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

So  anyone think there is a better way to do these? Or is best to not do them at all? Painting already has its own award (Golden Demon)

My personal preference is that all tournaments be 67% battle, 33% appearance. Painting is part of what we're doing, and it's something I think most people strive to improve at.

My thoughts on sports and comp are well known, and I'd simply prefer that sports be pass/fail, and that there be no comp at all.

I'd say Composition should be lumped in with Sportsmanship. If your going to place 14 assault cannons on the table, thats just really not all that cool. Sure, it may get you a win, but at the expense of your opponents fun? *shrugs* I'm not a big tournament guy myself, I'm more about having fun. Winning is just a perk.

I'd probably suggest rating it at 60% for the Battle, 20% for Appearance, 20% for Sportsmanship.

I agree with mauleed.

Painting/modeling is an elemental part of the hobby and should be included in the score to reflect that.

Sportsmanship, or how you conduct yourself during the event, is also quite important (and should probably be scored both before and after any given battle to help weed out sore losers).

List construction, however, should not be judged. Sure, there could be side contests for the best themed army, etc..., but if you bring a list that the rules allow, no matter what it is, you should not be penalized for it.

Now, if you gloat about it and shove your wins down your opponents throat.... thats a different story.


Always taking 14 assault cannons, is like using the same tactic every single play in American football. Sure its legal and can be effective, but pretty soon the opposition knows exactly what you are going to do. You shouldn't receive a penalty for doing it, because your own predictability becomes your own downfall.

The Adepticon Championship is expected to be 55% battle, 17% painting, 17% sportsmanship and 11% Army Craft (combination of quiz and roster design). Of that, the Sports scoring is a player scored list after round. The expectation is that most players will score 90%+ of available points (effectively eliminating it as a competitive component of the over all). The Army Craft award is aimed at the players who's focus is army construction and not competitive play.

On a stand alone bases, I don't think I'd include Army Craft. But with the presence of the Gladiator tournament at Adepticon, there is a need to keep some differentiation between the events.

I like the idea of Pass/Fail sports. As for painting, I know it opens up a can of worms if you get rid of it (people showing up with absolute CRAP armies) but there has to be an in-between. So much of it is a personal taste thing and to top it off, someone who has the money can hire a pro to paint their models and win but it isn't based on their own acheivement.

I am so frustrated by players lack of painting at RTT's that I do not who paints their models as long as they are painted. I am a poor painter but I make sure that ALL of my models are painted to an acceptable standard for an RTT. Playing against an unpainted army is such a buzzkill. I wish tourney organizers would enforce the "must be painted" rule. It has gotten so bad that even the LA BattleBUnker allows unpainted models to be used. That is sad.

Darrian

That does bring up an interesting question. For Army appearance. Do guys who can afford to dish out 5k to have their army painted to pro levels, get scored for that? Like I said, I'm not a tournament type of guy, so I'm not sure how that's handled. People should not be scored better, simply because they have more money then others.

@djones, I do not care who paints your minis, as long as they are painted that is fine. To add to that, if a guy goes out and spends a ton of cash getting his stuff professionally done then their opponents benefit from a more pleasing game. It's all good to me.

Darrian

Posted By djones520 on 08/25/2006 12:54 PM
I'd say Composition should be lumped in with Sportsmanship. If your going to place 14 assault cannons on the table, thats just really not all that cool. Sure, it may get you a win, but at the expense of your opponents fun? *shrugs* I'm not a big tournament guy myself, I'm more about having fun. Winning is just a perk.

I'd probably suggest rating it at 60% for the Battle, 20% for Appearance, 20% for Sportsmanship.

Politely: if your fun is dependent on the number of assault cannons I take, it's you that's doing something wrong, not me. Should I mark you lower in sports because you were rude enough to bring an army that wasted my time simply being shot off the board and didn't take my fun into consideration?

There's nothing inherently more fun about poorly designed, inefficient lists.

Posted By mauleed on 08/25/2006 1:35 PM

Posted By djones520 on 08/25/2006 12:54 PM
I'd say Composition should be lumped in with Sportsmanship. If your going to place 14 assault cannons on the table, thats just really not all that cool. Sure, it may get you a win, but at the expense of your opponents fun? *shrugs* I'm not a big tournament guy myself, I'm more about having fun. Winning is just a perk.

I'd probably suggest rating it at 60% for the Battle, 20% for Appearance, 20% for Sportsmanship.

