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.

A metagame that involves manipulating the scoring system while not actually creating a new ruleset is not a metagame.

It's called cheating.

Please differentiate your concepts properly before you start in with the 'metagame! metagame! metagame!' idiocy.

I'm not calling you an idiot, I'm calling the calling of cheating a 'metagame' idiotic.

Since I joined, my information has been available.

If it's so difficult to find....I'm speechless.

A metagame that involves manipulating the scoring system while not actually creating a new ruleset is not a metagame.

No offence meant, but are you sure you know what is meant by the term "metagame"? A metagame is rarely "a new ruleset" per se.

It's called cheating.

What an interesting definition. Last I checked, cheating meant "breaking the rules." Has it changed recently?

Stelek wrote:Really? Who got 11th place in 03?

Can't tell, can ya.

Nope, you can't.

As far as who I am, I swear there is a search function on Dakka...use it?

Michael Cosson was 11th place in the 40k Gladiator in 2003
Michael Mcguiggan was 11th place in the 40k Championships in 2003

I'm not seeing any dominating performances by an Andrew Sutton anywhere....

something like this "hi my name is keith nyberg." We can then go look and see what we find.
you can see I really suck.

Stelek wrote:Since I joined, my information has been available.

If it's so difficult to find....I'm speechless.

I'm also not seeing Andrew Sutton in any record of any tournament anywhere.

Nomic is metagaming. What you (ok, and most everyone else) talks about isn't my view of metagaming, which is inventing new rules or overlaying different rules.

Cheating can be not only breaking, but the bending of the rules or the manipulation of the referee in your favor.

If you are playing army X because army Y is allowed in your circuit, this is a minimalist metagame. You haven't changed any rules, you are merely reacting to what an opponent you have yet to play MAY do. Minimalist, reactive.

Now if you are going to play Army J because of a scenario (or set of them) in said circuit, that's closer to true metagaming because a rules overlay (the scenario) has altered the rules of the game you are playing.

Make sense? I can give more examples, if you'd like.

Metagaming your gameplay is different then social engineering the paint judge, a rule judge, and your opponents into giving you better scores.

That's what I don't like, I don't think it's metagaming, I think it's dishonest and cheating. Just my viewpoint, I suppose.

http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Results_Coverage/seattle_2004/Results/Seat40Kresults.htm
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Results_Coverage/seattle_2004/40K/images/sutton_andrew_c.gif

he has major sportsmanship problems.

mauleed wrote:

I'm also not seeing Andrew Sutton in any record of any tournament anywhere.

Hello:

Mr. Sutton played in the Vegas 07 GT. Full results can be seen on our web site here:

http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/2007/tournamentcircuit/vegasgt/40k.htm

Thanks,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

As far as I know, I only have 2 records on the internet. Both held by GW.

FYI *I* was frigging 11th place, I have the scoresheet from that year--but it doesn't matter much since they lost me 3 times in a row. Can't imagine why I stopped going.

Either way, I'm not too worried about it. I know how good I am. I know how honest I am.

I wait patiently for the day when GW comes out with a gladiator style tournament, only without the morons running around with rulebooks stapled to their chest, and without the pre-released scenarios for everyone to metagame on.

If I social engineer my way to victory, what kind of victory is that? Nothing I'd be proud of.

I'm proud of my record, even if most of it's been lost over the years.

Ah well, here comes the

Stelek wrote:As far as I know, I only have 2 records on the internet. Both held by GW.

FYI *I* was frigging 11th place, I have the scoresheet from that year--but it doesn't matter much since they lost me 3 times in a row. Can't imagine why I stopped going.

Either way, I'm not too worried about it. I know how good I am. I know how honest I am.

I wait patiently for the day when GW comes out with a gladiator style tournament, only without the morons running around with rulebooks stapled to their chest, and without the pre-released scenarios for everyone to metagame on.

If I social engineer my way to victory, what kind of victory is that? Nothing I'd be proud of.

I'm proud of my record, even if most of it's been lost over the years.

