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.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

What's wrong with deathstar? It's not pejorative, it's a legit list-building strategy.

Or have I missed something?

most often theyre not terribly fun to play against (and for some armies, sometimes literally impossible to deal with) and often work because they're able to take advantage of stuff the game technically allows but really never intended (such as 2+ rerollable invul saves or 1+/2+ FNP, stuff that once were purely the realm of 4chan hyperbole), while frequently made possible through the combination of things that starkly fly in the face of the game's background and that the game had previously gone to great lengths to prevent.

Yes, but it is a tournament setting. This is the killing ground of the most broken stuff and those going there should expect little else, right?

I mean, if youre going for best general sure. Not all events however prioritize that however, and many seek to blunt the greater extremes somewhat with sportsmanship in some way. Deathstars are also often seen as something of a crutch, doing stuff the game typically doesnt allow for except through clever manipulation of rules/units/wargear thay wasnt really intended, which has its own sportsmanship implications. It all dependsnon the tone of the event.

I think there should be a "worst sport" award in one tourney. Warning, bring your worst models that you care nothing about (cardboard cutouts or blank bases are a good plan), and watch tables get flipped, cheetos get thrown, and everyone arrive as a GUO.

I would oversee that tourney and have 911 on speed dial!!

Someone could have a army that's most explotive and ultra strengh mature chedder but as a person be a decent player and not the jerk there list is.

Players and choices may differ.

The best sport always went to the same person. A player who gets upset to tears if he rolls bad, or tries to reroll results if the we're unfavorable to him. When confronted he gets nervous, and calls the TO over to help him calm down. Literal tears are she'd and many times just randomly walks away to cool off and clear his head. Whines and instead of playing he will tell you everything you didn't want to know about his favorite comics and movie spoilers. He always gets best sportsmanship. Maybe it's just my store. I would think that it was the guy who won in stride and loss in stride with a smile and laugh in the face of defeat.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I mean, if youre going for best general sure. Not all events however prioritize that however, and many seek to blunt the greater extremes somewhat with sportsmanship in some way. Deathstars are also often seen as something of a crutch, doing stuff the game typically doesnt allow for except through clever manipulation of rules/units/wargear thay wasnt really intended, which has its own sportsmanship implications. It all dependsnon the tone of the event.

Building the best list you can for a tournament is a crutch?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think there should be a "worst sport" award in one tourney. Warning, bring your worst models that you care nothing about (cardboard cutouts or blank bases are a good plan), and watch tables get flipped, cheetos get thrown, and everyone arrive as a GUO.

I would oversee that tourney and have 911 on speed dial!!

You could make a pretty good go of it with Orks. They had boyz, nobz and swanky heavy weapons as card print offs in rogue trader, a deffdread in 2nd ed and you could probably port over the stone thrower from whfb 4th ed to use as a lobber gun! Then you've got the white dwarf card cut out templates for a variety of vehicles which would make good ard case looted wagons, battlewagons and so on. If a good ork codex comes along a paper ork army could make a good showing, all with 'official' 'miniatures'.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I mean, if youre going for best general sure. Not all events however prioritize that however, and many seek to blunt the greater extremes somewhat with sportsmanship in some way. Deathstars are also often seen as something of a crutch, doing stuff the game typically doesnt allow for except through clever manipulation of rules/units/wargear thay wasnt really intended, which has its own sportsmanship implications. It all dependsnon the tone of the event.

Building the best list you can for a tournament is a crutch?

I said "seen" as a crutch, primarily when they are only viable through means that are weren't intended but are allowed because the game allows books to mix-mish-and-mash stuff between different armies that aren't designed with such combinations in mind, or through mechanisms the game takes great pains to avoid being possible in most instances but doesn't always catch.

 JamesY wrote:
I'd rather be the guy that people enjoyed spending an hour with, than the guy who won every game. I'm not saying you can't be both, but if you can only be one or the other...

Honestly, I'd rather be the guy that people enjoyed spending an hour with who won about half of his games.

Winning every game probably wouldn't be very fun for my opponents, no matter how pleasant a player I am.

I mean, yeah, I wouldn't win any tournaments, but that probably wasn't ever going to happen anyways.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

What's wrong with deathstar? It's not pejorative, it's a legit list-building strategy.

Or have I missed something?

most often theyre not terribly fun to play against (and for some armies, sometimes literally impossible to deal with) and often work because they're able to take advantage of stuff the game technically allows but really never intended (such as 2+ rerollable invul saves or 1+/2+ FNP, stuff that once were purely the realm of 4chan hyperbole), while frequently made possible through the combination of things that starkly fly in the face of the game's background and that the game had previously gone to great lengths to prevent.

Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

LOL! True dat!
I had friends on that Deathstar!

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

People don't want perspective. They want to point their fingers and cry "Zomgop!" and shake their fists in anger the first time some chancer whups them using a combination they didn't know about in an army they've never played against before.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

 Vaktathi wrote:
I said "seen" as a crutch, primarily when they are only viable through means that are weren't intended but are allowed because the game allows books to mix-mish-and-mash stuff between different armies that aren't designed with such combinations in mind, or through mechanisms the game takes great pains to avoid being possible in most instances but doesn't always catch.

{citation needed}

How do you know that those things weren't intended? It's pretty clear from the complete lack of balance in 7th edition that GW's rules authors are throwing out whatever random stuff they feel like, so something being beyond 5th edition design concepts in power level doesn't mean it wasn't a deliberate choice.

