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.

First, I want to thank everyone who has replied! This has been a great discussion....lots of opinions, and yet, it has not devolved into any kind of arguements! Huzzah!

Just to add some info....the rules were standard RTT, standard Recon mission.

Of the two players, the Marine player routinely wins Best Sportsman in tournaments, having done so with Marines, Wolves, Templars and Wood Elves!

The IG player is a more competitive player who is used to winning Overalls and Best Generals.

Both are normally great guys.

Just an addendum...the IG firmly believes you play the game for fun. When I say he is the more competitive player, it is a reflection on his ability as a player, not on his nature.

I don't think people would describe me as a WAAC player, but IMO (based on the info available) the IG player was mistaken. At what point and to what degree is someone responsible for giving their opponent "a chance to win"? Down that way lies madness.

I agree that the player must have been a NTP because nearly everyone who's participated in even a few tournaments has had one game in which it's an uphill climb for their army. It just happens.

EDIT: Just read Hobbs' most recent post. That might put a different spin on things regarding the IG player.

As others have pointed out, when on the other side of that situation, there are things you can do to try to make it as ungrating of an experience as possible. And that's not because you're chasing points, it's because we've all been in sucky, unfun games and an opponent that's classy, friendly and understanding helps get those games over with as quickly as possible.

Honestly, if the IG player regularly wins Best General and Overall, he should know better then to bring the list he used to a RTT.

It seems like the IG player, if he really deos regularly win Overall and BG is TFG that acts super nice to you when you play but if you beat him badly, you are getting tanked on soft scores while he acts all chipper to ensure good scores for himself. Just my opinion based on the info provided....

Phoenix wrote:Just to go to an extreme here, if you are playing to win and you feel no compulsion to give your opponent a chance, wouldn’t soft scores just be another means to that end? If you are looking to take the top spot in a tournament, it would seem that tanking the soft scores of others would be an effective (and bastardly) way to accomplish that. So really, where do you draw the line?

Interesting point. The line is drawn according to the individual player's conscience. There's no doubt that people do use soft scores strategically -- that is why there are three layers of game at tournaments. (Yet another reason in my opinion for dropping them.)

@ Phoenix: I don't think it's too hard to draw the line. Playing even when the opponent has little (or no) ability to win is still a good faith effort to play in the rules. Tanking soft scores beyond what is deserved is against the rules and in bad faith. I'd argue it's no more justifiable then any other form of cheating. Taking advantage of a bad situation for your opponent is playing to win, while tanking scores is deceiving to win.

Polonius wrote:@ Phoenix: I don't think it's too hard to draw the line. Playing even when the opponent has little (or no) ability to win is still a good faith effort to play in the rules. Tanking soft scores beyond what is deserved is against the rules and in bad faith. I'd argue it's no more justifiable then any other form of cheating. Taking advantage of a bad situation for your opponent is playing to win, while tanking scores is deceiving to win.

While you and I obviously see where the line is, others may not, and others yet just chose to ignore it. That's why I think doing soft scores on a more concrete system is a much better idea. Filling out yes/no questions (many of which are varifiable) is better than a sliding 0-10 scale or something like that. I'd like to see things like this:

1) Did your opponent arive on time? Yes / No
2) Did your opponent have the necessary materials (rule book, codex, tape measure, dice, templates, etc.) Yes / No
3) Did you have fun playing your opponent? Yes / No
4) Did you avoid having excessive rule debates with your opponent? Yes / No
5) Was your opponent's army painted to a reasonable standard (3 colors, all pieces glued on, etc.)? Yes / No
6) Was your opponent's army painted to a high standard (shading, detailing, well based, etc.)? Yes / No

And give 1 point (or more depending on how the scoring system works) for each. If anyone shows up with no's for everything, they can pull out their painted army and game materials (if nothing else) and prove that their opponent was lieing. It also still allows for some subjectiveness in the fun question and to a degree in the rule debate question but it cuts down on abuse a lot.

Seems like a lot of supposition about the IG player.

If the IG guy really had a crappy time of it, one of the worst games he's experienced, then yeah, he should give a zero if Sports is purely subjective. Only if Sports is a checkbox or has more concrete guidelines, then he crossed the line.

Again, 40k has a rule at the beginning of the book, The Most Important Rule - to have fun. And in the tournament, this is regulated via the Sports score (and Comp / Paint scores).

