Hello, 40k players! We had the return of Competitive 40k this weekend in the US and I thought this would be a good chance to discuss how we play the game.
The game of Warhammer 40k is a complex one and I’ve said many times over the years that it’s impossible to play a perfect game of 40k. Meaning that there is not a single player on earth who has played every game they’ve ever played perfectly. Which, is fine. Expecting perfection from players is unrealistic. Expecting perfection is particularly unrealistic when we’re in the midst of an edition change, and a global pandemic. A devastating combo to players trying to play 40k normally, let alone competitively. So, that’s not what this article is about. I don’t expect players to play without error, I don’t expect players to play perfectly. What I expect is for mistakes to be just that. Mistakes.
The vast majority of players play the game straight. Meaning they play the game according to the rules, they don’t intentionally cheat by moving models onto objectives when no one is looking, they don’t bring loaded or altered dice to the game, they don’t purposefully misquote a rule, and then insist they’re right and become combative in an attempt to keep their opponent from looking it up, etc. Even then, that type of blatant cheating isn’t what I am talking about either. There’s black and white in 40k like anything else, there’s playing the game legitimately and there’s cheating. But there’s a grey area too. Some players live in this grey area, they tend to be well known for it and are rightly not trusted. Others just visit it from time to time. It’s the grey area dwellers and visitors I am talking about today.
While the number of grey area dwellers is small there’s a larger group that makes frequenting the grey area too common. There are too many in our community that don’t actually want to play the game. They want to play 40k around you, not with you. They want to play 40k around the rules, not with the rules. They want to find every possible edge case rules scenario they can, play the most powerful interpretation of that rule, and when questioned hope their Rule as Written (RAW) argument can stand up to a judge, or their opponent’s, incredulity and scrutiny. These players aren’t playing the game straight and they’re a problem.
So how do we, as a community, handle this issue? At first, this actually seems like a hard question to answer. The competitive 40k community, particularly the TOs, worked together a few years back to solidify a Code of Conduct. The ITC Code of Conduct is used by many events either as a whole or as a basis for their own Codes of Conduct. While I am biased on the issue, having written large portions of the Code myself, I honestly believe it was a huge step toward creating a more fair game competitively. That said it isn’t perfect and is absolutely not the only, or even the final, tool used to combat grey area players. The Code of Conduct provides guidelines for TOs and Judges to look to, and point to when dealing with players who have decided to be bad actors at an event. What it doesn’t do is give TOs and judges a magical way of determining intent. Which grey area dwellers love. They noticed it immediately and actively work to exploit this part of the Code of Conduct.
Proving a person has purposefully gone out of their way to play a rule incorrectly, or in a technically correct way that clearly goes against the spirit of the game, is hard to do. Or, is that just something the grey dwellers like to spread around the community? That proving intent is hard. If you’re playing a game with someone, and they start to point out a trail of rules from 3 books and 6 FAQs to show “precedent” for why they can do something that simply doesn’t seem like they should be able to do, the intent is clear. If someone pulls something at a tournament, then has to go on a long explanation of their actions online to explain themselves, the intent is clear. Nobody has evidence lined up and waiting to support their argument because they know they clearly are allowed to do what they’re trying to pull. In a game where the vast majority of rules issues are solved by opening a book or FAQ and the players themselves can solve the problem without the help of a judge, a player who has lined up their evidence to defend their position has clear intent. The intent is to play in the grey area of the rules until they’re made to stop. So if the intent can be easily seen the issue isn’t proving intent.
