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.

That'd be fine, if this were a real distinction that the supposed community voices were making. Instead, what I read is "if it has soft-scores it's not a tournament, it's a hobby event". That's not on you, but it's out there. And it too bleeds over into the player's approach. The local tournament series that we run in Chicago is supposed to be a more casual event, but a lot of the more casual players have stopped attending because the 'winning is everything' attitude has permeated. We don't do comp, so there's little recourse to stop someone from running their 15ml/TWC cav lists.

If it's supposed to be casual why are the rules for the tournament not written that way? If that really is the goal why wouldn't you do comp? Or some kind of handicapping system? Or perhaps some structured rules about list design? Or just ban Space Wolves completely?

It seems silly to say "anything goes" and then be disappointed when people show up with exactly that. If you guys don't like the types of lists or attitudes showing up at your events then change the parameters for that event.

You misunderstand me. I don't mind competitive tournaments. I've done pretty well in them in the past. What I don't like is that the competitive tournament attitude has taken over and pushed out the casual tournaments, and the casual tournament players. Even at the casual tournaments, you find the uber-competitive players and lists.

But just above you guys said you're not doing comp. Why would you remove that if you want a casual event? If you want fluffy lists then skew the tournament scoring to reward that. The WAAC people will stop showing up to these tournaments with hard lists because they can't win with them. Problem solved.

Kevin Nash wrote:

But just above you guys said you're not doing comp. Why would you remove that if you want a casual event? If you want fluffy lists then skew the tournament scoring to reward that. The WAAC people will stop showing up to these tournaments with hard lists because they can't win with them. Problem solved.

To be fair we have been test running a bunch of Adepticon Championship rules recently and formats have shifted. Once they shifted, they just haven't shifted back. I'm not saying that's good one way or another, just trying to clarrify something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lambadomy wrote:The negative is that you see a lot more poorly painted armies or even partially unpainted armies at these tournaments. I of course am one of the biggest offenders - I am a terrible, frustrated painter who doesn't really have the time to get better, and I'm unwilling to pay someone to paint my army.

In Chicago we have a rule that your army must be painted in order to play. 3 colors and based. Spray with some dots is not allowed. We have asked people to leave because of that. I like that rule. I would be in the same boat as you if it wasn't there. I used to never finish painting my armies and just brought a bunch of sprayed models. When we added that rule it forced me to paint and now I do. You would be surprised what denying you a place at the tournament would do for your desire to paint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread has evolved so much since I last checked. I am sorry it took this turn. Not the content, I like that, just the hijacking of Blackmoors BR. I suspect he doesn't mind, but still.......

I sympathize with both sides. In all honesty you still have competitive events when comp is involved. I remember list tailoring in 3rd-4th edition to maximize my armies damage while hiding it's true power behind what looked like a weak list.

Yeah I agree on the three colors rules...that used to be a common rule around here for anything at a "GT" level or whatever you want to call a weekend 5 game tournament, but the last year or so it feels like it's stopped being enforced/required as often. I definitely could have gotten my army three colors ready for this one if I had to, but when I realized I didn't need to it definitely affected my motivation.

I really like the new Adepticon primer missions in theory, but I haven't gotten a chance to try them in practice. It will be interesting to see if/how they change army design if they're widely adopted.

Kevin Nash wrote:
If it's supposed to be casual why are the rules for the tournament not written that way? If that really is the goal why wouldn't you do comp? Or some kind of handicapping system? Or perhaps some structured rules about list design? Or just ban Space Wolves completely?

It seems silly to say "anything goes" and then be disappointed when people show up with exactly that. If you guys don't like the types of lists or attitudes showing up at your events then change the parameters for that event.

Because comp is stupid? Comp doesn't solve the problem, comp shifts the problem. If we comp out the strongest build somehow, then something else replaces it as the strongest build. Comp means that you're not playing Warhammer 40k anymore, you're playing some strange derivative of it. And those players who love to latch onto whatever the power build is will still do so. It won't be the same, but it will still exist.

There are some things that you cannot turn into rules, they need to be addressed some other way. Peer pressure is more appropriate than a rule in this case. Rather than seeing popular blog sites extol the virtues of no-name paint-jobs (meaning: paint a nothing chapter so you can use any rules you want), we could see articles about how to make a realistic (for sci-fi) army. 4 Wolf lords and no wolf-pee-ons? Come on now...

