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.

Dman137 wrote:
Year after year you run into people that go to tournaments with non competitive army's and then bomb the players that beat them.. Why did you come to the event.?? What were you hoping to accomplish.? I'm sure many of you have seen this, what are your views on non competitive players going to events but then bash it about how OP players were and also bombing there soft scores.

A fair statement, since the current ruleset supports and allows TFG and WAAC people to take full advantage of broken rules/codices.

Which, by the way is not the intent of GW. They have stated, it's supposed to be a non-compettive game played by friends. Friends is the key word, not competetive strangers. Jarvis has verbally bashed the competitive scene, several times.

Maybe you were a dick while playing against this person, and that's why they bombed your scores? I've found the majority of "competitive" players have a sliding scale of how much they're winning and how much of a pompous jerk they are to an enemy player.

If you start your premise with "why do people with an INFERIOR list that can't possibly stand up in any *snort* SERIOUS tournament setting always-" then odds are, these are not people "maliciously bombing" your soft scores. They're people scoring you.

Dman137 wrote:
Why did you come to the event.??

If soft scores and people wanting to have fun without "winning" being their one and only overriding motive is such a problem for you, why don't you go play in a chess tournament. Or professional rugby. Or whatever.

No soft scores. No people playing just to see nicely painted plastic toys. No stressed office-people simply wanting to unwind after a hard week with some dice-rolling. Hard-core competitive all the way.

Trying to be "competitive" in a game explicitly not designed to be competitive... what did you expect?

Why of all the millions of games and sports that are so much better at scrating that "competitive itch" would you pick 40K?

Go beat Kasparov. Than you can truly brag about your competitive skillz.

Dman137 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I can't see how this thread will end well, but my £0.02...

You can't ban uncompetitive players. They may have come for their enjoyment, to have a good time. And you want to stop that? Just don't be a dick during play, let them understand why they aren't winning. In time, they'll be well aware of the fact that they are outclassed. It's their loss, not yours. In the meantime, just be happy with the fact you got an easy win with your hypothetical cheese-of-the-week list.

That's the issue, there are some that are nice guys and understand that there army didn't stack up, but then there's the guys that make it there goal that if they don't win then they will bomb you and pretty much kill your chance at overall. I've seen a lot of guys put on a smile the whole game a be really friendly and then turn there score sheet in and there's zeros everywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dude this is a dice game...Any army can win. Any army can create miss matches. The problem is TO that make games that give you such a huge lead in points for obliterating your opponent. Victory conditions should be simple and be fair for any army to achieve.

I agree on that point. But I feel like to many of your points are left in the hands of the other player and some people let emotions control them when there scoring

Sounds like it's more of an issue with you. I'm polite to the worst power gamers at tournies (not worth the aggrevation) but you are darn right I will right will mark a TFG on a comp sheet.

Dman137 wrote:
Why did you come to the event.?? What were you hoping to accomplish.?

Ugh, preach it to me brother! What could these plebs possibly hope to achieve?! And how can I help but snort derisively and rub their face in it as I wipe unit after unit off their side of the board? So what if I laugh a little (ok, a lot) with every roll of a one that they really needed to be a six? When I openly mock them for their poor grasp of tactics and frankly gak application of strategy I feel great about myself. If tears start forming, I really feel like I accomplished something then. I make them realize. Realize that they don't belong across the table from me!

Why are they at such an event if they have a subpar list and no grasp of tactics?

Why do they even play 40K?

Hell, why are they even alive?!

I'm embarrassed for them.

Dman137 wrote:
Year after year you run into people that go to tournaments with non competitive army's and then bomb the players that beat them.. Why did you come to the event.?? What were you hoping to accomplish.? I'm sure many of you have seen this, what are your views on non competitive players going to events but then bash it about how OP players were and also bombing there soft scores.

A lot of the time, particularly at the local level, such events are some of the only opportunities for play at all for various reasons.

The ethos the game espouses also is plainly trying to downplay any sort of competitive atmosphere. "Competitive" really is trying to hamfist the game into being something it isn't, and something it clearly isn't intended, designed, or suited to be, and when people go off the deep end with that, they can face their own forms of backlash.

I'd like to point out that building a list to counter a meta game is not being TFG in any way.

Ugh, preach it to me brother! What could these plebs possibly hope to achieve?! And how can I help but snort derisively and rub their face in it as I wipe unit after unit off their side of the board? So what if I laugh a little (ok, a lot) with every roll of a one that they really needed to be a six? When I openly mock them for their poor grasp of tactics and frankly gak application of strategy I feel great about myself. If tears start forming, I really feel like I accomplished something then. I make them realize. Realize that they don't belong across the table from me!

