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.

pretre wrote:Oh and one guy giving you a Unpleasant doesn't affect your score. Did you read his proposal?

I actually didn't. I jumped in the thread looking at the OP and the title not at Mannahin's post buried in it. I was just cherry picking his weird analogy to the NFL which I don't really think carries over for 40k.

I'm not attacking anyone's system here I just tend to not like sports at tourneys usually. I don't hate it if it's a completely separate award. I despise it when it impacts battle points or generalship awards.

Pretre: No, that is not my entire belief. I believe that the player can handle their opponent and should be encouraged to do this openly. If it is out of hand, the TO has the authority to make a decision to intervene in some way.

I really do not know who these meek, abused gamers are that show up to tournaments only to be bullied and take it in silence are, but I certainly have not seen or met them. In a tournament, a competition between people to win overall champion, why are these un-confident people there? There is a competition, there will be prizes, people are there to win. I have no issue with someone not being great to play against, so long as they don't openly cheat or waste time to gain an advantage. Am I really so alone in thinking that way? Do boxers hope they had fun in a match? Chessplayers? Anything? You show up, play hard, and take the top spot for your own (if you earn it).

If really the entire system just boils down to notifying the TO of someone being bad to play against after the game, and you suffered through it rather than saying anything, why not just talk to the TO real quick between rounds, or even just pass him a note? He can then take a little more time for him or his judges to hover around that table.

RE: GW ToS Tourney: Favourite Opponent is not the same as a sportsmanship scoring system. The fact that they include that bothers me also, but they have definitely dropped the sports scoring. Both are so completely subjective that the question doesn't mean the same to any two people in the entire tournament. Like I said, I know some people that find a tournament game nearly unplayable against someone without a fully painted (based, highlighted, etc.) army. They are not wrong in marking that as unpleasant.

You don't have to be meek and abused not to want to talk bad about someone or start some drama. So you check a box to indicate the game was unpleasant.

If it was just that game (in M's system), then it isn't a big deal. If it was like that for 2 or more people, then it affects the person.

Amateur boxers probably want to have fun. Same with amateur chess players. Until 40k becomes a professional sport, I think we can assume we are all amateurs and are doing this for fun. No one makes a living off the GT circuit.

It's easy enough to make the question very objective with a quick one sentence intro at the start of the tournament.

Yup, a good objective question to put in instead should probably be:

Did your opponent cheat? (Yes/No)

My system does incur a small penalty at the first downcheck, as I believe most gamers are honest and sincere, so I erred on the side of penalizing one check rather than ignoring one downcheck. I could certainly see tweaking it to completely ignore a single downcheck.

The system GCMandrake said his local uses has no penalty for a single downcheck.

Fearspect, your arguments continue to propose a bizarre all-or-nothing world. You don't have to be "meek or abused" to think your opponent was a dick but prefer not to get into an argument with him about it and aggravate the situation further.

I already said two pages ago that I expect players to try to resolve stuff with their opponents; it makes no sense to let something go by which annoys you and say nothing. Your average gamer can say "hey, I'd really prefer it if you could roll the dice in the middle of the table, and let me get a chance to agree on/confirm the number of hits before you pick them up." If the opponent disregards a polite request, and continues to display shady behavior even when called on it, what's the better course of action? Get into a heated argument or just downcheck the donkey-cave and move on?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fearspect wrote:Yup, a good objective question to put in instead should probably be:

Did your opponent cheat? (Yes/No)

You are amazing. Here's another great all-or-nothing, the-world-is-all-black-or-white, there-are-no-shades-of-grey argument.

If my opponent seems to be overmeasuring during some of the game, do we throw him out? If he picks up the dice fast and I'm not sure whether he's counting accurately, do we throw him out? If he doesn't accurately answer a question about one of his unit's special rules, is that enough?

