Latest posts for the thread "Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!"

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

General Hobbs — GMT

I watched a tournament game recently and here is what happened:

Shooty guard with rough riders and lots of heavy weapons vs Marines with 2 whirlwinds.Mission was recon, marine player also had several land speeders.

Shooty guard play deployed in the center of his zone, Marine player hid his army behind terrain.

Marine player used his whirlwinds to destroy enemy units, and at the end of the game he zipped out his speeders to get into the enemy deployment zone, and got the win.

The Guard player gave him a 0 on sportsmanship. His reason? A. The Marine player did not give him a chance to win by hiding behind terrain. B. It wasn't a fun game for him and C. That was a wank way to win a game.

He further went on about how 40K ( even in a competitive) setting is about 2 players having fun playing the game, and the way the Marine player played, he couldn't do anything.

I have seen the same arguement and complaint made by a Chaos player in last years GT who lost to Greg Sparks...Sparks apparently lashed his units, pulled them forward and gunned them down. The losing player complained that the game sucked because he didn't get to use any of his units and didn't kill any enemy models.

So what is your opinion? Should you design your army and play in such a way so as to give your opponent a chance to win? Even in a tournament? Or are these guys just bad sports?

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Phryxis — GMT

I think it takes a read on the situation.

For example, one time I played a tourny, and a very similar thing to this occurred. I had shooty Marines, the other guy had Necrons. The tourny organizer specifically said "on this mission, because there are objectives, I don't want people sitting back and hiding, get out there and play the game and have fun. This is a fun event."

The other guy did exactly that, sat back and hid, and then jetted Destroyers in to grab objectives, even as I did things I wouldn't normally have, in order to respond to the organizer's direction.

So that was pretty friggin lame, I thought. I still gave the guy decent sports, because he seemed really guilty at the end.

In a more competitive event, hey, you're playing to win. If the event is competitive, not only do you not have to give your opponent a chance to win, you should try not to. I guess I'd say that if you paid anything more than $5 to get into the event, you've got reasonable cause to win by any means within the rules (I'm sure there're exceptions, but you get the idea).

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

brado — GMT

IG player is a sore loser. Simple as that.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

insaniak — GMT

[quote=General Hobbs]His reason? A. The Marine player did not give him a chance to win by hiding behind terrain. [/quote]

Are Guard not allowed to move in Tournaments?

This is often a problem when two shooty armies meet up... They both sit back and wait for the other to move first, in the hope of getting off the first shot. Complaining that the other guy didn't move is only really even remotely justified if you [i]did[/i].

If the extent of your strategy is 'sit back and hope that something walks into your gunsights' you might want to question whether or not the tournament scene is really for you...

(Those 'you's are in the generic sense... not aimed at anyone, by the way)

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

blood angel — GMT

It is a jank way to win but that's just the way it works out sometimes. The fault is probably on the organizer for having enough terrain to hide an entire army behind

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

HuzzFivvNivv — GMT

The only time I will pull punches at a tournament is when I'm playing a total noob.

The IG player was way off for marking down the SM player. His/her loss shows poor tactics and an unbalanced army.

You can bet the IG player would show no mercy if the SM army had marched into range of his/her wepons.

HFN

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

The problem here isn't that the SM player didn't give teh IG guy a chance to win, it's that the IG player expects a chance to win without changing his game plan.

It's pretty clear what went down: the IG list has two huge weaknesses, claiming objectives and dealing with indirect fire. The mission draw was a bad beat, but seeing as even IG have ways to mitigate both weaknesses, it's more the players fault then his opponents. And If the IG player wanted to take a highly themed list, well, thems the breaks. If you hit a mission/army match up that's a natrual foil to your army, take the lose gracefully.

To answer the broader question, I think that it's a duty of a player in a pick up or fun game to try to help their opponent have a good time. Winning or losing huge because of a bad matchup isn't fun for either side. In a tournament, it's the job of the TO to try to prevent unwinnable missions. It's infuriating to lose a mission because of "Wacky" rules that bone your army, nor is it highly satisfying to win because you picked a good army for the mission.

This situation doesn't seems like the mission was partularliy broken. It's an objective gathering mission, and IG need to be able to play those. Seems to me that there was a poor sport, and it wasnt necessarily the SM player.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

sebster — GMT

It all depends on the social context. I’ve been in plenty of games with my tyranids where I’ve held a dominant position with a turn or two left, and could have bunkered up and secured the win. But in the interests of the game and to follow the instincts of the hive mind I’ve decided to maintain the assault, and it has turned a few wins into draws and losses.

But those were not tournament games.

A heavily focussed list like the IG player’s will take an advantage into every game where its strengths can be properly used, but at the expense of finding the odd situation where the list is next to useless. It’s the gamble you take. It is unreasonable to take that gamble, benefit from your specialisation in most games, but insist when your weakness is exposed that the other player should go out of his way to put you back into the game.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

stjohn70 — GMT

[quote=Polonius]The problem here isn't that the SM player didn't give teh IG guy a chance to win, it's that the IG player expects a chance to win without changing his game plan.[/quote]
Amen.

I, for one, believe that in casual games it is best to get both players engaged in the game. In tournament games, it is not my responsibility to make sure that you get so much of my force... on the contrary, if your army has a glaring weakness and my army can exploit it - then by all means I will. And it's not my fault for doing so.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

JohnHwangDD — GMT

[quote=General Hobbs]The Guard player gave him a 0 on sportsmanship.

So what is your opinion? Should you design your army and play in such a way so as to give your opponent a chance to win? Even in a tournament? Or are these guys just bad sports?[/quote]
I think there are a lot of problems here.

First I think the Guard player was well-justified in giving a ZERO. When weedy Guardsmen are played as more manly and brave than Marines, the Marine player isn't playing properly.

An army should be built with some care and played with a nod to the Fluff, so at least the opponent has fun. Not necessarily to let them win, but at least let them *play*.

In a tournament, if Sports and Comp are factors, then the objective should be to win a fun, tight game - not to massacre.

A lot of this lays at the feet of the TO. Stop scoring VPs that encourage lame play. Score only objectives that encourage bravery and sacrifice.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Ravenous D — GMT

In that case the marine player absolutely deserved a low score for sportsmanship, as long as it doesnt effect painting and comp scores then it’s fully in the IGs player right.

There really wasnt much the IG player could do, really his options were 1) Spread out 2) Run across the table and get counter assaulted by a superior enemy. Either way it wouldnt have mattered because the marine player was going to get the points for the land speeder units, which I can only guess were 3 units of 2 tornados, sitting at 480pts meaning the marine player would only have to do 800pts of damage over the course of 6 turns to get a massacre in a 1500pt game. If it just ran on a simple win - lose - draw then it was over before it even started.

I dont know, but getting bitched in a supposedly fun game even in a tournament is lame. Yes tournaments are competitive but there should be a sense of honour about it, because if not then why even bother playing? What is the ultimate goal? To what? Get a crappy trophy and have the recognition of nerds? Even if you're playing for money, be a hard ass yes, but being a complete and utter tosspot?

There is no sport in that, its like hunting rabbits with a fully automatic .50 cal machine gun and then putting the corpses on your wall and saying you earned it. Being able to best your opponent in a fair fight is something to be proud of, but not even giving him the dignity of that just makes you a pu**y with a big gun.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Chimera_Calvin — GMT

There's only one person who deserved 0 sportsmanship and that's the IG player, who was obviously a really sore loser.

Sportsmanship is about whether your opponent was friendly and helpful to play? Did they remind you about a unit you had forgotten to move, play quickly and efficiently, not be a rules lawyer?

