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.

Just wondering how many people actually play differently when their are sportsmanship scores on the line.

Do you act nicer because a event has sportsmanship scores or do you play the exact same way you play with your buddies back home?

I play the same regardless of sportsmanship. Take that as you may of course.

I think whether playing a game, driving on the highway, or watching a movie there is an unspoken contract between strangers that must be obeyed. Be polite, be considerate, and follow the rules.

If I'm not in a great mood already, feeling a little under the weather, (etc.) it has occasionally helped me focus on making sure my opponent is having a good time.

I have to honestly say that I do not act any differently.

That being said, I'm pretty laid back. I don't get into rules arguments much either in the FLGS or at tournaments.

(So, I don't need to act differently because there is a Sportsmanship score.)

I'm a dick either way No one I know ever wants to play me a second time which is why I have to play in tournaments with like minded people

No, however on the rare occasion that I am not running the tournament and do not place overall I almost always take the sportsmanship award.

Not sure that I would necessarily play differently... But I do bring different lists to different events depending on if it is a battle points only event VS soft scores and also depending on what FAQ rulings they are using.

When I am playing in an event with higher soft scores, I probably brought a list that was based more around 'the models I wanted to play with and show off' which means I may be using units I like but are not top tier quality. I may also bring models I have just completed. If I am not bringing a hard as nails competative list and just looking to have fun and show off appearance, I am probably going to be much more relaxed on rules and things in general.

But if the event is a hard-nosed game like 'ard boyz, then I will bring a optimum list, know the FAQs and rulings people are using and be a stickler for it. Doesn't mean I am going to be an ass, but it does mean I expect opponents who have a similar mindset about being more precise with rules and actions opposed to what I may find in a soft score tourney where I am not going to bust someone's balls who just really is trying to have fun and not experienced.

I typically never get into arguments at tournament games, no matter how silly or over the top my opponent's rule claims might get. "Hey man, if you say so." If they're completely using a rule wrong, then I have no problem looking it up, but if it's something subjective, why argue over it? Then again, last time I was at a tournament, I got the sportsmanship award. Ironically, for friendly games, I'm typically much harder on people. "You're really going to try to pull THAT cover save on me? Really?" I always give it to them anyway, but I think they need to feel some shame, because they should know better.

My opinion is that unless someone is outright cheating, I should be able to beat them anyway. If I can't then clearly I just need to get better.

Edit: I feel I should clarify. Friendly games == games I play with the close group of friends who I started playing with.

I generally am the same if sportsmanship plays a huge rolle 25% of your actual score them I'm alittle nicer just incase but I tend to be a really nice person to play. Though I do talk alot of gak SUCK ON THAT MOFO!!!!!

No, I play the same way.

However, I do know people who use a lack of softscores to "cheat" ala slowplaying, feigning ignorance of rules that they have been corrected on in previous games, etc.

no softscores brings out the worst players IMO.

Demogerg wrote:
no softscores brings out the worst players IMO.

^ This.

G

Demogerg wrote:No, I play the same way.

However, I do know people who use a lack of softscores to "cheat" ala slowplaying, feigning ignorance of rules that they have been corrected on in previous games, etc.

Uh, you could do this with soft scores...

Demogerg wrote:

no softscores brings out the worst players IMO.

Kinda off topic...
Is this just a random claim to try and start something? Cause there is another thread discussing the validity of softscores. This one is just wondering if people change the way they play.

Knowing there is a sports score tends to remind me to have fun in intense games.

nkelsch wrote:
But if the event is a hard-nosed game like 'ard boyz, then I will bring a optimum list, know the FAQs and rulings people are using and be a stickler for it. Doesn't mean I am going to be an ass, but it does mean I expect opponents who have a similar mindset about being more precise with rules and actions opposed to what I may find in a soft score tourney where I am not going to bust someone's balls who just really is trying to have fun and not experienced.

I don't play in 'ard boyz for just that reason. I tend to play the list I want but I find the winners / top 20 are using the same 2-4 lists (Maybe one unit different). I understand that people play to win & those lists win but I don't have that mindset and as such I don't play.

