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 spank 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?

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).

IG player is a sore loser. Simple as that.

General Hobbs wrote:His reason? A. The Marine player did not give him a chance to win by hiding behind terrain.

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 did.

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)

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

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

The problem here isn't that the SM player didn't give the 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.

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.

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

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.

General Hobbs wrote: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?

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.

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.

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.

Chimera_Calvin wrote: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.

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".

Sore losers. Nuff said.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'

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.

Ravenous D wrote: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.

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?

Ravenous D wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

insaniak wrote: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.

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

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.

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.

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

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

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.

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.

Ravenous D wrote:
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.

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.

Green Blow Fly wrote: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

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."

40kenthusiast wrote: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.

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.

brado wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

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.

May I see a copy of the metagame documentation please?

G

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

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.

The IG player reminds of me of this:

Lol, nice, Iorek!

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.

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.

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 the 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

General Hobbs wrote: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 spank 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 seems 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....

Phoenix wrote: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?

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.)

@ 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.

Polonius wrote:@ 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.

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.

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!

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.

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!

JohnHwangDD wrote: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!

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.

JohnHwangDD wrote: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

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

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: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.

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.

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.

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 the 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 the 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.

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)

Polonius wrote: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 the 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 the 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.

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.

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.

Janthkin wrote:
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.

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

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.

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

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?

JohnHwangDD wrote:


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

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 )

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.

Ifurita wrote: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.

I have to agree with this

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 )

edit: let's be more considerate. -grey_death

But as for the IG player being 'Gipped' therefore scoring his enemy '0' on the S/manship....

Outrageous. That is the best way to get kicked out of a Gaming Club. He beat his @$$ with superior Tactics and he marked him down thw only way he could?

Cheating. Cut and dried.

(This post edited once to make spellig mestakes)

akira5665 wrote:

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 )

I wood to.

I am sthil tryiing to unnerstan yur poost theree Bud.

But as for the IG player being 'Gipped' therefore scoring his enemy '0' on the S/manship....

Outrageous. That is the best way to get kicked out of a Gaming Club. He beat his @$$ with superior Tactics and he marked him down thw only way he could?

Cheating. Cut and dried.

(This post edited once to make spellig mestakes)

Not cool, bro. Read the fine print in his sig.

Phoenix wrote: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?

Exactly.

Where does acceptable conduct turn into un-acceptable conduct? Just on many of the opinions of people here it seems that a win at all costs attitude is common, so out of curiousity sake I've compile a list of "game winning tactics", some call them smart, some call them dastardly, the point is everyone does it or has done it at one time or another, I'll leave it you guys to deem if its acceptable or unacceptable:

1) The spring: The tournament is 1500pts and has 3 simple fields win, lose and draw, and every mission uses VPs, you are going against another shooting army in a mission that has no other objectives then to kill your opponent (so you only need a difference of 151vps to win), and you elect to go second. Your nidzilla (or mobile firing army) decides to sit back behind LOS blocking terrian until the end of turn 6 where you spring out of your cover and fire at everything you can (specifically tanks) and you score 200vps winning the game.

2) Loaded dice: Even cheating is a game winning tactic.

3) The dumb guy: Play dumb and question every rule, and force your opponent to roll off on every arguement, 50% of the time you get your way, the other 50% the game goes as normal.

4) The sloth: You play a horde army and you know that after turn 4 things generally dont look good for you, so you drag out your turns to deny your opponent 2 or more turns winning you the game. Another variant is "the crapper" where you take a 30 minute bathroom break just after set up to delay the game.

5) Tanking: You bomb your opponents soft scores, which drops him 5 to 10 ranks overall costing him any hope of winning with just 1 game.

6) The Cheese list: After all, tactics start at the list building, why should optomizing your list be any different then in game tactics?

7) The perfect score: You give your opponent perfect scores and you make sure that he sees it, win or lose your opponent decides to offer you the same back since he has already seen it and has no worry of losing points.

8) The drawback: You go against a slow army like nurgle daemons and you lead him around the table with your mobile force not letting him be able to assault you, forcing your opponent to do nothing all game.

9) Inch adding: Measuring front to back, adding an inch here and there.

10) Mob dice: You roll a bucket full of dice and you only hit on 4s, you pick up a couple 3s here and there, this is assisted by "blurry dice" where it is hard to see the pips.

11) Manipulation: Dice manipulation is fully possible, there are certian ways to hold and drop the dice that will ensure the results you want on much higher then average basis.

12) Single roller: You take terminator saves one at a time, this can be done in combination with the other "tactics"

13) 2 dice twin linked: Rolling 2 dice for a twin linked lascannon say acceptable? Well do you roll 8 dice for a twinliked scatter laser? Believe it or not it does make a difference.

14) Friends: You play your friends and give each other max scores and vote for each other for best sport. Another variant is "The judge" you know the judge so you call him over and force your house rules on out-of-towners.

Really thats all that comes to mind right now.

Ravenous D wrote:1) The spring: The tournament is 1500pts and has 3 simple fields win, lose and draw, and every mission uses VPs, you are going against another shooting army in a mission that has no other objectives then to kill your opponent (so you only need a difference of 151vps to win), and you elect to go second. Your nidzilla (or mobile firing army) decides to sit back behind LOS blocking terrian until the end of turn 6 where you spring out of your cover and fire at everything you can (specifically tanks) and you score 200vps winning the game.

And while you're sitting huddled behind terrain for the entire game, what's your opponent doing...?

Other than marking you with a 0 on sports because he neglected to add mobile units to his own list...

2) Loaded dice: Even cheating is a game winning tactic.

No it's not.

Particularly if entering the tournament includes an agreement to abide by the rules.

3) The dumb guy: Play dumb and question every rule, and force your opponent to roll off on every arguement, 50% of the time you get your way, the other 50% the game goes as normal.

So 'cheating' under a different name, then.

4) The sloth: You play a horde army and you know that after turn 4 things generally dont look good for you, so you drag out your turns to deny your opponent 2 or more turns winning you the game. Another variant is "the crapper" where you take a 30 minute bathroom break just after set up to delay the game.

These would be sorted by any decent tournament package. The first should result in your opponent calling over a judge, who hurries you up. The second results in your opponent calling over a judge and you forfeiting the game when you're not back in a reasonable time.

5) Tanking: You bomb your opponents soft scores, which drops him 5 to 10 ranks overall costing him any hope of winning with just 1 game.

Exactly why soft scores don't belong as a part of working out who actually wins the tournament.

And still verging on cheating, in my book.

6) The Cheese list: After all, tactics start at the list building, why should optomizing your list be any different then in game tactics?

Why wouldn't you optimise your list for a competitive game?

7) The perfect score: You give your opponent perfect scores and you make sure that he sees it, win or lose your opponent decides to offer you the same back since he has already seen it and has no worry of losing points.

See 5.

8) The drawback: You go against a slow army like nurgle daemons and you lead him around the table with your mobile force not letting him be able to assault you, forcing your opponent to do nothing all game.

See 1.

9) Inch adding: Measuring front to back, adding an inch here and there.

How many times are you going to add 'cheating' to this list?

10) Mob dice: You roll a bucket full of dice and you only hit on 4s, you pick up a couple 3s here and there, this is assisted by "blurry dice" where it is hard to see the pips.

And again...

11) Manipulation: Dice manipulation is fully possible, there are certian ways to hold and drop the dice that will ensure the results you want on much higher then average basis.

...sigh...

12) Single roller: You take terminator saves one at a time, this can be done in combination with the other "tactics"

...and...?

13) 2 dice twin linked: Rolling 2 dice for a twin linked lascannon say acceptable? Well do you roll 8 dice for a twinliked scatter laser? Believe it or not it does make a difference.

Cheating again.

14) Friends: You play your friends and give each other max scores and vote for each other for best sport. Another variant is "The judge" you know the judge so you call him over and force your house rules on out-of-towners.

See 5.



It's not really as complex as you seem to be making out. A tournament is a competitive environment.

You play to win, and you play by the rules. Anything less is selling yourself short, and compromising the competition for everyone else.

Ravenous D wrote:
Exactly.

Where does acceptable conduct turn into un-acceptable conduct? Just on many of the opinions of people here it seems that a win at all costs attitude is common, so out of curiousity sake I've compile a list of "game winning tactics", some call them smart, some call them dastardly, the point is everyone does it or has done it at one time or another, I'll leave it you guys to deem if its acceptable or unacceptable:

I don't know if I have a pretty inlaid moral compass, but all of these seem pretty simple to draw lines. If it involves deciet, fraud, malicious intent or coercion it's out. If it's fair, legal, and above board it's in. we'll go through one at a time

1) The spring: The tournament is 1500pts and has 3 simple fields win, lose and draw, and every mission uses VPs, you are going against another shooting army in a mission that has no other objectives then to kill your opponent (so you only need a difference of 151vps to win), and you elect to go second. Your nidzilla (or mobile firing army) decides to sit back behind LOS blocking terrian until the end of turn 6 where you spring out of your cover and fire at everything you can (specifically tanks) and you score 200vps winning the game.

This is simply a variant of what we're discussing. It's totally acceptable, after all, couldn't both parties hide their armies?

2) Loaded dice: Even cheating is a game winning tactic.

Cheating is automatically bad.

3) The dumb guy: Play dumb and question every rule, and force your opponent to roll off on every arguement, 50% of the time you get your way, the other 50% the game goes as normal.

This is deceptive and fraudulent. You are lying, which is inherently bad, IMO.

