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 think they have a place... otherwise there's not much incentive to play nice (for those inclined to be otherwise). It gives me a better chance of having a decent time at a tournament, and it gives me a recourse if my opponent is bending the rules, etc.

jbunny wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

Anecdotal evidence with no basis in fact or event a reason for it...
That will convince me...

I played magic for 10ish years. I never had a bad tournament experience despite playing in many.


.

And this is anecdotal as well. You are taking your personal experiences and applying them to the gaming community as a whole.

That was the joke...


The proof is that the game system has been going strong for 17 years, has never need sports scores and its tournaments draw a ton more players than the average warhammer tournament.

@Olympia
'Zactly. The beer sportsmanship system works wonders, because you can also apply it to bad sports by denying them beer.

Da Boss wrote:@Olympia
'Zactly. The beer sportsmanship system works wonders, because you can also apply it to bad sports by denying them beer.

Yes!

Sportsmanship scores are used but not for determining the winner.

Instead at the end, the bottom half of the sportsmanship scores must all buy beer for the top half.

Problem solved. Your welcome.

Green Blow Fly wrote:First there is no video proof the guy at Conquest cheated. I watched all the tape too.

Allan I have had several opponents at gladiator and ard boyz tell me to my face it's okay to cheat because it's competitive. It's not a case of far and few between... All it takes is one arsehole to ruin your tourney.

G

Is it not cheating to:

1. Moving things beyond how far they are allowed to move
2. Moving units that came from Reserves AFTER moving every other unit
3. Premeasure distance to an enemy unit in the movement phase
4. Deploying more then 2 inches from an exit point of a vehicle

Sorry, just had address it.

No real reason to have sportsmenship in tournaments, although I think voting for the player you had the best time playing should still be a prize.

asugradinwa wrote: although I think voting for the player you had the best time playing should still be a prize.

This.

Why are people so upset with sports??

G

Timmah wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I've seen Magic tournaments. I wouldn't have been caught dead playing one of those... ever.

Anecdotal evidence with no basis in fact or event a reason for it...
That will convince me...

I played magic for 10ish years. I never had a bad tournament experience despite playing in many. Pros who got caught cheating actually were banned from the game. People new that WoTC meant business and they wouldn't tolerate cheaters. So everyone played fairly (usually).

Frazzled wrote:

EDIT:When younger the Boy would play Yu Gi Yo tournaments. Wo. There was one match where a teenager started threatening the Boy, not realizing I was wandering about the place. That didn't turn out well for him.

So some young kid got out of hand playing a young kids card game. Oh noes! We need sportsmanship scores in a game dominated by 20+ year olds.


Sportsmanship scores are a insult to me personally. They are saying, you can't be trusted to not be a jerk, so we have to give you some incentive not to be.

I am not trying to convince you. You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a damn. (sorry, channeling the clown from Al Bundy today)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sportsmanship scores are a insult to me personally. They are saying, you can't be trusted to not be a jerk, so we have to give you some incentive not to be.

Here I'll clarify my position.

You can't be trusted to not be a jerk.
Thats a Frazzled rule of life right there. Trust nothing. Believe no one. Repeat as necessary.

Besides, who cares if its fun to play me. If your not having fun, maybe its your own fault.

Just cause it sucks to play me, as long as I am not cheating there is no reason I shouldn't be able to win a tournament.

If I am truly the best (I'm not, hypothetical) why shouldn't I win first?

In football we don't care if the super bowl winning team made it "fun" for their opponents...

Its not the Superbowl. I watch the Superbowl. I play (or don't for me) in a tournament.

It shouldn't be an issue for you. Sportsmanship is part of being the best, therefore if you don't have it you're not the best. You do want the best to win right?

How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

Its a score like everything else. Evidently you're not as good as you think you are if this is an issue.

Having said that, the amount of "those players" has already impacted my view even with sportsmanship in play. So as I said, do what you want, I just don't care.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yeah like any TO would ever throw someone out. We all know they dont have the balls.

