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.

I will never play in a tournament unless if its free (which I have, and Ive always won funny/oddly enough).

Im a competitive person by nature in everything I do. I dont play to win at all costs, as I choose to do things that follow my moral beliefs, and to make it fun for everyone if possible. However, I almost always do things at a competitive nature (otherwise I get bored), but 40k just isnt designed for tournament play.

Coming from a close substitute for 40k - RTS games - I can say that not only is the gameplay a bit of a joke, but so are the rules and how GW backs them up.

First off, most of the game is decided before you even do anything. If you bring a list and your opponent just so happens to have the counter, theres very little you can do once the game starts. Looking at Dawn of War 2, if your opponent brings out a walker, you need to buy anti-tank, where he'll then need to buy assault/AI troops, and so on. Seeing as the game is completely static, your left with what you have, and due to the simplified rules of 40k, there are very few tactics. The fact is, cover means diddly squat a lot of the time, so if you want to shoot your enemy, your exposing yourself to fire the next turn. Moving into cover does nothing for things like marines against non AP fire. Movement in general is far too easy and requires little thought. If youve played Fantasy, youd know that movement is everything.

I think this game would greatly benefit from a flanking/suppression/cover system. This would place more weight on skill and maneuvering and take away the current emphasis on heavy, APing units. The thought of having a unit pin an enemy behind cover only to have a squad move around and flank them just seems so awesome and so much more skillful.

Second, the update system is a joke. RTS games with fewer units and far fewer armies cant make the game balanced. They also dont have to deal with horribly written rules. One quick trip to YMDC will let you see how far people are willing to take these poorly written rules. Arguments range from silly - ex. Chaos Dreadnought Frenzy - to mindnumbing - ex. rerolling all dice opposed to the missed ones on warptime - to absolutely insane - ex. Only units with eyes can shoot (meaning no marines for example). I dont want to deal with these idiots, which you know will come out when their money is on the line. Even in the free tournaments Ive had people tell me some BS, so Im not dealing with hardcore idiots.

The FAQ system sucks. Period. No need to go into this. How you can release a poorly written book and then not clarify things is beyond me.

Im getting tired of typing, so basically to sum it up - Too much emphasis on lists, poorly written rules, idiots, and luck based are the reason Ill never play in "hardcore" tournaments. This is ontop of what the OP said.

Any large body of tournament data will show that the same small handful of players will win events regardless of rule set, tournament style or army list. Dakka used to have a player data base & so did the Chicago region (not sure if either data base is still available). In rough terms, 10% of the players will win 90% of the time. The only explanation I have is that some players are more skillful than others.

Hmm.. Tournament vs. Casual friendly play?

Its simple its like the x games over the weekend. Lets say you are a moto x rider and your hangingin with your boyz all year jumping hills and pulling tricks left and right... Lets say you land a 720 out on the dunes of Neew Mexico and your boyz see it happen thats great you are the man. Now you choose to go to the xgames(tournament). there are people in your crew that know you can land the trick, seen you do it, lived to tell the tale. You turn at the plate on national television with 1 shot you try, you fail, you lose.

Thats the difference between friendly and casual. Playing in tournaments with warhammer 40k is essentially a practice in available luck and skill. Can you bring the right army, play the right opponenets, have the best possible dice rolls, etc....Its about proving your skills in front of a larger audience. For some this is not enticing and many people will not admit to why they dont like playing in tournaments. Some people have stage fright, others may actually totally disdain playing cheese lists, Others may fear losing, Some cant afford to play the list they want to, there are so many unspoken reasons for not playing in tournaments. I have alot of fun playing for fun. I actually had more fun games practicing for Ard Boyz than i will probably have playing in Ard Boyz. The thrill of winning when it counts for something more than bragging rights with your friends is sometimes very exhilirating, more so than a stuning win amongst nothing but strangers. Now if you let the thrill of competition turn you into an idiot then you have lost focus. Have fun, play well , maybe you will win.

