|
|
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.
Psychologists might refer to this collective behavior in terms of cognitive dissonance resulting from the simultaneously held beliefs that GW would never allow such an egregious violation at a national tournament and that such a violation did indeed occur. To ease the uncomfortable tension caused by holding conflicting beliefs we simply rationalize one or the other. For the generally passive, non-confrontational nature of the hobbyist crowd the decision defaults along the lines of authoritarian thinking: GW didn’t sanction the player so therefore the player is guilty of no wrongdoing. Instead, the accuser becomes the accused and “sour grapes” becomes the favorite buzz phrase. Rabble, rabble, rabble, et cetera.
Most anecdotal accounts of cheating cite instances of dice loading, rolling techniques (i.e., palming, sliding), moving figures when a player isn’t looking, measuring front-to-back, and so on, each embodying explicit intent to gain an unfair advantage over their opponent. While these may be the most famous methods, they are not the most common. I drudge up the aforementioned ‘Ard Boyz example not to further beat a dead horse (even if he deserves a few anniversary whacks), but to illustrate one of the most frequently encountered and most subtle forms of cheating in Warhammer 40k: rules manipulation.
At this point I’m sure many of you have the phrase “rules lawyer” flashing in your heads. Let me be the one to nip it in the bud. The term “rules lawyer” is generally use in a derogatory sense by poor players offended at the notion that they should be required to play the rules as they are written. While most of the 40k rules are quite clear, there are also many instances where they are not and interpretation is required. At these junctures we are all lawyers of the rules, charged with finding the most appropriate and sensible interpretation of what is said and, sometimes, what is meant. In fact, I would go as far as to say that being a “rules lawyer” is a necessary condition for the Competitive Gamer because treating the rules as law and applying them unconditionally and consistently across situations is absolutely vital to fair play. And, as stated in previous parts of this series, fair play is the backbone of competitive play. Leveraging an unfair advantage to win would neither be satisfying to nor tolerated by the Competitive Gamer.
Unfortunately, not all members of our gaming community subscribe to this philosophy, and even those who do are prone to straying from its ideals. It is not uncommon for players to conveniently forget inconvenient rules. Sometimes they play dumb, acting like they didn’t know the rule existed if and when it is pointed out to them. Other times these players will forcibly argue for one particular interpretation of a vague rule that benefits them in that moment, but then argue the opposite when the tables are turned. Even more subtle are situations where players question the validity of unquestionably clear rules in order to cast doubt on the conventional interpretation and convince their opponent to agree to a roll-off, giving the perpetrator a 50/50 chance of cheating their way to an advantage. There are even times when players will attempt to manipulate tournament judges by approaching them alone and providing one-sided arguments so as to improve the chances of a favorable ruling (judgehammer). I have witnessed these in both casual and in tournament play, and they are all forms of cheating.
Why do people cheat? It should be noted that not all cheating is intentional. There will always be times when you roll 11 shots instead of 10, when you’re convinced the range on that power is 18” not 12”, or when you play a full game, go home, and then realize that your list was 50 points over. While these are technically cheating and the “victim” deserves to be notified (especially at a competitive event), intent carries a lot of weight here. I firmly believe that these infractions deserve a special category separate from more insidious methods of cheating opponents.
Freud would argue that there are no mistakes, that these are a result of subconscious motivations that bleed through into our behavior. This theory goes a long way to explaining why tournaments sometimes seem to bring out the worst in people. Everyone is prone to bias, particularly when it comes to highly subjective rules interpretations, and this bias can be greatly magnified when prizes and egos are on the line. It is important for all players interested in fair play to recognize this bias and to do their best to eliminate it. Whether you intend to cheat or not, it is ultimately the outcome of that cheating that matters to other players, each of whom have the right to expect a fair game. At a tournament, by cheating your opponent you not only cheat him, but everyone else participating in the event by skewing the scores and the pairings. The competition aspect is compromised, which, depending on the severity of the infraction, can ruin the whole tournament.
There is never an acceptable reason to cheat, even if you feel you’ve been cheated yourself. Ironically, psychology studies have shown that many people who suspect that they have been the victims of foul play will rationalize cheating themselves as a defensive response to restore fairness. This in turn increases the likelihood that the victim will retaliate, and soon things spiral out of control. Of course, this goes hand in hand with psychological projection: the cheaters are themselves inclined to cheat and so they expect others are as well, then their expectations of being cheated increase their likelihood of cheating.