Ah well, here comes the

ha ha

you could always offer the occasional deleted by mods to a red shirt in return for some small tid bit of what is being released next week.

Please stop feeding the blatantly obvious troll

(who doesn't even know what a metagame is)
(and insists he is good, but can't back it up with stats)
(and insists that he wins even though everyone around him cheats - by using the metagame) rofl

Stelek wrote:To dave taylor:

I've never had a judge be available to explain my painting, is this new? I'm only asking in that in 15 years of attending GW tournaments, I've always felt (and had this confirmed, sadly) that my scores were biased. Hell, I know it's hard to judge one's paint score, which is part of why I think it should be seperate from the scorecard--but far too often I see barely primed 3 color touch armies or half done paintjobs on foam boards beat the crap out of my own (and many other far superior paint jobs).

Will GW consider a seperate scoring system for painting?

Will painting be judged on plain whiteboards instead of the current?

I can't do anything about my work being graded with a primed army and stuck with the same score, since if one could appeal their lousy rating everyone would.

Hi Stelek

The typical problem that most organizers and players will find is that the question of "How can I improve my painting" always comes at the end of the tournament once score sheets are the only things available (ie. no recollection of army by the Paint Judge, particularly with 160+ armies being judged for 40K, and the player has packed their entire army away and there is no way to get the entire army out. So, this year, starting in Las Vegas, we asked our paint judges to make comments regarding the army so that we could provide some small measure of feedback for those players who wanted to ask about their painting at the end of the tournament.

I find it interesting that you mention 15+ years of GW tournaments. I can only assume that you mean tournaments for GW games, as our first US open GT was held in 1998, so I must admit I cannot speak for the tournaments you may have attended that were run by others.

I am confused by you question regarding "a seperate coring system for painting". Painting is scored seperately from Battle points and Sportsmanship. At the end of the tournament all three scores are added together for the Overall score. We also award prizes for Best General (Battle Points with a tiebreaker determined by your opponent's records), Best Painted (best painted army) and Best Sportsman (best sportsmanship score, with a Battle Points tiebreaker). Is there a point I'm missing?

Painting will be judged on how the army is presented. If you don't wish to have a display board distracting the judges eye, that's fine. If you present a great army on a crappy board you will suffer. Consistency is what ARMY painting is all about. Keep an eye out on our website in January for the rules we'll be using this year.

General Commentary:
We are very invested (personally and professionally) in presenting a great event. However, when the event relies on the interaction of individuals that we do not control we have to rely on the good behavior and sporting attitude of all of our participants. While all of us can "lose it" during intense competitive play, I've got to say I'm impressed by the geniality shown during this year's events. This is certainly a step in the right direction. Tournaments can be played in a friendly manner as long as we step to the table without the fragile ego, and look at each game as the opportunity to make friends and learn more about the great hobby we all love passionately.

Cheers
Dave Taylor
GW US Community Development Manager

skkipper wrote:http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Results_Coverage/seattle_2004/Results/Seat40Kresults.htm
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Results_Coverage/seattle_2004/40K/images/sutton_andrew_c.gif

he has major sportsmanship problems.

FYI I didn't paint that figure. I even put it on my record sheet.

I'm glad Rich found 1 of my 2 internet records....that exist today. I have a whole load of GT tickets sitting someplace. lol

Btw, as far as sportsmanship goes--I'm not a prick to play. I kill your army, and I do it dispassionately. I say "ok" to the point of infuriation. I don't show emotion when I lose most of my army, or my "big" unit. People don't know how to take it. Drives my wife crazy. Took stjohn 5 years to get past it, now we're friends. My friends back home called me the Vulcan. lol

Hello:

In the interest of Customer Service I believe I have found the GT results records for 2001 and 2002. Please let me know if you attended any of these tournaments and I will attempt to recover your records. We will work on getting those scores added to our archive as well if possible.

Thanks very much,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

well, the two records we do have on him make it possible that he is indeed 10-0 in those two tournament, though sadly GW doesn't bother to record wins/losses, only battle points so we can't tell.

