There seems to be an inverse correlation between my sportsmanship score and my battle performance during a tourny. When I started out, I lost many games and got top sports scores. Now that I am winning most/all my games I seem to get a low sportsmanship score. I don't feel like my demeanor has changed during the game, but perhaps its something I'm not noticing. No one has said anything that they found objectionable, so I don't know what exactly it is.

For all you guys who tend to win locally, how do you keep your sportsmanship score up while laying down a beating?

I can't. It seems to be impossible. If you disagree with the way someone is playing something / it seems like they don't understand the rules / whatever... and you call them out on it, no matter how politely, you get dinged on sports.

Recently I played in a tourney and I happened to know that best sport was going to be the highest value prize. I went out of my way to let my first game be enjoyable as possible... but I was playing against TFG, and eventually his over-moving, miss-calling cover saves and terrible LOS calling was overboard, and I had to put my foot down.

What do you know. I bent over backwards for him, to the point where he ended up winning the game.... and he dinged me on sports for it.

Sportsmanship = Luck.

Don't get a bad matchup, face opponents like minded to you, and have a few laughs? Wham... instant sports scores!

One rules conflict that is ruled in your favor, and effects the game? Buh bye sports score.

Unfortunately there are still tourneys that score for sportsmanship. Many argue that it is a great idea and will keep the worst players in check, but in reality there are people who will knock your score because you tabled them, or you questioned a rule, or called a ref over. I think the possible negatives outweigh the possible positives that sportsmanship scores bring to a tournament.

I agree with many of the points you guys make.

However, I am going to participate in an event where there is a sportsmanship score. Tourny is scored 1/3 battle, 1/3 painting and 1/3 sports. I clearly can't ignore the fact that I have been tanking the sports in events I win.

What I would like to focus on is any advice to keep my sportsmanship up while winning.

Give each of your opponents a bag of skittles before a game.

I'd give you top marks.

Bring Beer

Really, the best thing you can do in a tournament is be firm about rulings (because if you lose a game, it's not worth it), be as friendly and courteous as possible, and hope you only have good, exciting games with quality players.

There will always be "that guy" who dings everyone who beats him on sportsmanship. Unfortunately, it seems like that guy is fairly common, as well.

This is why soft scores at a tournament is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.

As most folk have already said the moment you call someone out on something (and lets be honest less then half the people that play this game actaully seem to know the rules) So no matter how politely you try to do so your are going to get dinged.

I got dinged for swearing during a game (not at my opponent) He was around 30 the same age as me so hows the hell was I to know he was such a little prude.

Jubear wrote:This is why soft scores at a tournament is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.

As most folk have already said the moment you call someone out on something (and lets be honest less then half the people that play this game actaully seem to know the rules) So no matter how politely you try to do so your are going to get dinged.

I got dinged for swearing during a game (not at my opponent) He was around 30 the same age as me so hows the hell was I to know he was such a little prude.

QFT

Unfortunaltely, OP, there isn't much advice to give. What you are suffering from, is the same thing most serious but friendly players suffer from. Suddenly, once they win, it's apparent they weren't so friendly.

Soft score's have their place in tournaments, but should not effect the results. They should hold separate categories, if they are to be included at all.

Sportsmanship scores that are rated 1-3 or something like that are terrible. questions are much better.

A good player will always give a good sportsmanship score, no matter whether he was beaten or not.

People who are sore losers will always rate low because they want to drag you down.

When it asks questions, it is best to fill them out truthfully [if someone flubs a rule, but doesn't do it on purpose, don't tank them for that, of course.]

I rank fairly average in tournaments, but I always get 10/10 for sportsmanship. [because I go out of my way to be accommodating.] That's probably a reason for my losing.

When I play to win, I will do everything to as exact a standard as possible, and I will expect the same of my opponent. I refuse to be forced to allow people to break rules blatantly.

Then again, even when I play to win, I will accept mistakes. Human error is not the same as cheating.

Do your best to be a courteous player. make sure you wear deodorant. [its always nice not to smell your opponent.] and keep a level head no matter what. [don't complain and don't gloat.]

If people still give you a gak grade, then feth 'em. you beat them.

Sportsmanship should never be worth more than 15% in my mind.

I do agree that it seems to be a crap shoot for sportsmanship. Some people are just not happy unless they are tabling you or you let them go along with their shenanigans. You step up to bat a thousand times you are going to get hit by a pitch. If you get hit often it may be where you are playing, or it may be you.

Advice: Ask what you could have done better. If they cannot answer you it is probably them being TFG and there is nothing you could have done. If it is not attitude related but list related let them know that is the wrong spot for that score (comp score). This is assuming that there is a comp score as well. If you think that is a bit confrontational (it is all how you say it) let the person running the tourney know that an explanation of scoring before pairings next time may be needed. Tourneys I have attended had a quick explanation about scoring before the tourney starts to help prevent this. These same tournaments I have attended graded you on sportsmanship, composition, painting, and playing.

Sportsmanship scores, especially those based on Likert scales, are simply ridiculous.

Something involving questions is far more appropriate, and should take the form of a complaint-filing. This will accomplish the goal of keeping out the real jerks, while preserving scores. Something like...

Did your opponent do any of the following during your game? If so, describe the incident in the field below:

1) Intentionally cheat

2) Intentionally slow-play

3) Devote an inappropriate amount of attention to something else (ie: Texting or talking on the phone)

4) Attempt to intimidate, insult, or threaten you

5) Continuously interrupt the flow of the game with incorrect rules disputes



If someone has too many hits for behaving this way, he will be eliminated at the TOs discretion. Players filing false reports of misconduct against other players will also be eliminated at the TO's discretion.

Jubear wrote:This is why soft scores at a tournament is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.

Ridiculous overreaction. Sportsmanship is no 'softer' than battle points. Playing good sportsmen is the reason I go to tournaments, not amassing 'I'm the best at toy soldiers' points.

I am of the opinion that tournaments should just judge sports, painting and battle points separately. Just offer three equal prizes. There's no such thing as winning the whole day - you could win the gaming, or you could win the painting. Compete in whichever bits you feel like. No such thing as 'Tournament Winner'. Much easier.

I got ding On sportsmanship cause I pointed out a change to his army from an FAQ. So it's all objective and sometimes if you beat the pants off a person they get mad.

Tie or lose your first game, that way you cut the curve of the guys going for best general, it also puts you against weaker opponents.

I'm a little curious about the more 'touchy' opponents a lot of the discussion refers to. Is they younger or just playin' GKs?


Dracos, I have a couple of items in a sort of 'check list':

Positives:
1. Do-ya start off your game with a hand shake and a 'good luck' ?
2. Letting him check your measures before picking up the tape.
3. Calling dice. Picking up misses. All that game/dice/model movement stuff.
4. Smiling - no kidding.
4.5 someone else mentioned deodorant. I'll throw in clean breath too.
5. After game kibbitz. If you can take a friendly couple minutes as you pack up to analyze the game, talk about turning points, laugh about the bad dice *you* rolled, etc.
6. Hand shake at the end, but meaningfully. Saying "Good game!" is often BS and rather perfunctory, but I try to actually agree if the game was good or bad. If I got stomped I state, "Naw, it wasn't too good a game as I didn't offer you a decent challenge" or "I'd rather lose a good game than blow out my opponent. Sorry, man."

Sometimes the last one is true. Sometimes not.

Okay, but voicing these kinds of "Ah, that sucks, man." "Wow, yeah. That totally wiped your hardest unit. That's no fun." As long as you can be sincere about it.

Negatives:
1. Outbursts, like reacting to a great dice roll for you. A "Woo HOO!" once prompted an opponent to say, "You could get dinged on sportsmanship for that." He plays in 2 to 3 RTTs a month. I took it to heart and try to play more restrained.
2. Swearing, see above.
3. Lotsa rules quibbles. Though you don't wish to allow someone to walk on you, more than one referee call might look bad. Know your codex, his codex and the RB thoroughly. I now carry a little 3 ring binder with FAQs for all.

Where I play is a single "thumbs up/thumbs down" vote per game that ... I believe, has minor impact on overall. Dakka poster OverwatchCNC can give a better description of it.

ArbitorIan wrote:

Jubear wrote:This is why soft scores at a tournament is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.

Ridiculous overreaction. Sportsmanship is no 'softer' than battle points. Playing good sportsmen is the reason I go to tournaments, not amassing 'I'm the best at toy soldiers' points.

I am of the opinion that tournaments should just judge sports, painting and battle points separately. Just offer three equal prizes. There's no such thing as winning the whole day - you could win the gaming, or you could win the painting. Compete in whichever bits you feel like. No such thing as 'Tournament Winner'. Much easier.

When I enter an event that is supposed to be a test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies I do not want to be handicapped by a system designed to encourage good sportsmanship and usaully encourages the opposite due to vindictive little turds getting upset if they loose.

Paint scores are even worse altho I encourage the rule of it must be painted to attend I do not see why it should have any bearing on a game of skill/luck. I have never seen a painting contest that tested the gaming skillz of the competors or had a scoring component based on sportsmanship.

So how about they just offer one big prize for the best general and the paint hobby snobs can go organise there own fething events.

I hate sports scores at tournaments and think they are a joke so I cheerfully tell any opponent I play that is obese that I am dinging him on sports because he offends me.

Jubear wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Jubear wrote:This is why soft scores at a tournament is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.

Ridiculous overreaction. Sportsmanship is no 'softer' than battle points. Playing good sportsmen is the reason I go to tournaments, not amassing 'I'm the best at toy soldiers' points.

I am of the opinion that tournaments should just judge sports, painting and battle points separately. Just offer three equal prizes. There's no such thing as winning the whole day - you could win the gaming, or you could win the painting. Compete in whichever bits you feel like. No such thing as 'Tournament Winner'. Much easier.

When I enter an event that is supposed to be a test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies I do not want to be handicapped by a system designed to encourage good sportsmanship and usaully encourages the opposite due to vindictive little turds getting upset if they loose.

Paint scores are even worse altho I encourage the rule of it must be painted to attend I do not see why it should have any bearing on a game of skill/luck. I have never seen a painting contest that tested the gaming skillz of the competors or had a scoring component based on sportsmanship.

So how about they just offer one big prize for the best general and the paint hobby snobs can go organise there own fething events.

I hate sports scores at tournaments and think they are a joke so I cheerfully tell any opponent I play that is obese that I am dinging him on sports because he offends me.

I don't really think of them as tournaments.

The word that comes to mind is "pageant." I don't mean that in a bad
way, it's just different from a tournament.

Brother Erekose gave some excellent tips. Another I'd add is to ask about your opponent and his army. Comment on his theme and painting. Compliment anything you like, and make encouraging comments if it's still a work in progress. This is a fundamentally social activity; only one person will win the event, but everyone there should be having three (or more for a big event) fun games. If you remember that, you can keep your priorities straight and your attitude good.

