I never play extremely seriously, as it's just a game, so I try to bring decent but fun lists to events at my FLGS. Even though terminators are semi-trash I still run a lot of DW, I use a lot of foot infantry, I don't spam any of my better units, etc. I still win some of my tournament games (1 out of 3 or 4 usually) but I'm mostly just having fun. I'm up against mostly eldar, some tau, some gladius marines, and space wolve deathstar lists.

I don't paint well so never win that award, I've only placed 2nd twice and 3rd four times out of a few dozen events, but at least 50% of the time (lately almost every event) I win best sportsman. More and more I'm beginning to feel bad winning it because it seems like I only win it because people feel bad for me playing enjoyable lists. I mean, at my last event when my first opponent saw my list he said "looks like you'll be winning best sportsman today". It really has me put off and makes me want to build hardcore lists or just give up on tournament play.

What do you guys think?

Nah, a pity prize would be for someone who achieved nothing and contributed nothing to an event, there are plenty of people who lose interest or get salty if the are losing a game or made mistakes. Whereas a good sport is both a gracious winner and a fun loser, you can get best sportsman if you come 2nd or 3rd its rather a measure of how fun you make the game. And someone who makes the game most enjoyable is arguably the best award. Skill in tactics and painting is a totally differant aspect

Every time i want to enter a tournament i have a glimpse at tourney lists people post and don't enter. Not that i can't win vs those net lists with my trukk bully boyz but all the games are gona be the same. Out of like 10 people who post their lists, there's one at best who it wouldn't be boring to play against.

I think the problem is that the ideals that would lead to winning best sportsman goes hand in hand with the type of people who have fun playing regardless of losing or not. The type of player who would write a weak list and still have fun and a great attitude while losing with it is also just going to be a great sportsman

Not a pity prize, exactly, but: People are a lot less likely to nominate someone who beat them as a good sport. If you table someone on turn three, even if you were super nice and friendly and a great guy, they're going to be a bit more sour towards you than if it was a close game, or especially a game that they won.

Thus, it has a tendancy for weaker players to get best sportsman.

It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

Na it isn't a pity price its a trick used to trick some of the more competitive minded players to play nice..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its the grown up equivalent for the kindergarten good behavior stamps.

Best Sportsman is the most prestigious prize there is in a Tournament.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

How does one score sportsmanship objectively?

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

How does one score sportsmanship objectively?

He rolls d6 on a sportsmanship random table every turn.

The fact that there has to be an award for not being a jerk is exactly why tournament 40k is silly.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

How does one score sportsmanship objectively?

By scoring based on objective "Yes or No" questions

Did this player knowingly cheat? Y/N
Did you enjoy playing against your opponent's army? Y/N
Would you play this player again? Y/N

By asking Yes/No questions (instead of arbitrary/subjective systems like nominating or rating opponent's) you remove the wiggle room for players to let personal bias affect how players get sportsmanship score. It also makes scoring opponent's low out of spite hard because you'll just have to flat out lie and odds are your score card will conflict with that player's other score cards.

Best Sportman shouldnt be a pity prize, and at some events is in faxt the most sought after prize. If it ends up a pity prize either the playerbase sucks, the organizer didnt implement it properly, or both. Best Sportsman should be "who was the most fun to play", and in a good playgroup that wont end up being a pity prize. There's a variety of ways to implement that which can work.

Two of your "objective yes/no questions" are subjective (namely 2 and 3).

Whether or not someone enjoyed playing an army or would play the army again is entirely up to their subjective measure of the army, and 25 or 30 isn't a statistically large enough sample size to say that 1 or 2 are outliers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Two of your "objective yes/no questions" are subjective (namely 2 and 3).

Whether or not someone enjoyed playing an army or would play the army again is entirely up to their subjective measure of the army, and 25 or 30 isn't a statistically large enough sample size to say that 1 or 2 are outliers.

Those aren't subjective questions. Either you had fun or you didn't. Either you'd play that person again or you wouldn't. You can objectively look at subjective ideas.

Also what are you talking about for the sample size? I think you are missing the point I was making. It wouldn't be about all of the score cards out of the tournament. You can check for lying by cross referencing the liar's score cards to the opponent's score cards and finding a conflict.

One of the ways I have seen sportmanship implemented well was tickets. Each person gets a ticket to give to their favorite opponent, and whoever gets the most tickets wins. This works best for events with 4-5 games instead of just 3 rounds, but does work. It gives a tangible objective to be achieved (acquiring tickets) that is pursued by actively being pleasant and fun and helps reinforce a fun atmosphere without having score that can be retributively tanked or something else to worry about ranking.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Two of your "objective yes/no questions" are subjective (namely 2 and 3).

Whether or not someone enjoyed playing an army or would play the army again is entirely up to their subjective measure of the army, and 25 or 30 isn't a statistically large enough sample size to say that 1 or 2 are outliers.

Those aren't subjective questions. Either you had fun or you didn't. Either you'd play that person again or you wouldn't. You can objectively look at subjective ideas.

Also what are you talking about for the sample size? I think you are missing the point I was making. It wouldn't be about all of the score cards out of the tournament. You can check for lying by cross referencing the liar's score cards to the opponent's score cards and finding a conflict.

Those things are completely subjective. It's not like you can have a judge observe the game and tell the player "that answer is incorrect, clearly you did have fun and would play that person again".

You also can't say that because three players did have fun playing against someone and the fourth didn't that he's a liar.