In many discussions of ethics it seems pertinent to invoke the Golden Rule (“do unto others…”), but a more appropriate normative prescription in this case is the lesser-known Silver Rule: do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
(Coming next: Part VI – Tournaments, not Hobby Competitions)
| Posted in Commentary | 33 Comments » |  |
Email Danny Internets
Dashofpepper: In response to the question, “What will you do now?” I offer this insight into the skills...
Daemon-Archon Ren: My black/red dice are WAAC (ask Stelek) my army is not. Also, funi artykal
Green7: HAHAHAHAHAHA !!
Killswitch: Screw you and your british jokes D:<!
Killswitch: I don’t think his that lame lol ;)
Loading ...
I think that it would be better if we actually confront people who don’t know the rules more often. I don’t know the rules well at all and I would much rather be called out and learn then having my opponent feel that I cheat. If I end up in a tourney I will sit down and reread the rules for sure. But that is really not cheating (at worst it is being sloppy).
The idea is that sportsmanship-scores are suppose to improve the situation, while I feel that they are only making it worse. Calling someone out and *your* score goes down. Where is the sensibility in that? I call for tournies to have judges at each table to enforce the rules.
I also think it is important to try to call out people in a level and friendly manner. Take the highroad and assume it was a mistake and not intentional.
Definitely agree that sportsmanship scores actually make the situation worse. In fact, the next set of articles deal with tournament play and one will be all about how sportsmanship scores actually accomplish the opposite of what they’re intended for.
I think most people can tell the difference between cheating and being sloppy. No one has every rule memorized and honest mistakes are to be expected. However, when a savvy player with a reputation for kicking ass and taking names starts “forgetting” basic rules in his own favor, that’s when you need to get suspicious. Unfortunately, egos get offended when questioned on the rules and people think that sportsmanship scores give them license to penalize opponents who call them out on mistakes.
Ok Danny, I disagree with you on this one, at least in parts. I can only see cheating described as a willful and deliberate misrepresentation of rules, lists, or situations. What you are saying is, if I get anything unintentionally wrong, albiet in its own category, that I am cheating? Its just not the way as I see it.
I made a clear distinction in the article about how willful cheating should be differentiated from non-willful cheating. Regardless of the differences, the most important aspect of the two is their shared similarity: that someone *else* ends up cheated.
Let’s say you played in a tournament and lost, perhaps by the smallest conceivable amount, and then find out (afterward) that the other player won because he made some honest, but extremely important mistake. Maybe he had 6 guys in his unit but only paid for 5, and only 1 survived at the end of the game to capture an objective. Would you not agree that you had been cheated?
The important thing is not whether or not there was any deception, but that someone else was deprived of his or her rightful expectations of a fair game due to another’s actions, intended or not. Intent takes a back seat because it’s impossible to determine if intent is present from both the second and first person perspectives. “Did you really not realize you had an extra guy in the squad, or are you just trying to save face?” Or, “did I really miscount models, or did I subconsciously overlook the obvious error because victory was on the line?”
Bias is a funny creature. There are countless controlled psychological experiments showing that our judgment is highly influenced by personal stake. This holds true even when people claim they are being entirely objective.
“Leveraging an unfair advantage to win would neither be satisfying to nor tolerated by the Competitive Gamer.”
Then Competitive Gamers, true competitive gamers, must be exceedingly rare as from what I have seen, respectfully, I put to you that competitive players tend towards using every conceivable rule no matter how hard the stretch is to make it apply to their advantage. It strikes towards naivete to assume they would not. They will needle and complain until they find some utilization for their good regardless if they had any thought about the other person. Sorry, on this point, I must disagree, as it seems entirely satisfying and is tolerated by the Competitive Gamer.
Another well written article.
You may find these links relevant:
Actual documented cheating in the Seattle Conquest NW GT:
http://bloodofkittens.com/?p=2497
Followed by loss of title, and the banhammer:
http://bloodofkittens.com/?p=2566
Great article. And thanks to Chaosgerbil for the links – the videos are priceless, if disgusting.
I see your point Drew; we’ve all seen players who stretch the rules to the breaking point to gain an advantage for themselves. I don’t think that’s a competitive gamer, that’s a jerk.
