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.

Sometime in August is what I think was said at the GW Open day, although I can't recall if they said late or early August (or nothing at all).

And on the Tervigon, you have to buy Crushing Claws, which aren't that cheap AND get lucky enough to roll Warp Speed, which means you're not taking the atuo-feel no pain rule that the Tervigon comes with (which is a massively important power to the Tyranids).

So turning the Tervigon into a ocmbat monster this way seems perfectly reaonsable to me personally.

yakface wrote:Sometime in August is what I think was said at the GW Open day, although I can't recall if they said late or early August (or nothing at all).

And on the Tervigon, you have to buy Crushing Claws, which aren't that cheap AND get lucky enough to roll Warp Speed, which means you're not taking the atuo-feel no pain rule that the Tervigon comes with (which is a massively important power to the Tyranids).

So turning the Tervigon into a ocmbat monster this way seems perfectly reaonsable to me personally.

Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

Most likely not.

6th edition doesn't speak much to my soul. For example, my Tau/Ork combo just doesn't give me enjoyment seeing them on the field together. And I frankly don't look forward to facing the ever increasing amount of allies I'm sure we'll be seeing, again just from the fact that the primary thing I liked about 40K was the 'movie' of the games that I imagined inside of my head while I played.

6th edition has generally killed that movie in my head, so I just don't have the same kind of enthusiasm to play.

If the tournament was allowing Imperial Armor, I might go just to get to use my Tetras in a Tau army (as I've gotten so few chances to do so over the years) and/or maybe try to take as many Firewarriors as I can to see what happens, but that's pretty unlikely at least for this event.

yakface wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

Most likely not.

6th edition doesn't speak much to my soul. For example, my Tau/Ork combo just doesn't give me enjoyment seeing them on the field together. And I frankly don't look forward to facing the ever increasing amount of allies I'm sure we'll be seeing, again just from the fact that the primary thing I liked about 40K was the 'movie' of the games that I imagined inside of my head while I played.

6th edition has generally killed that movie in my head, so I just don't have the same kind of enthusiasm to play.

If the tournament was allowing Imperial Armor, I might go just to get to use my Tetras in a Tau army (as I've gotten so few chances to do so over the years) and/or maybe try to take as many Firewarriors as I can to see what happens, but that's pretty unlikely at least for this event.

That's too bad you feel that way.

For future reference, if we are going to allow FW then I just want to state here and now I think that the actual FW model needs to be used. No proxies, no counts as, no scratch built, and therefore no problems.

yakface wrote:Most likely not.

Aww, c'mon! I'll give you a free candy and soda!

As for FW, if we do end up starting to allow it, which, again, I am totally open to but need to research further, having the actual FW model would be a hard-and-fast rule, of course.

Even for Orks!

I'm just wondering what is the decision behind not including Mysterious Objectives considering you've generally been using most everything else?

The reason I ask is because unlike say Mysterious Terrain, it seems like the Mysterious Objectives add two crucial elements into the game:


1) They kind of counter-balance some of the Warlord Traits. For example, the Traits that give you bonuses for shooting at enemy units within range of an objective are complimented by the Mysterious Objective rules which kind of give people reasons to sit on Objectives early.

Wthout the bonuses given my the Mysterious Objectives, when people see that you're got that Warlord trait they'll purposely stay 3" away from the objectives until turn 5 to deny you that bonus. But when M.O.s are in play, then there is a tough choice to make in those cases.


2) M.O.s are clearly a way to get more Skyfire into the game, which cannot be a bad thing. As the rulebook does not categorize M.O.s as being something up to the players' discretion like Mysterious Terrain, it really seems wrong to not utilize them when you're including so much else of the 6th edition framework.


It just seems like if you're using Warlord Traits, then you should probably be using Mysterious Objectives as well.

The decision was made to go without Mysterious Objectives this time around so that we can see how an event runs in 6th with nothing mysterious. I'm still experimenting with some elements of the new game from a tournament point of view, so I want to see how it is without them this time around. There are a two Warlord Traits that interact with objectives, and MO does throw the chance of some extra Skyfire into the game, but both elements are random and can't be quantified in any significant way. I'm looking at making sure that everyone gets another round of tournament play to iron out whatever wrinkles they may have remaining with the core rules and have a good time doing it, and having some guy who's still figuring things out end up with all sabotaged objectives in game two doesn't necessarily make for a fun time.

And high-concept headspace notwithstanding, I know a bunch of guys forgot to roll for MOs anyway last time, because they were busy figuring out how far their units moved and forgetting to Overwatch! That being said, we'll probably use MOs next month, and I'll figure out something suitably draconian about what happens if players forget to determine what they are!

As the format is starting to come into focus, I'm feeling like Warlord Traits and Mysterious Objectives are probably going to end up in most events, Mysterious Terrain probably less so despite being non-optional itself (players may decide in what manner they determine and treat various pieces of Mysterious Terrain, but it's not optional by the rules whether to use it or not, at least by my reading).

We shall see. I'm not convinced that blanket random effects like the various Mysteriouses are good for competitive play, since 'least-likely-most-unbalanced-configuration-possible' is almost a guarantee in an event by the laws of the universe, and the NPE it creates is bad for any event. The problem is, coming up with some mechanism for players to get re-rolls or somehow determine things on terms other than the single d6 roll raises the spectre of heavy-handed house ruling, and we all here on this forum know just how troublesome the various "(name)hammer" epithets can be, no matter how they are used.

On a lighter note, Ork Nobz are the best. Take that, silly Terminators! Sadly though, all of my scads of Slugga Boyz are sad. So, so sad.

disdainful wrote:The decision was made to go without Mysterious Objectives this time around so that we can see how an event runs in 6th with nothing mysterious. I'm still experimenting with some elements of the new game from a tournament point of view, so I want to see how it is without them this time around. There are a two Warlord Traits that interact with objectives, and MO does throw the chance of some extra Skyfire into the game, but both elements are random and can't be quantified in any significant way. I'm looking at making sure that everyone gets another round of tournament play to iron out whatever wrinkles they may have remaining with the core rules and have a good time doing it, and having some guy who's still figuring things out end up with all sabotaged objectives in game two doesn't necessarily make for a fun time.