4) The sloth: You play a horde army and you know that after turn 4 things generally dont look good for you, so you drag out your turns to deny your opponent 2 or more turns winning you the game. Another variant is "the crapper" where you take a 30 minute bathroom break just after set up to delay the game.

Slow play is another classic form of cheating. It's hard to judge, but deliberatively stalling is a classic aspect of bad sportsmanship.

5) Tanking: You bomb your opponents soft scores, which drops him 5 to 10 ranks overall costing him any hope of winning with just 1 game.

Again, malicious and fraudulent. It's also cheating (breaking the rules for scoring), and is classically reviled.

6) The Cheese list: After all, tactics start at the list building, why should optomizing your list be any different then in game tactics?

It's not. if it's legal it's legal. Keep in mind that many tournies still have comp, but it's not cheating to run tri-falcon.

7) The perfect score: You give your opponent perfect scores and you make sure that he sees it, win or lose your opponent decides to offer you the same back since he has already seen it and has no worry of losing points.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to simply colluding with your opponent to score each other highly regardless of outcome? without more info I can't judge it.

8) The drawback: You go against a slow army like nurgle daemons and you lead him around the table with your mobile force not letting him be able to assault you, forcing your opponent to do nothing all game.

So, exploiting an enemies weakness? Is assaulting devastatotrs while shooting assault marines also bad? This is totally fine.

9) Inch adding: Measuring front to back, adding an inch here and there.

Cheating is always bad.

10) Mob dice: You roll a bucket full of dice and you only hit on 4s, you pick up a couple 3s here and there, this is assisted by "blurry dice" where it is hard to see the pips.

Again, cheating is always bad.

11) Manipulation: Dice manipulation is fully possible, there are certian ways to hold and drop the dice that will ensure the results you want on much higher then average basis.

Again, cheating is always bad.

12) Single roller: You take terminator saves one at a time, this can be done in combination with the other "tactics"

Alone, this is annoying. If done to help cheating, its' cheating.

13) 2 dice twin linked: Rolling 2 dice for a twin linked lascannon say acceptable? Well do you roll 8 dice for a twinliked scatter laser? Believe it or not it does make a difference.

Not being clear what dice are being rolled for what is bad sports. Always declare, always roll speratly.

14) Friends: You play your friends and give each other max scores and vote for each other for best sport. Another variant is "The judge" you know the judge so you call him over and force your house rules on out-of-towners.

This is two seperate things, but voting deceptively is bad, and rigging a judge's ruling is always bad.

I'm torn between wondering if you're geniunely curious, or if this is some sort of "moral slippery slope" you seem to think soem of us are on. All of your situations are pretty clear cut: cheating and unfair advantages are out, smart and fair play are in.

Edit: Insaniak beat me too it, but we seem to agree on all counts, even though I take a stiffer stand on tanking soft scores.

By hook or by crook a win is a win to some people.

Acting like a complete dick, and full on cheating is same when it comes to 'agreeing to play by the rules'. You either respect your opponent or you dont. It's a simple as that.

Again, why be a total d-bag? The only thing you achieve by winning is a plastic trophy.

Polonius wrote:

I don't know if I have a pretty inlaid moral compass, but all of these seem pretty simple to draw lines. If it involves deciet, fraud, malicious intent or coercion it's out. If it's fair, legal, and above board it's in. we'll go through one at a time

I agree, all of these are absolutely horrid to me, but time and again Ive seen them happen, and judging on the attitudes of most people here I wanted to see which ones seemed to be "acceptable". I offer my opponent the same respect that I expect, and alot of people here seem to have the attitude of "F- this guy Im going to win!", which is completely anathema to me.

Although I doubt there will be anyone admitting to them, all that this is going to achieve is very long opinion posts on each point when I asked is to simply put acceptable or unaccpetable by each.

Ravenous D wrote:By hook or by crook a win is a win to some people.

And...?

To some people, eating the guy in the seat beside you is reasonably acceptable behaviour. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make.

Acting like a complete dick, and full on cheating is same when it comes to 'agreeing to play by the rules'.

Pardon?

How?

You either respect your opponent or you dont. It's a simple as that.

Absolutely. And part of that involves treating them as an opponent, and playing competitively in a competitive environment.

Would you expect a tennis player in a grand slam to not bring his best raquet when playing a lower-seeded opponent?
Would you expect a chess player in a tournament to concede his queen at the start of the game if playing someone he knows is not as skilled?

In a competitive event, would either of those people's opponents actually appreciate the gesture, or would they find it condescending and be annoyed that any sense of achievement is now sullied by the fact that their opponent didn't consider them worth playing at their best?

I offer my opponent the same respect that I expect, and alot of people here seem to have the attitude of "F- this guy Im going to win!", which is completely anathema to me.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that anyone playing to win automatically must be deliberately acting as difficult as possible.

I'm not sure where that idea comes from. 'Playing to win' and 'acting like a jerk' are not automatically the same thing. Selecting a particular unit because it makes tactical sense is a very, very long way from using loaded dice.

all that this is going to achieve is very long opinion posts on each point

Of course it is. This is a discussion board, and you've effectively just claimed that anyone who plays in a fashion that you personally don't like is a jerk.

Hardly surprising if that pulls a few opinions out of the woodwork.

Personally, I play tournaments and matches, whether it be Magic, miniatures, board games, or on-line shooters the way I'd play amongst friends, with the exception of maybe a more tuned/optimized list. I don't game rules mechanics with friends, I wouldn't do it in a competitive environment. I don't play dice games with my friends I don't do it in a competitive environment. I'm generally not an jerk to my friends. I would generally not be one in a competitive setting.

I'm not sure you really agree with me if you find things like bringing "Cheesy" lists or exploiting enemy weaknesses to be "absolutely horrid." Of your listed examples, the only three I find acceptable are: the spring (use of smart tactics), bringing cheesy lists (you say OTT and WAAC, I say properly competitive), and relentlessly exploiting an enemies weakness. I guess I fail to see how any of these fail to respect my opponent.

If you simply don't like compettive 40k play, that's fine. But lets never confuse cheating with playing hard to win. It's very clear which is which, and if you don't like the latter, that's fine, but I'd really appreciate you not lumping playing to win with cheating to win.

And yeah, I'm sorry you dont' want to hear my opinion, but since you're effectively calling me a jerk and a cheater, I guess I'd like to say that I don't consider myself either.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure you really agree with me if you find things like bringing "Cheesy" lists or exploiting enemy weaknesses to be "absolutely horrid." Of your listed examples, the only three I find acceptable are: the spring (use of smart tactics), bringing cheesy lists (you say OTT and WAAC, I say properly competitive), and relentlessly exploiting an enemies weakness. I guess I fail to see how any of these fail to respect my opponent.

If you simply don't like competitive 40k play, that's fine. But lets never confuse cheating with playing hard to win. It's very clear which is which, and if you don't like the latter, that's fine, but I'd really appreciate you not lumping playing to win with cheating to win.

And yeah, I'm sorry you dont' want to hear my opinion, but since you're effectively calling me a jerk and a cheater, I guess I'd like to say that I don't consider myself either.

First and foremost I do apologize to you, Insaniak and anyone else if you found my statments to refer to you as jerks, I'll see if I cannot explain:

I think there is a difference between competitive and over competitive.

I'll use an example that works for this: In paintball there are tournaments for people that just use the renter guns and rely solely on there in game tactics and intelligence (something I refer to as the gentlemanly sport), then there are tournaments for people with hand cannons that can fire 1000+ rounds a second and you dont need to rely so much on tactics when you have something that can do the work for you (something I refer to as the savage chest beating "I need testosterone" sport). You cannot possibly inter mingle the two.

I think the problem with this debate is that most tournaments Ive gone to, there has been very little in the way of over competitive people and everyone shows up with a fairly balanced list and are there to have a fun weekend, so that is my standard. However occasionally I (and what appears to be many of you) play the no-hold-bars over competition where your sole purpose is to win, which I find to be a good thing occasionally (the GT).

Most of the time they share the same prize though, which is a crappy plastic trophy, so playing in an over competitive environment without the reward of money or something worth winning, makes zero sense to me. It just seems like a pointless venture to act like an a**hole and treat each other with contempt.

That’s the thing with comparing to major sports, Insaniak compared it to championship tennis, with them they get paid to do so and winning means you get endorsements and what not. In the paintball example the teams that have those crazy guns generally play in tournaments for money. Even magic the gathering has a $1 million dollar grand prize. In those tournaments being over competitive makes sense because you are actually achieving something, in 40K you achieve nothing. There is no grand accomplishment, no money, no recognition, and no endorsements. So why tell yourself that winning that wall plaque is the most important thing on earth?

insaniak wrote:

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

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

Whirlwinds are practically useless against other MEQs. The players would be forced to do something other than sit quietly in the mirror match. Being limited to a single list (C: SM) or archetype (MEQ), or sharing a common list, necessarily prevents any cries of cheese because everybody has the same options.

Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/tournament/Non-Agression.pdf

Note that they specifically call out Sports as a factor here, and implicitly require that each opponent take actions that allow the opponent a chance at winning...

Ravenous D wrote:Most of the time they share the same prize though, which is a crappy plastic trophy, so playing in an over competitive environment without the reward of money or something worth winning, makes zero sense to me.

To quite a lot of people in any sort of competitive endeavour, the prize is irrelevant.

It's the challenge that makes it all worthwhile. The prize, whatever it may be, is just icing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

Quite a lot of games have similar ideas built into their rules. Which is a great idea. What it's not is a reason to penalise players in a completely different game that doesn't have such rules.

