not revealing the order the missions were to be played in prior to the event might have helped solve the problem.

**Overread**

I think the problem is some things like this can be hard to review in the moment. Especially when you consider that most TO are officiating multiple games at the same time, often without much backup. Meanwhile if you look at many spots events they often have a ref, who is one per game and then backed up with aids and action replays and all that.

After the fact does tend to rear its head more in wargaming, perhaps just because the TO need a moment to collect their thoughts and such. It's not ideal and I do agree that in an ideal world punishments/sanctions should be handed out in the moment; but I think that within the limits of wargames a prompt action after the fact is not a bad thing.

And yes in this case the person throwing matches (which is essentially what it is) was up front about it. They knew they were technically in the wrong and accepted their punishment.

And yes there are many ways to be far more subtle about this.

**bullyboy**

Based on what he presented, I see absolutely no issue with this. Tournaments are all about gaming the system from list building (tailoring to mission,terrain or meta), so why expect someone not to use game management to better their chances? How different is it than pulling your punches to make sure you can score grind it down each turn.
Sorry, but I see nothing wrong in what he did, and I assume that this is the kind of play I'd expect from the top players. He is not cheating, so there should be zero punishment.

**kirotheavenger**

I can see the argument about it being unsportsman-like conduct.

But as per the situation described in that quote (may be biased) though I think he's not done anything wrong. He was upfront about what he was doing, and because he felt it was just part of playing the game (an equally valid interpretation). He says he told the TO and got the okay, then stopped immediately when asked.
So the yellow card seems very unfair such as it was.

**The_Real_Chris**

The internet unhelpfully says "submarining is a form of ghosting where a person drops off the grid, only to then get back in touch months later". I though its when the RN team gets to bring on its subs, or is that when the venue is waterlogged?

**Overread**

The problem if you allow it to become part of the game is that you will end up with a competitive group of "noob bashers." Who have higher skill (but either not high enough or don't perceive that they have high enough skill) who just remain in the lower rankings winning against the less experienced players who are plying their best.

In many events where there's perhaps only a prize pool for the top winner it might not be as much an issue; but it can be a problem if there are prizes for lower rankings.

In most sporting events, people are expected to play/perform their best. Performing less than your best is typically only seen in team events where a team might promote one player over others - I seem to recall this happens in car racing circles though even there its sometimes viewed as bad taste.

It is tricky as you can argue its just someone gaming the system for their best chance of a win, which is part of competing; but on the other its gaming by lowering your standard of play whilst most competitive events expect high standards of play through every match.

**The_Real_Chris**

More seriously I have zero problem interacting with a scoring system in this way - especially given the risk. If you don't want that behaviour move to a 3-1-0 scoring process.

**LunarSol**

Pairing up latter rounds by tiebreakers seems like a mistake to me either way. Like, the NCAA doesn't seed 1:16 - 2:15 and then immediately pair 1:2 the next round. If anything, intentionally lowering your score should get you thrown directly at a shark the next round, though personally, I prefer pairings to be fully random within the W/L record.

**General Hobbs**

Penalizing the player was wrong. I've read the comments the TO made and he said deliberately giving up 50VP's was odd behavior.

In baseball you intentionally walk good hitters. In Football sometimes you take a safety to avoid giving up a potential touch down or putting the other team in good field position. In real war sometimes to win a battle you have a strategy that costs you more casualties. Or you retreat to set up a better position as in the AWI in the South.

**beast_gts**

Mikey Herbert wrote:TL;DR - I’m the TO that issued the controversial penalty this weekend. I didn't deal with this situation perfectly, I could have acted more quickly, but with the information I had at the time and what came to light after certain conversations, I did what I had to to protect the interests of the other players at my tournament. No one cheated, systems are flawed - let's work to make it better in the future.