So let me just make some guesses here...
I'm assuming that most of the pissed off posters here didnt do well at 'Ard Boyz round one this year, I'll also assume that you took an army that isnt great in the first place then decided to write out a terrible list but in your head you thought it was amazing,(like all the other twenty termies with storm shield lists i saw) then said and I quote "I'm just gonna play for fun and don't care if I win" then got there, tried to win despite the above statement and got curb stomped like that guy in American History X.Then you went home and decided to unleash the rage all over the guys and girls who did do well. Now I myself went to 'Ard boyz with a well thought out Tau list and went undefeted, and you cant say "so your another guy with Lash, Nob Bikers, or Eldar cheese that won 'Ard boyz good for you slow" because I'm not. I took a low tear army, played it very well, beat the compitition through well layed out plans DESPITE THE FACT THAT I ROLLED WORST THAN A DRUNK THREE YEAR OLD WITH DOWN SYNDROME, so I dont wanna hear "it's because you got lucky". Game one I fired a squad of broadsides at a Wraithlord and rolled three ones to wound, just an example of my luck in that tourny. But I out played them and came out on top. So stop b****ing, go to the Adam Vickers School for Book Learnin, practice your game and win next year... Jesus F'n Christ you peaple KILL me. (I have already had this conversation with a friend that bombed at 'Ard Boyz if you were wondering)
P.S. Dont give a damn about your smart ass respnoses whatever they may be.

I think the OP is right and wrong.

He is right that someone could get lucky with die rolls, and get easier matchup's which could make for an easier tourney experiance for players at times. However he is worng when he says they are noe indication of skill "at all". Of course you have to have SOME skill to win a tourney. No one just purchasing an army off of ebay, and just read the rules the night before, and never played wargames, is going to win a tourney.

I do agree with the over theme of the post, in that I think winning a tournament in and of itself isn't an indicator of an Uber Gamer. But lets face it the alpha players will consistantly develop a pattern of winning.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. A serious 40K/ fantasy tourney circuit needs to have "tourney" lists like they have in Star Flet battles, or you will always have this problem of rock/paper/scissors, and winning through superior list building.


GG

RanTheCid wrote:In rough terms, 10% of the players will win 90% of the time. The only explanation I have is that some players are more skillful than others.

Agreed.

CatPeeler wrote:

RanTheCid wrote:In rough terms, 10% of the players will win 90% of the time. The only explanation I have is that some players are more skillful than others.

Agreed.

Super Agreed.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

The Angry Commissar wrote:lol this game is based entirely on a dice. you could create the most point efficient killing machine ever but it wont matter if you roll ones all day long. the game is based on luck. if you play this hobby to win all the time i dont think you'll find it very fulfilling. its a hobby. its about having fun.

There are so many things wrong with this post I think I have to break it down:

1. Game based on dice/Won't matter if you roll ones.

The problem with statement is that it is ignorant of probability. Whilst yes, every roll of the dice is random, number crunching 40K allows a player to work out what is more likely to occur. Doesn't mean that what he wants will happen, only that it has more of a chance of happening. At its most basic 40K can be broken down to finding a statistical advantage over your opponent (via a list) and then pressing that advantage.

2. The game is based on luck.

No. It's not. A player with a crappy list and a player with a great list, or equal skill level (comparatively) will not have their game decided on luck. You'd be mad to think that true.

3. Playing this hobby to win all the time.

No one has said that. You're the first person to mention it. Red herrings and straw mans are not appreciated. Please refrain from such silly and pointless utterances in the future please.

fair point

I've had some bad experiences in tournaments. Players who use tactics outside of the game, like dragging time out so as to end a match in turn three or having buddies act as peanut gallery commanders are irritating. Besides nerdraging antisocial, and sometimes shady, players the format of tournament play just isn't my thing. I've done well in them, even won a couple, but winning a box set a codex or a battalion just isn't worth the loss of good fun and fair play. I do have to say that, at least the tournaments that I've participated in or witnessed aren't the best showcase for skill. A tournament spread out over the course of several days to allow full games would be better. I've seen plenty of matches where if the losing player had one more turn they would have had a decisive victory, but the time ran out on them not even half way through what a normal game would have been.