It shouldn't be up to the players to make sure that the rules are fair to both sides. That's the job of the guy running the tournament.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/tournament/Non-Agression.pdf

Note that they specifically call out Sports as a factor here, and implicitly require that each opponent take actions that allow the opponent a chance at winning...

If you need this type of non-aggression clause, then it is an indication of a poorly designed game system.

Overall, there are two types of events. 1) Gatherings and 2) Tournaments.

For event #1 "The Gathering", whoever wins or loses is irrellevant. Everyone is just getting together to play a game. No prizes or places are on the line. Things can be loosely played without worry. These include the GamesDays, certain convention events, club gaming nights and even one on one pick-up games. These are the type of events where giving an opponent a chance to win is more appropriate.

For event #2 "The Tournament", there is a clear winner and ranking of the best to worst performing of the opponents. Prizes, plaques, rankings and prestige can all be on the line. Game play is normally much tighter with a more competitive mix of applied tactics and strategies. These include RTTs, GTs, AdpetiCon style events and more. These are the type of events where giving an opponent a chance to win is not appropriate and is actually a disservice to the other players in the event. Each player in a tournament has an obligation to all other players to do his/her absolute best in all categories (including battle).

Once a person that is more oriented towards "The Gathering" steps into "The Tournament" environment, their expectations should adjust accordingly. The problem is that the majority of time this adjustment does not occur for "The Gatherer". There are also certain tournament players that do not adjust well from being able to dominate their local RTT events, but finding out that they are mediocre at the GTs. This lack of adjustment should not automatically reflect in poor soft scores of their opponent. However, the sad truth is there are a lot of times when it does.

General Hobbs wrote: 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.

I call BS on the fact that the IG player believes you play the game for fun. For him to be mad and give a 0 in sportsmanship for the reasons listed is uncalled for. Unless there are other reasons that were not listed, there is no excuse for his actions and he is just a poor sport.

I also call BS on the "playing for fun" and "fluff" based arguments against the marine player.

1. "Fluff" Quoted from a WAAC hating friend - "And I would argue that marines (loyal or chaos) executing a well orchestrated series of strikes that wipes out a larger or slower-responding force with minimal losses on their side is completely in keeping with the established 40k background…"

2. "Fun" Quoted from the same WAAC hating friend - On one hand, it’s a game and therefore supposed to be fun, but on the other hand different people define “fun” in different ways. One might have the most fun crushing someone’s soul with a flawless victory. I might have the most fun in a close fought game where one of us edges the other out in the bottom of the 6th turn… But that kind of “fun” talk is for casual games. If you go to a tournament, you have to expect people to try and win - soft scores or not. If I can wipe you out without losing a man, aren’t I obligated to do it?

So these arguments against the marine player due to "Fluff" and "Fun" are totally BS. Everyone's opinion is going to be different.

What is WAAC?

Win At All Costs

Ravenous D wrote:

First and foremost I do apologize to you, Insaniak and anyone else if you found my statments to refer to you as jerks, I'll see if I cannot explain:

I think there is a difference between competitive and over competitive.

Apology accepted, and I think there is a difference between competitive and over competitive. I have a feeling some of what you call over competitive I call simply competitive, while the rest of it I call cheating or being a tool.

I'll use an example that works for this: In paintball there are tournaments for people that just use the renter guns and rely solely on there in game tactics and intelligence (something I refer to as the gentlemanly sport), then there are tournaments for people with hand cannons that can fire 1000+ rounds a second and you dont need to rely so much on tactics when you have something that can do the work for you (something I refer to as the savage chest beating "I need testosterone" sport). You cannot possibly inter mingle the two.

Already, you clearly have a dislike for a version of play, one that's usually clearly marked and utterly voluntary. I'd like to point out that while you're totally in the clear in not enjoying super competitive paintball, I think it's a little disrespectful to assume that there is not valid reason others might like it.

I think the problem with this debate is that most tournaments Ive gone to, there has been very little in the way of over competitive people and everyone shows up with a fairly balanced list and are there to have a fun weekend, so that is my standard. However occasionally I (and what appears to be many of you) play the no-hold-bars over competition where your sole purpose is to win, which I find to be a good thing occasionally (the GT).

So, again, the highly competitive environment is clearly marked. I'm just pointing that out.

Most of the time they share the same prize though, which is a crappy plastic trophy, so playing in an over competitive environment without the reward of money or something worth winning, makes zero sense to me. It just seems like a pointless venture to act like an a**hole and treat each other with contempt.

Here you really go off the tracks. You keep insisting that there is an inherent inability to play competitvely, highly competitvely, without becoming TFG. You don't seem to have any personal anecdotes, and very few people do, because virtually all competitive gamers are polite and genteel.

That’s the thing with comparing to major sports, Insaniak compared it to championship tennis, with them they get paid to do so and winning means you get endorsements and what not. In the paintball example the teams that have those crazy guns generally play in tournaments for money. Even magic the gathering has a $1 million dollar grand prize. In those tournaments being over competitive makes sense because you are actually achieving something, in 40K you achieve nothing. There is no grand accomplishment, no money, no recognition, and no endorsements. So why tell yourself that winning that wall plaque is the most important thing on earth?

I find it hard to believe that you can't see any reason to play in a highly competitve manner against other like minded gamers. Have you ever played a video game on a difficulty over easy? Do you still play paintball against 12 year olds? No, because you like to test your skills against people of a similar level. So yeah, sometimes it's nice to craft your nastiest, most brutal list and take it against another hard core list in a match between two skilled players. If you can't see any appeal to that, then I think you're being willfully obtuse. There is a certain prestige, geeky as that sounds, and there is pride in winning. One reason there is pride, BTW, is because your playing against people trying equally hard to win. This thing ties together pretty neatly.

Ravenous D wrote:
I'll use an example that works for this: In paintball there are tournaments for people that just use the renter guns and rely solely on there in game tactics and intelligence (something I refer to as the gentlemanly sport), then there are tournaments for people with hand cannons that can fire 1000+ rounds a second and you dont need to rely so much on tactics when you have something that can do the work for you (something I refer to as the savage chest beating "I need testosterone" sport). You cannot possibly inter mingle the two.

I disagree with this statement. I enjoy playing paintball roughly five or six times a year if not more and I have my own equipment. It's a dencet gun that can put out a good ROF if I need it to, but it has nothing to so with "chest beating" or "needing more testosterone". I bought my own equipment because it made sense. I enjoy having my own marker and being able to tinker with it. I also feel it makes me more competitve becuse I don't have to worry about the condition of my marker, I know it is well maintaned and in good working order.
Considering my experience with rental guns has been touchy at best, poor maintenance and old overworked markers make for a disappointing day and I wouldn't play with one ever. Sure, it's fun to "spray and pray" once in a while when other guys on your team are doing some crazy run in to grab the flag or you are pinned down but I use game tactics and intelligence when I play more often then not and encourage those on my team to do so as well. In fact, most places see people with rentals mixing with people with their own gear and there seem to be few problems, they just make more money off paint sales for those crazy rapid fire guns .
Perhaps a better analogy would be "speed ball" vs. "woods ball". But even then, speed ball needs some tactics....

I feel bad when my army outclasses the other players army.

In a tournament setting though, it's unfortunately 'too bad' syndrome.

You can always be a loser and mark the soft scores down to feel better about yourself.

Oh right, that's what happens now...and has for years.

Man, don't get me started.

Polonius wrote: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.

For me, it's the game. I've also had games with great friends that I wouldn't care to repeat. But if you're not rating the game, then what are you rating? Are you not then applying outside factors to the scoring of the one game? How is that different from giving your friends max points, when you come across them in a tournament?

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

Reread that bolded part there. Now consider: what expectation is revealed in the statement? (I'm not trying to pick on you, Polonius, but it is indicative of the general trend in the thread, and this was the easiest example to highlight.)

Somehow, people have the conception that receiving a low sports score equates with being penalized by the other player. Try it from the other perspective - NOT receiving a high sports score means I haven't been rewarded by the other player. Why not? Odds are, because the game wasn't fun for him. If I made the game more fun for him, irrespective of outcome, I might be rewarded with a higher sports score. (If I bring a better-painted army, I might be rewarded with a better painting score. If I bring a better-balanced army, I might be rewarded with a higher battle points score. If I can manage all of these things, and the stars are properly aligned, I might be rewarded with Overall success.)

lambadomy wrote: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.

Hopefully the above helps explain my perspective a little, lambadomy. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with your conception of "the opponent's job" - when I go to a tournament, I go with the understanding that my participation includes the (often explicitly stated!) requirement that the games be fun. If the game is not fun, I have failed that requirement. Because it takes two to tango, my opponent has also. As such, neither of us may be the best candidate for Overall or Best Sportsman that particular day, and the scores should reflect that.

And yes, you WILL run across people who only have fun if they win. Such is life. Frankly, if you AND your opponent can't have fun playing with your toy soldiers, then neither of you should be in contention for the "Best 40k Player in the House Today" award, as represented by Overall placement.

Janthkin, I have to come more down on the Polonius side here. The usual sports scoring scale includes low, moderate, and high scores. It’s not just “penalize” and “reward”.

There can be a variety of factors that result in a game being less than satisfying, and quite frequently those factors are not under my opponent’s control. If the terrain is off, the mission badly written, or my army poorly suited to the matchup, it’s not appropriate or fair to blame those things on my opponent. He’s not in control of those things.