These kind of discussions online draw out folks who complain about Sports scoring; and many of those complaints are legitimate. There are certainly flaws and weaknesses in almost every system, and there's usually the possibility of jerks manipulating the system. But the basic concept is a reasonable one, and IME people manipulating the numbers or vindictively marking people down is talked about a lot more than it actually happens. I've played a huge number of tournaments over the last dozen years, most of them with Sports scores, and I've rarely heard of it happening, much less experienced it.

I have an article about a simpler, less-manipulable system, linked in my signature. But the bigger conversation about the virtues of sports scoring is really off topic.

Mannahnin wrote:
These kind of discussions online draw out folks who complain about Sports scoring; and many of those complaints are legitimate. There are certainly flaws and weaknesses in almost every system, and there's usually the possibility of jerks manipulating the system. But the basic concept is a reasonable one, and IME people manipulating the numbers or vindictively marking people down is talked about a lot more than it actually happens. I've played a huge number of tournaments over the last dozen years, most of them with Sports scores, and I've rarely heard of it happening, much less experienced it.

This.

Most people do not chipmunk.
Most events have zero issues with sportsmanship.
Most people who actually 'are worried' about sportsmanship scores then get all picky by finding out who chipmunked them are usually deserving of their low scores.

I think this is more of an issue of small, poorly run RTTs with low numbers of people and 'locals'. You never see this type of behavior with larger tourneys and when someone is a legitimate dick, trust me, everyone knows it including the TO which means they always call out 'so I noticed your game was going well, did you have an issue?'

This is just the monthly 'I hate softscores' thread with a lot of people who can't handle someone somewhere plays someway they don't want to exist. There are a wide array of event types, if it grinds your gears... don't go to those events? Or is it better to call softscores not real games, painters snobs and banish anyone who doesn't play 40k the one true way to the warp.

I think most folk simply do not like how easy it is to manipulate the system I nearly always go to tournys a largish group of mates and it sucks we have to self regualate in order not to have an unfair advantage.

Still think my mates sports scoring system is best after the game he tells his opponent he will get dinged on +6 rolls his dice and sticks to the result.

I got pinned because TFG was taking cover saves when he was 2" out of any sort of cover. He even did the old glance at me to see if i was paying attention, which I was ooooooof course. So I let him get away with it for that turn (turn 2!), so when he tried the 2nd time, I called the ump over to monitor the game for the rest of the turn, and the turn after that

IMO sportsmanship is a winlose situation

no matter how sportsmanlike you are there will always be TFG who screws it up for you as the esteemed previous posters have already mentioned

of course if you dont get TFG then your away laughing. personally I say just go with the flow and whatever feels natural, it makes the game enjoyable for you, and unless your playing to win the sportsmanship award you can mentally flick your opponent the bird and know that you had fun whilst playing.

Jubear wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:

Jubear wrote:This is why soft scores at a tournament is a cancer that needs to be destroyed.

Ridiculous overreaction. Sportsmanship is no 'softer' than battle points. Playing good sportsmen is the reason I go to tournaments, not amassing 'I'm the best at toy soldiers' points.

I am of the opinion that tournaments should just judge sports, painting and battle points separately. Just offer three equal prizes. There's no such thing as winning the whole day - you could win the gaming, or you could win the painting. Compete in whichever bits you feel like. No such thing as 'Tournament Winner'. Much easier.

When I enter an event that is supposed to be a test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies I do not want to be handicapped by a system designed to encourage good sportsmanship and usaully encourages the opposite due to vindictive little turds getting upset if they loose.

Paint scores are even worse altho I encourage the rule of it must be painted to attend I do not see why it should have any bearing on a game of skill/luck. I have never seen a painting contest that tested the gaming skillz of the competors or had a scoring component based on sportsmanship.

So how about they just offer one big prize for the best general and the paint hobby snobs can go organise there own fething events.

I hate sports scores at tournaments and think they are a joke so I cheerfully tell any opponent I play that is obese that I am dinging him on sports because he offends me.

Then go play Checkers. (Or 'Ard Boyz )

Miniature tournaments have always been a complex multi-competition event, much like a Triathlon. You might be great riding a bicycle, but guess what. If you suck at swimming, tough luck.

It's mostly underdeveloped gamers who seem to think that they should play as if it were a video game, that the reward is to win and to hell with sport or paint. IMO miss the point of toy soldiers.

Sportsmanship scores are a vector for douchebaggery and nothing more.

I like the idea of sportsmanship myself and wouldn't ding someone for showing me the right way to play. I've read the rules but reading and then actually using them us different. Sometimes the way I read something and understand it isn't ways acurate. One thing I learned early on in life is if you keep having issues with some things over and over you need to look at the common denominator in the problem. Some people may not realize the way they come across is offensive or aggressive to other people until it's pointed out. There's a guy I know who is a really nice guy but he's kind of upfront when dealing with people. Kinda like kramer on sienfield without all the weirdness. Anyway he didn't realize that he was intimidating to some people and sometimes flat out rude. He started asking why certain people avoided him so just told why and showed him examples. He didn't realize it untell I showed him some examples. He went around for a week and apologized to everybody. He still has his moments put he's loads better

I think sportsmanship should only matter as a penalty. If your a cool guy and you lost, well you lost, better luck next time. You're a cool guy so you won't take it hard.

If your an arse and you tabled everyone and made people miserable the whole time, well buddy there goes first place. You're good, no doubt, but you're an arse, nobody likes an arse.

I find for me to award another player every tick on the sportsman/womans score sheet the following:

If they are having fun overall... they may be loosing(90% nvr happens - im a sh$t player yeah i know) but if they are making jokes about shooting me and me punching their faces with power swords then they get a mark in sports... Its hard to stand there smilling when your 5 best guys just got rolled by rainbow bloodletters...

If they shake my hand at the end and seem to have enjoyed the game overall...

If when they have there shooting and assault turns they do this:
" this squad has such and such which gives me such and such rolls, i hit on blah blah, then now i need blah blah to wound, here is what you need to cs, is or as", "ok this squad is next they shooting at such and such...." They dont have to go overboard with "this dice is for multi melta, this is for twin linked and this is for blah blah"...i play daemons, i dont know about guns and sh$t so saying what it is means nothing to me... Breaking it down into easy to digest terms gets you a point..

Not staring at my boobs gets you 1 point. Not that i show them off but being respectful is worth a point...

Not being a uptight twit gets you however many points left... Disputing things in my codex, rules, layouts, deep strike rules(so many dispute this is BS) etc..


I think you are either a good sports or a good chance at winning, probably not both...

TheExilEdArcHitECt wrote:I find for me to award another player every tick on the sportsman/womans score sheet the following:

If they are having fun overall... they may be loosing(90% nvr happens - im a sh$t player yeah i know) but if they are making jokes about shooting me and me punching their faces with power swords then they get a mark in sports... Its hard to stand there smilling when your 5 best guys just got rolled by rainbow bloodletters...

If they shake my hand at the end and seem to have enjoyed the game overall...

If when they have there shooting and assault turns they do this:
" this squad has such and such which gives me such and such rolls, i hit on blah blah, then now i need blah blah to wound, here is what you need to cs, is or as", "ok this squad is next they shooting at such and such...." They dont have to go overboard with "this dice is for multi melta, this is for twin linked and this is for blah blah"...i play daemons, i dont know about guns and sh$t so saying what it is means nothing to me... Breaking it down into easy to digest terms gets you a point..

Not staring at my boobs gets you 1 point. Not that i show them off but being respectful is worth a point...

Not being a uptight twit gets you however many points left... Disputing things in my codex, rules, layouts, deep strike rules(so many dispute this is BS) etc..


I think you are either a good sports or a good chance at winning, probably not both...

So your saying it's pretty likely that if someone beats you, you give them low marks in sportsmanship...because you lost?

I don't understand why people are so butthurt about questioning rules... It doesn't make you a poor sport for asking how a rule works or discussing a rule difference... it is *HOW* you handle yourself when doing so which does it.

Simple things like:
*Accepting the result of a 4+
*Accepting a judge's ruling
*Being a man (or woman) and actually admitting if you are wrong.

These are all fine and in no way hurts your sportsmanship in any way with most people.

It is the people who argue, refuse to accept a 4+ because they know they are right, fight with the judge then piss and moan because they didn't get their way who are the poor sports. I suspect some people can't tell the difference... Sports scores usually work as intended... If you get low scores in my experience you probably deserve them.

You can point out that bolters are only range 24 in black and white but if the guy thought that they were 30 and you corrected him chances are he's gonna think you were a rules lawyer.

they may be loosing(90% nvr happens)

Means i loose.

personally when I go to torties I usually lose, but I go to play and learn and have fun. I think that as long as you are friendly you should be able to get those sportsmanship marks. I do think that rule questioning and other such things can lower your marks, but if you are nice about, and don't come off as a crazy rule hog you should be fine.

again this is all assuming you are playing friendly people rather than TFG

Edited...

This is why i love to see comp scoring in tournis. Instead of the toughest list possible just winning outright, it requires so me strategy.

Make your list tough enough to win but not so tough that it feels like an ard boys list.
Once victory is assured, feed your opponent some units through "mistakes".
Bemoan your foes bad die rolls in a gentle fashion so that they never feel that your rooting against them.
Be freindly. THIS is most important. make it feel like a freindly match. I had one opponent at a major tourni hi-five me after my scout sniper killed his demon prince in melee and won the match for me. He was an amazing foe who i will never forget for their genuine good sportsmanship.
Dont run up the score when victory is assured. Just whipping your foes butt when your already going to win is not going to earn any freinds.

Play fairly with your opponent, be polite, and be mindful of what you say (try not to head into potentially inflammatory territory).

You have no control over what the other player marks down for your sportsman score, so just try to act in a manner that your mother would be proud of. You will run into people who mark you down because you proved them wrong on a ruling, because you beat them, or because they are chipmunking (intentionally marking others low to improve their own chances of winning), or because of any number of perceived possible slights.

Dont' focus on winning Best Sportsman, just focus on being a decent human being, and you will have done all you can to improve your odds.

*laughing*

OP, welcome to my life.

I'm probably going to regret everything I'm about to type, but....it is what it is. I'm going to give you a little backstory in hopes that you can relate - but this is what's happened to me, how it happened, and what I've done to overcome it.

I win pretty consistently, both at the local and national level. I've suffered from poor sportsmanship scores at a few events, and some of those have been scandalous in their circles. When I first started playing 40k, at my first tournament ever, I got zeroed out for sportsmanship in all three of my games with my Orks. My first opponent thought that Ghazghkull Thraka was too powerful to bring to a tournament - he was running full terminators (on foot, in cover, stationary most of the game in a Capture and Control game....lol), and zeroed me out for sportsmanship. My second opponent zeroed me out because he thought I was cheating by using a boarding plank on an ork trukk to swing at a dreadnought with the nob leading the boyz inside the trukk. We called a judge over, who ruled in my favor, but he maintained that I cheated. My third game was against a pretty famous player in Florida - and he narrowly won. Deployment was a scattered randomization across the entire board (extremely unfavorable to Orks, even before I knew what a KFF did and started using one). Terrain was set up by players each game, and he took some of the felt (for forests) that I was putting on the table off again, and told me it was too big. I'll freely admit that I didn't know what Ghazghkull's Slow and Purposeful rule was, and he had to remind me....but he didn't tell me that Ghazghkull had Move through Cover either. I didn't make a fuss during the game, but afterwards I broke open the rulebook in combination with utilizing YMDC here to get answers to questions we had during the game, and posted on their forums with a breakdown of the rules issues we had during the game.

