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.

RiTides wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

I thought you won Renaissance Man?

Which seemed kind of ironic after seeing how much you dislike soft scores . Although it was good to see that, even though that's your preference, you can do so well with them...

I won Renaissance Man and tied for Best Sportsman.

My observation is my observation based upon events I have attended. I will be going to NOVA this year so I can add that to my observations and see how that is.

I say the assumptions are people over exaggerating chimpunking and peoples natural inclination to always cheat for personal advantage. Those are assumptions I don't believe are valid and do not match up to my interactions over the years.

You're entitled to both your opinions and your observations. However, I'm presenting evidence that runs directly contrary to the absolutist conclusion that you have drawn from a limited set of data (your personal observations). Sometimes we all need to broaden our horizons, lest we become unreasonably entrenched in supporting demonstrably false arguments.

nkelsch wrote

"Sorry, timed rounds is garbage and has no place in 40k because the game is not designed around or balanced for it. . "

FInally level heads prevail. Timed rounds have no place in 40k since the system was designed or balanced for it.
The same holds true for 40k as a competative tournament system. The game was designed around "the most important rule" a contract whereby two players essentially agree to have fun playing together. Thus... sportsmanship.

To try to make 40k into a wholey competative WAAC tournament scene leads to some inevitable conclusions. There are certain codex that suck. Newer codex tend to overrepresent at WAAC events because they perform better. By emphasizing this in a tournament setting you reduce turnout by those who play underpowered codex. You are also likely to attract more WAAC gamers and less hobby gamers. I personally dont enjoy WAAC events as much as i do events with painting, sportsmanship and comp. Thats why we have two styles of play. Ard boys for those who like playing against powergamers with grey legion armies and then tournis for the rest of us who like the hobby, not just the act of winning.
Just my .02$

Danny Internets wrote:

Nkelsch wrote:My observation is my observation based upon events I have attended. I will be going to NOVA this year so I can add that to my observations and see how that is.

I say the assumptions are people over exaggerating chimpunking and peoples natural inclination to always cheat for personal advantage. Those are assumptions I don't believe are valid and do not match up to my interactions over the years.

You're entitled to both your opinions and your observations. However, I'm presenting evidence that runs directly contrary to the absolutist conclusion that you have drawn from a limited set of data (your personal observations). Sometimes we all need to broaden our horizons, lest we become unreasonably entrenched in supporting demonstrably false arguments.

That last sentence is very well said.

I will note that Sportsmanship scoring advocates are saying that Sportsmanship scoring can and does (on the whole) have more beneficial than negative effects.

We have readily conceded that it can be flawed, and can be mishandled, and that many of the systems used in the past had serious problems worth honest assessment and revision. Many of us have attended and run tournaments for a decade or more, and are still open to new ideas and refining the events we run and the systems we use.

When one talks about absolutist conclusions drawn from limited sets of data, one cannot help but immediately be reminded of those people who claim Sportsmanship scoring can "never" work, that it "always" is a bad idea, and that it "invariably" is, or can be, sabotaged by cheaters. These are absolutist statements, and they're all false.