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.

Salacious Greed wrote:I am all for real competition at Tournaments. But let's not backslide to the GW tournaments of the old days.

Sportsmanship = stupidly subjective. In Example: I played a younger opponent in a tournament, and had to keep asking him to only move 6 inches, not sliding the tape measure and get 7-8 inches in a move. This netted me a 0 on sportsmanship because I wouldn't let him play the game his way. In Example: I pointed out that my opponent was not playing a rule correctly, he said his gaming club played it this way, I insisted we play by the rule from the rulebook and again got a 0 on sportsmanship. In a third Example: I played necrons and fired the big pie plate from the Monolith, I targeted his unit, Hit with the scatter dice, and proceeded to wound and kill the model under the center hole of the template. My opponent felt he could shift that wound to another model, I opposed this view, so he appealed to a Judge. The judge sided with me, and I again got a 0 for sportsmanship.

None of these were because I was a dick, or because I want to WAAC. I prefer to play the game by the commonly agreed upon rules. Now don't get me wrong, I've had great opponents and thoroughly enjoyed the games and gotten good sportsmanship scores. But to base a tournament score upon the input of the players means that some players can tank their opponents scores. I think any scores should only come from unbiased tournament judges/organizers. Although, I've seen tournaments where the organizers had given their local players the missions early, and gave them more complimentary painting scores, etc. So, there is no one perfect system, except win based point system. Non-subjective systems are where the WAAC crowd really congregates, but that is because that's the system where it's based upon player, not the player's biased opponent.

Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

nkelsch wrote:

helium42 wrote:

Did you even read his post? What I got out of it was that the gaming group he is a part of would split up and go to play in as many different locations as possible so that they might have a better chance of meeting each other in later rounds, or at least not have to eliminate each other early. I'm assuming just as much or more than you are from the post, but I'm not jumping to the conclusion and calling somebody a cheater. I'm not sure what it is about this thread that has your panties in such a knot, but perhaps you should step away from it for awhile before you start throwing accusations like that around.

I did. Gaming the system to get more people than deserve it to the later rounds is one of the problems of 'ard boyz. People purposefully look for poorly run 'ard boyz with low attendance to increase their chances of winning and due to the totally inconsistent nature and organization of 'ardboyz, it works. It is dubious to operate in that fashion to try to 'win' by selecting areas with easier opponents or poor organization or bad organizers to increase your chance of reaching the finals, almost as if the first round doesn't matter and is a formality. It doesn't speak to the quality fo the event or the true competitive nature if people are able to do this. Even if they are not purposely cheating like many of the other people who do quit on Saturday and then play at a location which had their 'ard boyz on sunday, it is all around bad.

Why not get your 10 buddies and go to adpeticon or something and play some of the best people in the nation in a well-run event with real missions and a actually fair point value and have fun with your buddies all meeting up at the top tables with all your skill? Or do you need to find a 'ard boyz with 9 participants run by a dude at a model train store who knows nothing about GW games and has no judges enforcing rules to 'win' your way skillfully into the finals?

'Ardboyz was a total trainwreck mess and represented no skill. Anyone who was driving out of area to find easier opponents is what is wrong with tourneys in my opinion. Grow a sack and go to a national or regional indy event and get your skull caved in as there are some amazing players out there at these events that make 'ard boyz look like a joke.

nkelsch wrote:

helium42 wrote:

I don't see it as gaming the system. I see it as a group of friends who would rather spend their time beating other players and having a strong showing as a group in the finals. Correct me if I'm wrong but I wasn't aware that there was a system in place dictating where players play their first rounds at. The poster never mentioned anything about scouting out weaker opponents, as you suggest. He just said that the group splits up to go play at different venues.

Oh yes, I am sure he is the one innocent group of gamers who didn't do it for personal advantage when there were numerous reports of people doing just that. Regardless of their justification, it harmed the integrity of the event and made the finals worth less and the fact no one even knew results were posted shows how just little people cared or respected the 'ard boyz outcomes. Not admiting to dubious justifications doesn't make me not question his actions and motivations, especially when we have confirmed reports all over the nation along with my own experiences in watching particular players in action where people are doing dubious things sounding very similar to his postings.

The other indy events already have invitations where the winners of well-run regional tourneys get invited to events at larger tourneys where the best of the best can play each other. This happens by playing in organized events and winning, not avoiding the skilled players in your area and beating scrubs to get to the finals.