It comes down to the overall accumulation of behavior and attitude over the course of the game. If it's enough to make the game as a whole unpleasant, an experience you'd rather not repeat, it's a downcheck. And we are cautious with the penalties, so one downcheck doesn't totally bone someone. But again, as it accumulates, if you pick up multiples, you'll feel it.

Right, but let's say I am rolling a bit to close to myself for my opponent's liking but he doesn't say anything. Do I deserve to get docked for that? What happens when all five of my opponents felt that way and I am kicked out? Did justice prevail?

Honestly, if you go talk to anyone that doesn't play warhammer (non-gamer) and try to explain something like sportsmanship in a tournament for them, they will laugh at you. A lot. I have no idea how it has so permeated the souls of past gamers, but it is a relic of old GTs and should just be allowed to die.

Sorry Fear/Kevin, I misrepresented. Could have sworn it was 0. Point's largely the same though at-2.

Fearspect wrote:Right, but let's say I am rolling a bit to close to myself for my opponent's liking but he doesn't say anything. Do I deserve to get docked for that? What happens when all five of my opponents felt that way and I am kicked out? Did justice prevail?

If your dice habits were sufficiently bad and shady that they made the entire game, as a two hour+ investment of time, UNenjoyable, than yeah, you deserve to get docked. Not sure how you're having trouble understanding this concept.

If all five of your opponents felt that way, then, yeah, it sure sounds like you spent the whole weekend being a douche; don't come back next year.

Fearspect wrote:Honestly, if you go talk to anyone that doesn't play warhammer (non-gamer) and try to explain something like sportsmanship in a tournament for them, they will laugh at you. A lot. I have no idea how it has so permeated the souls of past gamers, but it is a relic of old GTs and should just be allowed to die.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Honestly. Mention "unsportsmanlike conduct penalties" to any sports fan and he'll immediately get the idea.

Douchebags are, thankfully, a rarity. The vast majority of players are reasonable human beings, fine to spend an enjoyable two hour (or so) game with. But it's worth having a system in place to curb the behavior of those few douchebags, to give them a material incentive to reform their behavior.

The reason you "have no idea" why it exists is because of your ignorance and inexperience. Sorry. Or possible your willfully ignoring recurrent threads on Dakka and every other message board where someone gives a horror story about some complete jackass they played against. This is seeming more likely. You have willfully ignored and failed to listen to examples and rationales in both of these threads and pretended that explanations hadn't been given which had been, repeatedly. You have not been participating in the discussion in good faith.

So one post higher than this last, you accuse me of not seeing shades of gray, and in this last one you do the same to me with my dice rolling example? How is one to know that a player demands to have dice rolled directly in front of him rather than in the middle. Sure would be unlucky if I played five people who all thought that way.

What happens when players decide to game your system to get an advantage and mark everyone as unpleasant? What happens if everyone does this? It sure would suck to have everyone banned from participating in your tournament...

Okay, I personally must be both ignorant and inexperienced since I disagree with an argument that just ignores points against it and repeats itself. I am glad you are such a fan of me that you have searched around the internet for my name. I am not that into internet stalkers though, had some bad experiences.

The worst thing I am noticing here is that whenever someone has a problem with a sportsmanship scoring system, they must be against actually having sportsmanship in their games. No one here thinks that you should be a bad opponent to win, just that none of these systems are actually any good. The only way you could have a sports scoring system that works is with enough judges around to enforce it. You forgot to mention in your example of sports "unsportsmanlike conduct penalties" that the players do not have the option of giving them out to their opponents.

Want me to do a rundown of this thread like I did in the comp one (didn't want to mention other threads and break Dakka's posting rules, but it seems like it is fine now)? It might not be a great experience for your point of view if I do :(

How about we agree to disagree? My point of view being based on the evidence presented that no system of sports scoring is actually useful, offering glaring opportunities to be gamed and doing little to support actual sportsmanship, and yours being that you don't want to be wrong.