Politely: if your fun is dependent on the number of assault cannons I take, it's you that's doing something wrong, not me. Should I mark you lower in sports because you were rude enough to bring an army that wasted my time simply being shot off the board and didn't take my fun into consideration?

There's nothing inherently more fun about poorly designed, inefficient lists.

Politely:  I'd love to just "waste your time" one day.  I'd make sure I would bring along the most inept list possible.  It's sad when you consider other people rude, for wanting to just have fun.  Fun does not entail having your ass handed to you by a prick whose interested in one thing.  Simply winning for the sole sake of winning.  I avoid tournaments because of people like you.  I'm real interested to see what happens between you and Xtapl.  *tips his hat*

Obviously you miss my point. I don't consider anyone anything for bringing their list, a bigotry of which it seems you can not say you are devoid.

You're claiming that playing to win isn't fun, when clearly (and particularly at dakka) many people think that's the primary fun to be had.

There's nothing sacred about how you choose to enjoy the hobby. It has no more moral wieght than the guy next to you that wants to bring 14 assault cannons. If that's how he wants to enjoy playing 40k, he's got just as much right to it as you do.

Obviously someone sold you on the concept that playing weak armies is "good", and playing hard ones is "bad".

 

I've never claimed that playing to win isn't fun. I enjoy winning just as much as the next guy. I could also build a power list just as well as the next guy.

What I was saying, is that playing for the sole purpose of winning is not something that I enjoy. And your comment to me reeked of that mentality.

My personal opinion. Weak armies, as you put it, are better. Simply because when you do win with them, it's that much better. There is nothing good, or bad, in either build. Thats why I said that the composition should be factored in with the Sportsmanship. Did the person bring the cheese build simply to win? Did he do it, because he doesn't care about being there and having a good time (which is what sportsmanship is about)? Is all he wants that trophy at the end.

Looking at how someone builds there army, can help determine their sportsmanship level. But you have to factor everything else in as well.

You continue to miss my point. Perhaps I'm not being clear.

You said that someone bringing 14 assault cannons is "not cool", and doing so at the expense of your fun.

What you've failed to factor in is that NOT bringing 14 assault cannons would mean doing so at the expense of my fun. So from my perspective, bringing a weak army is "not cool". I do not enjoy rolling over craptacularly designed armies. I want to play people with hard armies and skill.

What you're saying is that your idea of what's cool and fun are the only ones that matter, and everyone else be damned. You've established some sort of non-existent moral highground for how you like to play.That's clearly being a bad sport and "uncool", and I'm pointing it out.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that some people can play to win and have fun doing it. I'm sorry if that notion escapes you, but let me assure you, people do play to win, bring armies designed to do it, yet still both enjoy the game. I much prefer a nice tight game against another player with a well designed list over simply slaughtering someone like you that never had a chance.

So in the end, I'm agreeing with this statement:

"Looking at how someone builds there army, can help determine their sportsmanship level"

...except I'm saying that if I use your yardstick of "fun" and "cool", I'll be forced to mark you low for bringing an army that can't compete with mine. If this is OK with you, then the debate is over. If you still think that you're being a better sport because you bring a weak list, then I'm still not getting through.

As for:

"I could also build a power list just as well as the next guy."

No. You can't. In fact I challenge you to prove me wrong. Show that you indeed can build a hard list and dominate with it. We'll patiently await either results or excuses.

It's posted in the army list section. Worst I've done with it is a draw, and I've got Nids, Iron Warriors, Orcs, Tau, Eldar, Space Wolves, and IG, in my gaming group.

@djones, Are you serious? I just looked at that list, it ain't very "powerful" You are unbeaten with that list? Where do you game? Do you play in RTT's?

Darrian

Well Jones, perhaps we aren't using the same definition of "dominate".

Bravo that you do well in your local group. Now lets see how you do in a tournament, since this thread is about tournament scoring.

I agree with Mauleed.

IMO Army comp scores are a virus and should be eliminated. They have no place in the game. If your army is legal, you can play it.

I simply cannot understand why the "I just play for fun group" is so upset that some people play to win. The worst part is how they spout off about it and then act like everyone should play that way and they are your superior if you enjoy winning. WTF? Why would you spend all the time and money to build and paint the army and then pay to play in a tournament and not care about winning? If you just want to meet and interact with people, then join a free league or just play with your friends. The whole point of a tournament is that people come to test their skills and crown a winner.