If he did, then he was a sporting player - you can't mark him down for having a winning tactic.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Ravenous D — GMT

[quote=Chimera_Calvin]There's only one person who deserved 0 sportsmanship and that's the IG player, who was obviously a really sore loser.

Sportsmanship is about whether your opponent was friendly and helpful to play? Did they remind you about a unit you had forgotten to move, play quickly and efficiently, not be a rules lawyer?

If he did, then he was a sporting player - you can't mark him down for having a winning tactic.[/quote]

There in lies the problem.

Sportsmanship to some people is conduct in game play, and to others its just about how easy going on the rules they are. Sportsmanship is about both, it is simply the conduct in which the person acts. Because sportsmanship is an opinion based catagory it is completely up to the person scoring what he decides is more importent, conduct in game play or conduct with rules. Short of having a complete check box break down there is no way of enforcing both in an opinion based score.

It also depends on how many points are awarded for sportsmanship, if it was out of 10 then a zero is excessive because you could evenly split the 2 conducts down the middle, if it is only at of 3 though then a 0 represents a poor game that you wished you had not even bothered playing, I still think zero is excessive in that case but you're not going to hand the guy perfect scores when his attitude is "screw this guy Im not going to let him lift a finger against me".

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Steelmage99 — GMT

Sore losers. Nuff said.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Chimera_Calvin — GMT

Ravenous - I understand where you're coming from, but its nigh on impossible to interpret sportsmanship 'in-game'

There are a number of conflicting and overlapping issues here.
1. Its a 'military simulation' in the loosest sense of the term. In all such situations you would attempt to complete the mission objective with as little loss as possible.
2. In-game fluff. If you had a Night Lords themed chaos army that pounded you from range, waiting for your nerve to break before pouncing on you with swift assault/firefight units you could argue that you were 'roleplaying' the army well.
3. The definition of 'contest' in the game. There are many who would argue (particularly in a tournament setting) that army design and deployment are just as tricky and just as much of a factor in winning as what happens after the game starts.
You will sometimes run across a build that causes you problems irrespective of how good yours is (i.e. Nidzilla will always have problems when facing Lascannon spam)

The problem is defining the point where the deployment and employment of in-game units stops being good play and starts being unfair, even assuming you beleive such a point exists.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Ravenous D — GMT

Agreed, its those points that matter it such a muddy matter that cannot be resolved easily if not at all.

Ive run into pretty much all types of gamers and sportsmanship means something different to every person. Some people even judge sportsmanship and comp as the same thing, the variables are immense.

For me its just really about respect, is my opponent going to just come in, treat me like a whore and leave, or are they going to try to make sure we both get something out of it. I dont mind getting massacred so long as I started out with a fighting chance and me losing comes from my mistakes/crap luck rather then abstraction in the ruleset.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Blackmoor — GMT

If you are playing in a tournament/competitive game, then you never let up, and never give your opponent a chance.

The reasons why are:
#1. In tournaments you need to maximize your victory conditions if they give more points for bigger wins.
#2. You might not be doing as well as you think you are doing.
#3. Once you lose the initiative and give your opponent a chance, sometimes it snowballs and you can’t stop it and then they end up winning.

The problem with the IG player was a design flaw in his army. The SM player saw the flaw, and just sat back and the IG player could do nothing about it. The IG player was a sore loser because he must of never been up against that build before (it is a rare build) and did not know how to counter it. You need to account for everything, (or at least not draw a bad match-up) in take-all-comers settings. How would the have turned out if the IG player had a basilisk or two in his army?

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Kilkrazy — GMT

In my opinion the SM player made a mistake by misreading the tournament scoring metagame. He might have realised that an easy massacre of the IG would lead to a bad sports score, so he should have given away a few kills to get his sports score jacked up. If he had played more cleverly, he could perhaps have achieved a massacre on the battlefield and top marks in sports as well.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Gaseraki — GMT

IMO the IG player is in the wrong.
Your playing a tournement game you need to expect people to win no matter what. Sorry that you got beaten by prity much a superior army list.
When I was at GW last week they where playing new rules. When I saw that I had to capture objectives and when I saw how my IG oponent set up and warned him saying I am playing to win sorry.
I think I was a good sportsman for saying I am going to play like a git and apologised after I won for playing like a git.
I would let him move and shoot units that he forgot about. I would be generous if he could of couldnt see a unit.
I wouldnt go to a GT and be drawn up to a scissor when im a paper and start complaining saying 'He should of let me have a better chance'

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

nostromo — GMT

rock-paper-scissors...
When you make an army out of nothing but PAPER you shouldn't complain about being beaten by an army made of SCISSORS.

The ig dude is an hypocrit and doesn't realize the problem is his own fault, his own monochrome army build that's designed to handle a few situations very well and fail miserably versus someting else.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

snooggums — GMT

[quote=Ravenous D]In that case the marine player absolutely deserved a low score for sportsmanship, as long as it doesnt effect painting and comp scores then it’s fully in the IGs player right.

There really wasnt much the IG player could do, really his options were 1) Spread out 2) Run across the table and get counter assaulted by a superior enemy. Either way it wouldnt have mattered because the marine player was going to get the points for the land speeder units, which I can only guess were 3 units of 2 tornados, sitting at 480pts meaning the marine player would only have to do 800pts of damage over the course of 6 turns to get a massacre in a 1500pt game. If it just ran on a simple win - lose - draw then it was over before it even started.

I dont know, but getting bitched in a supposedly fun game even in a tournament is lame. Yes tournaments are competitive but there should be a sense of honour about it, because if not then why even bother playing? What is the ultimate goal? To what? Get a crappy trophy and have the recognition of nerds? Even if you're playing for money, be a hard ass yes, but being a complete and utter tosspot?

There is no sport in that, its like hunting rabbits with a fully automatic .50 cal machine gun and then putting the corpses on your wall and saying you earned it. Being able to best your opponent in a fair fight is something to be proud of, but not even giving him the dignity of that just makes you a pu**y with a big gun.[/quote]

So would a Tau player who uses SMS from behind terrain and jump shoot jump tactics that also denied the opponent shooting also deserve a zero? Is it different because the OP example was Marines?

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

insaniak — GMT

[quote=Ravenous D]I dont mind getting massacred so long as I started out with a fighting chance and me losing comes from my mistakes/crap luck rather then abstraction in the ruleset.[/quote]

And in this case, the Guard player had a fighting chance. He presumably had the same points allocation as everyone else in the tournament.

If what he chose to do with it leaves him with a list that suffers against certain opposing builds, surely that's his own mistake rather than the fault of his opponent?

Part of the challenge of a tournament setting is building a list that can compete against all comers, or at the very least do well enough in the majority of games to offset the times you get whalloped by the dreaded counter-list.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

two_heads_talking — GMT

if your opponent is new and not quite sure of things (in otherwords his first game or so) I would coach them and give them every opportunity to learn.

In a tournament, hell no. It's a tournament, not a place to throw a game because your opponent is a whiner.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Gary — GMT

I've been in the hobby for around 5 years, but have played few games, prefering to coach myself up against a friend.

I'l be going to a Gaming Club tonight, now i've got more time and a few good armies painted up. But to be honest, it's up to my opponent there whether he wants to pull punches or not at my inexperience.

At my place if either side is getting stressed at the match, we'l finish the turn and go chill somewhere, I guess this can't be done at tournements so its solely up to the players to remain chirpy towards each other.

Frankly so long as the SM player was pleasant throughout the match, the IG player should've grinned and beared it, as said before.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Redbeard — GMT

I place the blame entirely on the tournament organizer. Maybe I'm spoiled playing around Chicago, but all our missions use the Adepticon-style Primary/Seconday/Tertiary objectives.