It isn't a pity prize. It's an incentive for people to try to make the experience more pleasant for their opponent.

It may be subjective, it may get tossed out as consolation for someone who did poorly on occasion, but if it's taken with a modicum of seriousness it can be a force to combat a**holedom at the gaming table.

I'm okay for the first couple games, but I get irritable by the end.

I personally think it is the most important prize at an event. But that's probably just me.

I think it's simply a combination of the above.

If it's chosen by the players fairly it's something to be lauded. I'd like to pretend that most players (above the age of 12) would be able to vote non-biased whether they won or lost ---- but who are we kidding?

I agree that it's a tournament-based effort to encourage more congenial play --- however this is somewhat silly when the same tournaments put up large rewards for winning, either cash or prize support. Those two are tugging different directions on the same string.

I don't believe it's a pity prize. It would be the best prize (to me, personally). The end goal for me is always fun...everything else is secondary. That means fun for me and my opponent.

I'd rather just have nothing at all.

I'm already chill (at least when playing the game) so I suppose it seems more like this to me.

Yes, it's a pity prize. People vote best sport for the person they felt guiltiest about beating.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that there has to be an award for not being a jerk is exactly why tournament 40k is silly.

^^^^^^^^

I had a guy in his late 40s go beet red when I challenged him saying he could see my infiltrators because he could see a smidge of the orange rim I paint on their base from behind a beer can factory that had a gap underneath it. It was a Wraithknight that he brought to an escalation league where there were meant to be no LOWs...

Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

It is more a prize for being "likable" to play against.
It is also easier to appear more sportsmanlike if you behave well AND lose.
I have seen the prize go to an upper tier player but he was exceptional at being fun to be around.

So no, not a "pity prize" but it can easily be one if say someone loses bad enough and took it will good grace and humor.

No way is it a pity prize!

When we give out the Best Sportsman, we're looking for someone who carries the ideals of the hobby. They're someone whom it is a joy to play against, win or lose. They're the people that make you want to play the game. Sometimes this goes to someone who lost a bunch, but we've often had some high-ranking players score it as well because, despite being very good at the game, they're great players.

Some places might award it differently, but from my experience, a "thanks for not being that guy" or "thanks for losing" is NOT the reason this prize is given.

Being able to win graciously is even more important than being able to lose graciously. It's not a pity prize at all.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

What's wrong with deathstar? It's not pejorative, it's a legit list-building strategy.

Or have I missed something?

I'd rather be the guy that people enjoyed spending an hour with, than the guy who won every game. I'm not saying you can't be both, but if you can only be one or the other...

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

What's wrong with deathstar? It's not pejorative, it's a legit list-building strategy.

Or have I missed something?

most often theyre not terribly fun to play against (and for some armies, sometimes literally impossible to deal with) and often work because they're able to take advantage of stuff the game technically allows but really never intended (such as 2+ rerollable invul saves or 1+/2+ FNP, stuff that once were purely the realm of 4chan hyperbole), while frequently made possible through the combination of things that starkly fly in the face of the game's background and that the game had previously gone to great lengths to prevent.

Yes, but it is a tournament setting. This is the killing ground of the most broken stuff and those going there should expect little else, right?

I mean, if youre going for best general sure. Not all events however prioritize that however, and many seek to blunt the greater extremes somewhat with sportsmanship in some way. Deathstars are also often seen as something of a crutch, doing stuff the game typically doesnt allow for except through clever manipulation of rules/units/wargear thay wasnt really intended, which has its own sportsmanship implications. It all dependsnon the tone of the event.

I think there should be a "worst sport" award in one tourney. Warning, bring your worst models that you care nothing about (cardboard cutouts or blank bases are a good plan), and watch tables get flipped, cheetos get thrown, and everyone arrive as a GUO.

I would oversee that tourney and have 911 on speed dial!!

Someone could have a army that's most explotive and ultra strengh mature chedder but as a person be a decent player and not the jerk there list is.

Players and choices may differ.

The best sport always went to the same person. A player who gets upset to tears if he rolls bad, or tries to reroll results if the we're unfavorable to him. When confronted he gets nervous, and calls the TO over to help him calm down. Literal tears are she'd and many times just randomly walks away to cool off and clear his head. Whines and instead of playing he will tell you everything you didn't want to know about his favorite comics and movie spoilers. He always gets best sportsmanship. Maybe it's just my store. I would think that it was the guy who won in stride and loss in stride with a smile and laugh in the face of defeat.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I mean, if youre going for best general sure. Not all events however prioritize that however, and many seek to blunt the greater extremes somewhat with sportsmanship in some way. Deathstars are also often seen as something of a crutch, doing stuff the game typically doesnt allow for except through clever manipulation of rules/units/wargear thay wasnt really intended, which has its own sportsmanship implications. It all dependsnon the tone of the event.

Building the best list you can for a tournament is a crutch?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think there should be a "worst sport" award in one tourney. Warning, bring your worst models that you care nothing about (cardboard cutouts or blank bases are a good plan), and watch tables get flipped, cheetos get thrown, and everyone arrive as a GUO.

I would oversee that tourney and have 911 on speed dial!!