Open war broke out, with the community there polarizing against me. My "reputation" as a bad sportsman (and an outsider as I was new to the game) started spreading from the lips of the folks at the store there.

Fast forward to 'Ard Boyz semi-finals - my first time there, and I'm in North Carolina. My first game is against another very well known gamer from the Southeast...and the game is atrocious. I'll spare the details, but for the first time ever, I picked up my models from the table, packed up and left - I was winning the game, in part because of Eldrad failing fortune (and a reroll) at the beginning, leaving Ghazghkull free to ravage them, and because of my advantageous assault positioning. I quit the game when he started picking up his models during my assault moves and repositioning them on the board, away from me, prattling "Fine, assault me now." It wasn't even 40k anymore, and I had no idea what to do, and was too tired to even want to fight. My "reputation" gets cemented amongst his friends and their small forums and yahoo user groups.

I'm stubborn. Over the next two years, I continually get hammered at local events. Not losing....I win virtually everything - but creating animosity with my winning streak. I've learned much about 40k now, am quite adept on the rules, and I trot through virtually every tournament at every store within a 4 hour radius undefeated. I rarely fail to table an opponent. I start posting Ork advice based on my own success here on Dakka, and get shouted down as a "stupid noob" who is a "big fish in a little pond" and that my army lists "couldn't compete against decent players." I take this as a sign to look for a larger pond and learn what a GT is. I start looking for GTs within travelling distance, and learn that there's going to be one in Raleigh...not so far from me. Local tournaments cost $5-10 to enter, and this one has a comparatively larger entry fee....$50-$60. I'm curious why that is, so get ahold of the organizer asking about the entry fee, what prize support is.....turns out that he's a native Floridian (Green Blow Fly, now permanently banned from Dakka), and he knows who I am and my reputation, and he's quite hostile. Tells me that prize support is none of my business, and that GT participants should pay their entry fee and be grateful to get to participate, and that winning is prize enough.

That's a new concept to me, and I don't agree....but I'm new to the GT idea, so I take the dispute public here on Dakka to ask for community input on whether I'm out of line or not. My reputation as a troublemaker spreads.

Meanwhile, at the local level, I'm contemplating the idea of a "small pond, big fish" thing, and start trying to help locals improve their gaming after tournament gaming. The locals recoil in animosity that I would dare offer help. After winning several successive tournaments back-to-back, defeating the "local champion" in North Carolina (he's also a store employee), I'm asked not to return to the store. Another shop that freshly opened in Raleigh announces that it will start hosting a league, and I call to enroll my wife and I; she's learning to play Orks fairly well, and has not lost a game against any of the locals either. The store owner (Hangar 8 Hobbies) tells me that while I'm welcome to shop there and play games, I'm not welcome in their league or any tournaments because I'll scare new players away.

My friends encourage me to tone down my armies, and play less competitively....folks on Dakka do the same. I've always been competitive, and I have trouble with the idea of competing half-heartedly. I'd much rather try helping other folks improve to my level....it's not that hard. Meanwhile, the anti-Dash folks in the Southeast (especially the aforementioned TO) are crowing on their blogs and forums that I've been banned from two stores, proving that I'm a real douchebag. No one around the country knows who I am, but there's plenty of people (most whom have never met me) swearing up and down that I'm a serious jerk, and unfun to play against.

Fast forward again...I get a massive promotion at work to a position back in Jacksonville, FL - where I'd started playing 40k in the first place. The store I played at and enjoyed friends at has closed because the owner is in Afghanistan, and he plans on re-opening another store when he returns, but that isn't in the forseeable future. The store where I attended that first disastrous tournament has closed as well, leaving two stores in the area to pick up the slack. Suncoast Games and Borderlands. Borderlands is across town some distance, and Suncoast is close by, but small. My return to Jacksonville and first apperance at the store (in a suit and tie, during lunch) start nasty things being said in the local forums. I post an introduction in their forums, attempting to explain what's happened and bury the hatchet - I take an apologetic tone, and tread very carefully about looking to fit in and make new friends. I'm met with contempt and derision.

My own friends from the area don't go to either of the game stores because of the poisonous nature of the "locals," so I dedicate a room in my house to 40k, set up tables, get terrain, and we start gaming there, or at one of their houses. When I'm at one of the stores, if I meet someone nice, I grab their contact information so that I can look them up and invite them over to play - Jacksonville, FL is really hot, and the air conditioning at Suncoast doesn't work - so playing at one of our houses is nicer anyway.

The first tournament is approaching at the local store, Suncoast. The store owner has taken a liking to me - I attended 'Ard Boyz preliminaries there shortly before moving back there a month or two prior, and had stopped into the store the night before to introduce myself, and had subsequently helped them set up tables, and got to know them a bit. This first tournament that I planned on attending was a 1500 points "No whining, no crying, beatdown" tournament - single elimination, no holds barred, last man standing event. I showed up with 1500 points of Dark Eldar and proceeded to win. Hard. My first opponent was playing Space Wolves on foot. He put his entire army in a single piece of terrain. The new DE codex was still a rumour, and disintegrators were still STR7 AP2 small blast. He conceded at the bottom of my first turn.

The tournament proceeded, and the last round was against a genuinely good guy - who would later become a good friend and frequent visitor to our 40k house parties. He was a tough cookie to beat, but I did, and won. The locals were furious. How DARE I come in with a beatstick army? Jacksonville is a place for gentle armies, fluffy players, and my kind of gaming has no place there. Half my opponents declared on their forums that they never wanted to play me again. One of the players announced that if if he had his way, I'd never be allowed to compete in a tournament again. Did I mention I was stubborn? I remain courteous and polite.

Fast forward to the next tournament. The previously mentioned player is now the TO, and the tournament is a 2,000 point attrition tournament. IE, what you lose stays dead. He passes out scenarios, and pairs himself against me in the first round - telling me that no one else wants to play against me. I wish I had video-taped the entire thing. Our game is a mish-mash of 3rd-5th edition rules, with an Attacker/Defender scenario, with the attacker going first. I show him the DE codex, which says that in any attack/defend scenario, DE are always the attacker. He announces to the store that he's changing the scenario, that all DEFENDERS will go first. The screnario itself is one objective, in the middle of the table. Deployment zone is defender deploying in the middle, and attacker deploying on either flank (short board edge). To keep the tournament going, the scenarios also call for games to stop at the end of the game turn when one of the players has lost 700 points. He deploys, I reserve, and we start. He cheats like a mofo. Extra inches...not like .5" extras, but like 2-3" extras. Extra dice. Extra shots. Extra attacks. I say nothing. I don't have to say anything, because he's moving out from the center towards my flanks - where I'm going to be coming in. And every inch he moves away from the center is one less inch I need to cross to alpha-strike him. Turn two sees me move onto the board with a good chunk of my army, and I hit him hard. I killed 698 points out of the 700 required and leave him incredibly crippled. Turn three he mostly does nothing, and on my turn three...he announces another change. When one player reaches 700 points, the game stops instantly. IE, I was going to hurt him hard....far beyond 700 points. For our game, all this meant is that I killed one model and our game ended.

On EVERY OTHER TABLE, that meant that the player who went second auto-lost, because they never got a turn. The player going first gets to shoot and assault first, and hit 700 before the second player.

I won this tournament as well - as gracefully as I could. I pulled him off to the side afterwards and offered him my services to help write missions, because there was loud complaints from folks after the first game and the unfairness of it. He proceeded to scream at me - that I had no business trying to tell him how to run his tournaments, and that he plans on seeing that I never game in the store again.

I have a word with the owner later about my misgivings, and they tell me that they're going to start rotating TOs around, and that I'm welcome to host an event. I sign up to host a tournament, and also talk to them about an idea I've been having. My only wish is to see folks get more competitive, and the best way to do it is to reward them for it. I like the owners, and want to call the store home (nowhere else to go) so I tell them about my idea of a "Store Championship." I don't spend a lot of money there because I have several armies - most of them have been "free" because of tournament winnings and store credit. So I want them to declare me the store champion, and let people challenge me. Anyone who spends $50 in the store gets a challenge token. They use it to play against me, and anyone who wins gets a free battleforce box. I'd pay for it myself. Buy $50 of merchandise in the store, get a pass at me, and if you win....get a free battleforce box. In my eyes, the store wins because they made money. Players win for a free shot at loot. And I win because it will increase competition locally. The owner loved it.

What actually happened: The locals went ballistic. How DARE I declare that I'm better than they are? What RIGHT do I have to call myself "Store Champion?" The locals light up their local forums with more vitriol against me, and they start calling the store and telling the owner that they're going to boycott the store if I'm allowed to play there. And...boom. I'm uninvited to another store. A few weeks later, a couple of my friends and I want to play a game, and the other store in town (across town) is closer to them than driving to my house, so I call Borderlands to reserve a table. The owner asks what name to put on the reservation, and when he hears my name, says "Nothing personal, but I don't want you in my store." Poison is a horrible thing.

Shortly before leaving Florida and moving to Louisiana, three of us went to the store unannounced for a game. The owner (who didn't know my face, just my name), saw that I was playing Dark Eldar and asked if I was Justin Hilderbrandt. I told him no, that my name was Chris. He said, "Oh, ok." We played. Other players admired our game. Asked us rules questions. Ah...anonymity. ><

Moving to Louisiana after two bad experiences in two locations, my experience has been the opposite. And here's where we're going to get to the meat of my advice. My current situation (at the local level) is fantastic...with a bit of initial help (which I'll explain), and I've been going to GTs all year, mostly to good experiences, only a couple nasty little buggers giving me bad sportsmanship votes (Example: Your army is too strong, and unfun to play against...bad game vote...), but mostly positive, capped off by winning Best Sportsman at the Nova Open in Washington D.C., the largest (or second after Adepticon?) GT in the country. Folks who know my name but have never met me are always telling me that I'm nothing like what they've heard. Sometimes I hear that I was the best game they've ever played (tactically) and that they learned so much. I've been to other locations (I played in most of the Atlanta circuit championship tournaments, won the championship, and haven't left any bad memories behind)

Locally, I'm well-known and (I think) well-liked at the stores. Here's the crux of it. I hate to call it "Gaming Sportsmanship" or "Gaming friendship" but I'm being blunt and honest here, as always.

When I first moved here, and went to my first tournaments at stores amongst complete strangers, I went early. I made a point of meeting the other gamers. I looked at their armies, complimented paint jobs, asked questions...