In such a situation, the Marine player may still have got the primary with this tactic, but would most likely have failed to get any others and would have knocked himself out of running by playing like this.

Having good missions prevents this sort of thing.

That said, in the scenario described above, the Marine player was smart. Marines are not just super-human killing machines, they're also expertly trained soldiers and if the opportunity exists to defeat an opponent without risking any casualties, I see no reason, fluffwise, that they wouldn't do so.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Boss_Salvage — GMT

[quote=insaniak]And in this case, the Guard player had a fighting chance. He presumably had the same points allocation as everyone else in the tournament.

Part of the challenge of a tournament setting is building a list that can compete against all comers, or at the very least do well enough in the majority of games to offset the times you get whalloped by the dreaded counter-list.[/quote]
True. And obviously there is no massive deficiency in the IG armylist that makes getting to indirect firers impossible. Hell, currently drop troops is free and you can throw any number of melta and even plasma over there to cook off light indirect vehicles if you need it to happen. As Insaniak said earlier, there's always the movement phase too .........

To echo Insaniak and state the obvious, a huge part of competitive 40k comes in the List Design Phase before the game begins. I personally find this an unattractive aspect of competitive 40k and so my CSM remain only quasi-competitive, but then even I have built in options to be able to handle indirect weapons (terminator suicide squads) at the casual level I play at. I hate to side with the twerp who hid all game like a pu$$y, but that 0 sports was uncalled for and the IG player should either re-evaluate his list, his tactics or why he's playing at a tournament.

- Salvage

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Mannahnin — GMT

Playing to the mission and playing to win are not bad sportsmanship. If it’s obvious from turn one that it’s a terrible matchup and probably a massacre, it might be worth an EXTRA HIGH sportsmanship score for the marine player to play more aggressively and give his opponent a fighting chance.

But that would clearly be going above and beyond. I would never expect him to do that. His playing the game smartly was certainly not worth a zero, and unless he was personally obnoxious and/or cheated, the IG player has definitely shown himself to be the poor sport.

I actually did this in one of my games at the 2004 Boston GT. In round 2 my Dark Angels were up against an Ork army in Patrol. It was VPs, with the L-shaped deployment zones in opposite corners, open terrain, and some stuff in Reserve. It was clear from deployment that I could shoot him up at my leisure and he would never get far enough across the board to do any real damage. I would miss one of the bonus points for getting a unit in his deployment zone at the end, but I was virtually guaranteed the win. My opponent was clearly very unhappy at his luck, so I chose to play semi-aggressively, throwing a Rhino squad and my speeders forward to try to do some more damage and take a shot at grabbing his DZ. He played smart, had good dice, and got the Draw from me. At the end of the tournament I had 3W, 1D, 1L, came in 9th overall, but also won one of the Sportsmanship awards (with all max scores and two fave opponent votes). So I was not unhappy with the outcome, though I might have come out better in the Overall standings had I played the mission to win.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

40kenthusiast — GMT

The marine player got tripped up by a subspecies of your common non-tournament player (henceforth NTP). In a tournament it's just as important to read your enemy as it is to read their list.

Was the IG NTP going to zero out the soft scores of anyone who beats him or just those who beat him without "giving him a chance"? If the former, the marine player played optimally, max BP's is the best you can get out of a sore loser or a spear carrier for another competitive player. If the latter, there was probably a way he could have let the NTP chuck some plastic without endangering his BP's. It usually doesn't cost anything to try and get some soft scores out of a NTP.

Counter assault with an assault squad that the IG player could have used his lances on (but that wasn't enough points to make up for the carnage from the whirlwinds) might have let him feel like he was in it to win it. Seizing on some inconsequential die roll and acting as though it cost the IG player the game might have let him pardner up with the IG player vs. the IG player's dice, saving his soft scores. It might have been necessary to exclaim over the paint/conversions on those Rough Riders, and ask for pointers as to how to improve his own list, lots of NTP's will hold court on their paint skillz given the least opportunity. It might even have been possible to shame him into it, or work sympathize with him about the vile mission objectives which cost the NTP his shot. Talk's cheap, engage your opponent and you might even find yourself enjoying the game more than as repetition #56 of how your optimized list stomp's all over your foe's freak show.

Ultimately the soft scores of your opponents are something you can't control, but they typically represent the opponent's general enjoyment of the game. If they zero you it's likely that they had a bad time. If they aren't having fun you probably weren't either (I know I have a tough time enjoying a game my opponents isn't having any fun at), and that's not why you come to a tournament. Save the optimal blitz for fellow competitive players, and throw the NTP's a bone.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Green Blow Fly — GMT

If you are playing in a tournament you should not expect your opponent to give you a chance to win. I am sure the IG could have done something rather than stand there all game.

G

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

brado — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]In my opinion the SM player made a mistake by misreading the tournament scoring metagame. He might have realised that an easy massacre of the IG would lead to a bad sports score, so he should have given away a few kills to get his sports score jacked up. If he had played more cleverly, he could perhaps have achieved a massacre on the battlefield and top marks in sports as well.[/quote]

Being penalized for trying to win doesn't make sense. That's why I find soft scoring to be extremely lame, aside from painting scores. It can be too objective. If someone is having a bad day and screws you on a sportsmanship score, that is out of your control. On the contrary, some very nice guy might just give someone a very high sports score even if they didn't deserve it.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

40kenthusiast — GMT

I agree with you brado, but at the end of the day soft scores exist. I agree with Killkrazy that it's worth trying to pump up your soft scores so long as it doesn't imperial your BP's, as he puts it, the tournament scoring metagame. If nothing else, questing for higher soft scores means questing for happier opponents, which I think we can all agree is a good thing.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Frazzled — GMT

[quote=Ravenous D]
There really wasnt much the IG player could do, really his options were 1) Spread out 2) Run across the table and get counter assaulted by a superior enemy. Either way it wouldnt have mattered because the marine player was going to get the points for the land speeder units, which I can only guess were 3 units of 2 tornados, sitting at 480pts meaning the marine player would only have to do 800pts of damage over the course of 6 turns to get a massacre in a 1500pt game. If it just ran on a simple win - lose - draw then it was over before it even started.
[/quote]

OK, now of course, as a guard player its always the marine player's fault. I've also been in the circumstance of playing Nids with opposing objectives diagonally across the board and the player doing a similiar shoot and end fo game scoot. In this instance, however, I have to take the side of the marine player. What is the marine player supposed to do exactly? 40K is rock paper scissors and this time the guard player drew scissors to his paper.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

[quote=Green Blow Fly]If you are playing in a tournament you should not expect your opponent to give you a chance to win. I am sure the IG could have done something rather than stand there all game.

G[/quote]

This is a really good point. If the entire Marine army was truly out of LOS, why didn't IG guy move his army up to try to get all of it into the SM DZ? Even if there was enough size three terrain to hide two whirlwinds and 2 Tornados while crossing the entire board, there had to be places to move IG squads to shoot the tornados as they made their move.

I've played a lot of all infantry IG in my day, and there are some things to keep in mind:
1) All infantry IG is even more gimmicky than the SM list. Those who have played against it with an assault army on L shaped deployment zones know that it's basically an autolose. My point? That the IG player probably made somebody feel the same way in round 2.

2) Capturing objectives is a weakness for IG. Recon is the hardest mission in the book for IG to win. Even with all that, there are ways for the IG to hande the mission and at least have a chance. Deep striking vets, infiltrating squads, kroot, or just a horde of conscripts: these will all get men where you need them.