Hey, just wanted to chime in and give my two cents. I’m the Head TO of the Into the Hellstorm events, and it was my decision to issue the penalty to the player that has since sparked some insightful or some more interesting conversations across the 40k Communities. I originally only made a statement in the ITC TO channel, as I figured it would’ve been better to leave the situation at the event, and between the people involved, but thought other Judges could benefit from the thought process and I could get some constructive feedback from others who may have had to rule in a similar context. However, seeing how much traction this has gained, it’s only right for me to address the matter publicly myself.

Submarining is a very hard topic to talk about as it’s (usually) very hard to spot. Being 5-10 points down isn’t obvious at a glance, but it doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.

The difference here was the dropping of at least 50 VPs, by scoring 10 primary points, tabling an opponent and moving off objectives, and then leaving 3 units in reserve to die to purposefully not score “To the Last”. This made the issue quite apparent and easy to spot. We all make mistakes in games, forget certain rules or miss a few optimal points, which shouldn't be punished. However there's a difference between innocent mistakes, and deliberate dropping available points to affect standings or future pairings in your favour.

The player was told that was odd behavior. I hold my hands up and admit that I did not issue a formal warning, however I also did not formally okay his actions or condone them.

After this, the player proceeded to disclose on other channels that this was his plan and strategy. It happened in the next game after that too, for which I didn't personally take the score (our judges are the only ones who can input scores to avoid errors and keep on top of placings), so wasn't immediately aware of the issue that was arising. This of course led to a delay in action being taken. Whilst less than ideal, it was unfortunately the situation i was in.

The reason I felt I had grounds to issue the penalty was that I deemed these actions to be against the spirit of the competition, and as constituting unsportsmanlike conduct. I want to emphasise that I don’t consider the actions to be cheating, but they could easily be considered as angle shooting: by taking advantage of inexperienced opponents to use the system to the more experienced player's advantage. The exact definition in the ITC Code of Conduct is: "The act of using various underhanded, unfair methods to take advantage of inexperienced opponents.”

The pairing system I used was intended to create a fair event for all players of all abilities and experience levels. However, clearly a lot of players are noticing and potentially using the system to their own advantage and going unchecked, to the detriment of other players and TOs, which is really sad, as it in my opinion doesn't demonstrate any prowess in the game, merely shortcuts to an easier victory. Going forward I will be addressing this issue in my own pairings system, and I feel it has started a very productive debate about the pairings systems that other TOs currently or plan to use at their own events.

It also starts to raise the question of the issue that arises when an inexperienced or lesser known player does play a well renowned player, and potentially feels like they cannot speak out about their concerns or feelings toward the actions of their opponent at the time, or even afterwards,until invited to talk about it and how it may have affected their experience. Whether this is because they don't know what they can say to a ref or TO, because they want to avoid confrontation, or even if they feel they can't speak out at all due to their opponent's profile or platform for fear of the backlash and whether they would be dismissed or not, I want to make sure that no players actions lessen the enjoyment of their opponents in any of my events.

I want to be clear that I treat all of my players with the same respect, and do not consider outside influences to affect my rulings, any particular player's reputation should not and will not mean they are subject to lighter or heavier penalties than another player at my event. I find any insinuation of this behaviour to be hurtful and unjust.

This situation also raises other concerns regarding how much information is available to a player before an event. I stand for showing a player exactly what they're buying at my events, and I made my rulespack and map packs very clear, and they are available at the time of ticket purchase. However it was repeated by the player in question that "I noticed that several of the top players were using clever lists that countered mine. I also saw that playing those lists in the last two rounds (due to the missions) were my best chance at winning against them" and whether this is "tactical acumen" or attempting to fix a match up into a more favourable pairing is a matter for debate.

At the end of it, the penalty was issued to show that foul play or any sort of angle shooting is not welcome at my events. The severity of the penalty was highly considered, and chosen to ensure that this behaviour could not continue throughout the rest of the tournament, affecting further results and pairings for every other player. In my opinion, good sportsmanship must be the most important aspect of playing a game. If people are attending a tournament to play games, and a player's actions are deliberately causing illegitimate matchups or pairings made in bad faith, that doesn't just affect the person responsible, or even them and their opponents - it affects everyone at that tournament.

