|
| |
| by Danny Internets | February 13th, 2010 - 12:06 pm
|
|
For as long as there have been rules there have been those who break them. More so than the mixed bag of complex rules and probabilities that the game is often painted as, Warhammer is a battle of two opposing personalities, each complete with their own morals, egos, and psychological underpinnings. Even those who portray themselves as fastidious bastions of fair play can fall prey to the temptation of material rewards or succumb to perceived threats to self image. In this chapter of the Competitive Gamer series I’m going to talk about various forms of cheating and some of the reasons why people engage in this behavior.
In the Warhammer community, direct accusations of cheating are rare, even in large tournaments when hefty prizes and bragging rights are on the line. On the occasions when they are made these accusations are generally met with disdain in full force from others players, even when the facts are substantiated. A good example of this comes from the 2008 ‘Ard Boyz Tournament finals in which the overall winner was found to have disregarded his army’s disadvantageous deployment rules (the Daemonic Assault rule) in one of the scenarios, one in which he happened to score a massacre against his opponent. When news of what transpired was broken on Dakka Dakka an astonishing number of posters immediately tried to play down the events, claiming that everything was on the up-and-up, it was an honest mistake, and so on—anything other than to confront the possibility that someone had cheated their way to victory in a premiere community event.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | November 3rd, 2009 - 9:13 am
|
|
Luck
When at the top of their game, elitists take great pleasure at trumpeting their own prowess and claiming that luck has nothing to do with winning. When on the down-and-out, they will often (not so) humbly admit to being victims of the cruel dice gods. While it’s no coincidence that players stratify in mostly predictable patterns when subjected to repeated sorting (e.g., tournament rounds), it takes but a few ounces of common sense to recognize that luck also plays an important role in the 41st millennium.
Good strategy is based on good tactics. Good tactics require good rules knowledge. And practical application of rules knowledge needs an understanding of probabilities. Dedicating units to block an enemy’s retreat from assault is only a good idea if you stand a reasonably good chance of winning that assault, and if the enemy has a good chance of falling back as a result. Figuring out the right application of force likely to bring about a desired outcome is a critical part of 40k. Remember those 3rd grade lessons on fractions, boys and girls:! So-called “mathhammer” forms the hard core of Warhammer tactics.
Rudimentary statistical theory demonstrates that increasing sample size is a surefire way to ensure that actual outcomes approach predicted outcomes (based on probability). Those that have taken introductory statistics courses will recognize this as the basis of the chi-square test. Practically speaking, you’re much more likely to get all hits when rolling 3 dice than when rolling 30. Over the course of a game we roll hundreds of dice which will probably conform to our expectations when taken as a whole, however when we recognize that these many roll are split up into a large number of different types of rolls we begin to see how individual sample sizes are actually fairly small. Say you roll 180 dice over the course of you game but only 12 of them were for leadership tests. Perhaps you rolled exactly 30 6’s, which is expected, but 10 of them were rolled for leadership tests. Looking at the game as a whole one might conclude you were neither lucky nor unlucky, however you clearly got the wrong end of the leprechaun.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 30th, 2009 - 9:49 pm
|
|
In order to examine the differences between players concerned with winning and players concerned with competing it is necessary to take a look at the various paths towards victory in Warhammer 40,000. I categorize these methods into 6 inter-connected domains: (1) Strategy, (2) Tactics, (3) Match-up, (4) Mistakes, (5) Luck, and (6) Cheating. This article examines the first four.
Strategy
Strategy is your over-arching framework, your master plan from the point of conception of your army. Strategy begins with list building which in turn determines what assets your army will have at its disposal and, by extension, what you can or cannot hope to accomplish. Your choices will impact how you play 40k and they should always be made with fulfilling mission goals in mind. Each and every selection will affect the vital balancing act that is army composition.
Because mission goals are normally unknown at the outset of each match, whether rolled for randomly in a pickup game or kept secret prior to tournament rounds, strategy has a necessary fluid component. Based on the scenario presented to us we must be able to evaluate the abilities of our list, the abilities of the opposing list, and commit to a course of action that will lead to fulfillment of the victory conditions. This often involves identification and leverage of strengths, but can also include psychological elements, such as misdirection and surprise. Some strategies are geared towards combating a list and others towards combating an opponent—both are valid, effective, and can be employed concurrently.
