Opinion on Dirty Tricks

[mkerr]

I think I'm the only blogger that uses the term "dirty tricks" in his articles, so I'm going to assume these comments are meant for me.

Occasionally, when someone posts one of these "dirty tricks", do you find it ironic that they go on to say (possibly at a later time) that they would never use them at all? WTH?

Here's my answer to that comment:

1) I call them "dirty tricks" because they aren't usually much fun for either player and because they often don't "seem" fair. Although they are legal, but abusive tactics -- you would feel ambushed if you encountered them without any advance warning. Originally I thought about going with the term "power combo", but found that "dirty trick" felt like a better term.

2) No, I don't use "dirty tricks" when I play. I build some crazy tough lists for "hard" tournaments (like 'Ard Boyz and the Adepticon Gladiator), but I don't like springing traps on my opponent. Call me crazy, but even when I am playing to win I still want my opponent to have fun -- and being "tricked" isn't fun.

3) So why write the articles? For a couple of reasons. First, I'm not the only guy around that can come up with creative combinations of rules (but instead of springing them on other players, I choose to share them with everyone). So there are already tons of "dirty tricks" out there. And for every "dirty trick" I write about there are a dozen of "dirty tricks" that I haven't discovered.

Secondly, I feel that it's better to encounter these dirty tricks for the first time on a blog than in a tournament that you paid to enter. As my GI Joe friends say, "knowledge is half the battle". If you are knowledgeable about what kind of tactics you might encounter, then you will be better prepared for them.

Finally, my ultimate goal is to encourage players to think creatively about the rules, their army and their opponent's armies.

in my mind, it's like there's a bunch of people with guns, but no ammo. then someone throwing bullets out into the crowd, but then going on to say "don't shoot each other!" seems silly (at least to me).

I accept that 1% of my readers will scoop out the "dirty tricks" and immediately spring them on their opponents. But the other 99% won't -- and that 99% are better prepared for a similar "dirty trick" when they encounter it. So for every guy that pulls a "dirty trick" there are 99 guys that will see it coming -- that seems pretty good to me.

it's more an ignorance vs. knowledge thing, is it better for the masses not to know that it exists (with the possible exception of a few) and limit its possible use, or is it better for the masses to know exactly how to use the "trick", thus creating a potential increase of the frequency of its use, but generating possible counters to its use (through discussion)?

That's an interesting question. I believe that a well-informed player is going to have more fun than a poorly informed player, but that's just my opinion.

[Bean]

I don't think that anything which is legal can really be classified as a "dirty trick." Every 40k player has a responsibility to him or herself as well as his or her opponent to know the rules thoroughly, and if you know the rules thoroughly, you won't be tricked by anything which is legal. Thus, if you're tricked, you have only yourself--and your abdication of your own responsibility to know the rules thoroughly--to blame for it. Calling something a "dirty trick" is just an illegitimate attempt to shift blame for one's own failure onto one's opponent.

If it's legal, you should be prepared for it and anticipate it in situations where it could legally happen. If you know all the rules, you will never be tricked. If you are tricked by something legal, you have only yourself to blame, whether the trick is "dirty" or not. It's that simple.

[gorepants]

I don't think that anything which is legal can really be classified as a "dirty trick." Every 40k player has a responsibility to him or herself as well as his or her opponent to know the rules thoroughly, and if you know the rules thoroughly, you won't be tricked by anything which is legal. Thus, if you're tricked, you have only yourself--and your abdication of your own responsibility to know the rules thoroughly--to blame for it. Calling something a "dirty trick" is just an illegitimate attempt to shift blame for one's own failure onto one's opponent.

If it's legal, you should be prepared for it and anticipate it in situations where it could legally happen. If you know all the rules, you will never be tricked. If you are tricked by something legal, you have only yourself to blame, whether the trick is "dirty" or not. It's that simple.

Sorry Bean, I'm going to have to call BS on you (and everyone else with this position since you're not the only one). There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks. There are of course entirely legitimate but obscure rules that if you know them make perfect sense and have single literal interpretation. But these aren't dirty tricks. Dirty tricks are the bending (not breaking) of the rules.