Oh boy I giggled

Dman137 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dude this is a dice game...Any army can win. Any army can create miss matches. The problem is TO that make games that give you such a huge lead in points for obliterating your opponent. Victory conditions should be simple and be fair for any army to achieve.

I agree on that point. But I feel like to many of your points are left in the hands of the other player and some people let emotions control them when there scoring

So, basically, you either want people to give you kudos for being TFG, or you want to not be penalized for being TFG, at events which are intended to expand the hobby, not be a showcase for a couple of TFGs.

Hey OP are you sure you weren't meaning to post in this thread? : http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/661406.page#8076070

Seeing as I got more time to elaborate on my previous statement:

Usually, the tournaments I enter have shared scoring; ie points for each game, painting, modelling, and friendliness to others. IMHO, that's how it should be done, giving less competitive players something to smile about. Hell, I never make it over the top half in my tourneys, but I've always won Most Sporting Player. I go for the fun and new opponents: I never got to fight Nids, Eldar, Dark Eldar or Daemons before then.

To be fair, a lot of what the OP is saying is less to do with uncompetetive people than it is with people being a-holes. Let's face it, do you reckon that every single competetive player would 100% turn down a chance to lower their better opponent's scores? Because, let's face it, they've already gone halfway by min-maxing their list.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Seeing as I got more time to elaborate on my previous statement:

Usually, the tournaments I enter have shared scoring; ie points for each game, painting, modelling, and friendliness to others. IMHO, that's how it should be done, giving less competitive players something to smile about. Hell, I never make it over the top half in my tourneys, but I've always won Most Sporting Player. I go for the fun and new opponents: I never got to fight Nids, Eldar, Dark Eldar or Daemons before then.

To be fair, a lot of what the OP is saying is less to do with uncompetetive people than it is with people being a-holes. Let's face it, do you reckon that every single competetive player would 100% turn down a chance to lower their better opponent's scores? Because, let's face it, they've already gone halfway by min-maxing their list.

My perspective is that purely competitive tournaments shouldn't include painting or sportsmanship scores, as it should be all about the competition of playing the game; leave the painting to the painting competition and let TOs handle sportsmanship.

However, pure competition isn't why most people go to tournaments. Most players, including myself, go for the fun of meeting new people with different armies and getting in lots of games. I feel that the last tournament I attended (March Madness at Mizewell Games) did things very well. The TO asked us to submit our army lists beforehand, and the tournament players were seeded against each other in such as way as to reflect the power of their lists. The players who were there for fun got some good matchups, and the players who were there to win all fought each other and couldn't claim they coasted to victory. I feel that painting and sportsmanship scores should be part of the scoring for events that aren't major GTs. Most of the major conventions also include a more fun-oriented tournament outside the GT they hold for this reason.

One note about the OP: this is the same person from this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/150/660633.page
Get your popcorn while it's hot!

So... what defines a "competitive" player?

I mean, do you have to play either Cheesedar, Invincicrons, or Brokehammer to be considered "competitive"?

I have a solution. No players should come to events.

Since there are no players at the event, every player at the event will then be equal, and there will be no arguments, no emotions that get out of control, and no problems.

It's perfect.

When I go to a tourney I plan to win. Generally that means lots of test games to optimize and get the synergy down. It also means I expect to see the best the other gamers can bring. That said - I can pretty easily ID who came "tournament ready" and who has the "fun" list. If I end up against that person I make a point of providing my list, making my rule books close and acsessable with (read what you want and when) and then say good luck - but I'm here to win. Expect no mercy. Or something simaler. If I get the win, wich is not always I try to be as nice about it as possible. Pack up and move on. I don't "analyze" the mistakes or "you should have" anything. - I do offer a "if you'd like my advise, or how I beat you let me know"
And I usually try to compliment the other guys models/painting.
If I lose its simaler. Good game, shake hands move on.

TFG at tourneys are the ones who imho show up with a OP-netlist, then brag about how awsome they are. Or the guys who buy painted models from someone else online and enter them into painting competition. And then get mad and hit my sportsmanship score when I zero them on painting. Sorry. You don't paint it? You don't get credit from me and should not be winning best painter.

Edit(hit send accidentally)

But I find in tournaments there are always a few who show up thinking its friendly casual and a few others coming in hardcore must win. Majority seem to be in the middile. I try to be mid scale with an edge towards if I'm paying to play a tournament I'm playing to win - but I also expect to have fun and it's not fun to table people 2nd turn and have them grumble about you all day.