During games, I was as overly friendly. I made jokes at my own expense. I highlighted every success they had on the field, and every turn of misfortune that I had. When I play a game and land 2/27 shots with dark lances, only kill one vehicle the whole game against a Mechanized BA army....the memory of the game should be that I won because I got incredibly lucky at the end, not for any other reason.

After games, I made special effort to compliment any brilliant moves my opponent made, or commiserate with them on losing. Instead of offering advice, I'd ask a question or two, like "Anything you would have done differently?" I like to hear what could have been, and what might have happened had things changed - doing so right after the game is almost like getting a second game in for free. Deployment and movement changes, but presume the same dice were rolled, and the same results on them.

At the end of the tournament, I passed on whatever prizes I got to whomever came in last place - something I've done everywhere local and GT for quite some time now...because I truly don't need more 40k stuff.

Afterwards, I paid a visit to the local store forums to introduce myself formally....to thank the locals for having me, for being such a great crowd to play with, for giving me some great games...and looking forward to trying my luck there again.

Today, I don't have to do any of those things anymore....because the folks are genuinely my friends, and I genuinely like them. Instead of being a hostile outsider, we get along - at multiple stores with different crowds. Some of the guys who ask me for advice on their armies, and I give it if I can. I'm grateful for the fresh start locally. There was some growing animosity at one of the stores by some of the "veteran" players that I kept winning, but some of the others apparently dispelled it by challenging them to get off their asses and play better. And true to it, I've been seeing increasingly competitive lists. Many of them are specifically tailored to fight my Dark Eldar, but I don't mind - those are the best games of all. When all the las/plas come off the razorbacks and get replaced by Assault Cannons and heavy bolters, and the number of Psyflemen in the GK lists keep growing exponentially, you know it's going to be a tough battle.

There's an old army saying, "Fake it till' you make it" talking about motivation. If you fake motivation long enough while under physical or mental duress, you'll eventually be motivated. Believe it or not, it's true.

I would feel dishonest toning my games down to try making them closer. My buddy Hulksmash is a master of it, and good enough that people don't know that he does it. He gets great sportsmanship scores because he can make a close game out of pitting his Imperator Titan against a lone longfang without it being obvious. So that's not me.

But holding to the "fake it till you make it"....it works. I played extra-nice, I was super-chummy and friendly....until I didn't have to be anymore because the danger of being a "hostile outsider winning all our stuff" passed.

At GTs with relevant scoring, I work extra hard. Buy a beer for an opponent, offer a snack, be as easy-going as possible during a game - at this stage in my career I'll let small "cheats" and mistakes go. I won't press on rules. If someone is moving 6.5" or 7" instead of six....I'll let them, because I've learned that if you need to cheat to win, you're not good enough to win anyway, so it doesn't matter. It's true. Well, mostly true. 95% of the time true. I did recently lose a game to a guy cheating so badly that the judge at our table was correcting literally every movement, every shot, disallowing him to double-shoot units, move units again during the same turn...to the point where when I went to talk to the TO afterwards, the judge told him "Whatever he tells you is true, and I'll back him on it." I hadn't said a word to my opponent; was fighting to keep my mouth shut.

The local douches in my previous locations still troll about me, and recently latched onto a Blood of Kittens article bashing me, but that's damning in itself. Anyone who will read any of the drama on Blood of Kitttens and swear by it is laughable themselves. But the rest of the furor has died away. I've gotten around the country as much as possible, met as many gamers as possible, and there's enough people out there who know me and have met me that when someone starts crap, they pretty much get shut down without me having to get involved. I don't really post on Dakka anymore because I get special moderator attention - attacks are made against me freely, but defending myself usually gets me a lengthy suspension for saying a bad word (and yes, I even have e-mails from moderators about the special attention I get).

That might sound like a lifetime of 40k, but it's been three years since I first picked up dice and started the hobby. I'm not sure exactly what I would tell you for advice - I was hoping my story and how I coped with it might help you find something worth emulating without just dropping a blanket statement about "Gaming Sportsmanship." Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of folks out there who share my mindset, and don't need to be gamed for a good sportsmanship score. But in your local group, be overly friendly. Be generous. Don't do anything that might make you stand out as potentially "arrogant." Be OVERLY humble. Work your tail off at it, because this hobby is uniquely full of thin-skinned folks....and whether someone says they're just playing for fun or not....they still want to win.

Eventually it will become natural, or you won't have to anymore.

I nearly always get perfect sportsmanship marks at tournaments, as does most of the crew I travel with. It really boils down to three simple things. Treat others as you want to be treated. Know when to call off the dogs. Be equally pleasant in victory and defeat.

First one is simple and anyone who is not a selfish jerk should be able to master it.

Second one is tricky, because you don't want to lose battle points or risk the game. However, if you are kicking a guys teeth in, theres no reason to argue over 1/4" measurements and avoid combats that have no impact on the victory conditions. It lets the other guy save some pride and you get to have little side battles that may be entertaining to both players.

Third one is the hardest, but the most crucial. A lot of guys are jerks when they lose, and that can be rationalized. The real test of a sportsman is their attitude when they win. Some thoughful review of the game and banter about the tournament can go a long way towards not making you not seem like a peen waving powergamer to the other guy across the table.

Dracos wrote:Now that I am winning most/all my games

That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

Make sense? No, I don't get it either. But that's how our incredibly "mature" crowd of gamers thinks.

Lt. Coldfire wrote:Give each of your opponents a bag of skittles before a game.

I'd give you top marks.

Bribery = good sport. lol

I think I've narrowed it down pretty good based on some of your responses, thanks!

I do almost everything right:
-Talk to players before the game about armies, paintjobs etc
-Shake hands before and after
-I dont gloat or dwell on negative luck
-Discuss how the game went after

However, I maybe too aggressive about making sure the rules are followed. I do it politely, but if its a clear rule error I always (again, politely) insist that we do it the right way. I've called judges a few times for disagreements and never had a judging against me.

I also never give up more battle points to my opponents than I need to. I have no reservations about tabling someone, and often won't allow them to kill more of my army than I have to even if the game is effectively won.

So, in conclusion I guess I'll try to choose rules battles more sparingly and allow my opponents small victories once the game is effectively won. The latter just feels like collusion to give them more battle points though

I am coming a little late to the party but it was brought to my attention that I was mentioned in regards to thumbs up/thumbs down and thought I would weigh in.

First off, I rarely get dinged hard on sports scores but still manage to win events. Even before we adopted the local thumbs up/down mechanic. To avoid sports dinging, in a comp heavy event, you have to be over the top nice; laughing, joking all the time, calling out for your opponent to get good dice rolls against you etc. When a rules question(s) comes up you need to be conciliatory on the surface but firm underneath. Let me explain that. Your opponent attempts rules shenanigans.

Say:
you: "are you sure it works like that?"
opponent: "yes"
you: "Really? We played it much differently the other day, we even looked it up, let's check to make sure." Or "I thought that too until someone proved me wrong the other day, we should look it up to make sure, especially if I was right originally!"

You can be nice and firm about rules at the same time, especially if you can be self effacing and humorous about it. Some people may think that what I propose above is acting or "meta-power gaming" but just being a nice guy about things can go a long way. There are several people who just can't seem to be nice while playing, He Who Must Not be Named from the Blog that Shall not be Named, is a prime example. In their case sports will never work right.

Sports scores need two things to work right: simplicity and separation from overall scores. We do this locally and the guys from Team Zero Comp did this at the BAO and will be doing it at Comikaze in November. Removing the Sports aspect from overall scoring completely eliminates someone dinging an opponent so they can't win the event. The Thumbs Up/Down system ensures that good sportsmanship still matters. Thumbs Up means the game was fine, Thumbs Down means the game was a total disaster, there was: swearing, intimidation, shady activities in game, models getting jostled, over measuring, the BIG stuff. If you give a Thumbs Down you have to explain to a judge WHY in front of the other player, if a player receives two legitimate Thumbs Down they are ejected from the event.

It's simple to explain, simple to enforce, and keeps people from dinging others on sports so they can't win the event.

Sidstyler wrote:That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

There are a lot of ways to win or lose a game.

I like playing the game and don't mind terribly when I lose. But if my opponent tables me on Turn 2, I'm probably going to rate him down for sportsmanship. I come to the game to have fun, not to get wiped out in 10 minutes then spend the rest of the hour and a half watching other people's games.

biccat wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

There are a lot of ways to win or lose a game.

I like playing the game and don't mind terribly when I lose. But if my opponent tables me on Turn 2, I'm probably going to rate him down for sportsmanship. I come to the game to have fun, not to get wiped out in 10 minutes then spend the rest of the hour and a half watching other people's games.

Your clone must play in my area.

biccat wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

There are a lot of ways to win or lose a game.

I like playing the game and don't mind terribly when I lose. But if my opponent tables me on Turn 2, I'm probably going to rate him down for sportsmanship. I come to the game to have fun, not to get wiped out in 10 minutes then spend the rest of the hour and a half watching other people's games.

Now that is unsporting. It is a tournament therefore it is competitive. If you don't want to get tabled play better.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

There are a lot of ways to win or lose a game.

I like playing the game and don't mind terribly when I lose. But if my opponent tables me on Turn 2, I'm probably going to rate him down for sportsmanship. I come to the game to have fun, not to get wiped out in 10 minutes then spend the rest of the hour and a half watching other people's games.

Now that is unsporting. It is a tournament therefore it is competitive. If you don't want to get tabled play better.

Sportsmanship is part of the tournament, and therefore the event is about more than competition. If you don't want to get rated down for sportsmanship, be a better sport.

Except the next opponent I play after you will ding me on sportsmanship if I draw the game out and make him play a game lost on turn 2 for 3 more turns.

Should I ask you before the game if you want to lose slow or fast? Somehow I think that would be worse. So how do I handle this conundrum while being a "better sport"?

I can only wonder how there are so many people that manage to do well at tournaments and somehow manage to not get dinged on their sportsmanship scores.

I guess my point is that if one is consistently having problems with different groups of people, perhaps it isn't "soft scores" that are the problem.

Of course, there is definitely the possibility that you are running into a lot of really sore losers. The first step is actually being honest with yourself and seeing if there isn't actually something you might be doing that could be rubbing people the wrong way. It does seem that the OP, at least, has done this so I have a lot of respect for trying to sort it out reasonably.

Or, as mentioned above, bring beer. Hand me an IPA and you'll get top notch sports scores from me no matter what happens on the table top.

Sidstyler wrote:Bribery = good sport. lol

Some might call it simply being generous and having it positively effect peoples' impression of you.

biccat wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

There are a lot of ways to win or lose a game.

I like playing the game and don't mind terribly when I lose. But if my opponent tables me on Turn 2, I'm probably going to rate him down for sportsmanship. I come to the game to have fun, not to get wiped out in 10 minutes then spend the rest of the hour and a half watching other people's games.

Now that is unsporting. It is a tournament therefore it is competitive. If you don't want to get tabled play better.

Sportsmanship is part of the tournament, and therefore the event is about more than competition. If you don't want to get rated down for sportsmanship, be a better sport.