@Drew
Please read the other articles in this series (this is the fifth, as indicated by its title). The terms “competitive gamer” and “Competitive Gamer” are not to be used interchangably (as denoted by the capitalization). These articles continue to define exactly what being a Competitive Gamer is all about, which is capitalized because the definition is not congruent with any colloquial definition. As you surmised, the type of person described is an ideal that I suspect very people embody in its entirety, but the demands of which we should all strive to meet.
I stated earlier that the type of gamer that most people refer to as a “competitive gamer” is a misnomer because anyone who plays exclusively to win is not even remotely interested in competition. The Competitive Gamer, on the other hand, is solely interested in competition–winning and losing are inconsequential as long as the struggle was authentic. From the second article in the series, “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.” To cheat by applying questionable interpretations only when advantageous or otherwise “stretching” the rules would be self-defeating for anyone interested in sporting competition and could not be described as a Competitive Gamer by definition. Such actions would be more in line with “win at all costs” gamers, which are of an entirely different ilk.
“Let’s say you played in a tournament and lost, perhaps by the smallest conceivable amount, and then find out (afterward) that the other player won because he made some honest, but extremely important mistake. Maybe he had 6 guys in his unit but only paid for 5, and only 1 survived at the end of the game to capture an objective. Would you not agree that you had been cheated?”
Would I feel cheated? For the lack of a better word that would describe the situation, Yes but not by the other player. I would feel “cheated,” but I dont see the other person as cheating. I put a real stress on lack of a better word. If I have lost out in a situation with incalcuable variables, I personally believe that I have not been, “cheated.” As you state, it is impossible for me to know what really happened in said situation and as a personal attitude I cannot put intent in the back seat.
Just to be clear, I understand that one person loses out on something because of anothers action regardless of intent. Cold hard fact without mushy feelings of fairness. But fairness is the key and what seems to define the cheater. To take away the expectable fairness in gameplay. But even though we have a common set of rules and an agreed points limit, things are not always fair. Some people have a better knowledge of the rules, or are a bully on the tabletop and can intimidate their opponent influencing his decisions. None of these things I see as fair and therefore Intent MUST be considered when labeling someone a cheat. 40K and life aren’t fair!
I guess my main disagreement would be with not having a separate label, word or phrase that distiguishes intentional cheating and mistakes.
Mad love and respect for you as always Danny, I just cant eat your slice of pie this time!
Nice article. Keep up the good work ;)
Well said Black Matt. Mistakes are in a whole different dimension from intentional cheating.
Curious as to what you are basing your analysis on to talk about the “blatant cheating” at tournaments? Personally I’ve been to 10 GW run GT’s, Big Waagh twice, and Adepticon Twice – playing in all three big 40K tournaments both times. Along with that goes more smaller tournaments than I can remember. Out of that sampling – I can say that the amount of “cheating” I’ve seen is pretty marginal. Most people are coming to play – some play hard and to win – but obvious cheating – hardly ever. I’ve seen people try to interpret rules in their favor – or just differently than I did, honestly forget rules, not know rules, etc. Only once did I feel like someone cheated – and that was army list related. The internet posts on this like it’s some major conspiracy. Don’t agree that it’s a wide spread flagrant thing at all. It gives people a bad impression of something that isn’t what I’ve experienced at all.
Unique article. I think cheating probably happens more often than not. I would still consider myself a novice player and as I flip through my codex every once in a while I learn something new. What I have learned from doing THIS is that I know little to nothing of the other codexes. There are so many rules in 40K and Fantasy that as an opponent you can often choose not to disclose something. I remember my VERY first game of 40K. I was playing Chaos Space Marines and I wanted to lash a Land Raider. I was a playing an arguably experienced player and HE didn’t know I couldn’t do it. I wasn’t intentionally cheating but the point is there, it’s easy to get your own way when your opponent doesn’t know the codex.
Ryan Thompson
http://ryanstactictalk.com
http://ryanstactictalk.wordpress.com/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/ryanstactictalk
twitter: rpthomps
@Al
It’s not about being a conspiracy, it’s more about people letting their competitive nature get the best of them, particularly in events billed as catering to that nature.
