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.

It's "just one of many ways to win..." with a smile on their faces (at least one of them anyway).

But it only leaves more time for Drinks and Snack food... !!!

Unless he actually treated his opponent poorly on a personal level, I'd give him a 10.

All of the people saying they'd give a 1 is part of what makes the sportsmanship scoring at tournaments so frustrating for actually competitive players.

There is 0 justification in a game where winning matters for you to hold back just to let your opponent have a chance at winning. In this case, the guy who kept his entire army in reserve did so in an attempt to win the game. He thought it would give him an advantage, and it did not (though this must be 4ed or a no-outflanking mission or something). It obviously did not. Why in the world is it justified to tell the winning player "don't do this winning tactic, it won't be fun for me" justified? There's nothing unsporting about trying to win, and there's nothing unsporting about taking your opponents poor tactics and using them against him.

Full points. No dishonor in being crafty.

Last weekend I was doing a 500 pt combat patrol with my SM vs SM. My force was 3 units of scouts with a small assault squad. His was an assault squad, dev squad & a tac squad in rhino. Victory conditions indicated you needed to get half your units off the board (2 for each of us) for a major victory, 1 for a minor victory. We played twice, reversing roles. First game he got one unit off, minor victory for him. Second game, I was able to deploy two scout units in the back corner edge of the table on his side, which could then use their scout move to move off the table, thus winning the game before turn one. Even though my opponent was an experienced player, he'd just never played or encountered scouts before, so had no concept of the infiltrate or scout move rules. Realizing this, I offered to let him re-deploy his troops, he declined. I then did not take my scout move so he'd have one chance to shoot me up before I won the game (he went first). He did 1 or 2 casualties with shooting, & I walked off the board during my first movement phase... game over.

The way I look at it, my offer to allow him to re-deploy his troops (it was just a friendly game after all), was good sportsmanship... not taking advantage of a massive lack of my opponent's understanding of the rules. On his part, NOT re-deploying his troops was equally good sportsmanship... living with your mistakes. My leaving the scouts on the table to be shot at the first turn... was just stupid. I'd earned that advantage legally, I should be allowed to take advantage of it without being either down-scored by my opponent (which of course he didn't to), or punishing myself for being sneaky (which I did do by leaving the scouts on the table when they should have walked off)... because if he'd have actually killed those units, what would have been left of my army would have been toast.

So we walked away talking about what we'd each learned about the game and our armies that day, and discussing the next time we'd be able to get together and take another whack at it. All good. I'd say you learned a valuable lesson about force deployment that day... you should give him a 10 just for teaching it to you.

Now if he was an insufferable prat about it.... that's another story.

To the people who compare this to a swordfighting duel, it doesn't compare. Duels were a deeply personal, honor-driven (or insult driven) affair, very ceremonial and traditionalized.

Yet even with that, if a duel was fought and one managed to disarm their opponent, it would come down to the decision of "is this to the death?". If it is to the death, and someone disarmed their opponent, guess what . . . they killed them. And WH40K is always "to the death", unless its a friendly game.

My vote is 10/10 for sportsmanship and 11/10 for tactics.

It's all a matter of context.

Is it a friendly game? Then let's gor for some flluffy laughs.

Is it a tournament, where I payed a fee and there's a prize? I'll use every rule I can in my favour and I'll expect you to do the same.

The OP assumes everyone chipmunks. You base a sports score based on their behavior not how they beat you and how bad.

He gets as many points as he pleases, that face is awesome.

Dashofpepper wrote:Its like the 4-move checkmate in chess. Any novice can prevent it from happening, and if it does happen to you, you deserve to have lost.

That would be "Fool's Mate," and it's called that for a reason.

IIRC, the two players immediately played a second game "for fun," for what that's worth.

I'd award full sportsmanship to both.

"Therefore, one who is skilled in warfare principles subdues the enemy without doing battle, takes the enemy's walled city without attacking, and overthrows the enemy quickly, without protracted warfare."

SUN-TZU: THE PRINCIPLES OF WARFARE
"THE ART OF WAR"
Chapter Three: Planning Attacks

If he was nice id give him a 10

Using tactics to win (even though they are lame) in a tourney setting is fine. Friendly game maybe not, but judging someone down when your supposed to do anything to win sucks

If both agreed to a second "friendly" game for fun, top points for both. its like " ok you beat me fair, how about one for laughs?"

Alls fair in Love and war!

