Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Blackheart666 wrote:Fanboy Enforcement.. err.. I mean "the moderators" keep up their great diligent work.)

I don't do tournments, in fact, I'm not playing Warhammer at all.

Nice. I wonder how Iorek and the rest will like that little bit.

If you don't play at all, why do you care? Are you looking for 5th to be the sign for some kind of Messianic return to the GW Hobby?

This thread wouldn't be complete without me posting how much I dislike the high percentage of subjective scores.

Has anyone currently planing how GTs should be run ever actually won one?

Blackheart666 wrote:

davetaylor wrote:
I don't understand why on earth you would want to come to one of our GTs. You obviously don't like any of the systems we use (or have used), you feel that you will need to lie about your army (or who painted it at least), and you feel you have to so drastically modify your behavior that you must play like an automaton. You have publicly ridiculed our rules on a regular basis, yet you keep coming back (or asking what other events we'll be running). What is the point you are trying to make?

Nothing like getting a polite, but not very subtle "GTFO" from GW staff.

Dave, have you, (or any one else at GW) ever possibly considered that there are quite a few people that are, in regards to GW, "pot committed". As in, we've a hell of alot of money on this "hobby"... the majority of those people having spent far, far more than the current GW target audience who get their parents to spend $100 or $200 on models that never get painted and get dumped on ebay within a few months or thrown into a closet and never seen again as soon as "Little Jervis" discovers girls or an Xbox? So.. you're essentially saying "we don't care about you. If you don't like it. GTFO."

And yes, I am perfectly aware that the average GW related forum goer will imediately respond with "So what? dump your sh-t on ebay so I can get my 15th army for WUN DOWAR!!!" (especially when Fanboy Enforcement.. err.. I mean "the moderators" keep up their great diligent work.)

and just for the record: no, I don't do tournments, in fact, I'm not playing Warhammer at all. The local players are, for the most part, trash, and the average tournment howler monkey is certainly not a draw for me to drive an hour (at least) for a full day of "Tyranid MC and Eldar Flying Circus win, everyone else give us your money and go home."

the local Magic players are 800% better than anything Warhammer has to offer right now. and Magic players are a den of cheating thieves.

Hi Blackheart

Please re-read the post. I'm not asking Stelek to get out of the hobby. I'm not asking him to sell all his stuff on Ebay. I understand "pot commitment" and i know that Stelek is certainly "pot committed" to 40K.

On the other hand, he is certainly not "pot committed" to the GT system or attending GTs. Stelek does not like the way we run things, has had miserable experiences, and has spent the last six months venting ten years of pent-up frustration here on Dakka. My question was born of frustration as to why he would keep coming back to the GTs if it is so obviously not what he wants.

Seeing Stelek's system posted in this forum has not only meant I've been able to improve my understanding of his concerns, but has sparked some interesting discussion from a variety of sources. All of these things help us to try new approaches in our search for the ever elusive holy grail of "everyone is happy".

As for your concerns about the Warhammer players in Maryland, I'm curious about your approach. I've certainly enjoyed the games I've played here over the last six years, even the tough ones against the killer armies, and the ones where I made silly mistakes.

Cheers
Dave Taylor

blood angel wrote:This thread wouldn't be complete without me posting how much I dislike the high percentage of subjective scores.

Has anyone currently planing how GTs should be run ever actually won one?

Hi Paul

Nope, none of us has won a GT, but we talk about our systems with those who have. If what were doing was done in a vacuum then I would certainly see that as a major problem. We spend a lot of time discussing all manner of tournament related issues with other tournament organizers and attendees (both the winners and the majority of players). We are always interested in refining and improving what we offer, as long as it hits our original mission: (from the GT website)

The original intent for our Grand Tournaments was both to provide a reason to gather gamers together for a nerd weekend and to reward the “champions of the hobby”. The Overall award went to the person that was best able to demonstrate all facets of the hobby; gaming, painting/converting, and sportsmanship, based on the criteria we provided.