Given that the IG player only tanked the Sports, you can assume he was OK with the Comp and Paint, but just didn't have a lot of fun.

And as for the supposition that IG were built narrowly, at this point, there are only 2 playable builds: Drop Troops or else stand-and-deliver countercharge. Stand-and-deliver is much more of a tactical army, with more of a challenge to play, especially with the Rough Riders. So you really can't fault him for his army choices.

Aside from the IG player not taking yet another Spase Marinz army. Hurr!

Hey, I agree that soft scores can be improved, and I figured you were playing devil's advocate.

Like I argued in an earlier post, I could see a situation where the IG player could have a decent argument for zeroing the SM player. Given the info from the OP, it's clear that the IG player was simply TFG.

Instead of picking on the IG player, we should be picking on the TOs. The TOs screwed up the most by having:
1. fixed turn length to allow speeders to grap last-turn Objectives
2. allowing vehicles to Score
3. allowing non-Troops to Score
4. scoring VPs instead of Objectives
5. scoring VPs instead of KPs

In short, the fundamental problem is that they weren't playing 5th Edition!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Seems like a lot of supposition about the IG player.

If the IG guy really had a crappy time of it, one of the worst games he's experienced, then yeah, he should give a zero if Sports is purely subjective. Only if Sports is a checkbox or has more concrete guidelines, then he crossed the line.

Again, 40k has a rule at the beginning of the book, The Most Important Rule - to have fun. And in the tournament, this is regulated via the Sports score (and Comp / Paint scores).

Given that the IG player only tanked the Sports, you can assume he was OK with the Comp and Paint, but just didn't have a lot of fun.

And as for the supposition that IG were built narrowly, at this point, there are only 2 playable builds: Drop Troops or else stand-and-deliver countercharge. Stand-and-deliver is much more of a tactical army, with more of a challenge to play, especially with the Rough Riders. So you really can't fault him for his army choices.

Aside from the IG player not taking yet another Spase Marinz army. Hurr!

Here's the problem with that argument. The Most Important rule goes into pretty decent depth about treating your opponent with respect. Sure, it mentions the need to have an exciting game, but from what we've all seen it seems like the IG player didn't exactly help himself.

It's incredibly important to remember that your views on how tournaments should exist (celebrations of the hobby emphasizing a good time by all, with some weight placed on results) is a minority view, no matter how laudable. Based on the info, the IG guy wasn't complaining that he had a bad time, he was complaining that he lost. I'm all for the Most Important Rule, the Golden Rule, and I strive to treat all people and all opponents with respect. Expecting an opponent to throw a game, or shave points, or to somehow play at less than his ability is not a request to be respected or provided a fun game. It's a demand for a handicap or boost, and that's not a function of sports, particularly if the IG player didn't mention it previously. If the IG player agreed to the terrain classification and brought an RTT as a tourny vet, then he should know that sometimes bad beats happen.

Finally, I play IG, as do several others here, including yourself. 4th edition has been out for 4 years, and with it the importance on objective taking, hence mobility. To bring an army to a tournament that doesn't include any mobility of any sort is a gamble, and one that the IG player lost.

Even in a tournament ran to your specs, I'm not sure this player was justified. Demanding an edge isn't asking to play fair and fun, it's a petulent demand that smacks of entitlment and selfishness.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Instead of picking on the IG player, we should be picking on the TOs. The TOs screwed up the most by having:
1. fixed turn length to allow speeders to grap last-turn Objectives
2. allowing vehicles to Score
3. allowing non-Troops to Score
4. scoring VPs instead of Objectives
5. scoring VPs instead of KPs

Sure, if they wanted to have boring games with only boring armies winning.

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If the IG guy really had a crappy time of it, one of the worst games he's experienced, then yeah, he should give a zero if Sports is purely subjective.

The Most Important rule goes into pretty decent depth about treating your opponent with respect.

It's incredibly important to remember that your views on how tournaments should exist (celebrations of the hobby emphasizing a good time by all, with some weight placed on results) is a minority view, no matter how laudable. Based on the info, the IG guy wasn't complaining that he had a bad time, he was complaining that he lost.

Expecting an opponent to throw a game, or shave points, or to somehow play at less than his ability is not a request to be respected or provided a fun game.

Finally, I play IG, as do several others here, including yourself.

Even in a tournament ran to your specs, I'm not sure this player was justified. Demanding an edge isn't asking to play fair and fun, it's a petulent demand that smacks of entitlment and selfishness.