At a tournament with a sports score with 5 points (full marks being normal score, 0 point needed explanation)
We had a guy there, who scored 0 to his opponent, with the reason "Eldrad in the army".
This was published and we all had a hearty laugh (maybe except for this dude...)
This is an extreme example. But there are guys like that.
But is he unfair? It was his subjective opinion about unfairness that led him to his score, not low scoring on purpose. So full marks for him, because he is always a tidy gamer.

But I also had a TO I played against who wanted to allocate unsaved wounds on identical killakoptaz (and he refused a friendly argumentation just killing one of them complaining he wanted to have fun, he gave me no chance to explain it properly (if he would have said, we play it like this here, I would accept of course)...), and said after the game, he would ban manticores next time, because he wanted to have fun...
He played 150 boyz... And I had one manticore.

How do I deal with that behaviour? Am I a douche? Is he a douche?
There was no sports score. If there should be one I would consider him ignorant, but I can not say he was unfair. He would be if he scored me bad, but do I know this? No, so I will give him normal score (full marks).

There is also a guy, who is a damn nice guy, but standing at the table he starts to play extremely fast leaving no room for intervention or even doublecheck. If you say something friendly about it, he will give you a "come on keep cool"-look and just continue.
He is also famous for scoring relatively low in comparison to others.
This I would consider unpleasant and tiring (because being high alert the whole game is exhausting...). I would reduce 1 to 2 points for this game in the 1-5 score (which is weaker than your system Mannahnin, which is actually very good for a sports score imho).

So neither of those guys would deserve a downcheck in Mannahnins system in my opinion. Even the last guy is just an annoying dude at the table, but I still would not accuse him being a cheater.

If there is a cheater confronting me, he would either be not very intelligent and we would solve this problem soon or I should have to compliment him for having me outwitted. Or I never find out.

We have one prominent guy here in germany, who is some sort of dirty WAAC. But he is well known as such a guy and does it very rare and well hidden. We also have slightly aggressive and argumentative guys out there, but these are more like example 3, except that they play very transparently and tidy (too tidy for some folks...) but get bad tempered.

So with your system we have one guy here who maybe deserves being disqualified, but this will not happen, because he will be careful to receive only one downcheck, because he is calm, friendly and transparent otherwise. I play tournaments for 2 editions now.
Are we an extremely fair community?

How would you guys judge playing with your opponents mind in a 40k game? (I mean irritate him by the way you are playing (still transparent of course) being careful and alert at a place where it is not needed and in the opposite pretending to be comfortable if its very close and intense in order to lead him to tactical faults)
Of course you must be careful with that and who you have in front of you. Doing this to a rookie would be very ugly.

But is that unfair? And is this unfair as a tzeentch player?
I alsways like it if you "are" the army.

Fearspect wrote:So one post higher than this last, you accuse me of not seeing shades of gray, and in this last one you do the same to me with my dice rolling example? How is one to know that a player demands to have dice rolled directly in front of him rather than in the middle.

It is common courtesy and standard practice to roll the dice where they can clearly be seen by your opponent. It is also common courtesy and standard practice to politely request that your opponent modify his behavior if he is doing something you don't like/which makes you uncomfortable. Easy, common courtesies. If a player fails to adhere to basic courtesy to such an extent that it ruins the enjoyment of the entire game for his opponent, his opponent marks him down. What is complicated about this?

Fearspect wrote:Sure would be unlucky if I played five people who all thought that way.

Thought what way? The benefit of my system is that it reduces the impact of luck. One fluky opponent with whom you have a personality conflict can't ruin your whole tournament. But if MOST of your opponents think you're a douche who ruins the fun of the entire game they had with you, than the overwhelming probability is that you are the problem. Not them.

Fearspect wrote:What happens when players decide to game your system to get an advantage and mark everyone as unpleasant? What happens if everyone does this? It sure would suck to have everyone banned from participating in your tournament...