@OP: Sometimes gambling with all-Reserves works, sometimes not. If you're any kind of man at all, you suck it up for making a huge strategic mistake and give your opponent him full points for tabling you.

I would not only give them full score, but I'd proceed to give him or her a high-five for their awesomeness at defeating my tomfoolery.

For me it would be about how he treated me, not how he beat me. 10/10 for him and a facepalm for me.

I'd be a little miffed, but more at myself. He shouldn't be punished for being crafty.

Sportsmanship would be based off his attitude before, during, and in the aftermath of the game, not how he played.

Mind you, this is meant as a shame on people that do this than a rant at the OP. Since you're using sportsmanship scores, it can only be assumed to be a tournament. Last I knew those were supposed to be competetive, meaning doing whatever you can, within the rules, to win the game. If I were the one that reserved everything and had that happen, I'd certainly be kicking myself not my opponent. So what you're saying is you're going to tank his score because he beat you? It's a damn shame that sportsmanship scores get bashed on because you got beat. That's the biggest problem with soft scores in a tournament imo.

My suggestion for next time since you have almost 2 hours until the round ends... offer to buy him a beer/soda/whatever and then pick his brain for ideas to improve YOUR game. When you pay to play, expect to play to win.

I gotta agree with the folks saying that this isn't a matter of sportsmanship. Especially at a tournament, and especially since that picture was from a 'ard boyz tournie as well (which is supposed to be pretty darn cutthroat if I understand it).

As folks have said, it's easily countered and avoidable. If the guy was a total jackass about it, then yes, I'd give him a low score. But if he was cool and all I'd be a bit miffed that I just got beaten at my own game... and let's be honest, this is exactly what this situation essentially boils down to, by having a trick beaten by another... but to dock sportsmanship over a viable and legal tactic? Sounds like the one with bad sportsmanship isn't the guy who had the infiltrators.

I've said it elsewhere, sportsmanship is great to judge... but should never be controllable by your opponent in any fashion. Too much room for abuse.

To all the people saying it shoudl have been expected - why?

"reserves that cant move on are destroyed" is NOT, repeat NOT an actual Rule of the game, but a Houserule that, in the incident talked about, was only decided IN the game.

IF it had been published beforehand, then yes - in that instance it was a legal tactic.

As it wasnt - destroying one persons game with a ----->houserule<------- is NOT a good ruling from a TO.

Nosferatu1001... Since the question in the OP is "What sportsmanship score would you give for this tactic: lining up infiltrators to block reserves?"
And not a discussion of the ruling given in that game.....(thats another thread)
Perhaps you would like to offer your Sportsmanship Score for the Tau player in question.....

Have already done so....or did you not read the thread?

Given that I dont consider it a tactic at all (as it requires a houserule to enact it is at best a specialist tactic only at certain places, and is only a "tactic" at all if it is houseruled *before* the event) I would give a low sportsmanship score - because you have deliberately put the judge / TO in the position of either wasting lots of time (with a do over) or destroying someones entire game by ruling that the units are destroyed. Neither is satisfactory, the first as most events are time pressured.

So the persons actions have required the TO to make a houserule up on the spot, and done so KNOWING that it will require a houserule to continue. THAT is bad sportsmanship.

However I have an utter, utter hatred for "soft" scores being used to decide anything in a tournament other than "best sportsman" really.

The only time "bad" sportsmanship should be recorded is when someone is *so* bad, and against repeated opponents, that they should be barred from winning - and this isnt done through a score being added to their tournament battle score (as this can allow 1 person to influence their outcome) but instead an *entirely* seperate "is this guy an idiot?" tally - if it reaches a number, such as 5/6 opponents said you were an idiot, then you are barred from winning the best general prize. Your score remains unaffected, and each person nominating would be expected to give specific reasons as to WHY they should be barred from winning, but you are stopped from winning.

It is more transparent, less open to single person influence (as the chances of collusion amongst X opponents to ALL say you were an idiot is low) and, ultimately, fairer to all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The only time "bad" sportsmanship should be recorded is when someone is *so* bad, and against repeated opponents, that they should be barred from winning - and this isnt done through a score being added to their tournament battle score (as this can allow 1 person to influence their outcome) but instead an *entirely* seperate "is this guy an idiot?" tally - if it reaches a number, such as 5/6 opponents said you were an idiot, then you are barred from winning the best general prize. Your score remains unaffected, and each person nominating would be expected to give specific reasons as to WHY they should be barred from winning, but you are stopped from winning.

