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 sportmanship score is fine, but it should require descriptions of very low or very high scores

I don't understand this all to much. This person you played against who was using DE obviously didn't know all that much of the rules or cause and effect of his own actions such as his vehicle getting wrecked and taking the crew with it. It's a learning experience, Maybe it's not the best thing to do with that DE vehicle, well now he knows. I see no point in getting angry when all that's being brought to his attention are the rules, the rules of the game he is currently playing which dictate what he can and can't do. It's stupid.

I myself am new to 40k and honestly would of appreciated the corrections/help. Sorry you had to have such an experience.

Are things like this common?

Old Man Ultramarine wrote:If your TO had any balls, he would have called DE player over and asked him to justify the 1 sportsmanship score. It's not fair to have players just get insane when they get called on rules. For the record this is not an example of rules lawyering. Basic game rules have to be followed.

Just stopped by to say this and agree with all those who agreed with OMU previously. It is up to the TO to help out in these cases.

According to the rulebook, 'the most important rule is to have fun'... But that should not be at the expense of a coherent game. The better strategist should win.

Frankly I'm more confused about how DE lost to SWs... The guy had to be a serious noob.

Seeing threads like these, I am increasingly of the opinion that A, I will continue to not be entering any tournaments and B, if a Tournament will have a "sportsmanship" score, it should be decided by TOs, or "referees" if you will.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:Seeing threads like these, I am increasingly of the opinion that A, I will continue to not be entering any tournaments and B, if a Tournament will have a "sportsmanship" score, it should be decided by TOs, or "referees" if you will.

If you let anecdotes dissuade you from doing things, I recommend never going to any restaurants, walking on a street or driving a car. In fact, stock up on can goods and don't leave the house.

Player judged sports isn't impossible, it just requires the TO to pay attention. TO judged sports is almost impossible without a 1 judge to 1 table ratio.

@OP
You would think that people playing in tounaments would know most of the rules and how it would affect them in game terms. But what can you do. I think you handled the situation the same way I would have handled it.

@OP I suggest having a serious discussion with your TO baout either changing how sports is scored, making sports more transparent, or asking him to investigate bad sports scores given in a situation that already had him involved in some way. The TO should have caught this and handled it.

RiTides wrote:
Also, @ the thread- 2 out of the 3 main issues raised in the OP have been questioned here. I still can't tell from the debate if a skimmer moving flat-out into difficult terrain and immobilizes itself would kill all the models, or allow them to do an emergency disembark.

From the FAQ (Page 6). Pretty cut and dry, if you ask me. Always bring the FAQ's with you to tournaments, boys and girls. And know them well.

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

pretre wrote:
If you let anecdotes dissuade you from doing things, I recommend never going to any restaurants, walking on a street or driving a car. In fact, stock up on can goods and don't leave the house.

Player judged sports isn't impossible, it just requires the TO to pay attention. TO judged sports is almost impossible without a 1 judge to 1 table ratio.

It's not anecdotes that dissuade me from doing things, I am a VERY casual gamer. I like getting my games at my, or a friends house, with libations involved (that is alcoholic, or adult beverages to those who don't know), to more or less hang out, and play a game.. not play a game and hang out. I hate getting hung up on rules questions unless it is a "new" issue to us, and have made rules calls based on the "cinematic effect" that it has on the game.

If I let anecdotes keep me from doing stuff.. then I would never ride any of my bikes (especially as some of those things have happened to close and personal friends in regards to bikes)

I always ask "are you ok with this?" or something along those lines so they have an opportunity to point out if I have misjudged anything instead of bottling it up.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

pretre wrote:
If you let anecdotes dissuade you from doing things, I recommend never going to any restaurants, walking on a street or driving a car. In fact, stock up on can goods and don't leave the house.

Player judged sports isn't impossible, it just requires the TO to pay attention. TO judged sports is almost impossible without a 1 judge to 1 table ratio.

It's not anecdotes that dissuade me from doing things, I am a VERY casual gamer. I like getting my games at my, or a friends house, with libations involved (that is alcoholic, or adult beverages to those who don't know), to more or less hang out, and play a game.. not play a game and hang out. I hate getting hung up on rules questions unless it is a "new" issue to us, and have made rules calls based on the "cinematic effect" that it has on the game.

If I let anecdotes keep me from doing stuff.. then I would never ride any of my bikes (especially as some of those things have happened to close and personal friends in regards to bikes)

Good thing too. You can get Botulism from dented canned goods.