“Obvious” cheating is indeed rare, though I’ve witnessed this as well. A few months ago I was playing in a tournament and the kid at the table next to us was rolling his dice behind large pieces of terrain so his opponent couldn’t see and was completely lying about the results. Not just fudging things, but outright lying. For instance, rolling a handful of dice and telling his opponent he rolled four 6’s when he only rolled 1. I didn’t notice it until *my* opponent told me to watch, and then called the kid out on it. His opponent was, well, less than pleased.
The article is more about the subtle aspects of cheating, such as insisting on one vague rules interpretation in some instances then the opposite in others. This is something you won’t see at GW GTs because most players aren’t dumb enough to contradict their own interpretations over the course of a single game. You need to witness multiple games with a single player to really see it. I would be interested if anyone would argue that flip-flopping on rules interpretations isn’t cheating when you do so exclusively to your benefit.
More common, however, is when very experienced, competitive players seem to “forget” inconvenient rules when games are on the line. When a guy on the top tables “forgets” that he has to place his unit inside the crater left by a transport after a damage roll of 6 then something is amiss, particularly when doing so give him a few precious inches that he needs for a charge. Or when the Space Wolves player “forgets” to roll Counter-Attack at a clutch moment. You don’t win tournaments without knowing the subtleties of the rules. Are people going to genuinely forget things from time to time? Sure, but not the obvious things.
Your article comes across as fanatical. Basically you have said if a player should make a mistake then they cheated. Reference to Freud and the subconscious is absurd. Suppose a player should have rolled five dice to wound but only rolled four by mistake and possibly that one dice cost them the game. Is he a cheater??
Still can’t let 2008 go? Sad.
G
Forgive me if I don’t value accusations of fanaticism coming from someone who obsessively writes volumes of fan fiction about people he doesn’t like on the internet (and this isn’t even all of them…):
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com/2009/09/return-of-teh-krew.html
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com/2009/09/news-from-hte-front.html
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com/2009/09/trolles.html
http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com/2009/09/part-two-teh-naif-approachs.html
With regards to the substantive part of your comment:
As stated previously, the emphasis is not on whether or not someone is a cheater, but whether or not someone has been cheated. In your example the person has only wronged himself and therefore there is no offense and no responsibility. The person who lost the game due to his own error could certainly ask his opponent’s permission to correct the mistake, even though it would change the outcome of a game. A good sportsman would agree, as long as he remembers the incident well enough to corroborate it.
I was faced with this exact situation at a local tournament some time ago. It was a capture & control mission (2 objectives) and we ran out of time at the end of turn 4. After the game had completed and we were filling out score sheets he remembered that he’d forgotten to roll for his reserved unit of Troops on the last turn. I had won the game, however if his unit had arrived it would have seized an objective and the game would have been a tie. I agreed that we should roll after the fact because the small mistake greatly compromised the fairness of the game. He made the roll and we scored it accordingly.
I’m curious as to why you find references to well-documented psychological phenomenon absurd. Freud was only the first to extensively write about observations that would later be incorporated into the bias construct. There are literally thousands of published studies on how unconscious bias materializes in behavior.
wow those posts are pretty scary GBF. I think someone needs to get out of their basement and stop writing fiction about other people. Oh and learn to spell “the”
It’s all true Klis. If you can’t handle the truth the don’t look, yes as your mentor says it can hurt.
G
Psychology is not a science but often it’s portrayed as such. A psychiatrist is a medical doctor that can prescribe medication. Don’t confuse that with a psychologist.
G
I don’t think anyone here is confusing medicine with psychology–in fact you’re the only one who has even made the comparison. Though, as someone with extensive experience in research in both of those fields, I can tell you they’re methodology is not half as distinct as you’d like to believe.
If you don’t think psychology is a science then I’m curious to know what your definition of a science is. All APA accredited psychological journals that publish experimental data have extremely rigorous standards for empirical testing, the vast majority of which consists of controlled experiments under laboratory conditions. Furthermore, psychology is a vast field that consists of hundreds if not thousands of sub-fields; to paint them all with the same brush is testament to your ignorance of the subject.
Edit: It might help if you read up on the philosophy of science, a field that deals with what science means and what should or should not be considered scientific, reasonable, or even rational. The overwhelming consensus is that psychology is a science like any other, though early psychological theory (Freudian psychoanalysis and Adlerian individual psychology, for example) was a common target for demonstrating a failure to make falsifiable claims, particularly by Karl Popper. Later writers, such as Thomas Kuhn (see The Structure of Scientific Revolutions), would actually use cognitive psychology as prime examples of how the scientific community functions.
