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.

Sportsmanship is there not necessarily to effect the outcome; rather it is a pre-emptive measure that keeps the more competitively inclined players from becoming complete ass hats.

The question about painting scores is what is the point of them, what are they intended to achieve or resolve?

Is it:

A. Reward skillful painters.
B. Encourage the use of painted armies.
C. Provide an additional differentiating factor to help resolve possible ties in battle point scoring.
D. Boost "the hobby" generally.

If it is A or C, then the use of pro-painted armies is arguably a form of cheating.

If it is B, surely that could be resolved more easily by abandoning paint scores and simply requiring a minimum of three colours on a model (and no bare metal/plastic) before it can be in the competition.

I know there is a factor of wanting to encourage all aspects of the hobby. Many players enjoy painting and want to show off their work and have it admired -- that kind of player probably doesn't need a prize to spur him to his best efforts.

If painting well is something that doesn't require prizes, why have golden demons either?

And, yes, sometimes having a prize does push you to do better stuff. I know that, going into the Chicago GT, I kept changing my list to get better painted models into the army. I kept adding more and more details to the models I was bringing. I could have just brought they guys that I play with in my basement, but my goal for the event was a best painted award, and having that goal meant that I focused my efforts towards it.

Having paint scores, to me, is a way of saying that the tournament is about more than winning at all costs. If there are no soft scores, why bring anything except the absolute best army. As I mentioned above, my army list changed from being the most competative tabletop army to one that was more predicated on which models looked good. I think I may have had the only chaos dreadnought at the GT I went to

We always talk about the WAAC gamers, and how no one really wants to play -that guy-. I have nothing against Gladiator tournaments, but I prefer the more laid-back tournament atmosphere that I have experienced in events with painting and sportsmanship scores. I like having a reason to bring units I like, rather than only the units that perform well.

I like to think its the judges not following the check box system....

an army with 3 different paint schemes, only 3 (or less on some models) colors, and not completely converted to be wysiwyg beat me in painting... and yes I know the owner of the army and did play against him at the GT. He scored a 32 I got a 26 :(

I do not have a problem with soft scores in general. The problem I do have is that they are too easy to manipulate, often seem arbitrary, and leave people anywhere from put out to bitter when they are unceremoniously dinged for really no good reason.

The way to make sportsmanship be more meaningful than it is currently, was a suggestion I saw from someone on another thread: wait until the end of all 5 games before scoring it. Allow each player to rank their opponents, from favorite to least, and then score it accordingly.

The way to fix painting is to have multiple independent judges score it and then take the average of the scores (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only one judge currently scores a given army?)

Eldanar wrote:
The way to make sportsmanship be more meaningful than it is currently, was a suggestion I saw from someone on another thread: wait until the end of all 5 games before scoring it. Allow each player to rank their opponents, from favorite to least, and then score it accordingly.

Which means you are forced to give one of your opponents a low score, and another the lowest score, even if they were perfectly reasonable players?

The way to fix painting is to have multiple independent judges score it and then take the average of the scores (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only one judge currently scores a given army?)

They currently have multiple judges look at the top armies to decide the awards. They simply don't have the manpower to have multiple judges look at every army.

Redbeard wrote:

Eldanar wrote:
The way to make sportsmanship be more meaningful than it is currently, was a suggestion I saw from someone on another thread: wait until the end of all 5 games before scoring it. Allow each player to rank their opponents, from favorite to least, and then score it accordingly.

Which means you are forced to give one of your opponents a low score, and another the lowest score, even if they were perfectly reasonable players?

The way to fix painting is to have multiple independent judges score it and then take the average of the scores (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only one judge currently scores a given army?)

They currently have multiple judges look at the top armies to decide the awards. They simply don't have the manpower to have multiple judges look at every army.