IMO an opponent who deliberately goes out of their way to make the game more fun despite those things deserves to be rewarded with an exceptional sports score. An opponent who plays competitively and takes their win without being rude or actively unpleasant is displaying normal but not exceptional sportsmanship. A zero, no matter how you slice it, is below normal expectations, and generally considered a penalty for doing something/acting in a way that makes the game less fun than it would be normally.

Two points:


1) Shenanigans on the IG guy.
You play games with the desire to have fun, but nobody should be playing with the intent to lose.
Play the best game you can. Period.

If he wanted a different game, he should have taken it to the SM player...
Charge some units out to draw out some targets.

There are ways around every offense and every defense.

Le Grognard wrote:
Not cool, bro. Read the fine print in his sig.

No excuse.
Two words; Spell Checker.

---> Edit: I agree that it's not cool to post with misspellings purposefully with the intent to humiliate someone. I DON'T think it's incorrect to comment on atrocious spelling that is hard to read (there were words in there I had to read 3 or 4 times -maybe more- to figure out what he was saying). Nobody here's spelling is perfect, or expected to be, but if you know you spell so horribly that you need to make an excuse for it in your sig, then you should DEFINITELY be using a spell checker <---


His posts are indicative of a poor speller, not of a dyslexic.

Eric

Mannahnin wrote: A zero, no matter how you slice it, is below normal expectations, and generally considered a penalty for doing something/acting in a way that makes the game less fun than it would be normally.

Exactly.

I'm not attempting to justify a "I didn't win, so you get a zero" approach to sportsmanship. Those people should be weeded out of the game entirely - they provide no benefit to other players, and are poor representatives of the hobby (and possibly of humanity). I don't believe in "punishing" my opponent using the sportsmanship score. I also (try) not to hold my opponent accountable for factors beyond his control - army mismatch, bad terrain, bad scenarios, etc.

HOWEVER, I fully understand and endorse the "this game was no fun to me, you were the proximate cause of that problem, and your sportsmanship score will appropriately reflect that" philosophy of sportsmanship scoring. And in cases where that happens, I fully expect my own sportsmanship score to be similarly unrewarding - very rarely will a game be fun for one, and no fun for the other.

Janthkin wrote:

Polonius wrote:
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

Reread that bolded part there. Now consider: what expectation is revealed in the statement? (I'm not trying to pick on you, Polonius, but it is indicative of the general trend in the thread, and this was the easiest example to highlight.)

Somehow, people have the conception that receiving a low sports score equates with being penalized by the other player. Try it from the other perspective - NOT receiving a high sports score means I haven't been rewarded by the other player. Why not? Odds are, because the game wasn't fun for him. If I made the game more fun for him, irrespective of outcome, I might be rewarded with a higher sports score. (If I bring a better-painted army, I might be rewarded with a better painting score. If I bring a better-balanced army, I might be rewarded with a higher battle points score. If I can manage all of these things, and the stars are properly aligned, I might be rewarded with Overall success.)

I would argue that under your view, in which Sportsmanship is a reward, Sports scores becomes a highly subjective, even utterly discretionary allowance. This is one reason it's being cleaned up for major events, and certainly the overall tenor or vibe or "Funness" of the game should be a factor. What I challenge is the notion that a player could be polite, respectful, fair and aboveboard and then recieve a zero sports score. A 5 out of 10 is still odd but arguable. A 3 out of 5 is ok. But zero? I don't like the idea of giving "it was the greatest game I've ever played" scores to every RTT opponent any more than the next guy, but I also don't think scoring a game "it was the worst game every and I would never play the guy again" is any better.

I would argue that if you bring a well painted army, you deserve a high paint score, you shouldn't hope to be rewarded with one. I think that there are certain objective bnechmarks that can prevent an extreme sports score.

Finally, here's a question for the peanut gallery: how could the SM player have made it more fun for the IG player? If i'm imagining the scenario right, there was probably wide open firing lanes from the IG side across the board. If there was enough terrain to block the SM army, I'm imagining a lopsided terrain deployment, not a cityfight board. I'd imagine the SM player realized that there is no way he's getting any of his infantry units into the IG deployment zone at half strength, meaning the game would boil down to kill VPs. In a VP slugfest between two shooty armies, the shootier army wins most of the time. What does all of this mean? How exactly should the SM player have "made it more fun" while still trying to win? I'm going to assume that he's not a bad guy for wanting to win, but I think a lot of posters here are convinced that this was an utter domination by the SM guy, when I think it was a taut minor victory. He didn't play in an odd way to gain a huge massacre, he did what he had to to squeak out a win. In addition, I still don't buy that the IG player couldn't do anything for six turns. He could have moved his army into position to rush the SM deployment zone, or find some shooting lanes, etc.

Janthkin wrote: Hopefully the above helps explain my perspective a little, lambadomy. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with your conception of "the opponent's job" - when I go to a tournament, I go with the understanding that my participation includes the (often explicitly stated!) requirement that the games be fun. If the game is not fun, I have failed that requirement. Because it takes two to tango, my opponent has also. As such, neither of us may be the best candidate for Overall or Best Sportsman that particular day, and the scores should reflect that.

That is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. It takes two to dance, but if one refuses to - then the other shouldn't be penalized or in your case not rewarded for putting forth the effort. What the hell is this BS that we have to cater to everyone's desire in an event? People don't pay to travel to events to stroke little jimmy's ego the right way or account for all his sensitivities. It's a 'game' of toy soldiers. You are going to lose models and games.

Janthkin wrote:And yes, you WILL run across people who only have fun if they win. Such is life. Frankly, if you AND your opponent can't have fun playing with your toy soldiers, then neither of you should be in contention for the "Best 40k Player in the House Today" award, as represented by Overall placement.

Players don't pay to be in these events to be mind readers. You can do your best and still have an opponent that "lost his favorite model" or "hates a certain unit" or "hates a certain tactic" or "hates that you talk too much" or "hates your hair" or "hates your buddy" or "has male PMS". How the hell are you supposed to know what some stranger likes/dislikes or how they are feeling? To penalize or "not reward" a player for not being able to read minds is simply moronic.

Seriously folks - if you can't handle losing models and games against an opponent that is friendly/corgial, handles all in game mechanics fairly, and who showered that day, then please stay home. The tournament scene doesn't need you. All top teir tournament veterans (except for Stelek of course ) have lost games. It happens to the best of us.

Sportsmanship should reflect the player, not the game. Period. Otherwise you get into "what makes a game fun for me" not "what makes the player fun to play against".

There are too many factors BOTH players have no control over to make it anything than a reflection on your opponent, his demeanor, and how he plays, such as:

being nice
not cheating or "accidentally" cheating
how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

playing to win should be rewarded as well. Purposefully playing badly when he has a clear advantage doing something else is not good sportsmanship, it's being dumb.

A player has NO CONTROL over a lot of factors that go into the individual game, and therefore should not be penalized for it in sportsmanship. The marine player didn't pick recon, it was given to them. The marine player didn't place the terrain, it was given to them. The marine player didn't pick the IG player's dumb army, but he played against it the way he should have. NONE of this is bad sportsmanship. It may have made the game less fun for the IG player, but none of it is the SM player's fault! Why would he deserve to be penalized?

Polonius wrote:
I would argue that under your view, in which Sportsmanship is a reward, Sports scores becomes a highly subjective, even utterly discretionary allowance. This is one reason it's being cleaned up for major events, and certainly the overall tenor or vibe or "Funness" of the game should be a factor. What I challenge is the notion that a player could be polite, respectful, fair and aboveboard and then recieve a zero sports score. A 5 out of 10 is still odd but arguable. A 3 out of 5 is ok. But zero? I don't like the idea of giving "it was the greatest game I've ever played" scores to every RTT opponent any more than the next guy, but I also don't think scoring a game "it was the worst game every and I would never play the guy again" is any better.

No need to argue - I agree with you; it is a subjective system. And I'm okay with "objective" markers for some aspects of sportsmanship. But it is impossible to render the entire "Did I enjoy this game, today, against this player" question into objective form. To attempt to do so is to render Sportsmanship meaningless (beyond eliminating those few people who would have been weeded out in a subjective system anyway).

And there ARE people out there who deserve "it was the worst game ever and I would never play the guy again" scores.

Polonius wrote:I would argue that if you bring a well painted army, you deserve a high paint score, you shouldn't hope to be rewarded with one.

I would disagree. If you bring a well-painted army, you might "deserve" a decent paint score. However, as nearly every painting judgement scheme includes subjective judge-determined factors in the upper ranges of the point scale, you shouldn't expect a high score. (Put another way: a "great!" RTT army might look downright plain at Adepticon).

Where there is room for debate, in both painting and sportsmanship, is in the respective weighting of objective & subjective factors.

Finally, here's a question for the peanut gallery: how could the SM player have made it more fun for the IG player? If i'm imagining the scenario right, there was probably wide open firing lanes from the IG side across the board. If there was enough terrain to block the SM army, I'm imagining a lopsided terrain deployment, not a cityfight board. I'd imagine the SM player realized that there is no way he's getting any of his infantry units into the IG deployment zone at half strength, meaning the game would boil down to kill VPs. In a VP slugfest between two shooty armies, the shootier army wins most of the time. What does all of this mean? How exactly should the SM player have "made it more fun" while still trying to win? I'm going to assume that he's not a bad guy for wanting to win, but I think a lot of posters here are convinced that this was an utter domination by the SM guy, when I think it was a taut minor victory. He didn't play in an odd way to gain a huge massacre, he did what he had to to squeak out a win. In addition, I still don't buy that the IG player couldn't do anything for six turns. He could have moved his army into position to rush the SM deployment zone, or find some shooting lanes, etc.