Without the IG player here to speak, your supposed motivations are perhaps unfair.

And treating your opponent with respect is ultimately subjective. But in no way is summarily dispatching your opponent construable as "fun" or necessarily respectful.

I am fully aware that the no-sports WAAC crowd is in the majority, which is why I don't do RTTs.

But I wouldn't say that the problem was that the IG player lost, one can just as easily conclude that it's an issue with *how* he lost. Of course, without the IG player here, it's hard to speak definitively as to his complaint.

I don't see anything wrong with shaving a few points or pulling a few punches in order to ensure that the game remains "fun". When it's obvious to both players that you can win without much effort, due to the scenario and army matchup, is it *really* necessary to grind away without letting the opponent play at all? Is it *really* necessary to play for Massacre instead of a strong Minor Victory? Or is it more fun for both players to allow the opponent to at least play a bit?

That is, I've taken what would have been a sure win game and deliberately adjusted my play mid-game just to keep things interesting. Could I have ground away? Sure. But at that rate, my opponent would have done better to simply pack up and spend the time watching other, more interesting games. Or let me finish the game solitaire. Instead, we had a great time.

Again, I don't think the IG player was demanding an edge. Just a chance to play.


But as above, perhaps everybody should just play Marines? At least it'd prevent most of the mismatches that lead to hard feelings.

Here's the thing: the marine player didn't obliterate the IG player, at least I'm assuming he didn't with two whirlwinds as his only shooting. I'mg guesssing he nibbled away and grabbed the recon bonus points for a narrow win. You could make the argument that any other tactic (trying to outshoot the IG or advancing with shooting squads) would result in a large loss for the SM player, so he tried to win the only way it was possible: playing the mission and playing smart. I don't believe it was a case of piling on, massacering or anything. It was a matter of winning a certain way. I may be wrong in my read of the situation, but I don't think the IG player was summarily dispatched.

I guess I think it's naive to think that if the SM player had allowed the IG player to kill a few of his units it would suddenly be a fun and fulfilling game for the IG player.

As for the motivations of the IG player, lets look at the facts we have: He's a tournament player, used to winning or getting best general. He took a heavy weapon based army. He is, it's safe to say, a pretty savvy gamer. Why is this important? Because he knows how the game is played. He knows what types of missions are possible at a tournament, and he has the abilty to build and feild competive armies. So, yes, I think if a skilled player using his own army is asking his opponent to pull punches or play differently, he's asking for a handicap.

As I've said above, there are certainly circumstances that would make tanking the SM player's scores reasoanble. I'm arging this isn't one of them.

Please don't try to paint those that disagree with your view of tournament as "WAAC, no-sports" types. I don't mind sports, I don't think WAAC is the healthiest attitude for the hobby. You've made it clear that your view of tournaments is that winning a game should be a secondary or even tertiary concern, and rank behind ensuring yoru opponents have a good time. That's where you differ. Most of the poster here, and at tournies, like to win games, but they also have fun losing good games. Having fun is important, and the way a lot of people have fun is to play to win against other people playing to win. Now, you know that having been posting here, so please don't fall back on fairly tired cliches about the tournament scene.

This is, of course, why soft scores with no tight rules or "check the box, get a point" type system suck. I think this is well established.

The IG player is in the wrong. So, he knows the missions are from the book, but takes an army that is so immobile it has difficulty with most of them and recon is impossible. Strike one.

he brought no tool at all to even attempt to deal with indirect fire. Really? he's a guard player so he must know it exists. Maybe no one there ever uses it. Strike two.

He complained not because he lost, but because his opponent did not purposefully do something dumb (expose himself to absurd firepower that can't do anythign else). This is insane even without soft scores. My army does X and only X...so you better give me a chance to do it! Strike three.

I'm not sure what the marine player had other than the whirlwinds and speeders, but if the guard player spread out across the board he should have at least had a chance to prevent the speeders from getting through his lines. Strategically, he could have at least played for a tie that way (how bad are two whirlwinds really going to hurt 100 guardsmen spread out in two lines across the board...going to take some lucky hole busting on turn 6 or just a lot of dead guard)

Polonius wrote:Here's the thing: the marine player didn't obliterate the IG player, at least I'm assuming he didn't with two whirlwinds as his only shooting. I'mg guesssing he nibbled away and grabbed the recon bonus points for a narrow win. You could make the argument that any other tactic (trying to outshoot the IG or advancing with shooting squads) would result in a large loss for the SM player, so he tried to win the only way it was possible: playing the mission and playing smart. I don't believe it was a case of piling on, massacering or anything. It was a matter of winning a certain way. I may be wrong in my read of the situation, but I don't think the IG player was summarily dispatched.