And high-concept headspace notwithstanding, I know a bunch of guys forgot to roll for MOs anyway last time, because they were busy figuring out how far their units moved and forgetting to Overwatch! That being said, we'll probably use MOs next month, and I'll figure out something suitably draconian about what happens if players forget to determine what they are!

As the format is starting to come into focus, I'm feeling like Warlord Traits and Mysterious Objectives are probably going to end up in most events, Mysterious Terrain probably less so despite being non-optional itself (players may decide in what manner they determine and treat various pieces of Mysterious Terrain, but it's not optional by the rules whether to use it or not, at least by my reading).

We shall see. I'm not convinced that blanket random effects like the various Mysteriouses are good for competitive play, since 'least-likely-most-unbalanced-configuration-possible' is almost a guarantee in an event by the laws of the universe, and the NPE it creates is bad for any event. The problem is, coming up with some mechanism for players to get re-rolls or somehow determine things on terms other than the single d6 roll raises the spectre of heavy-handed house ruling, and we all here on this forum know just how troublesome the various "(name)hammer" epithets can be, no matter how they are used.

On a lighter note, Ork Nobz are the best. Take that, silly Terminators! Sadly though, all of my scads of Slugga Boyz are sad. So, so sad. :'(

You can't have it all!

A note about the mysterious objectives. I bought the GW objective and vehicle maker sets. The vehicle markers are garbage for game play but since I've been using the objective markers I havn't forgot to use the mysterious objectives in a game once.

Grimgob wrote:A note about the mysterious objectives. I bought the GW objective and vehicle maker sets. The vehicle markers are garbage for game play but since I've been using the objective markers I havn't forgot to use the mysterious objectives in a game once.

Very true. I'm a big fan of my set as well. It keeps things organized quite well.

I'm not a stick in the mud (at least about most things! ). If the general consensus is Mysterious Objectives are legit, I'm ok with including them.

So what do you think, gents?

disdainful wrote:

Grimgob wrote:A note about the mysterious objectives. I bought the GW objective and vehicle maker sets. The vehicle markers are garbage for game play but since I've been using the objective markers I havn't forgot to use the mysterious objectives in a game once.

Very true. I'm a big fan of my set as well. It keeps things organized quite well.

I'm not a stick in the mud (at least about most things! ). If the general consensus is Mysterious Objectives are legit, I'm ok with including them.

So what do you think, gents?

I agree, they just needed to add a mysterious river and forest dice also (would have been better then the vehicle markers). I myself like the all the random bits in the game (albiet I've lost to 4 tau suits charging 30 boys and other such nonsense), I've had some really fun games even though wierd stuff happens sometimes.

I vote Mysterious Objectives in. Like Yakface has said, they go hand-in-hand with a number of the Warlord traits, and provide a boon to the unit securing it, giving them a thematic reason to hunker down and control the objective for the whole game.

Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

I vote for mysterious objectives. I forgot them in one game I played last tournament but I do like them quite a bit.

As for FW, if people absolutely will not come to tournaments because of them I find no reason to allow them all the time. The store has 12 tournaments a year, you use varying points levels, formats, scoring, and missions through out those 12 months. I see no reason why allowing FW in every 3rd or 4th tournament or even just twice a year wouldn't be fine too. Is there any reason the inclusion of FW has to be all or nothing at the store? In the end if the events that allow FW end up being consistently and obviously under attended you can always scrap the idea altogether. Nothing is written in stone for a store that runs so many tournaments in a year!

yakface wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:
Are you going to be in attendance again? 2 in a row! I won't be playing GK this time around

Most likely not.

6th edition doesn't speak much to my soul. For example, my Tau/Ork combo just doesn't give me enjoyment seeing them on the field together. And I frankly don't look forward to facing the ever increasing amount of allies I'm sure we'll be seeing, again just from the fact that the primary thing I liked about 40K was the 'movie' of the games that I imagined inside of my head while I played.

6th edition has generally killed that movie in my head, so I just don't have the same kind of enthusiasm to play.

If the tournament was allowing Imperial Armor, I might go just to get to use my Tetras in a Tau army (as I've gotten so few chances to do so over the years) and/or maybe try to take as many Firewarriors as I can to see what happens, but that's pretty unlikely at least for this event.

Seeing as you're not attending the tournament (nor enjoying 6th edition), I'm left wondering why you're still posting in this tournament thread. Actually, here are the only two reasons I can find for continually dredging up disagreements with the tournament prompt: 1. Malicious trolling. "Yakface has issues with the event, therefore the event must not be good." 2. Concern for the well-being of an event that you aren't attending. You're not happy with the game - we all got that. Let's leave the discussion to players that are actually interested in playing in this tournament and 6th edition.

Well, it seems Mysterious Objectives are the people's choice! I've got a few more folks to talk to and some more opinions to hear, but if the response is similar to this then I think Mysterious it will be.

Lormax wrote:ISince you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

I very much appreciate the feedback; in the end I want to run an event that people want to come to. I know the often negative reaction that FW talk generates. For the record, my position is that if GW says FW is in, it's in. If not, then it probably will become a sometimes food. In the end, a tournament is a product (a very hard to produce product, often!) and I'm not in the business of making a product people don't want. That being said, I'm ready and willing to embrace the chaos if the floodgates open, and even if not, roll it in occasionally.

OverwatchCNC wrote:I vote for mysterious objectives. I forgot them in one game I played last tournament but I do like them quite a bit.

As for FW, if people absolutely will not come to tournaments because of them I find no reason to allow them all the time. The store has 12 tournaments a year, you use varying points levels, formats, scoring, and missions through out those 12 months. I see no reason why allowing FW in every 3rd or 4th tournament or even just twice a year wouldn't be fine too. Is there any reason the inclusion of FW has to be all or nothing at the store? In the end if the events that allow FW end up being consistently and obviously under attended you can always scrap the idea altogether. Nothing is written in stone for a store that runs so many tournaments in a year!