Cheers
Dave Taylor

Personally I like the current system.

Last years sportsmanship scoring has a lot of problems, and was way too subjective.

Things like:
Collusion (if you give me a 10, I will give you a 10)
Chipmunking (intentionally giving an unjustified low score)
The people that always give a score of 10.
Those that start at the bottom of sports scores, and work there way up etc.

There was so much random variation that sports scores were all over the map.

Why did I score a 44 sportsmanship in Vegas, yet at Baltimore I only scored a 36? I am the same guy, playing the same army, but my scores varied greatly. If I received the same sportsmanship score at Baltimore that I did at Las Vegas, I would have come in 3rd place, but my sportsmanship score was so low, that I came in 11th.

I like the user friendly check box system. I like to know what is expected of me, and I do like a little bit of room for subjective behaviors.

The problem with the yellow/red card system is that there is opportunity for a lot of shenanigans. What is to stop someone from moving there models 8”? Or to encourage them to play faster, instead of slow playing? You can’t have a judge baby sit all of the tables. Losing a point here and there is only a slap on the wrist, but at least it is something.

Blackmoor wrote:Why did I score a 44 sportsmanship in Vegas, yet at Baltimore I only scored a 36? I am the same guy, playing the same army, but my scores varied greatly. If I received the same sportsmanship score at Baltimore that I did at Las Vegas, I would have come in 3rd place, but my sportsmanship score was so low, that I came in 11th.

Or - maybe your actual score in Vegas should have been a 36 and you should not have placed as high because you are a dbag to play.

Actually - Allen, I also scored lower in Baltimore too. And yet I had a far weaker force than in Vegas.

Dave Taylor - are you guys going to put up the archives with the new website build?

I like the checklist idea. I guess my big question about it is - how transparent is it going to be?
Can I see what player X gave me? At least for the objective scores? Because otherwise, there will still be people that give others a '2' - even when they qualified for the minimum 5 or 6 by being to the table on time, etc, etc.

davetaylor wrote:

blood angel wrote:This thread wouldn't be complete without me posting how much I dislike the high percentage of subjective scores.

Has anyone currently planing how GTs should be run ever actually won one?

Hi Paul

Nope, none of us has won a GT, but we talk about our systems with those who have. If what were doing was done in a vacuum then I would certainly see that as a major problem. We spend a lot of time discussing all manner of tournament related issues with other tournament organizers and attendees (both the winners and the majority of players). We are always interested in refining and improving what we offer, as long as it hits our original mission: (from the GT website)

The original intent for our Grand Tournaments was both to provide a reason to gather gamers together for a nerd weekend and to reward the “champions of the hobby”. The Overall award went to the person that was best able to demonstrate all facets of the hobby; gaming, painting/converting, and sportsmanship, based on the criteria we provided.


Cheers
Dave Taylor

I will give credit where credit is due. You have refined the system from last year and I do agree with a lot of your changes - for what that's worth.

I should have expanded my comment to not sound like such a jackass. - It takes a lot of effort to actually win the over all. I honestly don't think everyone can do it. I think the ones that have done it, especialy those that have done it multiple times have valuable insight into how they should be run. All the suggestions given by the high end players to this cause is to level the playing field where more people have a chance to win these things instead of the select few who have figured out the combination lock to coming out on top at these pagents.

blood angel wrote:
It takes a lot of effort to actually win the over all. I honestly don't think everyone can do it. I think the ones that have done it, especially those that have done it multiple times have valuable insight into how they should be run. All the suggestions given by the high end players to this cause is to level the playing field where more people have a chance to win these things instead of the select few who have figured out the combination lock to coming out on top at these pagents.

It seems like the ones at the top would be happy with the status quo, but the huddled masses in the middle would be an excellent resource for how to improve Grand Tournaments.

That is one thing about Dave is that he seems very accessible at events and he welcomes constructive feedback to improve the GT experience for everyone (even though he talks funny).