Redbeard wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:
If it's supposed to be casual why are the rules for the tournament not written that way? If that really is the goal why wouldn't you do comp? Or some kind of handicapping system? Or perhaps some structured rules about list design? Or just ban Space Wolves completely?

It seems silly to say "anything goes" and then be disappointed when people show up with exactly that. If you guys don't like the types of lists or attitudes showing up at your events then change the parameters for that event.

Because comp is stupid? Comp doesn't solve the problem, comp shifts the problem. If we comp out the strongest build somehow, then something else replaces it as the strongest build. Comp means that you're not playing Warhammer 40k anymore, you're playing some strange derivative of it. And those players who love to latch onto whatever the power build is will still do so. It won't be the same, but it will still exist.

There are some things that you cannot turn into rules, they need to be addressed some other way. Peer pressure is more appropriate than a rule in this case. Rather than seeing popular blog sites extol the virtues of no-name paint-jobs (meaning: paint a nothing chapter so you can use any rules you want), we could see articles about how to make a realistic (for sci-fi) army. 4 Wolf lords and no wolf-pee-ons? Come on now...

I see. So comp is stupid but your advocating browbeating people into playing a certain way, but not actually enforcing it at your casual tournament and then when they table people with lists you don't approve of but are perfectly legal you then complain about it because they didn't follow the rules that don't really exist.

This is not a coherent way to run a tournament. Nobody will be happy. You will manage to alienate both casuals and competitive players. Enforce comp, or don't. But don't say "follow these rules or nothing happens and you still win the tournament".

At one time, there were hobby tournaments where people didn't just show up with the strongest armies they could.

Something did change.

Was it the internet, making it a lot easier to compare/contrast army builds and find optimal builds? Or just increasing interest in power gaming and decreasing interest in fluff?

Was it too much emphasis on prizes for generalship, making people more interested in power builds due to the rewards?

Was it the rules changes by GW, which made making strong lists more straightforward?

Was it poor codex writing and general dumbing down of codexes making armies more similar by default?

Was it the fact that suddenly the best army was actually a space marine variant for the first time in 10 years, making it really easy for anyone with a marine army to join the bandwagon?

All of these are possibilities (and there's probably more). Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back. Everyone here agrees that comp doesn't fix the problem. The idea of people on the internet suddenly deciding to extoll the virtues of the fluffy-but-semi-competitive army seems like a pipe dream. The only solution, to me, is for GW to fundamentally change the rules of the game (2 slots for each FOC other than troops? in-game rules making everything other than troops 0-2?) or for tournament judges to ONLY give prizes related to overall score (paint+sports+battle) and judge the armies harshly if they're obviously not actually trying to be the army they say they are (Space wolves without a single space wolves bit, black templars without a single seal, ultramarine blue "Salamanders", etc). None of these solutions are great but any of them would at least push things back towards how they used to be. Much more so than some internet people deciding to write about how that game-winning wolf lord list other people like doesn't make sense fluff wise and therefore shouldn't be played.

I think a combination of factors have lead to what Redbeard laments. I think of fluff armies as the old 4th edition chaos cults, Eldar aspect armies, etc...

1) GW itself has said to mix things up and play what you want. The whole Chaos codex is a monument to not playing a fluff army and just kit bashing previously unplayable combinations. Cult lists were thrown out and openly derided. This culminates in a stand alone Daemon codex which wants the Chaos Gods to interact like cast members of Jersey Shore.

2) This tacit approval of counts as went overboard as soon as marine varients starting getting stronger extreme builds over it's parent vanilla codex.

3) Now as the most powerful armies are realised, the kit bashing of the chaos codex, plus the count as approval of the vanilla marine list, has formed a perfect storm.

4) The internet tourney scene has swung hard against comp. Maybe this is cyclical, maybe it's not, but it came at a bad time for fluff armies and their traditional rules.


How ironic that as Jervis introduces units of the past to resurrect 2nd edition, he also helps to destroy the fluff based lists of 3rd-4th edition for good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lambadomy wrote:I really like the new Adepticon primer missions in theory, but I haven't gotten a chance to try them in practice. It will be interesting to see if/how they change army design if they're widely adopted.