We are insulated somewhat with the knowledge that if the event in month X didn't go so well, there's always month Y. That being said, there's guys I only see once a year and I want to make sure they don't show up on a Month X as often as possible!

Although I totally forgot to roll for every Mysterious Objective in the last tournament, I still do think they are an integral part of the 6th edition rules as a whole package and therefore should be included if you're including fortifications & Warlord Traits. If you want to go down like a limited route and cut out a bunch of the stranger stuff then I think its fine to cut out MOs, but seems wrong to selectively cut them out when using most of the other rules as well.

But as I'm probably not attending, obviously I'm just expressing an opinion that doesn't matter as much as the people who will be playing.

Lormax wrote:
Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

You could definitely run some tournaments allowing FW and some without as a way to gauge interest, but I do have to say that treating the Imperial Armor rules this way only helps to strengthen the concept of people who are ignorant of the Imperial Armor rules being able to refuse to even see what the rules are like and then use this as a tool to try to get Imperial Armor disallowed.

I think this post above by Lormax is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing against it.

The reality is, even when Forgeworld is allowed you still won't see them used in most games, and those that you do, if you're the kind of person who keeps up with every unit in every codex, then I guarantee that looking over the rules for an Imperial Armor unit before the game will give you all the information you need to know to combat it...there's no IA units allowed in standard games of 40K that are so crazy out of the box that you won't have any idea what to do against them. And if that's still not enough, I think you'll find if you ask any player who uses an Imperial Armor unit what kind of nasty tricks the IA unit they have in their army is able to pull off before the game starts, they will be happy to give you an overview.

And if you're not the kind of player who knows every rule for every unit in the codexes, then playing against an Imperial Armor unit is exactly the same as any other unit. You have to ask your opponent what it does and look at the rules ahead of time if necessary just as you would with any other unit.

In addition, the argument that somehow the inclusion of Forgeworld somehow turns the game into who can spend the most $, is frankly baseless as this point. GW's prices have crept up to the point where they are ridiculously close to Forgeworld's anyway. But looking at Magic the Gathering, their rare cards are powerful and therefore cost a lot of money and are hard to come by otherwise. So in other words, you're paying for rarity & power. Forgeworld, although not as easy to purchase as regular GW kits in stores, can be ordered by anyone with access to the internet and a credit card, so its not rare. The cost is based on what GW charges for the model based on a variety of criteria, but effectiveness of the unit does not seem to be one of those criteria (at least not intentionally).

So, let's just say a super-effective Tyranid army is one that has 2 Tyrants, 4 Tervigons & 3 Trygons. Each of these kits cost around $60 now, so we're looking at over $500 for that army. If that's what happens to be the most effective build, is this 'unfair' to people who can't afford this army? Or what about if maxed-out Dark Eldar Beast Packs were super-powerful? Would the fact that they cost hundreds of dollars per unit make them unfair?

I'd argue that probably the most over-powered Forgeworld unit they have is the meager Hades Breaching Drill which is only £27...not even close to as expensive as the most costly core GW kits.

The only thing you can ever know for sure if you deny yourself the chance to ever play against Imperial Armor is that you will always be afraid of what they possibly can do to you, instead of actually looking at it from the perspective of how it can actually enrich your army and the game in general.

Once you can accept that yes you may see some IA units in a tournament and yes those units might be used to beat you, but really that's not the end of the world because there's nothing that can't be countered with good generalship, you might actually start looking at Forgeworld models and saying: 'wow, there's some really cool stuff out there that would be FUN for me to include in my army!'

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that Forgeworld turns 40K into a $$$ game, and you will always think that the IA rules are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any tournament that allows Imperial Armor and lobby to get more tournaments to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

yakface wrote:

Although I totally forgot to roll for every Mysterious Objective in the last tournament, I still do think they are an integral part of the 6th edition rules as a whole package and therefore should be included if you're including fortifications & Warlord Traits. If you want to go down like a limited route and cut out a bunch of the stranger stuff then I think its fine to cut out MOs, but seems wrong to selectively cut them out when using most of the other rules as well.

But as I'm probably not attending, obviously I'm just expressing an opinion that doesn't matter as much as the people who will be playing.

Lormax wrote:
Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

You could definitely run some tournaments allowing FW and some without as a way to gauge interest, but I do have to say that treating the Imperial Armor rules this way only helps to strengthen the concept of people who are ignorant of the Imperial Armor rules being able to refuse to even see what the rules are like and then use this as a tool to try to get Imperial Armor disallowed.

I think this post above by Lormax is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing against it.

The reality is, even when Forgeworld is allowed you still won't see them used in most games, and those that you do, if you're the kind of person who keeps up with every unit in every codex, then I guarantee that looking over the rules for an Imperial Armor unit before the game will give you all the information you need to know to combat it...there's no IA units allowed in standard games of 40K that are so crazy out of the box that you won't have any idea what to do against them. And if that's still not enough, I think you'll find if you ask any player who uses an Imperial Armor unit what kind of nasty tricks the IA unit they have in their army is able to pull off before the game starts, they will be happy to give you an overview.

And if you're not the kind of player who knows every rule for every unit in the codexes, then playing against an Imperial Armor unit is exactly the same as any other unit. You have to ask your opponent what it does and look at the rules ahead of time if necessary just as you would with any other unit.

In addition, the argument that somehow the inclusion of Forgeworld somehow turns the game into who can spend the most $, is frankly baseless as this point. GW's prices have crept up to the point where they are ridiculously close to Forgeworld's anyway. But looking at Magic the Gathering, their rare cards are powerful and therefore cost a lot of money and are hard to come by otherwise. So in other words, you're paying for rarity & power. Forgeworld, although not as easy to purchase as regular GW kits in stores, can be ordered by anyone with access to the internet and a credit card, so its not rare. The cost is based on what GW charges for the model based on a variety of criteria, but effectiveness of the unit does not seem to be one of those criteria (at least not intentionally).