3) I've been in a similar situation. I drew a mechanized eldar player in a recon mission that could only be won through moving scoring units off a board edge, there were no VPs. There was no deep strike, so I simply told the TO and my opponent that there was no need to play the game. It was self evident. I offered to simply add VPs to the mission and play, and the eldar player agreed as did the TO. Yes, I felt like a wuss, but if my opponent played well, there was literally no way I could win. It wasn't a top table, so no big deal. Handling these sorts of things before hand can sometimes be better. Perhaps the mission could be amended, or the terrain not called all size three. In fact, that should be one of the unwritten rules for tournaments: "Discuss anything that bothers you before any dice are rolled."

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Moz — GMT

[quote=40kenthusiast]The marine player got tripped up by a subspecies of your common non-tournament player (henceforth NTP). In a tournament it's just as important to read your enemy as it is to read their list.

Was the IG NTP going to zero out the soft scores of anyone who beats him or just those who beat him without "giving him a chance"? If the former, the marine player played optimally, max BP's is the best you can get out of a sore loser or a spear carrier for another competitive player. If the latter, there was probably a way he could have let the NTP chuck some plastic without endangering his BP's. It usually doesn't cost anything to try and get some soft scores out of a NTP.

Counter assault with an assault squad that the IG player could have used his lances on (but that wasn't enough points to make up for the carnage from the whirlwinds) might have let him feel like he was in it to win it. Seizing on some inconsequential die roll and acting as though it cost the IG player the game might have let him pardner up with the IG player vs. the IG player's dice, saving his soft scores. It might have been necessary to exclaim over the paint/conversions on those Rough Riders, and ask for pointers as to how to improve his own list, lots of NTP's will hold court on their paint skillz given the least opportunity. It might even have been possible to shame him into it, or work sympathize with him about the vile mission objectives which cost the NTP his shot. Talk's cheap, engage your opponent and you might even find yourself enjoying the game more than as repetition #56 of how your optimized list stomp's all over your foe's freak show.

Ultimately the soft scores of your opponents are something you can't control, but they typically represent the opponent's general enjoyment of the game. If they zero you it's likely that they had a bad time. If they aren't having fun you probably weren't either (I know I have a tough time enjoying a game my opponents isn't having any fun at), and that's not why you come to a tournament. Save the optimal blitz for fellow competitive players, and throw the NTP's a bone.[/quote]

This is all so true, it sounds awful and it's too big to sig, but it's true. Especially the 'kid gloves' management techniques for handling the dreaded NTP softscores landmine in a tournament.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Green Blow Fly — GMT

[quote=brado][quote=Kilkrazy]In my opinion the SM player made a mistake by misreading the tournament scoring metagame. He might have realised that an easy massacre of the IG would lead to a bad sports score, so he should have given away a few kills to get his sports score jacked up. If he had played more cleverly, he could perhaps have achieved a massacre on the battlefield and top marks in sports as well.[/quote]

Being penalized for trying to win doesn't make sense. That's why I find soft scoring to be extremely lame, aside from painting scores. It can be too objective. If someone is having a bad day and screws you on a sportsmanship score, that is out of your control. On the contrary, some very nice guy might just give someone a very high sports score even if they didn't deserve it.[/quote]

May I see a copy of the metagame documentation please?

G

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

mattyboy22 — GMT

I agree with 40Ke. The marine player must have had some tac squads in his army, why not have one or two move forward and engage the guard? Especially if they were in a Rhino.
Same if he had an assault squad, move up and engage the Guard. Losing a tac or assault squad wouln't have cost him the game and at least the guard palyer would have got to do something rather then watch his army die.
If you want good soft scores, both people have to enjoy the game and if you can do something to help the other person enjoy the game do it, espeically if it won't cost you any BP's. If you can't, then enjoy bragging to your friends about how you totally kicked someone's butt while whining about how you didn't place because of the crappy soft score system.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Ifurita — GMT

1. In a tournament, a player doesn't owe his opponent a fair chance. The objective is to win, not to play, maintain the initiative, and force the opponent to play your game. The person who does that more effectively wins.

2. However, in a tournament, a player should be looking to maximize points, which includes maximizing both BP's and sportsmanship points. This requires a more complex read of your opponent and then the decision of whether the risk to your BP's is worth the potential risk to your gamesmanship scores.

However, to design an army that is made to sit and shoot and then be vindictive when the other player doesn't play to your army's strengths is plain stupid.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Necros — GMT

IMO...

In the IG player's defense, it is kinda sucky to really not be able to do anything.

In the Marine player's defense, it is even suckier that the IG player didn't seem to wanna adapt any of his tactics to even try.

Building a list to only play 1 way is just wrong. So, the best guard lists are the ones that stand there and shoot. Great. But when you HAVE to move and reposition yourself you should be able to do so without screwing yourself. This is why I keep playing my list with no heavy weapons in the platoons. If I need to get out there and capture an objective I can still do it, and my anti tank and fire support squads can be the ones staying still. Not only that, but you can have some pretty good drop troop units like vets with 3 melta guns to drop in behind the enemy whirlwinds and blow them to tiny bitz. If the guy's gonna spend the whole game hiding behind stuff, then you better do the same and at least get a cover save till the end.

Though, marines playing "defensively" kind of bugs me too though. Just seems unfluffy. You have power armor. Go out there and use it.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Ifurita — GMT

I wonder what kind of sportsmanship score the marine player gave the other guy.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Grignard — GMT

Simple, straightforward answer. Hell no. That is abusive use of soft scores on the IG player's part. In fact, if it were me, I would ding someone on sportsmanship if I felt they WERE giving me an opportunity to win that I didnt earn by outplaying them.

Letting someone win, or "allowing a chance to win" is not sportsmanship, that is throwing a game. Sportsmanship, in my opinion, is treating your opponent with respect and allowing him a fair game. A fair game means you're not cheating...that is his chance to win. Showing your a** by being a sore loser or a cocky winner is poor sportsmanship. Playing to the best of your ability at a tournament and going for nothing short of the win is not poor sportsmanship. To make an analogy to soft score wins, should you intentionally mess up your painting to give less talented artists a chance to "win"? Of course not.

I feel that if you're not bringing your A game to a tourney then you're being condescending to your opponent, or simply a wimp. A friendly game where your trying to teach a beginner is a different matter of course.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

DarthDiggler — GMT

A zero on Sportsmanship should have brought out the tourney organizer to ask why the marine player deserved a zero. If the IG player told me he gave the marine player a zero because the marines hid I would have had two choices based on my mood for the day.

1) Quietly change the soft score of the Marine player.

2) Ask, no tell, the IG player to leave.

I guess we'll never know since I rarely allow subjective sportsmanship scores in tourney's.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Grignard — GMT

[quote=Kilkrazy]In my opinion the SM player made a mistake by misreading the tournament scoring metagame. He might have realised that an easy massacre of the IG would lead to a bad sports score, so he should have given away a few kills to get his sports score jacked up. If he had played more cleverly, he could perhaps have achieved a massacre on the battlefield and top marks in sports as well.[/quote]

Even with what I said I kind of agree with this statement. My problem with the IG player is zeroing out the guy. I really think the most sporting option for the Marine player to make would be to run some guys up the field so the opponent could take out a few guys and save face.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Iorek — GMT

The IG player reminds of me of this:

[img]http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2002/20020422h.gif[/img]

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

ForceVoid — GMT

Lol, nice, Iorek!

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Inquisitor_Malice — GMT

I love this question. It is something that a lot of people have differing opinions. A lot of this depends on perspective.

For me, I work towards having a competitive battle and winning the game, while handling rules questions ammicably, holding myself to be precise on movement, being consistent on dice rolling (ie: handling cocked dice), and various other things to ensure that my opponent has a fair game. I ask for the same from my opponent. That's pretty much all I want and will ask for. If my opponent wants to chat then great. If not then great.