'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone. I hope those groups of people devote their time to painting thier figures and making a strong team showing at adepticon or other events and then making it to the top tables by winning games, not avoiding hard opponents with exploitative lists in an unbalanced, uncompetitive event. I think they will find making top tables at a real event with balanced missions is a lot harder than driving to a place that sells RC cars 2-towns over.

You sure are an angry fella. Makes me picture you as one of the poor baby seals who ran into an ugly list and never forgave ard boyz for it. You have a very broad opinion of the players that participated and this masterful scheme to cheat your ways into the next round etc.... (insert world ending here..). That scheme wouldnt even matter if the players lost at those separate locations. A large majority of stores that ran ard boyz were actual gaming stores. Next post instead of going per opinion try to find some factual statements to back it up . And this is where the tomb king checks out.

Hyd wrote:Why would the two be incompatible ?

They're not. Only when you have rules that can't stand the rigor of competitive play does trying to force them to do something they're not good at creates a problem.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Salacious Greed wrote:I am all for real competition at Tournaments. But let's not backslide to the GW tournaments of the old days.

Sportsmanship = stupidly subjective. In Example: I played a younger opponent in a tournament, and had to keep asking him to only move 6 inches, not sliding the tape measure and get 7-8 inches in a move. This netted me a 0 on sportsmanship because I wouldn't let him play the game his way. In Example: I pointed out that my opponent was not playing a rule correctly, he said his gaming club played it this way, I insisted we play by the rule from the rulebook and again got a 0 on sportsmanship. In a third Example: I played necrons and fired the big pie plate from the Monolith, I targeted his unit, Hit with the scatter dice, and proceeded to wound and kill the model under the center hole of the template. My opponent felt he could shift that wound to another model, I opposed this view, so he appealed to a Judge. The judge sided with me, and I again got a 0 for sportsmanship.

None of these were because I was a dick, or because I want to WAAC. I prefer to play the game by the commonly agreed upon rules. Now don't get me wrong, I've had great opponents and thoroughly enjoyed the games and gotten good sportsmanship scores. But to base a tournament score upon the input of the players means that some players can tank their opponents scores. I think any scores should only come from unbiased tournament judges/organizers. Although, I've seen tournaments where the organizers had given their local players the missions early, and gave them more complimentary painting scores, etc. So, there is no one perfect system, except win based point system. Non-subjective systems are where the WAAC crowd really congregates, but that is because that's the system where it's based upon player, not the player's biased opponent.

Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

So you tanked an opponents sportsmanship because he played his army by the rules AND wanted to win the game?

Blame the game system that allows that, not the player that uses it.

Thank you all for shooting down the moron that is running off at the mouth about cheating. I thank you. Splitting up your group between places that you can go is a great idea. Why go some place just to play the same people you have been playing with for who knows how long. Yes the main reason is so we don't knock each other out. but in a group of about nine people, We still have to play each other. And its just not a fun game. We all know how each other plays, and we know each others list. So most times, we both get hurt so bad we knock each other out. Its not as much fun as you would think.

The real question is, Is 'Ard boyz gone? GW still has a couple of tournaments that say if you finish in 'Ard boyz you get entered into some events. Throne of skulls i believe. Its up on the USA GW right now. Maybe this is just an over sight or needs edited. But other than that it seems like its gone. I hope GW reinvents 'Ard Boyz, maybe stream line it. Make some FAQ's for the missions before they are released, so when the day comes, the judges aren't wasting time trying to answer questions. And try and get a way to stop slow players screwing over other players. And i don't mean anything other than the people who play slow for an edge in the game, because of the time limit.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Salacious Greed wrote:I am all for real competition at Tournaments. But let's not backslide to the GW tournaments of the old days.

Sportsmanship = stupidly subjective. In Example: I played a younger opponent in a tournament, and had to keep asking him to only move 6 inches, not sliding the tape measure and get 7-8 inches in a move. This netted me a 0 on sportsmanship because I wouldn't let him play the game his way. In Example: I pointed out that my opponent was not playing a rule correctly, he said his gaming club played it this way, I insisted we play by the rule from the rulebook and again got a 0 on sportsmanship. In a third Example: I played necrons and fired the big pie plate from the Monolith, I targeted his unit, Hit with the scatter dice, and proceeded to wound and kill the model under the center hole of the template. My opponent felt he could shift that wound to another model, I opposed this view, so he appealed to a Judge. The judge sided with me, and I again got a 0 for sportsmanship.