You could make a pretty good go of it with Orks. They had boyz, nobz and swanky heavy weapons as card print offs in rogue trader, a deffdread in 2nd ed and you could probably port over the stone thrower from whfb 4th ed to use as a lobber gun! Then you've got the white dwarf card cut out templates for a variety of vehicles which would make good ard case looted wagons, battlewagons and so on. If a good ork codex comes along a paper ork army could make a good showing, all with 'official' 'miniatures'.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I mean, if youre going for best general sure. Not all events however prioritize that however, and many seek to blunt the greater extremes somewhat with sportsmanship in some way. Deathstars are also often seen as something of a crutch, doing stuff the game typically doesnt allow for except through clever manipulation of rules/units/wargear thay wasnt really intended, which has its own sportsmanship implications. It all dependsnon the tone of the event.

Building the best list you can for a tournament is a crutch?

I said "seen" as a crutch, primarily when they are only viable through means that are weren't intended but are allowed because the game allows books to mix-mish-and-mash stuff between different armies that aren't designed with such combinations in mind, or through mechanisms the game takes great pains to avoid being possible in most instances but doesn't always catch.

 JamesY wrote:
I'd rather be the guy that people enjoyed spending an hour with, than the guy who won every game. I'm not saying you can't be both, but if you can only be one or the other...

Honestly, I'd rather be the guy that people enjoyed spending an hour with who won about half of his games.

Winning every game probably wouldn't be very fun for my opponents, no matter how pleasant a player I am.

I mean, yeah, I wouldn't win any tournaments, but that probably wasn't ever going to happen anyways.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

What's wrong with deathstar? It's not pejorative, it's a legit list-building strategy.

Or have I missed something?

most often theyre not terribly fun to play against (and for some armies, sometimes literally impossible to deal with) and often work because they're able to take advantage of stuff the game technically allows but really never intended (such as 2+ rerollable invul saves or 1+/2+ FNP, stuff that once were purely the realm of 4chan hyperbole), while frequently made possible through the combination of things that starkly fly in the face of the game's background and that the game had previously gone to great lengths to prevent.

Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

LOL! True dat!
I had friends on that Deathstar!

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

People don't want perspective. They want to point their fingers and cry "Zomgop!" and shake their fists in anger the first time some chancer whups them using a combination they didn't know about in an army they've never played against before.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

 Vaktathi wrote:
I said "seen" as a crutch, primarily when they are only viable through means that are weren't intended but are allowed because the game allows books to mix-mish-and-mash stuff between different armies that aren't designed with such combinations in mind, or through mechanisms the game takes great pains to avoid being possible in most instances but doesn't always catch.

{citation needed}

How do you know that those things weren't intended? It's pretty clear from the complete lack of balance in 7th edition that GW's rules authors are throwing out whatever random stuff they feel like, so something being beyond 5th edition design concepts in power level doesn't mean it wasn't a deliberate choice.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Don't worry Pouncey, they all got the reference, it's just hard to resist messing with Star Wars lessons.

For me, the best sportsman is the person who I enjoyed playing agains the most. Be it because they had a fun army, were a enjoyable person or a little of both.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Don't worry Pouncey, they all got the reference, it's just hard to resist messing with Star Wars lessons.

The Star Wars lesson was completely relevant. The 40k term is a direct reference to the movies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I said "seen" as a crutch, primarily when they are only viable through means that are weren't intended but are allowed because the game allows books to mix-mish-and-mash stuff between different armies that aren't designed with such combinations in mind, or through mechanisms the game takes great pains to avoid being possible in most instances but doesn't always catch.

{citation needed}

How do you know that those things weren't intended? It's pretty clear from the complete lack of balance in 7th edition that GW's rules authors are throwing out whatever random stuff they feel like, so something being beyond 5th edition design concepts in power level doesn't mean it wasn't a deliberate choice.

Occams Razor would strongly suggest these things are unintended byproducts of terrible game design rather than cleverly created intentional easter eggs of power insanity, particularly when they often fly starkly in the face of the game's established fluff that is the core of the value of the IP or are only possible in weird specific ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Deathstar units often dont need to destroy more than a couple units per game depending on ehat those are, and more to the point, through clever use of multiple assaults, can often clear a flank and destroy multiple units in a single round. Such units are expensive, but usually amount to a total of only 1 or 2 units fewer than an opponent. My last CSM tournament list had 14 KP's, the deathstar SW list I faced round 2 with a 500pt TWC deathstar was....12 KP's.


I think stopping at "big and killy" is usually sufficient

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Don't worry Pouncey, they all got the reference, it's just hard to resist messing with Star Wars lessons.

The Star Wars lesson was completely relevant. The 40k term is a direct reference to the movies.

And my point was that it hits extremely hard and is extremely powerful to the point where you going for the win condition of "not killing it" is still difficult because it gets in your face and forces you to do so.

Also, are you sure it's not Star Trek it came from? I feel like it's something Picard said in Revenge of the Sith.

(Sarcasm because duh )

Oh don't be so glum. A lucky die roll here and there and you can fall ass backwards into placing but half the people who show up to tournaments couldn't win best sport if they tried. Be proud, you showed up to play toy space mans and walked away with the best person award. Good haul, imho.

 slip wrote:
Oh don't be so glum. A lucky die roll here and there and you can fall ass backwards into placing but half the people who show up to tournaments couldn't win best sport if they tried. Be proud, you showed up to play toy space mans and walked away with the best person award. Good haul, imho.

Well said.

 kingbobbito wrote:
I never play extremely seriously, as it's just a game, so I try to bring decent but fun lists to events at my FLGS. Even though terminators are semi-trash I still run a lot of DW, I use a lot of foot infantry, I don't spam any of my better units, etc. I still win some of my tournament games (1 out of 3 or 4 usually) but I'm mostly just having fun. I'm up against mostly eldar, some tau, some gladius marines, and space wolve deathstar lists.