But obviously his sports scores are highly suspect, and perhaps he is a cheating, intolerable Jerk. Perhaps not. My sports scores at the first two GTs I went to aren't any better, so I can sympathize if that's not the case.

But plenty of people on Dakka have played me over they years, and we have yet to find anyone that says I'm a jerk (at least when playing the game). So what I'd like to know is has anyone here ever played this gentleman and could they comment on his sportsmanship or lack thereof?

Stelek:

Nomic is metagaming. What you (ok, and most everyone else) talks about isn't my view of metagaming, which is inventing new rules or overlaying different rules.

These are both valid meanings of the word "metagame." They just refer to different things, with some degree of overlap. The fact that they use the same term is perhaps confusing, but that doesn't invalidate either meaning.

Cheating can be not only breaking, but the bending of the rules or the manipulation of the referee in your favor.

This seems to be an axiomatic statement that I can neither prove nor disprove. I can only disagree--I do not count the sort of metagaming we're talking about as cheating.

If you are playing army X because army Y is allowed in your circuit, this is a minimalist metagame. You haven't changed any rules, you are merely reacting to what an opponent you have yet to play MAY do. Minimalist, reactive.

I'd say this is a clear example of metagaming. If you hear Eldar and think Falcons and Harlies, and build your own force accordingly, then you're tapping into information that has its origin outside the game, i.e. that they are extremely popular choices in such armies. Likewise, if you go light on anti-horde because you know that there is no stronge horde list in the current army line-up, then you are also taking into account the metagame.

Now if you are going to play Army J because of a scenario (or set of them) in said circuit, that's closer to true metagaming because a rules overlay (the scenario) has altered the rules of the game you are playing.

Make sense? I can give more examples, if you'd like.

I don't need examples, I understand just fine. The point is that using a display board that looks a certain way, or an army that spams conversions, is no less an example of metagaming than the ones you've listed. In this case, you're taking into account objectives that exist outside the game (i.e. soft scores) and the likely factors that will affect this.

Andrew - to be fair to everyone else - on the old Dakka, your name was not in your profile and most of the times people do not include their name. I had checked the profile before based on a similar posting in I believe the 'ard Boyz thread below.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/197466.page

At least your new profile has it. Only through unnecessary cross referencing via google and various posts, was your exact name pinpointed previously. Interesting how this thread is going down a repeat cycle.

Why is anyone even taking this guy seriously,

he thinks metagaming is cheating, whatever that means.

RichCurren wrote:Hello:

In the interest of Customer Service I believe I have found the GT results records for 2001 and 2002. Please let me know if you attended any of these tournaments and I will attempt to recover your records. We will work on getting those scores added to our archive as well if possible.

Thanks very much,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

Rich - thanks for responding. Even though it is not for me, I must say it is a breath of fresh air to see the customer support improving. Dave Taylor and the rest of the crew have done an excellent job with that this year.

Hello:

If anything, this thread has helped me to locate information which people might enjoy to place on our web site and allows me to try and help out a customer with a complaint, so it is win-win in my book.

Thanks,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

Dave,

Yes, 15 years of playing GW tournaments. Local, regional, national, international. I see all events, whether run by you or by a third party, as reflective of GW. After all, if you didn't want someone to run a tournament odds are they wouldn't.

As far as painting goes:

I asked the judge who scored my army what was wrong with it. He said it was fine. I then asked him if I was poor, average, or superior. He said superior. I asked another judge that I'd seen judging what they thought of my army. They said it was good painting, but a display board would "bump it up". I asked a third judge, what the score was for armies with display boards and this judge replied boards were meaningless. So, my army was out, it was looked at, but I was given different answers. This is, as you know, a common problem. Could I get the person judging my painting to be the impartial 3rd one? That's what my issue is--that even being a proactive player is meaningless unless I'm going to try and social engineer my way up the points chart. The guy who got 2nd best painted was hovering over the judge, talking up his foam crap. That is what concerned me. Still does, because every tournament I go to; from local to international, appears tainted by the same kind of 'cooking'.

