Monday, July 18, 2011

SONAR! Submarine Detected!

Submarining in Warhammer 40k is an interesting concept. Just as a submarine can cruise below the surface, surfacing to destroy a target – a submarine in Warhammer 40k is someone who cruises through the middle/upper layer of the pack without surfacing at the top until the end.

Since my 40k career began, I’ve discarded this idea – I prefer to win big or lose big. And ultimately, almost every GT experience I’ve ever had has been identical: I start off strong, get to the top early, and the rest of my games are fending off whomever has the closest number of battlepoints / strongest wins. Every massacre pits me against another player who’s doing as well as I am. In the end, I’ve either defended myself against all the other top performers, or I didn’t.

The “didn’t” part is where this article comes in. Wargamescon ended not too long ago, and I sat on Table #1 for four games in a row. I ended up in 11th place after taking a 30 point dive to Ben Mohlie in the last round, and all the armies in front of me that I *wanted*to play against…placed ahead of me, and I didn’t get to play them – they never made it up to table #1 where I was fighting off the other max point (or close to max point) players.

Submarining doesn’t have to be intentional. Whether people do it on purpose or not….I have no idea. I’ve always given every game 100%. I don’t place perfect correlation between table placement and player skill (like saying, “The players on table #1 are better than the players on table #3), but having many virtually identical experiences at GTs, where I’m consistently playing against the top performers, where we are ultimately knocking each other out to see a contender from table #2-6 rise up and win….

It makes me wonder if I should aspire to be on tables #2-6. Somewhere in the 85th percentile of points starting out instead of in the 100th percentile. Start off GTs with a win, but not a massacre…so that I can cruise my way up the middle (in theory) to pop up at the end, not having to have played any of the max point players.

I remember one event where my opponent told the judge that him playing me must have been a mistake because he had intentionally not scored full points so that he wouldn’t have to pair up against my army. He thought it must have been a mistake because I generally am sitting on or near the top point-wise. Submarining? I’m beginning to think that I should start aiming a little lower at GTs to make the ride to the end smoother.

Comments (20)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
lol! This article of your thoughts is a contradiction to your "win big or lose big" idea. You lost a game, BIG! You got 11th place BECAUSE you lost 30pts in a game AND had a terrible sportsmanship score (as usual). Spit those grapes out Dash, they're obviously too sour!
I unintentionally did this at my last tournament. Lackluster 1st round win, about a dead even 2nd round loss, then a 3rd round complete tabling put me into 3rd place without even me knowing it. If I had turned the dead even 2nd round loss into a dead even 2nd round win, I would have played the 1st place winner in 3rd round.

Interesting concept that I will have to follow a bit more.
Putting yourself at an intentional deficit in the hopes that you'll play weaker opponents works great in a small field with a small number of games. I don't think there were any weak players available in the GT day 2, and certainly some worse match ups available to you lower in the field.

It is certainly possible in a 7 round event to recover from a low tie, loss, or string of low wins to make it to the top. I believe this is a better system than W/L pure swiss, both in terms of statistical accuracy and overall evaluation of the players. Consider your 7th round, where your dice abandoned you. Had that been round 1, would you have wanted to be unable to have a shot at placing at all?
I'd be the last to say this is wrong, and the first to say I hate that it's a possible tactic. That the system does more then merely allow it, but actually encourages it, to me means it is well within the spirit of the game. It is far from fool proof at least.

Really the question is personal, did you come to win the tournament or did you come to play great games against the best available? The answer is all about what kind of gamer you are.
Dashofpepper's avatar

Dashofpepper · 715 weeks ago

Went Awer: Both.

The problem is that all the "big shots" were on tables 2-10, and the only one I got to play...out of ALL the people I've desperately wanting to match up and play against, was Ben Mohlie. Sitting on Table #1 doesn't guarantee that I get to play against the best available - nor does being on table #1 mean that I'm the best available.

If I could have generated matches, my line-up for Wargamescon would have been Paul Murphy, Marc Parker, Ben Mohlie...and crap, other names escape me. But hopefully you catch my drift?
My name isn't in that list Dash?! I'm shocked! :P Also, I played Paul in the mirror match, he's not that good :)

I'm curious, did you not think Russel or Alan were great opponents? I agree with Wolf here because of what we witnessed at Adepticon this year. We all pay a lot of money to play in the big tournaments and being knocked out in the first round is absurd. So what we got going at BOLSCon I think is great because you can bounce back.
speedfreek's avatar

speedfreek · 715 weeks ago

I had similar thoughts in my last tournament, when I played with a list similar to yours (but no hth) against a Tyranid player with three trygons and three tervigons.
I knew I could easily beat him 20-0 but I knew I would then end up meeting the Swedish ETC-imperial guard in the last game, which is an almost impossible match-up since it was kill points.
(Both his IG and my Dark Eldar can be found in the ETC army forum) http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=19&...

I have never tried intentionally "submarining" and in the end I didn't this time either.
What if I would have won 15-5 against the Tyranids and still would be matched against IG?
Then I would just have given away a quarter of my points to no avail.
So I tabled the Tyranids and lost big time to the Imperial Guard and ended up in about tenth place.