An example of a employing a strategy would be building a mechanized, Chimera-based Imperial Guard list and pushing your tank line forward to establish a line of scrimmage on the enemy’s side of the board. In an objective-based mission this would ensure that you have control over the battlefield and, hopefully, the majority of the objectives. Leveraging your mechanized strengths (durability and volume) you can make it very difficult for the enemy to break through your line and reach objectives in later turns.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 23rd, 2009 - 9:22 pm
|
|
A Competitive Gamer is, obviously, one who is concerned with competition. But what exactly is competition? Competition is a struggle between two opposing entities for a mutually desired but not mutually attainable goal. Games in general are not categorically required to have a goal as we have already established that play is not a means to an end, but an end itself. This is evidenced by the many games that have no outcome, no winning or losing (tag, hide and seek, jumping rope, etc.). However, there is no shortage of games that do have specific goals and have both winners and losers.
Like play, the struggle is an end but not a means for the Competitive Gamer. The Competitive Gamer revels in an equally matched struggle and he is just as happy to loser a well-played game as he is to win one. The outcome is subordinate; it is relevant only to the extent that it is determined by skill. The fun derived from the game is sporting and cerebral, not egoistic.
Sportsmanship rarely crosses the mind of the Competitive Gamer because sportsmanship comes naturally by means of self-interest: to gain an advantage through any means other than the application of skill would compromise the authenticity of the competitive struggle and dilute the fun that can be derived from it. It’s Adam Smith’s self-regulating “invisible hand” theory in the 41st millennium. The Competitive Gamer is an athlete turned nerd with an uncompromising love and, more importantly, respect for the game, and for gaming in general.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | October 22nd, 2009 - 10:02 pm
|
|
(Prologue: read this first)
In the grim future of the 41st millennium there exists a false dichotomy. It’s a division conceived of by embittered gamers and perpetuated by lazy groupthink. I speak of the age-old “play for fun” versus “play to win” argument. This talking point will be familiar to anyone who has invested any significant portion of time or energy into the gaming community. A brief visit to any of the general discussion forums of the major online discussion boards of the 40k community (Dakka, Warseer, Bolter & Chainsword, BoLS) will usually yield at least one active thread directly related to the topic. The scripted arguments unfold predictably and the breadth of participants gradually narrows as snarky posters get bored and reasonable voices are shouted down, leaving a scant handful of internet personalities slinging insults and vying for who gets to be king for a day. Moderators inevitably lock the thread, rinse, and repeat.
Face to face discussions of the topic play out differently but are often equally worthless. Even within our small communities there exist factions that are easily discernable by veterans and anyone with a keen eye for social dynamics. Let’s face it, 40k is nerdy hobby and our circles tend to over-represent individuals who shy away from confrontation. Applied as a general rule, it should be no surprise that conversations on emotionally charged subjects, such as this, take place only in contexts where offense is least likely to be perceived. As a result, these conversations occur between like-minded individuals within the group, thus avoiding dissenting opinions and any worthwhile discussion. In the end it’s just a bunch of whiny twats complaining and patting each other on the back for preaching to the choir.
That last statement might seem at odds with my first. If there exists a real ideological split in the 40k community then how can I claim the dichotomy is false? It is important here to make a distinction between a true, fundamental dichotomy and the manifestations of a perceived dichotomy. Regardless of truth, a perceived mutual exclusivity between having fun and playing competitively always results itself in subpopulations of gamers who identify more with one side over the other. Subtle differences in opinion are enhanced through repeated confrontation with one another ultimately causing a clear stratification. Call them sides or camps or whatever label suits your group best.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | August 23rd, 2009 - 8:56 pm
|
|
For the first time in my 40k history I find myself in the curious position of not only having interest in a newly (re-)released army, but also having the disposable income to buy a ticket to ride the bandwagon. $300 and several Bartertown trades later, I can now admit that I’ve gone and built a mechanized Imperial Guard army.
Why did I choose IG? Obviously it’s not for the models. The old school WW1 army men theme is fun, but not particularly interesting. Mostly it has to do with fielding lots of tanks and artillery. But that’s not the only reason.