That stuff happens all the time. I hate sportsmansship points. Of course it might be becuase I yell WAAAAAGH at my opponent before every close combat.

If an opponent is becoming visibly upset, one should at least consider what one can do to make the situation better. This is tricky to do without being patronizing, but it's better to make a friend when possible than to win a game against a newb.

Corollary: sometimes however it is not possible to make friends.

You did nothing wrong. It sounds like you might have had a chance to do something very good, but didn't. You are the only person who can say for sure.

I know what ya mean. I'm kind of a rules lawyer myself, but if someone challenges me on something, I'll calmly show them the rule, and expect likewise if I do the same.

Unfortunately, its very hard to not come of as a bit of an a$$ when pointing out a rule, so I try to mediate it by saying what will happen, then doing it, so they aren't so shocked that they yell.

Von Chogg

Von Chogg wrote:I know what ya mean. I'm kind of a rules lawyer myself, but if someone challenges me on something, I'll calmly show them the rule, and expect likewise if I do the same.

Unfortunately, its very hard to not come of as a bit of an a$$ when pointing out a rule, so I try to mediate it by saying what will happen, then doing it, so they aren't so shocked that they yell.

Von Chogg

Thats the issue. After having to tell him like 3-4 rules he just thought I was an donkey-cave rules lawyer, even though they were basic rules anyone at a tourney should know...

LOL Autoedit ^

I think knowing the rules should become a scorable portion of tournaments.

The problem with that and the notion of scoring for sportsmanship, has everything to do with the very notion of how WFB/40k tournaments are organized. They really aren't tournements they're just organized play with a scoring system. In a true tournament the players should be distilled down into smaller subsets with the ultimate goal of finding a winner. Most "tournaments" are in fact play for points with no qualitative distillation of players. In what I consider a tournament many of the players people have been complaining about would have been eliminated from the main body of players and not allowed to preceed and at best left to a secondary bracket.

The reason for the style of tournament structure I think should be used is that it gives the organizers a way to better focus their attention where it matters. Imagine if the last games of a 40k tournament a judge was able to be present at the table at all times.

I realize the standard way WFB/40k tournaments are run, are a type of tournament, but its not the best form for a tournament where you are contending with people who don't know the rules, are ill prepaired to participate, and don't understand how un-regulated scoring system works.

nkelsch wrote:

Grakmar wrote: Tournaments are where you go to test your skills and winning is the only goal.

I cannot disagree more with this statement. That has never been what all tourneys, especially GW tourneys have been about in the wargaming circle.

So what exactly is the goal? You enter a tourney to win. That is the whole point, to test your skill at the game to win the prize.

You will never forget the rule faux pas that cost you a game. You will also never make that same mistake again.

Grakmar wrote: Tournaments are where you go to test your skills and winning is the only goal.

I do have to agree here, HOWEVER sportsmanship is a large part of tournaments (or any game for that matter).

zeekill wrote:

Grakmar wrote: Tournaments are where you go to test your skills and winning is the only goal.

I do have to agree here, HOWEVER sportsmanship is a large part of tournaments (or any game for that matter).

Sprotsmanship should never be a part of the scoring of a tournament. No matter how much of a douche your opponent is being if you and him are playing the game correctly and there are no bending, or breaking of the rules then whomever wins should only be determined by the rules of the game, the strategy each employs, and the luck of the dice. May the best general win, not the best diplomat.

How old was this person? Did they appear to obsess over the game? Sounds like a flaw in character.

I think tournaments consider being a good sport as important as being a good player because it creates a fun game and being a bad sport makes the hobby undesirable. Look, I'm as happy as a squig to frag my enemy's troops, but I'd rather play a game and lose to a good sport than play a game and win to a bad sport.

I have this problem. However I have it with myself. I'm Dyspraxic and therefore suffer from limited memory and coordinational skills. I'm not having a go at anyone, but sometimes people have a perfectly good explanation for not knowing the rules.

DarkFuture wrote:I have this problem. However I have it with myself. I'm Dyspraxic and therefore suffer from limited memory and coordinational skills. I'm not having a go at anyone, but sometimes people have a perfectly good explanation for not knowing the rules.

And of course those people, knowing they have such a specific (unfortunate) condition, KNOWS they run the risk of mis-remembering rules with a greater frequency, so they don't complain as much when politely corrected, right?

I mean, such a condition is not, can not and must not ever be used as a reason NOT to correct the player.