I don't paint well so never win that award, I've only placed 2nd twice and 3rd four times out of a few dozen events, but at least 50% of the time (lately almost every event) I win best sportsman. More and more I'm beginning to feel bad winning it because it seems like I only win it because people feel bad for me playing enjoyable lists. I mean, at my last event when my first opponent saw my list he said "looks like you'll be winning best sportsman today". It really has me put off and makes me want to build hardcore lists or just give up on tournament play.

What do you guys think?

How exactly is playing with one hand tied behind your back and still pulling of the occasionally win a pity prize? While other people enjoy "Don't hurt me" difficulty your playing at "Ultra nightmare"

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 slip wrote:
Oh don't be so glum. A lucky die roll here and there and you can fall ass backwards into placing but half the people who show up to tournaments couldn't win best sport if they tried. Be proud, you showed up to play toy space mans and walked away with the best person award. Good haul, imho.

Well said.

I second that.
Especially as someone who never managed to gain a real foothold in the hobby because of all the people taking it waaaay to serious. I started collecting and painting because the fluff and style intrigued me but after a few rounds at different GW stores I just kept to myself and stopped playing, just collecting modells I like, because of the toxic attitudes most people had towards new players.
Nobody would've won "Best Sportsman" there.

"Best sports" isn't a pity prize.

"Wooden spoon" is.

Or, as I like to call it, a "condescension prize".

"Here, you came last, here's some new dice that won't suck as much".

 chromedog wrote:
"Best sports" isn't a pity prize.

"Wooden spoon" is.

Or, as I like to call it, a "condescension prize".

"Here, you came last, here's some new dice that won't suck as much".

Maybe there needs to be a wooden sportsman, where the 'winner' is given a copy of 'How to Make Friends and Influence People'?

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
How exactly is playing with one hand tied behind your back and still pulling of the occasionally win a pity prize?

Because most of the time the people who get the pity prize aren't skilled players playing "40k on hard mode" and still winning, they're people who suck at the game getting massacred because they're incapable of doing any better (or stubbornly obsessed with "casual at all costs" rules and unwilling to do better). It's a participation trophy, you give it to someone who has no hope of ever accomplishing anything else so they can be happy that they won a prize.

Nope. Because if you can't be a good sport while winning, you're a dick that no one wants to play with anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
How exactly is playing with one hand tied behind your back and still pulling of the occasionally win a pity prize?

Because most of the time the people who get the pity prize aren't skilled players playing "40k on hard mode" and still winning, they're people who suck at the game getting massacred because they're incapable of doing any better (or stubbornly obsessed with "casual at all costs" rules and unwilling to do better). It's a participation trophy, you give it to someone who has no hope of ever accomplishing anything else so they can be happy that they won a prize.

Well you won't be winning any with that attitude.

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

My grandmother needs lessons in sucking eggs. Are you available for help?

 slip wrote:
Well you won't be winning any with that attitude.

Given my utter contempt for the idea of sportsmanship scoring/prizes in tournaments I'm not really too sad about this fact.

What if we rebranded it to 'Man of the Match'? or would that be more 'best overall' (including hobby, sports and game result).

nareik wrote:
What if we rebranded it to 'Man of the Match'? or would that be more 'best overall' (including hobby, sports and game result).

Rebranding it doesn't change the facts of the situation.

Why so contemptuous then?

nareik wrote:
Why so contemptuous then?

Because one of three things inevitably happens: "good sportsmanship" means "didn't play a list that could beat me and lost the game" (because clearly everyone is an amazing god of 40k and can not possibly lose unless their opponent is a WAAC TFG), the competitive players automatically give zero scores to their opponents to maximize their own chances of winning the sportsmanship prize, or "good sportsmanship" is defined by being friends with the person you're playing against rather than anything in the game itself. The 40k community is too much of a toxic mess of "casual at all costs" players to have sportsmanship mean anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

nareik wrote:
Why so contemptuous then?

Because one of three things inevitably happens: "good sportsmanship" means "didn't play a list that could beat me and lost the game" (because clearly everyone is an amazing god of 40k and can not possibly lose unless their opponent is a WAAC TFG), the competitive players automatically give zero scores to their opponents to maximize their own chances of winning the sportsmanship prize, or "good sportsmanship" is defined by being friends with the person you're playing against rather than anything in the game itself. The 40k community is too much of a toxic mess of "casual at all costs" players to have sportsmanship mean anything.

Whilst I disagree to an extent (as the vast majority of tournaments I've played in have not had this problem) I can see where you're coming from as I've been on the receiving end of a grumpy opponent sabotaging my sportsmanship score. How dare I actually play by the rules and tell him to take the Meltagun save separately on his bike commander (he insisted to take them all at the same time as his commander had turbo boosted so his save was now invulnerable (this was 4th ed btw)) as it caused instant death?

The guy got arsey and gave me a zero for sportsmanship.

Is "best sportsman" a pity prize?

No. There are some excellent players out there that treat their opponents with respect and can still rock out with a win at any major event.

When you play at a tournament, game store, at home, or at a table at Denny's, rule #1: Don't be a dick!

 Peregrine wrote:
Because one of three things inevitably happens: "good sportsmanship" means "didn't play a list that could beat me and lost the game" (because clearly everyone is an amazing god of 40k and can not possibly lose unless their opponent is a WAAC TFG), the competitive players automatically give zero scores to their opponents to maximize their own chances of winning the sportsmanship prize, or "good sportsmanship" is defined by being friends with the person you're playing against rather than anything in the game itself. The 40k community is too much of a toxic mess of "casual at all costs" players to have sportsmanship mean anything.