None of these were because I was a dick, or because I want to WAAC. I prefer to play the game by the commonly agreed upon rules. Now don't get me wrong, I've had great opponents and thoroughly enjoyed the games and gotten good sportsmanship scores. But to base a tournament score upon the input of the players means that some players can tank their opponents scores. I think any scores should only come from unbiased tournament judges/organizers. Although, I've seen tournaments where the organizers had given their local players the missions early, and gave them more complimentary painting scores, etc. So, there is no one perfect system, except win based point system. Non-subjective systems are where the WAAC crowd really congregates, but that is because that's the system where it's based upon player, not the player's biased opponent.

Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

Unfortunately what you did is an example of an abuse of the sportsmanship system, and is typically why the community has moved away from it.

He played his army legally. He followed his rules. He played to win the game. Nothing he did was or should be construed as rude, cheating, etc., as another poster said, blame the rules that allow him to do it, not the player for using it.

Would it have been fair if someone tanked your sports because your daemons just won't die (a couple years ago maybe) because fateweaver letting everyone re-roll is "not fair" in their mind?

Sportsmanship is primarily about your social interaction with your opponent. If otherwise he was a jerk, rude, later for the game, showed up without the things he needed to play, inconsiderate, etc., then yes he should get a low score. But if he executes a legal play (as in any 'sport') you shouldn't be able to penalize his sportsmanship for doing so.

Odominus wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone.

You have no idea what you are talking about Troll. Granted, it's been a while since I posted at Dakka. From the outpouring of haters in just one thread..I'm surprised it is allowed to happen. Oh well...we can always vote with our clicks! Seeya!

Odominus, you're the one who's trolling here. Just because you disagree with these people's opinions doesn't mean that they are invalid. Calling someone a troll when they're not trolling is a violation of Rule #1.

Not to mention a violation of the actual definition of troll...

Experiment 626 wrote:Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

From your story, I gather that 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' is not a valid complaint while 'I got tabled by turn 1 cause his army was the cheese!' is. Illuminating.

Experiment 626 wrote:Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

I'm not sure if this is a serious post or not, Experiment 626. Your story appears to be an exellent example of Sportsmanship Scoring abuse. He played by the rules and you tanked his score.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

Wow. How could you justify giving that guy a low score? You barely even played and your scissors got rocked. Did you have enough time to see if he was a poor sport? If your opponent is laughing at you the whole time, I could see a lower score being justified. Just beating someone easily within the confines of the rules is not grounds for low sports scores.

I had a guy give me a 0 once ... because my models weren't painted.

It was my first empire project and I couldnt get it completed before the Chicago GT, but why shouldnt I still go to play some games, dont care if i cant win any shiny things. Not even sure how painting = sportsmanship

He told me too and Im like "dude i cant win anything anyway you ! I cant help it I outplayed your skaven this battle." I was ill at the time (nothing contagious) and was just in disbelieve that it actually happens ... over a game ... when (back in the late 90s) the prize was a little trophy.

Skaven horde vs Empire horde (artillery light)

Sorry back on topic... I am sorry to see 'ardboyz go. I was hoping to reach the level to be a good player at 'ardboyz. Everyone I know locally who have gone have generally enjoyed it.

Talarn Blackshard wrote:I had a guy give me a 0 once ... because my models weren't painted.

It was my first empire project and I couldnt get it completed before the Chicago GT, but why shouldnt I still go to play some games, dont care if i cant win any shiny things. Not even sure how painting = sportsmanship

He told me too and Im like "dude i cant win anything anyway you ! I cant help it I outplayed your skaven this battle." I was ill at the time (nothing contagious) and was just in disbelieve that it actually happens ... over a game ... when (back in the late 90s) the prize was a little trophy.

Skaven horde vs Empire horde (artillery light)

At those GT's, painting was mandatory, and part of the rules set, so I'm surprised you were allowed to play. Regardless since it was in the rules there is a sort of social contract/mutual respect involved in both of you agreeing to follow them and showing up with painting miniatures. I could see a low score being given, though maybe not a 0. However, if you then told him off after he was at least honest with you about what he was giving...I'd of quickly scribbled it out as well and written a 0.

Sorry back on topic... I am sorry to see 'ardboyz go. I was hoping to reach the level to be a good player at 'ardboyz. Everyone I know locally who have gone have generally enjoyed it.