I will inform my opponent of a potential problem that I see will happen just to avoid any conflict (ie: ensuring that they are out of line of site if they are clearly attempting to be, etc). However, I will not help them on every aspect of the game. Otherwise, I would just be playing a game against myself, which I did not pay $300 to $800 to do. Now, depending on the player, I will help coach them. But that is typically after a battle to provide constructive advise.

As far as this IG player, I call BS for not being able to do anything. I also call BS to the supporters on here for him. The IG player had options for every situation in the game. He could have maneuvered to force his opponents hand. Two whirlwinds and some landspeeders should not hold up an IG force. The IG player chose the poorest options available and thus suffered the consequence. The IG player's failure to act should not translate into a bad sportsmanship score his opponent.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

pombe — GMT

The IG player is a sore loser.

I'm all for fun and friendly games, but not at the expense of my opponent playing like a moron.

The SM player did EXACTLY the right thing: he saw the matchup, the objective, and the terrain, and took the course of action to maximize any advantage that he had. Now, that's exactly how I would want my opponent to play.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

The more I thought about this, the more I realized that it raises some interesting questions about the difference between tournament games and casual games. Many posters here see very little, if any difference. Others see all tournament games as being ruled by two simple precepts: no cheating and no whining.

At first, the IG player seemed like a sore loser, using the soft scores to punish the SM player when all the SM player did was play a smart game to win based on the mission. In posts above I pointed out ways the IG player may have erred, and how the mission may not have been as unwinnable as he at first though, and how at the end of the day he had a fundamentally flawed list. I stand by this, and I re-iterate my policy that any person that dings sports after a bad loss in which his opponent was polite, not cheating, and at least tried to be fun is a bad sport himself.

As time passed, I began to do what I always do, which is try to figure out more of the story. We have a very limited set of facts here. We don't know the composition of either army outside of broad strokes. We don't know the exact mission, the nature of the terrain. We also don't know when and where in a tournament this was. Was it first round, with both players looking to win? Was it top table in round 3 with prizes on the line? Or was it a low table, with both players playing for pride?

Absent more facts, sometimes it's dangerous to assume that a person was reacting irrationally or wrongly. I began to wonder if there could be a way in which the IG player was, if not corect to ding sports, at least had a colorable claim. I came up with the following scenario: Assume both players had a win and a loss, and there was little chance either would win any prizes outside of soft scores. Its the last round of a local RTT with a small entry fee and no big prizes. Now, we know the SM player could keep his entire army out of LOS the entire game. That seemed odd, but what if the SM player aggresivly argued for more LOS blocking terrain before the game. What if they didn't talk about terrain (because they were tired), and the SM player insisted that all of his terrain blocked LOS after picking sides, or even once shooting began. It's not hard with those 1" hills to claim they are Size 2. What if the SM player was a local and the IG guy from out of town, and the judge simply agreed with the SM player? Under those circumstances, I began to see the IG player increasingly frustrated and upset. Sure, he brought a weak list and played crappy, but if the match up, the mission, and the terrain were all weighted against him, he might just play lousy.

This is all speculation, and like most cases the truth lies probably somewhere in between teh IG player being a buffon and the SM player being a tool. What this did raise for me is the question the OP presented: do you owe your opponent a chance to win? To spin it another way, should you keep your foot on the gas at all times, or are there times when you can let up a little?

I don't think there is one clear answer. I think a simple division of "fun games are for fun, competitive games are about competition" works pretty well, but there are gaping holes in it. Games of 40k are a lot like sex: if both people have similar expectations it is often great. If the parties have different or contradictory expectations, there is going to be a lot of friction. The worst 40k experiences are always between somebody playing balls out and somebody playing simply for fun. The answer to our dilemma, of course, lay in communication. If the IG palyer wanted to play a fun cool down game for funsies, he should have told his oppoenent. Its the same way when a competitive gamer is tuning his Gt list: he wants a competitve game, so he tells people that.

The answer to the OP is thus no, I don't owe my opponent a chance to win. I owe my opponent a willingness to tell him how I want to play, and a willingness to try to accomodate how he wants to play. I'd keep in mind at all times that all tournament games have a presumption of competition, while all pick up games have a presumption of casual play. I would keep in mind context, and be more willing to play soft when sitting a 0-2 then I would at 2-0. Most of all, I owe my opponent an honest game, one in which I neither cheat nor shave points, and try to win while helping him have fun.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

dietrich — GMT

In a tourney, I don't owe my opponent a chance to win. I owe it to myself to play the hardest, toughest game that I can manage. If that rolls him off the board, so be it, because last round, I probably got smoked.

To me sportsmanship is - did he measure distance accurately, was he rolling dice (that I could read) and consistently re-rolling cocked dice, etc. If he was a great guy, that's bonus, but my expectation is: was it a legal army list and did he play by the rules are fairly (none of the "no, you can't see me." "You shot me last round." "Oh, yeah, well, then I guess you can maybe see me....").

The IG player is sour grapes. So, when you're standing still, getting shot by indirect fire, should you - continue to stand still and let them keep shooting you?

I'm going to assume this guy was relatively inexperienced, at least at tourney play, because most of my lists involve "something to go get the IG's basilisk hiding in his corner out of LOS." Indirect fire is less common now (Orks lost the bassie, Defiler lost indirect), but it still exists.

At a tourney a month or so ago (and a great one in Cincinnati, the CAG Con), my last round was me (drop-pod SW) vs. Eldar (with 3 wave serpents and like 3-5 vypers) in the 'get in the other DZ' mission. Now, I could have mailed it in, and just given up. I pulled a minor win by playing aggressive. First two turns, he runs up the board. I pod a few units that come in early, near him, shoot him up, take down his warwalkers, farseer, Maugna Ra, a wraithlord, and a few vypers. My late arriving units land in my DZ to hold it. And it worked. It was a horrible matchup for me, but because I actually used some tactics and tried to do something, I pulled out a minor win.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

biztheclown — GMT

I would call that a blatant abuse of soft scores, and the reason I generally refuse to take soft scores at all seriously. To the extent that they are useful, soft scores are there to balance the human element (cheating, obnoxious behavior, game preparedness, hygiene), not a referendum on game tactics.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Frazzled — GMT

I wonder, what would this guard player have done against a fellow IG player, jacked up with three indirect firing basilisks? isn't that the same thing?

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Grignard — GMT

Incidentally, I think that if you are planning to play hardcore, especially at your FLGS, you need to make that clear. Generally in friendly games I'm not going to jump all over someone for minor little things, like calling assault phase and then remembering they wanted to shoot with one more unit. I expect most games to be less intense than a large tourney, or something similar.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Janthkin — GMT

[quote=General Hobbs]I watched a tournament game recently and here is what happened:

Shooty guard with rough riders and lots of heavy weapons vs Marines with 2 whirlwinds.Mission was recon, marine player also had several land speeders.

Shooty guard play deployed in the center of his zone, Marine player hid his army behind terrain.

Marine player used his whirlwinds to destroy enemy units, and at the end of the game he zipped out his speeders to get into the enemy deployment zone, and got the win.

The Guard player gave him a 0 on sportsmanship. His reason? A. The Marine player did not give him a chance to win by hiding behind terrain. B. It wasn't a fun game for him and C. That was a wank way to win a game.

He further went on about how 40K ( even in a competitive) setting is about 2 players having fun playing the game, and the way the Marine player played, he couldn't do anything.
[/quote]

Many comments, and no one has asked for the missing datapoint yet -

What did the tournament rules say on how to score sportsmanship?