One thing that I like is less subjective scoring in Sportsmanship and Painting, so instead of being some cryptic formula that only a few people at the top can figure out, they have made scoring for the GT more transparent, and have made a roadmap for winning if you chose to do so.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
Or - maybe your actual score in Vegas should have been a 36 and you should not have placed as high because you are a dbag to play.

Actually - Allen, I also scored lower in Baltimore too. And yet I had a far weaker force than in Vegas.

One of the factors that attributed to my lower sports scores was that in Vegas I was less proficient with my army having only played it a couple of times before the GT and I scored 80 battle points. By the time Baltimore came around I was much better with the army and I scored 97 battle points. Since I beat my opponents by a wider margin, I think that it had detrimental effect on my sports scores.

stjohn70 wrote:I like the checklist idea. I guess my big question about it is - how transparent is it going to be?
Can I see what player X gave me? At least for the objective scores? Because otherwise, there will still be people that give others a '2' - even when they qualified for the minimum 5 or 6 by being to the table on time, etc, etc.

I agree with you on the potential problems with the new check list too. The more I think about it, the more subjective it seems.

2 Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? 1 Point
If someone forgets a flamer template is that a reason to not check the box? How many people will not check it for a minor offence like leaving a scatter die at home?

3 Did your opponent play their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)? 1 Point

If you get in a full 6 turns, but your opponents thinks that you thought too much, and took too much time to move is that a reason to not check the box?

4 Did your opponent measure accurately for both model moves and shooting distances? 1 Point

What happens if I move my models always 6” and my opponent thinks that I didn’t?

Blackmoor wrote: I agree with you on the potential problems with the new check list too. The more I think about it, the more subjective it seems.

2 Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? 1 Point
If someone forgets a flamer template is that a reason to not check the box? How many people will not check it for a minor offence like leaving a scatter die at home?

3 Did your opponent play their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)? 1 Point

If you get in a full 6 turns, but your opponents thinks that you thought too much, and took too much time to move is that a reason to not check the box?

4 Did your opponent measure accurately for both model moves and shooting distances? 1 Point

What happens if I move my models always 6” and my opponent thinks that I didn’t?

Allen - you are perfect. You hit the nail right on the head. I was thinking about typing the exact same thing. There are numerous examples for each of the questions that fall into a subjective opinion. That was my point earlier to Tarval. Add a little creative wording and bingo - you have an "improved" system that doesn't fix the problem. Ugh.

Dave - FYI, I give you a lot of credit on this working this to be the best that it can be. Just know that I talk with the Hank about the sportsmanship rankings at AdeptiCon too. While the checklist is the best of the systems used here in the US, the sportsmanship scoring mehtod here in the states is a bad system.

For Everyone - Allen's example above about army proficiency versus sportsmanship between the Vegas and Baltimore has been seen time and time again. Even with this system, you will see the same thing happen again.

The checklist should be simple:

[] Douche?



If the box is checked by more than one opponent, -100 to overall score. And public ridicule.

Blackmoor wrote:Why did I score a 44 sportsmanship in Vegas, yet at Baltimore I only scored a 36? I am the same guy, playing the same army, but my scores varied greatly.

You're the same guy, but did you take the venue into consideration? I mean it's Vegas baby, Vegas! Everyone is in a better mood in Vegas. And then you have Baltimore........... Vegas and Baltimore......... nuff said.


I will say that I have not played in a GT since 2000, but I am really considering playing again. I love what dave Taylor has been doing and the improvements I see. It wasn't that it was so bad before, but it seems to have gotten very inviting now.

Blackheart666 wrote:

and just for the record: no, I don't do tournments, in fact, I'm not playing Warhammer at all. The local players are, for the most part, trash, and the average tournment howler monkey is certainly not a draw for me to drive an hour (at least) for a full day of "Tyranid MC and Eldar Flying Circus win, everyone else give us your money and go home."

the local Magic players are 800% better than anything Warhammer has to offer right now. and Magic players are a den of cheating thieves.