Take a look into the independent GT scene, Ard Boyz was a very fickle/silly format due to the points level, turn times, and missions, and not really indicative of being a good player. Use the indy-GT scene (which in general is stronger in those aspects) as a new goal of player ability/level to reach if you want one.

Yeah not my best moment as a teenager ...

kronk wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

I'm not sure if this is a serious post or not, Experiment 626. Your story appears to be an exellent example of Sportsmanship Scoring abuse. He played by the rules and you tanked his score.

This is a tough one for me. While the player didn't break any rules or cheat... that's not the point of sportsmanship.

Depending on how the event considers sportsmanship, a zero maybe have been appropriate.

At it's core, the broader nature of sportsmanship is that while competition is good, so are concepts like fair play, respect, and ensuring that your opponent has an enjoyable experience.

It's neither player's fault that those two armies created a nearly unwinnable situation. But... the GK player could have held back a little to at least allow a game to be played.

And that's the difference between a turn 3 tabling and a turn 1 tabling: the former at least involved a game. Maybe there's only a slim chance, but it's still not a foregone conclusion.

when you can only deploy one unit, is that even a game?

Polonius wrote:

kronk wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:Hence why a good Sportsmanship system needs a clearly defined list of possible pts awarded, AND any score below the 'average' stated score needs to include writen reasons by the person giving the low score.
Ie: I gave a GK player a 0 after he warp quaked most of the table with 10 strikes + 10 interceptors, thus pretty much ending the game as outside of 1 unit, all my Daemons deviated just enough to enter a quake bubble and mishap. A 1 turn game isn't fun and you're not proving anything beyond being a TFG! I wrote down how he spread out his units the full 2" to ensure as large an area as possible was effected, not even giving me a chance to put models on the table. This I felt was clearly ment as an outright WAAC's move and as I was effectively tabled without even really getting a chance to play even a single full turn, was deserving of 'worst opponent' type score.

It's pretty hard to give low score if you have to back it up with viable reasons. Just putting down, 'I got tabled by turn 3 cause his army was the cheese!' or 'he argued lots of rules' shouldn't cut it.

I'm not sure if this is a serious post or not, Experiment 626. Your story appears to be an exellent example of Sportsmanship Scoring abuse. He played by the rules and you tanked his score.

This is a tough one for me. While the player didn't break any rules or cheat... that's not the point of sportsmanship.

Depending on how the event considers sportsmanship, a zero maybe have been appropriate.

At it's core, the broader nature of sportsmanship is that while competition is good, so are concepts like fair play, respect, and ensuring that your opponent has an enjoyable experience.

It's neither player's fault that those two armies created a nearly unwinnable situation. But... the GK player could have held back a little to at least allow a game to be played.

And that's the difference between a turn 3 tabling and a turn 1 tabling: the former at least involved a game. Maybe there's only a slim chance, but it's still not a foregone conclusion.

when you can only deploy one unit, is that even a game?

If only we could give Ward a 0 in sportsmanship for designing that nonsense.

Lol, it's a bad bit of design. Giving an army a huge advantage over another army, with no corresponding disadvantage, is just laughably silly.

But still, it depends on how you view sports scores.

If you believe that a person that doesnt' cheat or act rudely deserves a 10, than abusing Warp Quake is neither.

If you believe that sportsmanship should involve an active attempt to further the fun of both players... I doubt either player really enjoyed the game.

It's more of a question about the nature of sportmanship in general than an indictment of any single score or scoring system.

To bring this back on topic, it actually is one of the big changes in the tournament scene since Hardboys arrived. It was actually somewhat new for a GW event to have a "no holds barred" attitude. This attitude is now common, if not the norm in places.

That doesn't mean that some events couldn't still favor a different approach. Different strokes and all that.

Polonius wrote:
If you believe that a person that doesnt' cheat or act rudely deserves a 10, than abusing Warp Quake is neither.

If you believe that sportsmanship should involve an active attempt to further the fun of both players... I doubt either player really enjoyed the game.

I believe the one I underlined. Be nice, don't cheat, explain what you're doing: Score a 10.

To hinder your chances at winning so the other player has a good time is commendable, but not neccessary at a tournament, IMHO.

I personally would prefer that they keep Best Sportsman, Best General, and Best Painted separated, with neither having an effect on the over-all winner.

