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.

Guy that won overall for fantasy at the lsat GT I went to went 3-1-1. Max sportsmanship and max painting are worth a lot of points.

I had a great time at the event with with 5 good games and five nice opponents. I got to meet Dash and found him to be very pleasant. I noticed significant consternation at Dash's table during games 4 and 5 but I was to busy in my games to find out the details. I played Chris in game 3, who played Dash in game 4, and found him be very friendly and had a very fun game. It was great to meet so many new people.

The only problem I had with the tourney was the terrain. There was almost no LOS blocking terrain and much of had a very small footprint. I was surprised at how players from different areas interpret the same piece of terrain. I was always go over what the terrain is and it effects before the game with my opponent. I dont usually care what it is designated as long as both players are in agreement about it. My first opponent from Oklahoma wanted a hill to be difficult on the edges but no cover saves on it's flat top. Most of the other pieces were counted as area terrain. (This is how it is played at the stores I have been to in Houston). The next 3 players, all from Austin, counted the same type of hill as area terrain with a 4+ cover save. The Austin players tend to count most terrain as area of terrain and alll 3 players from Austin were consistent in that. My last opponent from Washington did not want to count the hill as difficult or having a cover save. I did not feel any of my opponents were doing this for their advantage but were following their local customs. Some of the terrain discussions may be from the differing house rules from different areas. I think having TO's explaining the types of terrain would be a good idea.

As a side note the Austin players have pieces of felt cut into shapes to represent a crater after a vehicle is destroyed. This was an excellent idea to me since it cheap and portable.

To be fair, I've seen some pretty nice guys (myself included, I like to think) get into some rather intense "discussions" about rules, particularly when they're at one of the higher tables with the tournament on the line.

I went 4-0-1 so the last game was a draw not a loss. I didn't max out all the games either unlike Dash.

The terrain was sparse - but I think that will get resolved for next year. John talked to me as well as JWolf about getting ahold of the terrain we brought up. We have found a good place to purchase the terrain at a decent price that is both light and easy to transport and use.

We specifically built the buildings to have the bottom floor be fully covered to allow for more LOS blocking terrain as well as a game that just doesn't feel like a shooting gallery.

Congrates again brother Dash for another win, just that much closer to are little face off in a few months. Abby and his boyz are awaiting a fine battle from your DE forces. You bring the pointy ears and I will make em corpses, just for you my fine daisy eating friend.

Anyone that think it's wise to have your opponent score something subjective (even check boxes are subjective) that effects your overall standings obviously doesn't understand the theory of conflict of interest.

There have been exhaustive conversations on this forum about that very subject Leenus.

This isn't the thread for it.

This thread has many conversations about sportsmanship within the context of the Alamo. In fact, it is likely that the person that went 5-0 did not win overall, BECAUSE of his sports scoring.

My comment was neither irrelevant nor off topic. I was hardly making an exhaustive diatribe on the subject, so step back, chill and stop acting like you are king of what is appropriate for this thread. This thread IS about the Alamo GT and one purpose would be to improve the Alamo on a go forward basis. I was adding my input, based on the previous discussions in the thread, about the effectiveness of sportsmanship in the GT environment.

Leenus, your comment was about sportsmanship in general and we've had plenty of those, and it is not appropriate for this thread... which should be focusing specifcally on the Alamo GT.

If you want to talk about their specific rubric, or the like, that'd be on-topic... this:

Leenus wrote:Anyone that think it's wise to have your opponent score something subjective (even check boxes are subjective) that effects your overall standings obviously doesn't understand the theory of conflict of interest.

Is not, and that ground's been covered many, many times...

If Alamo, wargamecon and all the other GTs got rid of sportsmanship scores do you think less people will come to tournaments? probably not...

But if they got rid of painting scores... then that might be a problem.

Paint scores and requirements always have a place. Looks like a well run event excluding the god-awful terrain. But they are fixing that so I'm thinking a trip to San Antonio might be in order next year. I hear it's a nice place. Way better than Dallas but not as cool as Austin (FIGHT!!!!)

San Antonio is a wonderful town. Lots and lots to do, especially if you like the world's best waterpark.

(Disclaimer: I spent three years growing up there. Loved it.)

Also there is enough to do there that you can bring your SO and they wont be incredibly board the entire time.