Then why do you bother to post at all? All you've contributed to this thread is nonsensical posts and run-on sentences.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Inquisitor_Malice
2 Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? 1 Point
If someone forgets a flamer template is that a reason to not check the box? How many people will not check it for a minor offence like leaving a scatter die at home?

I talked about this up top a few post back. Yes I understand and started to think about it today. Maybe we should have a greater range in the point system. In stead of each one being one point make it 10 points for each question. Then take the total and divide it rounding so that you get your socre. That way if somebody forgot the template you can still give them a ruff score. Now if they forgot their dice and the rule book. Well you might drop it a little lower.

So if you scored a 87 then you would get a 9 total for sports. Just an idea is all fyi so please dont slam it unless you have some form of change to make it better.

If you think about it aleast your able to take home some of the points in each line instead of just a 50/50 wash. You could even follow up with a chart so that the points figure out better like your already trying to do.

1. Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? Up to 10 Point follow chart.

1. Forgot one item needed for the game -1
2. Forgot two items needed for the game -3
3. Forgot enough items that it slowed the game down but allowed you to play on. -7
4. Totally bombed out and forgot everything that person needed to play the game no points awarded.

Just an idea is all and that is what they are seeking is ideas to test and add to the over all package that they have for tournies.

Sportmanship isn't managing not to forget the odd template or dice, it's being an alright guy not an jerk.

Under this idea, the nicest player in the world can turn up for a match, someone nicks his box of game tools, and he loses three points for being the victim of a crime!

Alternatively if you let him off because they weren't forgotten but stolen, the biggest toerag in the world can turn up without any equipment, claim they were stolen, and get full points.

That is the main reason I changed the format because if you look back at the rule. It only allows for one point and if you forget a flamer you've lost that point. There is no room for simple error under that sports check. So I came up with an added system to the over all rule. That way you can still give somebody points instead of nocking them off the board. Just look at it like this.

1.10
2.10
3.9
4.8
5.10
6.9
7.5 no theme sorta
8.10
9.10
10.10

You total would be 81 of which if rounded would be 80 drop the zero and you have an 8 for your total score in sports. Maybe this will help you better understand what I was talking about.

Even with the checklist, there is still room for interpretation. I've lost count how many scatter dies I've 'lost' as my opponent accidentally placed it in his dice tin. I then didn't realize it until the next time I played.

I (hopefully) am not the only one that happens to. With that said, under said circumstances, I wouldn't begrudge a fellow player and lower his/her sportsmanship score.

***Having said that, my pet peeve is players showing up w/o an armylist at all. No sympathy from me as I've had many a frustrating game against folks who have their entire armylist 'in their head'.***

Ok so you lost a dice, now if you took the time to read on how the system I explained worked you would understand that minus one ouf ot ten rounded minus the zero still gives you a point. Its only when you face somebody that total forgot all his gear that it hampered the game and caused the full point to be removed.

Tarval, i think that is an interpretation of the rubric on your part. I personally as a teacher have to write very in depth rubrics that account for almost everything... it sucks since it is alot of work but it removes all subjective scoring and all questions. If you want Dave I can put together an in depth rubric system for you.

frgsinwntr wrote:Tarval, i think that is an interpretation of the rubric on your part. I personally as a teacher have to write very in depth rubrics that account for almost everything... it sucks since it is alot of work but it removes all subjective scoring and all questions. If you want Dave I can put together an in depth rubric system for you.

I'd be very interested to see this. I agree that subjectivity can be guided by group awareness and connection, so something that can help keep the situation appropriate (i.e. everyone is honest and accommodating, rather than angry and chipmunky) would be great to see.

Cheers
Dave

Ok... here I go each is rated 0-3pts then the final result is divided by 3. I would do this in a table which is much harder to do on a forum then it is to do on word. Now this is a rough draft for what I would do so some of the things would have to be debated on where they sit.