Lorek wrote:
Odominus, you're the one who's trolling here. Just because you disagree with these people's opinions doesn't mean that they are invalid. Calling someone a troll when they're not trolling is a violation of Rule #1.

I 100% disagree with you. Just look at the following posts.

nkelsch wrote:
The quality of opponent is often worse and cheating is rampant

the bottom of the barrel of tourney gaming

..a trainwreck like 'ard boyz.

'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone.

A good thing for absolutely everyone? You speak for everyone? Absolutists=fools. If you, Lorek, don't see these falsehoods as a flat out attack/troll of Ard Boyz tourney goers then I'd like to hear your definition. These are falsehoods. Disparaging WHF players by besmirching their qualities? I have spoken with many many Ard Players over the years and have never ran into any of these fictional masses nklesh describes. Have you Lorek? Can I just post anything I want and not have to back it up and consider it's implications:

The quality of Dakka Dakka is often worse and cheating is rampant amongst it's posters..

Dakka Dakka is the bottom of the barrel of Warhammer websites..

..a trainwreck like Dakka Dakka.

When Dakka Dakka is dead and it will be a good thing for everyone...

So this is fine? Although I can't back it up. Maybe I'll create a couple false supportive testimonies and throw them out there.

(Of course I do not feel this way at all but am using it as a tit-for-tat example You wouldn't see this as a troll of this website and it's posters? )

kronk wrote:

Polonius wrote:
If you believe that a person that doesnt' cheat or act rudely deserves a 10, than abusing Warp Quake is neither.

If you believe that sportsmanship should involve an active attempt to further the fun of both players... I doubt either player really enjoyed the game.

I believe the one I underlined. Be nice, don't cheat, explain what you're doing: Score a 10.

To hinder your chances at winning so the other player has a good time is commendable, but not neccessary at a tournament, IMHO.

I personally would prefer that they keep Best Sportsman, Best General, and Best Painted separated, with neither having an effect on the over-all winner.

LIke I said, there are two major approaches.

Even yours isn't as simple: you believe that a good sport makes some active attempt to engage in pleasantries, and explain his actions.

Personally, I feel that thing like rudeness and cheating go beyond "sportsmanship," just like felonies go beyond "ethics."

And things are different at hard boys than they are at a large indy GT, than they'd be at an event like Da Boys.

Too many gamers want events to cater to their style of play, and too many events do a poor job of articulating what style of play they want to encourage.

Kirasu wrote:While I agree somewhat about the "Free" aspect of 'ard boyz.. I also think its more a mental reaction rather than the free cost mattering at all

You've spent money to get a 2500 point army
You've also traveled quite a distance in MOST areas due to erratic placing of events
You've spent 10 hours of your life
The prizes for round 1 are equivalent to a 20 person event with no external prize support

It is certainly not a *free* event. Is 10-15$ really such a huge detraction if you've already bought an army and are willing to travel? .. seems like complaining over the price of a soda when you've already bought a 200$ dinner to me.. IE a bit silly

That's just it, it is, its easy to say "its not free, you had to buy an army to play'. that's not really the point of having a 40k/WHFB army(for some it might be), you'd have bought the army one way or another any how,but now you have an event you can take your new, spiffy army to. now 10hrs I can see as cost, but that is again the nature of the game, more so on the larger end,but still I wouldn't justify it as cost. as for travel, now that can be cost, though for me, if there isn't one if my area, I am not flying/driving/taking a train to it, I am just SOL. if you wish to pay for the transportation, then yes its cost, but at least its free to walk in through the doors to play without having the extra door fee added onto all the other expenses.

so other than travel expenses(which I myself find silly, just find a local Tournament, and if none is to be found, start one), so I would say it certainly is a free event. as for your reference to a $200 meal, I'd be miffed if I ha to pay an extra $10-15 on drinks, at that price, drinks should already be included. so saying its silly, is a tad out there, its that 10-15(hell any price over $5) that keeps me from even considering entering tournaments, and I have no doubts there are plenty of other players like myself out there, that don't want to fork up the extra, or can't fork up the extra.

I find it sad that its gone, and I hope something will take its play that will give myself(and those like me) a chance to get into a Tournament, without having to pay to get in, the army I bring being all I need to enter and compete(maybe not all that well mind you ).

Well, as anybody that's run a business, worked in public policy, or read about the "tragedy of the commons" can tell you, there's a huge mental difference between "low cost" and "free."