Sorry let me try to explain my post a bit better. I'm not saying people that have fluff army's can't come to events or people with not so competitive army's. My argument is. There are people that go to events and will bomb players scores based on emotion, let it be they lost, got tabled just over all didn't like the army the other person was playing.
Events should have judging done like they did back in the day.
Your games are just battle points.
Painting is judged by the judges (T.Os)
Sportsmanship at the end of the day you write down who your fav opponent was.

Taking a WAAC army dosent mean you should get bombed on your soft scores, maybe that's what kind of army that person likes to play. I myself like playing with my scattbike army regardless of what people think of eldar, not one person that I no thinks I'm a bad person and I've been told I'm a great sport and have won best sports awards in more then 1 occasion, but when I see someone bomb me or someone else based on "he used a cheese army" and gives him a zero, I draw the line there, like are you that much of a sour b$&@ that you can't event accept that you lost.

I can't IMAGINE why people would mark your sportsmanship down with an attitude like that.

I don't think I understand? How could the other player bomb your scores? Do they seriously include a "Your favorite opponent" category to determine the winner? That seems like a very wonky system to base a tournament on.

Events I've been to usually have a score for having the entire army painted + based and then the battle score from the games you played. Seems like the most objective way to determine the winner. Sure a prize is given for "best painted army" but that has no bearing on the tournament ranking.

I go to tournaments fully knowing I'm not going to win the thing but I try to make the game fun. The only time I was being petty about it was when the opponents WERE TFG's. Nit-picking every action on our side while their actions were the ones that needed constant monitoring. It was obvious they were in it for the win and the rules were not going to stop them from having it. Denied them the "table victory" by having one squad alive in a building out of line of sight at the end of the game. It was a dick move and it cost them first place at the end of the tournament but if you're going to be an arse you're going to be treated as one.

Apparently, the Chaos daemon player, who supposedly had been playing the army for years, used Grimmoire on the model carrying it the entire time (while that obvious wasn't allowed). He didn't do it against us because my partner played CD (altough not in the tournament). When they rolled for rewards, I asked my partner what "that grimmoire thingy did" and he explained it fully so they darn well knew we wouldn't allow them to do it.

I, too, hate when not everyone showers praise and affection upon me. I beat you in a game, so I'm better than you. Full. Stop. I don't see why people get bent out of shape about the facts. They always seem to get emotional when I'm explaining how much better I am and why. Then, even after a detailed explanation not only do they not understand it but they won't even mark me down as a good sport!

fething infuriating!

DaPino wrote:
I don't think I understand? How could the other player bomb your scores? Do they seriously include a "Your favorite opponent" category to determine the winner? That seems like a very wonky system to base a tournament on.

Events I've been to usually have a score for having the entire army painted + based and then the battle score from the games you played. Seems like the most objective way to determine the winner. Sure a prize is given for "best painted army" but that has no bearing on the tournament ranking.

I go to tournaments fully knowing I'm not going to win the thing but I try to make the game fun. The only time I was a dick about it was when the opponents WERE TFG's by nit-picking every action on our side while their actions were the ones that needed constant monitoring. It was obvious they were in it for the win and they were being dicks about it. Denied them the "table victory" by having one squad alive in a building out of line of sight at the end of the game. It was a dick move and it cost them first place at the end of the tournament but if you're going to be an arse you're going to be treated as one.

I've literally witnessed two guys playing (had finished my game ahead of time) and they were laughing having a good time the game drew a small group of guys all watching enjoying every min of it. Game ends it was like a minor lose or something for one guy and then we find out he gave the other guy a zero for sports and painting.. People like that have no business being at a event

Honestly, take a very strong (some may say OVERPOWERED) list, and prepare for people to not enjoy it as much.

Think of it as a tradeoff: You guarantee a win, but people won't enjoy it as much OR take a tamer, more fun list, and perhaps people may enjoy it. At the end of the day, sportmanship scores are based on how much they enjoyed your company, after all.

Also, If you were such a good general, you could win with an neutered list anyways.

Niv, the point isn't "list building is bad", I like the variety of 40k. But look at chess, where the game is decided 100% on strategy and tactics executed within the game, and then something like constructed format in Magic, where in-game tactics are relatively simple but the deck building and meta are very complex.

I've got my preferences as you guessed, but the difference definitely exists.

The worst time I ever had at a tournament was some time pre-Nid update in 6th. It was because a guy came to a tournament very unprepared and I really don't think he wanted to have fun.

It was a relatively low point game. I was playing Tau with a HBC Riptide. Not really much else I can remember.
This guy was playing Nids.