And I would have made the same decision again and again...
sn0zcumb3r's avatar

sn0zcumb3r · 715 weeks ago

The thing with submarinining is that you are putting the outcome in someone elses hands.
If you do your best, score max points in each game and sit at the top of the table you are master of your own destiny so to speak. Someone has to beat you or deny you points in order for you not to win the tourney. If you are submarining the your are hoping that the top players will loose points between themselves (often you wont even be getting a chance to take these points from them)
I'd much rather know I didn't win a tourney because someone beat me rather than because even though I dodged the best players they didn't loose any points
Simple answer for me is, if you would have won game 7 , you would have won the GT? Having your fate in your own hands is all you can ask for. A chance to play for the win. Too bad there is no home field advantage for 40k.

Win big or go home.
Dashofpepper's avatar

Dashofpepper · 715 weeks ago

Russell and Alan were fine - Russell got an advantage because I reserved and when I moved onto the board, I moved on flat out far enough up for him to be able to alpha-strike me with flamers and meltas. I made the game much closer than it should have been.

My game against Alan was great! I lost 18-12 after four turns...he was up on killpoints, but I was working on tabling him. 50/50 on whether I could have done it.

What I meant though is that while I didn't mind playing them, the ones I was eyeballing are the "big names" that have a lot of recognition as good/better/best players around the country.
enemaoftheimperium's avatar

enemaoftheimperium · 715 weeks ago

So let me get this straight...

You wanted to play the "big boys", but they got beat by the "lesser boys" Why didn't you just ask for grudge matches on the off days of the tournament? Instead you bad mouth Alan that beat you fair and square. Curious, since Ben almost tabled you when will you change your GT record to show that loss as well the loss to Alan. Let me guess we are not going to count Alan's win because of the 4 turn game?
1 reply · active 715 weeks ago
o.O� Psychotic or just hostile?�

I've said several times in various places that my game against Alan was great!� It was unfortunate that we didn't get to play it to completion, but noting it isn't the same as complaining about it.� Don't make up bullshit like "you're badmouthing Alan."�

Hulksmash has been updating my record...I presumed he had for this one as well, since I texted him on the way home with the results.�� I'm not sure what it shows and can't get to the blog from work, so I'll take a look when I get home.� And Ben certainly did hand me my butt on a platter - it was an interesting ride.� I'm anxious for a rematch.� And before you get cute...that's not badmouthing Ben.�
I was thinking about this a bit more and it really doesn't feel dirty. More of a wait in the shadows while everyone beats themselves bloody and then hope out for an easy backstab on a weary opponent. At first I was kinda thinking it was foul play, but I have been at a couple of tournaments and have heard draws being agreed upon by the two top players to preserve 1st and 2nd place without one of them falling to 3rd or even 4th place.

I consider that just flat out cheating the system while submarining is an actual tactical calculated risk.
My bad on not updating. Kinda forgot about it to be honest. It's been taken care of now.

Regarding the article I think it's just to much of a risk at larger events and this whole thing is a reason I prefer straight w/l. I'll readily admit that it's mostly because straight w/l without ties is what I'm best at but it gets frustrating watching people with losses win the tournament when you won all your games but didn't max points like they did on their other 4(or 6 if it's WGC). Just personal opinion though. Basically I wouldn't ever give it a try but good luck to anyone who does. Your relying on others losing at the right times to make it work.
1 reply · active 698 weeks ago
Maybe they should be ranked by how many points they give away not just how many they get. A comprehensive ranking. How would you manage that? It would be tough. I agree with the Nova format to a point. Spend the first day finding the biggest winners then spend the second day pairing them for the championship. There is no perfect tournament system. There is just the best we have available.
Why does that matter Hulk? If they have more points than you, then it is due to many possibilities.

1) They got more easy match-ups than you did. Not to say they didn't play good people, but that the lists generally matched up more in their favor. Even if it is just W/L then this situation still favors them.

2) They took more calculated risks than you did. When you are playing in a Battlepoint event you KNOW you need to crush people, and take more risks to achieve that. Perhaps you were playing too conservatively in that setting.

I don't think many people intentionally submarine, It can happen when a good player has a rough 1st round or a bad dice game early in the event.
Nova pairs bottom winner with top winners in order to prevent this
2 replies · active 714 weeks ago
Nova doesn't use battle points, so that comment is irrelevant. It is just W/L. Once you lose, you are out. So someone who does not go undefeated would never place higher than someone who does. Thought that would be obvious....
I am aware of that...ass. But someone who tries to skate by with tiny wins at W/l tourney that pairs top winner v top winner and so on could win the tourney while only having beaten shitty winners. ALso the system would work in bp all they have to do is pair highest scoring winner v lowest, if te lowest is a good play it will show thru.
Well Dash this would have helped me twice in tournaments against you. I lost two tournaments where I massacred the first games, so I had to face you to win the tournament. While I did better against you in the second tournament I still did not do well enough. Two players I destroyed in the previous games moved ahead of me because they did not play you! This happened twice! Instead of second or third I moved to fourth! Had I not done so well in the beginning I could have got something from the event. But I am not willing, to not go for the win! Are you!?!

Post a new comment

Comments by