The problem is the acceptance of grey area dwellers and playing in the grey area as valid. By allowing these types of rules interactions to be argued and then permitted at events, home games, and leagues the community is encouraging players to continue to attempt this form of bidding and cheating. The players who do this, know they are doing it. Players who visit the grey area of the rules from time to time know what they’re doing is wrong, those who live there though, are an entirely different story. The hope that they will stop because their conscience tells them to is a pipe dream. They don’t think there’s anything wrong with how they play the game, that gaming the system and coming up with elaborate justifications for how they play is just part of it all. Perhaps you thought from the title that I would be making some kind of an appeal to the players who continue to dwell in the grey area to come into the light and play the game straight. I am not. Time and time again, we’ve seen players who refuse to play the game straight continue to do so until they’re forced not to. So what am I hoping to accomplish with an article titled “Play the Game Straight”? I am hoping you will demand the games you play are played straight. I am hoping you demand the TOs and Judges of the events you go to force the players to play the game straight. I am hoping you who visit the grey area from time to time see that it is unacceptable to do so, and stop. Grey area dwellers can’t see what’s wrong with what they’re doing, but those of us who play the game honestly and those who are tempted to visit the grey area of the rules to their advantage from time to time are capable of seeing what’s wrong with playing the game this way, and you can choose to play straight.
The only way to combat these players who live in the grey area, these edge case players, the players who bid their opponents and judges to allow them to play rules against the intent of the rules and spirit of the game, the players who skirt the Code of Conduct, the players who seem to lack the conscience to do what is right, is to stand up and demand that a game you are going to enter into will be played straight. Not perfect, but played with fidelity. A fidelity toward the intent and spirit of the game where the disingenuous actions of a minority of bad actors have no opportunity to grow or gain legitimacy. We cannot change them, but we can change ourselves and shift the paradigm of what’s acceptable as a community to push them out or encourage punishment of them by judges and TOs. There’s no magic bullet, there’s no missing tool in the TO/Judges tool kit for us to find, there’s no name and shame online campaign that can fix what you need to fix. Have confidence in yourself, find strength in your convictions, advocate for yourself and your fellow gamers, play the game straight, and demand that our community plays the game straight too.
#mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own Mailchimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!
This. All of this.
The timing of this article couldn’t be better given recent events as well. It’s extremely frustrating to know that players that dwell in this grey area have a tendency to try more this more often with players they know they can take advantage of.
Furthermore, when they do get away from what you described as not “playing the game straight,” they tend to use that singular instance as a tent pole to further their crusade of how a rule should be played based on a singular call made by a random judge or that one of their prior opponents simply allowed it.
All kinds of “yep”!
I’m trying to find a more diplomatic way of saying this, but while I agree with the intent of your request, I think you’re wrong about going about it. Ultimately, the term you use for this zone is the reason why I think you’re wrong; it’s grey. It’s a gradient. It’s not a hard line, standing fast.
Let us all recall times that GW had a rule that just about everyone and their dog played wrong; “throwing grenades” in close combat. In 7th everyone I knew and ever spoke with, aside from literally one of the “grey zone” voices on the internet, said that every model in a unit could use a grenade in combat with a tank. Then GW, after years of silence, published a huge FAQ saying “yeah, that’s not right – even though it’s a close combat attack you’re throwing the grenade, and that’s a limit of 1 model per turn”. Sometimes what’s clear for GW, and what’s clear for everyone else, isn’t clear. Tyranids in Blood of Baal and Scything Talons. Most players I knew figured it’d apply to all sets of Scything Talons. Nope. These are examples of rules that, regardless of what the majority think is the intent, turn out not to be.
Now, playing hard RAW makes no sense either. Last edition had Assault weapons that, by the RAW, didn’t work if you advanced – but no one played it that they didn’t work, because there was a whole rule trying to tell you how it did work. Saying that you can’t tell the intent here is also patently absurd. But one has to appreciate that this is, like you said, grey. Yes, one is closer to the light, and one is closer to the dark, but neither is wholly black or white.
