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.

Grakmar wrote: Tournaments are where you go to test your skills and winning is the only goal.

I cannot disagree more with this statement. That has never been what all tourneys, especially GW tourneys have been about in the wargaming circle.

Cryage wrote:I haven't been to any tournys but any time i call somebody on the rules and they seem to get disgruntled I just jest it's just a game and we need to play by the rules in the book, if we don't we may as well just stand there making machine gun noises with our mouths and shake our models at one another until somebody gets tired/bored first.

Thought I'd re post this as it's relevant to my post.

Every time I've gone to a tournament it feels like I'm essentially playing a different version of the rules every game. Not saying I'm perfect with 5th Ed rules, I get confused and mixed up from stuff from 4th pretty much at least once a game. But I do expect to be able to recognize a standard. And in my experience there hasn't been.

In my opinion some people are just too unforgiving in games, for example in a recent tournament I went to my 1st opponent was just a beginner so even though he accidently did combat before shooting I let him still shoot but act as if my wyches were still in combat. C'mon guys it's just a game!

Grimnarsmate wrote:In my opinion some people are just too unforgiving in games, for example in a recent tournament I went to my 1st opponent was just a beginner so even though he accidently did combat before shooting I let him still shoot but act as if my wyches were still in combat. C'mon guys it's just a game!

I'm not entirely sure that the guy should be taking part in a tournament if he's getting the phases mixed up.

But I'm in the same boat. Got started in Warmachine during the latest League, currently sitting on 5 losses and 1 win (which was the result of a caster-kill that I had no right to pull off, after losing every other model in my army ). I'm still getting down the right activation order, rules, threat ranges, so there's no way I'd go into a Steamroller event. There's a difference between a Tournament and regular friendly games.

infinite_array wrote:

Grimnarsmate wrote:In my opinion some people are just too unforgiving in games, for example in a recent tournament I went to my 1st opponent was just a beginner so even though he accidently did combat before shooting I let him still shoot but act as if my wyches were still in combat. C'mon guys it's just a game!

I'm not entirely sure that the guy should be taking part in a tournament if he's getting the phases mixed up.

But I'm in the same boat. Got started in Warmachine during the latest League, currently sitting on 5 losses and 1 win (which was the result of a caster-kill that I had no right to pull off, after losing every other model in my army ). I'm still getting down the right activation order, rules, threat ranges, so there's no way I'd go into a Steamroller event. There's a difference between a Tournament and regular friendly games.

+1

If you're so new to the game that you barely know the rules then you I don't really see the point in going to a tournament at that stage. It's going to go badly for you because everyone will be trying to win their games a little bit more than usual and as they are almost certainly going to know the rules better than you then they are most likely to be the one that wins the game, and getting beaten game after game isn't going to be particularly fun, especially at a tournament.

I don't really see a problem with it as long as you realize you don't have a good hang of the rules.

brettz123 wrote:I don't really see a problem with it as long as you realize you don't have a good hang of the rules.

Well that would solve the sportsmanship issue, however because you don't have a good hang of the rules you are going to have to be relying upon your opponent to teach you as the game progresses. I don't know about everyone else but I go to a couple of tournaments now and again and one of the reasons that I enjoy them so much is to test myself. I don't mind helping someone with the rules, it's not a problem, but that is something that I can do back at home, and the fact that I am playing someone who's not testing me at all sort of takes part of the point of being at a tournament away really.

nkelsch wrote:

illuknisaa wrote:I think you made a mistake on the disembarking as if models can't disembark normally they are still allowed to do emergency disembark which means DE player could still place his models on top of the vehicle unless there were enemies 1" away.

6-EXPLODES you can place models in the crater, but you may not disembark on top of a 5-WRECKED, so if you are surrouned, you are done. Emergency Disembark doesn't allow you to disembark on top of a wreck, you just may disembark out the side of any edge of the transport. The model is still a functioning model until the diembarking is done.

I think what he meant was in the case of the flat out immobilization result. My understanding is that the emergency disembarkation rule kicks in to over-ride any situation in which the models would not normally be able to disembark. I.E. - he could have used emergency disembarkation to bail out of a fast skimmer that traveled 24" and suffered an immobilization result.