So, let's just say a super-effective Tyranid army is one that has 2 Tyrants, 4 Tervigons & 3 Trygons. Each of these kits cost around $60 now, so we're looking at over $500 for that army. If that's what happens to be the most effective build, is this 'unfair' to people who can't afford this army? Or what about if maxed-out Dark Eldar Beast Packs were super-powerful? Would the fact that they cost hundreds of dollars per unit make them unfair?

I'd argue that probably the most over-powered Forgeworld unit they have is the meager Hades Breaching Drill which is only £27...not even close to as expensive as the most costly core GW kits.

The only thing you can ever know for sure if you deny yourself the chance to ever play against Imperial Armor is that you will always be afraid of what they possibly can do to you, instead of actually looking at it from the perspective of how it can actually enrich your army and the game in general.

Once you can accept that yes you may see some IA units in a tournament and yes those units might be used to beat you, but really that's not the end of the world because there's nothing that can't be countered with good generalship, you might actually start looking at Forgeworld models and saying: 'wow, there's some really cool stuff out there that would be FUN for me to include in my army!'

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that Forgeworld turns 40K into a $$$ game, and you will always think that the IA rules are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any tournament that allows Imperial Armor and lobby to get more tournaments to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

I wish I could type "tl;dr"; unfortunately, I slogged through this post hoping to find something relevant to the tournament prompt. Well, having past the first few lines, I realized that would not be the case. So far, I've found most of Yakface's posts to be largely unconcerned with the actual tournament and more concerned with the application of 6th edition rules, providing broad, sweeping claims regarding what is "integral," or inherently 6th edition. Your concern does not rest with the tournament and the people playing in it. Your concern lies in solely your experience with this game, and how you want to play it. Talk of Imperial Armor and Forgeworld are largely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss whether or not they should be included in tournaments, the discussion should not be in a specific game store's advertising thread. Might I suggest 40k You Make Da Call, or 40k Proposed Rules? Lastly, I will say that I did find a few sentences particularly poignant from your above post. I took the liberty of editing them, explaining my general reaction to your continued grieving of 6th edition.

I think this post above by Yakface is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing 6th edition.

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that 6th edition turns 40K into a bad game, and you will always think that the new rules for each edition are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any 6th edition tournament and lobby to get more 5th edition tournaments with Imperial Armor to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

Rather than continually scrounging up every rules contradiction or "black hole" that you can find while poring over your 6th edition rulebook, perhaps you should take a moment to pause and reflect on the struggles that we all faced at the dawn of 5th edition. Recall the reason why you and others organized to create INAT and this forum. Take a read of 6th edition with a positive lens rather than the decidedly negative tone of authority that you wield (sub, abuse) with such ease. Allow other players the time to voice their positive and negative interactions with the game.

I'm sorry that this game doesn't speak to your soul, but it doesn't need to. The game doesn't speak to my soul, yet I enjoy it and endeavor to let others enjoy it as well.

Hallowed Aria

Lormax wrote:I vote Mysterious Objectives in. Like Yakface has said, they go hand-in-hand with a number of the Warlord traits, and provide a boon to the unit securing it, giving them a thematic reason to hunker down and control the objective for the whole game.

Since you're taking opinions on things, let me speak up now. Allowing FW, on the other hand, would quickly remove me from wanting to come to the tournaments in the future (or at the very least think twice about coming). I'm already passing on the one at the LA Convention Center because of it. It's hard enough keeping up with all the current codexes, white dwarf units, white dwarf armies, etc. With allies, it's now even much more important to know the codexes you don't own/play with yourself. How many IA books are there now, 8? 9? I really don't know. Trying to keep up with all of that on top of everything else, forget it. Not to mention that the chance of seeing it in a one-off game to practice against is VERY small. The models are also much more expensive, making $$ a limiting factor for most. M:TG became like that, pay to win. No thanks.

Sure, some will say that I must not know much about IA at all, since some units are terrible or overcosted. So are some units in the Dark Angels codex! Not all the things in those books are terrible or overcosted.

I guess you could say I'm a purist at heart. Hell, if I could find a tourney that didn't allow allies I'd love it. I don't see that happening, so I grudgingly accept them.

I'm a purest in heart as well.

But after what I have seen in discussion on another topic. I am willing to allow FW models provided that those people with the models provide copies of the rule set of those models in question to the opponent and to the TO (namely me) in the tournament. Generally speaking 3 copies + 1 to the TO. To me this solves a crucial problem without access to FW books.

HallowedAria wrote:
I wish I could type "tl;dr"; unfortunately, I slogged through this post hoping to find something relevant to the tournament prompt. Well, having past the first few lines, I realized that would not be the case. So far, I've found most of Yakface's posts to be largely unconcerned with the actual tournament and more concerned with the application of 6th edition rules, providing broad, sweeping claims regarding what is "integral," or inherently 6th edition. Your concern does not rest with the tournament and the people playing in it. Your concern lies in solely your experience with this game, and how you want to play it. Talk of Imperial Armor and Forgeworld are largely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss whether or not they should be included in tournaments, the discussion should not be in a specific game store's advertising thread. Might I suggest 40k You Make Da Call, or 40k Proposed Rules? Lastly, I will say that I did find a few sentences particularly poignant from your above post. I took the liberty of editing them, explaining my general reaction to your continued grieving of 6th edition.

I think this post above by Yakface is a perfect example of this. Not trying to single you out, but this is the exact attitude I see so much from people that is based purely on conjecture of how bad things might be that you're not even willing to chance playing 6th edition.

But as long as you choose to keep yourself in the dark and never even give it a shot to see just how 'bad' it is, your worst fears will always be your reality. You will always think that 6th edition turns 40K into a bad game, and you will always think that the new rules for each edition are too tough to keep up with and therefore put you at a big disadvantage, etc, etc, etc. In other words, you put yourself in a position where your beliefs can never be proven wrong, because you won't even give them a chance to be tested in the waters of reality.

And if you go and find out that your fears are correct, then by all means boycott any 6th edition tournament and lobby to get more 5th edition tournaments with Imperial Armor to keep them off the table. But to make that stand before even running into the negative effects that you're afraid of just seems like such a shame to me.