I largely agree with this.
Many of the older gamers had invested heavily in the game during a time it was "competitive" (myself included).
It is terribly hard to play 40k and keep reminding yourself that the rules mean very little since people penalize you for using them to their fullest.
"Sportsmanship" would be easy to be fair and gracious but for some reason "playing by the rules" with competitive lists is considered bad manners: no-one should be penalized for playing according to the documented rules.

So yeah, it could largely be a pity prize only because it is far easier to field an underperforming army, play by the rules and lose graciously to "win".
I can be a really nice guy and play a competitive army and if I have the "bad luck" of utterly destroying your army, I will not be seeing any sportsmanship points coming my way.

Thats why well designed sports scores arent built around a numerical value assigned by an opponent that just end up being another competitive ranking mechanism. Sportsmanship awards can be done in other ways which have been highlighted in these discussions that work much better.

 Peregrine wrote:

 slip wrote:
Well you won't be winning any with that attitude.

Given my utter contempt for the idea of sportsmanship scoring/prizes in tournaments I'm not really too sad about this fact.

Well, you won't win best sportsman, but you do win my pity. This is only a game about toys, but you're missing that. Theres nothing worth proving that's more valuable than having a good time.

Honestly I do not get Peregrine's viewpoint. I don't think it's the "casual at all costs" people who are the toxic ones. But I'm curious since he's so vehement (and often, while I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, completely condescending in his tone) why he thinks the way he does. He seems to be of the mindset of David Sirlin in his book "Playing to Win", that is the only reason to play a game is to "win" at it, by any legal (within the game rules) means necessary and to never feel shame at all about using the most powerful choices because those choices maximize the endeavor of winning. As opposed to what Sirlin refers to as "The Scrub" and Peregrine seems to lump under the "casual at all costs" umbrella:

David Sirlin, Playing to Win wrote:
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

In short, a player who adds their own arbitrary restrictions to the game in the interest of "fairness" and as a result directly hinders their chances at winning, for example Player A refusing to take a Wraithknight because it's "too good" and calling Player B "cheap" when they field a Wraithknight because the rules don't prohibit them from taking it.

However, if we go from Sirlin's writing I think Warhammer (of any flavor) is the definition of a "degenerate" game in that once you reach the "chasm" (of trying to become competitive) in that there isn't much depth to it unlike, say Magic: The Gathering or chess or Street Fighter or even other wargames (Warmahordes, for instance).

So I don't really get the vehemence and anger against "casual" players when 40k (and AoS) is clearly intended to be a casual and laid-back game, not a cutthroat competitive one where winning should be the only goal.

In fairness, a player that decries his opponent's army as "cheap" or "too good" at a tournament does not deserve to win best sportsman.

Wayniac wrote:
So I don't really get the vehemence and anger against "casual" players when 40k (and AoS) is clearly intended to be a casual and laid-back game, not a cutthroat competitive one where winning should be the only goal.

I have no problem with "casual" players. I have a problem with "casual" players who show up at a competitive event and complain about people bringing lists that are intended to win, "casual" players who post smug rants about how everyone who isn't "casual enough" is ruining the game, etc. A tournament is an event where you play competitively to find out who the best player is. Whining and crying because people make the best choices and win games is directly against the intent of the event. If you're so opposed to the idea of people making the best choices and winning that you think it's poor sportsmanship to do so then don't go to tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
However, if we go from Sirlin's writing I think Warhammer (of any flavor) is the definition of a "degenerate" game in that once you reach the "chasm" (of trying to become competitive) in that there isn't much depth to it unlike, say Magic: The Gathering or chess or Street Fighter or even other wargames (Warmahordes, for instance).

This is probably true, but the solution is to make clear and quantifiable rules to fix the game. If, say, Wraithknights are overpowered to the point that they create a generate game then the solution is for the people running the tournament to add a rule saying "Wraithknights now cost 500 points and you can not take more than one". It is NOT to leave Wraithknights degenerately overpowered and whine that anyone who brings "too many" of them is a bad person.

Yeah the whole "Best Sportsman" thing drives me nuts. For me at least, getting that prize actually hurts more than not getting anything at all

nareik wrote:
In fairness, a player that decries his opponent's army as "cheap" or "too good" at a tournament does not deserve to win best sportsman.

True, that attitude is just as bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So I don't really get the vehemence and anger against "casual" players when 40k (and AoS) is clearly intended to be a casual and laid-back game, not a cutthroat competitive one where winning should be the only goal.

I have no problem with "casual" players. I have a problem with "casual" players who show up at a competitive event and complain about people bringing lists that are intended to win, "casual" players who post smug rants about how everyone who isn't "casual enough" is ruining the game, etc. A tournament is an event where you play competitively to find out who the best player is. Whining and crying because people make the best choices and win games is directly against the intent of the event. If you're so opposed to the idea of people making the best choices and winning that you think it's poor sportsmanship to do so then don't go to tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
However, if we go from Sirlin's writing I think Warhammer (of any flavor) is the definition of a "degenerate" game in that once you reach the "chasm" (of trying to become competitive) in that there isn't much depth to it unlike, say Magic: The Gathering or chess or Street Fighter or even other wargames (Warmahordes, for instance).