In the case of the situation where you surrounded and destroyed his transport in close combat, thats irrelevant, as the shape/size of the raider and venom is such that it would be physically impossible to place a model more than 1" away from an enemy if it was completely surrounded, just like a Rhino (IIRC).

I've been playing for 19 years and I still don't know all the rules. I guess it doesn't help that I play like twice a year...

that said, I never play tournaments because I:

1) don't know all the rules
2) will lose every game
3) play too slow and over think every move I make
4) will lose every game
5) ???
6) Profit!

Coming from someone who doesn't play tournaments, I do think sportsmanship is something that should be there, but it shouldn't effect the final score. The real score should be wins or losses. But an extra, separate prize for sportsmanship would be cool. Same goes for paint job.

I know the rules, but I tend to get editions crossed.

HOW does a DE player not know that moving flat out and wrecking in terrain kills his guys inside? HOW.

The TO should have altered the soft score after it was clearly shown that your opponent had no idea what he was doing.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:If your TO had any balls, he would have called DE player over and asked him to justify the 1 sportsmanship score. It's not fair to have players just get insane when they get called on rules. For the record this is not an example of rules lawyering. Basic game rules have to be followed.

This.

I think TOs should start doing things like this (if they don't already). If you see someone tanking someone else, confront the person that gave them the 1 and ask them why. See if they can rightly justify it.

One of my teammates at the ATC gave one of his opponents a low sportsmanship score last year and instead of waiting on the TO, he proceeded to explain the score to the TO before there was an issue.

Maybe it'd be too demanding but it really does seem if players are scoring other players they should have to back up and justify why they gave someone a low score.

chaos0xomega wrote:

I think what he meant was in the case of the flat out immobilization result. My understanding is that the emergency disembarkation rule kicks in to over-ride any situation in which the models would not normally be able to disembark. I.E. - he could have used emergency disembarkation to bail out of a fast skimmer that traveled 24" and suffered an immobilization result.

Emergency Disembark does no such thing. It doesn't override the restrictions on disembarking from moving flat out. The FAQ even says they are all destroyed.

Emergency Disembark is only when your access hatches are blocked.

Here ANOTHER example of why sportsmanship should just be canned in tournaments.

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:If your TO had any balls, he would have called DE player over and asked him to justify the 1 sportsmanship score. It's not fair to have players just get insane when they get called on rules. For the record this is not an example of rules lawyering. Basic game rules have to be followed.

Yeah, I think if you're going to have sportsmanship scores, the TO really needs to look hard at outlier scores like this. If a player gets max or close to max scores by all of his opponents except for one who gives the minimum score, it probably says more about the player giving that score than the player receiving the score.

Saldiven wrote:

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:If your TO had any balls, he would have called DE player over and asked him to justify the 1 sportsmanship score. It's not fair to have players just get insane when they get called on rules. For the record this is not an example of rules lawyering. Basic game rules have to be followed.

Yeah, I think if you're going to have sportsmanship scores, the TO really needs to look hard at outlier scores like this. If a player gets max or close to max scores by all of his opponents except for one who gives the minimum score, it probably says more about the player giving that score than the player receiving the score.

Agreed. The problem isn't with sportmanship scoring but with a player who is trying to abuse it and a TO who is letting him. If you're a TO and you're choosing to use sportmanship in your scoring, you have to be willing to call people out on scores that don't pass the whiff test. Just including a soft score because it sounds appropriate but not having the courage to enforce its application fairly accomplishes only one thing... filling dakkadakka's forums with ignorant posts about the supposed evils of all soft scores.

If a tourney had two players who are friends (one of whom is in first place and the other who is close to last) paired together to play and they only play one real turn... and then decide to give the high ranked player max battle points despite not finishing... and the TO accepts the score... Is the problem with battlepoints or the enforcement of fair reporting of that score?

nkelsch wrote:

Grakmar wrote: Tournaments are where you go to test your skills and winning is the only goal.

I cannot disagree more with this statement. That has never been what all tourneys, especially GW tourneys have been about in the wargaming circle.

I'm with nkelsch here, of course...