"Gaming" the system by marking someone down usually does NOT give you an advantage. Think it through and do a little math. The points scale I describe means a win or loss is worth more than a single Sports deduction. If you've already won or lost to the guy knocking his sports probably isn't going to help you. So the only time it'd generally benefit a player to lie and mark his opponent down is if they got a Draw.

At any rate, if all of my players wee as dishonest as you posit, then I would indeed rather not have the tournament. However, having played with and associated with thousands of said players over the last decade, I thankfully know that's not the case.

Fearspect wrote:The worst thing I am noticing here is that whenever someone has a problem with a sportsmanship scoring system, they must be against actually having sportsmanship in their games.

Where are you getting this idea? It certainly isn't from any of my posts. An honest reading of what I've written can only conclude that I think (and have clearly stated) that most players are good sports, even when sports scoring isn't in effect. The system in question is there primarily to restrain the bad behavior of a few reprobates, and to give them a materical incentive to reform their behavior.

Fearspect wrote:You forgot to mention in your example of sports "unsportsmanlike conduct penalties" that the players do not have the option of giving them out to their opponents.

We already had that discussion earlier in the thread. I said that if tournament staffing were such that you could have a judge at every table, sure, you could just have them handle it. Then you made an argument that the problem is that TOs are trying to run events "alone", and shouldn't do that. Then it was pointed out to you that there is a big difference between "alone" and "enough judges to have one at every table". For a 20-player tournament, that's any number between 2 and 9 staff. In realistic terms, you're never going to have enough judges at a Wargaming event for them to handle sportsmanship issues at every table. So player-scored is the only practical solution.

Fearspect wrote:How about we agree to disagree? My point of view being based on the evidence presented that no system of sports scoring is actually useful, offering glaring opportunities to be gamed and doing little to support actual sportsmanship, and yours being that you don't want to be wrong.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I feel the same in reverse. You are vastly overstating your case, making assessments based on misunderstanding or not reading the evidence put in front of you, and drawing seriously flawed conclusions. Each of your arguments has failed on its own merits. Often times (as in the referee point, or the "sports don't have this" point) you've made the same argument repeatedly after it's already been shot down.

From direct experience as a tournament organizer and a player in probably on the order of 80-odd local tournaments and leagues and about 20 GT-level/size events over the last decade, Sportsmanship systems have the benefits I outline in the first couple of paragraphs of my article. No system is perfect (and I also specifically outline problems and flaws of most systems), but each, on the whole, does more good than harm. The systems I have worked to develop are less subject to abuse and manipulation than others. The pass/fail system is an improvement (IMO) on the objective checklist system.

I pointed this out in the other thread so there is no sence in NOT reinterating it again here. Pg 2 of the BRB says that the number one rule in 40k is to have fun.

Since it is a tournament then you should by all means be scored down for being a big mean poopy pants. I have never scored anyone down for something just because i wanted them to have less points so i could win. That amounts to cheating and anyone who does it is a dishonest person. Most people i play against get a perfect score.

I got a zero one time. My nids choir pinned my foes entire SW army for three turns so he didnt get to more or shoot once. Did i deserve to get a zero for sportsmanship. Maybe i did because he sure didnt enjoy his game. Did we both learn something. Yep. now i will back off and feed my opponent a unit if victory is assured. I may "forget" to fire something. In the NFL it is considered bad form to run up the points on a team that is loosing badly. If your assured a win, then it really is bad form to just pulp somone.

Since playing nice and trying to have fun are , and i quote " THE NUMBER ONE RULE" then i think GW has covered this aspect of the game in greater deapth than almost any other subject of the rule book.

Mannahnin: What happens if my opponent brings a gun and shoots me in the face? This would prevent me from marking him down, therefore your system is an utter failure....

But no, seriously, I like it a lot. It allows for one jerk to not ruin a players score, while allowing for a sort of "majority vote" to punish repeat offenders.