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Don't worry Pouncey, they all got the reference, it's just hard to resist messing with Star Wars lessons.

For me, the best sportsman is the person who I enjoyed playing agains the most. Be it because they had a fun army, were a enjoyable person or a little of both.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Don't worry Pouncey, they all got the reference, it's just hard to resist messing with Star Wars lessons.

The Star Wars lesson was completely relevant. The 40k term is a direct reference to the movies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I said "seen" as a crutch, primarily when they are only viable through means that are weren't intended but are allowed because the game allows books to mix-mish-and-mash stuff between different armies that aren't designed with such combinations in mind, or through mechanisms the game takes great pains to avoid being possible in most instances but doesn't always catch.

{citation needed}

How do you know that those things weren't intended? It's pretty clear from the complete lack of balance in 7th edition that GW's rules authors are throwing out whatever random stuff they feel like, so something being beyond 5th edition design concepts in power level doesn't mean it wasn't a deliberate choice.

Occams Razor would strongly suggest these things are unintended byproducts of terrible game design rather than cleverly created intentional easter eggs of power insanity, particularly when they often fly starkly in the face of the game's established fluff that is the core of the value of the IP or are only possible in weird specific ways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Deathstar units often dont need to destroy more than a couple units per game depending on ehat those are, and more to the point, through clever use of multiple assaults, can often clear a flank and destroy multiple units in a single round. Such units are expensive, but usually amount to a total of only 1 or 2 units fewer than an opponent. My last CSM tournament list had 14 KP's, the deathstar SW list I faced round 2 with a 500pt TWC deathstar was....12 KP's.


I think stopping at "big and killy" is usually sufficient

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

Don't worry Pouncey, they all got the reference, it's just hard to resist messing with Star Wars lessons.

The Star Wars lesson was completely relevant. The 40k term is a direct reference to the movies.

And my point was that it hits extremely hard and is extremely powerful to the point where you going for the win condition of "not killing it" is still difficult because it gets in your face and forces you to do so.

Also, are you sure it's not Star Trek it came from? I feel like it's something Picard said in Revenge of the Sith.

(Sarcasm because duh )

Oh don't be so glum. A lucky die roll here and there and you can fall ass backwards into placing but half the people who show up to tournaments couldn't win best sport if they tried. Be proud, you showed up to play toy space mans and walked away with the best person award. Good haul, imho.

 slip wrote:
Oh don't be so glum. A lucky die roll here and there and you can fall ass backwards into placing but half the people who show up to tournaments couldn't win best sport if they tried. Be proud, you showed up to play toy space mans and walked away with the best person award. Good haul, imho.

Well said.

 kingbobbito wrote:
I never play extremely seriously, as it's just a game, so I try to bring decent but fun lists to events at my FLGS. Even though terminators are semi-trash I still run a lot of DW, I use a lot of foot infantry, I don't spam any of my better units, etc. I still win some of my tournament games (1 out of 3 or 4 usually) but I'm mostly just having fun. I'm up against mostly eldar, some tau, some gladius marines, and space wolve deathstar lists.

I don't paint well so never win that award, I've only placed 2nd twice and 3rd four times out of a few dozen events, but at least 50% of the time (lately almost every event) I win best sportsman. More and more I'm beginning to feel bad winning it because it seems like I only win it because people feel bad for me playing enjoyable lists. I mean, at my last event when my first opponent saw my list he said "looks like you'll be winning best sportsman today". It really has me put off and makes me want to build hardcore lists or just give up on tournament play.

What do you guys think?

How exactly is playing with one hand tied behind your back and still pulling of the occasionally win a pity prize? While other people enjoy "Don't hurt me" difficulty your playing at "Ultra nightmare"

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 slip wrote:
Oh don't be so glum. A lucky die roll here and there and you can fall ass backwards into placing but half the people who show up to tournaments couldn't win best sport if they tried. Be proud, you showed up to play toy space mans and walked away with the best person award. Good haul, imho.

Well said.

I second that.
Especially as someone who never managed to gain a real foothold in the hobby because of all the people taking it waaaay to serious. I started collecting and painting because the fluff and style intrigued me but after a few rounds at different GW stores I just kept to myself and stopped playing, just collecting modells I like, because of the toxic attitudes most people had towards new players.
Nobody would've won "Best Sportsman" there.

"Best sports" isn't a pity prize.

"Wooden spoon" is.

Or, as I like to call it, a "condescension prize".

"Here, you came last, here's some new dice that won't suck as much".

 chromedog wrote:
"Best sports" isn't a pity prize.

"Wooden spoon" is.

Or, as I like to call it, a "condescension prize".

"Here, you came last, here's some new dice that won't suck as much".

Maybe there needs to be a wooden sportsman, where the 'winner' is given a copy of 'How to Make Friends and Influence People'?

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
How exactly is playing with one hand tied behind your back and still pulling of the occasionally win a pity prize?

Because most of the time the people who get the pity prize aren't skilled players playing "40k on hard mode" and still winning, they're people who suck at the game getting massacred because they're incapable of doing any better (or stubbornly obsessed with "casual at all costs" rules and unwilling to do better). It's a participation trophy, you give it to someone who has no hope of ever accomplishing anything else so they can be happy that they won a prize.

Nope. Because if you can't be a good sport while winning, you're a dick that no one wants to play with anyway.