If Hard boys costed 10 bucks, it would be seen as something bought, with value. When it's free, people see it as something they are entitled to, and are more likely to abuse.

The point is, if you had 16 people at a local qualifier, the only things worth anything are the three tickets to the semis. At the semi-final level, there are two things of value: first prize (the army), and the three tickets to the finals. This shifts the focus entirely unto the top few tables at each level. If instead, everybody also kicked in $10, and there was a sports, paint, etc. type prizes... there's more value to everybody.

Polonius wrote:
Too many gamers want events to cater to their style of play, and too many events do a poor job of articulating what style of play they want to encourage.

No disagreement on these points, Polonius.

Odominus wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The quality of opponent is often worse and cheating is rampant

the bottom of the barrel of tourney gaming

..a trainwreck like 'ard boyz.

'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone.

A good thing for absolutely everyone? You speak for everyone? Absolutists=fools. If you, Lorek, don't see these falsehoods as a flat out attack/troll of Ard Boyz tourney goers then I'd like to hear your definition. These are falsehoods. Disparaging WHF players by besmirching their qualities? I have spoken with many many Ard Players over the years and have never ran into any of these fictional masses nklesh describes. Have you Lorek? Can I just post anything I want and not have to back it up and consider it's implications:

They are not attacks on tourney goers... I can back up every single one of those statements:

The quality of opponent is often worse and cheating is rampant
This is truth. By the nature of tourneys in general, the shorter distance people have to drive, the larger the net of people it catches. Same with the cheaper it is. You have a lot more novice players entering 'ard boyz than any other tourney format simply because it is 'brought to them' by the very design. No cost and no travel and being run in the place people already game means a wider range of skill levels.

People don't pay 500$ in travel and lodging to attend a 3 day GT when they barley have a grasp on the rules of the game. They do pay nothing and enroll in 'ard boyz.

Also there are dozens of confirmed factual descriptions from all over dakka over the inconsistencies and cheating occurring at the 'ard boy Prelims. We had many places not enforce WYSIWYG and allow proxies. Many people were way over the point value or way under. One store let kids enter with 'whatever they had' and many games were people playing an opponent 400 points less than them basically giving them a free win. Lots of locations had bad or no judges and people reported lots of core rules being played totally wrong either due to lack of experience on the players or people being cheaters.

Either way, 'ard boy has more novices and inconsistent rules. It is fact.

the bottom of the barrel of tourney gaming

Compared to every objective metric, the quality of 'ard boyz from top to bottom is significantly inferior to almost every other Indy tourney.
*The unbalanced point value
*The too short game length
*The wildly off-the-wall missions which impact the game to be played fairly
*The total inconsistency in terrain between locations drastically harming gameplay
*The lack of consistent and experienced judges to enforce rules consistently

Basically the prelims are a crapshoot which makes the whole thing nothing more than a fun day of gaming and not an actual metric of competitive gamers or gamers skills, it becomes the exact opposite of what it claims to be.

The appearance and lack of WYSIWYG enforcement has nothing to do with how the event was simply terrible by all standards. While some 'ard boyz were run decently due to the smart TOs, the fact your opponent in the finals could be from one of these horrible locations ruins the entire event. (and there have been numerous reports of these over the years)

..a trainwreck like 'ard boyz.
Can someone honestly argue that 'ard boyz was a well-organized, well-run event which had enforced equity of quality, rules, missions, tables and such between the distributed locations? No one can make that statement. 'ard boyz is a cash grab and people go friggin nuts. It was not about winning or being the best skilled player, it was about getting free stuff and the worst of the worst comes out of some people in their drive to get swag. I actually feel like tourneys are better off without swag and people act better when they are playing to show their skill not grab a bunch of plastic. (which they then turn around and lie to GW customer service to defraud GW out of more models by saying they are missing sprues and such)


'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone

Any store which is any good will replace 'ard boyz with an event they run and it will be better in every way. The indy toruneys will grow and fill this hole and it will be better in every way. You don't have to agree, but the stories of 'ardboyz being poorly run and the point totals and missions speak for themselves.

The people who are glad to see 'Ard boyz go, are the power gamers who failed.