Rather than continually scrounging up every rules contradiction or "black hole" that you can find while poring over your 6th edition rulebook, perhaps you should take a moment to pause and reflect on the struggles that we all faced at the dawn of 5th edition. Recall the reason why you and others organized to create INAT and this forum. Take a read of 6th edition with a positive lens rather than the decidedly negative tone of authority that you wield (sub, abuse) with such ease. Allow other players the time to voice their positive and negative interactions with the game.

I'm sorry that this game doesn't speak to your soul, but it doesn't need to. The game doesn't speak to my soul, yet I enjoy it and endeavor to let others enjoy it as well.

Hallowed Aria

I'm sorry you slogged through reading my post and feel it contained no pertinent information to the topic at hand. Let me clarify a few things though:


1) I am not giving up playing 40k and I don't hate 6th edition by any stretch of the imagination. Just because I feel that 6th edition kind of went in a different direction than the direction I liked in 3rd-5th edition does not mean I'm incapable of recognizing a lot of the positive elements that 6th edition does provide. I guarantee that I will be attending some 40k events, and given that Game Empire tends to run the best 40k events in the area I live in and as the T.O. is always looking for comments and feedback about his events (as any good organizer does), I give him my opinions, and that's it. While I may not be attending this next tournament (and who knows I may just change my mind and attend anyway), I may make the next one or the next one after that, etc, so giving feedback about the format is entirely reasonable IMHO.


2) I have never claimed that my opinion carries anymore weight than any other player's opinion. You will never see me posting that way or claiming otherwise. If anyone attributes me to having some sort of authority, that's entirely on them. I have not, and will never, feel or act that way. All of the opinions I express are just my opinions and can be taken or ignored at the organizer's whim, just as he does with feedback he gets from every other player.


3) Imperial Armor has nothing to do with 5th edition vs. 6th edition. The inclusion of Imperial Armor in a tournament has absolutely zero to do with shying away from the 6th edition rules...it is an entirely separate conversation. Now, its no secret that I'm a big fan of allowing Imperial Armor simply from the viewpoint that I think there are a ton of cool models in the line and a bunch of interesting rules and its a shame that people cannot utilize them in more tournaments IMHO. So yes, while I am effectively lobbying to get those rules allowed, as a player who wants to use his Tau Tetras in a Tau army, my point has been and will continue to be: I'm okay with Imperial Armor being disallowed because it causes some defined problem that has been encountered. However, I think disallowing Imperial Armor without even ever giving it a shot to see if it IS EVEN A PROBLEM, is silly and self-fulfilling.


4) Finally, I don't see how me expressing my opinions somehow prevents other players from voicing theirs. This is a public forum and people can and will always be able to post their own opinions...you can choose to agree, disagree, ignore or not ignore any of them.

Yak I think the issue here is you've expressed several times, to me in person even, that you aren't going to play 40k tournaments because you aren't a big fan of how 6th edition works. It is those sort of statements that, I believe, are leading people to think your posts are more just sour grapes than anything else.

I am glad to know you aren't completely swearing off tournaments and 6th edition in general, I honestly had gotten the impression you had.

2. I know you've never claimed it, but you have to recognize at some level that you are a sort of paragon to the community. Your opinion naturally tends to carry more weight than others, certainly more than mine!

3. I agree that the time has come for us to try out the IA rules . In the other thread by Dis about GE rulings I stated that I would like to see a few tournaments each year at GE run FW allowed events. I think if Dis does a good enough job with a standard year long schedule and promoting the events then there should be few "gotcha" type moments when players show up for a tournament unprepared to face FW. I also am a stalwart proponent that all armies including FW units must have the actual FW models. No scratch built, no conversions, no counts as . It is either the FW model or not at all, there will be enough chances for confusion and "sour grapes" feelings by introducing units people are unfamiliar with we don't need to add in the layer of potential modeling for advantage or model confusion for advantage.

I do hope you decide to come this month or next to the GE tournament, you're a great competitor and opponent.

To the thread at large: This is looking to be a really big one again, make sure to come and bring your friends! I would love if we could make the monthly 40k tournaments as big, or bigger, than the monthly Warmahordes tournaments. No offense Dis !

Offense!? Ha! Big events are my bread and butter! If I could run a 50-player Carcassonne Tournament I would!

I think one of the reasons the WM/H events grew so large is two-fold:

1. Privateer is just better than GW at official support. 3-4 big official leagues in the store along with well-done stuff like Summer Rampage and the supplement book release events means that players see a lot of cool stuff going on and want to get involved. Combine all that with a very well-done and consistent free tournament product in the Steamroller rules, and you have a big draw for players looking to be involved in something organized, official, and competitive.

2. WM/H is cheaper to start. We all know that the minis hobby is expensive (a 'boutique' hobby, you might say), and, truth be told, I'd say someone has a much greater potential to spend more on WM/H since it's so easy to have a bunch of armies, but that smaller initial investment is a big part of the draw. Sure, one faction costs around $300 to buy in to, but most guys I know have at least two factions, and often three or more!

It's just a different game that offers a different experience. That being said, I'd say that on average both games have a similar draw. The WM/H events in the store pretty reliably bring in about 20 players. 40k events have a lot more variance, with 16-20 being the likely average. We've hosted 30+ super smashes, and 10-man friends-and-family type events.

What I'm really happy about is that, at least at my store, there's no friction or negative draw between the two groups. There's guys that play and enjoy both, guys that are primarily one and happily dabble in the other, and guys that are strictly one or the other who'll still talk shop with players of either. And I don't see the 40k events suffering when a new WM book comes out, or the WM attendance drop when something big for 40k drops.

The WM group is big and strong and healthy, and I'll take a little credit for building it up, sure. I'm really excited about 40k with 6th edition, now, too, and I'm looking forward to a lot of good stuff ahead with the game. I'm in the somewhat unique position of being able to give lots of attention to each (since it's my job, after all!) to make sure that no matter what game you prefer, you can come to my store and play it with a fun group of players.