I enjoy discussing rules. I just find it fun to see how thing loop around and interact. For that reason, I try to find ways in the rules to get us back to the light when that happens. Look at Auras right now – the main rulebook defines them one way, and the glossary defines them in a somewhat fundamentally different way. Some abilities that are clearly auras by one definition (Astra Militarum Voice of Command can affect units in range), are clearly NOT auras by the other (Astra Militarum Voice of Command does not affect “multiple units” in range). But we can clearly say which one is right or not by looking at precedent; the new datasheets for the Necron Lord. The “march” ability is tagged [Aura], so we know it is. My Will Be Done, however, is not tagged [Aura], so we know that it isn’t! By the main rulebook definition, My Will Be Done would be considered an aura (can affect units within range), but by the glossary it wouldn’t (does not affect multiple units in range). By having fun and analyzing these rules, we can arrive at what, to me, is a clear intent – the glossary definition is the correct one.
If we didn’t at least try to pry and poke at the grey area, where would that leave us? Different groups would argue different rules working differently, with players bringing sometimes standard lists to events only to have TO’s favour a rule one way rather than another, or TO’s being bombarded pre-event with endless “what about this rule interaction?” questions. I don’t think that’s right.
So no. I don’t agree. Yes, there are the “black hats” of the grey zone, but there are plenty of “white hats” too that want to help people out of these jams. Saying that no one can venture into the grey zone seems very much the wrong direction to go.
I see what you’re saying, your final statement is where I think the confusion shows itself. A player like Michael Snider who is always pointing out the ridiculous problems in the rules, oftentimes to the point of being annoyingly pedantic, aren’t a problem. In fact, those players are quite helpful, because what they never do is go to an event and try to get away with it.
TO’s and other players really need to stop allowing dumb, obviously unintended stuff.
Some quality of life wording change in movement phase about fall back? Oh! This obviously means every ability mentioning movement is now completelly different and game changing without GW ever eluding to it.
That’s annoyingly hard to do consistently. GW don’t state its intent and often it’s really unclear what they want to do.
I am not saying TOs need to allow any interpretations ; but it’s more or less unavoidable that from time to time one of the “evident exploit” of some part of the community will be the “logical and fair” of another.
Plus, we need to account that judges are failible humans, and not throw them to the wolves if they accept one dubious ruling.
If youre a RAI player its far from a stretch to argue that “Remains stationary” And “Do a thing as if you hadnt moved” Mean the same thing.
If youre a RAW player you run into other problems. Like finding out core parts of your game your playing dont work.
What makes something dumb and obviously unintended.
We can all think of occasions when what GW wrote in their rules and what they intended were different.
But I can also think of occasions when many people thought something was unintended and it was later shown to be intended and a deliberate design choice.
How can you seperate the two
GW rules being being dumb isn’t uncommon there’s a reason we ended up with GF LOS blocking in 8th despite that not being GW intention.
Who arbitrates which of the “dumb” rules are not to be followed if not for TO’s and when its not in a tournament it has to be players. The problem is that interpreting GW intent is subjective and anything subjective and significant will create feel bad moments where one player feels something has gone contrary to the rules.
The problem is not with the TO’s or the players whose armies tread on those grey areas the fault is with the rules writting that created those grey areas in the first place.
100% this.
“Just don’t play rules the way they weren’t intended” is impossible to do when rules are written ambiguously and we have no way of divining the writer’s intent. Of course lots of people like to SAY they know what the intent of a rule is, and sometimes they’re even right, but that’s just individual players framing their own assumptions as some kind of magical Truth From the Designers.
A good recent example of this is the Heavy Cover rule, which gave defense bonuses in close combat. As originally worded, it _didn’t_ apply to the defender when a unit charged in… which seemed counterintuitive, but the wording on the rule was clear that was how it worked. Should we completely overturn the text of the rule because of assumed intent? Should we play the rule purely as it’s written and consequences be damned? Should we try to find some sort of compromise between the two? None of these solutions really feel great because they all have issues with implementing them on a game-wide basis (to say nothing of getting individual players with their own preferences and opinions to accept them.)
The answer in this case, and ideally in all cases, was to get GW to clarify the rule. That’s their job as game designers- to write clear and intelligible rules that cover the situations that come up in the game. That we have a gaming culture where the _players_ are expected to interpret the rules and making these kinds of choices is only a result of GW’s complete failure as designers in previous editions, and it’s something that I think we need to move away from.