As someone who made it to the semis every year and the finals twice, I hardly consider my efforts failure...especially since I was doing it with a "sub-par" army according to the internets, at the time. I have no problem with the format, but rather have massive problems in how it was run. Collusion was a HUGE problem in Ard Boyz...either between players or between players and TOs. If you've never had that experience...consider yourself fortunate. Others (including me) have not been so fortunate. I think the many personal anecdotes here demonstrates that. Another huge problem was the "auto qualify" that occurred as well. If you and 2 of your friends showed up to a location and you were the only 3 players...you automatically qualified for the semis. How is that fair to others that had to fight through the competition to get there? Another thing I've seen is scoring "errors", etc. and a lack of consistency in venues. Ever had your round 3 of the semis end after an hour because the space that was loaned out had to be closed? I have. So no, I'm not sad to see the Ard Boyz go just based on those merits alone. That doesn't even include the f**ked up missions, etc.

nkelsch wrote:

Odominus wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The quality of opponent is often worse and cheating is rampant

the bottom of the barrel of tourney gaming

..a trainwreck like 'ard boyz.

'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone.

A good thing for absolutely everyone? You speak for everyone? Absolutists=fools. If you, Lorek, don't see these falsehoods as a flat out attack/troll of Ard Boyz tourney goers then I'd like to hear your definition. These are falsehoods. Disparaging WHF players by besmirching their qualities? I have spoken with many many Ard Players over the years and have never ran into any of these fictional masses nklesh describes. Have you Lorek? Can I just post anything I want and not have to back it up and consider it's implications:

They are not attacks on tourney goers... I can back up every single one of those statements:

The quality of opponent is often worse and cheating is rampant
This is truth. By the nature of tourneys in general, the shorter distance people have to drive, the larger the net of people it catches. Same with the cheaper it is. You have a lot more novice players entering 'ard boyz than any other tourney format simply because it is 'brought to them' by the very design. No cost and no travel and being run in the place people already game means a wider range of skill levels.

People don't pay 500$ in travel and lodging to attend a 3 day GT when they barley have a grasp on the rules of the game. They do pay nothing and enroll in 'ard boyz.

Also there are dozens of confirmed factual descriptions from all over dakka over the inconsistencies and cheating occurring at the 'ard boy Prelims. We had many places not enforce WYSIWYG and allow proxies. Many people were way over the point value or way under. One store let kids enter with 'whatever they had' and many games were people playing an opponent 400 points less than them basically giving them a free win. Lots of locations had bad or no judges and people reported lots of core rules being played totally wrong either due to lack of experience on the players or people being cheaters.

Either way, 'ard boy has more novices and inconsistent rules. It is fact.

the bottom of the barrel of tourney gaming

Compared to every objective metric, the quality of 'ard boyz from top to bottom is significantly inferior to almost every other Indy tourney.
*The unbalanced point value
*The too short game length
*The wildly off-the-wall missions which impact the game to be played fairly
*The total inconsistency in terrain between locations drastically harming gameplay
*The lack of consistent and experienced judges to enforce rules consistently

Basically the prelims are a crapshoot which makes the whole thing nothing more than a fun day of gaming and not an actual metric of competitive gamers or gamers skills, it becomes the exact opposite of what it claims to be.

The appearance and lack of WYSIWYG enforcement has nothing to do with how the event was simply terrible by all standards. While some 'ard boyz were run decently due to the smart TOs, the fact your opponent in the finals could be from one of these horrible locations ruins the entire event. (and there have been numerous reports of these over the years)

..a trainwreck like 'ard boyz.
Can someone honestly argue that 'ard boyz was a well-organized, well-run event which had enforced equity of quality, rules, missions, tables and such between the distributed locations? No one can make that statement. 'ard boyz is a cash grab and people go friggin nuts. It was not about winning or being the best skilled player, it was about getting free stuff and the worst of the worst comes out of some people in their drive to get swag. I actually feel like tourneys are better off without swag and people act better when they are playing to show their skill not grab a bunch of plastic. (which they then turn around and lie to GW customer service to defraud GW out of more models by saying they are missing sprues and such)


'ard boyz is dead and it is a good thing for everyone

Any store which is any good will replace 'ard boyz with an event they run and it will be better in every way. The indy toruneys will grow and fill this hole and it will be better in every way. You don't have to agree, but the stories of 'ardboyz being poorly run and the point totals and missions speak for themselves.