I understand Where Yak is coming from, though. Edition changes can be very rough, and it seems like this thing you've put so much of yourself into is now moving beyond your grasp. If FFG came out with a really bad new edition of Descent, you can just keep on playing the older version you like, and if you end up dumping the game and playing Small World or Memoir '44, all you've lost is some money, the investment of which might not be that big of a deal depending on how much time you got to play anyway. It's not so easy with a game like 40k, where you've spent time building, painting, converting, learning, playing with, etc, one or more armies that are full of things that might not work like they used to anymore in a game that isn't quite what you signed up for, and it's really hard to just play an older edition; good luck finding a pick-up game, let alone a tournament or league!

Full disclosure: I was really unhappy with 40k at the end of 5th. My Orks had gathered a lot of dust, and not the 'of a thousand worlds' kind! For my part, I think 6th is awesome. As a player i get to look at everything with fresh eyes; I finally built a unit of Big Gunz for my Orks and that was a blast! And as a TO/Organizer it gives me a lot of options and tools for my events. If Iwant to run something lean and competitive I can, and I can do fun fluff/storyline stuff just as well, and everything in between. I think it's going to be a good time for the game, and hopefully the events I run will reflect that.

All that heavy headspace stuff aside, I am looking forward to another big, awesome 40k event. And I promise no crazy surprises like battlefield-wide effects thrown in at random. Yet!

Yak, thanks for your reply to my post. I can definitely count on you to have a very well thought out and constructive reply, and could even dissuade my current opinion.

With that said, being able to experience the IA rules outside of a tournament setting is pretty much impossible for me. I'm going to go on a limb and say that a decent majority won't have access to the rules to try out. Nobody in the gaming groups I'm able to frequent have the models or the books. Putting the $$ to invest in the books or models because MAYBE tournies will allow them just isn't reasonable.

Tournament settings are highly competitive, and they bring that type of player. Almost all tournaments have an entrance fee. I don't know about others, but I have no interest in paying the entrance fee to get my first experience with IA handed to me. I know of at least 4 of us in my immediate group that has passed on Comikaze all together because of FW allowances. If that's where the 'big' tournaments are headed, so be it, I'll pass on those and stick my local tournaments. I know I speak selflishly a bit, but it would be a shame to see the smaller local ones go that way as well.

As you've probably gathered from my post (especially based on your reply Yak), and from what I've talked over with others in my group, it's largely because of the lack of exposure to the IA units and rules. So, what can be done to increase exposure, outside of a tournament setting?

Lormax wrote:Yak, thanks for your reply to my post. I can definitely count on you to have a very well thought out and constructive reply, and could even dissuade my current opinion.

With that said, being able to experience the IA rules outside of a tournament setting is pretty much impossible for me. I'm going to go on a limb and say that a decent majority won't have access to the rules to try out. Nobody in the gaming groups I'm able to frequent have the models or the books. Putting the $$ to invest in the books or models because MAYBE tournies will allow them just isn't reasonable.

Tournament settings are highly competitive, and they bring that type of player. Almost all tournaments have an entrance fee. I don't know about others, but I have no interest in paying the entrance fee to get my first experience with IA handed to me. I know of at least 4 of us in my immediate group that has passed on Comikaze all together because of FW allowances. If that's where the 'big' tournaments are headed, so be it, I'll pass on those and stick my local tournaments. I know I speak selflishly a bit, but it would be a shame to see the smaller local ones go that way as well.

As you've probably gathered from my post (especially based on your reply Yak), and from what I've talked over with others in my group, it's largely because of the lack of exposure to the IA units and rules. So, what can be done to increase exposure, outside of a tournament setting?

I totally hear what you're saying and I get it, I really do. I sadly don't have the perfect answer for you except to say that exactly as you point out, you guys are unwilling to consider shelling out money on Forgeworld books and models because you're unsure that you'd be able to use them in events. The problem is that then it sounds like you guys are unwilling to attend tournaments that DO allow Imperial Armor because you're afraid of 'wasting' your entrance on game where you get beat because of some Imperial Armor unit. So then when you make your position known (I won't attend a tournament that has Imperial Armor), you help to convince tournament organizers NOT to include Imperial Armor, which helps to make sure that players are unsure as to whether or not tournaments will allow Imperial Armor, so this then helps to further convince players like yourself to not spend the money on Imperial Armor!

It is a viscous never-ending cycle that essentially punishes those players who have taken the plunge on buying and painting Imperial Armor units and would love to use them in their tournament games along with the rest of their army.

Really, I think it comes down to one person in a gaming group breaking through and buying an Imperial Armor model because they really like it. Then they start to badger their friends into allowing them into using it because they bought the darn thing and they want to play with it! Once that door is open and people start playing against one thing they realize that these are just MORE units, not something that makes the game in general melt-down and become unplayable. And once that damn is broken and the water starts to pour through then before you know it you're looking at the Forgeworld line just like you would any other models.

Honestly, in your guys' particular case I really think that you just need to step up and try out something like Comikazee just to see if you theory is true and the fact that you might play some games against some Imperial Armor will suddenly ruin your tournament experience. If you guys decide to go based on my recommendation, I'd personally be willing to comp 1/2 any of your Comikazee entry fees if after the tournament is over you feel like you had a bad experience specifically because of some Imperial Armor units.

yakface wrote:

Lormax wrote:Yak, thanks for your reply to my post. I can definitely count on you to have a very well thought out and constructive reply, and could even dissuade my current opinion.

With that said, being able to experience the IA rules outside of a tournament setting is pretty much impossible for me. I'm going to go on a limb and say that a decent majority won't have access to the rules to try out. Nobody in the gaming groups I'm able to frequent have the models or the books. Putting the $$ to invest in the books or models because MAYBE tournies will allow them just isn't reasonable.

Tournament settings are highly competitive, and they bring that type of player. Almost all tournaments have an entrance fee. I don't know about others, but I have no interest in paying the entrance fee to get my first experience with IA handed to me. I know of at least 4 of us in my immediate group that has passed on Comikaze all together because of FW allowances. If that's where the 'big' tournaments are headed, so be it, I'll pass on those and stick my local tournaments. I know I speak selflishly a bit, but it would be a shame to see the smaller local ones go that way as well.