Remember the whole “Your Knight can’t hit anyone standing on a medium sized barrel” thing? It was OBVIOUS to everyone that this was not intended. Until they released a stratagem that allows it so it very oviously was intended. There has never been a rule so obviously unsuable and dumb that you could not find an example of one even more outrageous that turned out to be correct. I appreciate the spirit here but it’s another case of hate the player, not the game and the Warhammer community has really weaponized that attitude because we all got abused spouse syndrome because we can’t even expect them to just write rules like every other game and thus blame ourselves for the troubles.
Not a rule per se, but years ago, GW released an FAQ for 8th edition WHFB. One of the questions was:
Q: If I fire my Empire Cannot at an enemy unit, is that unit removed from play?
A: Yes.
And thus the anti-matter cannon was born. xD
I agree with all this 100%. I think Warhammer, beyond other games even, has no place for cheating. Unlike video games that can remotely detect cheating and automatically ban offenders, or like sports where there are referees watching the game and they have replay to enforce penalties, games like this are different. You’re standing across from (at a tournament) a stranger usually, and trying to be pleasant and respectful. It can be hard for people to call others on a bad rules interpretation, or to call a judge on a shady moment because they feel like they don’t know the intent. And it may be uncomfortable to say, but the following is true. Warhammer is a great game to bring people together with limited social circles/skills (myself personally I’ve made most of my friends through the game). The people who live in the “Grey Area” as you say are not unaware of this. They will take advantage of the fact that their opponent is not likely to judge call them, or even correct them for that matter, on something where any evidence (no matter how flimsy) is offered or provided. I think the biggest thing I’ve caught is opponents rolling one too many, or one too few dice. That’s why I request my opponents to leave their dice for me to see. The first time it happens I’ll allow it to be an accident (unless they have a reputation), but the second time it happens I get a judge over. People doing subtle things like that, hoping you won’t notice, are seriously scummy. You can tell intent if the “mistake” always swings in their favor. That’s the giveaway.
While I agree that giving people the objective to demand cleaner games is a good, and correct start, the ultimate issue is with judging. At the end of the day, if I call my opponent on something that is incorrect, and judges are made aware of it, but either administer far too small of a penalty (if any), or they rule for the opponent out of ignorance or laziness, then it doesn’t change anything. I recently attended an event that rules that the Tide of Shadows for Grey Knights gave you the -1 to hit out in the open. A totally erroneous, flatly wrong, and not acceptable ruling for an event at Major size. But it was allowed to stay even after admittance of being wrong. I have zero issue calling out my opponent if I think he is doing something wrong, but it falls on the judges to make tough decisions and be willing to penalize or remove players. If my opponent cheats, or big time “Grey Areas” something but I know the judge won’t do anything, I’m not wasting my time and effort to argue my case.
I think ultimately penalizing players needs to be like it is in sports. You may not have meant to make an infraction, but even if it wasn’t intentional, if you do something that warrants penalizing you, you get a penalty. This takes the whole determining intent factor out, and still won’t hurt an honest player making an honest mistake, because they likely won’t get two more yellow cards. Anyway, I hope the best for this issue in the game going forward, and I appreciate your position on it.
I have no problem with handing out these kinds of punishiments to cheaters, but the text of the article reads like hes going after people who play the rules as written. Something that ive noticed that the players dont really respect in favor of their own personal interpretation. Its hypocritical.
An interesting read and I’m in favour of the vast majority of it. BUT during a Covid-19 pandemic is it sensible to report on a tournament. Were the competitors/staff safe?