But as for me I'm only a stickler for the main rules. Like LoS (a quick search will find my rant about losing 6/12 on sportsmanship for calling that he didn't have LoS when he clearly didn't & the TO sided with me) and other basic rules.
However I've let my opponent get away with a lot & even help them out on occasion like when a CSM player wanted to assault my broadsides & mentioned he couldn't shoot his bolters, so I politely reminded him that they CAN shoot their bolt pistols.

I wish there were more players like you Shas'O.

G

I have heard of more problems and disputes reported from 'Ard Boyz, which is notable for its total lack of soft scores, than from most other events. In general, I would greatly prefer to play a game with someone who has a fully painted army and tries not to be too much of a dick than with someone who had an unpainted/proxied army and no real restrictions on behavior. Obviously, not everyone who plays in 'Ard Boyz is a dick or TFG, but I think the chances of having a bad game are much higher in that sort of event.

Fetterkey wrote:I have heard of more problems and disputes reported from 'Ard Boyz, which is notable for its total lack of soft scores, than from most other events. In general, I would greatly prefer to play a game with someone who has a fully painted army and tries not to be too much of a dick than with someone who had an unpainted/proxied army and no real restrictions on behavior. Obviously, not everyone who plays in 'Ard Boyz is a dick or TFG, but I think the chances of having a bad game are much higher in that sort of event.

Maybe its because the volume of ard boyz tournaments run. Many run by TO's who don't normally run 40k events. I would be the percentage is actually lower than the other major tournaments.


Actually, I think every single large event in 2010 so far has had problems and complaints. Either with cheaters or impartial comp judges (judging their own/friends lists)

Sports scores don't change the way I play. I'm forgiving, give questionable calls to my opponent and generally just try to have a good time as my primary goal.

That said I support sportsmanship scores because my play style is not the most common one.

Fetterkey wrote:unpainted/proxied army

This does anger me. Painted not so much. It takes awhile but I want to at least see them base coated with 10-20% somewhat painted. However Proxys are a big no-no with me. With a few exceptions that are very clear / easy:
These tac marines with the (insert different Color) helmet are sternguard.
These assault marines with (Insert clear difference) are vanguard vets.
This soulgrinder is a defiler.

Simple stuff like that, not these chaos marines are really the space wolves 13th co. so I'm going to use the Space wolf codex because it's better.

Timmah wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:
Actually, I think every single large event in 2010 so far has had problems and complaints. Either with cheaters or impartial comp judges (judging their own/friends lists)

They have all been smaller events IMO - it's only because of this circuit thing that GW is doing that these tournaments are getting much if any publicity. Previous years they were small in comparison to the biggies - Adepticon, GW GT's, etc and no one really cared that much.

I say that with no disrespect for the organizers and the hard work that goes into the tourneys. It's just that all the smaller RTT's now get much more attention because of the "Golden Ticket" when before unless you were a local participating in it - it wasn't big news.

Fetterkey wrote:I have heard of more problems and disputes reported from 'Ard Boyz, which is notable for its total lack of soft scores, than from most other events. In general, I would greatly prefer to play a game with someone who has a fully painted army and tries not to be too much of a dick than with someone who had an unpainted/proxied army and no real restrictions on behavior. Obviously, not everyone who plays in 'Ard Boyz is a dick or TFG, but I think the chances of having a bad game are much higher in that sort of event.

Restrictions on behavior don't stop people from being dicks as countless others have been explaining in other threads. Even in the best case scenario all it does it push dickishness into the background. Instead of being a TFG during the game they just tank your soft scores behind the scenes. And that's the *best* case scenario. In the end you still take it in the rear from the TFG.

And, frankly, if you do a little digging into the supposed high volume of disputes and problems from 'Ard Boyz events you'll quickly notice that the complaints are coming from players who don't like competitive events but only chose to attend because it is an officially sponsored GW tournament. You end up with are people attending an event that they don't really have any interest in and who take personal offense to what an opponent puts down on the table, whether its unpainted models or a "cheesy" army. By setting themselves up for failure they come away from the event disgruntled and with horror stories of their own design.

uhh i techincally do play different with people i don't know (ie: tournament people) than my gaming buddies. My friends and I go off on tangets while playing, talk abit of trash and of course have fun with the game (I always ask for the emperors protection and grace when its important )
At tournaments i act as is expected. I play, i barely speak about not game stuff, i don't talk trash and unfortunaltley i have a little less fun. ( i don't mean it in a bad way, but i find friendly games way more enjoyable)
Comp score i believe aren't too important, but its nice to have away to say that a nicer guy who played just a well as an ass will win in the end. That being said soft scores should ONLY be a tie breaker

I have to agree, the people most dissatisfied with 'ard boyz are people who have heard magical stories about how cool official GW GTs were and long for an official GW event.