As you've probably gathered from my post (especially based on your reply Yak), and from what I've talked over with others in my group, it's largely because of the lack of exposure to the IA units and rules. So, what can be done to increase exposure, outside of a tournament setting?

I totally hear what you're saying and I get it, I really do. I sadly don't have the perfect answer for you except to say that exactly as you point out, you guys are unwilling to consider shelling out money on Forgeworld books and models because you're unsure that you'd be able to use them in events. The problem is that then it sounds like you guys are unwilling to attend tournaments that DO allow Imperial Armor because you're afraid of 'wasting' your entrance on game where you get beat because of some Imperial Armor unit. So then when you make your position known (I won't attend a tournament that has Imperial Armor), you help to convince tournament organizers NOT to include Imperial Armor, which helps to make sure that players are unsure as to whether or not tournaments will allow Imperial Armor, so this then helps to further convince players like yourself to not spend the money on Imperial Armor!

It is a viscous never-ending cycle that essentially punishes those players who have taken the plunge on buying and painting Imperial Armor units and would love to use them in their tournament games along with the rest of their army.

Really, I think it comes down to one person in a gaming group breaking through and buying an Imperial Armor model because they really like it. Then they start to badger their friends into allowing them into using it because they bought the darn thing and they want to play with it! Once that door is open and people start playing against one thing they realize that these are just MORE units, not something that makes the game in general melt-down and become unplayable. And once that damn is broken and the water starts to pour through then before you know it you're looking at the Forgeworld line just like you would any other models.

Honestly, in your guys' particular case I really think that you just need to step up and try out something like Comikazee just to see if you theory is true and the fact that you might play some games against some Imperial Armor will suddenly ruin your tournament experience. If you guys decide to go based on my recommendation, I'd personally be willing to comp 1/2 any of your Comikazee entry fees if after the tournament is over you feel like you had a bad experience specifically because of some Imperial Armor units.

Honestly I agree with Yakface on that. You can't really know what it is like, or even if you like or hate it, if you don't at least try an IA event once. Comikaze is cheap enough that it provides a good venue to try it out. It is also large enough that you should run into someone running a FW unit at some point. At least I am pretty sure you would, obviously it isn't guaranteed.

Plus if you go to Comi-Kaze and don't win, there are loads of other types of things to do there that will make it worth your money.

The people on the fringe of not liking Forgeworld in tournaments consider what will happen if GW "officially sanctions" FW armies and units.

I put that in quotes, because I have no idea what else to call it, but the word on the street is, it's all going to be legit, and not allowing it will be like not allowing a specific codex and we have seen above that TO is all about it if GW gives the green light.

You can chose to skip 80% of the GTs in Cali, and then chose to skip the biggest and baddest RTT in So Cal because of Forgeworld, or... you can accept that your super expensive army man game just got more expensive.

Blood Lord Soldado wrote:Plus if you go to Comi-Kaze and don't win, there are loads of other types of things to do there that will make it worth your money.

The people on the fringe of not liking Forgeworld in tournaments consider what will happen if GW "officially sanctions" FW armies and units.

I put that in quotes, because I have no idea what else to call it, but the word on the street is, it's all going to be legit, and not allowing it will be like not allowing a specific codex and we have seen above that TO is all about it if GW gives the green light.

You can chose to skip 80% of the GTs in Cali, and then chose to skip the biggest and baddest RTT in So Cal because of Forgeworld, or... you can accept that your super expensive army man game just got more expensive.

Nothing says you have to buy and play FW to be competitive. I feel my current Necron, GK, and SW lists are all very powerful and none of them utilize allies let alone FW units!

Although the GE Pasadena RTs are definitely the biggest and baddest in So Cal

Regarding allowing forgeworld, why is everyone so hard up on only using the official forgeworld models to represent the forgeworld unit.

As far as I am able to tell "Counts As" armies are still allowed and conversions from one kit to another are allowed, such as those who converted Tervigons out of carnifexes, as long as the TO sees the model before hand and gives his approval.

Forgeworld cannot be bought anywhere but through official GW channels so it can't be an attempt to increase sales through GE or any other store running those events.

I could see an arguement because of the possibility of confusion arrising from uncommon rules being used with a slightly different model.

However, in my experience, the Sisters White Dwarf codex is incredibly difficult to find these days and significantly more difficult to locate than just about any currently "legal" forgeworld book. I imagine a well done "Counts As" sisters army would be acceptable or a converted immolator or exorcist so long as the model was the appropriate size and was fairly obvious about what it was. I don't see how this is any different from being required to use the actual ForgeWorld models.

Considering that Forgeworld cannot be bought in LGS and therefore the TO doesn't get any kickback from requring it and no other types of units requires the actual model to be used why require the official model?

If it is to decrease confusion

Was just wondering, if sportsmanship scores can be altered a bit to decrease the potential for a large gap/misuse? Or either just make it thumbs up or thumbs down?

Don't get me wrong, the orginal scoring works well, if done right. However, if someone has bad feelings after losing a game or because a debate/argument arose in game, the probability of giving a 0 - 2 will greatly affect the scores of the other player. Also, another thing is that some other players who knows more people than others, and been playing with other people for a long time. How does this compare to playing a player who isn't as talkative or just tends to think instead of chatting with their opponent? What I'm getting at is a known player can be scored a 6 easily whereas playing a silent/thinker player can be given 4 easy as well.

Just curious what the community thinks.
Thanks and I look forward to playing in this tournament!

mikkoboi wrote:Was just wondering, if sportsmanship scores can be altered a bit to decrease the potential for a large gap/misuse? Or either just make it thumbs up or thumbs down?
Don't get me wrong, the orginal scoring works well, if done right. However, if someone has bad feelings after losing a game or because a debate/argument arose in game, the probability of giving a 0 - 2 will greatly affect the scores of the other player.

This part is, and always has been, a built in weakness of *any* Sportsmanship scoring. Yeah, the TO will inquire about zeros given, but you're right. A '2' effectively sinks a player's chance at a Best Sports award. Not much to be done about a sore player giving vindictive ratings.