Just add a drink on the house for the one who receives the most "Great game!!"s and this is a system that I would love to be a part of at my local game store.

I think that I may have a solution that would aid Mannahin's system a bit, and make more people happy. What if the TO was the final call for all sports deductions?

For example, I am playing a game and I get tabled. I am upset and I answer "Did my opponent's attitude and/or behavior make the game an UNpleasant experience, overall?" with a yes. I then go to the TO and tell them why I down checked my opponent. The TO listens, and decides if there is merit to what I say. If the TO decides it is a case of someone getting upset because they got stomped, no penalty; but if it is a case of someone TFG rubbing it the the face of the looser, then it is a penalty. I think that maybe this way it will eliminate the "secret sportsmanship" conspiracy theories in this thread, because a down check requires reasoning.

Thoughts?

At the sportsmanship haters, is there a way that you can suggest to make sportsmanship work? I started this thread with the intention of making my local tournament scene better, and I want any suggestions to make it so. If you read my OP you can see the basic layout of the tournaments. I want solutions, not just "sportsmanship sucks because....". So if you have a better idea than Mannahins please post yours and we can discuss it rationally.

Fearspect wrote:Am I really so alone in thinking that way? Do boxers hope they had fun in a match? Chessplayers? Anything? You show up, play hard, and take the top spot for your own (if you earn it).

Boxing and chess are also real sports, you know. With actual prices, not just a gift card to a gaming store. For the most part, wargames tournaments are still small potatoes.

-Nazdreg- wrote:
We had a guy there, who scored 0 to his opponent, with the reason "Eldrad in the army".

You know, we're at a point where there's a big difference in how many wargamers feel about these things. Some of us still believe in the fluff, in spite of the fact that GW is pushing special characters. Some of us still believe that you should make an army that is somewhat conforms to the background of the game, not just what the rules allow.

Scoring someone 0 for having Eldrad in their army is a bit extreme, even with that mindset. But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

Redbeard wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:
We had a guy there, who scored 0 to his opponent, with the reason "Eldrad in the army".

You know, we're at a point where there's a big difference in how many wargamers feel about these things. Some of us still believe in the fluff, in spite of the fact that GW is pushing special characters. Some of us still believe that you should make an army that is somewhat conforms to the background of the game, not just what the rules allow.

Scoring someone 0 for having Eldrad in their army is a bit extreme, even with that mindset. But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

I suppose if the question is open-ended enough a player could do this, which I think is completely ridiculous since it's an army comp issue and not really a sportsmanship issue. But as your interpretation shows I suppose it could be construed as such which is yet another problem with sportsmanship scoring since your docking the guy has nothing to do with his play during the game but rather the choices he made when crafting his list. These things start to blur together and that's what happens when you don't have a defined checklist or army construction guidelines and just leave it open to the player's individual interpretation.

In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

I do think there is room for a tournament ruleset that for example, doesn't allow Eldrad in a non Ulthwe army. Perhaps you just state that special characters aren't allowed altogether. That's fine but I think that ruleset needs to be clearly defined before people start creating their lists and not hidden as penalty points under the cover of "sportsmanship scoring". Because frankly that's just shady.

Meek people who are unconfrontational aren't the problem.

The *real* problem to me are people who are unconfrontational in person. And after the game, they tell their friends, post on forums, make a huge deal out of something that could have been resolved in 2 minutes in the game.

Redbeard wrote:
You know, we're at a point where there's a big difference in how many wargamers feel about these things. Some of us still believe in the fluff, in spite of the fact that GW is pushing special characters. Some of us still believe that you should make an army that is somewhat conforms to the background of the game, not just what the rules allow.

Scoring someone 0 for having Eldrad in their army is a bit extreme, even with that mindset. But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

Well here's my question: Would you have a problem with a person using a special character, using all their rules, and then saying it's a different fluff character that isn't currently represented by the available choices? I mean, sure, the big name special characters wouldn't fight in a "minor border skirmish" but at the same time, it's kind of ridiculous to say "Oh wow, these special characters are really neat! I better let them rot on my shelf."