Using the pivot to gain extra moment is one of the most flagrant abuses of the rules. It certainly is not sporting and would be grounds to dock someone sportsmanship. (I also consider it illegal and a grey area that people have been allowed to exploit because it is on the pyre with 100 other things that GW refuses to clarify)

With that said, I am NOT a fan of sportsmanship being judged by the person you just tabled. It should not be the deciding factor in who wins the over all pageant.. err tournament.

Terrain in a 40k game is a pretty big deal. This game completely revolves around blocking line of sight and cover saves.

IG dominated for so long because terrain took months/a year to catch up with 5th edition. Shooting armies have a significant advantage in games where there are no LOS blocking features.

With three bad game votes, I had 16 points subtracted from my score. 16 points was also the number of points you got for winning a game. If you achieved the secondary bonus objectives, you got 20 points.

At the end of the tournament, John told me that I won Best Overall by one point. My paint scores were probably 60-70%, I had some pretty decent conversions, but I'm not a whiz with them.

Darkwynn, congrats on 4-0-1 - that early tie of yours let you dodge the bullet. =D

The first game tie is sometimes not a bad thing. Especially if you have really good sports and painting scores. Makes your later games easier.

I personally also didn't like the raider conversions. I've seen good conversions, and I've seen bad ones. Cutting a WHFB base in half and sticking it on the front of a stormbolter as a storm shield, for instance - a case of what I consider lazy and bad-looking and takes away from the experience. Dark lances on the front of an otherwise fairly untouched raider that could easily have been sawed in half and then had the engine stuck onto the shortened front is the same. Especially if you're using the 2" extra via pivoting trick.

Which I see as blatant cheating. Pivoting doesn't take away your movement. But able to move 12" means able to move 12". If via some sort of turning/pivoting shenanigans you have moved MORE THAN 12", PERIOD, then you have cheated. Part of your vehicle has gone FURTHER than your MAXIMUM movement. It can't be done legally.

That said I don't think of Dash as a bad player. We all do stuff like that. I've fudged the 1" rule. I've moved 6.2 inches. I try to catch it, and I try to be fair. In measuring 6" for an assault I nudge a figure and now it's too far away. I don't throw up an argument, I just sigh and realize I should have been more careful with my measuring, and now it cost me.

What I really hate you for Dash is not having a picture of my Slaanesh army up there. Just because I was almost late doesn't mean you can ignore THE prettiest pink army there. Especially since your orks weren't there to represent the color.

My problem was game 3, where a BOLS guy complained about me having 18 meltaguns, 7 of which were 1-shot and which I only got to use like....once, and then we were in assault the rest of the game. And obviously he's never played space wolves, sisters, IG, or BA which can take more, and he's playing regular codex marines, which can take almost as many and make them all twin-linked. He rolled HORRIBLY on saves for his terminator unit though, and we've all been there. I honestly would have probably been in a pretty sour mood if my power unit got wiped as quickly as his did as well. Heck I WAS in as sour of a mood game one when my entire army failed to kill more than seven space wolves, or game 4 when the whole army again failed to get 2 wave serpents.

Overall had a blast. I need to revamp my army. I really wanted to play you Dash, but it's going to be a real uphill battle to do it with CSM in this day and age, facing off against SW, BA, DE and GK. Ugh.

Now I'm mad that he didn't take pictures of your army too. I always like to see a good Emperor's Children force.

Spellbound wrote:What I really hate you for Dash is not having a picture of my Slaanesh army up there. Just because I was almost late doesn't mean you can ignore THE prettiest pink army there. Especially since your orks weren't there to represent the color.

Forgive the quality as these were taken with my camera phone:









This is Kevin, obviously. Good seeing you guys there!

blood angel wrote:Using the pivot to gain extra moment is one of the most flagrant abuses of the rules. It certainly is not sporting and would be grounds to dock someone sportsmanship. (I also consider it illegal and a grey area that people have been allowed to exploit because it is on the pyre with 100 other things that GW refuses to clarify)

I felt the same way but then I read Yakface's argument for it (and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations), and he changed my opinion. While I think it is not in the spirit of the rule to gain movement by pivoting, it is (IMO) in accordance with the letter of the rule.

Dash- at the time it appeared that you had won by a point, but there was a cell formula error such that paint scores were not being properly accounted for, it wasn't immediately obvious, i found it when cleaning up the scoresheet for public consumption. The final scores will be up on the website as soon as my web guy gets them up today.

As for terrain, those planning to attend next year will be glad to know that I am placing a large terrain order with BOLS' supplier, so the tables will be much denser next year, and for the Fall WFB event.

