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 do agree there needs to be a lot of different aspects of a tournament that are monitored.
I would much rather have there be modified versions of the standard missions than have some outlandish stupid rules for them...(3 kill points for anything that can move more than 6" in ANY phase? F**king serious?)
I do agree with a previous comment that there should be questions asked whether you turn in zeros for ANYTHING. Sportsmanship should be questioned even if the guy was a total d-bag, and generalship should be based on whether you win or lose. If you draw, then you get nothing. If you win, you gain points. If you lose, you lose points. Etc.
Just some of my thoughts
Giggles
Mr. Self Destruct

Ostrakon wrote:It's the same thing with 40k. You pick an army because it looks cool, spend a buttload of time painting it up, and then get trashed at a local tourney. I think a lot of players at this point take one of the following actions: devote oneself to getting better at the game, or giving up and looking down on competitive players instead of trying to understand their position.

There's nothing wrong with being bad at 40k or MTG, or even with being only moderately good at either game.

Without meaning to be rude or too OP, I think this is actually the thing that makes people 'look down on competitive players'.

I know what comprises a competitive army, and if I wanted to I could go to GW tomorrow and drop a couple of hundred on the hardest, most competitive of lists. However, I'd rather collect something interesting and unique - even if it's less competitive. My aesthetic and fluff preferences do not make me any worse a player. And the idea that if you DON'T take a competitive list, then you just need to 'get better' at 40k is what starts arguments.

Anyway, things that make a 'good tournament' for me...

*When I play in a tourney, I want to go to an event where I can play lots of people I don't usually play, and lots of armies that aren't around my local metagame. If everyone took the most competitive forces, there's only ever be a few lists at every tourney. I don't want to go to a tournament and spend all day playing differently colored Meltavets. So a tournament that encourages other forces is the most fun for me.

*Fun opponents. I believe in sports scores, but not to 'ensure people behave'. People should always behave themselves and be polite, otherwise they get kicked out. As mentioned above, I like sports scores because I believe that the person who was the most fun opponent should be rewarded, as he made my day more fun.

*Fair scoring that encourages all areas of the game. The only way i think this works is if you separate sports, painting and 'gaming', and have separate prizes for each. No overall. And most importantly, each of these prizes are equal, because they're equally important in making the event a good experience. Everyone is happy, right? The competitive player doesn't feel like he's lost because of 'soft' scores - the best general prize is for ONLY winning games, but we also don't insult hobbyists by suggesting that painting and being nice aren't as important.

Sportsmanship should never be able to win you "best general", however it should be able to DQ you from winning it.

Our local tournaments have no formal "sportsmanship" score, just a simple question: would you happily play that person again?

Now, if you get a "no" from one player out of 6, then nothing happens - however if 5 of 6 people say they would not play against you (and if it gets near this the judges DO ask players for substantive reasons why!) then you are barred from winning.

There is no sportsmanship award - its just courtesy that is expected. Painting is not "scored" at all, however the TOs pick the top 6-8 armies in their opinion, the players then vote day two lunch as to who they reckon s the best.

Thankfully the 'eavy Metal painter doesnt participate in the painting competition, for obvious reasons - but IS a judge when it comes to picking good armies!