Kevin Nash wrote:
In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

I do think comp is stupid. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists from tournaments, it simply changes the definition of what the broken list is. It doesn't mean there won't be a "best codex", though it might change what the best codex is.

Restraint, as such, should not be attempted to be controlled via some well-defined system that only throws another equation into the mix when attempting to define what the top lists are. Restraint should be something that should be encompassed in a general sportsmanship score. Three units of long fangs, two units of grey hunters, and zero units of bloodclaws looks nothing like what the space wolf codex puts forth as chapter fluff. It's WAAC power-gaming and nothing more. I don't believe that lists like that encompass good sportsmanship, outside of tournaments that are explicitly defined as hard-core WAAC events - and in that case, what's the point in having a soft-score at all?

A sportsmanship system that asks "was your opponent on time" and "did they appear to not cheat" isn't addressing sportsmanship at all, it's addressing politeness and the ability to follow rules. Sportsmanship is not running up the score. Sportsmanship is recognizing that, while we're at tournaments to win, winning isn't everything. It is better to lose with class, than to win using the same broken units that everyone else on the internet has already recognized as being undercosts and overpowered.

So in otherwords, if you play differently than I want you to, you're a bad sport.

Its pretty easy to determine what the societal norm for good behaviore is. we all learn that from kindergarten on. Pg 2 of the BRB mentions the most important rule. both players should have fun, and it even makes mention that Winning at any cost is less important than both players having a good time. seems pretty clear.

Actually, it doesn't and isn't. By complaining that someone bringing a army that is more powerful than you like to play is breaking the most important rule, you are putting your fun over his fun and thus breaking the most important rule.

It has nothing to do with the rules. By definition, sportsmanship exists outside the rules. It is based on voluntary, not compulsory, actions.

There exist tournaments without sportsmanship scores. These tournaments are usually called gladiators, or no-holds-barred, or some variation of this. These tournaments are designed for people to bring their WAAC lists and bash heads. (I am using WAAC here to mean within the rules and societal norms of decent behaviour. There is nothing inherently wrong with a WAAC approach in events designed for it.)

That's great. Lots of people enjoy playing that way. There is clearly a demand for that sort of tournament.

But, the existence of those tournaments, and the approach that they appeal to, implies that they must be different from other non-gladiator tournaments.

It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to figure out that the WAAC list doesn't belong at a non-WAAC event. Clearly there is a different expectation at each.

Are these events run using different codexes? No. Are they run using different rules? No. What's different is simply the expectation of what's acceptable. It doesn't need a set of comp rules to complicate things. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to win the games. But it does mean that you should approach the event with a level of restraint. It's not just about winning. It's about winning with class.

There's enough room for both the WAAC gamers and the more casually competitive gamers to both play, and to both enjoy their own style of events. Where the problem lies is where one type of gamer goes to the other type of event, and expects that event to change to suit their approach.

Someone who takes a grot rebellion army to a gladiator tournament is just wrong. They're wasting the time of the people who went to that event looking for competitive games.

But, by the same token, someone taking a leaf blower army, or a tri-long fang army to a non-gladiator tournament is also wrong. Not because the rules say they can't take that army, but because that's not the type of approach that the event is catering to, and that player is going to ruin the event for all his opponents just as much as being forced to waste time killing 180 grots is going to bore the competitive player.

That's what the sportsmanship score should be there for. It's to keep the WAAC armies (and players) in check in events that aren't intended for that sort of gamer. For while a casual gamer attending a gladiator event is likely to simply lose all their games, when WAAC players start attending casual events, you tend to see an escalation type effect that drives away the casual players from the very events that are supposed to be where they get to have some fun.

