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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone at some degree plays to win.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

Exactly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The players are the spectators, hence, TMIR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning long post ahead!


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strimen wrote:Warning long post ahead!


...

Very good post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.