Let's take a look at some of the hypothesis presented here.

40k is a game of luck based on dice rolls...
No one consistently rolls good or bad. It all averages out over the course of a couple games. A great example is shooting at a squad of Space Marines. Your first squad shoots them and they make all their armor saves. Your next squad shoots them and again they make all their armor saves. Then your next squad shoots them and yet again they make all their armor saves. You have shot the same squad three times with three different units and have killed nothing! But if you were to shoot them again suddenly your opponent rolls all 1s and 2s. I've seen this happen many many times and it's a classic example of dice averaging out over the course of a game. Most often people think they have bad luck but in reality they are actually making bad tactical decisions. They do not focus fire on one enemy unit at a time... They take risks that yield low odds of success rather than going for something that has much higher odds of success. For example charging an independent character solo into a large enemy squad... The independent has a higher initiative, higher weapon skill and a close combat weapon that ignores armor saves... But if he does not roll well to both hit and wound he will bounce and could even lose combat. A smart player knows that it is much better to attach the independent character to another unit and charge them both into an enemy unit. Now the independent character enhances the unit he has joined and there is much better odds of winning combat. Another example is poor choices of targets while shooting. A player shoots all of his plasma guns at a predator annilihator instead of targeting a squad of Space Marines. The predator at best could be glanced while the player could have wiped out the squad. The game is over, the player who has consistently made bad choices loses and he blames the loss on his dice. This happens all the time. People don't understand the game mechanics and won't be honest with themselves.

Here is another... It all comes down to who gets the best matchups. If you are using a Swiss style system it all takes care of itself. Again players blame their matchups for their losses instead of fielding a balanced army. I have never seen anyone who is a poor player win a big tournament... It just does not happen. I have seen good players knock each other out of winning a tournament... It happens but it's not going to happen to the same player consistently if they strive to improve and learn from their losses. That's really what it's all about - being honest with yourself when you lose and learning how to improve. If you keep bringing the same army list and keep losing it's probably your army list and the choices you made.

There is never going to be a tournament where the TO provides everyone with the same identical army to play. Let's be honest... You have to learn how to build a good list and learn how to make it work for you.

People that consistently win know what they are doing. You won't see them posting that tournaments are rubbish. They have learned how to play the game well.

Thinks Tyras and Afrikan Blonde, you actually make since and think before you post... unlike some peaple.

The premise of this post is absurd.

I tend to use kid gloves when replying to just about anything on a message board. But I've got some pretty big refutations for this line of thinking.

First of all, army identity is completely ridiculous. Most players who identify themselves with an army "My name is Blood Angels Bobby, I play Blood Angels, GW hates me." miss out on tons of great fun, they tend to have a very "woe is me" attitude, and then look for places to lay the blame. Tourneys often take the brunt of this.

I have NEVER seen a tourney where your choice of army was somehow pre-determined. When you choose to go to a tourney, you may take any army you feel is appropriate. In the vast majority of cases, the rules for scoring, and even the missions are available before the tourney starts. If you were unable to acquire and digest these rules, and make tactical army list building decisions, then that is your failing as a tourney player.

You do not need identical army lists to determine who is a better 40k player, because list design, and play style are also measures of skill. The identical lists would be biased if they were more forgiving for a certain style of play.

If tournaments aren't the best gauge of player skill, then what is? Should we all just secretly write down our records in our home and FLGS games and reveal them on the count of 3?

All the points about sportsmanship, painting, and social engineering are moot. There is a best general award, and one who consistently wins best generals, should be respected as a player who is good at getting more battle points than other players (read: a winner)

Consistently well performing tournament players have reputations, they have those reputations because they consistently win. Trust me, they aren't all millionaires. They don't "spare no expense" to make every tourney, and their army isn't always the newest codex with brand new shiny models. They shrewdly choose which army to take based on experience, and based on other factors like what they already own, how much time they have to paint and how much they can afford to spend. Then they pay attention to the mission objectives, which are a challenge, and require mental clarity to keep them in mind. Its not just another spearhead seize ground.