A key difference is highlighted by your claim that everyone should know all the rules. I would define a dirty trick being some rule or combination of rules that you can't readily and unambiguously explain to a person of average intelligence with the rule book in front of them and them agreeing with you. it shouldn't require both parties to know all the rules. There are several problems requiring knowledge of all the rule. You have to read and memorise every rule book codex and supplement. That's not going to happen. Most people don't have the time, it excludes new players and people like my self who have short term memory problems - I can't learn the rules without playing them. Also saying you won't get tricked just by knowing them is a fallacy, the collapse of several major investment funds is a perfect example of the human inability to make simple rule based judgements (and we all make mistakes all the time). And memorising the rules doesn't stop them being badly written. GW are people, and bad copy gets through (the flying thunder hammer and psychic power in the Space Wolf codex are perfect examples of bad writing). So even if you know them, sometimes the rules are perfectly ambiguous.

So at this point in my thesis you have well written rules, the margins and cheating. Well written rules and cheating speak for themselves, so it is the margins we must be talking about. The true interpretation to these are by definition unknowable (since once known, they become well written rules). This begs the question, why did you pick your interpretation? Do you always pick the most advantageous interpretation? If you are trying to stiff your opponent and make your army better, then maybe you should think about your motivations for playing the game. This is not the same as playing hard and smart to win. In cricket (don't particularly like the game, but a good example), the umpire errs on the side of the batter in making decisions. International cricket is incredibly competitive, but this is done to make for a better game and the bowlers are still trying to get the batters out. I think in wargaming you should err on the side of you opponent. If you both do this it evens out and makes for a better game - competitive but still friendly. You can win without being a jerk about it. If you want you can go the other way, but I think you should probably start off agreeing to this (hell, it's only a game, you can do what you want in private!). But I'd call trying to slip something by you opponent or otherwise brow beat him (or her) to your point of view a dirty trick. Interestingly GW put an explicit rule to cover this type of dispute - if you don't agree roll a die and pick the interpretation.

OK, longer than I expected. </rant>

[BuFFo]

So when you take part in a tournament, your not having any fun whatsoever?

If Sportsmanship scores are in effect, then yes, I smile and ACT like I am having fun, but, the entire time I am just trying to be the perfect opponent for my opponent, so when I crush him into the ground, he won't 'chipmunk' me and give me a low sportsmanship score just because he lost.

No enjoyment is being had at all?

The only enjoyment I am having is the satisfaction that I got paired up with a guy who decided to take his Tau to the tournament.

You are a soulless winning machine with one goal in mind?

Actually, yes. I spent the 80 - 150 dollar entry fee, the 200 bucks in airfare, the 400 bucks in a hotel room, and god knows how much in food to WIN. The end.

You don't enjoy meeting new people and chatting to old friends?

Not at a tournament. If I wanted to enjoy meeting people, I would go to my local gaming store where I hang out with people I love and enjoy. At a tournament, the collection of molecules across the table from me is only a sugary water sack standing in my way of winning first place.

There is no anticipation the night before?

No. My Dark Eldar fear no army. I AM the army people stay up late at night , anticipating and wishing they won't face.

You arnt looking forward to a spot of bargain hunting and haven't saved your hard earned dollars for the last month

?

Bargain? Its called eBay / Internet. You'll figure out how it works one day

You don't feel elated/crushed when you win/loose a round?

I only feel one thing.

Sorrow... Because that must be how my opponent feels after I wipe them off the table by turn 3, and they will spend the next 3 hours before the next round sitting at the local McDonalds, crying into a 1300 calorie burger as to why they wasted money on Dark Angels.

Sorrow... Knowing that no matter who sits across the table from me at a tournament, my games will be the same one sided, boring crush victories as always... never ending win streak that never brings me any joy or happiness.

You cant be reasoned with, you cant be bargained with, and you absolutely will not stop...............

Oh you can bargain with me... Pay me cash before a match so I crush you on turn 4 instead of turn 3 so you don't look like an idiot in front of you mom as she watches the game over your shoulder, wondering why she wasted 900 bucks on plastic men her idiot son is just removing off the table.

(sorry, turned into Micheal Bean for a moment)

I don't know who he is, but he sounds like an energy source. My batteries need recharging. Where can I find this 'bean' so that i can assimilate him into my neural net, granting me another few days of ongoing energy.

If its not fun, then why the hell would you do it???????????????????????????????????????????????? ???

To win. The end.