I guess I think it's naive to think that if the SM player had allowed the IG player to kill a few of his units it would suddenly be a fun and fulfilling game for the IG player.

As for the motivations of the IG player, lets look at the facts we have: He's a tournament player, used to winning or getting best general. He took a heavy weapon based army. He is, it's safe to say, a pretty savvy gamer. Why is this important? Because he knows how the game is played. He knows what types of missions are possible at a tournament, and he has the abilty to build and feild competive armies. So, yes, I think if a skilled player using his own army is asking his opponent to pull punches or play differently, he's asking for a handicap.

As I've said above, there are certainly circumstances that would make tanking the SM player's scores reasoanble. I'm arging this isn't one of them.

Please don't try to paint those that disagree with your view of tournament as "WAAC, no-sports" types. I don't mind sports, I don't think WAAC is the healthiest attitude for the hobby. You've made it clear that your view of tournaments is that winning a game should be a secondary or even tertiary concern, and rank behind ensuring yoru opponents have a good time. That's where you differ. Most of the poster here, and at tournies, like to win games, but they also have fun losing good games. Having fun is important, and the way a lot of people have fun is to play to win against other people playing to win. Now, you know that having been posting here, so please don't fall back on fairly tired cliches about the tournament scene.

I've essentially thrown tournament games, when in contention for a respectable finish, because my only "winning" option was to play the game in a manner neither I nor my opponent would enjoy. Contrariwise, I've been wiped to a man in a complete mismatch, and enjoyed the game immensely. And I've had extremely tactical games, win and lose, against players who may as well be automated dice machines.

I give sportsmanship scores according to the game. If the IG player here was doing the same, and had zero fun in the game, then the sportsmanship score seems to be working as intended - an indicator of the enjoyment you derived from playing the game.


Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?


*Of course, this all presumes purely subjective scoring. Objective factors only serve to reduce the subjective elements.

Well, there are plenty of things about this story that smell funny. How much terrain was there that an entire SM army could hide for six turns? Did the IG player even try to move into better firing positions? Was the terrain pre-fixed or determined by the players, and if the latter, did the IG player agree with what was decided? How did the IG player claim objectives in the other missions?

I'm willing to bet the IG player feels bad now about what happened, if he's a good guy. I'd chalk it up to frustration over the mission and not playing better.

Janthkin wrote:
Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?


*Of course, this all presumes purely subjective scoring. Objective factors only serve to reduce the subjective elements.

Would you say Sports reflects if you would play that game again, or that player again? There are games I've had with my best friends that I wouldn't play again, but I'd play the player again.

I guess I just find it a little disturbing to gauge sportsmanship not on if a player is polite and fair and well organized and consistent, but if they use tactics that aren't "fun." I think it's a fine and noble and necessary goal to make games fun for both players. What worries me is that such a system allows a person to define fun as "winning a game using my preset tactics." If the matchup was simply bad, it was bad, and I'm not sure holding the opponent responsible for a bad beat is fair.

I guess your point is that both players deserve a poor sportsmanship score, but that seems unsatisfying to me somehow. And while nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score, I feel that I shouldn't be penalized because I won a game. If I

Janthkin, I don't get that attitude at all. If the IG player was boned by the mission and his poor choice of army, why does he get to take it out on the other player? "I didn't have fun because this mission sucks for my army, and you exploited that fact - 0 sportsmanship". In a tournament, it's not the opponent's job to make game moves that help you have fun, it's his job to be a nice person and a good sport and play to win.

The only legit complaint I can see this guy having is the terrain being ridiculous if the guy was actually able to hide a whole marine army successfully.

Some people only have fun if they win. Does that mean they can give 0's in sportsmanship if they lose?

This guy didn't have fun not because of the SM players smart tactics - he didn't have fun because of the mission. Saying "would I want to play this game again" is strange to me. Some missions suck for some armies, and some armies suck at more missions than others. Of course the guy is never going to want to play recon again - against pretty much anyone, unless the board is empty of terrain.