The idea behind them is you can still win a game even if you play an all Death Company army. That means you can win every game with no scoring units in your army from the get go. It's not as easy to win without scoring units, but it can be done. In fact it might be easier to win without scoring units if you make the right build that just goes for the tabling - or at least severe crippling of the enemy army. That's not a no brainer strategy as of right now, but Grey Knights aren't out yet.

I think part of the problem is that tournaments were about being the best overall (Generalship+painting+sportsmanship) to only rewarding the best general.

Sprue posse grand prix had an overall that was comprised of those 3 things weighted equally but no requirement for either painting or good sportsmanship ;-)

It just seems to me that the "better" players are usually better sports and spend more time on making their armies look good (if only to win extra points at the tourneys that have those).

I agree, and the crappy players have bone primed space wolves that don't even have wolf pelts and get a 2 on their sportsmanship.

You are just an inveterate smack talker ;-)

The sports thing stunk, IMO.

It forced people to give others a low sports ranking even when they didn't want to.

I HAD to give someone a 1 on sports. Weak. All my games were awesome, I wanted to give everyone a 5. It sucked ot have to give someone a 1 and then have that person think that I didn't like our game or they were mean or something as none of them were.

Sports scores are lame. Nickthewise definitely deserved winning best sports but we can accomplish that though players choice awards and avoid giving other people low scores that make them feel lame.

That is the one bummer of the forced ranking of opponents Sports system.

Best sports scoring system is still pass/fail, with progressively increasing penalties, such that one person or two people knocking you doesn't knock you out, but a majority of them does. Optionally with bonus points for favorite opponent votes. This keeps sportsmanship important while making chimpmunking pretty much a nonissue.

Yeah, if sports scores are present, I agree that they should be binary and only affect players if they receive multiple negative votes. That is the best system I have encountered.

It was just a straight ranking 1-5, it wasn't saying that a 1 was an awful game, just that the other 4 were more enjoyable for whatever reason.

The problem with arbitrary non ranking ones is that very few people even think about it, it is just straight 5s but then you have the people who actually rate the games diligently and they are accused of knocking people down.

This way, your favorite game - the one that stuck out in your mind as the best of the weekend (and there always is one) gets the 5 and then the others cascade from there. It seems to me that this way is actually the most legitimate way of getting what is an admittedly arbitrary scoring.

I dunno, would you like it better if the games were 3,3,3,4,5? This would artificially inflate the scores which might affect the balancing for an overall. We are definitely talking about some ways we can improve the experience and the overall, so if you have any suggestions please let us know.

I like pass/fail; downcheck only if the person's attitude/behavior made the game unpleasant to play.

In a three game tournament (with, say, 20pts for a Win) something like:
1 downcheck : -2pts
2 downchecks: -5pts
3 downchecks: DQ from any prizes.

In a five game:
1 downcheck: -2pt
2 downchecks: -5pts
3 downchecks: -10pts
4 downchecks: DQ from any prizes
5 downchecks: DQ and don't come back next year.

Reecius wrote:Yeah, if sports scores are present, I agree that they should be binary and only affect players if they receive multiple negative votes. That is the best system I have encountered.

This kinda guts sportsmanship as a whole though. You'll end up with a 12 way tie for best sportsmanship. And then really sportsmanship has almost zero impact on renaissance man at all when that 12 way tie is diluted by 2 other scores. Why bother?

Mannahnin wrote:I like pass/fail; downcheck only if the person's attitude/behavior made the game unpleasant to play.

In a three game tournament (with, say, 20pts for a Win) something like:
1 downcheck : -2pts
2 downchecks: -5pts
3 downchecks: DQ from any prizes.

In a five game:
1 downcheck: -2pt
2 downchecks: -5pts
3 downchecks: -10pts
4 downchecks: DQ from any prizes
5 downchecks: DQ and don't come back next year.

We don't do player rated "downchecks" but if someone is unsporting they can receive judge warnings and possible yellow cards (game loss) or red cards (expulsion) if they are completely out of line. I think that achieves the same result and strives for the same goal of preventing obnoxious behavior. I don't do battle points at my tournaments and we never mesh soft scores with generalship rankings so that described system wouldn't work at our tournaments but I think it could work just fine at battle point tourneys with that mix soft scores with generalship scores.

If you've got enough judges to watch all the games and catch any shenanigans, that's awesome. I've never been to a tournament with that level of staffing.

My system combines well with favorite opponent votes too.