I have been to tournaments where reason "B" is all that is necessary to justify a low or zero sports score.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Belphegor — GMT

You can't give someone a fair chance.
If it was given, they never had a chance to begin with.

my one ¢ent opinion

oh, and using soft scores to punish players that you lost to is poor form
poor use of meta game
like putting laxative in someones drink when they're not looking and then calling for a match-stall when they're in the potty

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Le Grognard — GMT

It's a tournament. People go to compete. Compete to win. If you lose and dogball someone, you should be tossed out of the nearest airlock you lousy frak. The tournament scene is a cruel mistress and not for the weak.

I don't play in tournaments.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

winterman — GMT

[quote]What did the tournament rules say on how to score sportsmanship?[/quote]

Yeah, I'd have to see how the sports score sheet was setup.

Agree with Red Beard too, triple objectives are the best way to give both players a decent game regardless of matchups.

By the sounds of it this was more the organizers fault then anyones. In a tournament, it is as much or more the TOs responsibility to ensure a fun game for all then each others opponents.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

quietus86 — GMT

I find the zero injuist ok that you don't give him a really high score but a is unresenbal to give him a zero if you lose.
you are supposed to try and win as best as you can.
if you can't take a massacre than don't do competition.
oke I em youst to losing to massacres even in fun games ( over fluff my army when its for fun ::d but than I don't care that I lose I still had fun) but it a tactic like a other.
I woud like to enter a competition one's I will be out after the first round but its good for some experians.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Boss GreenNutz — GMT

3 words for the IG player. Drop Troops Doctrine. It isn't the fault of the SM player that the IG player brought a static gunline army. What would he have done if the table had little to no terrain? Would he have not fired his Lascannons at the Whirlwinds and Speeders since that would destroy them and give him a win? I seriously doubt it. I've been on the recieving end of low SPortsmanship scores before due to the fact my Wych Cult beat a SM army. His reason. "There is no way Dark Eldar should be able to beat my army so there must have been something wrong with how you played."

When playing a weekend pickup game against someone who is inexperienced, I'll move units that I know will get pasted just to give the new kid some teaching points. If it is another Vet or a rules lawyer, I won't be so kind.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Frazzled — GMT

I have a better one Boss GreenNutz. Massed Artillery Barrage.

If anyone is complaining it should be the marine when you drop three basi templates a
turn...

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Phoenix — GMT

Just to go to an extreme here, if you are playing to win and you feel no compulsion to give your opponent a chance, wouldn’t soft scores just be another means to that end? If you are looking to take the top spot in a tournament, it would seem that tanking the soft scores of others would be an effective (and bastardly) way to accomplish that. So really, where do you draw the line?

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Aduro — GMT

I've gone easy on new players and such, moving things to where they've got a shot at taking it down and what have you. In a tournament? Forget that, they're toast.

I've played games where I lost horribly bad, and I make it a point to have fun with it. Even in a tournament I can be wiped to a man and laugh at it.

The problem stated by the OP is why I hate numerical sportsmanship scores. There's just so many ways they can go wrong. In the tournament I'm running next month, I'm going to go with a system of simply voting for your favorite opponent that you faced.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

General Hobbs — GMT

First, I want to thank everyone who has replied! This has been a great discussion....lots of opinions, and yet, it has not devolved into any kind of arguements! Huzzah!

Just to add some info....the rules were standard RTT, standard Recon mission.

Of the two players, the Marine player routinely wins Best Sportsman in tournaments, having done so with Marines, Wolves, Templars and Wood Elves!

The IG player is a more competitive player who is used to winning Overalls and Best Generals.

Both are normally great guys.

Just an addendum...the IG firmly believes you play the game for fun. When I say he is the more competitive player, it is a reflection on his ability as a player, not on his nature.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

gorgon — GMT

I don't think people would describe me as a WAAC player, but IMO (based on the info available) the IG player was mistaken. At what point and to what degree is someone responsible for giving their opponent "a chance to win"? Down that way lies madness.

I agree that the player must have been a NTP because nearly everyone who's participated in even a few tournaments has had one game in which it's an uphill climb for their army. It just happens.

EDIT: Just read Hobbs' most recent post. That might put a different spin on things regarding the IG player.

As others have pointed out, when on the other side of that situation, there are things you can do to try to make it as ungrating of an experience as possible. And that's not because you're chasing points, it's because we've all been in sucky, unfun games and an opponent that's classy, friendly and understanding helps get those games over with as quickly as possible.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

mattyboy22 — GMT

Honestly, if the IG player regularly wins Best General and Overall, he should know better then to bring the list he used to a RTT.

It [i]seems[/i] like the IG player, if he really deos regularly win Overall and BG is TFG that acts super nice to you when you play but if you beat him badly, you are getting tanked on soft scores while he acts all chipper to ensure good scores for himself. Just my opinion based on the info provided....

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Kilkrazy — GMT

[quote=Phoenix]Just to go to an extreme here, if you are playing to win and you feel no compulsion to give your opponent a chance, wouldn’t soft scores just be another means to that end? If you are looking to take the top spot in a tournament, it would seem that tanking the soft scores of others would be an effective (and bastardly) way to accomplish that. So really, where do you draw the line?[/quote]

Interesting point. The line is drawn according to the individual player's conscience. There's no doubt that people do use soft scores strategically -- that is why there are three layers of game at tournaments. (Yet another reason in my opinion for dropping them.)

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

@ Phoenix: I don't think it's too hard to draw the line. Playing even when the opponent has little (or no) ability to win is still a good faith effort to play in the rules. Tanking soft scores beyond what is deserved is against the rules and in bad faith. I'd argue it's no more justifiable then any other form of cheating. Taking advantage of a bad situation for your opponent is playing to win, while tanking scores is deceiving to win.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Phoenix — GMT

[quote=Polonius]@ Phoenix: I don't think it's too hard to draw the line. Playing even when the opponent has little (or no) ability to win is still a good faith effort to play in the rules. Tanking soft scores beyond what is deserved is against the rules and in bad faith. I'd argue it's no more justifiable then any other form of cheating. Taking advantage of a bad situation for your opponent is playing to win, while tanking scores is deceiving to win.[/quote]

While you and I obviously see where the line is, others may not, and others yet just chose to ignore it. That's why I think doing soft scores on a more concrete system is a much better idea. Filling out yes/no questions (many of which are varifiable) is better than a sliding 0-10 scale or something like that. I'd like to see things like this:

1) Did your opponent arive on time? Yes / No
2) Did your opponent have the necessary materials (rule book, codex, tape measure, dice, templates, etc.) Yes / No
3) Did you have fun playing your opponent? Yes / No
4) Did you avoid having excessive rule debates with your opponent? Yes / No
5) Was your opponent's army painted to a reasonable standard (3 colors, all pieces glued on, etc.)? Yes / No
6) Was your opponent's army painted to a high standard (shading, detailing, well based, etc.)? Yes / No

And give 1 point (or more depending on how the scoring system works) for each. If anyone shows up with no's for everything, they can pull out their painted army and game materials (if nothing else) and prove that their opponent was lieing. It also still allows for some subjectiveness in the fun question and to a degree in the rule debate question but it cuts down on abuse a lot.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

JohnHwangDD — GMT

Seems like a lot of supposition about the IG player.

If the IG guy really had a crappy time of it, one of the worst games he's experienced, then yeah, he should give a zero if Sports is purely subjective. Only if Sports is a checkbox or has more concrete guidelines, then he crossed the line.

Again, 40k has a rule at the beginning of the book, The Most Important Rule - to have fun. And in the tournament, this is regulated via the Sports score (and Comp / Paint scores).

Given that the IG player only tanked the Sports, you can assume he was OK with the Comp and Paint, but just didn't have a lot of fun.