I wanted to make sure every single person attending my event had an enjoyable and fair gaming experience. I stand by my ruling, and I even reached out to other well respected TOs in the wider community to confirm my ruling would be the correct choice before it was issued. I did not take this ruling lightly, and it wasn't made in the spur of the moment (which in hindsight, could be seen as part of the issue). I discussed the situation with other TOs to ensure I came to the fairest and most measured response.

I regret that this player is upset, as we are friends outside of this issue. In fact, I did offer the player a refund for my next event taking place in less than 3 weeks, for which the offer still stands, and will until the 22/8. However the offer was declined, and I still look forward to seeing them compete in that event. I also discussed with the player the option of dropping from the event after the penalty was issued, which I would have completely understood, however this again was declined, and they continued to play the rest of the event. I wanted to uphold the integrity of the event as a whole, and ensure the most people possible could enjoy the rest of their tournament. This is why I made this ruling.

I hope this gives some extra context to the situation, however I'm sharing it here not to add to the "drama" but more to give insight to the reasoning behind my decision. I didn't respond to this issue perfectly, but I felt I did what I had to do to protect the best interests of my players.

Thanks for reading, I know this was a long one.
Mikey, Hellstorm Wargaming

**TangoTwoBravo**

I think this is a classy, honest response from Mikey as the TO explaining his reasoning. He points out that nobody cheated.

We are gamers, but gaming the system to achieve better matchups rubs me the wrong way and I think that ultimately the TO made the appropriate call. We should play to the best of our ability and not attempt to get softer matchups. That this is possible indicates that the pairing system has flaws, but we should resist exploiting. I know - its human nature to do otherwise!

I think it would be one thing for a highly-ranked player to hold back in his first game of a tourney when he realizes that he is playing a new player and not completely curb-stomp his opponent. Its another thing to table the much less skilled player in the first round and then withhold your own VPs to get the chance to avoid playing a strong opponent in the next round.

**MaxT**

Does anyone have a link to the tournie rules where this occurred please? I’d like to read em and how they do the scoring

**Jarms48**

Pretty sure this could be solved with points difference scoring. If the winner gets 90 points and the loser gets 30 points. Then the winner is only allocated 60 points.

If someone is purposely throwing the game then they'd run the risk of also ruining their points difference as well as their win/loss.

It also uniquely puts your opponent in a better position where if they know they're going to lose, could instead purely focus on limiting your points difference.

**kirotheavenger**

Points difference has it's own problems with determining the winner. It means if you have two equal players; one of whom spent the first half of the tournament stomping newbs and the other has been playing high ranked opponents and still coming out on top, the first guy would win when the second guy arguably gave a more impressive showing.

I don't think there is a great way to determine matches in a 40k tournament that doesn't leave you open to this. A typical 40k tournament is actually horrific competitively though, 40k just takes waay too long and you can't get enough data points over a weekend.
I think just being clear and open that this is not kosher should be good enough. A note in the code of conduct saying players are expected to bring their best and score maximum points for the sake of the matchings.

**beast_gts**

MaxT wrote:
Does anyone have a link to the tournie rules where this occurred please? I’d like to read em and how they do the scoring

I think it was this tournament (“THE BOLTER” Into the Hellstorm 5 Tournament ), so this is the rules pack.

**Slipspace**

kirotheavenger wrote:
A typical 40k tournament is actually horrific competitively though, 40k just takes waay too long and you can't get enough data points over a weekend.

This is the real problem IMO. 40k is about the worst possible system to try to play competitively. It takes too long to play to allow for a reasonable number of games per tournament, the balance is laughably bad, the rules are overly bloated and complex and take too long to be fixed when broken, and the skill expression is pretty minimal. Combine that with the fact it seems to attract, and retain, a large number of people who have no problem pulling crap like this, or outright cheating on the table and I'm really not sure what the attraction is.