Sure, if you play a comp tournament of course it is. You ignored the main issue of your own poor sportsmanship however. A form of poor sportsmanship I might add that your opponent will not get the chance to ding you on because by the time he knows about it it's too late. Tabling someone is not poor sportsmanship, it is being the superior player. Dinging somebody's sportsmanship score because you lost badly is poor sportsmanship.

OverwatchCNC wrote:

biccat wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

biccat wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:That's all you're doing wrong, honestly. People love winning and hate losing. So when they beat you, you're a good sport, but when they lose, you're a bad sport.

There are a lot of ways to win or lose a game.

I like playing the game and don't mind terribly when I lose. But if my opponent tables me on Turn 2, I'm probably going to rate him down for sportsmanship. I come to the game to have fun, not to get wiped out in 10 minutes then spend the rest of the hour and a half watching other people's games.

Now that is unsporting. It is a tournament therefore it is competitive. If you don't want to get tabled play better.

Sportsmanship is part of the tournament, and therefore the event is about more than competition. If you don't want to get rated down for sportsmanship, be a better sport.

Sure, if you play a comp tournament of course it is. You ignored the main issue of your own poor sportsmanship however. A form of poor sportsmanship I might add that your opponent will not get the chance to ding you on because by the time he knows about it it's too late. Tabling someone is not poor sportsmanship, it is being the superior player. Dinging somebody's sportsmanship score because you lost badly is poor sportsmanship.

This is why soft scores have no business in a competitive enviroment, either win or loost, only rate the purly objective things, as there is no good way to rate sportsmanship, only "less bad"

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Say:
you: "are you sure it works like that?"
opponent: "yes"
you: "Really? We played it much differently the other day, we even looked it up, let's check to make sure." Or "I thought that too until someone proved me wrong the other day, we should look it up to make sure, especially if I was right originally!"

Fantastic way to handle rules disputes right there.

Yeah DoP, that could be a direct quote from the rules disagreements I have. I thought that was the best way to do it to, yet it still only goes so far.

I think its just a lose/lose in many cases.

jacetms87 wrote:
This is why soft scores have no business in a competitive enviroment, either win or loost, only rate the purly objective things, as there is no good way to rate sportsmanship, only "less bad"

Exactly, the only proper way to do sportsmanship is if you vote at the end of the tournament and some how find a way to figure out who is friends. The second you show up and play buddies its auto max and auto vote for anything.

Jubear wrote:When I enter an event that is supposed to be a test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies I do not want to be handicapped by a system designed to encourage good sportsmanship and usaully encourages the opposite due to vindictive little turds getting upset if they loose.

Well, that's one more reason why there would be no opposition to sportsmanship scores if we just did away with 'Overall' prizes. You could play the game and win best General without anything else affecting your score. And the guy there for the sportsmanship can win HIS prize without annoying anyone else either. It's only when we squish them all together into one 'Overall' prize that people start being annoyed that they're being judged on things they never wanted to compete in.

As an aside, while the form of the tournament is a 'test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies', this for me is merely a framing device to the REAL reason I attend - to play against new people and new armies. I would argue that there are as many, if not more, people at any tournament who feel the same way I do.

malfred wrote:I don't really think of them as tournaments. The word that comes to mind is "pageant." I don't mean that in a bad
way, it's just different from a tournament.

But why? Because Sportsmanship and Painting are judged and subjective rather than empirical? 'Pageant' sounds more than a little demeaning. However, the Olympics, the biggest 'tournament' in the world, has many events which are soft scored, and nobody would argue that it's not a tournament, just because there's no empirical way of scoring Synchronised Swimming...

To relate the analogy to the first quote, it would be silly for anyone to say they had Won the Olympics - they just win the event(s) they choose to compete in. A Long Jumper would be mightily pissed off if his lack of Hurdling ability affected his score, and rightly so.

But why? Because Sportsmanship and Painting are judged and subjective rather than empirical? 'Pageant' sounds more than a little demeaning. However, the Olympics, the biggest 'tournament' in the world, has many events which are soft scored, and nobody would argue that it's not a tournament, just because there's no empirical way of scoring Synchronised Swimming...

I've thought of many Olympic sports as "Pageant" sports rather than true competitive sports, and there is usually at least one event that people feel was unjustly judged every time.

To relate the analogy to the first quote, it would be silly for anyone to say they had Won the Olympics - they just win the event(s) they choose to compete in. A Long Jumper would be mightily pissed off if his lack of Hurdling ability affected his score, and rightly so.

Agreed, the best way to ensure events can be enjoyed by the majority of players is to have separate prize categories.

When I played (American) football back in the day, it was always the blowouts where fights would break out. If we were up big, we would pull the starters, and we wouldn't blitz or throw the ball. With that as context, I would never table a guy or gal who clearly wasn't having fun. I figure if American high school football, which, let's face it, is a much more serious competitive pursuit than 40k will ever be at any level, didn't demand me to mercilessly crush outmatched opponents into the ground, I may as well throw my opponents a bone when I'm winning big at 40k.

As an aside, while the form of the tournament is a 'test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies', this for me is merely a framing device to the REAL reason I attend - to play against new people and new armies. I would argue that there are as many, if not more, people at any tournament who feel the same way I do.

That's definitely my motivation.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Sure, if you play a comp tournament of course it is. You ignored the main issue of your own poor sportsmanship however. A form of poor sportsmanship I might add that your opponent will not get the chance to ding you on because by the time he knows about it it's too late. Tabling someone is not poor sportsmanship, it is being the superior player. Dinging somebody's sportsmanship score because you lost badly is poor sportsmanship.

Rating someone as having poor sportsmanship is not a form of poor sportsmanship. And because it's a subjective scoring, tabling someone could very well be considered poor sportsmanship.

Tabling someone while being a poor sport doesn't make you a "superior player." It makes you a very poor player, in fact.

biccat wrote:Tabling someone while being a poor sport doesn't make you a "superior player." It makes you a very poor player, in fact.

I'd take it a step further and say that I'd rather lose to someone who's fun to play than win against a douchebag.

biccat wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:Sure, if you play a comp tournament of course it is. You ignored the main issue of your own poor sportsmanship however. A form of poor sportsmanship I might add that your opponent will not get the chance to ding you on because by the time he knows about it it's too late. Tabling someone is not poor sportsmanship, it is being the superior player. Dinging somebody's sportsmanship score because you lost badly is poor sportsmanship.

Rating someone as having poor sportsmanship is not a form of poor sportsmanship. And because it's a subjective scoring, tabling someone could very well be considered poor sportsmanship.

Tabling someone while being a poor sport doesn't make you a "superior player." It makes you a very poor player, in fact.

So, as per your initial comment, would you only rate someone down in sportsmanship if they tabled you turn 2 and were also a jerk about it, or would beating you quickly regardless of being a nice guy about it merit a sportsmanship ding?

Unfortunately the current system does not adequately address the situation; it has false incentives (ding the Dash!) and is entirely subjective, whilst simultaneously not preventing TFG from ruining other players day.

Ideally a system should divorce victory from subjective votes and prevent TFG from causing problems.

Sportsmanship should not be a factor in ranking, but there needs to be a system in place for people to report TFG and TOs need to have enough sack to eject such players.

MonsterRain - I'd rather lose to someone who's fun to play than win against a douchebag.

Pretty much sums it up. Well said Sir.

Really? I'd much rather play a doucher and feed him his own HQ selections. At least that way I walk away feeling good about myself.

Nah. To me, a game with an asshat, win or lose, isn't worth the drive.

biccat wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:Sure, if you play a comp tournament of course it is. You ignored the main issue of your own poor sportsmanship however. A form of poor sportsmanship I might add that your opponent will not get the chance to ding you on because by the time he knows about it it's too late. Tabling someone is not poor sportsmanship, it is being the superior player. Dinging somebody's sportsmanship score because you lost badly is poor sportsmanship.

Rating someone as having poor sportsmanship is not a form of poor sportsmanship. And because it's a subjective scoring, tabling someone could very well be considered poor sportsmanship.

Tabling someone while being a poor sport doesn't make you a "superior player." It makes you a very poor player, in fact.

That is fine, I have no problem with that. Too bad that isn't what you said originally. You said you would knee cap someones sports score for tabling you turn 2, you made no stipulation for their acting like a jerk in any other way. And you're wrong, knee capping someone on sports simply because they tabled you, and did nothing else as your initial posts imply, is indeed being a sore loser.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NeutronPoison wrote:When I played (American) football back in the day, it was always the blowouts where fights would break out. If we were up big, we would pull the starters, and we wouldn't blitz or throw the ball. With that as context, I would never table a guy or gal who clearly wasn't having fun. I figure if American high school football, which, let's face it, is a much more serious competitive pursuit than 40k will ever be at any level, didn't demand me to mercilessly crush outmatched opponents into the ground, I may as well throw my opponents a bone when I'm winning big at 40k.

As an aside, while the form of the tournament is a 'test of ones ability to command his army of man dollies', this for me is merely a framing device to the REAL reason I attend - to play against new people and new armies. I would argue that there are as many, if not more, people at any tournament who feel the same way I do.

That's definitely my motivation.

Pulling the punches in a tournament can be detrimental to your overall score and chances of winning the event. In a tournament using Battle Points you need max points every round to have a shot at winning, by playing soft you will keep yourself out of the top spots. In football it doesn't matter how many points you win by, in 40k it does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Say:
you: "are you sure it works like that?"
opponent: "yes"
you: "Really? We played it much differently the other day, we even looked it up, let's check to make sure." Or "I thought that too until someone proved me wrong the other day, we should look it up to make sure, especially if I was right originally!"

Fantastic way to handle rules disputes right there.

Ya, I have found any number of variations that can be self deprecating and overly friendly tends to not piss people off. I found your story enlightening. While I never really had an opinion of you as a jerk gamer, not having played you, hearing the story in full makes all that I've seen unfold online involving you make much more sense. I would be happy to play you sometime if I make it out to the East Coast for an event or if you make it out West. And I won't try to rip you apart on my blog afterwards either!

I once came in third in a tournament where I had maximum scores for painting, army composition and battles.
You awarded one of your three opponents 10 points sportsmanship so you could get zero or 10+10+10 and painting, composition and battles where 20+20+20*3.
I recieved no "most sporting opponent" and the two people before me recieved three each.

Since then, I don't think any tournaments in Sweden has had the Sportsmanship-score affect the outcome of the tournament that much, most common now it is a seperate side-score.

winning against a douchebag is way better than winning agianst anyone else. Its just the game that you have to play to get to that point that sucks.

Monster Rain wrote:

biccat wrote:Tabling someone while being a poor sport doesn't make you a "superior player." It makes you a very poor player, in fact.

I'd take it a step further and say that I'd rather lose to someone who's fun to play than win against a douchebag.

Its fun to beat douchebags

But i would agree that if its the nicest guy who beating you then you don't feel to bad about losing.

plastictrees wrote:So, as per your initial comment, would you only rate someone down in sportsmanship if they tabled you turn 2 and were also a jerk about it, or would beating you quickly regardless of being a nice guy about it merit a sportsmanship ding?