You are playing a game of Sci Fi toy soldiers, Don't give me all this "We're serious about this" crap, thats the real BS.

Wrong. If I was at my local store and I was farting around for a few hours, then I would agree with you. But when you travel the country, drop mad cash, and seek the first place prize, then its all about the win.

- edit -

Roughly 0% - 100% of this post is sarcasm. If I was among adults, I wouldn't have to post this, but I am sure some tool will start a fight with me over my wordage.

I am a cyborg sent from the future to play warhammer 40k.

[Melissia]

There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks.

Utterly moronic tautologies make me want to stab faces. Please do not make me want to stab faces. What YOU declare to be a dirty trick is just another part of the game to someone else. Your word is neither law nor the wisdom of the ancient kings nor the word of god. And before you (inevitably) get defensive: I do not dispute (or, quite honestly, care) whether you are right or wrong; I am objecting to the FORM of your argument, not the substance.

[BuFFo]

Utterly moronic tautologies make me want to stab faces. Please do not make me want to stab faces. What YOU declare to be a dirty trick is just another part of the game to someone else. Your word is neither law nor the wisdom of the ancient kings nor the word of god. And before you (inevitably) get defensive: I do not dispute (or, quite honestly, care) whether you are right or wrong; I am objecting to the FORM of your argument, not the substance.

They are still dirty tricks.....

[gorepants]

Utterly moronic tautologies make me want to stab faces. Please do not make me want to stab faces. What YOU declare to be a dirty trick is just another part of the game to someone else. Your word is neither law nor the wisdom of the ancient kings nor the word of god. And before you (inevitably) get defensive: I do not dispute (or, quite honestly, care) whether you are right or wrong; I am objecting to the FORM of your argument, not the substance.

Fair call - the statement was meant to be glib and is entirely ineffectual as an argument. That's as much defence of that as you'll get from me on that.

Your response does raise another valid point though - that from the outset we have not had a definition of what a dirty trick is. I do hope the rest of my argument was less objectionable though. For my given definition of what a dirty trick is I believe to be valid, though it does rely on an a particular ethical standpoint on sportsmanship (ie mine) and others will disagree with me.

Dirty trick is an emotive phrase that obviously (from reading the posts here) holds a different meaning to different people (and simple change in intonation when spoken can change the meaning from roguish to downright unpleasant). So a better a questions might be, what actions involving the grey areas of the rules do we consider good or bad? I think I've fairly clearly laid out what I believe to be the grey area and its constituents and how it should be dealt with but others will no doubt disagree.

Edit: I realise now my sentence should have been

'There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are [URL="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dirty+trick"]dirty tricks[/URL].'

That makes a lot more rhetorical sense.

[Bean]

Sorry Bean, I'm going to have to call BS on you (and everyone else with this position since you're not the only one). There is a reason they are called dirty tricks, and that's because they are dirty tricks. There are of course entirely legitimate but obscure rules that if you know them make perfect sense and have single literal interpretation. But these aren't dirty tricks. Dirty tricks are the bending (not breaking) of the rules.

Rules can't be bent, they can only be followed or broken. That's just the nature of rules. When people talk about 'bending' the rules, they're either talking about following them, but still managing to do something that some people wish the rules would prevent, or breaking them, but in a way that they think is justified. Either way, the rules are either being followed or broken. To list bending as a category on the same level as but separate from following or breaking is disingenuous.

A key difference is highlighted by your claim that everyone should know all the rules. I would define a dirty trick being some rule or combination of rules that you can't readily and unambiguously explain to a person of average intelligence with the rule book in front of them and them agreeing with you. it shouldn't require both parties to know all the rules. There are several problems requiring knowledge of all the rule. You have to read and memorise every rule book codex and supplement. That's not going to happen. Most people don't have the time, it excludes new players and people like my self who have short term memory problems - I can't learn the rules without playing them. Also saying you won't get tricked just by knowing them is a fallacy, the collapse of several major investment funds is a perfect example of the human inability to make simple rule based judgements (and we all make mistakes all the time). And memorising the rules doesn't stop them being badly written. GW are people, and bad copy gets through (the flying thunder hammer and psychic power in the Space Wolf codex are perfect examples of bad writing). So even if you know them, sometimes the rules are perfectly ambiguous.