If my opponent is smart, and I suffer and lose because of my army and the mission, I may not have a great time, but that is far from my opponents fault. If my opponent makes stupid decisions only to give me a chance I don't deserve, thats not good sportsmanship, thats charity and makes the game no fun either.

JohnHwangDD wrote:But as above, perhaps everybody should just play Marines? At least it'd prevent most of the mismatches that lead to hard feelings.

I'm not seeing how the armies in question here make any difference to the issue.

If simply taking weapons in your list that don't need LOS is the criteria for 0 sports scores, Marines aren't the only army that'll be getting 0s.

If you have a shooty army, and your opponent has a shooty army, and both of you set up out of sight of each other, which of you is in the wrong when neither of you move out into your opponent's field of fire?

JohnHwangDD wrote:


But as above, perhaps everybody should just play Marines? At least it'd prevent most of the mismatches that lead to hard feelings.

I play mariens and I lose most of the time's. I still wane enter a turnement but I em going to go whit the tout that I will lose most of my games if not al.

and if you realy wane play for fun g o to campain weekends play campains.


Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?

but there is somting about giving lpayers a 10 or a 0 in dear to.
oke that he scors tha game low but a 0 is compleetly on resnebal.
I don't realy ever se a reson to give a player a 0 for sportmanship if he isent a compleet ass.
and its bin sad that ge won beslt player a fuw time's so I dowt that ha is a compleet ass.
but like thay sad de IG player most feel like a ass for giving that now.
( I woude )

For all we know, the SM player was a perfectly good sport. He just refused to make tactically stupid decisions when he didn't have to. The IG player should take responsibility for his actions or inactions as it were and suck it up. Being a good sport shouldn't mean you have to make dumb moves.

Ifurita wrote:For all we know, the SM player was a perfectly good sport. He just refused to make tactically stupid decisions when he didn't have to. The IG player should take responsibility for his actions or inactions as it were and suck it up. Being a good sport should mean you have to make dumb moves.

I have to agree with this

I play mariens and I lose most of the time's. I still wane enter a turnement but I em going to go whit the tout that I will lose most of my games if not al.

and if you realy wane play for fun g o to campain weekends play campains.


Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?

but there is somting about giving lpayers a 10 or a 0 in dear to.
oke that he scors tha game low but a 0 is compleetly on resnebal.
I don't realy ever se a reson to give a player a 0 for sportmanship if he isent a compleet ass.
and its bin sad that ge won beslt player a fuw time's so I dowt that ha is a compleet ass.
but like thay sad de IG player most feel like a ass for giving that now.
( I woude )

edit: let's be more considerate. -grey_death

But as for the IG player being 'Gipped' therefore scoring his enemy '0' on the S/manship....

Outrageous. That is the best way to get kicked out of a Gaming Club. He beat his @$$ with superior Tactics and he marked him down thw only way he could?

Cheating. Cut and dried.

(This post edited once to make spellig mestakes)

akira5665 wrote:

I play mariens and I lose most of the time's. I still wane enter a turnement but I em going to go whit the tout that I will lose most of my games if not al.

and if you realy wane play for fun g o to campain weekends play campains.


Nobody is entitled to a good sportsmanship score. If our game is no fun, odds are we're both at fault, and our sportsmanship scores* should probably reflect that. I'm happy with a sports system that asks a single question: Would I like to play this particular game again?

but there is somting about giving lpayers a 10 or a 0 in dear to.
oke that he scors tha game low but a 0 is compleetly on resnebal.
I don't realy ever se a reson to give a player a 0 for sportmanship if he isent a compleet ass.
and its bin sad that ge won beslt player a fuw time's so I dowt that ha is a compleet ass.
but like thay sad de IG player most feel like a ass for giving that now.
( I woude )

I wood to.

I am sthil tryiing to unnerstan yur poost theree Bud.

But as for the IG player being 'Gipped' therefore scoring his enemy '0' on the S/manship....

Outrageous. That is the best way to get kicked out of a Gaming Club. He beat his @$$ with superior Tactics and he marked him down thw only way he could?

Cheating. Cut and dried.

(This post edited once to make spellig mestakes)

Not cool, bro. Read the fine print in his sig.

Phoenix wrote:Just to go to an extreme here, if you are playing to win and you feel no compulsion to give your opponent a chance, wouldn’t soft scores just be another means to that end? If you are looking to take the top spot in a tournament, it would seem that tanking the soft scores of others would be an effective (and bastardly) way to accomplish that. So really, where do you draw the line?