Well, you either have the current system which is rampant with manipulation, cheating and arbitrary decisions; or you go to something that is meaningful and cuts down on the "meta-game" outside of actually playing the games. Yes, you have to give some people "1's", but that makes it meaningfu, and in theory at least it should even out. You also could have an option where you give everyone you played a 5 (or favorite); so you either rank your opponents or you give them all max points. [Sad to say the 3-4 tourneys I have been to, I have almost always had at least one person who played slowhammer, did not know their rules, argued every little point, or were just blatant cheats.]

I'm all for taking painting out of the equation. Have painting awards, but just make them separate from the tournament; kind of a stand alone mini-golden daemon. My opinion is that if you pay someone to paint your army then you are not a hobbyist (you are probably merely a gamer) and you should not be entitled to overall. Make painting a stand alone item and you remove most of the temptation to have someone farm out their painting. Conversely, have more Ard Boy style tournaments (just require painted models).

Redbeard wrote:If painting well is something that doesn't require prizes, why have golden demons either?

And, yes, sometimes having a prize does push you to do better stuff. I know that, going into the Chicago GT, I kept changing my list to get better painted models into the army. I kept adding more and more details to the models I was bringing. I could have just brought they guys that I play with in my basement, but my goal for the event was a best painted award, and having that goal meant that I focused my efforts towards it.

Having paint scores, to me, is a way of saying that the tournament is about more than winning at all costs. If there are no soft scores, why bring anything except the absolute best army. As I mentioned above, my army list changed from being the most competative tabletop army to one that was more predicated on which models looked good. I think I may have had the only chaos dreadnought at the GT I went to

We always talk about the WAAC gamers, and how no one really wants to play -that guy-. I have nothing against Gladiator tournaments, but I prefer the more laid-back tournament atmosphere that I have experienced in events with painting and sportsmanship scores. I like having a reason to bring units I like, rather than only the units that perform well.

Golden Daemon is separate to the wargame competition.

I love going to tournaments and I think I am a rather skilled player with more then a few first places under my belt. However I am fully aware that I am at best a mediocre painter. All my wins have been at events that either had not painting score or rated painting far below sportsmanship and battlepoints. I don't think painting should be eliminated but either make it a seperate contest or have a more forgiving system that has less impact on the overall score.

I wish I could paint better but big hands make for bad details....

Yes, golden demons are separate. Yes, painting can have an impact on the scores.

But I think this is a good thing. If painting scores aren't a factor in the overall scores, there is no incentive to take anything except the most killy army you can. At that point, there is no difference between a gladiator tournament and any other tournament. And part of the draw of a good tournament is the opportunity to play against well painted armies, not just those that slapped three colors of paint on in order to qualify.

At GT Chicago, I deliberately picked an army based on model appearance instead of raw killyness. In my games, I went 3-2. I finished with the same number of overall points as the 10th place winner, but because tie breakers went battle/sports/paint, I ended up in 13th place.

If I had taken a more competative army - if I had chosen my units based solely on performance, not appearance - then I probably would have scored more battle points and, in the grand scheme of things, probably ended up somewhere around the same place...

If paint scores aren't included, why would anyone do that? Why would they give up battle points in order to have a cooler army on the table?

They need to bring back a structured and realistic composition scoring system. Not one based on your opponent's opinion, but one similar to what they had in 2002 (although probably a little expanded).

The one way to level the crap armies is to offer "free points" for people who voluntarily take (presumably) less killy armies. They had something similar to the (alleged) check the box system for painting, yet it applied to all armies.

Where they failed with the general comp scoring system was that they did not allow for variances for armies that required unique or tailored builds due to how the army's rules were constructed (IG detachments would be a good example). There was only a cookie cutter, one size fits all comp scoring system (and this was in part the problem as it penalized some armies too much where other armies could easily max out comp scores).

I took an army with a comp of 30 (the max, even though I really could have scored a 32) to Chicago and went 4-2, IIRC (yes the GT's were six games back then). Although your opponent also scored part of your comp score, which could total 50 points. I have serious reservations about anything putting that type of tool back into the players hands though.