If I bring a 100% legal army (that you could also have made), I have every right to play that army. If you don't like it because it's not weak enough for you...tough s**t. I agree with Mauleed that you are wasting my time by not bringing an army that is a challenge. It may be fun for you to play crappy armies that never win, but not me. Why is your idea of fun more important than mine? Why should I lose points because you thought your idea of fun was so much more important to give me a low score for a legal army?

It is a different story if I'm just playing at home with my friends. I'm not going for blood when we are just hanging out, eating pizza and getting in a game. I also realize that sometimes you may play with friends or a group for practice or to test an army. There are times when winning is not all important. However, when playing in competition (tournament, grand tournament, league) you owe it to the other player to try your best. This means bringing a competitive army and playing fair.

@Mauleed and 2112. I agree with you but I do wonder what your take on Siren princes in RTT's is? Is that ok? I have one and I have never used him because I do not want to face a room full of whiney players and 0 comp/sportsmanship scores.

Darrian

I think all tournaments should be run like the Adepticon Ironman.

Not that all tournaments should be free-for-all idiotfests. But that all tournaments should be expressly clear of their intention. That way, no one has any right to complain.

For example:

"This is a composition-scored tournament. Lists will conform to the following specifications. If you don't like the composition specifications, please do not attend. Armies that do not conform to the specifications will not be admitted under any circumstances."

or

"The scoring for this tournament is 50% battle scores, and 50% judge-tallied painting scores. If your models are unpainted, please do not attend. Armies which are unpainted will not be admitted under any circumstances."

or

"This tournament is designed as an open composition environment. Please do not complain about the army lists you encounter here. There is no composition scoring. You will encounter horridly broken armies. Deal with it."

Then, everyone's happy. Go to the event of your choosing, and don't bellyache if you decide to attend the wrong kind of event for you.

(The problem is, especially on Dakka, people think the third example is the default for all tournaments. It isn't. If there's a composition score or a sportsmanship score on the card, I'm going to tank the crap out of your scores if you bring a cack army, and I'm not going to feel the least bit bad about it. And I'm going to tank you *before* the game, so that you can't say it's because I didn't win...even though I probably will win anyway.)

Edit: I was just thinking that it brings me, once again, to my larger point: anyone who thinks "I don't want to play against your 14 assault cannons" automatically equals "I can't figure out how to beat you" is a f-ing moron. Seriously. The fact that I'm going to wipe your stupid broken army off the table in three turns still remains. However, you're going to BORE ME TO DEATH while I do it. That's why I like comp scoring. Not because it keeps the "hard" armies out. Because it keeps the BORING armies out. Better yet, it keeps the boring PEOPLE out, and I like that even more.

I always find it hilarious that the no-comp people whine three times as much as the comp people. Seriously. Just shut up about it already. Comp scores exist. Like it or not, they're a part of tournament life. Deal with it.

Is "waste your time" a euphemism?

there is no good way to judge either composition or sportsmanship.  There simply isn't.  I've spent a lot of time trying to think of a comp system that is fair, but there's not way to regulated all armies equally. 

In that past, folks have suggested simply banning some armies, or even combinations.  RTTs do this all the time when they ban Armored Companies.  What lists routinly draw the most ire?  Siren Princes obviously weren't playtested well, and are probobly the clearest example of a "rules exploit."  Would anyone really complain if a RTT placed a limit of, say, 2 rolls on a minor psychic power table?  What other options would you ban?

I've gotten completely worked before at tournies.  My Imperial guard was ripped up by 9 tornados, 2 tempests, and white scars to fill in points.  It wasn't fun, but at least it was quick.  I'm not going to try to ban his list, or knock him down.  He played well, and who am I to tell sombody that there list isn't fluffy, or themed (his theme was all landspeeders & bikes).  His list was the best, and he ended up winning the tourny.  Now, the tempest is a forgeworld piece that was legal by the RTTs discretion, but I doubt swapping tempests for destructors would have caused me to win the game.

My point is that I've also won tournies by being in the opposite situation: My shooty IG hunkered down in ruins against tyranids.  My opponent never had a chance, and this was at the top table.  Those are the breaks.

The real issue is that there are only a few army builds that can win nearly all matchups, and those tend to be armies that people don't like.  This isn't horribly different from tournament Magic, where there are only a handful of succesful decks at any given point.  So, if you're dead serious about winning GTs, then stick with Marines and Chaos.  Otherwise, you are handicapping yourself.  In many environments, you could still win, if you're a skilled player.   But don't complain about losing to rock hard lists at torunaments.  It's not hard to find examples of great lists, take one and run with it. 