From the outside looking in, tourney results seem to show nothing. But if you actually go to tourneys in a local area, consistently, pay attention to people's names and tourney results then you will start to notice three sets of names. Guys who you're not familiar with, guys who you've seen at multiple events and who seem to win or place high every time, and guys who you've seen at multiple events that never seem to do well.

Without attending tourneys at least semi regularly, you won't be able to see this trend. I'm relatively new to the "scene" and I've had the privelage of playing people that are just naturally better at wargaming then I am. There is skill to be measured, and tournaments are where its measured.

And the whole dice thing. The only games ever lost to dice were close games. I've seen lots of players get blown out. In the middle of their spanking, they rolled a couple ones... on their way to being tabled, they latched on to a couple statistical abnormalities and pinned the loss on the dice. I've had opponents do it to me as well. It's disrespectful to your opponent to try to take the thunder out of his win because you'd rather believe you had a chance of winning but were victimized by lady luck. In more rare cases a game will be very close, impossible to call, right up until a big event happens. All players submit to the same vageries of chance here, and there is an equal chance of that happening to either player, but for the roll to completely decide the game, that means both players were doing well, and both could be potentially deserving of the win. It is not statistically impossible for a set of random events to stack so horribly against you, that no amount of generalship can dig you out of your hole. But that is no different than a star quarterback getting his knee blown out in preseason, or when an opposing player sucks out a full house to beat your flush that you made on the flop.

Good players are usually very aware of the probability sets associated with each game choice they plan to make. Some sit in front of a calculator and hammer out probability sets, others just play so much 40k that their own play experience is a robust sample set. Either way, a good player's decisions are informed by this data. Its not luck when his close combat unit charges yours and wins, its because he didn't settle for a 50/50 chance to win, he waited and manipulated the factors until the odds of success were much higher.

Ultimately, if there is a better measure of skill in 40k, that'd be great. I'd love to hear about it. If the purpose of this post was to criticize some of the tourney systems out there, then I'd be more inclined to at least partially agree, the tourney systems are far from perfect, but in the absence of a perfect tourney... well, saying your better than the guy who won the big tourney is pretty ridiculous.

Jesus Christ and I thought my explosion was huge,
well said very well said.
BTW he is very right about how the same usuall people will top three most of the time. At the tournies in my area it comes down to three out of six of my friends and I. It's very rare that anything else happens. I myself am undefeted in tournament play, if it's all about luck how do you explain this reaccuring event?
P.S. The players in my local area are very talented so lack of compitition is no excuse!

Shep wrote:The premise of this post is absurd.

I tend to use kid gloves when replying to just about anything on a message board. But I've got some pretty big refutations for this line of thinking.

First of all, army identity is completely ridiculous. Most players who identify themselves with an army "My name is Blood Angels Bobby, I play Blood Angels, GW hates me." miss out on tons of great fun, they tend to have a very "woe is me" attitude, and then look for places to lay the blame. Tourneys often take the brunt of this.

I have NEVER seen a tourney where your choice of army was somehow pre-determined. When you choose to go to a tourney, you may take any army you feel is appropriate. In the vast majority of cases, the rules for scoring, and even the missions are available before the tourney starts. If you were unable to acquire and digest these rules, and make tactical army list building decisions, then that is your failing as a tourney player.

You do not need identical army lists to determine who is a better 40k player, because list design, and play style are also measures of skill. The identical lists would be biased if they were more forgiving for a certain style of play.

If tournaments aren't the best gauge of player skill, then what is? Should we all just secretly write down our records in our home and FLGS games and reveal them on the count of 3?

All the points about sportsmanship, painting, and social engineering are moot. There is a best general award, and one who consistently wins best generals, should be respected as a player who is good at getting more battle points than other players (read: a winner)

Consistently well performing tournament players have reputations, they have those reputations because they consistently win. Trust me, they aren't all millionaires. They don't "spare no expense" to make every tourney, and their army isn't always the newest codex with brand new shiny models. They shrewdly choose which army to take based on experience, and based on other factors like what they already own, how much time they have to paint and how much they can afford to spend. Then they pay attention to the mission objectives, which are a challenge, and require mental clarity to keep them in mind. Its not just another spearhead seize ground.