Makes me, and every single new friend I take, not want to go back the experience was so unpleasant.

Personally, I look forward to having a "display board" category for painting and a "just the army, hold the crap" category for painting. So I guess we'll see if having a brass etched plate on walnut will give +5 points or not, in January.

Anyway, given the prevelance of pro-painted armies (and lack of pro painters) at events, I think GW should stop kidding itself about painting being so important. It should be scored completely seperate, and have no bearing on overall. Overall shouldn't be won by a unpainted army, but it isn't me bringing in unpainted (or merely primed) armies and being allowed to stay--that's GW's doing by allowing it. I'd been told that horsegak was done with, I go to Vegas and it's just like it was in Seattle, LA, and Chicago. I wasn't exactly pleased, nor were most of the other players.

FYI I've never ever "lost it" or raised my voice to anyone. Why be a prick when you're smashing the other guys army? Win the way you lose. Alot of guys don't do that.

Oh and I've been playing since it was me, Abaddon, and 3 terminators taking the 2d6 save at -9 from the Eldar lascannons.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Andrew - to be fair to everyone else - on the old Dakka, your name was not in your profile and most of the times people do not include their name. I had checked the profile before based on a similar posting in I believe the 'ard Boyz thread below.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/197466.page

At least your new profile has it. Only through unnecessary cross referencing via google and various posts, was your exact name pinpointed previously. Interesting how this thread is going down a repeat cycle.

Well I kept trying to add it, it'd say it was saved, and then it wouldn't be.

I tried again this morning with the new software, and it seems to be holding onto it.

My apologies if it seems like I was being obtuse, I really thought it was right there on my profile.

tegeus--good points all. I disagree with your 3rd response, I don't think that's metagaming as the rules aren't modified.

I still don't see how my distaste for social engineering as being part of the metagame makes me unwilling to metagame. I just don't see how convincing players and judges to upscore me isn't cheating, and not metagaming.

I have most, if not all, of the army types one would consider in making a tournament and test them regularly. If that's metagaming, allright...but doesn't that reduce us to Magic: The Gathering style 'metagaming'? I like to think our game is more cerebral. Maybe I'm nuts.

Well, fyi I'm not a troll. I've been one, but I am not one today--and not here. I ponied up $50 so if you think I'm here just to be a dick, I'm not.

I've been silent for 10 years, and it's about time I stood up and tried to do something to make me less of a whiner and more of a contributor.

Bitching is easy. Doing is hard.

I still don't see how my distaste for social engineering as being part of the metagame makes me unwilling to metagame. I just don't see how convincing players and judges to upscore me isn't cheating, and not metagaming.

Well, I've made my case as to how it is metagaming, and for your part you haven't made any case for why it counts as cheating (though like I said, it would be difficult to argue about what cheating is or isn't, so I don't blame you).

A question: if you compliment your opponent on a nice army and try to act in an affable manner during the game, are you "cheating"?

davetaylor wrote:

Hi Stelek

The typical problem that most organizers and players will find is that the question of "How can I improve my painting" always comes at the end of the tournament once score sheets are the only things available (ie. no recollection of army by the Paint Judge, particularly with 160+ armies being judged for 40K, and the player has packed their entire army away and there is no way to get the entire army out. So, this year, starting in Las Vegas, we asked our paint judges to make comments regarding the army so that we could provide some small measure of feedback for those players who wanted to ask about their painting at the end of the tournament.

I find it interesting that you mention 15+ years of GW tournaments. I can only assume that you mean tournaments for GW games, as our first US open GT was held in 1998, so I must admit I cannot speak for the tournaments you may have attended that were run by others.

I am confused by you question regarding "a seperate coring system for painting". Painting is scored seperately from Battle points and Sportsmanship. At the end of the tournament all three scores are added together for the Overall score. We also award prizes for Best General (Battle Points with a tiebreaker determined by your opponent's records), Best Painted (best painted army) and Best Sportsman (best sportsmanship score, with a Battle Points tiebreaker). Is there a point I'm missing?