Exactly.

Where does acceptable conduct turn into un-acceptable conduct? Just on many of the opinions of people here it seems that a win at all costs attitude is common, so out of curiousity sake I've compile a list of "game winning tactics", some call them smart, some call them dastardly, the point is everyone does it or has done it at one time or another, I'll leave it you guys to deem if its acceptable or unacceptable:

1) The spring: The tournament is 1500pts and has 3 simple fields win, lose and draw, and every mission uses VPs, you are going against another shooting army in a mission that has no other objectives then to kill your opponent (so you only need a difference of 151vps to win), and you elect to go second. Your nidzilla (or mobile firing army) decides to sit back behind LOS blocking terrian until the end of turn 6 where you spring out of your cover and fire at everything you can (specifically tanks) and you score 200vps winning the game.

2) Loaded dice: Even cheating is a game winning tactic.

3) The dumb guy: Play dumb and question every rule, and force your opponent to roll off on every arguement, 50% of the time you get your way, the other 50% the game goes as normal.

4) The sloth: You play a horde army and you know that after turn 4 things generally dont look good for you, so you drag out your turns to deny your opponent 2 or more turns winning you the game. Another variant is "the crapper" where you take a 30 minute bathroom break just after set up to delay the game.

5) Tanking: You bomb your opponents soft scores, which drops him 5 to 10 ranks overall costing him any hope of winning with just 1 game.

6) The Cheese list: After all, tactics start at the list building, why should optomizing your list be any different then in game tactics?

7) The perfect score: You give your opponent perfect scores and you make sure that he sees it, win or lose your opponent decides to offer you the same back since he has already seen it and has no worry of losing points.

8) The drawback: You go against a slow army like nurgle daemons and you lead him around the table with your mobile force not letting him be able to assault you, forcing your opponent to do nothing all game.

9) Inch adding: Measuring front to back, adding an inch here and there.

10) Mob dice: You roll a bucket full of dice and you only hit on 4s, you pick up a couple 3s here and there, this is assisted by "blurry dice" where it is hard to see the pips.

11) Manipulation: Dice manipulation is fully possible, there are certian ways to hold and drop the dice that will ensure the results you want on much higher then average basis.

12) Single roller: You take terminator saves one at a time, this can be done in combination with the other "tactics"

13) 2 dice twin linked: Rolling 2 dice for a twin linked lascannon say acceptable? Well do you roll 8 dice for a twinliked scatter laser? Believe it or not it does make a difference.

14) Friends: You play your friends and give each other max scores and vote for each other for best sport. Another variant is "The judge" you know the judge so you call him over and force your house rules on out-of-towners.

Really thats all that comes to mind right now.

Ravenous D wrote:1) The spring: The tournament is 1500pts and has 3 simple fields win, lose and draw, and every mission uses VPs, you are going against another shooting army in a mission that has no other objectives then to kill your opponent (so you only need a difference of 151vps to win), and you elect to go second. Your nidzilla (or mobile firing army) decides to sit back behind LOS blocking terrian until the end of turn 6 where you spring out of your cover and fire at everything you can (specifically tanks) and you score 200vps winning the game.

And while you're sitting huddled behind terrain for the entire game, what's your opponent doing...?

Other than marking you with a 0 on sports because he neglected to add mobile units to his own list...

2) Loaded dice: Even cheating is a game winning tactic.

No it's not.

Particularly if entering the tournament includes an agreement to abide by the rules.

3) The dumb guy: Play dumb and question every rule, and force your opponent to roll off on every arguement, 50% of the time you get your way, the other 50% the game goes as normal.

So 'cheating' under a different name, then.

4) The sloth: You play a horde army and you know that after turn 4 things generally dont look good for you, so you drag out your turns to deny your opponent 2 or more turns winning you the game. Another variant is "the crapper" where you take a 30 minute bathroom break just after set up to delay the game.

These would be sorted by any decent tournament package. The first should result in your opponent calling over a judge, who hurries you up. The second results in your opponent calling over a judge and you forfeiting the game when you're not back in a reasonable time.

5) Tanking: You bomb your opponents soft scores, which drops him 5 to 10 ranks overall costing him any hope of winning with just 1 game.

Exactly why soft scores don't belong as a part of working out who actually wins the tournament.

And still verging on cheating, in my book.