There are several problems with any comp system.

It has to deal with the current state of codexes which often penalises certain armies who need updating or just don't have good compy units.

It's extra complication and effort for the judges. Some of them are very complicated or long, tedious checklists.

It is always 'gameable' by the player and/or his opponents, and it comes down to your cleverness in balancing the chance for a good comp score with the need to have enough decent units to actually win a game.

The UK and Europe generally have never bothered with comp scoring and it doesn't seem to have done any harm.

The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

And make the game less fun by doing that.

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

And make the game less fun by doing that.

Fun is a relative term. Any time you say this you are stating an opinion. I feel the game has become a lot MORE fun....

It just may not be as easy for you to now throw down a army with 6 carnifexes and win. You may now have to make tough choices which is what I think this game is all about

Eldanar wrote:They need to bring back a structured and realistic composition scoring system. Not one based on your opponent's opinion, but one similar to what they had in 2002 (although probably a little expanded).

LOL. I scored a 6 under that system at the 2002 Philly GT because I fielded a lot of wings and didn't max my Gaunts at 32 per brood. God, I was such a cheeseball. I sure deserved to drop 30-40 slots behind all the SM players who got max comp points for taking full tactical squads in Rhinos. </sarcasm off>

(Winning Best Army Appearance took the sting off, though. )

I know Dakkaites trend quantitative in nature, but trying to create rigid checklists for categories like painting or comp is an exercise in futility. Yes, you'll have transparency. But you'll also have gross inequities and simply create another way for players to work the system. I'm completely pro-comp in theory, but I'm anti-comp in reality. Players shouldn't be penalized for taking something a little different.

That is the whole point though, Gorgon. You knew going in what your comp score would be and you chose not to worry about it.

Compare that to painting, which for the average painter is more or less a crap shoot.

I'm not saying the 2002 system was perfect...far from it. But something like that would be useful and it is a better tool at levelling than some sort of amorphous painting score or sportsmanship.

And too I agree somewhat that comp is being written into the newer codexes. If you play Orks or daemons, here are your 20 extra battle points. If you play marines or Tau, here is your penalty. That is why I suggested army specific variances for each army. Maybe taking 2 ten man tactical squads of marines should garner someone the same comp points as an Ork player with 120 boyz.

The other alternative would be for everyone that plays in a tournament to switch to Orks and daemons, which I am sure would make for a good time by all.

You can easily build a list that is powerful and meets all the comp requirements. Comp guidelines are very subjective and to me have no place in the big tourney environment.

G

frgsinwntr wrote:

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

And make the game less fun by doing that.

Fun is a relative term. Any time you say this you are stating an opinion. I feel the game has become a lot MORE fun....

It just may not be as easy for you to now throw down a army with 6 carnifexes and win. You may now have to make tough choices which is what I think this game is all about

How nice of you to bring out the tired old 'if you don't agree with me, you must be a bad person' argument.

You should be used to it by now Skyth.

When in doubt, look down your nose at your opponent, call them a dirty tournament gamer, and you instantly win any and all arguments.

BYE

Fifth edition is vastly superior to fourth. Saying this isn't true doesn't make you a dirty tourny gamer, it just makes you wrong. Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds. It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices. Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

In some ways 5th ed is better than 4th; but lets not jump on the band wagon and pass out the kool aid too soon. There are still some serious game mechanic issues which are not completely worked out. In most instances I think 5th is a step forward.

My only serious problems revolve around cover saves, TLOS and no realistic LOS blocking terrain options. That alone has pretty much nerfed any type of indirect fire unit (granted they were probably a little overused in 4th, but now they are almost useless).

Most places that I have seen use terrain that mainly consists of hills, forests and ruins; all of which were built with the idea of them being abstract representations of "area terrain." This goes for the GT's I have been to as well. As someone recently said in another thread, why not play the game on an empty board and give everything a 4+ cover save?