'ard boyz is brutal. Pure and simple. I am a pretty well versed at rules and understand rule lawyering and am familiar with the disputed rule combos and meta lists and even I find it hard to really play in and enjoy 'ard boyz.

About half-way through the last one I did, i was playing against a non-painted army while the people at the table next to me were screaming about RAW RAW RAW and I realized 'why am I allowing people to kick me in the balls and pretending it is fun?'

I would rather lose at a place with painted models, comp softscores than win at a 'ard boyz tournament and go through the oreal and arguments that it takes to win there.

I think the main issue with sportsmanship comes down to when someone who is nice, simply doesn't know a rule and they come up against someone who 100% *KNOWS* the answer. You can be the nicest guy ever but by the 3rd time you can flip to the exact page in 3 seconds or quote the INAT over a rules dispute, *ANYONE* is going to get beaten down by it... Not because you are rude, not because you are a dick, just because you know the rules with crushing accuracy.

It is kinda demoralizing for some people. This is where I find it sometimes just isn't needed to Gwarhammer people at a tourney.

I am not a big fan of events based upon pure battlepoints. It seems like some people think this means it's okay to do whatever it takes to win. I will still occassionally play in these events but my expectations are quite low. I have seen lots of arguments at Ard Boyz, that's the nature of the beast. It saddens me to see good people I know forget about being a good sport and simply focus on winning at all costs. I know we have all have our bad days but Ard Boyz seems to just make it moreso. The stakes are high and people forget that it's still just a game of toy soldiers. Oh well.

G

It doesn't change the way I play, really, but it does increase my threshold for taking BS from my opponent.

Knowing some of the posters in this thread personally - some of their replies makes me giggle.

Chipmunking is evil and people who do it are a waste of space.

Danny Internets wrote:
And, frankly, if you do a little digging into the supposed high volume of disputes and problems from 'Ard Boyz events you'll quickly notice that the complaints are coming from players who don't like competitive events but only chose to attend because it is an officially sponsored GW tournament. You end up with are people attending an event that they don't really have any interest in and who take personal offense to what an opponent puts down on the table, whether its unpainted models or a "cheesy" army. By setting themselves up for failure they come away from the event disgruntled and with horror stories of their own design.

nkelsch wrote:
'ard boyz is brutal. Pure and simple.

Both of these posters are 100% correct. If you are like me & want to just have a fun friendly game/ tournament, rather than doing whatever it takes to win (I.E. cheese / proxy / look up a list & tactics / those little tiny rules) then don't cry about it just don't play in those tournaments. The prizes are big & many people travel quite a bit to get into those tournaments so they are fully within their rights to be balls to the wall competitive. The old saying goes if you can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch, I myself find the porch to be a great place.

Kinda off topic...
Is this just a random claim to try and start something? Cause there is another thread discussing the validity of softscores. This one is just wondering if people change the way they play.

I think it was relevant to the discussion, I dont change the way I play, but I know people who do, and they change for the worse.

Danny Internets wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:I have heard of more problems and disputes reported from 'Ard Boyz, which is notable for its total lack of soft scores, than from most other events. In general, I would greatly prefer to play a game with someone who has a fully painted army and tries not to be too much of a dick than with someone who had an unpainted/proxied army and no real restrictions on behavior. Obviously, not everyone who plays in 'Ard Boyz is a dick or TFG, but I think the chances of having a bad game are much higher in that sort of event.

Restrictions on behavior don't stop people from being dicks as countless others have been explaining in other threads. .

“Countless”? From my observation it's a few others, repeating the same opionions countless times.

While restrictions on behavior don’t stop ALL people from being dicks, my experience from observation is that sportsmanship scoring does encourage some people who are overly competitive and have dickish tendencies to moderate their attitudes and make a conscious effort to be friendly and pleasant. IMO this is a positive result.