From the outside looking in, tourney results seem to show nothing. But if you actually go to tourneys in a local area, consistently, pay attention to people's names and tourney results then you will start to notice three sets of names. Guys who you're not familiar with, guys who you've seen at multiple events and who seem to win or place high every time, and guys who you've seen at multiple events that never seem to do well.

Without attending tourneys at least semi regularly, you won't be able to see this trend. I'm relatively new to the "scene" and I've had the privelage of playing people that are just naturally better at wargaming then I am. There is skill to be measured, and tournaments are where its measured.

And the whole dice thing. The only games ever lost to dice were close games. I've seen lots of players get blown out. In the middle of their spanking, they rolled a couple ones... on their way to being tabled, they latched on to a couple statistical abnormalities and pinned the loss on the dice. I've had opponents do it to me as well. It's disrespectful to your opponent to try to take the thunder out of his win because you'd rather believe you had a chance of winning but were victimized by lady luck. In more rare cases a game will be very close, impossible to call, right up until a big event happens. All players submit to the same vageries of chance here, and there is an equal chance of that happening to either player, but for the roll to completely decide the game, that means both players were doing well, and both could be potentially deserving of the win. It is not statistically impossible for a set of random events to stack so horribly against you, that no amount of generalship can dig you out of your hole. But that is no different than a star quarterback getting his knee blown out in preseason, or when an opposing player sucks out a full house to beat your flush that you made on the flop.

Good players are usually very aware of the probability sets associated with each game choice they plan to make. Some sit in front of a calculator and hammer out probability sets, others just play so much 40k that their own play experience is a robust sample set. Either way, a good player's decisions are informed by this data. Its not luck when his close combat unit charges yours and wins, its because he didn't settle for a 50/50 chance to win, he waited and manipulated the factors until the odds of success were much higher.

Ultimately, if there is a better measure of skill in 40k, that'd be great. I'd love to hear about it. If the purpose of this post was to criticize some of the tourney systems out there, then I'd be more inclined to at least partially agree, the tourney systems are far from perfect, but in the absence of a perfect tourney... well, saying your better than the guy who won the big tourney is pretty ridiculous.

I agree with what he said.

There will never be a perfect balance in 40k for tournaments. If you want a perfect tournament for player skill, go play chess. But as another poster said: if you see the same 10-15 people at GTs and Indy GTs at the top 10 for battle points, they must have some skill at playing the game.

thehod wrote:If you want a perfect tournament for player skill, go play chess.

No way.

White is way OP compared to Black, due to having Army-wise Special Rule: Always Strikes First...

Casual gaming: Trying just as hard to win as everyone else, but loudly proclaiming that this is not what you were doing.

Wang was cool in his reply. I respect that.

Its amusing to me that in most competitive endeavors, there are those that swear skill isnt needed to win.

This sort of statement is generally made by those that dont win very often at said endeavors.

In 40k tournaments you do see good players, with good armies lose games.

You also see less skilled players, with medicore armies lose games.

What you dont see, is the less skilled players winning the tournaments on a regular basis. In any given region there are the players that are routinely placing in the top end of the tournaments. Its safe to say these are your skilled players.

What makes them skilled? They usually make fewer mistakes, and utilize theier armies strengths and weaknesses in any particular scenario no matter how random. And, when the bad luck strikes their game- they adapt to make the best of a bad situation.

Whining about how army A cant do mission C as well as Army B can, is a crutch. Adapt and improvise, and move on.

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

So, dont blame the army, dont blame the dice. Thats like blaming the car, or the gas, for driving into a wall- when its obviously the drivers problem.

Take responsibility, that will get you farther to finding a solution, rather than looking for problems that dont exist(to hte extent some think they do), simply to avoid the real issue.

Fearspect wrote:Casual gaming: Trying just as hard to win as everyone else, but loudly proclaiming that this is not what you were doing.