I am also not a big fan of shooting through friendlies providing cover to my target. The ability to screen my own troops is one thing that I like a lot, but having to manage traffic control for my shooting lanes is one more thing which unnecessarily complicates the game more than needed.

Some lesser irritants are things like KP's and only troops counting as scoring units. For me and my armies they are not too big of a problem, but some armies are completely hosed by them.

ShumaGorath wrote: Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds. It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices. Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

Forcing people to use, what are generally, the blandest units in the codex and lots of them is not a way to promote fun in a game.

Eldanar wrote:That is the whole point though, Gorgon. You knew going in what your comp score would be and you chose not to worry about it.

Compare that to painting, which for the average painter is more or less a crap shoot.

Actually, I chose to make a statement by taking something other than a cookie-cutter list and then explained why the system sucked to the GT organizers.

You're right...with quantitiative comp systems everyone knows their score. Which is why people then determined what armies and builds were the most tricked out to win but still maxed comp points, and took those.

Quantitative comp just becomes another criteria that can be "worked." And if the system isn't actually preventing "cheese" in an even-handed way across the board, then what's the point of the entire category? It ironically becomes *fairer* to leave it out.

And really now, how much of a crapshoot is painting? The variance is probably in single digits for most people. People aren't walking in with armies they think are 40s and end up scoring 6s.

ShumaGorath wrote:Fifth edition is vastly superior to fourth. Saying this isn't true doesn't make you a dirty tourny gamer, it just makes you wrong.

If you like playing horde armies, sure. Have you tried playing an eldar army lately? Their glass-hammer units are just about worthless now, as the changes to CC and consolidating into new fights mean that at most, they're dropping the unit they charge, and then being shot to bits.

Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds.

How is 180 ork boyz anything but an extreme build? Did you think this through all the way?

Forced anything doesn't fix the game, it changes the game. It changes the parameters. Instead of preventing extreme builds, it focuses on the extreme builds that work well in the new system.

What has been working in 5th ed? Orks - boyz are solid troop choices, nobs (bikers) can be taken as troops with minimal effort. Chaos Marines - cult marines are troops that would be considered elites in just about any other codex. Sisters - the basic battle sister is one of the most cost-effective models in the game.

It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices.

Right right, it's much more fluffy to play:
Deathwing special character, terminators, terminators, terminators, Dark angel Tacticals, Dark Angel Tacticals
than it is to play:
Dark Angel Commander, terminators, terminators, terminators, Dark angel Tacticals, Dark Angel Tacticals

Yeah, whatever. These terminators here are scoring, those terminators there aren't. It's kind of ham-fisted really.

Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

I think that the goal of changing the look of troops could have been changed just fine with the changes to the codexes, removing min-maxxing small squads, without the ridiculous notion that only some models can hold objectives - when often enough other identical models cannot.

ShumaGorath wrote:Fifth edition is vastly superior to fourth. Saying this isn't true doesn't make you a dirty tourny gamer, it just makes you wrong. Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds. It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices. Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

In your opinion obviously. Forcing units to be taken because of stupid rules and/or being to lazy too actually fix anything just further frustrates people. The game already had forced troop composition. The REAL reason they weren't being taken is because most troops are bad in comparison to the rest of their army. It's because they are removed too easily from battlefield, too expensive for their benefit or, my personal aggitation, troops lack no real sense of where they fit with the army. Most armies have some other unit that is more points efficient, which is the primary issue.

I don't like that certain units that don't count as troops have rules in place that say otherwise:

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't like that certain units that don't count as troops have rules in place that say otherwise:

G

A cynic might say that such a rule had been created to give an advantage to certain armies by letting them use powerful and effective unit types as Troops, rather than the claptrap some other armies have to put up with (Tau Fire Warriors, Imperial Guard infantry, etc.)

I couldn't possibly comment, however.

Look at nob bikers versus Deathwing terminators.

G