Adding, as a requirement, that a reasonably intelligent person always agree with your interpretation once you've explained to to him or her makes all actions potential dirty tricks, as you put it. A person, however intelligent, can disagree with just about anything for just about any reason--or even no discernible reason at all. I've tried to explain rules to plenty of presumably intelligent people, with the rulebook, and gotten disagreement from them for reasons no better than, "I don't think it ought to be that way."

No, the 'explain it to your opponent' test can't be used to define dirty tricks, if we are to have dirty tricks at all. Such a definition would leave the contents of the category entirely inconclusive--in which case the category might as well not exist.

Further, a thorough knowledge of the rules does prevent you from being tricked. Alluding to investment failures is obviously disingenuous--no economist would claim to actually know all of the factors which impact the future market. No economist would claim to know all of the "rules" of investment. Financial investment is not analogous to 40k at all, and your suggestion that this analogy somehow shows my position to be a fallacy is, frankly, laughable.

Finally, there are occasions where the rules are actually ambiguous, it's true. Even so, thorough knowledge of the rules can prepare you even for ambiguous situations. After all, if you know the rules thoroughly, then you know which ones are ambiguous, or you can discern when an ambiguous situation might arise and attempt to resolve the rules with your opponent ahead of time. Even if your opponent interprets an ambiguous rule to his or her own advantage, you have no one but yourself to blame for not seeing it coming and bringing it up ahead of time.

And, of course, if the rule really is ambiguous, you might even pause the game at the point at which it comes into play and work out with your opponent how you two will play it--and make sure you don't hold an opponent to a decision he made under the impression that a particular ambiguous rule would be played a different way, just as you wouldn't necessarily want to be held to playing it that way.

Either way, though, it can't be called a dirty trick. It's not particularly dirty for an opponent to choose, in the absence of input from you, a particular interpretation or a rule and play it that way unless you object, and there certainly isn't any trickery involved. If an ambiguous rule comes up, it will need to be resolved one way or another. If it is brought up by one player's actions, there's nothing dirty or tricky about that, even if that player is inclined to interpret the rule to his or her advantage.

So at this point in my thesis you have well written rules, the margins and cheating. Well written rules and cheating speak for themselves, so it is the margins we must be talking about. The true interpretation to these are by definition unknowable (since once known, they become well written rules). This begs the question, why did you pick your interpretation? Do you always pick the most advantageous interpretation? If you are trying to stiff your opponent and make your army better, then maybe you should think about your motivations for playing the game. This is not the same as playing hard and smart to win. In cricket (don't particularly like the game, but a good example), the umpire errs on the side of the batter in making decisions. International cricket is incredibly competitive, but this is done to make for a better game and the bowlers are still trying to get the batters out. I think in wargaming you should err on the side of you opponent. If you both do this it evens out and makes for a better game - competitive but still friendly. You can win without being a jerk about it. If you want you can go the other way, but I think you should probably start off agreeing to this (hell, it's only a game, you can do what you want in private!). But I'd call trying to slip something by you opponent or otherwise brow beat him (or her) to your point of view a dirty trick. Interestingly GW put an explicit rule to cover this type of dispute - if you don't agree roll a die and pick the interpretation.

OK, longer than I expected. </rant>

The 'margins' category might exist in your thesis, but it doesn't really bear on the matter at hand. Even in the marginal areas, there isn't room for dirty tricks to actually exist. If you feel you have been tricked, whether it involves an ambiguous rule or not, you have only yourself to blame.


edit:
As a side note, I didn't say that memorizing all the rules was easy, only that it is something towards which players should aspire, and that your failure to know the rules isn't your opponent's fault. If you know all the rules and take the time to analyze the game each turn, you'll never be surprised or tricked by your opponent. If you are tricked or surprised, you have only yourself and your ignorance or lack of diligence to blame. This remains true even if most players are, in fact, ignorant of portions of the rules or lax in their analysis of the game.

[entendre_entendre]

@ mkerr: i didn't realize that you solely had the trademark on "dirty tricks" (as i had actually seen them printed in WD at some point, so wrongly assumed others on the net did the same, but i admit, your tactics did spark this thread). when i use the term "dirty tricks" for me it's more like questionable application of English. what i mean is: using a particular word (usually an ambiguous one like a, any, all, etc. in a certain place) to say something that a particular rule does something that the other player didn't know due to a difference in the reading of the rule. they are not explicitly cheating, and both parties know the rules equally well, but what one is saying is questionable or more open for interpretation/explanation than the "regular" ruling. also, one should not need to have an English and/or Law degree to explain what they mean by their interpretation of said rule.