Impossible to answer. All we have are bare on-the-table assertions provided by a third party. I'm sure most people who've gone to tournaments have run into a heavily-lopsided contest before, and I hope most of us have had at least one fun game*, even in view of such imbalance. Often, how fun the game is involves few battlefield considerations.

*Adepticon Gladiator, 2006: My Slaaneshi daemonbomb w/mutated, possessed Heavy Support vs Marc Parker's Wych cult. He got first turn, and the game was effectively over. But it was a blast!

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Janthkin wrote: Hopefully the above helps explain my perspective a little, lambadomy. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with your conception of "the opponent's job" - when I go to a tournament, I go with the understanding that my participation includes the (often explicitly stated!) requirement that the games be fun. If the game is not fun, I have failed that requirement. Because it takes two to tango, my opponent has also. As such, neither of us may be the best candidate for Overall or Best Sportsman that particular day, and the scores should reflect that.

That is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. It takes two to dance, but if one refuses to - then the other shouldn't be penalized or in your case not rewarded for putting forth the effort. What the hell is this BS that we have to cater to everyone's desire in an event? People don't pay to travel to events to stroke little jimmy's ego the right way or account for all his sensitivities. It's a 'game' of toy soldiers. You are going to lose models and games.

Greg, you're a great fellow, a fabulous player, and a sharp dresser. And the actual tabletop differences between our philosophies in the vast majority of cases are so minor as to be not worth discussing.

HOWEVER - what I get from your post is a concern in a single specific case, that if one player is a jerk, it shouldn't affect the other. From there, you seem to generalize out to the premise that you have no obligation to the guy on the other side of the table, beyond the movement of your toy soldiers. And I don't agree with the generalization.

YES, you will run into jerks. YES, you will encounter players who will tank you for beating up his toy soldiers. YES, we've all been there before, and YES, we'll be there again. Unless you strip out all subjective scoring*, you will never escape that. Does that mean we should all be jerks? Does that mean we should rework the system so that it doesn't matter? Does that mean there really is no difference between playing against the best sportsman & worst sportsman at a GT? Does that mean there should be no difference?



*The Gladiator is a great example of how this *can* work: no subjective scoring, and of the 4 tournaments/16 games I played in, there was 1 game which I wouldn't voluntarily play again. This is much better than my usual tournament ratio, which is more like 1 in 10. I have a few suspicions of why this is so, starting with the cost to participate as a filtering factor.

Janthkin wrote:
No need to argue - I agree with you; it is a subjective system. And I'm okay with "objective" markers for some aspects of sportsmanship. But it is impossible to render the entire "Did I enjoy this game, today, against this player" question into objective form. To attempt to do so is to render Sportsmanship meaningless (beyond eliminating those few people who would have been weeded out in a subjective system anyway).

And there ARE people out there who deserve "it was the worst game ever and I would never play the guy again" scores.

There are, but most sports scales state that a zero is for an opponent with which you had serious problems and the game was awful. I think that a person shouldn't get tanked to zero because the opponent had a problem with his completely legal style of play. And lets not kid ourselves, that's all this was. It's like Stealer shock vs. Mech Eldar, or an IG player being forced to be the attacker in a mission.

I would disagree. If you bring a well-painted army, you might "deserve" a decent paint score. However, as nearly every painting judgement scheme includes subjective judge-determined factors in the upper ranges of the point scale, you shouldn't expect a high score. (Put another way: a "great!" RTT army might look downright plain at Adepticon).

Where there is room for debate, in both painting and sportsmanship, is in the respective weighting of objective & subjective factors.

Ok, but if you bring a well painted army, lets say Biel tan. It's neatly painted, shaded, highlighted, squad and army marked, and fully based. However, you painted every unit and vehicle White, Grey and Green for craftworld colors, with Aspect Temple colors only as trim. If the paint score were out of 10, would a zero be appropriate because the paint judge didn't like your aesthetic choice? I would say no, there are certain qualities of a well painted army that we all can agree on, at least below the top teir.

I think this is the same way. If you play by the rules, are polite and respectful, and in general act in every way other than in game decisions around the idea that the game should be fun, I don't think that in game tactics should ever result in a zero sports.

Impossible to answer. All we have are bare on-the-table assertions provided by a third party. I'm sure most people who've gone to tournaments have run into a heavily-lopsided contest before, and I hope most of us have had at least one fun game*, even in view of such imbalance. Often, how fun the game is involves few battlefield considerations.

This is kind of my point. Once the draw and mission are finalized, the vast bulk of how engaged the IG player will be were already decided. his anger about being impotent in a game is being unfairly directed at his opponent, not at himself (for not haveing options in his list to deal with this or playing more aggresively), Stupid luck (for drawing another shooty army), or the mission (for being winnable in such a lame manner).

Interestingly enough, it's reasons like this that have lead to the minor/major/massacre system, and it's more refined offspring, the Primary/secondary/tertiary objectives. You can't do what the SM player did in those missions because the IG player could either claim the other objectives or deny him the big win he needs for best general. I only point it out becaue there are people who point out that playing to table your opponent is unsportsmanlike, when in many tournaments, it's the way to win.

Edit: after reading your respond to Inq. Malice, I think you're starting to run out of room. Of course there will always be subjective factors in soft scores. And there will always be tournies that allow them. And nobody should be a jerk. This isn't about being a jerk. IM was writing that it shouldn't be required that I change my style of play, or play soft, or shave points to be judged a good sport. What shouldn't be allowed, or at least what should be condemed, is the use of subjective factors as vendetta under the cloak of "I didn't have fun." I think a palyer has an obligation to do everything in his power outside of tactical decisions to make the game fun for his opponent. What I think IM's point, and what my point is, is that a player should not be penalized for his opponent refusing his attempts to make the game fun.

MagickalMemories wrote:



His posts are indicative of a poor speller, not of a dyslexic.

Eric

1that one was whit spelling check.
2 do you now how many kinds of dislexia I dare are
3 I belong in the top 3 of the words kinds of dislecia when I was a kid I had a exta 4 hour of school for my dislexia.
4 and to be onist my spelling is beter in english than in my mouther tong
5 my dislecia is purly in my spelling not in my reading or taking
thats the reson I put it in my signatur
( sorry for going of topic )

Polonius wrote:I think this is the same way. If you play by the rules, are polite and respectful, and in general act in every way other than in game decisions around the idea that the game should be fun, I don't think that in game tactics should ever result in a zero sports.

With maybe one WHFB exception (fanatic slingshot, if you're curious), I would cheerfully agree with you.

What shouldn't be allowed, or at least what should be condemed, is the use of subjective factors as vendetta under the cloak of "I didn't have fun." I think a palyer has an obligation to do everything in his power outside of tactical decisions to make the game fun for his opponent. What I think IM's point, and what my point is, is that a player should not be penalized for his opponent refusing his attempts to make the game fun.

I agree with all of this as well. I think the only place we actually differ is that I classify an opponent who refuses to have fun as a jerk, and already dismissed him from the discussion as a "can't do anything about it" factor.

Well, good to have that cleared up. To be honest, I think that there are a lot of positive ways to show good sportsmanship, rather than have it be a simple "you must be this civilized to play with toys" standard.

Allowing an opponent to move a unit in the shooting phase that he forgot.

Letting a player use eldar psychic powers at any point other than at the beginning of the turn.

Reminding him of army/game/mission rules that help him.

In Polonius happy land, a sports score of 7 represents a blandly pleasant non-cheater. A 9 or 10 is somebody that went out of his way to make the game fun and/or helped out his opponent. A 5 would be for annoying habits that aren't completely malicious (stalling can be hard to judge), or for a couple of really nasty rules disputes. A 3 is for somebody that was clearly cheating in a minor way, while a 1 or 0 are for cheaters. I'd take on a bonus or penalty for really pleasant guys and absolute tools.

lambadomy wrote:how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

Could you elaborate on this part please?

Crimson Devil wrote:

lambadomy wrote:how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

Could you elaborate on this part please?

Many players consistently pickup either hits or misses. Misses are prefered, as it leaves all the successes on the table for inspection. If you swap back and forth, you can "accidently" pick up a hit that was actually a miss, for example.

Janthkin wrote: Greg, you're a great fellow, a fabulous player, and a sharp dresser. And the actual tabletop differences between our philosophies in the vast majority of cases are so minor as to be not worth discussing.

HOWEVER - what I get from your post is a concern in a single specific case, that if one player is a jerk, it shouldn't affect the other. From there, you seem to generalize out to the premise that you have no obligation to the guy on the other side of the table, beyond the movement of your toy soldiers. And I don't agree with the generalization.

YES, you will run into jerks. YES, you will encounter players who will tank you for beating up his toy soldiers. YES, we've all been there before, and YES, we'll be there again. Unless you strip out all subjective scoring*, you will never escape that. Does that mean we should all be jerks?

Hey Kevin - I don't think we should all be jerks at all. Here's what I believe are good requirements from an opponent.

1. Be friendly, corgial, curteous and respectful.
2. Handle all in game mechanics fairly (ie: die rolling, measurement, rules and more).
3. Shower that day (before the event).

This in no way alludes to me condoning everyone being a jerk. I guess from what I listed above, what else do you expect from a player? For me, if someone goes beyond that - then great. If not, then great.

Janthkin wrote: Does that mean we should rework the system so that it doesn't matter? Does that mean there really is no difference between playing against the best sportsman & worst sportsman at a GT? Does that mean there should be no difference?