Painting will be judged on how the army is presented. If you don't wish to have a display board distracting the judges eye, that's fine. If you present a great army on a crappy board you will suffer. Consistency is what ARMY painting is all about. Keep an eye out on our website in January for the rules we'll be using this year.

General Commentary:
We are very invested (personally and professionally) in presenting a great event. However, when the event relies on the interaction of individuals that we do not control we have to rely on the good behavior and sporting attitude of all of our participants. While all of us can "lose it" during intense competitive play, I've got to say I'm impressed by the geniality shown during this year's events. This is certainly a step in the right direction. Tournaments can be played in a friendly manner as long as we step to the table without the fragile ego, and look at each game as the opportunity to make friends and learn more about the great hobby we all love passionately.

Cheers
Dave Taylor
GW US Community Development Manager

First, i apologize for adding fuel to the fire of the flame war but things were getting a bit silly and the amount of coffee i had this morning made me a bit giddy.

Thanks for the post and while this does help to answer some of the questions i've had it does however fail to answer one. Does GW have any intent to make an adjustment to how it includes painting in the overall scoring? I understand that this is an integral part of the scoring and that the means with how it is judged is based on how we as hobbyists present it. The concern that i have is that if someone else PAINTS an army for a person, one can not accordingly judge the player on how its painted. We could say that they are judged on presentation, with perhaps some clearer, guidelines: board, squad markings, basing, conversions, theme, fluff. This would offer those who aren't as talented painting to still do well in presenting their armies while rewarding the talented painting in a seperate category. I know it spawns people to lie, and what if they are honest, etc. but i feel we should be honest in this case. If we make the guidelines clearer, as sportsmanship and general are, this would kill this issue dead.

For those of you who are interested my name is Chris Kozemchak and I scored at 31st place. My painting score, in my opinion, was due to a series of broken models (the whole case tipped and broken a ton of models that morning), lack of squad markings and about 16% done to 3 color(incomplete) with basing. It's what i believe but could be wrong. B)

As i said before, I do not want to take anything away from Pete, i like pete, I think with all this other nonsense aside, he should get the award. I however, feel that this is an issue that hasn't been addressed, that SHOULD be addressed, and that it is unfortunate Pete's win has brought this to the foreground.

A win is a win. The tournament is over and Good Game for those who participated.

Now for the 2008 season lets talk about the standardization of the painting scores or go with what Paul suggested.

Having known Stelek personally for quite a while now, I have to say that he comes across like some European cheeses:
Stinky, weird, and offensive at first, but once you get to know him, is quite enjoyable - provided you have enough wine available.

He's got a strong opinion on just about everything, always KNOWS he's right, and never hesitates to tell you what he honestly believes.
He's the fiercest competitor I know.
And quite possibly the most loyal friend a person can have, too.
[/love fest]

So from Las Vegas I see that there were 7 players with a battle score equal to or better than yours. You are indeed the lowest ranking player with that number of battle points. However, your sportsmanship was also the lowest.

We often talk about top tier players here on dakka, or those who find they win more often than not in any setting. You may be in this catagory, however, most of these players also are found to be enjoyable by their opponents.

If you look at best general he only had 22 for sportsmanship but maxed his battlepoints. You can always play to be in this catagory, and in fact several players do knowing that they don't like to paint or not caring what anyone else thinks of them.

However, to truly be top tier you need to get out there and play some of the other top tier players. They aren't that hard to find and you will suddenly find yourself being much more respected when you speak of the problems in the system. You battle points back up your smack talk to some degree but still weren't good enough for that tourney by factoring only Battle points and using Sportsmanship as a tie breaker you would be 8th overall. Good for bragging rights but not for much else.

Think of 'Ardboyz as the way you would like to see things go and none of us know who the 8th place player is off the top of our heads unless he is a friend.

Just play for what you want. If you want all glory go for best general. You just need to pick up your game a notch and remeber those extra battle points and make sure you really can slaughter everyone and who cares what the rest of your scores are.

If you want something else than you have to play with the meta-game, sportsmanship, and painting regardless of how subjective they are.

Orion