(1) Code of Conduct applies only to itc games/tournaments – not the 500 (five hundred) Warhammer stores and many, many separate competitions where yellow/red cards and chess clocks would get you a punch on the nose;
(2) there is a need for “play for money” games/tournaments to be run by professional referees – trained by GW Events Team;
(3) at better tournaments GW staff (especially Robin) have been on hand to moderate decisions – many of these rulings were made explicit but more important they filtered down from the judged players. Now many of those rulings have moved from quick FAQs (eg- aircraft,rules of 3) to the new Core Rule Book;
(4) when ever I see a known cheat winning a tournament i disregard it. I don’t read the report etc;
(5) GW have decided to promote sportsmanship and actually painting your models. Those work well at Warhammer World and 500 stores. I’m never sure why some amateurs have to keep re-inventing the wheel.
“BUT during a Covid-19 pandemic is it sensible to report on a tournament. Were the competitors/staff safe? ”
I don’t think you get that many pensioners with bronchitis playing 40k, Jim.
I’m not sure you understand what “infectious disease” means or the fact that lots of people who aren’t geriatric die from it.
Nobody is playing tournaments “for money”. Stop saying something that is obviously false.
Nobody would argue against having GW trained judges for all events. But that’s not something that GW even does. Bringing it up as some sort of jab at ITC doesn’t make sense since they couldn’t have those judges even if they wanted to.
What in the Core Rule book promotes sportsmanship in the same way as the Code of Conduct? Playing at GW stores doesn’t somehow magically make everyone play a perfectly gentlemanly game. A-holes are still gonna be a-holes during games. I don’t know why you are somehow against a Code of Conduct. But apparently you support punching opponents in the face, so I guess it makes sense.
Guess what? GW events is not the only way to play the game. Even GW proclaims that.
There is no large sport where the soccer/football/basketball ball company makes the competitive rules and trains the referees. All of them rely on associations and leagues to make the competitive rules and run the tournaments. I’m glad GW adopted ITC style mission rules and accepted they were superior to their old ones. Most of us already knew that the rules created by players, for players were superior, but it is nice of GW to clear it up for the few that failed to understand that.
Whenever I see a player win a tournament without chess clocks, I disregard it. A tournament that allows playing as little of the game as possible to be a strategy is not a serious tournament for players who actually want to play the game. I’m sure the GW branded chess clocks ($55) will be available for the poor confused GW loyalists soon, maybe when China fully recovers GW will start taking the preorders.
Did I report on a tournament? Please point out where in this article I cited a tournament by name or referenced a specific tournament. All I said in the first sentence was that competitive 40k is beginning again in some places. That’s all.
Completely agree with all this. As the hobby grows and events get bigger it’s more important than ever to ensure games are played with integrity.
I’d like to add another area that needs looking at. YouTube channels that encourage ‘grey area’ strategies. Many newer players look for list building and gameplay advice and stumble across these channels, oblivious to the style of play they are suggesting.
IMHO, D6 Evolution is one of these channels. A quick browse through their playlists and you’ll be strategies that have been FAQ or removed from the game with the change to 9th.
They purposefully look for edge cases and what’s worse, they suggest others do so as well.
Absolutely not. The bigger the hobby grows the less room there is for little interpretations, especially in the case where you have the little fairy of “The spirit of the game” when it directly contradicts the rules as written. Looking for the edge cases, and the “Grey area” strategies is a fundamental and neccessary part of any competitive game. To discourage that is to discourage people learning the game.
Playing in the grey area gives you actually good data, and helps you fix problems
So after reading both your article and watching the video on the topic with hellstorm i have a few thoughts. The core of which is that “Hanging out in the grey area” Is overall good for the game. Ill address you point by point, and generally assume that any of the points you bring up are being made in good faith and ill rebut them in kind.
For starters i definitely agree with your black and white assessment. Altering dice, Moving when youre not supposed to, Being intentionally incorrect about a rules interaction, etc are great examples that we can agree on are problems.
Your first point about “Playing around the rules, and playing around you” I think is a general mischaracterization of what the majority of people who live in this so-called grey area are actually trying to do. The way I’ve always looked at it is that people who live in this grey area are playing it to try and get better mechanical knowledge of the game, basically theyre the people who practice rocket jumping or bhopping, or surrounding units in combat. Theyre looking to find out what they can do with the game and develop tactics for what Games workshop is providing. This kind of player is crucial to the competitive aspect of any game. They arent trying to play around the rules, They are trying to play with them at their absolute core.