As for sportsmanship, I always listen to all feedback on my event, positive or negative. That said, having used the system for six years and tweaking it occasionally, if not each year, I can guarantee that there is not an argument or opinion for or against sportsmanship scoring in general, or for or against any particular system, that I have not already heard. I long ago swore off debating any topic relating to either flavor of warhammer on the interwebs, but would be more than happy to debate that or any topic in person over a beer with anyone and everyone. I'll be at the BOLS event in July ready to hang out, drink a beer and shoot the bull. The first beer is on me.

--
john

Let me break it down for you dense types.

The stated mission of the Alamo GT, as per the website, is:

"Sportsmanship is about having a good game."

A high score should reflect that you offered your opponents good games, which is something we all probably strive to do. However, the method to achieve this noble goal is flawed.

They simply ask a question to the effect of "Did your opponent's behavior and/or army selection honestly make this a bad game for you." Now the assumption ON THEIR WEBSITE, is that telling if a game was good or bad is OBJECTIVE and "something everyone can agree on." In fact, they state that there "are a thousand things that can make a game good or bad." So you're telling me that everyone can equally agree on thousands of different factors without involving personal emotion? If you've been around Dakka for more than 30 seconds you know that's simply not true.

The issue here is that they think they are using an objective system, when, in fact, it is totally subjective. The scorer is allowed to use his/her own interpretation of what makes a game "good." There is nothing within the good game/bad game question they asked that is not open to interpretation. They reference "sloppy movement" as one criterion. How sloppy? measuring .000001 inch too far is to be considered sloppy? .001? .01? .1? How many infractions are necessary to be considered sloppy? 1? 10? 20? These questions are influenced by person feelings; therefore, they are not objective.

Moreover, people can bring outside influences into their sports scoring. Take Dash as an example. He may play a perfectly gentleman-like game, but he has quite a controversial internet personality. Maybe the person he plays abhors his internet personality and grades him a bad game, despite perfect play, simply because they do not like his internet self. This system does not stop such moves.

Additionally, the Alamo GT website says that "No one should be worried about being dinged out of spite which is so prevalent in other systems because this system focuses on the consensus of all five of ones opponents. While one bad vote will cost you points it cannot not knock you out of the running because of its small worth."

This statement is completely false. If you look back at past GT records, the top 5 spots have been largely separated by 1-3 points in many places. 1 bad game is -4 points. Therefore, a SINGLE bad game vote, can significantly influence your standings. It may not have determined overall in every situation, that plenty of people still care about getting 2nd or 3rd or really any other position in the standings.

Thus, because even 1 bad vote can effect your chances of placing well, A SINGLE OPPONENT has the ability to hurt your standings. A conflict of interest is created. The opponent is supposed to score your game good / bad, but maybe he was bitter about losing and wants to hurt your overall chances. He has the ability to do that and it has happened plenty of times in many other GTs. Why knowingly use a system that allows an opponent to effect your future performance. It simply does not make logical sense. Pretty much no other competition on the planet allows the opponent to score the player, because there is no way to ENSURE they will be objective and stop emotion from effecting decisions. If you know that emotion cannot be eliminated and that the system significantly influences final rankings, than why use it?

People at final tables also have a huge conflict of interest. Say you are on table 1 for game 4. You beat your opponent, but know that the field is pretty tight, as people have not been maxing points. You know that if you give your opponent "good game" and he "bad games" you, you could be screwing yourself if you lose game 5 and he wins (you are both 4-1). It is a game theory situation. In many ways, giving "good game" to your opponent is actually handicapping yourself, so any player, acting in their own self interest, would be incentivized to "bad game" their game 4 opponent. If you don't think this thought process happens, then I am sorry for you naivety. Like it or not, people are going to act in their own self interest. We have judges and referees, because, ideally, they are not involved in the game / tournament and do not have a stake, or a self interest to promote.

Subjective sports scoring does NOT make a better event. People do not suddenly stop being aholes at events with sports scoring. People that constantly get multiple bad games don't really change. If they do, it's rare. So you're not positively influencing behavior, you're not providing an objective system, you're not creating a better tournament, so why harm your event with a system that allows the TRUE BAD SPORTS to chimpunk an opponent out of spite?

johnbailey wrote:Dash- at the time it appeared that you had won by a point, but there was a cell formula error such that paint scores were not being properly accounted for, it wasn't immediately obvious, i found it when cleaning up the scoresheet for public consumption. The final scores will be up on the website as soon as my web guy gets them up today.