It is more transparent, less open to single person influence (as the chances of collusion amongst X opponents to ALL say you were an idiot is low) and, ultimately, fairer to all.

I have made a similar suggestion on another thread. If one person scores All of his opponants badly and All of his opponants score him badly, then the TOs should look more carefully at the situation.

It is a tourny (i think) and if you are stupid enough to try this tactic against a WAAC player your going to fail.

EagleArk wrote:It is a tourny (i think) and if you are stupid enough to try this tactic against a WAAC player your going to fail.

....and for the 100th time, this is not a "tactic" (or at least wasnt at this event) as it requires a ---->houserule<---- to work. A houserule that was decided *in* the game.

Helgrenze - but thats why a "score" is ireelevant - the only thing you need to know is: were the good to play against, or were they a complete ass and should potentially be barred from winning. You dont need to "score" anything more granular thant that - and this assesment should have *nothing* to do with (i.e. be totally independent of) the battle score.

Soft scores that form part of an overall "winning score" are *ripe* for abuse, and way too subjective to base winning from - all it takes is one opponent who dings you (even giving say 30% instead of 0% so it doesnt look too extreme) and you can lose, and you have no recourse as it is is inherently opinion based. Whereas if all "soft" coudl do is bar you from winning if the vast majority of opponents agree that you are a complete dick, that removes the ability of one person to unduly influence the results of a tournament through abuse of the scoring system.

I was talking about the white scars player but i see your point.

EagleArk.

ProtoClone wrote:How does the saying go...

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Couldn't say it better, the guy who plays one and only one tactic deserves bad sportsmanship for that alone, but i'd give him extra bad sportsmanship for not being mature enough to accept the fact that he didn't think of leaving at least one or 2 units on the board to secure an entry point and chose to whine at a judge instead.
By the way the gamerules doesn't break if you block entry points, nor are the units destroyed if they can't enter, they simply try again next turn, fail again until end of game is reached and points tallied up.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
....and for the 100th time, this is not a "tactic" (or at least wasnt at this event) as it requires a ---->houserule<---- to work. A houserule that was decided *in* the game.

Do you know that for a fact? Or is it remotely possible that the judges for the European championship discussed certain issues ahead of time? You keep stating that as fact, but is it? Do you know for sure one way or the other that the judges had or had not conferred on this particular question ahead of time? I've pointed out that the US GT judges were smart enough to do so (ie specifically discuss this exact issue weeks in adavance of the GTs), why do you automatically assume that the European championship judges were not?

Yes, it's not covered in the rules, like so many other things. So what? The most commonly accepted answer to the question of what happens is that the unit is destroyed. That's the old GW answer, that's the INAT answer. And any player competing at that level should know this, which means it is indeed a valid "tactic".

I would say: fair game. I have a feeling this isn't a big problem (as I have never heard of it before), so when it happens, it's quite an event. It is unfortunate to lose this way, but it is a big hole in a "come in from reserves" tactic. I would give a fair Sportsmanship score if I were level headed (though I probably wouldn't be, having just lost a game on a technicality).

This does show the whole in the game, however. The rules really shouldn't allow something like this to happen. 40k is an abstraction, but this is a little too far. Considering how little of a problem it is however.... I'm not sure how easy it would be to write a "fix-it" rule.

Sportsmanship is nothing to do with your tactics (or non-tactics, for Nosferatu101) it is to do with your demeanour in playing the game.

The Tau guy is allowed a big smile for winning, but if he then goes all "Luser, Loozer, n00b, Loser! Ha Ha I beat you because you are a n00b", that is when his sports score takes a hit.

If it is true they immediately played a friendly game, marking down the Tau guy would be plain sour grapes on behalf of the Whitescars guy.

Don - people who were there stated it was decided upon in the game, so it as much a "fact" as anything else wher eyou are not present to witness it.

The most common answer to a lot of questions is not necessarily the right one - witness the strugle people have with "not occupy same space as" and "end move over" when the Valkyrie came out.

Edit: a "sort it out" rule wouldnt be too difficult - use an extension of the "any special rule of the unit that would prevent it (or could) from coming on is ignored" (badly paraphrased) to resolve it - so the 1" rule would be omitted.

I hold this "tactic" in about as much contempt as range / LOS sniping in 4th, and at least in 4th it was backed up by actual Rules.