If you're not factoring Sports scores into an Overall score, than yeah, forced rankings of your opponents works pretty well for determining a separate Best Sportsmanship prize.

Mannahnin wrote:If you've got enough judges to watch all the games and catch any shananigans, that's awesome. I've never been to a tournament with that level of staffing.

Players are encouraged to call over judges if there are issues. We obviously can't be at every single table at all times. But we always promptly answered rules questions and monitored games that needed to be monitored.

My system combines well with favorite opponent votes too.


If you're not factoring Sports scores into an Overall score, than yeah, forced rankings of your opponents works pretty well for determining a separate Best Sportsmanship prize.

We do both "overall" (ren man) and sportsmanship. I thought the ren man and sports scoring system worked just fine despite a few people not liking it.

Sportsmanship should be gutted. It's obnoxious to have to rank people when every game was good, and its even worse to have that decide an extremely large prize, being more valuable than painting and on par with battle points, and completely, totally random.

Me ranking Dave first cost Ryan Renaissance man. Me and others ranking Earth last has given him a complex and he's still trying to figure out what he did to be such a jerk that got him a 1.8 sportsmanship.

There is 0 justification for making sportsmanship worth as many points as battle points AND a straight rank system. It is much easier to chipmunk this way because well, I HAD to give someone a 1! Oh my friend was a 5, what a surprise! Even though that (may) have not happened here, I just don't get it.

Let me emphasize that what I hate most about this scoring system is that it neuters painting (because there's no seperation between good painters) and instead makes what I believe to be a random vote and not something people think about what determines ren man. I would be ok-ish with a 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 scoring system, but 1 2 3 4 5 is just brutal and completely randomizes the end results or just absolutely screws people because they played multiple people who happened to be everyones friend/favorite opponent/brother/whatever.


also, Blackmoor, great battle report.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If you've got enough judges to watch all the games and catch any shananigans, that's awesome. I've never been to a tournament with that level of staffing.

Players are encouraged to call over judges if there are issues. We obviously can't be at every single table at all times. But we always promptly answered rules questions and monitored games that needed to be monitored.

Ah. So you know ahead of time which games need to be monitored, even those involving players you don't personally know?

The system you're describing seems like it would mostly work with guys who have such a low level of self control that they can't reign in their behavioral issues even when the judge comes over (which IME is pretty rare). Not with guys who try to pull shenanigans during the game and then cool it when the judge is called. I don't think the system as you describe it can achieve the same level of coverage as the pass/fail system unless you have a judge for every table.

lambadomy wrote:Sportsmanship should be gutted. It's obnoxious to have to rank people when every game was good, and its even worse to have that decide an extremely large prize, being more valuable than painting and on par with battle points, and completely, totally random.

Me ranking Dave first cost Ryan Renaissance man. Me and others ranking Earth last has given him a complex and he's still trying to figure out what he did to be such a jerk that got him a 1.8 sportsmanship.

There is 0 justification for making sportsmanship worth as many points as battle points AND a straight rank system. It is much easier to chipmunk this way because well, I HAD to give someone a 1! Oh my friend was a 5, what a surprise! Even though that (may) have not happened here, I just don't get it.

Let me emphasize that what I hate most about this scoring system is that it neuters painting (because there's no seperation between good painters) and instead makes what I believe to be a random vote and not something people think about what determines ren man. I would be ok-ish with a 3, 3, 3, 4, 5 scoring system, but 1 2 3 4 5 is just brutal and completely randomizes the end results or just absolutely screws people because they played multiple people who happened to be everyones friend/favorite opponent/brother/whatever.

also, Blackmoor, great battle report.

As was explained to you at the tournament the prize pools were from two different sources. The generalship and painting awards were from ticket sales. The sportsmanship/renman awards were from a very generous donor who literally forked over $250 cash out of their own pocket to support the additional prizes. While I understand the derision at the values awarded, it was not zero sum. Awarding less for sportsman or ren man would simply mean they weren't awarded at all. Which might be arranged at the next GT. We'll have to see. The awards were not meant to hurt players feelings or make the experience less fun. If that was truly the consensus result then we'll likely abolish it completely as opposed to revising it.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kevin Nash wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If you've got enough judges to watch all the games and catch any shananigans, that's awesome. I've never been to a tournament with that level of staffing.

Players are encouraged to call over judges if there are issues. We obviously can't be at every single table at all times. But we always promptly answered rules questions and monitored games that needed to be monitored.