Also, @ the thread- 2 out of the 3 main issues raised in the OP have been questioned here. I still can't tell from the debate if a skimmer moving flat-out into difficult terrain and immobilizes itself would kill all the models, or allow them to do an emergency disembark. The first turn assault was shown to be possible by the rotating-raider trick, which although a bummer is legal RAW.

Thus, being a good sport and the way that you raise these issues is key, as if they're not clear-cut in this thread, they likely weren't so on the tabletop, either.

2 sides to every story and all that...

RiTides wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Grakmar wrote: Tournaments are where you go to test your skills and winning is the only goal.

I cannot disagree more with this statement. That has never been what all tourneys, especially GW tourneys have been about in the wargaming circle.

I'm with nkelsch here, of course...

Also, @ the thread- 2 out of the 3 main issues raised in the OP have been questioned here. I still can't tell from the debate if a skimmer moving flat-out into difficult terrain and immobilizes itself would kill all the models, or allow them to do an emergency disembark. The first turn assault was shown to be possible by the rotating-raider trick, which although a bummer is legal RAW.

Thus, being a good sport and the way that you raise these issues is key, as if they're not clear-cut in this thread, they likely weren't so on the tabletop, either.

2 sides to every story and all that...

1) The models are destroyed, this has been debated again and again, and also FAQ'd.

2) He didn't use the pivoting raider trick, he deployed them straight-on towards me.

I only have your account to go off of, but the point remains that it's not totally clear cut. I am only just getting back into 40k, being mainly a fantasy player, so I'll take your word on the FAQ. However, I don't expect most players to know FAQ rulings off-hand, and if I have one I'm relying on for fantasy, I'll have the FAQ printed out to use.

Not trying to pick a fight, but having been on the receiving end, I'm just skeptical of someone coming out and slamming an opponent's game... I really think there are ways to mitigate the conflict and have a fun by-the-rules game in almost every situation. It's easy to get the internet riled up about things like this afterwards, but I think it'd be better to focus on what you think you could do differently to avoid the conflict, instead...

That said, I've beat that drum enough in this thread, and will bow out to avoid repeating myself further here.

I have this once every now and again, but I don't play that much. Last time I played a regular 40k game (a month or so ago), the kid I was playing against (maybe 13 or 14) didn't know about the rapid fire rule, and thought his marines could shoot twice each with 24" range after moving. I was in a hurry to finish the game before my lift arrived, so when I tried to point it out and he argued, I just went with it and lost a devastator to it. Got thier revenge though, wiped the squad next turn, but still, people not knowing rules in friendly games I can handle, even basic ones, but arguing it when you're outvoted, in a tournament or a regular player (like this guy) I dislike.

/rant.

RiTides wrote:I only have your account to go off of, but the point remains that it's not totally clear cut. I am only just getting back into 40k, being mainly a fantasy player, so I'll take your word on the FAQ. However, I don't expect most players to know FAQ rulings off-hand, and if I have one I'm relying on for fantasy, I'll have the FAQ printed out to use.

Not trying to pick a fight, but having been on the receiving end, I'm just skeptical of someone coming out and slamming an opponent's game... I really think there are ways to mitigate the conflict and have a fun by-the-rules game in almost every situation. It's easy to get the internet riled up about things like this afterwards, but I think it'd be better to focus on what you think you could do differently to avoid the conflict, instead...

That said, I've beat that drum enough in this thread, and will bow out to avoid repeating myself further here.

Generally speaking I agree that not every FAQ ruling should be known off hand. However, in an army full of skimmers you should at minimum know the FAQs that deal with how your army works. Not knowing that, and dinging someone's score because of it, is not acceptable in a competitive environment.

Know the FAQs that have to do with your army, that's only too fair imo.

OP you didn't do anything wrong, the guy you played was just a poor sport, he has no legitimate right to be upset about having the rules enforce/correctly applied. That said people are emotional and it can feel bad to be getting thrashed in a competative environment so some of this is displaced anger at the fact he was losing.