Does this make GTs and the like less fun for the average player?  not at all!   Trust me, after you lose a game or two, you start playing some interesting armies.

As for how to factor in sports and comp:  I like the pass fail system for sports, and I like having the judge award best theme, or best army, or whatever.  But I can't imagine the two of theme counting for more then 10% of the point. total. 

Posted By xtapl on 08/25/2006 6:09 PM

I always find it hilarious that the no-comp people whine three times as much as the comp people.

You must not hang out at Warseer much with thier weekly rants/polls about the cheesiest thing out there...

Darrian13 - Bring you Siren Prince. It's up to me to figure out how to deal with it and win. I look forward to the challenge.

xtapl - Thank you for proving my point. Who the hell are you to say my army is boring so you are going to give me a 0 comp before the game? What an ass. Well your army sucks and it bores me...so I'm going to give you a 0. Then I'm going to give you a 0 for sportsmanship for judging my army before even playing. Then I'm going to kick your crappy fluff / theme army off the board. Seriously, if you have an army that you can bring to a tourney and destroy all opponents (as you claim) then it is probably some sort of power list, like the kind you just said you hate. Do you even read what you write?

And that just brings me to my larger point: If the army is 100% legal, I have every right to play it as you have to play your crappy army. Anyone who gives me a 0 just because they don't like my army is (to use your terminology) a f-ing moron.

Its a game of politics when it comes to soft scores and not too many people from the reactions to comp/sportsmanship seem to keen on soft scores. I prefer a 50/50 when it comes to battle/soft scores as usually the tournament winner is best overall. If you want complete dominance of battle scores, thats where the best general award is there for. Its all about interpersonal communications with your opponent and have a good game win or lose.

It is a skill that not too many people have and yes sometimes crushing an opponent does make him feel like it was more business than a game. Thats where usually sports scores go down. Comp is one of those very subjective things that should not have as much priority but still be a part of the scores. Painting is also another skill of the hobby and yes I do also come to tournaments to fight nicely painted armies and of course we all do show off our favorite conversions or tell stories of our bad ass models.

Thats just my thoughts on the matter and I dont expect anyone to change their opinions. Just remember that this game is based on politics even if you dont like it and if you want more than 50% battle scores the current GT system and the adepticon gladiator are there for you.

An interesting thing is that a friend of mine who is a hard core tourney player said one time "Shouldn't Comp. scores be about how effective your list is? I mean, if I beat you, your comp. couldn't have been that good"

As much as I'm against comp scores, I still think it's important to be friendly to your opponent, play fair, and to try and have a good time. Too many people are mixing scores for a friendly opponent and an army they think is unfair. If I get my ass handed to me, but my opponent was cool about it and we had a good game...I'm fine with that. If someone is rude and annoying, their army can be the greatest theme army in the history of the game, but they will still have been a poor opponent.

Games should be scored 60/20/20:

60% for win-loss record
20% for painting (judged by players and officials)
20% for sportsmanship - was your opponent polite, knowledgeable, and interested in the game

Posted By xtapl on 08/25/2006 6:09 PM

If there's a composition score or a sportsmanship score on the card, I'm going to tank the crap out of your scores if you bring a cack army, and I'm not going to feel the least bit bad about it.

You're going to tank sports because of aspects that should (if you must) be tanked in comp?  Does that strike you as at least slightly unjust?

Posted By bigchris1313 on 08/25/2006 7:43 PM

Posted By xtapl on 08/25/2006 6:09 PM

If there's a composition score or a sportsmanship score on the card, I'm going to tank the crap out of your scores if you bring a cack army, and I'm not going to feel the least bit bad about it.

You're going to tank sports because of aspects that should (if you must) be tanked in comp?  Does that strike you as at least slightly unjust?

It's not unjust...It's outright cheating.

When I first started playing 40K, tournaments (at least the few I encountered here in Oz) were won by the person who won the most games.

Sportsmanship and Painting were seperate awards. And Comp was ignored... if it was a legal list, it was allowed.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that's exactly the way tournaments should be. The whole point of a tournament is to win. You don't see Tennis Players walking home with the cup after losing their last game because they smiled a lot and had a prettier raquet than everyone else...


If you're after friendly games, play at home, or at the club, or start a league... or enter a tournament and take whatever comes at you. Tournaments should be tournaments. I've played in tournies just for the hell of it... but I didn't expect my opponent to go easy on me or bring an inferior list just because I didn't much care if I won or not.