This is probably true, but the solution is to make clear and quantifiable rules to fix the game. If, say, Wraithknights are overpowered to the point that they create a generate game then the solution is for the people running the tournament to add a rule saying "Wraithknights now cost 500 points and you can not take more than one". It is NOT to leave Wraithknights degenerately overpowered and whine that anyone who brings "too many" of them is a bad person.

Agreed 100% on both counts, especially the first one; it's stupid to go to a competitive event, bring a non-competitive list and then complain about getting your teeth kicked in by "cheese" lists (it's a competitive event, what else did you expect them to bring?). That's just as asinine, although in my experience less common, than a competitive player going to a casual event with a power list purposely to disrupt it (sadly I feel that behavior is worse because, as I've stated previously, the competitive player has tournaments for them to show their power lists and can reaosnably expect that casual players won't attend, while casual players often don't have any event of their own that doesn't run the risk of a powergamer showing up to try and steamroll it with "easy pickings"). The second one is pretty spot on too but I am not sure how it would work in practice for a TO to make arbitrary rules like that, but I agree it's better to do something than say it's fair game with the unwritten "But you're a bad person if you take more than 1 Wraithknight" even though taking more than one is allowed by the tournament.

What I don't get though, is the mindset of approaching 40k with the intent to "win by any means necessary" and not care about the fun of your opponent. I get wanting to win, but at the cost of you having fun and your opponent being miserable? That seems like a douche move regardless of how you try to justify it, whether your opponent brought a poor list or a not-so-poor list. Warhammer always felt to me like the kind of game that is best approached like going to a buddy's house for a day of watching football. Relaxed, enjoy some snacks and beverages, some friendly trash talking, and both people have a good time. Yet I far too often see trying to turn it into this strict competitive game where it's all serious fething business and a matter of life and death.

For example, the rules might LET you take a lot of particular powerful units. But SHOULD you? Yes, it's clear it means the rules are flawed for letting you take so many of a strong unit, but at what point does the onus fall on the player to realize "This unit is REALLY good, if I take three it might result in an unfun game for my opponent" and restrict themselves? I far too often see the counter of "GW rules are bad and that's why I can take three of an OP unit" and that is 100% true, but that seems like an excuse with no resolution.

This might be better suited to a topic of its own but I see a lot of excusing bad behavior and very little actually fixing it. Yes, a game is bad if it lets you abuse powerful units with nothing to reign it in, and yes the game is bad for saying "You can do this, but you're a bad person if you do" but then why do people still do it and still use that as an excuse to justify it? If the game won't police you, then you have to police yourself, not blame the rules while continuing to take advantage of it, and that's what I too often see from the "WAAC" crowd. "The rules are terrible and let me do this. A good game wouldn't let me do this!" all the while as they continue to do it.

Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

The problem with the tournament scene is that "best sportsmen" isn't considered the top award.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The problem with the tournament scene is that "best sportsmen" isn't considered the top award.

Depends on the person. I would consider it a privilege to win, so would any of my game group.

However, Best Painted is the best award there ever will be!

Still my favorite prize I have ever earned at a tournament. (Best Sportsman in 2011) It's a wooden plaque - handmade and painted by one of the group that used to run Da Grand Waaagh in California. Tournament had about 120 people in it.

Scoring was interesting. You rated the people you played from best to worst games you had. So if you played 5 games you rated one a 5, one a 4, one a 3, etc. People balked at the harsh scoring method ("But I had 3 GREAT GAMES!" was the common complaint.) but I found that if you were forced to think hard about it, something differentiated even those three great games. (Its a stacked ranking system ultimately).

I was really happy to find that so many of my opponents genuinely enjoyed playing with me - even the ones that I stomped.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

Why though? The game is clearly skewed towards not competive so should it not be on the competitive player to adapt, rather than force everyone else to adapt to them (and conversely in a highly competitive game like Warmachine, the casual player should adapt).

Again, what I don't get is the continued "GW rules are trash" approach while someone is continuing to abuse them. If you recognize the rules are bad and allow for abuses, and on top of that go out of your way to point out the rules are bad because you can abuse them, then why the feth do you continue to abuse the rules and then deflect blame by saying "It's not me, the gak rules let me do this!"

That's the mentality I don't understand, trying to force a round peg (40k) into a square hole (competitive play) and doing it by cutting the hole larger and saying "It's not my fault, this peg wasn't meant to fit into this hole even though it should!"

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

Why though? The game is clearly skewed towards not competive so should it not be on the competitive player to adapt, rather than force everyone else to adapt to them (and conversely in a highly competitive game like Warmachine, the casual player should adapt).

Again, what I don't get is the continued "GW rules are trash" approach while someone is continuing to abuse them. If you recognize the rules are bad and allow for abuses, and on top of that go out of your way to point out the rules are bad because you can abuse them, then why the feth do you continue to abuse the rules and then deflect blame by saying "It's not me, the gak rules let me do this!"

That's the mentality I don't understand, trying to force a round peg (40k) into a square hole (competitive play) and doing it by cutting the hole larger and saying "It's not my fault, this peg wasn't meant to fit into this hole even though it should!"

I am actually a very casual player but I agree with CrownAxe here. This is why there are events at Adepticon such as the "40k Friendly" tournament. This is also why I do NOT play in events such as the Adepticon or LVO main tournaments. (I primarily play in the other events there such as "Narrative" events or the aforementioned "40k Friendly".