One piece of advice is to change the the way you bring up the rules when your opponent is doing something wrong. It sounds like you would say something along the lines of hey that's it right or our doing something wrong. Players in an emotionally bad place will hear this as a challenge and their ego will make it a fight. I always say something along the lines on "I'm not sure exactly how that works let me look that up" now you are looking at the rule oil so there is no argument and you haven't challenged your opponents ego

RiTides wrote:

-Loki- wrote:Even when the scatter die lands near the placed marker, when he moves the measure tape to the marker, he rotates it slightly so it won't his his stuff, or so it will hit my stuff. And swaers blind that the die right next to the measure tape and the angle he has the tape is is totally the same.

Again, I've never seen anyone who says they do this or that they have an opponent who measures it perfectly straight . It's natural to think this way, and maybe it's true... but maybe he just has a bad eye for it?

One of my regular opponents does this. Not with any malice, he doesn't try to hit my stuff or avoid his own, he's just really bad at it.

On the flip side...

I played a tournament a number of years ago with the only fully painted army. I had 2 wins. My 3rd round opponent had an unpainted, mostly un assembled army. Yes, un assembled. It was sentinel heavy, and many of his units were just bases with feet glue on them, or with legs.

He is a complete douchebag the whole game ( I was wary because he had gotten into s shouting match the previous round), and indeed I gave him im a 1 on sportsmanship. He argued tooth and nail about shooting through area terrain ( back in 3rd you could NOT shoot through at, even if you had LOS). The TO made us roll off and I lost. I was angry, because I was playing by the rules and he didn't know them, and the decision was made by a die roll, without an option for me to move my IG killing Whirlwind.

So, with 2 wins, a paint score, and I know I had gotten full sports from my previous opponents and had done nothing to warrant a low score other than the first rules dispute with the third guy.....he wins the tourney. They didn't count sports scores in the final tally. He didn't get full points from me, as I know he didn't from his previous opponent.

Had sports scores been tallied in, I would have won the tourney and he would have taken Best General, which is how an RTT should play out, under what RTT's are supposed to be. I'd have been fine if it had been an Ard Boyz event.

KGatch113 wrote:

On the flip side...

I played a tournament a number of years ago with the only fully painted army. I had 2 wins. My 3rd round opponent had an unpainted, mostly un assembled army. Yes, un assembled. It was sentinel heavy, and many of his units were just bases with feet glue on them, or with legs.

He is a complete douchebag the whole game ( I was wary because he had gotten into s shouting match the previous round), and indeed I gave him im a 1 on sportsmanship. He argued tooth and nail about shooting through area terrain ( back in 3rd you could NOT shoot through at, even if you had LOS). The TO made us roll off and I lost. I was angry, because I was playing by the rules and he didn't know them, and the decision was made by a die roll, without an option for me to move my IG killing Whirlwind.

So, with 2 wins, a paint score, and I know I had gotten full sports from my previous opponents and had done nothing to warrant a low score other than the first rules dispute with the third guy.....he wins the tourney. They didn't count sports scores in the final tally. He didn't get full points from me, as I know he didn't from his previous opponent.

Had sports scores been tallied in, I would have won the tourney and he would have taken Best General, which is how an RTT should play out, under what RTT's are supposed to be. I'd have been fine if it had been an Ard Boyz event.

Wait, Wait, What, I would of stop the TO, open my book pointed out the rule, and asked if he really wanted us to roll off.

KGatch113 wrote:So, with 2 wins, a paint score, and I know I had gotten full sports from my previous opponents and had done nothing to warrant a low score other than the first rules dispute with the third guy.....he wins the tourney. They didn't count sports scores in the final tally. He didn't get full points from me, as I know he didn't from his previous opponent.

Including sportsmanship scores may create an incentive for some people, in certain limited circumstances, to improperly give poor sportsmanship scores.

Excluding sportsmanship scores creates an incentive for the type of behavior described above - there's no negative consequence to being a bad sport.

I know which environment I would prefer.

Edit: Opps - Ninja'd

Though not a tournament player myself, I highly value sportsmanship in my games. Could someone enlighten me as to why Tournaments don't require a brief note explaining why someone gave a 1 or 2 on sportsmanship.

Seems like an easy fix for an issue that seems to come up quite often. There would still be those who abuse the system, but having to explain yourself would go along way toward curbing unwarranted abuse. Certainly a better solution than throwing out Sportsmanship altogether.