As for terrain, those planning to attend next year will be glad to know that I am placing a large terrain order with BOLS' supplier, so the tables will be much denser next year, and for the Fall WFB event.

As for sportsmanship, I always listen to all feedback on my event, positive or negative. That said, having used the system for six years and tweaking it occasionally, if not each year, I can guarantee that there is not an argument or opinion for or against sportsmanship scoring in general, or for or against any particular system, that I have not already heard. I long ago swore off debating any topic relating to either flavor of warhammer on the interwebs, but would be more than happy to debate that or any topic in person over a beer with anyone and everyone. I'll be at the BOLS event in July ready to hang out, drink a beer and shoot the bull. The first beer is on me.

--
john

I don't mean to intrude but have you just considered a "terrain party?" We often did that before a tournament or campaign. Just some guys get together and make some terrain. Cheap and interesting (plus with the right rum quite fun).

Leenus wrote:Let me break it down for you dense types.

See, right here, at the very beginning, you failed to offer your readers a "good post." As such, all of your many words which follow have become void and without meaning.

If you can't have a discussion while offering respect to your adversary's position, then you aren't engaging in any sort of debate. You're just yelling.

As to the topic - it HAS been discussed, many times, and at exhaustive length. One short response to your argument - who says they want an objective measure? Maybe they want the subjective interpretation to come into play; maybe they want you to have some obligation to help make your opponent enjoy the game. And yes, maybe that will be impossible at times, depending on who you are matched up against.

40k tournaments are always matchup-dependent.

Spellbound wrote:I personally also didn't like the raider conversions. I've seen good conversions, and I've seen bad ones. Cutting a WHFB base in half and sticking it on the front of a stormbolter as a storm shield, for instance - a case of what I consider lazy and bad-looking and takes away from the experience. Dark lances on the front of an otherwise fairly untouched raider that could easily have been sawed in half and then had the engine stuck onto the shortened front is the same. Especially if you're using the 2" extra via pivoting trick.

Which I see as blatant cheating. Pivoting doesn't take away your movement. But able to move 12" means able to move 12". If via some sort of turning/pivoting shenanigans you have moved MORE THAN 12", PERIOD, then you have cheated. Part of your vehicle has gone FURTHER than your MAXIMUM movement. It can't be done legally.

I really don't think that conversion which is LARGER than what it is supposed to be, gives someone huge overall advantage. Quite the contrary if anything, don't people usually want their vehicles to be smaller (ie. old Trukks are considered better than new, much bigger ones...)? Especially in a shooty list.

Reecius wrote:

(and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations)

Except for being wrong about at least 75% of his tyranid rulings.

Bunker wrote:

Reecius wrote:

(and he has a sterling track record for good rules interpretations)

Except for being wrong about at least 75% of his tyranid rulings.

Or was he?

@Bunker
He uses logic and precedence to make his rules calls and is arbitrary. GW doesn't always agree with him in their FAQs, but that doe snot make his arguments invalid at the time he makes them.

The INAT FAQ gives us something to work with, and I both respect the rulings and the effort that goes into them.

Offer us something better if you don't like Yak's work. It is a lot harder to be a solution to a problem than to offer criticism, I know, but if you think you have a better solution, then let's hear it.

@Lennus and the thread

And this is why sportsmanship and soft scores need to get dumped from tournaments. Look how many problems it causes. For years and years, the number one complaint about tournaments is soft scores, always soft scores.

They don't help, they hurt. They make events less fun.

Keep playing and painting separate, and junk the rest. They are too subjective and open the door to much for abuse. They just don't work.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't mean to intrude but have you just considered a "terrain party?" We often did that before a tournament or campaign. Just some guys get together and make some terrain. Cheap and interesting (plus with the right rum quite fun).

Yup, that's exactly what I'll be doing with all the yummy terrain I'll be ordering with BOLS.

Leemus/Reecius, as I said, first beer's on me, look forward to meeting you and talking sports scoring.

--
john

SonsofVulkan wrote:If Alamo, wargamecon and all the other GTs got rid of sportsmanship scores do you think less people will come to tournaments? probably not...

But if they got rid of painting scores... then that might be a problem.

Wargamescon actually is not scoring anything except battle and paint towards overall this year. That said, exceptionally poor sportsmanship will gain the special "get off of my lawn" award to anyone exhibiting it from yours truly.