Mikhaila threw a guy out at last year's 'Ard Boyz.

Frazzled wrote:

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

Its a score like everything else. Evidently you're not as good as you think you are if this is an issue.

In a hobby competition sure. I completely agree with you. At most of the 40k tournaments (atm) sure, it is a skill to prove your the best in those systems.

But would you agree that it does nothing to help you be the best at the actual game (and solely the game) as long as everyone plays by the rules?

Seems to me that some gits are only restrained from bending the rules and browbeating their opponents into submission, or outright cheating, by the fact that their unsportsman-like behaviour will cost them. I've seen enough bad behaviour in "friendly" games, and tournaments have prizes and glory to play for.

But would you agree that it does nothing to help you be the best at the actual game (and solely the game) as long as everyone plays by the rules?

No, I don't agree.

Winning and being nice aren't mutally exclusive.

The main thing that kills me about sportsmanship scores is if you are playing someone who doesn't know the rules (I seem to catch one person every tournament that uses a mix of 4th and 5th Edition rules) you look like the badguy for trying to correct them.

Ok, so how does being a good sportsman make you better at this game? (remember both people must follow the rules)

Timmah wrote:Ok, so how does being a good sportsman make you better at this game? (remember both people must follow the rules)

Yep.

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

You're making the mistake that "the game" = "the hobby."

Some people play the game for "the game." Others play for "the hobby."

There are tournaments out there that are for those who just enjoy "the game;" things like 'Ard Boys. Other tournaments try to explore the hobby more in totality, so will therefore include more soft scores. Some tournaments like to look at the army building aspect of the game, so have composition scores. Some explore the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby and have scores for painting/appearance. Others like to include the social aspect of the hobby, and therefore have sportsmanship scores. Different tournaments all have the ability to mix and match the various aspects that their organizers feel are important in order to explore and reward those players that, in the organizers' opinion, best exemplify the part(s) of the hobby that the organizers value.

There are enough tournaments with different types of scoring systems out there that no single player needs to expect that every tournament needs to adhere to THEIR expectations of scoring. If one does his or her homework before deciding to attend a tournament, that person can discover if the scoring system matches up with what part(s) of the hobby they enjoy the most and would like to see rewarded.

In other words, don't go to Chick-fil-A if you want a Whopper; you'll be disappointed. It's even sillier to then complain that Chick-fil-A doesn't sell Whoppers.

Personally, I play for the game, but I understand that not everyone out there derives pleasure from the same stuff that I do. While I, personally, loathe painting, I understand that other people really enjoy that part of the hobby, so I don't mind there being painting elements in the scoring of a tournament. I'm certainly not going to expect tournaments to get rid of the painting element because I can't be bothered to improve my painting skills and can't afford to get someone good to paint them for me.

I do have the option of going to tournaments that give painting little to no impact on the overall winner, though.

The same thing for those who don't like sportsmanship scores. Avoid tournaments where those scores can have significant impact on the overall winner. Just don't try to tell other people which aspects of the hobby should be important to them.

Edited: Grammar.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Seems to me that some gits are only restrained from bending the rules and browbeating their opponents into submission, or outright cheating, by the fact that their unsportsman-like behaviour will cost them. I've seen enough bad behaviour in "friendly" games, and tournaments have prizes and glory to play for.

And why can't this "cost" be administered in a more punitive way (aka warning then booting)? I've played at tournaments with both sports scores and not... and I've not really noticed any difference between the two in terms of how "nice" people played. If anything, I've experienced more TFGs at non-sports-scored tournaments. However, that's purely annecdotal.

Saldiven wrote:

Timmah wrote:How is sportsmanship part of being the best at a game?

Ooo you're more fake nice to people you don't know. You must be better at this game.

You're making the mistake that "the game" = "the hobby."

Some people play the game for "the game." Others play for "the hobby."