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:
In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

I do think comp is stupid. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists from tournaments, it simply changes the definition of what the broken list is. It doesn't mean there won't be a "best codex", though it might change what the best codex is.

Restraint, as such, should not be attempted to be controlled via some well-defined system that only throws another equation into the mix when attempting to define what the top lists are. Restraint should be something that should be encompassed in a general sportsmanship score. Three units of long fangs, two units of grey hunters, and zero units of bloodclaws looks nothing like what the space wolf codex puts forth as chapter fluff. It's WAAC power-gaming and nothing more. I don't believe that lists like that encompass good sportsmanship, outside of tournaments that are explicitly defined as hard-core WAAC events - and in that case, what's the point in having a soft-score at all?

A sportsmanship system that asks "was your opponent on time" and "did they appear to not cheat" isn't addressing sportsmanship at all, it's addressing politeness and the ability to follow rules. Sportsmanship is not running up the score. Sportsmanship is recognizing that, while we're at tournaments to win, winning isn't everything. It is better to lose with class, than to win using the same broken units that everyone else on the internet has already recognized as being undercosts and overpowered.

Redbeard, I do agree with you about comp and how it really does nothing for the game, but disagree with you about people bringing tough lists. I think that if someone is staying within their codex who cares. If that person is able to make a tough list (either on their own or internet) then let them go for it. I play ork bikers (Wazdakka, Warboss, 12 nobz, 9 warbikers, 6 warbuggies, and 4 kans in 2k) does that make me a bad sport? Should I restrict myself to White Dwarf type armies? I think that if someone is using a tough list than power to them. I as a player enjoy finding ways to beat those armies.

I do agree that playing with class is also important, because even if a person plays a hard list they can still be a nice person about it. The problem is that most tournament missions are written as such for a person to win they must monkey stomp their opponent. This is why when I run tournaments, I write the missions as Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary objectives. This allows people to "take a knee when they are up in the last 2 minutes."

Redbeard wrote:But, was the player fielding an Ulthwé army, or was Eldrad mixed in with his Biel-tan? That might not matter to you, but it might matter to him, or me. To me, that's an example of poor sportsmanship. You're ignoring the established background of your army in order to field a more powerful model.

You may believe, and you have a right to believe, that every player should field the most powerful army they can, and that the fluff is irrelevant. That's your choice. But that doesn't allow you to force that view on other people, or expect that they should conform to your approach to the game. Some of us still believe that the narrative is important. That the color of your army means more than the codex you choose to play. And that Eldrad, Ghazgull, Logan and Mephiston have better things to do than take part in every minor border skirmish in the galaxy. To me, all these things are part of sportsmanship. You could choose to play with the most powerful stuff, just cause the rules say you can, but, it's just not sporting.

So lets say i have an Ulthwe themed army, and I'm using Eldrad, Warlocks and Guardians.
I also have some old reapers, swooping hawks and warp spidres who are all awesome models.

The most important rule is having fun. I have fun playing with models i enjoy looking at. So because i'm playing an Ulthwe themed list but have included "non-Ulthwe themed" models i'm a bad sport?

What if i were to create my own craftworld, with its own backstory, and write a small novels worth of fluff for it. Lets say i have essentially created an Yme-loc/Alaitoc mix with a tank spearhead responding to the call of ranger scouts. Within that list i've included yriel as he was the best fit within the codex to act as a charecter i've created. Would that make me a bad sport as i'm using "Yriel" in a non-iyanden army?

At my old FLGS, there was a separate lesser award for sportsmanship. That way, the best player gets the big prize, and the nicest guy gets recognized as well. Usually the tournament winner can't win both prizes.

I support the use of sportsmanship awards, because they were the only things that gave me the motivation to play in tournaments when I was 13.

I think some of you are missing the point. The point is this.