Danny Internets wrote: Even in the best case scenario all it does it push dickishness into the background. Instead of being a TFG during the game they just tank your soft scores behind the scenes. And that's the *best* case scenario. In the end you still take it in the rear from the TFG.

Not all TFGs chipmunk, and not all chipmunkers are obvious TFGs. While the chipmunking issue is a problem, IME it’s much less common than soft score detractors claim. There are also ways to modify the system to make it significantly harder to do, like using pass/fail sports or an objective checklist. I know you don’t believe in an objective checklist, but IME giving a clear list of good and bad behaviors DOES make it easier for players to score one another consistently and know what kind of behaviors are expected from competitors.

Danny Internets wrote:And, frankly, if you do a little digging into the supposed high volume of disputes and problems from 'Ard Boyz events you'll quickly notice that the complaints are coming from players who don't like competitive events but only chose to attend because it is an officially sponsored GW tournament.

I disagree completely that these are the only people complaining. IME competitive players also complain regularly about the unsportsmanlike behavior of opponents at ‘Ard Boyz and other no-soft-scores events (like the UK GTs). I agree that complaints about most events tend to be overblown and distorted, as one annoyed person complaining is a lot more noticeable than 10 satisfied players saying nothing.

But trying to boil down all complaints to one source (“players who don’t like competitive events”) is deeply misguided, IMO. There can’t be that many such people even attending ‘Ard Boyz. It’s not like GW doesn’t clearly label it as a purely competitive event.

Personally I don’t think ‘Ard Boyz is actually full of unsportsmanlike players. The majority of my opponents have been fine. But IME I do find that players who disregard sportsmanship, think breaking the rules (or at least twisting questionable interpretations in their favor as much as possible) is okay in a competition, or don’t give a toss for other aspects of the hobby (like painting) tend to be attracted to ‘Ard Boys. They perceive it as a venue where their antisocial attitudes are less likely to have negative consequences.

While sports scoring does have flaws and weaknesses, it at least communicates clearly the social norm that sportsmanship is important and valued, and that we care enough about it to make the quality of your interaction with your opponent a part of the scoring for the event. IME this does modify behavior for a lot of folks. And I believe (especially based on observing the different people attending ‘Ard Boyz events compared to other events) does discourage a significant number of TFGs from even coming out to events with soft scores, to the benefit of everyone else.

Personally, I believe that the entire premise of this thread's poll is a little invalid.

In terms of the poll, there are only three types of people:

1. People who almost always act in a sporting manner, and would not need to modify their behavior due to the existence of sportsmanship scores.

2. People who occasionally push the envelope of sportsmanship while playing, but are aware enough of their actions that they consciously modify their behavior so as not to be penalized.

3. People who either don't care that they are abrasive and unpleasant to play against, or are completely unaware that they are unpleasant opponents.

In my experience, the majority of players fit into the 1st type above. The smallest number fit into the 3rd type.

When asking whether or not you consciously act differently due to the existence of Sportsmanship scores, the only people who will answer "yes" will be those who fit in the 2nd type I mention above. This being a minority of overall players, it will tend to skew the poll results to make it appear that Sportsmanship scores do not have an effect on modifying people's behavior.

Saldiven wrote:Personally, I believe that the entire premise of this thread's poll is a little invalid.

In terms of the poll, there are only three types of people:

1. People who almost always act in a sporting manner, and would not need to modify their behavior due to the existence of sportsmanship scores.

2. People who occasionally push the envelope of sportsmanship while playing, but are aware enough of their actions that they consciously modify their behavior so as not to be penalized.

3. People who either don't care that they are abrasive and unpleasant to play against, or are completely unaware that they are unpleasant opponents.

In my experience, the majority of players fit into the 1st type above. The smallest number fit into the 3rd type.

When asking whether or not you consciously act differently due to the existence of Sportsmanship scores, the only people who will answer "yes" will be those who fit in the 2nd type I mention above. This being a minority of overall players, it will tend to skew the poll results to make it appear that Sportsmanship scores do not have an effect on modifying people's behavior.

How would it skew the results? The 1st and 3rd types don't change their behavior...

Maybe you just dislike the results that sportsmanship doesn't affect anything for the majority of people?