And as for the supposition that IG were built narrowly, at this point, there are only 2 playable builds: Drop Troops or else stand-and-deliver countercharge. Stand-and-deliver is much more of a tactical army, with more of a challenge to play, especially with the Rough Riders. So you really can't fault him for his army choices.

Aside from the IG player not taking yet another Spase Marinz army. Hurr!

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

Hey, I agree that soft scores can be improved, and I figured you were playing devil's advocate.

Like I argued in an earlier post, I could see a situation where the IG player could have a decent argument for zeroing the SM player. Given the info from the OP, it's clear that the IG player was simply TFG.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

JohnHwangDD — GMT

Instead of picking on the IG player, we should be picking on the TOs. The TOs screwed up the most by having:
1. fixed turn length to allow speeders to grap last-turn Objectives
2. allowing vehicles to Score
3. allowing non-Troops to Score
4. scoring VPs instead of Objectives
5. scoring VPs instead of KPs

In short, the fundamental problem is that they weren't playing 5th Edition!

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

[quote=JohnHwangDD]Seems like a lot of supposition about the IG player.

If the IG guy really had a crappy time of it, one of the worst games he's experienced, then yeah, he should give a zero if Sports is purely subjective. Only if Sports is a checkbox or has more concrete guidelines, then he crossed the line.

Again, 40k has a rule at the beginning of the book, The Most Important Rule - to have fun. And in the tournament, this is regulated via the Sports score (and Comp / Paint scores).

Given that the IG player only tanked the Sports, you can assume he was OK with the Comp and Paint, but just didn't have a lot of fun.

And as for the supposition that IG were built narrowly, at this point, there are only 2 playable builds: Drop Troops or else stand-and-deliver countercharge. Stand-and-deliver is much more of a tactical army, with more of a challenge to play, especially with the Rough Riders. So you really can't fault him for his army choices.

Aside from the IG player not taking yet another Spase Marinz army. Hurr!
[/quote]

Here's the problem with that argument. The Most Important rule goes into pretty decent depth about treating your opponent with respect. Sure, it mentions the need to have an exciting game, but from what we've all seen it seems like the IG player didn't exactly help himself.

It's incredibly important to remember that your views on how tournaments should exist (celebrations of the hobby emphasizing a good time by all, with some weight placed on results) is a minority view, no matter how laudable. Based on the info, the IG guy wasn't complaining that he had a bad time, he was complaining that he lost. I'm all for the Most Important Rule, the Golden Rule, and I strive to treat all people and all opponents with respect. Expecting an opponent to throw a game, or shave points, or to somehow play at less than his ability is not a request to be respected or provided a fun game. It's a demand for a handicap or boost, and that's not a function of sports, particularly if the IG player didn't mention it previously. If the IG player agreed to the terrain classification and brought an RTT as a tourny vet, then he should know that sometimes bad beats happen.

Finally, I play IG, as do several others here, including yourself. 4th edition has been out for 4 years, and with it the importance on objective taking, hence mobility. To bring an army to a tournament that doesn't include any mobility of any sort is a gamble, and one that the IG player lost.

Even in a tournament ran to your specs, I'm not sure this player was justified. Demanding an edge isn't asking to play fair and fun, it's a petulent demand that smacks of entitlment and selfishness.

Re:Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

skyth — GMT

[quote=JohnHwangDD]Instead of picking on the IG player, we should be picking on the TOs. The TOs screwed up the most by having:
1. fixed turn length to allow speeders to grap last-turn Objectives
2. allowing vehicles to Score
3. allowing non-Troops to Score
4. scoring VPs instead of Objectives
5. scoring VPs instead of KPs[/quote]

Sure, if they wanted to have boring games with only boring armies winning.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

JohnHwangDD — GMT

[quote=Polonius][quote=JohnHwangDD]If the IG guy really had a crappy time of it, one of the worst games he's experienced, then yeah, he should give a zero if Sports is purely subjective. [/quote]
The Most Important rule goes into pretty decent depth about treating your opponent with respect.

It's incredibly important to remember that your views on how tournaments should exist (celebrations of the hobby emphasizing a good time by all, with some weight placed on results) is a minority view, no matter how laudable. Based on the info, the IG guy wasn't complaining that he had a bad time, he was complaining that he lost.

Expecting an opponent to throw a game, or shave points, or to somehow play at less than his ability is not a request to be respected or provided a fun game.

Finally, I play IG, as do several others here, including yourself.

Even in a tournament ran to your specs, I'm not sure this player was justified. Demanding an edge isn't asking to play fair and fun, it's a petulent demand that smacks of entitlment and selfishness.[/quote]
Without the IG player here to speak, your supposed motivations are perhaps unfair.

And treating your opponent with respect is ultimately subjective. But in no way is summarily dispatching your opponent construable as "fun" or necessarily respectful.

I am fully aware that the no-sports WAAC crowd is in the majority, which is why I don't do RTTs.

But I wouldn't say that the problem was that the IG player lost, one can just as easily conclude that it's an issue with *how* he lost. Of course, without the IG player here, it's hard to speak definitively as to his complaint.

I don't see anything wrong with shaving a few points or pulling a few punches in order to ensure that the game remains "fun". When it's obvious to both players that you can win without much effort, due to the scenario and army matchup, is it *really* necessary to grind away without letting the opponent play at all? Is it *really* necessary to play for Massacre instead of a strong Minor Victory? Or is it more fun for both players to allow the opponent to at least play a bit?

That is, I've taken what would have been a sure win game and deliberately adjusted my play mid-game just to keep things interesting. Could I have ground away? Sure. But at that rate, my opponent would have done better to simply pack up and spend the time watching other, more interesting games. Or let me finish the game solitaire. Instead, we had a great time.

Again, I don't think the IG player was demanding an edge. Just a chance to play.

But as above, perhaps everybody should just play Marines? At least it'd prevent most of the mismatches that lead to hard feelings.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

Here's the thing: the marine player didn't obliterate the IG player, at least I'm assuming he didn't with two whirlwinds as his only shooting. I'mg guesssing he nibbled away and grabbed the recon bonus points for a narrow win. You could make the argument that any other tactic (trying to outshoot the IG or advancing with shooting squads) would result in a large loss for the SM player, so he tried to win the only way it was possible: playing the mission and playing smart. I don't believe it was a case of piling on, massacering or anything. It was a matter of winning a certain way. I may be wrong in my read of the situation, but I don't think the IG player was summarily dispatched.

I guess I think it's naive to think that if the SM player had allowed the IG player to kill a few of his units it would suddenly be a fun and fulfilling game for teh IG player.

As for the motivations of the IG player, lets look at the facts we have: He's a tournament player, used to winning or getting best general. He took a heavy weapon based army. He is, it's safe to say, a pretty savvy gamer. Why is this important? Because he knows how teh game is played. He knows what types of missions are possible at a tournament, and he has the abilty to build and feild competive armies. So, yes, I think if a skilled player using his own army is asking his opponent to pull punches or play differently, he's asking for a handicap.

As I've said above, there are certainly circumstances that would make tanking the SM player's scores reasoanble. I'm arging this isn't one of them.

Please don't try to paint those that disagree with your view of tournament as "WAAC, no-sports" types. I don't mind sports, I don't think WAAC is the healthiest attitude for the hobby. You've made it clear that your view of tournaments is that winning a game should be a secondary or even tertiary concern, and rank behind ensuring yoru opponents have a good time. That's where you differ. Most of the poster here, and at tournies, like to win games, but they also have fun losing good games. Having fun is important, and the way a lot of people have fun is to play to win against other people playing to win. Now, you know that having been posting here, so please don't fall back on fairly tired cliches about the tournament scene.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

lambadomy — GMT

This is, of course, why soft scores with no tight rules or "check the box, get a point" type system suck. I think this is well established.