6) The Cheese list: After all, tactics start at the list building, why should optomizing your list be any different then in game tactics?

Why wouldn't you optimise your list for a competitive game?

7) The perfect score: You give your opponent perfect scores and you make sure that he sees it, win or lose your opponent decides to offer you the same back since he has already seen it and has no worry of losing points.

See 5.

8) The drawback: You go against a slow army like nurgle daemons and you lead him around the table with your mobile force not letting him be able to assault you, forcing your opponent to do nothing all game.

See 1.

9) Inch adding: Measuring front to back, adding an inch here and there.

How many times are you going to add 'cheating' to this list?

10) Mob dice: You roll a bucket full of dice and you only hit on 4s, you pick up a couple 3s here and there, this is assisted by "blurry dice" where it is hard to see the pips.

And again...

11) Manipulation: Dice manipulation is fully possible, there are certian ways to hold and drop the dice that will ensure the results you want on much higher then average basis.

...sigh...

12) Single roller: You take terminator saves one at a time, this can be done in combination with the other "tactics"

...and...?

13) 2 dice twin linked: Rolling 2 dice for a twin linked lascannon say acceptable? Well do you roll 8 dice for a twinliked scatter laser? Believe it or not it does make a difference.

Cheating again.

14) Friends: You play your friends and give each other max scores and vote for each other for best sport. Another variant is "The judge" you know the judge so you call him over and force your house rules on out-of-towners.

See 5.



It's not really as complex as you seem to be making out. A tournament is a competitive environment.

You play to win, and you play by the rules. Anything less is selling yourself short, and compromising the competition for everyone else.

Ravenous D wrote:
Exactly.

Where does acceptable conduct turn into un-acceptable conduct? Just on many of the opinions of people here it seems that a win at all costs attitude is common, so out of curiousity sake I've compile a list of "game winning tactics", some call them smart, some call them dastardly, the point is everyone does it or has done it at one time or another, I'll leave it you guys to deem if its acceptable or unacceptable:

I don't know if I have a pretty inlaid moral compass, but all of these seem pretty simple to draw lines. If it involves deciet, fraud, malicious intent or coercion it's out. If it's fair, legal, and above board it's in. we'll go through one at a time

1) The spring: The tournament is 1500pts and has 3 simple fields win, lose and draw, and every mission uses VPs, you are going against another shooting army in a mission that has no other objectives then to kill your opponent (so you only need a difference of 151vps to win), and you elect to go second. Your nidzilla (or mobile firing army) decides to sit back behind LOS blocking terrian until the end of turn 6 where you spring out of your cover and fire at everything you can (specifically tanks) and you score 200vps winning the game.

This is simply a variant of what we're discussing. It's totally acceptable, after all, couldn't both parties hide their armies?

2) Loaded dice: Even cheating is a game winning tactic.

Cheating is automatically bad.

3) The dumb guy: Play dumb and question every rule, and force your opponent to roll off on every arguement, 50% of the time you get your way, the other 50% the game goes as normal.

This is deceptive and fraudulent. You are lying, which is inherently bad, IMO.

4) The sloth: You play a horde army and you know that after turn 4 things generally dont look good for you, so you drag out your turns to deny your opponent 2 or more turns winning you the game. Another variant is "the crapper" where you take a 30 minute bathroom break just after set up to delay the game.

Slow play is another classic form of cheating. It's hard to judge, but deliberatively stalling is a classic aspect of bad sportsmanship.

5) Tanking: You bomb your opponents soft scores, which drops him 5 to 10 ranks overall costing him any hope of winning with just 1 game.

Again, malicious and fraudulent. It's also cheating (breaking the rules for scoring), and is classically reviled.

6) The Cheese list: After all, tactics start at the list building, why should optomizing your list be any different then in game tactics?

It's not. if it's legal it's legal. Keep in mind that many tournies still have comp, but it's not cheating to run tri-falcon.

7) The perfect score: You give your opponent perfect scores and you make sure that he sees it, win or lose your opponent decides to offer you the same back since he has already seen it and has no worry of losing points.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to simply colluding with your opponent to score each other highly regardless of outcome? without more info I can't judge it.

8) The drawback: You go against a slow army like nurgle daemons and you lead him around the table with your mobile force not letting him be able to assault you, forcing your opponent to do nothing all game.

So, exploiting an enemies weakness? Is assaulting devastatotrs while shooting assault marines also bad? This is totally fine.