There exist two types of game player. those that do everything possible to maximise their chance of winning by building an army based entirely around the best and hardest units. For these players there is ard boys. Mnay of the rest of us enjoy feilding models we spent a lot of time painting and converting. In order to keep ard boys style gamers from ruining our fun by just slaughtering everyone in their path, they have comp.

If you use a named character in your own fluffy army list. So be it. I dont think that is bad form at all. Just convert it a little so its different and your good to go. Now... If you build your Razor ML spam list and write up fluff to try and earn a fluffy rating. Welll... My definition of a fuffy tourni army is one that is handicapped by unit choices made entirely for the purpose of creating a fluffy list. ML spam is not fluff no matter how you paint it.

Is it really so important to win. Is the though that you might loose because your list is not nearly as hard as it could be the real issue. THink how your opponent feels when they sit down at the comped event and see your army and KNOW they will loose, not because their game play or tactics stink. But becuase the list you brought leaves them no option.

So. At comped events the biggest prize should go to the player with the best overall score, (battle points, painting and sportsmanship). A tertiary prize should go to the player who has the most battlepoints. No player should be allowed to win in both catagories. I also think that in comped events Best overall should be worth almost double what best general gets.

My local shop. Two WAAC gamers have really ruined tournis. Lots of people dont go anymore because the SW ML spam or the Mechdar lists that they feild are suited for ardboys play. Many of us really spend a lot of time painting and converting. My freinds 1000 sons list is a good tough list. but he suffers becuase his units are all so expensive. he takes a mix of vehicles. His list is both fluffy and tough so he would earn a normal tourni rating. The SW ML spam just wrecks him. The mechdar with dozens of high str shots per turn does the same. The rest of us are tired of paying to loose game after game to them. so we dont go anymore. tournis suffer becuase of these two people. Without comp, we dont have a chance. so because they want to play that way and the TO does not use comp. half as many people come to tournis.

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:In another thread you claimed that you didn't like comp (I believe the word you used was "stupid") but here you are suggesting that it is appropriate to use comp, even in a tournament without it!

I do think comp is stupid. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists from tournaments, it simply changes the definition of what the broken list is. It doesn't mean there won't be a "best codex", though it might change what the best codex is.

This bit belongs in the other thread, but I'll answer it here anyway.

IMO, that's a feature, not a bug. A defined comp system doesn't remove broken lists. It rewards people for bringing non-broken, or less-broken lists. It narrows the gap between codices. While of course it's impossible to completely eliminate the imbalances between codices, if we can narrow them (and I believe we can) with Comp, then Comp is achieving a manifest good.

Redbeard wrote:A sportsmanship system that asks "was your opponent on time" and "did they appear to not cheat" isn't addressing sportsmanship at all, it's addressing politeness and the ability to follow rules. Sportsmanship is not running up the score. Sportsmanship is recognizing that, while we're at tournaments to win, winning isn't everything.

I (and most Sportsmanship systems I've ever seen, including at Adepticon) disagree with your definition. Politeness and a conscious awareness of and support of your opponent's enjoyment is most certainly part of sportsmanship.

Redbeard wrote:It has nothing to do with the rules. By definition, sportsmanship exists outside the rules. It is based on voluntary, not compulsory, actions.

How can an NFL fan say that "by definition" Sportsmanship exists outside the rules? You are certainly aware of "Unsportsmanlike Conduct" penalties. Why are you acting like you're not?

sennacherib wrote:There exist two types of game player. those that do everything possible to maximise their chance of winning by building an army based entirely around the best and hardest units. For these players there is ard boys. Mnay of the rest of us enjoy feilding models we spent a lot of time painting and converting. In order to keep ard boys style gamers from ruining our fun by just slaughtering everyone in their path, they have comp.

Of course, this is a thread about sportsmanship, not comp. However, if you don't have fun because of your opponent's list, it is just as much your fault as theirs (And I'd point it more towards your fault). Considering them a bad sport because your fun is more important than their fun is unethical and proves a lack of sportsmanship on your part.