The IG player is in the wrong. So, he knows the missions are from the book, but takes an army that is so immobile it has difficulty with most of them and recon is impossible. Strike one.

he brought no tool at all to even attempt to deal with indirect fire. Really? he's a guard player so he must know it exists. Maybe no one there ever uses it. Strike two.

He complained not because he lost, but because his opponent did not purposefully do something dumb (expose himself to absurd firepower that can't do anythign else). This is insane even without soft scores. My army does X and only X...so you better give me a chance to do it! Strike three.

I'm not sure what the marine player had other than the whirlwinds and speeders, but if the guard player spread out across the board he should have at least had a chance to prevent the speeders from getting through his lines. Strategically, he could have at least played for a tie that way (how bad are two whirlwinds really going to hurt 100 guardsmen spread out in two lines across the board...going to take some lucky hole busting on turn 6 or just a lot of dead guard)

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Janthkin — GMT

[quote=Polonius]Here's the thing: the marine player didn't obliterate the IG player, at least I'm assuming he didn't with two whirlwinds as his only shooting. I'mg guesssing he nibbled away and grabbed the recon bonus points for a narrow win. You could make the argument that any other tactic (trying to outshoot the IG or advancing with shooting squads) would result in a large loss for the SM player, so he tried to win the only way it was possible: playing the mission and playing smart. I don't believe it was a case of piling on, massacering or anything. It was a matter of winning a certain way. I may be wrong in my read of the situation, but I don't think the IG player was summarily dispatched.

I guess I think it's naive to think that if the SM player had allowed the IG player to kill a few of his units it would suddenly be a fun and fulfilling game for teh IG player.

As for the motivations of the IG player, lets look at the facts we have: He's a tournament player, used to winning or getting best general. He took a heavy weapon based army. He is, it's safe to say, a pretty savvy gamer. Why is this important? Because he knows how teh game is played. He knows what types of missions are possible at a tournament, and he has the abilty to build and feild competive armies. So, yes, I think if a skilled player using his own army is asking his opponent to pull punches or play differently, he's asking for a handicap.

As I've said above, there are certainly circumstances that would make tanking the SM player's scores reasoanble. I'm arging this isn't one of them.

Please don't try to paint those that disagree with your view of tournament as "WAAC, no-sports" types. I don't mind sports, I don't think WAAC is the healthiest attitude for the hobby. You've made it clear that your view of tournaments is that winning a game should be a secondary or even tertiary concern, and rank behind ensuring yoru opponents have a good time. That's where you differ. Most of the poster here, and at tournies, like to win games, but they also have fun losing good games. Having fun is important, and the way a lot of people have fun is to play to win against other people playing to win. Now, you know that having been posting here, so please don't fall back on fairly tired cliches about the tournament scene.[/quote]

I've essentially thrown tournament games, when in contention for a respectable finish, because my only "winning" option was to play the game in a manner neither I nor my opponent would enjoy. Contrariwise, I've been wiped to a man in a complete mismatch, and enjoyed the game immensely. And I've had extremely tactical games, win and lose, against players who may as well be automated dice machines.

I give sportsmanship scores according to the game. If the IG player here was doing the same, and had zero fun in the game, then the sportsmanship score seems to be working as intended - an indicator of the enjoyment you derived from playing the game.

Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?

*Of course, this all presumes purely subjective scoring. Objective factors only serve to reduce the subjective elements.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

Well, there are plenty of things about this story that smell funny. How much terrain was there that an entire SM army could hide for six turns? Did the IG player even try to move into better firing positions? Was the terrain pre-fixed or determined by the players, and if the latter, did the IG player agree with what was decided? How did the IG player claim objectives in the other missions?

I'm willing to bet the IG player feels bad now about what happened, if he's a good guy. I'd chalk it up to frustration over the mission and not playing better.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Polonius — GMT

[quote=Janthkin]
Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?

*Of course, this all presumes purely subjective scoring. Objective factors only serve to reduce the subjective elements.
[/quote]

Would you say Sports reflects if you would play that game again, or that player again? There are games I've had with my best friends that I wouldn't play again, but I'd play the player again.

I guess I just find it a little disturbing to gauge sportsmanship not on if a player is polite and fair and well organized and consistent, but if they use tactics that aren't "fun." I think it's a fine and noble and necessary goal to make games fun for both players. What worries me is that such a system allows a person to define fun as "winning a game using my preset tactics." If the matchup was simply bad, it was bad, and I'm not sure holding the opponent responsible for a bad beat is fair.

I guess your point is that both players deserve a poor sportsmanship score, but that seems unsatisfying to me somehow. And while nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score, I feel that I shouldn't be penalized because I won a game. If I

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

lambadomy — GMT

Janthkin, I don't get that attitude at all. If the IG player was boned by the mission and his poor choice of army, why does he get to take it out on the other player? "I didn't have fun because this mission sucks for my army, and you exploited that fact - 0 sportsmanship". In a tournament, it's not the opponent's job to make game moves that help you have fun, it's his job to be a nice person and a good sport and play to win.

The only legit complaint I can see this guy having is the terrain being ridiculous if the guy was actually able to hide a whole marine army successfully.

Some people only have fun if they win. Does that mean they can give 0's in sportsmanship if they lose?

This guy didn't have fun not because of the SM players smart tactics - he didn't have fun because of the mission. Saying "would I want to play this game again" is strange to me. Some missions suck for some armies, and some armies suck at more missions than others. Of course the guy is never going to want to play recon again - against pretty much anyone, unless the board is empty of terrain.

If my opponent is smart, and I suffer and lose because of my army and the mission, I may not have a great time, but that is far from my opponents fault. If my opponent makes stupid decisions only to give me a chance I don't deserve, thats not good sportsmanship, thats charity and makes the game no fun either.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

insaniak — GMT

[quote=JohnHwangDD]But as above, perhaps everybody should just play Marines? At least it'd prevent most of the mismatches that lead to hard feelings. [/quote]

I'm not seeing how the armies in question here make any difference to the issue.

If simply taking weapons in your list that don't need LOS is the criteria for 0 sports scores, Marines aren't the only army that'll be getting 0s.

If you have a shooty army, and your opponent has a shooty army, and both of you set up out of sight of each other, which of you is in the wrong when neither of you move out into your opponent's field of fire?

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

quietus86 — GMT

[quote=JohnHwangDD]

But as above, perhaps everybody should just play Marines? At least it'd prevent most of the mismatches that lead to hard feelings. [/quote]

I play mariens and I lose most of the time's. I still wane enter a turnement but I em going to go whit the tout that I will lose most of my games if not al.

and if you realy wane play for fun g o to campain weekends play campains.

Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?

but there is somting about giving lpayers a 10 or a 0 in dear to.
oke that he scors tha game low but a 0 is compleetly on resnebal.
I don't realy ever se a reson to give a player a 0 for sportmanship if he isent a compleet ass.
and its bin sad that ge won beslt player a fuw time's so I dowt that ha is a compleet ass.
but like thay sad de IG player most feel like a ass for giving that now.
( I woude )

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

Ifurita — GMT

For all we know, the SM player was a perfectly good sport. He just refused to make tactically stupid decisions when he didn't have to. The IG player should take responsibility for his actions or inactions as it were and suck it up. Being a good sport shouldn't mean you have to make dumb moves.

Do you have to give your opponent a chance to win? Opinions!

quietus86 — GMT

[quote=Ifurita]For all we know, the SM player was a perfectly good sport. He just refused to make tactically stupid decisions when he didn't have to. The IG player should take responsibility for his actions or inactions as it were and suck it up. Being a good sport should mean you have to make dumb moves.[/quote]

I have to agree with this