There are tournaments out there that are for those who just enjoy "the game;" things like 'Ard Boys. Other tournaments try to explore the hobby more in totality, so will therefore include more soft scores. Some tournaments like to look at the army building aspect of the game, so have composition scores. Some explore the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby and have scores for painting/appearance. Others like to include the social aspect of the hobby, and therefore have sportsmanship scores. Different tournaments all have the ability to mix and match the various aspects that their organizers feel are important in order to explore and reward those players that, in the organizers' opinion, best exemplify the part(s) of the hobby that the organizers value.

There are enough tournaments with different types of scoring systems out there that no single player needs to expect that every tournament needs to adhere to THEIR expectations of scoring. If one does his or her homework before deciding to attend a tournament, that person can discover if the scoring system matches up with what part(s) of the hobby they enjoy the most and would like to see rewarded.

In other words, don't go to Chick-fil-A if you want a Whopper; you'll be disappointed. It's even sillier to then complain that Chick-fil-A doesn't sell Whoppers.

Personally, I play for the game, but I understand that not everyone out there derives pleasure from the same stuff that I do. While I, personally, loathe painting, but I understand that other people really enjoy that part of the hobby, so I don't mind there being painting elements in the scoring of a tournament. I'm certainly not going to expect tournaments to get rid of the painting element because I can't be bothered to improve my painting skills and can't afford to get someone good to paint them for me.

I do have the option of going to tournaments that give painting little to no impact on the overall winner, though.

The same thing for those who don't like sportsmanship scores. Avoid tournaments where those scores can have significant impact on the overall winner. Just don't try to tell other people which aspects of the hobby should be important to them.

But there's always this:

I already said being a good sportsman makes you better at "the hobby" but not "the game" itself.


I'm not expecting hobby tournaments to change. I just said imo you don't need sports scores. And that being a good sportsman doesn't make you better at "the game"

Others say it does.

I understand that. And that's why I was asking for an explanation of how it does.

Placing wagers makes you better at the game.

Timmah wrote:I understand that. And that's why I was asking for an explanation of how it does.

Actually when you ask questions it is a hostile expression of your rage.

G

"Never ask a question you don't know the answer to."
-Some legal guy

The only real problem I have with Sportsmanship is getting chipmunked. I do think that it's a serious enough problem that, ideally, a third neutral party should judge sportsmanship in games. The problem is, where are you going to get all these people?

Thunderfrog wrote:

cerealkiller195 wrote:I have to agree, sometimes people need special rules in place to keep them in check. I wouldn't want someone arguing with me all the time on rules. These type of people tend to be the ones that are really competitive... well guess what if they know it will effect their score/standing in a tournament they will keep in line.

I'm not saying that either one of the players can be right/wrong on a rule. But if every rule they bring up only benefits them and/or is wrong that is when I start to think it effects their sportsmanship score.'

But that is the view of a casual gamer who enjoys the hobby aspects more than the playing part.

To keep people who know the rules in line? Not to sound rude but it sounds like you are one of the types of people that are able to exploit a sportmanship score in the first place. I could be misunderstanding your next to last thought, but I think I understand the first part of what you are saying.

"I play for fun so I don't always follow all the rules. If my opponent is only playing to win and I dont think he cares about the hobby aspect, I'll tank his sportsmanship score for correcting me on every little thing I do wrong."

If one doesnt have a firm grasp of the rules what are they doing entering a tournament full of people who do?

That's why there's a difference between a casual game and a tournament game. In a tournament, no matter what I'm playing, I'm abiding by every rule and expect my opponent to do the same.

No you misunderstood me, I do know the rules and I used to be an active tournament goer for a variety of games GW or not. But if someone constantly misquotes the rules (to their benefit) and they don't seem like someone that is new to the hobby that is when I have to question their motives.

People say there are no sportsmanship scores in Magic or just about any card game, but also they don't have developers explaining "the spirit of the rule" vs "read as written". Simply there are not as many rules to misinterpret as a war game like 40k.