(don't think i'm hating on all "dirty tricks" though, i read the callidus tricks and found them to be acceptable interpretations of the rules, so if i voted above, i'd be in the middle)

posting underhanded tactics does have the benefit of discussion, which is always good for everyone involved, and being informed is always nice. as long as one realizes any potential consequences of the action, then do as you see fit.

@ others claiming this to be fair*: just b/c it's "legal" doesn't mean it's okay to use. if it's legal, then it's fine, but when it's "legal" (ie. as gorepants so eloquently put it, in the margins), that's when there's an issue (something about a "social contract" or some BS like that...). if i am on the receiving end of a dirty trick, i should be able to read to rule they used and quickly understand their side w/o the need of an explanation. period. if i get it, then there's no issue, continue as normal. any other interpretation is bending the rules to fit one's own ends, and i'm not okay with that. (besides, what's the point of explaining something for 20 minutes in a timed game anyways?)

*all fair's in love and war right? right, but this isn't real war. it's pretend war. if it's love, please don't tell me what you do in your spare time, i don't want to know...

begin the hate. i know you want to...

edit: some seem to think that if one doesn't know every rule, then it's okay to punish them for it. nice. if one doesn't know the core rulebook, that's one thing, but when doesn't know what your army/army rules does that's another. are you really going to say it's their fault b/c they didn't know what a (insert codex-specific item here) does? does this make sense? is your opponent supposed to know your army as well as their own? as an opponent, if you don't expect at least some ignorance on the other person's part, then you don't get out often much do you? (/possibly [un]intentional trolling)

[Bean]

@ others claiming this to be fair*: just b/c it's "legal" doesn't mean it's okay to use. if it's legal, then it's fine, but when it's "legal" (ie. as gorepants so eloquently put it, in the margins), that's when there's an issue (something about a "social contract" or some BS like that...). if i am on the receiving end of a dirty trick, i should be able to read to rule they used and quickly understand their side w/o the need of an explanation. period. if i get it, then there's no issue, continue as normal. any other interpretation is bending the rules to fit one's own ends, and i'm not okay with that. (besides, what's the point of explaining something for 20 minutes in a timed game anyways?)

Really?

Any interpretation you don't get is an instance where someone has bent the rules to his or her advantage?

If the margins are ambiguous situations, as Gorepants suggests, then one interpretation of a 'marginal' rule is just as legitimate as the other. If I, for example, toss my Arjak's Thunder Hammer at your Wraithlord, anticipating that its initiative will be dropped to 1, making it, in turn, easy prey for my Jaws of the World Wolf and you object, read the rule, and don't immediately understand or accept my interpretation, who's really playing the dirty trick? Is it me for trying to gain an advantage through my interpretation, or is it you trying to gain an advantage through yours? After all, interpreting the rule to disallow the reduction in initiative would clearly be to your advantage in comparison to the alternative.

My point is that when you start saying that interpretations are less legitimate when they're to one player's advantage or another, you've pretty much ruined your own argument. Every interpretation is going to be one player's advantage or another. So what if I interpret an ambiguous rule to my advantage? Is that any more a 'dirty trick' than you interpreting it to yours? In the end, you can't call either a dirty trick. A responsible player wouldn't be surprised or tricked by the occurrence of an ambiguous situation, and a reasonable one would never apply a moral judgement like 'dirty' to the action which caused that occurrence. Ambiguous situations arise because the rules aren't well written--not, generally, because either player is trying to "take advantage" of them. And, if one player is trying to take advantage of an ambiguous rule and an opponent objects, the opponent is doing the exact same thing--trying to gain advantage through a particular interpretation of an ambiguous rule.

Only an utter hypocrite could object to something by calling it a 'dirty trick' if 'dirty tricks' are said to arise from ambiguous rules.

Of course, only a jerk could object to something by calling it a 'dirty trick' if it was supported by an unambiguous rule.

And, of course, no-one here is talking about actual cheating.

So, I guess you could call something a dirty trick, but only if you were willing to label yourself a hypocrite.