I find that the type of person who would table me on turn 2 tends to be the same type of person who is also a jerk about it. YMMV.

OverwatchCNC wrote:That is fine, I have no problem with that. Too bad that isn't what you said originally. You said you would knee cap someones sports score for tabling you turn 2, you made no stipulation for their acting like a jerk in any other way. And you're wrong, knee capping someone on sports simply because they tabled you, and did nothing else as your initial posts imply, is indeed being a sore loser.

Like I said before, and will repeat again, I don't mind losing games. I've lost a great many games in tournament settings (Hi, I play Thousand Sons). But with few exceptions, I have generally enjoyed the games.

The games I don't enjoy are games where the opposing player knows he has a win in his pocket (Orks, Eldar, Tau, IG, pretty much any non-power armor army) and completely denies me the opportunity to fight back. For example, a Dark Eldar or IG gunline could completely wipe out my army in 1-2 turns of shooting. It's really not terribly difficult for them, in fact I don't think it would take a very experienced player to do so with the right list.

If the player is being a good sport, then they wouldn't wipe out my army in 1-2 turns, they would at least give me an opportunity to maneuver, shoot, and maybe even conduct an assault or two. Because believe it or not most people go to tournaments to have fun and play games, not to "put the hurt" on other players, and not to place their models, move them once and pick them up again the next turn.

Being a good or poor sportsman isn't just about how you act outside the game, it's how you act during the game. I'm sure you have a lot of fun tabling new players who don't take a "hard" list. I doubt they do. Calling someone a poor sport for not bowing to your ego is bad form.

OverwatchCNC wrote:Pulling the punches in a tournament can be detrimental to your overall score and chances of winning the event. In a tournament using Battle Points you need max points every round to have a shot at winning, by playing soft you will keep yourself out of the top spots.

You're responsible for learning and knowing the tournament rules as much as the game rules. If sportsmanship counts, then be a good sport. If tournament points are all that matters, then don't bother being a good sport, just wipe the floor with your opponents and win the tournament.

As an aside, I'd be happy to play against Dash (although I'm pretty sure he'd win just about every game), because while he likes to win, winning doesn't seem to be that important to him. He, like most non-TFG, would apparently rather have a good game and lose than a bad game and win.

biccat wrote:

The games I don't enjoy are games where the opposing player knows he has a win in his pocket (Orks, Eldar, Tau, IG, pretty much any non-power armor army) and completely denies me the opportunity to fight back. For example, a Dark Eldar or IG gunline could completely wipe out my army in 1-2 turns of shooting. It's really not terribly difficult for them, in fact I don't think it would take a very experienced player to do so with the right list.

If the player is being a good sport, then they wouldn't wipe out my army in 1-2 turns, they would at least give me an opportunity to maneuver, shoot, and maybe even conduct an assault or two. Because believe it or not most people go to tournaments to have fun and play games, not to "put the hurt" on other players, and not to place their models, move them once and pick them up again the next turn.

Conversely, I would probably assume that a stranger at a tournament was taking the piss if he did that. I would actually rather get destroyed at his/her earliest opportunity and go and watch other games than go through the motions of playing a game that was really over two turns ago. There's also the very real possibility that your opponent in that case is actually a really good guy who happens to have brought your armies kryptonite, so chatting for two hours while slowly playing out two brutal turns is a perfectly acceptable option to me.

Dash's post reminded me of some of my opponents at Toronto GTs back in the day who were clearly trying very, very hard to be what they imagined were good sports. Obviously I didn't dock them sports points for awkwardly making cheery remarks at different points in the game, or breaking into a sweat as they maintained a fixed smile for two hours, I was mostly just happy that they had showered.

Brothererekose wrote: A "Woo HOO!" once prompted an opponent to say, "You could get dinged on sportsmanship for that." quote]



I'm a beer and pretzels gamer, never played a tourney in my life so I have no experience of more competitive games, but c'mon REALLY? Someone will ding your score for ENJOYING a small success? It seems a little OTT... of course it's just my opinion

Dracos wrote:Well if sportsmanship requires you to pull punches during the battle, these are a couple results that follow the same logic:

I never said you have to pull punches. Please try to address the argument that I'm making. If you play the game so that your opponent doesn't have fun, then you're not being a good sport. Really, that's all there is to say about it.

Now you're just trying to rationalize being a poor sport and ruining your opponent's enjoyment of the game. It's this type of attitude that gives 40k a bad name. But hey, you get prize support, so hooray!

The rest of your points don't follow, logically. The issue here isn't defeating your opponent, it's playing the game so that your opponent has a good time. You can still win games when your opponent has fun.

jacetms87 wrote:Why do you have to let one slide? You simply state it as fact with no reference or warrants for your argument at all, please provide at least some sort of logic other than a blanket statement.

When you play solely for the benefit of winning the game you are necessarily neglecting your opponent's enjoyment. Some people may not mind this, others may find it offputting and not enjoyable. Most people who play 40k do so because they enjoy the game, not because they only like winning.

jacetms87 wrote:As we are speaking as to sportsmanship in a competitive enviroment, how am I over emphasising it?

40k isn't "competitive" in the same way games like Chess or a number of other games (even other miniatures games) are "competitive." It's a horribly unbalanced and non-strategic game. That doesn't mean it isn't fun.

jacetms87 wrote:If you want that kind of experience ( casual) then play in that arena, dont go to a tournament, expecting that, it wastes both your valuable time ( you dont get to play that often) and your opponents ( that you ding on sportsman ship as it is much more difficult to now win said event)

So since I don't get to play very often I should forsake the times when I do get a chance to play simply because some people become TFG at tournaments? I don't think so. My job as a judge of my opponent's sportsmanship (which is what sportsmanship scores are) is not to simply give him maximum sportsmanship score, it's to judge how he held himself out as a player and opponent. If he's an excellent player but not a good sport, I have an obligation to score him appropriately.

You may not think sportsmanship is very important, some of us disagree.

jacetms87 wrote:Also, yes you will have to update your army, when a new codex comes out, ( Ill giv eyou a hint GW does this on purpose to sell minis and make money) if you don't want to do that/ can't that is fine, but don't besurprised when the effective units beat the ineffective ones. The fact of the matter i the hobby costs $$$ if you dont want to do that, then I am sorry but the newer leaner/meaner units will be more effective. That is just the fact, is it fair, not really, is life not fair, no.

No, I don't have to update my army. That's the mistake you're making. I don't go to tournaments to be competitive with other players, I go to tournaments to have fun. If you get enjoyment from spending several hundreds of dollars when a new codex comes out (every 6 months or so when the metagame changes) to update your army, great. I don't. I like playing with my old, mediocre painted army.

jacetms87 wrote:No argument here, however, where does it say in the rules EXPLICTLY that if an opponent tables you you cant have fun? Please provide a page number and which paragraph ( line number optional).

You and I both know that the rulebook says nothing about that. Stop making absurd demands to pretend to win the argument. Simply because the rules don't say I can't have fun when I get tabled in 2 turns doesn't require me to enjoy playing against unsportsmanlike players.

jacetms87 wrote:My definition DIRECTLY contradicts your argument that
1. It's your opponent's opinion, not yours, that determines whether you're a good sport,
as my definition simply states
: conduct (as fairness, respect for one's opponent, and graciousness in winning or losing) becoming to one participating in a sport.

Please explain how you're going to enforce a scoring system that measures a player's conduct without relying on the subjective experience of the opposing player. The fact is that you can't.

jacetms87 wrote:How your opponent PERCIVES the conduct is irrevelant to it being sportsman like, ( they could belive that spitting in someones face was sportsman like for example) as thier perception could be falwed.

No, it's very relevant, because "respect for one's opponent" is a subjective assessment. If I feel you've disrespected me by spitting in my face, it doesn't matter that you did so with the utmost respect. You're being a poor sport.

jacetms87 wrote:Really wikipedia? Shall I go change the definition quickly to make it say something to the effect of "sportsmanship=fish?" Really wikipedia is not a valid souce as it can be changed at any time by anyone including you or I, while A great resource for a quick refernce, not so much for a definition compeating with merriam webster.

I'm not going to get into the argument about the vagueness of the term "sportsmanship" or the ambiguities of the English language. You're making an ad-homonim argument. This doesn't refute or otherwise question the validity of the argument that I made, you're simply attacking it as an unreliable source.

Here's a link from a religious ethicist on sportsmanship:

Good sportsmanship is meant to ensure that the original, constructive goal of competition remains foremost. Someone who puts winning before earnest competition is unsportsmanlike, and ruins the game for everyone.

jacetms87 wrote:BTW also from wikipedia ( same page that you reference) "A sore loser refers to one who doesn't take defeat well" Hmm would you say you are taking defeat well if you always give bad sportsmanship regardless of any other factors if your opponent tables you?

No, I would not. I suppose that ends that particular line of argument.

jacetms87 wrote:I was getting ahead of my self on this point and , we all know it will effect us, thus the reason that some of us are concerned with your predisposition to ding any one on sportsman ship that will table your ( admitally) ineffective army build.

If you have no problem playing in an event that does not have sportsmanship I would humbly suggest you play there as to not unfarily hurt someone elses chances in a tournament, from tabling you.

No thanks. Because those types of tournaments tend to ignore the friendly atmosphere I enjoy so much about 40k.

jacetms87 wrote:You have not, as you still state warrentless arguments, definitions from a source that is unreliable,( can be changed at will), and provide no real facts or even imperical examples, indeed on of your arguemnts was in essance " I am not updating my army with the new codex as it would cost money"

Yes, that was one of my arguments, at least, part of it. I am not updating my army because the enjoyment I receive from my current army is sufficient. The amount of enjoyment I would receive from a 'better' army is not exceeded by the amount of money and time I would have to spend to update my army.

jacetms87 wrote:Also if you could please state that you agree with me that you are not sportsman like (from my uncontested argument arising from my definition of sportsmanship) I ask this as since it is uncontested I only can assume you agree, and also that you are a "sore looser" ( term in your "source" not mine I mean no offense) according to the article that you provided as " evidence". Please, you may want to do this quickly before someone changes the definition on your source.

Since you've resorted to personal insults, I think we're done here. I hope you enjoy your games and at least aspire to be a good sport in the future.

biccat wrote:

Dracos wrote:Well if sportsmanship requires you to pull punches during the battle, these are a couple results that follow the same logic:

I never said you have to pull punches. Please try to address the argument that I'm making. If you play the game so that your opponent doesn't have fun, then you're not being a good sport. Really, that's all there is to say about it.

Now you're just trying to rationalize being a poor sport and ruining your opponent's enjoyment of the game. It's this type of attitude that gives 40k a bad name. But hey, you get prize support, so hooray!

The rest of your points don't follow, logically. The issue here isn't defeating your opponent, it's playing the game so that your opponent has a good time. You can still win games when your opponent has fun.

Except you did say that. You said that if you get tabled turn 2, regardless of how nice I am while doing it, that you are dinging me on sportsmanship.