Those main tournament types of events have clearly stated "This is a no-holds barred, winner take all, type of event." Expecting someone to "play casual" at one of these has the casual player in the wrong setting. The current state of 40k is what you make of it. The guys from Frontline are making their tournament (including their rules adjustments) to be a competitive level event. 40k CAN be played that way (its not my particular method of choice), but I certainly won't begrudge any players that want to play that way.

Nor would I ask them to change the way they play to suit my needs. Just like they wouldn't ask me to change the way I play to suit theirs.

 cvtuttle wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

Why though? The game is clearly skewed towards not competive so should it not be on the competitive player to adapt, rather than force everyone else to adapt to them (and conversely in a highly competitive game like Warmachine, the casual player should adapt).

Again, what I don't get is the continued "GW rules are trash" approach while someone is continuing to abuse them. If you recognize the rules are bad and allow for abuses, and on top of that go out of your way to point out the rules are bad because you can abuse them, then why the feth do you continue to abuse the rules and then deflect blame by saying "It's not me, the gak rules let me do this!"

That's the mentality I don't understand, trying to force a round peg (40k) into a square hole (competitive play) and doing it by cutting the hole larger and saying "It's not my fault, this peg wasn't meant to fit into this hole even though it should!"

I am actually a very casual player but I agree with CrownAxe here. This is why there are events at Adepticon such as the "40k Friendly" tournament. This is also why I do NOT play in events such as the Adepticon or LVO main tournaments. (I primarily play in the other events there such as "Narrative" events or the aforementioned "40k Friendly".

Those main tournament types of events have clearly stated "This is a no-holds barred, winner take all, type of event." Expecting someone to "play casual" at one of these has the casual player in the wrong setting. The current state of 40k is what you make of it. The guys from Frontline are making their tournament (including their rules adjustments) to be a competitive level event. 40k CAN be played that way (its not my particular method of choice), but I certainly won't begrudge any players that want to play that way.

Nor would I ask them to change the way they play to suit my needs. Just like they wouldn't ask me to change the way I play to suit theirs.

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

Additionally the rules and the fluff are currently easily separated.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Abusing and exploiting the weaknesses of a game IS being competitive. Being competitive means actively gaining as much of an advantage as possible out of the systems the game makes available to you. Calling a game out for being poorly designed and unbalanced is completely irrelevant to playing it competitively.

You can recognize a flaw and bemoan its existence and still play to win. They're not mutually exclusive.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Abusing and exploiting the weaknesses of a game IS being competitive. Being competitive means actively gaining as much of an advantage as possible out of the systems the game makes available to you. Calling a game out for being poorly designed and unbalanced is completely irrelevant to playing it competitively.

Hrm, only to an extent. Doing things clearly outside the spirit and intent of the rules moves from being competitive and into simple gimmickry. As an example, lets take the old Battlebots, robots could have projectiles but they had to be tethered. Well, putting a wire guided missile on one might fall within that guideline, but at that point you're no longer participating in the event in a way anyone would recognize. Alternatively, staffing a basetball team with 20ft tall genetic mutants to play against a middle school state champ team isnt being competitive, its breaking the game. Breaking a system isnt the same as being competitive.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Abusing and exploiting the weaknesses of a game IS being competitive. Being competitive means actively gaining as much of an advantage as possible out of the systems the game makes available to you. Calling a game out for being poorly designed and unbalanced is completely irrelevant to playing it competitively.

Hrm, only to an extent. Doing things clearly outside the spirit and intent of the rules moves from being competitive and into simple gimmickry. As an example, lets take the old Battlebots, robots could have projectiles but they had to be tethered. Well, putting a wire guided missile on one might fall within that guideline, but at that point you're no longer participating in the event in a way anyone would recognize. Alternatively, staffing a basetball team with 20ft tall genetic mutants to play against a middle school state champ team isnt being competitive, its breaking the game. Breaking a system isnt the same as being competitive.

So I'm genuinely curious now where do you draw the line?

This may be better as its own topic, I think we can probably have a good discussion on the line between "competitive" and "breaking the game".

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Abusing and exploiting the weaknesses of a game IS being competitive. Being competitive means actively gaining as much of an advantage as possible out of the systems the game makes available to you. Calling a game out for being poorly designed and unbalanced is completely irrelevant to playing it competitively.

Hrm, only to an extent. Doing things clearly outside the spirit and intent of the rules moves from being competitive and into simple gimmickry. As an example, lets take the old Battlebots, robots could have projectiles but they had to be tethered. Well, putting a wire guided missile on one might fall within that guideline, but at that point you're no longer participating in the event in a way anyone would recognize. Alternatively, staffing a basetball team with 20ft tall genetic mutants to play against a middle school state champ team isnt being competitive, its breaking the game. Breaking a system isnt the same as being competitive.

The spirit and intent of the rules really don't matter in competitive play. All the things you listed as long as they are legal are fair game

That's basically how Sirlin argues it too. If it's allowed within the rules, it's fair game no matter how "cheap" it might be considered, because it's a valid tactic. See also for example winning a martial arts contest by just shoving your opponent out of the ring immediately. Valid, sure, but clearly not the way the contest is intended to work. So most people will consider this "cheap" or "unfair" or similar, but the competitive person is technically in the right by saying that it's allowed by the rules, and therefore is a valid tactic even if 99.9% of people aren't going to do it because they "know" it's not the intention.

Same thing here. Most people can look at things like a super unfluffy list or something taking a lot of undercosted, high-powered things and "know" it's not the right way to win, but it's a legal (as in the rules) way to win, if decidedly unethical.