*The Gladiator is a great example of how this *can* work: no subjective scoring, and of the 4 tournaments/16 games I played in, there was 1 game which I wouldn't voluntarily play again. This is much better than my usual tournament ratio, which is more like 1 in 10. I have a few suspicions of why this is so, starting with the cost to participate as a filtering factor.

Bingo - you hit the nail on the head. Rework the system. The US sportsmanship scoring systems are broken. They are currently the best of a bad system. After playing in four AdeptiCon Gladiators and a 2007 UK GT heat / Final, I've played a total of 28 games in events without a sportsmanship scoring requirement. I have only had one game where I was exceptionally irritated at my opponent. So I've had 27 out of 28 games that were fun in a system with no comp and sportsmanship. I've also made several friends in those games. What more could I ask for?

Polonius wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

lambadomy wrote:how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

Could you elaborate on this part please?

Many players consistently pickup either hits or misses. Misses are prefered, as it leaves all the successes on the table for inspection. If you swap back and forth, you can "accidently" pick up a hit that was actually a miss, for example.

Ah, I thought that was what he was saying, but I wanted to be sure.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
Bingo - you hit the nail on the head. Rework the system. The US sportsmanship scoring systems are broken. They are currently the best of a bad system. After playing in four AdeptiCon Gladiators and a 2007 UK GT heat / Final, I've played a total of 28 games in events without a sportsmanship scoring requirement. I have only had one game where I was exceptionally irritated at my opponent. So I've had 27 out of 28 games that were fun in a system with no comp and sportsmanship. I've also made several friends in those games. What more could I ask for?

I think the uniting factor of our (admittedly tiny) data set for successful no-sports tournaments is "cost as a barrier to entry." Relatively few jerks are willing to fork out the dough for travel, lodging, and expensive tournament. RTTs lack that barrier to entry, sadly - while the vast majority of players are STILL not jerks (and local groups tend to be self-policing), I, at least, still seem to encounter a higher population of jerks at these events, who aren't part of my local group.

I can't speak on US GTs - I haven't been to one since 2002, though I'm going to Vegas in September.

Here's what I believe are good requirements from an opponent.

1. Be friendly, corgial, curteous and respectful.
2. Handle all in game mechanics fairly (ie: die rolling, measurement, rules and more).
3. Shower that day (before the event).

This in no way alludes to me condoning everyone being a jerk. I guess from what I listed above, what else do you expect from a player? For me, if someone goes beyond that - then great. If not, then great.

I'd add
3a. Deoderant;
4. Reasonable patience; and
5. Fatalism (at least towards dice results).

And I feel obligated to offer my opponents the same (plus a little humor, when possible/appropriate).

If you're opponent is too stupid to win then he deserved the loss and should not complain about it.

I treat all my games as if they were tournament games. No mercy. The only way a player can learn is by losing games.

Janthkin wrote:
I'd add
3a. Deoderant;
4. Reasonable patience; and
5. Fatalism (at least towards dice results).

And I feel obligated to offer my opponents the same (plus a little humor, when possible/appropriate).

I also forgot to add that I feel obligated to transport my opponent's highest point model on a one way trip to the warp with wraith cannons.

Nowadays I'm not as competitve as I used to be, but even when I was, playing to win never bothered me. Cheaters and players with bad attitude do. Now that I'm older and have kids I realise that my greatest asset in games or life is to let my child/opponent know that they have my full and unwavering attention.

I don't glare or shout, or even use stern language. A raised eyebrow and a "hmmm" from me, and people know I'm fully engaged with them. I've won enough tournaments to be happy(though I don't mind more), so my goal is to have fun with my friends and play good hard games.

That said, it would take a really nasty player to earn 0 on sportsmanship. Over the time I've played I've seen a shift to older more experienced players, who influence the new guys, with the overall effect of a slightly more relaxed 40K community. The hyper competitive folks seem to gravitate to ccg's and other games that don't require the investment of time and energy. That's why I'm back to 40K as my primary game.

Even the snotty players can often be tempered by inclusion. Chat them up and listen, and amazing things can happen.

Surely it is obvoious from the fact that some players tank other players sports scores for highly dubious reasons, that sports scoring does not work as a way of trying to make players be nice.

Frankly most people over 18 have fairly well formed characters and ethical standards (the last goes up the more education people get, so it doesn't stop dead at 18.)

Bashing players with a complex sports score system is not going to modify core behaviour and only offers chances for toerags to abuse the system.

IMO.

My 2 cents - A 0 on sportsmanship is really, really harsh. That person would have to have been being snide, rude, insulting, purposefully delaying, cheating, or really, really smelly to get a 0 from me. In a tournament, I expect honorable play from my opponent, not 'fair' treatment. All is fair in love and war, as the saying goes, so I would expect no punches pulled, and as long as he was behaving in a sportsmanlike fashion, (not gloating, taunting, or otherwise being a jerk) he would get full sportsmanship scores from me.

That being said, it may be gentlemanly, even in a tournament setting, to offer some engagement to a severely outclassed opponent. Not really enough to jeopardize the win, but enough to offer some challenge to the game.

However, it also may be that the IG player started pouting and whining and gave up the game as a foregone conlcusion, in which case, I can see the Marine being disinclined to throw a bone.

So, without knowing more, I can't say for sure, but I have to agree with what's been said- it's up to the organizer to provide each contestant a chance to win, not for the opponents to give each other chances. In my experience, nothing good ever comes of giving something away in game (unless you're just playing for total fun and laughs) as sometimes the small chance you thought you were throwing to your opponent as a freebie can turn out to be the lucky roll that blows up in your face and seriously hamstrings your force. Been there, and no-one feels good about it generally, as the one player regrets giving the opporunity, and the other doesn't feel like he earned his glory.

I don't often (if ever) massacre my opponents, but if I did, I like to think I could do it with grace, without being a jerk. I have been on the receiving end of many a massacre, and it is often this games which teach me to be a better sport and stick in it until the end.

I think the TO did give everybody a chance to win. Maybe the event wasn't all that sophisticated mission wise, but it was straight from the book. I like to run my events Adepticon style, as it promotes hard, aggressive play, but not everyone has been to Adepticon. Anybody in this hobby is free to choose the army or armies they like. While there are more and less competitive armies and builds, this is a problem for GW to address.

In the meantime, players should build and play what they like for fluff and/or competition. Players are also responsible for deciding what level of competition they want. Call the tournament organizer and ask questions. Check the printed rules and guidelines for the event. Take lessons home after the event. We as players are responsible for what we bring to the table. If you bring a crappy attitude and vitriol, that's what you'll take away as well. It's 40K karma, and eventually the unworthy are reincarnated as CCG and MMO players...

Wow, finally read all the way through. As an IG player who plays a SAFH army, all I can say is tell the IG player to quit his whining and play the game. In a tourney I'm going to bring my best effort and I expect my opponent to do the same. Sometimes scenario and opponent will indeed combine to make it nearly impossible to win. So that's when you figure out a way to do it anyways.

As for cheating, that's a whole 'nother topic and one of the reasons the rules come in a large hardback book!!

I dont expect my opponents to be easy on me. Nor do I expect them to sit idle and not capitalize on any weaknesses, mistakes, or anything else that my army has. But the IG player did not have fun in the game and while he was being sore about it, he sure as hell didnt have the best game of his life nor would he ever want to play that opponent again but an exact 0 on sportsmanship is not exactly justified in my eyes unless the SM player blatantly cheated on something. If it was a 0-10 scale a proper score would have been 6-8 depending on how certain things weighed.

Everyone at some degree plays to win.

I have to completely disagree with the idea that the opponent must do something heinous and against the rules to earn a 0 sportsmanship score. If they do something heinous and illegal then they should be removed from the tournament completely. The sportsmanship score is not there to punish a cheater a couple of points to keep them lower in the rankings. Punishing cheaters is the job of the TO. It's there to encourage enjoyable game play, and so should be scored based solely on how enjoyable the game was, not in terms of "did my army get to do anything?" but rather in terms of "did I enjoy the company I kept during the last 90 minutes?"

The poster who noted that tanking sportsmanship scores follows in the line of thinking that you play to win no matter what is correct. The counter argument from some, that tanking sportsmanship scores deliberately is cheating, is actually fallacious. In what way is it cheating? Where in the rulebook does it say you must apply a score commensurate with your opponents actual game play?

I'm not making this point because I believe that tanking someone's soft scores deliberately is right, but rather because I believe the idea that it is somehow noble or honorable to come out and play "no-holds barred" is simply false. That attitude will always lead to fudging things that don't have a clear cut rule attached to it in the interest of being a "better player".

Perhaps even more worrisome is that it leads to a general attitude that "I have to throw this idiot a bone and do a song and dance to trick him into scoring me higher." You're out an afternoon of your time, and all you're going to get for it is a cheap trophy that is ultimately meaningless to your life. Shouldn't your main goal when giving up your time to this tournament be to enjoy it? And if that is your main goal, aren't you going to enjoy your time more if the company you are keeping is also enjoying their time? The act of having fun should be the primary goal here, not a side thing that you are burdened with doing in order to score higher. This isn't a job, it wins you no glory, no honor, and no fame. The best thing you can get from attending a tournament is good memories and new friends, and I don't think that's a way of looking at it, but rather the way it is.

That's why I try to game by the guideline of Kant's categorical imperative. Whenever you take an action while gaming, you should simultaneously will that all other gamers would take that same action in that same position. Also known, of course, as the golden rule.
If you wouldn't want your opponents to turtle against you, then don't do it to them. If you wouldn't want your opponent to tank your soft scores then don't do it to them. It's really relatively simple.