1 Did your opponent show up on time (or early)?
0 points - My opponent never showed
1 points - My opponent 10min + late
2 points - My opponent was 5-9min late
3 points - My opponent made it to the table within 5 minutes of the round starting (this allows for some time to travel to the table)

2 Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)?
0 points - My opponent was missing dice, templates, rules, armylists, and his/her pants.
1 points - My opponent was missing materials he needed to use such as templates for his own weapons or his rules or the rules for the game
2 points - My opponent was missing something minor like a scatter die
3 points - My opponent had all materials

3 Did your opponent play their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)?
(allowing time for rules outside of the time limits added here)
0 points - My opponent played more of a game then I did. By the end I would say he spent more time during one of his turns then I did during ALL of mine put together
1 points - My opponent took 30+ minutes to finish his turn
2 points - My opponent took 20+ minutes for each of his turns after the game started
3 points - My opponent played his turns in under 15-20 minutes

Game Play - These items include courses of action your opponent took during the game or in deciding what to field in their army.

4 Did your opponent measure accurately for both model moves and shooting distances?
0 points - My opponent never really measured for his movements. 3+ times during the game he estimated distances to his advantage.
1 points - My opponent measured most of the time, but once or twice he seemed to take liberties with distances
2 points - My opponent measured for all of his movements but for very important ones he seemed to measure once move once instead of measure twice move once. Or he underestimated distances when he chose not to measure exactly
3 points - My opponent measured for all of his movements. For difficult movements he asked me if he was accurate before moving.

5 Did your opponent solve rules disputes by showing you the relevant passages in their rulebook (or, if that could not be found or remained confusing, was amicable about bringing over a Rules Judge)?
0 points - My opponent quoted rules better then he conversed and did so even when I knew the rules and agreed. My opponent cheated. My opponent argued even after not winning a "roll" or argued with the judges at great length.
1 points - My opponent quoted the rulebook to me but never seemed to be able to produce the pages or he got the rules wrong. He argued with judges. He refused to roll off. He often times tried to solve rules dispute with the Louder person wins philosophy.
2 points - My opponent and I worked through most disputes but would rather force his interpretation of the rules then resolve it randomly or by judge
3 points - My opponent and I were able to work through all of our rules desputes. He showed relevant rules pages to solve disputes or asked for a judge interpretation when it was close or we rolled for it

6 Was your opponent’s army easy to understand with clear conversions or completely WYSWIG?
0 points - My opponent did no work on his army. 75%+ of his models are not WYSWIG. The models seemed to be armed differently everything my opponent used them.
1 points - My opponent took major liberties with his WYSYWG! 25%+ of his models were not "modeled" the way they should be.
2 points - My opponent took minor liberties with his WYSYWG, using bolt pistols when his models only had bolters (example from new Chaos dex). 25% or less of his models were not "modeled" correctly
3 points - My opponents army was perfect! Every piece of wargear that did not require huge modifications was present.

7 Do you think your opponent built an army based on the theme of the relevant gaming universe and supplied background for that army (as opposed to a force built purely for winning with little or no regard to that army’s established background)?
0 points - My opponents army did not have a matching paint theme. His list was built solely for beat downs and has no flavor.
1 points - My opponent built an army just to win. The army has 3 or more identical non troop units.
2 points - My opponent built his army with some minor themes. 1-2 of his squads seemed to be min/maxed.
3 points - My opponents army was built more for theme then game play. He armed all of his units in a fashion that matches his theme and painted them all to match this standard

Behaviors - These items include basic social skills.

8 Was your opponent of good humor and amicable when not concentrating on strategy or planning out moves (this does not mean they put on a one man circus for you, but rather was not angry/grumbling/complaining/obtuse during your game)?
0 points - My opponent was fake. My opponent was angry for most of the game. My opponent seemed like winning was everything and was annoyed when things didn't go his way
1 points - My opponent seemed to become very upset when he lost units. He seemed to care more about winning then having an enjoyable afternoon playing.
2 points - My opponent was in good humor most of the day. He could converse and losing a unit here and there to bad luck seemed to not be a huge downer for him. OR my opponent over did things and put on a three ring circus for me.
3 points - My opponent was great and we go along well. He seemed more interested in having fun then winning but still did everything in his power to win.