9) Inch adding: Measuring front to back, adding an inch here and there.

Cheating is always bad.

10) Mob dice: You roll a bucket full of dice and you only hit on 4s, you pick up a couple 3s here and there, this is assisted by "blurry dice" where it is hard to see the pips.

Again, cheating is always bad.

11) Manipulation: Dice manipulation is fully possible, there are certian ways to hold and drop the dice that will ensure the results you want on much higher then average basis.

Again, cheating is always bad.

12) Single roller: You take terminator saves one at a time, this can be done in combination with the other "tactics"

Alone, this is annoying. If done to help cheating, its' cheating.

13) 2 dice twin linked: Rolling 2 dice for a twin linked lascannon say acceptable? Well do you roll 8 dice for a twinliked scatter laser? Believe it or not it does make a difference.

Not being clear what dice are being rolled for what is bad sports. Always declare, always roll speratly.

14) Friends: You play your friends and give each other max scores and vote for each other for best sport. Another variant is "The judge" you know the judge so you call him over and force your house rules on out-of-towners.

This is two seperate things, but voting deceptively is bad, and rigging a judge's ruling is always bad.

I'm torn between wondering if you're geniunely curious, or if this is some sort of "moral slippery slope" you seem to think soem of us are on. All of your situations are pretty clear cut: cheating and unfair advantages are out, smart and fair play are in.

Edit: Insaniak beat me too it, but we seem to agree on all counts, even though I take a stiffer stand on tanking soft scores.

By hook or by crook a win is a win to some people.

Acting like a complete dick, and full on cheating is same when it comes to 'agreeing to play by the rules'. You either respect your opponent or you dont. It's a simple as that.

Again, why be a total d-bag? The only thing you achieve by winning is a plastic trophy.

Polonius wrote:

I don't know if I have a pretty inlaid moral compass, but all of these seem pretty simple to draw lines. If it involves deciet, fraud, malicious intent or coercion it's out. If it's fair, legal, and above board it's in. we'll go through one at a time

I agree, all of these are absolutely horrid to me, but time and again Ive seen them happen, and judging on the attitudes of most people here I wanted to see which ones seemed to be "acceptable". I offer my opponent the same respect that I expect, and alot of people here seem to have the attitude of "F- this guy Im going to win!", which is completely anathema to me.

Although I doubt there will be anyone admitting to them, all that this is going to achieve is very long opinion posts on each point when I asked is to simply put acceptable or unaccpetable by each.

Ravenous D wrote:By hook or by crook a win is a win to some people.

And...?

To some people, eating the guy in the seat beside you is reasonably acceptable behaviour. I'm honestly not sure what point you're trying to make.

Acting like a complete dick, and full on cheating is same when it comes to 'agreeing to play by the rules'.

Pardon?

How?

You either respect your opponent or you dont. It's a simple as that.

Absolutely. And part of that involves treating them as an opponent, and playing competitively in a competitive environment.

Would you expect a tennis player in a grand slam to not bring his best raquet when playing a lower-seeded opponent?
Would you expect a chess player in a tournament to concede his queen at the start of the game if playing someone he knows is not as skilled?

In a competitive event, would either of those people's opponents actually appreciate the gesture, or would they find it condescending and be annoyed that any sense of achievement is now sullied by the fact that their opponent didn't consider them worth playing at their best?

I offer my opponent the same respect that I expect, and alot of people here seem to have the attitude of "F- this guy Im going to win!", which is completely anathema to me.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that anyone playing to win automatically must be deliberately acting as difficult as possible.

I'm not sure where that idea comes from. 'Playing to win' and 'acting like a jerk' are not automatically the same thing. Selecting a particular unit because it makes tactical sense is a very, very long way from using loaded dice.

all that this is going to achieve is very long opinion posts on each point

Of course it is. This is a discussion board, and you've effectively just claimed that anyone who plays in a fashion that you personally don't like is a jerk.

Hardly surprising if that pulls a few opinions out of the woodwork.

Personally, I play tournaments and matches, whether it be Magic, miniatures, board games, or on-line shooters the way I'd play amongst friends, with the exception of maybe a more tuned/optimized list. I don't game rules mechanics with friends, I wouldn't do it in a competitive environment. I don't play dice games with my friends I don't do it in a competitive environment. I'm generally not an jerk to my friends. I would generally not be one in a competitive setting.