Well, if you haven't gotten it from this thread, people would prefer their opponent to turtle if it meant it was the best strategy. It is up to them to figure out how to counteract that and have an army where that doesn't hurt them.

Celestial Lion wrote:
The poster who noted that tanking sportsmanship scores follows in the line of thinking that you play to win no matter what is correct. The counter argument from some, that tanking sportsmanship scores deliberately is cheating, is actually fallacious. In what way is it cheating? Where in the rulebook does it say you must apply a score commensurate with your opponents actual game play?

Tanking soft scores might not be de jure cheating, even though many tournies list at least some guidelines to follow. Malicious tanking, however, is lying to the judge, which in any system is a sanctionable offense.

insaniak wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

Quite a lot of games have similar ideas built into their rules. Which is a great idea. What it's not is a reason to penalise players in a completely different game that doesn't have such rules.

In general, any ruleset with any semblance of modeling or simulating reality will necessarily provide some advantage towards defensive play. After all, if you go back to classical siege treatises, they will tell you that an aggressor needs roughly 3 times the power as a defender. And this ratio held for centuries, up to the point that maneuver warfare became predominant. So blaming the rules is probably mistaken.

That said, I do agree (and stated earlier) that most of the fault lies with the TO for having a game mission that wasn't focused purely on maneuver and objectives.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/tournament/Non-Agression.pdf

Note that they specifically call out Sports as a factor here, and implicitly require that each opponent take actions that allow the opponent a chance at winning...

If you need this type of non-aggression clause, then it is an indication of a poorly designed game system.

Each player in a tournament has an obligation to all other players to do his/her absolute best in all categories (including battle).

See above. The fault lies not with the game system, as system merely makes an effort to mirror or simulate reality / plausibility.

If, the notion of Touranment requires players to do their best in all categories, then turtling in any form is a far cry from the ideal of doing one's best. It's why boxers and fighters are booed for just standing around, rather than making aggressive movement that necessarily creates a possible opening for the opponent.

skyth wrote:Well, if you haven't gotten it from this thread, people would prefer their opponent to turtle if it meant it was the best strategy. It is up to them to figure out how to counteract that and have an army where that doesn't hurt them.

Actually no. What has been said in this thread is that most people would like for their opponent to play his best game. Turtling might be the best way to win, but that does not necessarily make it the way to play your best game. When I sit down to a match, I am doing so to play the game. If my opponent sits still and shoots a pair of guns every turn, then he's not playing much of a game.

If your facing a shooting army or your entering a torny, you should pach aleast one assault squad even if you play IG, and if you dont the enemy has every reason to shoot you out of existance then zoom across the field at the last minute. This is war not a social outing in the case of Gand Tornies, did america say to sadam husan, we are going to attack you by air here so come prepared, no! they played to win

Celestial Lion wrote:If my opponent sits still and shoots a pair of guns every turn, then he's not playing much of a game.

He is if that's the way his army works best in the given situation.

If that creates an awkward situation for you tactically, that's kind of the whole point of a strategy-based game. You're supposed to figure out how to counter your opponent's tactics, not just sit around and complain that he's not playing in a way that makes your own tactics more effective.

insaniak wrote:

Celestial Lion wrote:If my opponent sits still and shoots a pair of guns every turn, then he's not playing much of a game.

He is if that's the way his army works best in the given situation.

If that creates an awkward situation for you tactically, that's kind of the whole point of a strategy-based game. You're supposed to figure out how to counter your opponent's tactics, not just sit around and complain that he's not playing in a way that makes your own tactics more effective.

Exactly!

Everyone has an equal chance in terms of points to spend and choice of army. Terrain and scenarios can certainly certainly favour certain types of armies -- this should be taken into account before the game, and by competition organisers. Luck of the dice can unbalance the game either way.

[tongue in cheek]
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invested all of his points on static defenses. The coalition forces, spent their points on mobile and fast attack units and bypassed Saddam's defenses. I don't recall Saddam complaining to the UN that the Coaltion wasn't giving him a good fight or giving General Schwartzkopf a 0 score for sportsmanship.[/tongue in cheek]

JohnHwangDD wrote: [If, the notion of Touranment requires players to do their best in all categories, then turtling in any form is a far cry from the ideal of doing one's best. It's why boxers and fighters are booed for just standing around, rather than making aggressive movement that necessarily creates a possible opening for the opponent.

Good example John. However, look at other sports that use defensive play and tactics.

1. Baseball - automatically walking a guy to avoid pitching to the home run leader. That is a far cry from being exciting.

2. Football - Teams run out the clock to minimize the potential of the other team. They also substitutute other players for their star performers in order to minimize risk. Quite boring.

3. Hockey - if a team has a four goal lead, do you expect them to pull their goalie just to give the other team a chance. Nope, you just smother the opponent defensively. Boring.

4. Baseketball - maybe teams should purposely foul out just to give their opponents a chance. That would be just plain dumb.

If someone or a team is in a position that will allow them to win, then risk mitigation starts to take hold. There is no requirement to keep producing at your highest level of potential if it is not necessary. Now even though the examples listed above are boring, there is an exciting element to them. This is seeing how the other team or player reacts and works to pull out the victory or change the balance. That can be exceptionally rewarding and crazy fun.

In this case, the marine player used the minimal amount of effort to win the game. Both armies chose the same method (stand and shoot). The marine player had the better combination because he was able to do that without being seen. The marine player owed the IG player nothing because their using similar methods. If anything, the IG player owed the marine player a better game due to his inability to adapt and lack of understanding of the situation. The IG player should have realized this and started working on unconventional tactics. Now that can be an exciting game. I have seen many times where new combinations or tactics are discovered during this type of game.

Now, let us look at that flip side. I wonder what people would think if they received a zero in sportsmanship because their opponent thought their tactics and gameplay were moronic, which didn't provide for a challenging and therefore fun game. Justification to the judges for giving a zero "I do not want to play a game like that ever again because 1) the army was poorly designed, 2) his deployment was horrible and 3) his in game tactics were so bad that my dead grandmother could have beat him with her cane. This player suffers from an ID 10 T error and should not be let back in this event." Please tell me how widely accepted that would be. Yet it could be completely justified for many of the sportsmanship systems that are currently in use.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: [If, the notion of Touranment requires players to do their best in all categories, then turtling in any form is a far cry from the ideal of doing one's best. It's why boxers and fighters are booed for just standing around, rather than making aggressive movement that necessarily creates a possible opening for the opponent.

Good example John. However, look at other sports that use defensive play and tactics.

3. Hockey - if a team has a four goal lead, do you expect them to pull their goalie just to give the other team a chance. Nope, you just smother the opponent defensively. Boring.

4. Baseketball - maybe teams should purposely foul out just to give their opponents a chance. That would be just plain dumb.

I won't speak to Baseball (inherently boring) and Football (inherently interesting), but your other examples are extremely weak and flawed.
3. Hockey - one word: "Icing"
4. Basketball - two words: "shot clock"

Both of these are rules additions analogous to the non-aggression in SFB and other anti-turtling efforts. They both exist specifically to penalize teams from trying to play purely defensively.

40K isn't a professional sport.
It's not there to entertain spectators.

In the example give, the IG player is more guilty of turtling than the SM who attacked with his long range weapon systems.

If we look at that specific example, the IG's game plan was for the opponent to march into close range and be shot to bits. He came up against an opponent nwho ddi nto oblige, and he got huffy about it.

The players are the spectators, hence, TMIR.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Both of these are rules additions analogous to the non-aggression in SFB and other anti-turtling efforts. They both exist specifically to penalize teams from trying to play purely defensively.

That is true and in both those instances, the rules addition as measureable and both sides are playing by the same rules. The ambiguous sportsmanship systems (ie: did I have fun playing this game, etc) is not a consistent measure. Both players are playing by different measures of "fun". This breaks down to be an extremely flawed system and one that should be demolished. Other systems have proven to work without this type of ambguity.

Players are the participants in a tournament. This is a competition plain and simple. Not some hippy love fest. If they wish to be spectators, then they should not be in the event. They can wander around watching games and learning off of good players without getting their feelings hurt. If they wish to pay me to entertain them, then great. I'll charge $40 per hour plus benefits. I know that's on the cheap side, but I run a fair business.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The players are the spectators, hence, TMIR.

TMIR only has to do with differences in opinion on in game mechanics as far as rules are concerned. It has absolutely nothing to do with how a general implements tactics and strategies to win a game.

In regard to the sportsmanship aspect of this discussion, people percieve having a "chance" in much different terms. I brought an eldar army to Vegas GT last year and scored 87 battle points with 2nd to last sportsmanship. The army was tough, but definately not unbeatable. I used cover and speed with the army to minimize my chance of taking casualties while inflicting the most I could. At the Baltimore GT I played chaos. Much much different on the tactics side, I had considerable hand to hand elements, and I lost a good number of marines every game. Scored 90 battle points and had perfect sportsmanship with 2 favorite player votes. Did I suddenly become a different person? No, it was about perception of the "chance", which will vary a great deal from player to player. So with the varying opinions of what is tough/cheese/fair the sportsmanship system really needs another look.......Please keep an open mind in your games! If you are going to a tournament, please plan on being able to take objectives and adapt to the scenario and opponent, and don't tank your opponent for using tactics!

that's what i don't get, people dinging others because it was a tough game. I have won games that simply sucked because the other person whined, was belittling, impolite, or just a jerk. Similarly, I've gotten my ass kicked, but it was a very pleasant game (not losing, but the overall experience).