When the IG book was released there was lots of rabble about how overpowered the army is, which is typical for any codex release, and then there were the contrarians who point out that everyone overestimates the potential of new armies which inevitably end up being balanced. I usually find myself arguing in defense of the latter, however I firmly believe that the IG codex is hard. Not just hard, not even just rock hard, but fucking titanium hard. This is one army that I don’t think is going to sink to the level of mediocrity. And it takes the mech metagame to a whole new level by scaling twice as well as any other army thanks to the copious vehicle squadron options.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | July 23rd, 2009 - 2:00 pm
|
|
The question of whether or not Orks are a “top tier” army has been the subject of some debate amongst 40k players on the internet lately, particularly on Dakka (view the current thread here). The thread mostly consists of poster Frank Fugger offering an insightful analysis of the army while fighting off a horde of nerd-raging knuckle-draggers. There are a few exceptions however (Primarch and Mahu, most notably).
At the risk of coming late to the dead horse beatdown, I’ll throw in my two cents since both sides aren’t really debating the viability of Orks, but the competitive nature of 40k armies and the tournament scene. It should also be be noted that Stelek has chimed in on the issue, and in fact has been asserting that Orks are one of the least competitive armies in 5th edition 40k for quite some time (view article here). More recently, he has commented on the same Dakka thread, posting highlights of the conversation (link).
The release of the Ork codex represented a significant shift in game design from previous army releases in late 4th edition, most notably Chaos Space Marines. Prior to the Ork codex release, it was mostly trash with the exception of a few very specific builds that relied on favorable rock-paper-scissor matchmaking to perform well in a competitive setting. Afterwards, they managed to catch up with codex creep and perform on a level above pretty much everyone else.
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | July 14th, 2009 - 12:10 pm
|
|
So, as mentioned in my previous post, Kris and I took a drive down to New Jersey on Saturday to participate in round 1 of the 2009 ‘Ard Boyz tournament at Maplewood Hobby.
We had originally planned to attend the tournament at Time Warp Comics, also in Jersey, however they (along with many other stores) had deferred the tournament until Sunday due to the simultaneous release of the new Magic: The Gathering expansion. (Earth to GW: don’t schedule major events that coincide with major events of much larger, directly competing hobbies.) Our second choice was Dark Tower (again, NJ), but they moved the tournament to a local comic convention which included a $45 entry fee, despite GW providing prize support and explicitly stating there would be no charge to participate. We also briefly considered going to Brothers Grim in Long Island, where we attend tournaments every other month, however summer weekend traffic to LI is just too brutal.
Maplewood was choice #4. We had known in advance that turnout was going to be poor, but this was a little silly. Only 3 players showed up, including Kris and myself. Talk about easy pickings. Free passes to the semi-finals and everybody takes home loot. We decided that the only fair way to determine placings would be to conduct a round-robin tournament in which we each played the other two participants once over the course of 3 rounds (sitting out for one of them).
Read the rest of this entry »
|
| |
| by Danny Internets | June 29th, 2009 - 2:27 pm
|
|
If you’re even remotely into the Warhammer 40k tournament scene then you already know that the 2009 ‘Ard Boyz Tournament is less than two weeks away. And you probably already know that the locations, rules, and scenarios have already been posted.
In case you don’t, check out the following links: Locations | Rules | Scenarios
Last year I did fairly well in the tournament, taking 1st place out of 40 in the preliminaries with a very balanced Space Marine + Grey Knights allies army. I spent a lot of time running practice games and preparing…which led to complete 40k burnout. I didn’t play again until the second round and I ended up making a lot of foolish mistakes which I chalk up to being rusty (one of which cost me a win in game #2).
All in all, I had a blast. I love playing big games and I didn’t run across a single jerkoff at either location.
This year, I’ve decided to try something new. I’m currently building a mechanized Imperial Guard army, so there’s really no leftover spending cash for tailoring my Salamanders for 2500 points. Instead, I’ve decided to use my Chaos monstrous creature list and fill out the Troop selections to make up the difference from the 1750 level. It’s not a powerful list by any means, but it’s a lot of fun to play (except against IG/Tau).
Read the rest of this entry »
Kris: You are a sad delusional man who cares way too much about little toy soldiers and the people who play with...
Green7: I’m truly sorry and won’t troll here anymore. G
Danny Internets: You’re free to actually make an argument if you’re capable of doing so, but any further...
TheKingElessar: ‘Well read’ is a meaningless phrase used to try and enhance your social status in the...