Many other TTGs don't seem to have this problem. I've been playing X-Wing competitively for years and the number of similar incidents of cheating in that time period is miniscule compared to 40k and it's never been any of the "top" players either. With one exception I can think of, where incidents have occurred there's usually been universal condemnation rather than this weird situation with 40k where there always seems to be a small minority of people willing to defend terrible behaviour.

**MorglumNecksnapper**

I don't see this as a problem that needs to be solved. The player in question looks at the tournament as a whole and did his upmost best to win the tournament.

Someone else posted that it is not much different than pulling punches to kill units in another round for grind them down points and I think it's an apt comparison. Instead of confining this tactic to a game he used it for the tournament as a whole.

Once sportteams qualify for the next round in a tournament and still need to play some games they also put in the B-team. Or once the victory is sure in a game they substitute the best players to give them a rest.

One can argue the used points system might need a change if these actions are considered a problem, but I don't think anything less of the player in question.

And to stay on topic, first time I heard the term 'submarining'

.

**The_Real_Chris**

kirotheavenger wrote:
Points difference has it's own problems with determining the winner. It means if you have two equal players; one of whom spent the first half of the tournament stomping newbs and the other has been playing high ranked opponents and still coming out on top, the first guy would win when the second guy arguably gave a more impressive showing.

You get round that though with running two systems.

The 3-1-0 system for matchups (winners play winners, losers play losers) and the VP system for the final round matchup/tie break if there isn't a path to a clear winner (only 1 chap winning every game normally).

What turned me off 40k tourneys was the terrain. We ran one in the club organised by our resident tourney fanatic. I built a great urban table, only to be told it wasn't fair to some armies as they would expect 'tournament' levels of terrain, which seemed far less than rulebook amounts and frankly what what looked good. Knowing the boring set up you will fight on just further boosts list building at the expense of all round lists and on table play. here was also no interest in having environmental effects on different tables (just the bottom ones mind after round 1) for apparently the same reason. Those guys aren't going to win, so why not make their games more interesting?

**kodos**

I have only seen this happening and being a problem in 8th Edi were Tournaments used scoring point difference to a maximum of 20 as first victory condition, but pairing was based on "winning"

so people could lose the first game and be placed with the weaker group, but still win the tournament in points against someone who won all his games (losing first game 0:20, 2nd game 9:11 and winning other 3 20:0 places you above someone who won all 5 games 13:7)

with tournaments using winning as first condition (either by 3:1:0 points or just by counting wins) this is less of a problem, because someone who has 5 close wins will always be placed above someone who lose 1 game to score higher in the others

**kirotheavenger**

Using the VP system for tie breakers leads to exactly the problem that I indicated in the post you quoted.

**The_Real_Chris**

kirotheavenger wrote:
Using the VP system for tie breakers leads to exactly the problem that I indicated in the post you quoted.

How so? You aren't going to stomp those people every round unless they are winning as well. So in a 5 game tourney you would need 1 new player for round 1, 2 more for round 2 (who played each other), 4 for round 3 (who all played each other) and 8 for round 4. As you go through the tourney it gets ever more unlikely to be happening. I would put forward the chances of easy games are equal to playing people in rounds 2 and 3 that simply had lucky rounds.

**kirotheavenger**

I agree that one sided matches become less likely the further into the tournament you go.

But the reality of those first 1-2 randomish matches remain, and that's a significant chunk of your total games that is still affecting the final score if you use VP.

**The_Real_Chris**

So in reality that is just round 2 (unless you have a seeding system for round 1), as finding 7 new plays for you to play and for them to play each other is unlikely by round 3. So then what is the chance of playing a new player in round 2 in 3/1/0, verses the chance of playing a lucky but lower skill player who won big round 1?