The whole point is that this standard is arbitrary, and will be different for each person. I can't force you to have fun, you have to have fun on your own. If you think losing turn 2 is not fun, there is literally nothing I can do about that save pulling the punches so that your turn 2 loss doesn't happen until turn 3.

I bet you don't even tell you opponent ahead of time about your "turn 2 rule". How do you expect your opponent to even know this is an issue until it is too late?

Your "tabling on turn 2" is just as absurd and subjective a standard as me not having fun because your army is too nicely painted, or you brought an army with too high of a composition score.

Whether you have fun or not is up to you. I can only control my end of our interaction. Therefore a good sportsman competes hard while giving his opponent every opportunity to enjoy the experience. <text redacted - you were doing well enough, until you wandered into a closing personal attack; discuss the issues! --Janthkin>

biccat wrote:[
Like I said before, and will repeat again, I don't mind losing games. I've lost a great many games in tournament settings (Hi, I play Thousand Sons). But with few exceptions, I have generally enjoyed the games.

The games I don't enjoy are games where the opposing player knows he has a win in his pocket (Orks, Eldar, Tau, IG, pretty much any non-power armor army) and completely denies me the opportunity to fight back. For example, a Dark Eldar or IG gunline could completely wipe out my army in 1-2 turns of shooting. It's really not terribly difficult for them, in fact I don't think it would take a very experienced player to do so with the right list.

If the player is being a good sport, then they wouldn't wipe out my army in 1-2 turns, they would at least give me an opportunity to maneuver, shoot, and maybe even conduct an assault or two. Because believe it or not most people go to tournaments to have fun and play games, not to "put the hurt" on other players, and not to place their models, move them once and pick them up again the next turn.

Yes, actually you did say to pull punches. You may not have used the actual words but that is what you are talking about in the above quote.

Furthermore you are continuing to impose upon others your standards for a fun game. If getting tabled turn 2 will result in you knee capping someone on Sports then you need to make sure that is clear before the round begins. Most people don't think tabling is an offense worth getting knee capped for.

Edit* I believe my entire post got ninja'd...
Edit again* Grammar fail.

NeutronPoison wrote:Isn't the obvious solution "stop incentivizing tabling"? Or at least "get rid of massacres entirely"?

That's exactly why events like NOVA went to a W/L format. A win is a win under that system and it doesn't matter how close it is or how lopsided. The biggest downside is the number of games required to get to the one single undefeated guy for larger tournaments. The still standard battle points system was cobbled together by GW and persists out of inertia. Under battle points there is a strong incentive for players to go for the massacre in order to get maximum points. It's been talked about on some blogs as a big part of the WAAC/Competitive Gamer vs Helpless Fluff Bunny divide.

biccat wrote:I never said you have to pull punches. Please try to address the argument that I'm making. If you play the game so that your opponent doesn't have fun, then you're not being a good sport. Really, that's all there is to say about it.

That's your personal opinion, and helps make the point at the crux of this. There are three kinds of players.

1. Players who take a bad loss poorly because their ego is tied to their achievements.
2. Players who don't care if they win or lose because they are just there to have fun...and don't particularly care about the nuances of superior armies or tactics.
3. Players who see a loss as the opportunity to learn to improve themselves.

Group #1 gets along with both groups as long as they win. Group #1 is ESPECIALLY angry if they lose to group #2. Losing to Group #3 is generally attributed to their opponent cheating, being a powergamer, being a WAAC gamer, and unfun to play against.

Group #2 gets along with all three groups so long as their opponent isn't a douche-canoe.

Group #3 gets along with all thre groups, so long as their opponent isn't a douche-canoe.

Sportsmanship is a non-issue for Groups #2 and #3, and a non-issue when playing against a member of group #1 and losing.

biccat, it comes down to people like you and I having completely different life philosophies. In one of my first games against Hulksmash, who has subsequently become a mentor and dear friend to me, he tabled me in the second or third turn. He tabled ME. DASHOFPEPPER. If it wasn't a tabling, it was because I conceded to save us 30 minutes so that we could do it again. I've been tabled exactly once in a tournament. Tim Hudak did the honors during the SVDM GT in Media, PA. I could write a battle report on the game from memory even now, 2 years later - and Tim will eternally have my grudging respect. There were no sportsmanship scores, but if there had been, he wouldn't gotten a great game from me. To me, the best games are the ones that you lose because you got outplayed, out-listed, or out-diced. No cheating, no sketchy moves....just out-generaled.

At the Nova Open just recently, I lost to Tony Kopack during game #7 on Table #1 in the semi-final match. I had some horrible reserve rolls, and while I did my best with what I had...he did exactly what he needed to do against my army. Ke kept Njall Stormcaller safe and out of sight for most of the game until his powers were almost guaranteed to be formidable, then broke him out and plowed through my army. I shook his hand in admiration after the game, and since dozens of spectators were watching behind the cordon, waiting to know what happened, I shouted out the results for their benefit and started a round of applause for him. Kudos to him for taking me down.

At the heart of every competitive person in EVERY sport/hobby/arena/other should smolder the desire to improve...to climb...to aspire to greatness....to be the best that you can be. America is foundering because of the growing trend to discourage competition - not keeping grades in classes, not keeping scores during school sports, giving out ribbons to every child during award ceremonies so that no one's feelings get hurt. Competition, innovation, change, and the urgent, driving, incessant NEED for mastery...for improvement...for betterment...for recognition...for wealth....have driven all greatness to where they are.

Warhammer 40k is no different, and no less representative in our distribution of peoples. Some strive for self-betterment and achievement, some are happy to exist and content with the status-quo, and some feel entitled for others to give them what they want.

Think on that. What poison are you injecting into the spirit of betterment and friendly competition to punish the opponent who tries their best to suceed in the competition? People like you make people like me walk on eggshells, politic their way carefully through what should have been an enjoyable, laid-back experience in their free time with their hobby, and serve as hidden booby traps on the climb to try being the best.

If I enter the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, out of shape and not ready for it....and I get smoked....are my competitors bad sportsmen for putting me to shame? Absolutely not. As in 40k, getting blown out of the water is an opportunity for introspection and self-improvement, not an invitation to criticize and bemoan.

I got to be myself at the Nova Open because of the detached sportsmanship scoring format. Brutal, formidable, terrifying, mostly quiet and focused - with none of the politicking required in dissimilar events. I tabled opponents on turn two. I had an opponent concede on turn one to avoid the turn two tabling. I'd like to think that I won Best Sportsmanship because I had the honor of playing against players in Groups #2 and #3.

Dashofpepper wrote:

biccat wrote:I never said you have to pull punches. Please try to address the argument that I'm making. If you play the game so that your opponent doesn't have fun, then you're not being a good sport. Really, that's all there is to say about it.

That's your personal opinion, and helps make the point at the crux of this. There are three kinds of players.

1. Players who take a bad loss poorly because their ego is tied to their achievements.
2. Players who don't care if they win or lose because they are just there to have fun...and don't particularly care about the nuances of superior armies or tactics.
3. Players who see a loss as the opportunity to learn to improve themselves.

Group #1 gets along with both groups as long as they win. Group #1 is ESPECIALLY angry if they lose to group #2. Losing to Group #3 is generally attributed to their opponent cheating, being a powergamer, being a WAAC gamer, and unfun to play against.

Group #2 gets along with all three groups so long as their opponent isn't a douche-canoe.

Group #3 gets along with all thre groups, so long as their opponent isn't a douche-canoe.

Sportsmanship is a non-issue for Groups #2 and #3, and a non-issue when playing against a member of group #1 and losing.

biccat, it comes down to people like you and I having completely different life philosophies. In one of my first games against Hulksmash, who has subsequently become a mentor and dear friend to me, he tabled me in the second or third turn. He tabled ME. DASHOFPEPPER. If it wasn't a tabling, it was because I conceded to save us 30 minutes so that we could do it again. I've been tabled exactly once in a tournament. Tim Hudak did the honors during the SVDM GT in Media, PA. I could write a battle report on the game from memory even now, 2 years later - and Tim will eternally have my grudging respect. There were no sportsmanship scores, but if there had been, he wouldn't gotten a great game from me. To me, the best games are the ones that you lose because you got outplayed, out-listed, or out-diced. No cheating, no sketchy moves....just out-generaled.

At the Nova Open just recently, I lost to Tony Kopack during game #7 on Table #1 in the semi-final match. I had some horrible reserve rolls, and while I did my best with what I had...he did exactly what he needed to do against my army. Ke kept Njall Stormcaller safe and out of sight for most of the game until his powers were almost guaranteed to be formidable, then broke him out and plowed through my army. I shook his hand in admiration after the game, and since dozens of spectators were watching behind the cordon, waiting to know what happened, I shouted out the results for their benefit and started a round of applause for him. Kudos to him for taking me down.

At the heart of every competitive person in EVERY sport/hobby/arena/other should smolder the desire to improve...to climb...to aspire to greatness....to be the best that you can be. America is foundering because of the growing trend to discourage competition - not keeping grades in classes, not keeping scores during school sports, giving out ribbons to every child during award ceremonies so that no one's feelings get hurt. Competition, innovation, change, and the urgent, driving, incessant NEED for mastery...for improvement...for betterment...for recognition...for wealth....have driven all greatness to where they are.

Warhammer 40k is no different, and no less representative in our distribution of peoples. Some strive for self-betterment and achievement, some are happy to exist and content with the status-quo, and some feel entitled for others to give them what they want.

Think on that. What poison are you injecting into the spirit of betterment and friendly competition to punish the opponent who tries their best to suceed in the competition? People like you make people like me walk on eggshells, politic their way carefully through what should have been an enjoyable, laid-back experience in their free time with their hobby, and serve as hidden booby traps on the climb to try being the best.

If I enter the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, out of shape and not ready for it....and I get smoked....are my competitors bad sportsmen for putting me to shame? Absolutely not. As in 40k, getting blown out of the water is an opportunity for introspection and self-improvement, not an invitation to criticize and bemoan.

I got to be myself at the Nova Open because of the detached sportsmanship scoring format. Brutal, formidable, terrifying, mostly quiet and focused - with none of the politicking required in dissimilar events. I tabled opponents on turn two. I had an opponent concede on turn one to avoid the turn two tabling. I'd like to think that I won Best Sportsmanship because I had the honor of playing against players in Groups #2 and #3.

QFT every last bit of it. Although it is well said I doubt it will sway the minds of anyone in group 1 that they shouldn't knee cap someone for being better than they are. When I get tabled I learn from it and move on as you did. Hulksmash annihilated me with his Tyranids once; the next time we met my Salamanders lost again but it wasn't a tabling in fact it was down to the wire. I gave him full sports each time, why? Because the game went well and was enjoyable despite my losing. I have not, nor will I ever, give someone a bad sports score for tabling me. I give bad sports scores when it is earned by douchebaggery and REAL poor sportsmanship.

Like you said Dash, if I show up weighing it at 400 lbs and untrained to a 100 meter dash and lose, it isn't that my opponents are poor sports when they beat me.