Exactly what I said in the recent 'Difference between casual and competative gamers".

A competative gamer creates a list in order to win a game.
A casual gamer creates a list in order to win a game but pretends he didn't.

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

sourclams wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

Ya, thats happened to me a few times as well. Its not a perfect system, but its also something a TO can overturn if its obviously something they scored low out of spite from a loss.

Eh, sportsmanship is something that should be enforced by the TO, but is not something that should be scored, nor can it really be scored accurately because of human nature.

Some people are always going to give their opponents max sports, just because they don't want to be seen as a "narc."

Some people are always going to give their opponents a lower sports score, simply because they think they gain an advantage by doing so.

The best solution is to have TOs who are actively looking out for unsportsmanlike behavior:

First a warning. If the player doesn't shape up, they get booted from the tournament.

A competative gamer creates a list in order to win a game.
A casual gamer creates a list in order to win a game but pretends he didn't.

Not trying to win eschews the tenets of capitalism.

You don't want to be a communist now, do you?

Life should be about standing on top of a pile of the broken bodies of those that dared stand before you while you scream a challenge to the gods to face you.

Basically I treat tournaments as ways to win free stuff. Otherwise I'd have to buy it, which sucks. Can't we all just get along and win free stuff from GW and RTTs. They already took our hard earned cash hand over fist just to get a chance at an army worth playing to win at a tourny. Why shouldn't we try to at least get something back from them.


For example 'Ard Boyz got me a free Pred. Can't wait to see what the semi's has in store for me this weekend.

Lord-Loss wrote:I always thought that tournaments where for powergamers so they dont have to use there horrible powerleist on us casaul gamers

That would be fine if the casual gamers would simply stay out of the tourney scene.

I'll believe the premise of this thread when I see someone who doesnt do well at tournements stomp someone who cleans house at tournements.

Whatever.

Mistress of minis wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

Ya, thats happened to me a few times as well. Its not a perfect system, but its also something a TO can overturn if its obviously something they scored low out of spite from a loss.

So you want another arbitrary decision to override a different arbitrary decision?

How about you just remove the fething arbitrary decision to begin with? Treat the source of the problem, not just the symptom.

I don't play tourneys that have soft scores, period. They keep trying to sell me on them at my flgs, but it's epic fail, imho.

imweasel wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

sourclams wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

If you think sportsmanship shouldnt be part of scoring, it tells me that you're likely a rude opponent that loses points from it- or paranoid that everyone else is 'more popular' than you and has an unfair scoring advantage. Its in place to keep the juvenile behavior in check.

I was with you until this quote. I have personally seen a number of people get screwed over on soft scores simply because they beat their opponent. There is no way to "improve yourself" with regards to soft scores that isn't completely overshadowed by the other person simply being a sore-ass dick.

Ya, thats happened to me a few times as well. Its not a perfect system, but its also something a TO can overturn if its obviously something they scored low out of spite from a loss.

So you want another arbitrary decision to override a different arbitrary decision?

How about you just remove the fething arbitrary decision to begin with? Treat the source of the problem, not just the symptom.

I don't play tourneys that have soft scores, period. They keep trying to sell me on them at my flgs, but it's epic fail, imho.

The TO over riding s sports score isnt an arbitrary thing- its watching the pattern of scoring. If someone has gotten 5/1/5 on sports- and happened to cream the guy in the 2nd game- and mentions to the TO "Bob was really pissy after he lost" it pretty obvious Bob is being a spiteful lil dick.

Sportsmanship scoring is just a single element out of 3 or 4, if you want something else to whine about as a reason for losing- it makes a convenient excuse. Night as well whine about tourneys that score painting and how they arent fair because not everyone can paint well.

What it boils down to- winning in the different tournament formats takes different skills in combination. Playing well is large factor in Ard Boyz, and in RTTs its a more rounded skillset. It seems pretty simple that if you dont like the tournament format for a given tourney, you're free to take your toy soldiers and go play somewhere else. And then whine about it online

Judges should ask "why did you zero this person" but few have the balls to actually do it.