James Bond beats the tar out of you, regardless of what game, and he does it with style, great sportsmanship and elegance, as 007 will do in any endeavor. The guy probably poops elegantly. Bond still ought to get the '6', seeing as, you know, it's James does everything with style like a gentleman Bond.

The petty villain gives him a '0'. Oh, well. 007 earned the '6', but hatuhs gonna h8.

mikkoboi wrote:Also, another thing is that some other players who knows more people than others, and been playing with other people for a long time. How does this compare to playing a player who isn't as talkative or just tends to think instead of chatting with their opponent? What I'm getting at is a known player can be scored a 6 easily whereas playing a silent/thinker player can be given 4 easy as well.

Last month's RTT, I played 3 strangers, not regulars from GE Pasadena. I was given Best Sports for the event. It's happened a few times; players who I haven't met before giving me high marks for Sportsmanship. I've received it playing a mix of known guys and strangers, too.

I don't think it has much to do with familiarity as much as just ... being a good sport.

As for the quiet guy thing:
Two guys, Quiet Quincy compared to Gregarious/out Going Guy, Greg:
1. Both give in to the same fudgy Line-Of-Sight call the opponent (Ollie) brings up, in the Ollie's favor
2. Both are cool enough to allow Ollie to 'take back' something or declare a charge after having completely fought another h2h
3. Both Quincy and Greg give Ollie a lot of leeway.
4. Both guys are really good sports when Ollie slow-plays and pulls some shenanigans. They point it out, but each does so very politely and nicely, giving Ollie a Face Saving way to recover, so there's no 'uncomfortable moments'.

Quincy is a quiet guy, while Greg talks pleasantly, throughout. Ollie, while being a douche, actually has more fun because of atmosphere and conversation in the game with Greg. I easily see Ollie giving Greg a 6 and Quincy a 4. It is a social game, so being more social makes it a better experience, yes?

I'd bring up McKayla Maroney's sour-puss mew when she got Silver ... I'm not sure how it fits in here, but if she was all smiles and chatty, then we'd all think a wee bit better of her attitude. Dang, man, just think if the Olympics had Sportsmanship as part of its scoring!

Brothererekose wrote:

mikkoboi wrote:Was just wondering, if sportsmanship scores can be altered a bit to decrease the potential for a large gap/misuse? Or either just make it thumbs up or thumbs down?
Don't get me wrong, the orginal scoring works well, if done right. However, if someone has bad feelings after losing a game or because a debate/argument arose in game, the probability of giving a 0 - 2 will greatly affect the scores of the other player.

This part is, and always has been, a built in weakness of *any* Sportsmanship scoring. Yeah, the TO will inquire about zeros given, but you're right. A '2' effectively sinks a player's chance at a Best Sports award. Not much to be done about a sore player giving vindictive ratings.

James Bond beats the tar out of you, regardless of what game, and he does it with style, great sportsmanship and elegance, as 007 will do in any endeavor. The guy probably poops elegantly. Bond still ought to get the '6', seeing as, you know, it's James does everything with style like a gentleman Bond.

The petty villain gives him a '0'. Oh, well. 007 earned the '6', but hatuhs gonna h8.

mikkoboi wrote:Also, another thing is that some other players who knows more people than others, and been playing with other people for a long time. How does this compare to playing a player who isn't as talkative or just tends to think instead of chatting with their opponent? What I'm getting at is a known player can be scored a 6 easily whereas playing a silent/thinker player can be given 4 easy as well.

Last month's RTT, I played 3 strangers, not regulars from GE Pasadena. I was given Best Sports for the event. It's happened a few times; players who I haven't met before giving me high marks for Sportsmanship. I've received it playing a mix of known guys and strangers, too.

I don't think it has much to do with familiarity as much as just ... being a good sport.

As for the quiet guy thing:
Two guys, Quiet Quincy compared to Gregarious/out Going Guy, Greg:
1. Both give in to the same fudgy Line-Of-Sight call the opponent (Ollie) brings up, in the Ollie's favor
2. Both are cool enough to allow Ollie to 'take back' something or declare a charge after having completely fought another h2h
3. Both Quincy and Greg give Ollie a lot of leeway.
4. Both guys are really good sports when Ollie slow-plays and pulls some shenanigans. They point it out, but each does so very politely and nicely, giving Ollie a Face Saving way to recover, so there's no 'uncomfortable moments'.

Quincy is a quiet guy, while Greg talks pleasantly, throughout. Ollie, while being a douche, actually has more fun because of atmosphere and conversation in the game with Greg. I easily see Ollie giving Greg a 6 and Quincy a 4. It is a social game, so being more social makes it a better experience, yes?

I'd bring up McKayla Maroney's sour-puss mew when she got Silver ... I'm not sure how it fits in here, but if she was all smiles and chatty, then we'd all think a wee bit better of her attitude. Dang, man, just think if the Olympics had Sportsmanship as part of its scoring!

Yeah she took that really hard, both the fall and the silver... But that is a legit emotion since and I would say she had all the right to show that sour-puss face as you have mentioned. She just lost her gold!!

That aside, the way I interpret your response is that it should be in and it is fine as it is, with no changes/alterations needed. I assume this since I really didn't get a direct answer aside from the humorous examples you had laid out.

I get it that you got Best Sports several times. That's good for you, but what I'm talking about is the overall score being affected by numeric Sportsmanship scores. In my opinion it would be better to have a thumbs up/thumbs down or 0/1 for the sake of Overall Scoring, and separate the 0/2/4/6 for the Best Sports.

You are right that it is a social game, but when the social aspect greatly affects the Overall Scores, it becomes subjective. On your first paragraph you mentioned that there's nothing to be done against a sore player giving a low sportsman score against his winning opponent, in my opinion, there is. The suggestions that I have thought up above, I think makes it more streamlined and that issue about someone giving a low Sportsman Score can be eliminated in terms of the Overall Score.

That's all I can say. I am merely expressing an opinion and you may not agree to it, but that's just how I think about it. Again, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not bashing the tournament scoring, and I'd still play because it's just a lot of fun. I just thought I'd throw that out there for people to talk about.

Thanks.