When I showed up, he was already talking to a friend about how he hasn't played since 4th but how he was hesitant to show up because of those fething OP tau and the jerks that use them.

Right before I started unpacking my Tau. That I started playing mid 5th. He notices and him and his friend watch and mutter back and forth. Almost like it was scripted he'd mention something like Riptides or Crisis suits right before I pulled them out and set them up on my little tray.

During all this dead time we don't say anything to each other and eventually the game starts. I missed him Round 1, but got him as my second round game.
We started setting up, he didn't ask anything about my army and I asked lots of questions about his before we deployed. I never played Nids before and was unfamiliar.
He is set to go first but I stole initiative. I set my Buffcommander HBC Riptide up and unload into the tyrant and questions start flying.
How can you re-roll hits?
How can you re-roll wounds?
What do you mean I don't get the night fighting bonus?

His Tyrant dies and he just calls it and packs up. Saying how he shouldn't have even bothered and leaves the store. I felt like TFG because I had just made someone drop out of the game (never saw him after) because I used an OP unit. It ruined a big part of the game for me because I felt like I should have ham-stringed myself and still makes me intentionally tone down my lists because I'm concerned about the same thing happening again.

I don't mind at all that non-competitive players are there. I've had fun games playing them. I just wish people knew what they were walking into before the game.

^Honestly it sounds like it was entirely his issue.

 curran12 wrote:
I can't IMAGINE why people would mark your sportsmanship down with an attitude like that.

I can't fathom it either!

Although the OP might be a troll , it doesn't matter really; there is some truth in there.

There are people who are disconnected with reality when it comes to their 40k skills, army, the rules and the meta.

I had my personal share of old timers who haven't played for 2 years coming to tournaments. These are people who have no idea what they are going into and that's their fault. They bring out old armies without knowing any recent rule change or codex, while somewhat hoping to get some success in the table.

And if they fail at that they get bitter. They make the game unejoyable for their opponent and the players nearby.

I am not talking about noob players, or players who just paint and want to show off their army. But you can't deny there are people like i described, not knowing what they are getting into and blaming their opponents and rules and the TO or whatever they can find.

They are literally old men shouting at clouds, they don't bring anything positive into the game. They are so dillusionally entitled that the army which got 3rd at a store championship in 5th edition can win them games against a 7th edition power house. They can't even differantiate a 7th edition codex from 6th.

These people have no idea of the rules, they have no idea what they want and unless on the off chance they win some games they will bring only bitterness into tournaments, nothing else.

Sure, there's TFG competitive and casual players. But the existence of TFG casuals doesn't mean that no casuals should be allowed to try to compete, otherwise you might as well say because there's TFG competitive players, no competitive player should compete.

The problem is that the game has such a steep learning curve if people aren't really familiar with tactics forums and the like.
It might not be that someone just assumes the 5th ed list will win in 7th, so much as they don't know what to know.

Not everyone keeps up to date with armies, and really I can't expect them to with the price of books and the number and potentially short life spans.

Really I think one of the issues in my area is the TO's need to be more involved with the game. We tried limiting FOC's but that affects some armies more than others.

The last tournament I played, before they died off completely, was a simple 500 point game. Rules were posted a week before that stated a min FOC and randomized games.
But 5/8 players were at the store the night before with the TO and they decided that no FOC requirement and all kill points would be better.

I showed up with more kill points available than two other lists combined. Now it sucks, but I think it was something we should do in practice more often. A week before the game have people show up and turn in lists and swap them around after discussing and agreeing on the restrictions. Then the next week play. No excuse for not knowing what to expect.

 toasteroven wrote:
I have a solution. No players should come to events.

Since there are no players at the event, every player at the event will then be equal, and there will be no arguments, no emotions that get out of control, and no problems.

It's perfect.

...I see you have come over to GW's way of thinking about things

 Melissia wrote:
Sure, there's TFG competitive and casual players. But the existence of TFG casuals doesn't mean that no casuals should be allowed to try to compete, otherwise you might as well say because there's TFG competitive players, no competitive player should compete.

Head explodes!!

But, yes, you are absolutely right

Anyways, it's a PUBLIC event, which means that anyone who fits the criteria can participate, regardless of how they measure on the casualometer or Tee-eff-geemeter. If they are excessively rude, complain to the TO. If they are excessively casual, beat them and move on. If you never want to meet someone who is a jerk or doesn't like playing the same way as you.... don't go to events at all, and play with people you've pre-screened as being like-minded in gaming.

But for events... no matter how you cut it... they paid their twenty bucks and helped support the event And even if it was a free event... they probably bought food and other stuff and supported the venue. Rawr!