Ah. So you know ahead of time which games need to be monitored, even those involving players you don't personally know?

Yes. If a player is a known "problem" we pay closer attention to their games. If in game 1 the judge is called over multiple times to settle rules disputes or monitor a player, then that player is watched much more closely in subsequent rounds, especially in the last 20 minutes of a round, or in later rounds when generalship scores or potential prize money is on the line.

The system you're describing seems like it would mostly work with guys who have such a low level of self control that they can't reign in their behavioral issues even when the judge comes over (which IME is pretty rare). Not with guys who try to pull shenanigans during the game and then cool it when the judge is called. I don't think the system as you describe it can achieve the same level of coverage as the pass/fail system unless you have a judge for every table.

The system is to prevent typical TFG tactics like slow play, stalling, moving extra inches for advantage, browbeating, rules lawyering, taking back moves or the like. If he changes his behavior because a judge is watching we've done what we wanted anyway, to ensure the guy plays fair. If this is needed multiple times in a tournament they are issued warnings or even game losses in the behavior continues. It works just fine I assure you, at least as far as ensuring that people play in a fair manner. We don't use the player rated sportsmanship award to ensure people don't cheat. Judges do that. We do sportsmanship as a fun extra award that is supposed to help encourage a better overall play experience. It's really not supposed to be anything more.

Sorry, you're misunderstanding my use of zero sum here. I completely understand that the generous prize was from a separate pool and I thought it was awesome that it was included.

What I mean by zero sum is that every point I get, someone else doesn't get. That is all. In the painting scores, my good painting doesn't prevent other people from scoring good painting scores. That is not zero sum. In both battle points and sportsmanship, every point you scored was a point someone else didn't. Zero sum. And because of this, the importance of painting is lessened vs sports/battle, because you aren't going to get any spread between the top scorers.

My fun was definitely not lessened because of the sports scoring - I didn't even know it existed until the end of the last game anyway. Were my feelings hurt? I don't really think so, I mean, it sucks but I understand it's what happens when you have to rank people. I can't speak for other people though, and I do know of at least one example where someone who was a stranger to most of the players went away thinking that they were a jerk and their opponents did not enjoy their games, and repeatedly asked me what they did wrong or needed to improve upon.

I don't know if I agree that the sportsmanship scoring really had any affect one way or another on players behavior. Did people even know sportsmanship was being scored until game 5? I didn't. That is of course another reason to have sportsmanship be checkboxes or mark downs or whatever - you can do it right there, at the end of the game, on a game by game basis, instead of waiting until the end to say "well, that guy was nice...but that guy bought me dinner last night...but that guys army looks so good...and man all the games were fun...well ok I don't really remember game 2 all that much anymore was that good..."

lambadomy wrote:I don't know if I agree that the sportsmanship scoring really had any affect one way or another on players behavior. Did people even know sportsmanship was being scored until game 5? I didn't. That is of course another reason to have sportsmanship be checkboxes or mark downs or whatever - you can do it right there, at the end of the game, on a game by game basis, instead of waiting until the end to say "well, that guy was nice...but that guy bought me dinner last night...but that guys army looks so good...and man all the games were fun...well ok I don't really remember game 2 all that much anymore was that good..."

I knew. It was mentioned during the pre-tourney talking, and fully explained on the website. And in a system like this (which I've seen before), "I can't remember that game" is indicative - I always remember the really good games, as well as the really bad games, so an unremembered opponent gets ranked after the former, but before any of the latter.

Please tell Earth that I remember (and enjoyed) my game with him.

But the generalship w/l/t thing is also a 0 sum sort of thing, right? Every game you win keeps someone else from placing.

I played Earth and thought he was a fun opponent. His WAAAGHS, while very in character for the army, can cause some of the more shy gamers (and most gamers are shy to an extent or we would have a different hobby ;-) ) might have contributed to his lowish score.

I am not saying that ranking the players was easy or even necessarily representative of how the fun the game was when standing on its own or even the "right" way to do it. It was the first time we included sportsmanship at all and we haven't really had any sports problems in very many of the previous tourneys (aside from this guy that keeps bringing abbadon ;-) ) and so it was a new thing to make use of the donor's idea.

Honestly, we are all blown away and surprised by the bitching on this topic and it is likely that it just causes more drama than it is worth.