And you have no idea what you're talking about. For our store, it was the major gaming event of the year for two years in a row. Unlike some of you, we don't live next door to any of the large GTs, and don't have enough of a gaming population to justify putting one on. WYSIWYG was STRICTLY enforced at the event that I ran, and at the one last year as well. Two printed copies of army lists were required and checked for accuracy. We had no problems, a good deal of the armies were actually painted nicely, and everyone had a load of fun.

It might have sucked at other places, but that lies strictly on that particular TO, not the event itself.

Aramus wrote:
And you have no idea what you're talking about. For our store, it was the major gaming event of the year for two years in a row. Unlike some of you, we don't live next door to any of the large GTs, and don't have enough of a gaming population to justify putting one on. WYSIWYG was STRICTLY enforced at the event that I ran, and at the one last year as well. Two printed copies of army lists were required and checked for accuracy. We had no problems, a good deal of the armies were actually painted nicely, and everyone had a load of fun.

It might have sucked at other places, but that lies strictly on that particular TO, not the event itself.

After living in 4 cities across 3 states covering about 10-12 stores since 'Ard Boyz has been started, I can honestly tell you that your store is the exception rather than the rule.

Nkelsch is actually rather on the money for the majority of 'Ard Boyz locations I've seen. The event itself IS to blame as there was no standard way to run it, which was the entire POINT of the 'Ard Boyz system(a dedicated, hardcore, and fair tournament system run by GW).

@Odominus: nkelsch is expressing is displeasure about a tournament system. If you disagree with him, you don't make personal attacks on him. Nothing justifies that. If you really hate what he's saying, attack his argument. That's what a real debate is all about. Take each one of his points and point on contradictory evidence, or list a different set of points about why 'Ard Boyz is good.

What nkelsch said was not directed at any particular group; you'll notice that when he was saying negative things about players, he is not being all-inclusive. Saying that "everyone" is better off without 'Ard Boyz is not attacking anyone. He is expressing his opinion of the tournament.

You went after him directly. If you cannot make the distinction between what nkelsch posted and what you posted, then you'd be better off staying in threads that lack controversy or opposing viewpoints. May I suggest Painting and Modeling?

@Aramus: Seriously? "You don't know what you're talking about"? How about, "I disagree, and here is why:" I guess you missed my post about Rule #1 earlier (be polite).

If it was such a large success for your area, there's no reason the same location(s) couldn't run your own home-spun version of it.

Lorek wrote:@Odominus: nkelsch is expressing is displeasure about a tournament system.

You are wrong. Disparaging the players is different than disparaging the tournament system. If you cannot tell the difference, then you'd be better off staying in threads that lack controversy or opposing viewpoints. May I suggest Painting and Modeling?


Inferring that I "cannot tell the difference" is a shot at my intelligence.

Lorek wrote:I guess you missed my post about Rule #1 earlier (be polite).

So taking a shot at one of Dakka Dakka's poster's intelligence is polite? Hmm I guess the polite banning is next. I don't take too kindly being disparaged by one of this site's moderators.

What a great experience for me. After an extended absence, I come to this site to talk about a cancelled beloved tourney and instead I'm subjected to insults while a moderator sits by and condones it. It used to not be this way around here.

If you really hate what he's saying, attack his argument.

Calling people cheaters with no hard proof. That's ridiculous. There's no argument to attack. Just point out the error of the person bloviating.

Odominus wrote:

Lorek wrote:@Odominus: nkelsch is expressing is displeasure about a tournament system.

You are wrong. Disparaging the players is different than disparaging the tournament system. If you cannot tell the difference, then you'd be better off staying in threads that lack controversy or opposing viewpoints. May I suggest Painting and Modeling?


Inferring that I "cannot tell the difference" is a shot at my intelligence.

Lorek wrote:I guess you missed my post about Rule #1 earlier (be polite).

So taking a shot at one of Dakka Dakka's poster's intelligence is polite? Hmm I guess the polite banning is next. I don't take too kindly being disparaged by one of this site's moderators.

What a great experience for me. After an extended absence, I come to this site to talk about a cancelled beloved tourney and instead I'm subjected to insults while a moderator sits by and condones it. It used to not be this way around here.

You subjected yourself to reading insults about an event (and player base) you (apparently) enjoyed, and then insulted another specific poster who did not enjoy the event, and saw it's ending as a good thing, for his list of reasons.

He criticized/etc. the event and the player base he felt it attracted, you went after him, a specific entity in the thread. That is the difference.