The second main issue that i have is that you seem to have some sort of problem with the idea of consistent enforcement of rules, and rules interactions. For example, you call out a generic rules interaction that isn’t supported by the book that im using specifically but similar or identical rules that another book has(or in your case multiple) have been ruled in this way. To use a specific example Armor of russ has an FAQ that allows you to counter offensive and fight with the effected unit. The Dhrukari mask relic does not. but theyre worded generally the same way. Taking what you say at face value implies that when using the dhrukari mask relic you cant counter offensive because the faq for armor of russ is special snowflake and only applies to them.
I’m actually generally okay with this as a rule. as long as its applied consistently across everything. unfortunately my interactions with real people suggests that that is a losing game as well.
The problem is either A. FAQs are significantly less useful in determining what can or cant be done since they have to call out literally every example for them to work on them. or B. they work broadly and cause some interactions that on the face of it dont make a whole lot of sense which for somereason isnt taken as just part of the game we play. A concept that i straight up dont understand.
You seem to want to hammer home that playing things with a deep understanding of the mechanics of the game is “Against the spirit of the game” I dont think any one player or group of players gets to decide what is and what isnt in the spirit of the game, its a buzzword, a phrase used to decide that my group is better then your group because i follow some set of additional rules, written down or otherwise, that restricts things in a way that i personally agree with. this kind of attitude is bad for a competitive game for a number of reasons ill get into later.
Another thing you want to hammer home is that bringing evidence to support your claims is somehow a bad thing. It connects to the whole “SSFAQ” thing i mentioned earlier but the main point i have agaisnt it is the same. If i have multiple rule-books with similar rules and rulings that support my argument, how exactly is that not good evidence that the rules are intended to work that way.
Hell if i was a rules as intended inclined player, and somebody told me that their little interaction is super similar to a bunch of others but because it doesn’t have the same faq as them it meant that it was ruled entirely differently, then id probably look at him funny over it.
Having your materials prepared and a good knowledge of the rules is something that should be praised, not discouraged. Why wouldnt you want every player to have that kind of understanding of the game. Especially in a competitive environment.
I dont think that “Gaming the system” and explaining why the game works the way that it does especially when it is done in good faith, is a poor interaction. Especially when tight knowledge of the rules objectively makes the game better. Even if it gets changed.
When i see people arguing “Intent and spirit of the game” I see people who dont want to change, and people who want to punish others for being creative, for looking for solutions, and thinking outside the box. The kinds of people who develop rocket jumping, tri-pointing, Waveshining, comboing,etc etc etc. It hampers the competitive development of any of the games involved where you go out of your way to discourage this kind of play.
Your demand to “Play the game straight” Is akin to saying “I dont want players to think creatively when list building and playing except in the ways that i personally approve of” and thats a common problem in the general 40k community.
I said before that i would explain why its bad for the community as a whole to punish this kind of play, and ill summarize them here.
It discourages getting a deep indepth knowledge of the game at its core. Because trying to utilize that knowledge gets long articles about “Playing the game straight” written about you.
It discourages creativity in general for similar reasons. Trying any kind of niche strategy, when you have these kinds of punishments is going to be a problem
The main core of the argument is that you cannot read the rules as written and use just that to “Play the game straight” As a result you undermine the stability of the game as a whole when you punish people for playing as the rules we supposedly are using to play the game.
Finally if you think that the 40k equivalent to rocket jumping is a problem, thats actually fine, and you should have more of an incentive to allow it. That way you can get more people exposed to it and get GW to actually fix it. They have the tools availible to them to do so. putting the onus on the average compeittive player to fix GWs mistake especially in a way that you can’t write down makes it easy for GW to ignore the problem which not only undermines the integrity of the game but also causes tons of inter community conflict