And therein, I think we have the main question. There is "legal" and "ethical". Just like in business, there are some shady things that are 100% legal, but almost 100% unethical to do, yet there's no repercussions and it's technically allowed. Same principle here: It might be "unethical" to ignore the lore in a game and bring a mishmash power list to a tournament (and it might very well be) but it's not [i]illegal[/b] to do so by the rules of the game.

So in effect, the most competitive minded players willingly operate unethically, because they know it's legal and they aren't concerned with ethics (which to be fair, if going to a cutthroat tournament you can't be concerned with ethics).

A very interesting discussion, i think.

The problem with "ethical" gaming is that it's completely arbitrary and subjective. The line between ethical and unethical basically doesn't exist because it will very between player to player. It's not fair to expect players to be held to ethical standards when those standards can't be reasonably defined.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Abusing and exploiting the weaknesses of a game IS being competitive. Being competitive means actively gaining as much of an advantage as possible out of the systems the game makes available to you. Calling a game out for being poorly designed and unbalanced is completely irrelevant to playing it competitively.

Hrm, only to an extent. Doing things clearly outside the spirit and intent of the rules moves from being competitive and into simple gimmickry. As an example, lets take the old Battlebots, robots could have projectiles but they had to be tethered. Well, putting a wire guided missile on one might fall within that guideline, but at that point you're no longer participating in the event in a way anyone would recognize. Alternatively, staffing a basetball team with 20ft tall genetic mutants to play against a middle school state champ team isnt being competitive, its breaking the game. Breaking a system isnt the same as being competitive.

The spirit and intent of the rules really don't matter in competitive play. All the things you listed as long as they are legal are fair game

Only if your definition of competitive play is "win at all costs", which isnt usually the case, and you end up trying to "play" something completely different than what the game was designed for and what the other players are there for, and thats no longer competition.

Wayniac wrote:
That's basically how Sirlin argues it too. If it's allowed within the rules, it's fair game no matter how "cheap" it might be considered, because it's a valid tactic. See also for example winning a martial arts contest by just shoving your opponent out of the ring immediately. Valid, sure, but clearly not the way the contest is intended to work.

Thats something that a competent martial artist should be able to react to and at least try to do something about. In my last fencing tournament, someone tried basically that exact thing on me and got a Dussack to the side of the face for it when I stepped offline and was able to pivot around and riposte. If someone showed up with an AK, well, the rules may not specifically address that, but nobody would consider that "competitive", but intentionally breaking the competition. Nobody is going to award you the victors medal.

With some of the stuff in 40k, you routinely get issues like the latter there often there's nothing an opponent can realistically do about some things, there's no test of command ability to react and counter, the math is just too heavily stacked.

To everyone suggesting that I'm "casual at all costs" or that I'm purposely handicapping myself: I have a limited amount of money I can spend on 40k, and I prefer casual to competitive, so I've bought more casual stuff than competitive stuff. Almost half of what I own is DW, so I really don't have a ton of options for anything over 1000 points, I pretty much have to take some DW. If I had 20 razorbacks I'd use lion's blade in a tournament, but I can't drop $500 on razorbacks (and there's stuff I'd rather buy with that money anyways). If I take tacticals they're likely to be on foot.

On top of that, I don't dislike anyone for what they bring to tournaments. I've often ranked the people that beat me as my favorite game of the tournament, because they were the ones that were the most fun to play against. Bring your 7 riptides and your 5 WKs, just know that I can't suddenly decide I want to buy 50 RW or a dozen razorbacks, I'm stuck running what I own.

I have always been rather torn as a player.

I like the "fluff", books and descriptions of various battles.
Playing historical gaming can do that to a person.
So I really like to create "re-enactments" which can lead to a more "casual play".

BUT

I really like competitive play.
I will religiously play within the rules.
There is no such thing as "breaking the game": was it within the "rules as written"?
"Rules as intended" is always a slippery slope, never-mind that reading into a developer's intent is a path leading to madness.

In the end, to play a game the only common element me and my opponent have is the rules written down we agree to play to.
There is nothing wrong with coming to some agreement contrary to those rules as long as we are playing the same game.
Anyone claiming my list is "cheese" or "unfair" is not playing the same game as agreed and needs to explain themselves.

I think in the pure definition of being a "best sportsman" is to make it clear you are playing by the rules and understand that if you or your opponent do not find joy in it, the game is rather pointless.
Doing your best is in the spirit of being a "sportsman" and just "letting you win" is rather belittling.
I will tear victory from my opponent, not have it handed to me...
Because in the end I want to look them in the eye, shake their hand and really mean the words "great game!".

 oldzoggy wrote:
Na it isn't a pity price its a trick used to trick some of the more competitive minded players to play nice..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its the grown up equivalent for the kindergarten good behavior stamps.

Way back when, the GW US Grand Tourneys used to determine Best General by combining Battle points with (opponent voted) Sportsmanship score, The "Kick Your Ass and Make You Like It" award... Ahhhh, the good ol' days.

Ultimately to be a good sport, you need to be open and transparent about the rules and how you're using them, be polite and friendly regardless of how competitive you are, and be gracious in victory as well as in defeat.

Because we all know of sore losers, but sadly there IS such a thing as a sore winner. And in 40k it's a lot more common than you'd think-- time and again I hear people complaining about people having "overpowered armies" that the person never admits to actually losing to. It's oftentimes just they hate being challenged by other players' stuff. And THAT is a poor sport right there.