I’d clap, but it would (errantly) seem sarcastic. And, you wouldn’t hear it. Regardless, this is a topic I touched upon but, frankly, shied away from, as I wasn’t quite sure how to approach it. In essence, I agree absolutely with the following:
Someone who should (reasonably) know the relevant rule and does not, (to EITHER player’s advantage) is cheating.
Someone who measures distance incorrectly (not inaccurately) is cheating.
Someone who chooses not to learn the rules, but argues your interpretation to gain advantage, is cheating.
Someone who impugns a commonly held interpretation ONLY at a point where it becomes pivotal to the game, is cheating.
There are numerous other ways to cheat, of course. That said, a distinction CLEARLY is required between cheating with intent (ie dice manipulation) and cheating through simply being an inconsiderate ass. As Black Matt so correctly pointed out, the English language fails us on this score.
When I hear someone spouting a lot of fancy talk I just know that the BS factor has just shot through the roof. You cant pull the wool over my eyes with your pedantic banter. To be honest I would be willing to bet I am much more highly educated than yourself and much more well read. I am guessing you are mid 20s to early 30s range… still think you know everything. Dont worry that will change soon enough for whatever reason.
You really are a sad lonely man arent you.
Solid rebuttal as always, GBF. I would expect nothing less from Dakka’s own village idiot. Either support your argument or go back to writing your schizoid fan fiction.
‘Well read’ is a meaningless phrase used to try and enhance your social status in the eyes of others. It neither refers directly to number of books, frequency of reading them, or the quality of said books, which is largely subjective anyway. It implies you read on a variety of topics, but all that says is that you don’t have the focus or attention span for a more dedicated research of any specific subject matter.
In being ‘more highly educated’ means little or nothing in of itself. Going to an Ivy League university but picking up an easy degree, such as Theology, surely means less than, say, being a trained medical professional – and yet it would perhaps technically be ‘higher’ than said practitioner.
GBF, you had a valid point in the first post, and one I think Danny answered succinctly, clearly…and correctly. You are the one coming across as unable to let things go…if you have reasoned disputes with Danny’s interpretations, as he’s proved he will clarify his stance, and debate the point…what more do you expect? If he addresses every point you make (1/1, so far) then it behoves you to find another argument…put up, or shut up, essentially.
Personally, I hope you find legitimate disagreement. If you see (what you perceive to be) a grey area, then someone else may see it too…and then Danny is helping people better by answering said point.
Okay so anyone who disagrees with You is labeled an idiot.
Nice.
nah, just you.
You’re free to actually make an argument if you’re capable of doing so, but any further trolling attempts will be deleted. I’m sure you have lots of free time since you were suspended from Dakka, but it doesn’t mean we want you posting that same garbage here.
PS – If you’re going to provoke someone who can see your IP address you probably shouldn’t be doing it from your work computer.
derpa derpa derp derp lies! derpa derp fascist! derp derp derp
G
You are a sad delusional man who cares way too much about little toy soldiers and the people who play with them. Actually it’s people like you who give gamers a bad name. What lies is Danny telling? How is he trying to ruin the game? The funny part is your acting more of a facist than anyone here.
This was a great read and its giving me a lot of food for that. There is a guy in our club who now become infamous in the 40k internet world. I really think he should read this.
Thanks for posting a thoughtful and well-reasoned article.
I meant food for thought not food for that…that sounded real funny.
Given how incomplete, inconsistent, and badly-written the rules of 40k _are_, the term “rules lawyer” has a much nastier tone in this game than most others I’ve played. So too the terms “beardy”, “cheesy”, etc, only really come up in the Warhammer context. This is again because of the poor quality of the game’s mechanics, both presently and historically – while it’s been the biggest seller, it’s also been close to the worst of the worst as far as writing a solid game.
As for cheating…yeah, we get a lot of it. Good article on why it’s dumb, and why people DO need to play by the known rules that are there. I think if I cared enough to blog I’d write something useful on the topic of inconsistency in Warhammer 40k, though, as a half-rebuttal half-addendum to this…