9 Was your opponent helpful in explaining correct rules, explaining how their army works?
0 points - I thought I knew the rules for his army, but apparently he made them up as he went.
1 points - My opponent explained some (1-2) of the rules wrong to his advantage. OR he was not interested in looking up rules questions and decided to just quote stuff off the top of his head.
2 points - My opponent took the time to work through rules with me. If he got a rule wrong it was usually to his disadvantage, but we correctly played the rules out the way they should be.
3 points - My opponent took the time to work through rules with me. Everything was worked out.

10 Win or lose, was this person the type of opponent you look forward to playing again?
0 points - YUCK! This guy is a real JERK! I hope to never deal with him again.
1 points - My opponent was annoying but if I have to play him again I could bear it....
2 points - My opponent was cool. I could play him again.
3 points - I hope my opponent moves to my area so we can game more often. He was a blast to play!

Add all of the points up and then divide by 3. You will end up with decimals but this is easy to deal with.

Example.
I get 3+3+3+3 +2+2+2+2+2+3= 25
Divided 25/3 = 8.333333333 for this round.

Add all of these together for the total at the end and then round up to the nearest whole number for the final scores.

Bump! Any comments on how I broke down the points?

Here is the perfect sports system:

0 points - I did not want to choke this guy at the end of the game.
-5 points - If I had a time machine, I'd go back and kill his mother when she was an infant.

And that's it. Giving points for anything else is, for lack of a better term, lame. We all want a way to ensure guys like Stelek can't win anything (and that's simple enough to do), but any other attempt to measure actual sportsmanship is sad and delusional.

Ding 1 for Mauleed.

I agree with you on the potential problems with the new check list too. The more I think about it, the more subjective it seems.

2 Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? 1 Point
If someone forgets a flamer template is that a reason to not check the box? How many people will not check it for a minor offence like leaving a scatter die at home?

3 Did your opponent play their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)? 1 Point

If you get in a full 6 turns, but your opponents thinks that you thought too much, and took too much time to move is that a reason to not check the box?

4 Did your opponent measure accurately for both model moves and shooting distances? 1 Point

What happens if I move my models always 6” and my opponent thinks that I didn’t?

I tried to reduce some of the subjectivity in some tournaments I ran recently.

Below is what I used at one. It is still a work in progress, as I think I'll remove alot of these due to subjectivity. But specifically Gameplay addresses a few of your concerns.

I also do not state the points for each. I have a rubric but I want people to be honest and not try and give their opponnet a qty of points they think they deserve (or what they think they can get away with as far as chimpmunking).

Etiquette (check all that apply):
-Opponent arrived to the table on time (or was early).
-Opponent had a legible army list for you to reference during the game.
-Opponent had all the necessary materials needed to play.
-Opponent was at least amicable, as opposed to complaining, obtuse, grumbling, unpleasant etc.

Game play (check all that apply):
-Game was finished to completion –Or– Game was not completed but opponent was not the main cause.
-There were no rules disputes during the game –Or– Rules disputes were resolved amicably.

Overall (check one):
-Opponent was a joy to play against. You look forward to playing them again.
-Opponent was ok to play against. You would play them anytime.
-Opponent was unpleasant to play against. You would prefer not to play them unless there’s improvement.
-TFG (see below)

TFG (check if the statement below applies):
-My opponent blatantly cheated and/or exhibited outrageous behavior. I hope to never play this person again. Opponent receives 0 points for this round and will be observed for the remainder of the tournament. Circle any statement below that applies (you must circle at least one):

-Made insulting comments (not jokes) -Fudged measurements (even after correction) -Extremely poor loser/winner. -Used illegal army list -Ignored rules (even after correction) -Other (must describe behavior):