Ifurita wrote:
I have won games that simply sucked because the other person whined, was belittling, impolite, or just a jerk. Similarly, I've gotten my ass kicked, but it was a very pleasant game (not losing, but the overall experience).

This is absolutely the right attitude. That is what "sports" is supposed to be about. As Churchill said, "Magnanimous in victory, gracious in defeat," or something similar.

Ifurita wrote:that's what i don't get, people dinging others because it was a tough game.

It's because they are selfish, miserable s***s.

Warning long post ahead!


This thread brings up an old memory of mine from a few years back. I was playing in a small GW store tourney and their some minor prizes for the top 3 players. I played well through it (being 14 at the time I was still young and thought ultramarines were cool ok I still do) and ended up in the top 4. Because of the way the event was set-up I ended up having to play my final game against the player fighting for 1st, 2nd or 3rd depending on if he beat me and by how much. But I myself had no chance of getting to third due to the victory points for the round. The best I could do was hit 4th and in doing so I would stop the guy from his chance at placing 2nd or 1st. This was during the Armageddon campaign days and as my final game was about to start I found out that the player I was against in his late 20's was using his Dark Elder list that won a fair amount at the two Canadian GT's he went too.

So I was thinking, "ok, he's got a good list, its been tested, and he knows how to play. Sounds good this should be a good and tough game." And started planning out how I was going to use my marine list to handle the situations looking at the terrain of the board I would be playing on. Then the GW store owner comes over and he tells me and my opponent that I'm not going to be able to win and change my ranking enough to win prizes, yadda, yadda. Which I was fine with, but then he decided to put the store model of the Commissar Yarrik up as a consolation prize if I could best my opponent. Whom he knew and was good friends with. He was even smiling and all cheery and was like hey thats a great idea and such. Of course I'm not one to turn down a chance at winning a model pre-release, especially when young and strapped for cash, so I agreed.

The game starts out and I deploy most of my troops standing in front of some trenches that were on my side of the board (not in them). And he of course noticed this right away and thought I was already messing up or thinking my marines are to tough to need cover because they have awesome armour and are super human! Right Boys! YEAAAAAAH! We don't need stinkin' cover! We're Spaz Marines! I then put my tanks and stronger shooting forces deep in the trenches to appear as though I was protecting them.

He quickly begins to unload his melee/speedy army onto the table as we finish up the set-up phase and then the game starts. I roll first turn and proceed to pop as many of is nice floaty transports carrying his fleeting troops and ignoring anything with decent strength weapons capable of popping my tanks/dread/speeders/tranports, ect. For his first turn he predicatably flys the remainging transports and such into my army and unloads into my vehicles and heavy weapon units, as well as tieing up some of my "crap" troop squdas just sitting around in front of the trenches expecting them "to protect my better units from him".

Turn 2 for me and I use any unengaged troops in front of the trenches to shoot down his non-transport skimmers and move everything else forward towards his table edge away from the close combats in my lines. Some of my marines die in close combat on mine and his assault phases, breaking and running and taking his men deeper into the trenches on my back edge into my devastators and whirly.

Turn 3 and 4 move my troops farther way from his troops to my rear that were now stuck in the trenches(heavy terrain) and firing single shots into the groups still alive that could fleet.

Turn 5 sacrifice one of my remaining units by leaving them stationary to use a rapid fire on the last unit that can fleet, but will get destroyed by his command squad that had incubi in it on his turn.

On this turn is when things start to go weird and are fitting for this threads discussion, first up some key points:

1 - He did have an army that could easily beat my marines in the current rules(3.0) and the mission we were playing.
2 - He was a good player and very friendly and a good sport whom I had played other casual games against before the tourney, whom also enjoyed going to GTs apparently.
3 - I effectively planned my strategy based on the layout of the board and mission(which was cleanse, so not a good mission for me in this case) and executed it flawlessly and in the end destroyed him do to the "strengths" of his own army and baiting him with all of my "stronger" units to get him stuck where he couldn't fleet or move as easily due to heavy terrain.

So on turn five he begins to get a little upset because my marines keep running from the fight and then stopping and shooting his "helpless" fleeting troops that were trying to catch me and kill me in assault. The store owner also seeing the game coming down to the wire (with only two 5 man troops squads on my side left and his commander with incubi in one squad and like 7 warriors left as another giving chase) comes over to find out what is going on. He was busy watching the "Main game" between the current leaders of the tourney along with most of the crowd. He sees me move one squad back and shoot, while leaving the other to stand and shoot taking out most of the warriors and then get destroyed on my opponents turn by the charge from the remaining warriors(who did pass their morale the turn before even though they were reduced to two models) and 2 incubi with lord.

At this point he asks what happened to his buddy and he comments I keep running away from the fight and then shooting back at his guys. And thinks it over for a second and starts asking me why I'm not charging in and destroying him in close combat. I'm big bad super human spaz marines with amazing armour and shouldn't be afraid of a few weak dark eldar, yadda, yadda. As well as saying its ppor sportsmanship you know to keep running those guys away just so you can kill his guys. I'm standing there like, wtf? Now I have to play my army a specific way due to fluff you think relevant(and/or badly interpreted as far as I'm concerned)? So being the kid I was I say back "Marines are supposed to be powerful yes, but they aren't tactically stupid either let alone go wastilly throwing away power armour to xenos. And charging head long into a lord with two incubi and warriors to soak up some hits with a handful of marines that have nothing but bolters is hardly a smart fricken move. Especially after I spent the last 5 turns baiting him into the heavy terrain on my edge and sacrificing my units so that I could keep his fleeting units at bay while I backed out and shot them up until all that was left were his incubi who could not fleet and therefor I could finally use my last squad to out gun him and use my superior toughness and armour to absorb the shots he could throw back until his 5 guys died." Well needless to say he didn't take to kindly to me fooling his friend in a match where he should have easily won and on top of that, then going and pointing out how silly he was at trying to tell me to charge in and lose to my opponent on the final turn after executing this whole thing on purpose in front of like 30ish people and employees. He proceeds to tell me that I have to charge my opponents men on the next turn because its only fare or I wasn't going to win the mini anyways and that marines should not be falling back on purpose, yadda, yadda.

So on turn six I rapid fire into his incubi and lord and drop them all with my 10 bolter shots and tell him sorry I can't charge, the rules don't allow me too, but if he ruled i had to charge those warriors then I gladly would. Of course everyone is watching my table now due to the earlier commotion. Then of course I stated that I didn't think that would be fare to my opponent who would be cheated out of one last shot and the attack bonus for charging me instead.

Both at this point were very flustered and he told me just be quiet and play the game. So I said my turn was done and my opponent was grumbling some things as he tried to shoot me and assault my now outnumbering force to no avail.

I won, the game collected my yet to be released mini and then moved around the store talking to my friends and other store patrons and letting them all see the mini and how neat it was, ect. This was my age coming into play and I probably should have just left instead of trying to rub it in the owners face that I won and for being a dick and telling me how to play my own army.

So what should I have done differently in this game? My army was the under dog. The mission wasn't suitable for my army due to the match up and heavily favored my opponent. In the end it was an extremely close game and the only reason I won was from tactically out thinking my opponent and getting him to take the bait by exposing most of my forces and leaving only my "weaker" forces alive, only to have those weaker forces mop him up as he tried to get back out of the heavy terrain. Should I have instead charged head long into the enemy to be destroyed because this some how was more like the fluff according to the owner? Would this have made the game somehow more fair for my opponent if I suddenly decided to commit suicide just so that he could go on and have a shot at getting the army box for first or second prize? Basically as I see it we both played our hardest to win. He didn't let up just because he had a superior force and mission selection this game, to make it fair for me. So why should I at the very end of the game when I finally had a chance to win the only minor prize I could? There was no army sitting on my side of the board. Sometimes in tourneys you just have to face the fact that you will be out-smarted, out-rolled, suffer from bad match-ups, poor missions for your army, etc, but never should you throw a game to make things more "fair". That cheapens every game out there you play and make "fair", and makes incredible and cool underdog games, like this one, impossible to happen.

As to people dinging others when they lose I know one reason why it happens. To try and stop that player from winning. Some people get upset that they were bested and like the poor sports they are they ding their opponent to try and get back at them. IN hopes of catching up and passing them in other games later so that in the end they can have a higher rank and say "see I am better than you, you just got lucky, or use cheese, or cheat, or...(other unsportman like comments go here)..."

Thats what I see coming from most of the people who do it this at tourneys.

Strimen wrote:Warning long post ahead!


...

Very good post.

The long and short of it is, if you owe your opponent a chance to win, he also owes it to you. In your story, the other guy thought he had your army cold, and went straight for what he thought was going to be an easy win. So he was hoist by his own petard.

After only skim-reading this thread, I thought I'd add my 2-teef:

In tournaments, you play to WIN. If that means running away and hiding ( I mean "tactical withdrawal to a defensible position"), then so be it!
In friendly games, it is more important for all involved to have a good time.

I have had friendly games (not all GW/40k) where we have asked players to stop fielding a particular model/army/Magic Deck as it is too good/boring.
They usually want to play one more game with it, to prove how powerful it is, and then retire it so we can ALL get on with having fun.

Obviously there are scales in between "Main Tourney" and "Fun casual game", and we all want to win, but a little sportsmanship on all sides is called for.

If you are playing regular games, part of the fun is in figuring out how to beat an opponent's uber-army.

Man, this thread is two months dead. Leave sleeping threads lie.

Thank you.