A few suggestions for next time is to give random door prizes or have renaissance man be the the top combined player who doesn't win anything else and just leave any kind of player ranked sportsmanship out completely.

Even though I thoroughly enjoyed all of my games and didn't think anyone deserved a 1 or 2 for Sports, I much prefer this system to the "checklist" sports system done at the end of each game.

As someone previously mentioned, you have some people who'll just check everything off and give all of their opponents 10's and some who will seriously take the time to evaluate (or over-evaluate) the game and ding their opponents - or ding them because they are recording it right after a tough loss.

By recording it at the end of the tournament you have a chance to step away from the game and evaluate things with a clearer head. I would think you'd also get more first place ties with the checklist system.

I do however think the 3,3,3,4,5 system has potential, as it will create a lower discrepancy between the players and not force players to have a "least favorite" game / opponent.

Just my .02...

Oh and very nice batreps Blackmoor - I really liked your strategy in the first game and I can totally sympathize with failing timely leadership (and pinning) tests. Looking forward to the rest.

Yeah, there are always problems with sportsmanship systems. Some, no one takes them seriously - 10's for everyone. Some, the check boxes are vague or punish certain armies - at the Socal Slaughter for example I got dinged by multiple opponents because my Tau "dominated the shooting phase". I guess I should have charged.

This system gets a large spread amongst the players and will almost always end up with a clear winner. It is excellent for that. I just think there are a lot of side effects/holes in the system/whatever - suddenly who else your opponent plays is affecting your score. And from an ego standpoint I don't like a system in which *I* end up with a score that would normally be interpreted as "below average" or "poor". And of course if people know each other, and the system allows them to take/give someone points equivalent to a WIN and a LOSS, then I do believe this system is easier to game than just 5 points, partly because it's worth so much more (more than a third of your potentially variable points) and partly because there is no way for the organizers to repair the scores if they feel someone chipmunked (how do you even suspect chipmunking on a list 1-5?).

Anyway I've said my peace, and it's completely fine if people don't agree with me. I have 0 problem with sportsmanship scoring in principle, and I definitely don't think the prize winners were somehow undeserving. This is the first tournament where I could look at a list of players and say "oh, I see, that person DID win best sportsmanship" instead of just looking at a list of 30's or 50's and wondering how they picked the winner out of that so that is a plus for sure.

@somnicide - yes, best general is also a 0 sum thing. So in most tournaments with battle/paint/sports/comp best overall is pretty much being decided by best general + some minor bonus points or someone near the top not painting their army or really being a huge jerk. It is not necessarily a better system, but I tend to like it better because it makes sportsmanship less important - it eliminates jerks (if people bother to use it) from the top, not 3 of your 5 opponents because you ranked then 1-3.

These are issues that the pass/fail system also addresses.

The discrepancy between people who just give flat 10s (or 5s) vs. people who give honest 7-8s or 3-4s) is eliminated. No one winds up with a low score unless they made multiple people unhappy.

Not that I think forced ranking is bad, by any means. I don't like 1-5 or 1-10 subjective, though.

Now that Blackmoors post has been completely derailed...

1. Sportsmanship is subjective. No way around it, I have yet to see any scoring method for sports, unless it was literally.. a) did you bring a tape measure b) did you bring the correct army list c).... anything else that is interpretive based on the play style is subjective.

2. What I am hearing is that people want sportsmanship to be the everyone feels good scoring I did force people the rank Being the worst doesn't mean you were bad, but I did force the issue of relativity. I did this to make it very easy to identify the best of the best.

3. By forcing a larger spread, it made the renaissance man not a battle of who had the highest sports score, as without the spread the weighting would have shifted.

4. I had all the scores at a granular level and no one did poorly. Some did get 1s, but no one had a pattern of an excessive number of 1s, and 1 person demonstrated more favorable results. End of day, it actually did exactly what it meant to do.

However, I am more than willing to never have sports as part of scoring again, in fact, I won't next time Because, imo, sportsmanship scoring does suck even ranking but it was the best option for having something, and this thread shows that it just wasn't worth it

nickthewise wrote:
Oh and very nice batreps Blackmoor - I really liked your strategy in the first game and I can totally sympathize with failing timely leadership (and pinning) tests. Looking forward to the rest.

I will try to get our game up tonight. I caught the plague that has been going around my work and I have been kind of out of it.