Dash, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Dashofpepper wrote:That's your personal opinion, and helps make the point at the crux of this. There are three kinds of players.

1. Players who take a bad loss poorly because their ego is tied to their achievements.
2. Players who don't care if they win or lose because they are just there to have fun...and don't particularly care about the nuances of superior armies or tactics.
3. Players who see a loss as the opportunity to learn to improve themselves.

Group #1 gets along with both groups as long as they win. Group #1 is ESPECIALLY angry if they lose to group #2. Losing to Group #3 is generally attributed to their opponent cheating, being a powergamer, being a WAAC gamer, and unfun to play against.

Group #2 gets along with all three groups so long as their opponent isn't a douche-canoe.

Group #3 gets along with all thre groups, so long as their opponent isn't a douche-canoe.

I'd like to think that I fit well into Group #2. I tend to think Group #1 as the douche-canoe's you refer to.

Dashofpepper wrote:biccat, it comes down to people like you and I having completely different life philosophies.

I don't think it's life philosophies we're comparing here, it's philosophies of the game, 40k. Believe me, I do strive to achieve in my career and other aspects of my life. But it's because I strive to achieve in those areas that I think of 40k as a way to sit back, relax, and have a good time.

When I sit down across from another player I don't look at it as a competition or a contest to be won, I look at it as a chance to sit down with someone and have a good time, relax, and maybe blow some gak up. That's all.

Dashofpepper wrote:Think on that. What poison are you injecting into the spirit of betterment and friendly competition to punish the opponent who tries their best to suceed in the competition? People like you make people like me walk on eggshells, politic their way carefully through what should have been an enjoyable, laid-back experience in their free time with their hobby, and serve as hidden booby traps on the climb to try being the best.

I don't think I'm injecting any poison. Like I said, I play the game to have a good time, it's a game afterall, not a competition. If I'm not having a good time, then in my opinion it's not a good game.

Dashofpepper wrote:If I enter the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, out of shape and not ready for it....and I get smoked....are my competitors bad sportsmen for putting me to shame? Absolutely not. As in 40k, getting blown out of the water is an opportunity for introspection and self-improvement, not an invitation to criticize and bemoan.

Small scale tournaments (2-3 games on a Saturday afternoon) aren't the Olympics, they're like a backyard game of football. If I were in the Olympics (NOVA), yeah, I'd be fine with someone giving it their all and wiping me out in a couple of turns. I'd probably expect it. But when I'm playing a backyard pickup game, I don't find it very entertaining to suddenly discover that my friend is the next John Elway and he scores a touchdown on every play. Or he's Michael Jordon and he dunks over me every time he gets the ball.

Simply put, blowouts aren't fun or enjoyable. If you're in an environment where that type of activity and competition is expected (Olympics, NBA, NOVA), then that's great, have a grand time stomping your opponents into the ground. But if you're going to show up at a small local event that a gaming club puts on once a month, don't be surprised if they take offense to you showing up with your tournament army and tournament game.

Dashofpepper wrote:I'd like to think that I won Best Sportsmanship because I had the honor of playing against players in Groups #2 and #3.

More importantly, I think you won Best Sportsmanship because you weren't a player in Group #1.

biccat wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:If I enter the Olympics in the 100 meter dash, out of shape and not ready for it....and I get smoked....are my competitors bad sportsmen for putting me to shame? Absolutely not. As in 40k, getting blown out of the water is an opportunity for introspection and self-improvement, not an invitation to criticize and bemoan.

Small scale tournaments (2-3 games on a Saturday afternoon) aren't the Olympics, they're like a backyard game of football. If I were in the Olympics (NOVA), yeah, I'd be fine with someone giving it their all and wiping me out in a couple of turns. I'd probably expect it. But when I'm playing a backyard pickup game, I don't find it very entertaining to suddenly discover that my friend is the next John Elway and he scores a touchdown on every play. Or he's Michael Jordon and he dunks over me every time he gets the ball.

Simply put, blowouts aren't fun or enjoyable. If you're in an environment where that type of activity and competition is expected (Olympics, NBA, NOVA), then that's great, have a grand time stomping your opponents into the ground. But if you're going to show up at a small local event that a gaming club puts on once a month, don't be surprised if they take offense to you showing up with your tournament army and tournament game.

That's the problem. Small RTT style tournaments aren't back yard pick up games. They are the prelims to the Olympics. Athletes need to run in all sorts of preliminary events prior to competing in the Olympics so they are properly prepared. The analogy still works, if you show up to a preliminary event unprepared and get smoked by runners who are prepared it is not the prepared runners fault. Players like Dash, Hulksmash, and myself use the smaller events to prepare for the larger ones. We shouldn't be left out of the running to win smaller events because other players are unprepared for competition.

I think that a big problem people are having with biccat's arguement is that his criteria is unfortunately very subjective. Take me for example if you go easy on me in a tournament I will get very angry because I will think that you are trying to mock and disrespect me. Personally I think that Sportsmanship should be more about things outside the game (not including cheating thats should get you dinged). If someone is decent to me, I will give them good marks. I once met someone that would dock you for any kind of wound allocation shenanigans. I on the other hand assume that my two power weapon wounds will go onto the lone special weapon marine. And thats the problem with a very subjective criteria you don't know what will get you dinged.

It warms my heart to see people agreeing with me for once.

Dashofpepper wrote:It warms my heart to see people agreeing with me for once.

Teach us O winner of the Nova Heart of Gold.

biccat wrote:*snip*

First of all, biccat and all you other guys like him don't even know what "sportsmanship" is. Here's a couple of definitions since you guys clearly need some help figuring this out (see, that thing I did just now, that would be "unsportsmanlike conduct" in a game of 40k, being an donkey-cave deliberately and talking down to you...get used to it because I'm tired of your bs).

1. the character, practice, or skill of a sportsman.
2. sportsmanlike conduct, as fairness, courtesy, being a cheerful loser, etc.

1. a man who takes part in sports, esp of the outdoor type
2. a person who exhibits qualities highly regarded in sport, such as fairness, generosity, observance of the rules, and good humour when losing

First of all, the most relevant information: Warhammer 40k is not a "sport". FFS people, real sports don't even have stupid systems like this, and could you imagine if they did? "The Dallas Cowboys utterly devastated the Redskins lastnight, winning 67-0, but sadly they will not be making it to the playoffs as the Redskins gave them a poor sportsmanship score after the game, and combined with previous sportsmanship scores, it's just enough to knock the Cowboys out. Better luck next season."

Shutouts are highly improbable in any sport, you have to play really well to keep the opposing team from scoring even once. Likewise, "tabling" someone in 40k is difficult to pull off (although biccat seems to think highly of himself and that he could pull it off if you just gave him a random Dark Eldar army he'd never played with before and put him up against Tau), most of the time when it occurs it's because one player is abysmally bad and set themselves up for it, and the opponent took advantage of the situation. But with a "sportsmanship score" a la 40k, you would effectively be punishing a team for playing really well. The Cowboys in that example would be considered "douches" for having a super-tight defense and would be penalized for it, which in turn could prevent them from going on to the Super Bowl. That would just be stupid, wouldn't it? It would start riots!

But it's perfectly acceptable in a competitive 40k event to penalize people for playing well and knocking them down in placing because of it?

As for the other bolded parts: it doesn't matter if the game goes on until literally the last minute and gets decided by a single die roll, or if the game ends on turn 2 with a tabling, you lost the game, fair and square. And I feel this doesn't need to be pointed out but because people on Dakka are idiots, "fair and square" obviously assumes that there was no foul play and your opponent didn't cheat or make up rules, and that he was actually respectable the entire game. "Respectable" meaning he was friendly and didn't act like an donkey-cave, i.e., getting angry or sarcastic when he rolled badly/you rolled well, getting overly excited when he did roll well/you rolled badly...I don't think I need to go on and define exactly what "being an donkey-cave" is, but considering that Dakka seems to believe that all you have to do to be considered a "douche" at a 40k tournament is to show up with Space Wolves for feth's sake, I start to wonder...

Being a good sportsman simply means you have to be gracious, win or lose, and that you have to play by the rules. The actual rules, not these unwritten rules that super casuals expect you to follow like "You can't take _____, that unit is broken!"

I'm tired of people trying to say their opponents are dicks because they're better players, or they show up with better armies. "I suck at the game, my opponent should have realized that and went easy on me, deliberately drawing the game out for at least five turns.", or "I was playing Necrons and he had Space Wolves, this is pretty much an auto-win for him so he should play like gak and let me do some damage first." First of all, I'm not even going to bring up the fact that playing that way would actually hurt your score: tabling is obviously worth more points than if you let him obliterate half your army first, controlling all the objectives is worth more points than giving one up to your opponent just so he can have one, etc. That's the whole point of the tournament, you play a series of games, score as many points as you can, and see how you do compared to everyone else in the end, possibly even winning a prize or two if you do well enough. Every player is supposed to know this going into the event. Second, things like army balance are out of the player's hands, as I've said time and time again, that ball is in GW's court. It's their game, they are responsible for keeping it balanced or not. I don't deny that some newer codices perform way better than older ones, but seriously, there's nothing you can do about it, that's how GW made their game. It sucks, it's bs, but GW is fullly capable of fixing that if they wanted and obviously doesn't care. It's unreasonable to expect people, in a competitive event, to deliberately avoid using the best units in their army or to avoid using entire armies altogether, just so you have a better chance at winning with your outdated codex. I don't like saying it but your only options are:

1. Shelf the old army, start a new one. If you're not on a budget then that might not be a bad idea, a new project could be exciting and fun, especially if the rules are better-written and more fun to play than your old army.

2. Understand your limitations and keep playing with the old army. Yeah, it's frustrating, you're going to have to play perfectly and even a single mistake could cost you the game, but like I said this is how GW made their game that we supposedly love to play so much. Try to take advantage of the fact that you know all the ins and outs of your army, which units work and which don't, etc., and hope you can outplay all the Space Marine players.

3. Don't play in tournaments, and/or find a new game to play altogether. Probably the least attractive option but if 1 doesn't work ("I can't afford a new army! That's bs!"), and 2 hasn't worked, then that's all there is. Either that or you can play in strictly comped events where your old army is given ridiculous bonuses, new armies are given ridiculous restrictions, and every opponent is required to give you a blowjob before/after/during the game in order to get full sporstmanship points.

If you're not that competitive, and you don't like high-pressure games where you have to play at your best, and you don't like not being able to force your opponent into letting you win, then tournaments aren't for you, simply put. The reason why you're not having fun isn't because your opponents are all donkey-caves who just won't "let" you, it's because you don't understand what the point of a tournament is and you clearly have different expectations than your opponents do, you have a different idea of "fun" than they do. Competitive players have fun playing this in type of environment, they like being tested by hard armies piloted by good players who know the game. It's just not the place for someone with a super casual mindset who just wants to mindlessly roll dice without thinking too hard about anything.

<thread terminated; as usual, we cannot have a rational discussion about the merits of a Sportsmanship system without it devolving into a lot of personal attacks>