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.

I'm not sure you really agree with me if you find things like bringing "Cheesy" lists or exploiting enemy weaknesses to be "absolutely horrid." Of your listed examples, the only three I find acceptable are: the spring (use of smart tactics), bringing cheesy lists (you say OTT and WAAC, I say properly competitive), and relentlessly exploiting an enemies weakness. I guess I fail to see how any of these fail to respect my opponent.

If you simply don't like compettive 40k play, that's fine. But lets never confuse cheating with playing hard to win. It's very clear which is which, and if you don't like the latter, that's fine, but I'd really appreciate you not lumping playing to win with cheating to win.

And yeah, I'm sorry you dont' want to hear my opinion, but since you're effectively calling me a jerk and a cheater, I guess I'd like to say that I don't consider myself either.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure you really agree with me if you find things like bringing "Cheesy" lists or exploiting enemy weaknesses to be "absolutely horrid." Of your listed examples, the only three I find acceptable are: the spring (use of smart tactics), bringing cheesy lists (you say OTT and WAAC, I say properly competitive), and relentlessly exploiting an enemies weakness. I guess I fail to see how any of these fail to respect my opponent.

If you simply don't like competitive 40k play, that's fine. But lets never confuse cheating with playing hard to win. It's very clear which is which, and if you don't like the latter, that's fine, but I'd really appreciate you not lumping playing to win with cheating to win.

And yeah, I'm sorry you dont' want to hear my opinion, but since you're effectively calling me a jerk and a cheater, I guess I'd like to say that I don't consider myself either.

First and foremost I do apologize to you, Insaniak and anyone else if you found my statments to refer to you as jerks, I'll see if I cannot explain:

I think there is a difference between competitive and over competitive.

I'll use an example that works for this: In paintball there are tournaments for people that just use the renter guns and rely solely on there in game tactics and intelligence (something I refer to as the gentlemanly sport), then there are tournaments for people with hand cannons that can fire 1000+ rounds a second and you dont need to rely so much on tactics when you have something that can do the work for you (something I refer to as the savage chest beating "I need testosterone" sport). You cannot possibly inter mingle the two.

I think the problem with this debate is that most tournaments Ive gone to, there has been very little in the way of over competitive people and everyone shows up with a fairly balanced list and are there to have a fun weekend, so that is my standard. However occasionally I (and what appears to be many of you) play the no-hold-bars over competition where your sole purpose is to win, which I find to be a good thing occasionally (the GT).

Most of the time they share the same prize though, which is a crappy plastic trophy, so playing in an over competitive environment without the reward of money or something worth winning, makes zero sense to me. It just seems like a pointless venture to act like an a**hole and treat each other with contempt.

That’s the thing with comparing to major sports, Insaniak compared it to championship tennis, with them they get paid to do so and winning means you get endorsements and what not. In the paintball example the teams that have those crazy guns generally play in tournaments for money. Even magic the gathering has a $1 million dollar grand prize. In those tournaments being over competitive makes sense because you are actually achieving something, in 40K you achieve nothing. There is no grand accomplishment, no money, no recognition, and no endorsements. So why tell yourself that winning that wall plaque is the most important thing on earth?

insaniak wrote:

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.

Whirlwinds are practically useless against other MEQs. The players would be forced to do something other than sit quietly in the mirror match. Being limited to a single list (C: SM) or archetype (MEQ), or sharing a common list, necessarily prevents any cries of cheese because everybody has the same options.

Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/tournament/Non-Agression.pdf

Note that they specifically call out Sports as a factor here, and implicitly require that each opponent take actions that allow the opponent a chance at winning...

Ravenous D wrote:Most of the time they share the same prize though, which is a crappy plastic trophy, so playing in an over competitive environment without the reward of money or something worth winning, makes zero sense to me.

To quite a lot of people in any sort of competitive endeavour, the prize is irrelevant.

It's the challenge that makes it all worthwhile. The prize, whatever it may be, is just icing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

Quite a lot of games have similar ideas built into their rules. Which is a great idea. What it's not is a reason to penalise players in a completely different game that doesn't have such rules.

It shouldn't be up to the players to make sure that the rules are fair to both sides. That's the job of the guy running the tournament.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Also, FWIW, in competitive SFB, IIRC, players are not allowed to make repeated retrograde moves, precisely because they force an extreme tactical imbalance that penalizes the aggressor:

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/tournament/Non-Agression.pdf

Note that they specifically call out Sports as a factor here, and implicitly require that each opponent take actions that allow the opponent a chance at winning...

If you need this type of non-aggression clause, then it is an indication of a poorly designed game system.

Overall, there are two types of events. 1) Gatherings and 2) Tournaments.

For event #1 "The Gathering", whoever wins or loses is irrellevant. Everyone is just getting together to play a game. No prizes or places are on the line. Things can be loosely played without worry. These include the GamesDays, certain convention events, club gaming nights and even one on one pick-up games. These are the type of events where giving an opponent a chance to win is more appropriate.

For event #2 "The Tournament", there is a clear winner and ranking of the best to worst performing of the opponents. Prizes, plaques, rankings and prestige can all be on the line. Game play is normally much tighter with a more competitive mix of applied tactics and strategies. These include RTTs, GTs, AdpetiCon style events and more. These are the type of events where giving an opponent a chance to win is not appropriate and is actually a disservice to the other players in the event. Each player in a tournament has an obligation to all other players to do his/her absolute best in all categories (including battle).

Once a person that is more oriented towards "The Gathering" steps into "The Tournament" environment, their expectations should adjust accordingly. The problem is that the majority of time this adjustment does not occur for "The Gatherer". There are also certain tournament players that do not adjust well from being able to dominate their local RTT events, but finding out that they are mediocre at the GTs. This lack of adjustment should not automatically reflect in poor soft scores of their opponent. However, the sad truth is there are a lot of times when it does.

General Hobbs wrote: 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 call BS on the fact that the IG player believes you play the game for fun. For him to be mad and give a 0 in sportsmanship for the reasons listed is uncalled for. Unless there are other reasons that were not listed, there is no excuse for his actions and he is just a poor sport.

I also call BS on the "playing for fun" and "fluff" based arguments against the marine player.

1. "Fluff" Quoted from a WAAC hating friend - "And I would argue that marines (loyal or chaos) executing a well orchestrated series of strikes that wipes out a larger or slower-responding force with minimal losses on their side is completely in keeping with the established 40k background…"

2. "Fun" Quoted from the same WAAC hating friend - On one hand, it’s a game and therefore supposed to be fun, but on the other hand different people define “fun” in different ways. One might have the most fun crushing someone’s soul with a flawless victory. I might have the most fun in a close fought game where one of us edges the other out in the bottom of the 6th turn… But that kind of “fun” talk is for casual games. If you go to a tournament, you have to expect people to try and win - soft scores or not. If I can wipe you out without losing a man, aren’t I obligated to do it?

So these arguments against the marine player due to "Fluff" and "Fun" are totally BS. Everyone's opinion is going to be different.

What is WAAC?

Win At All Costs

Ravenous D wrote:

First and foremost I do apologize to you, Insaniak and anyone else if you found my statments to refer to you as jerks, I'll see if I cannot explain:

I think there is a difference between competitive and over competitive.

Apology accepted, and I think there is a difference between competitive and over competitive. I have a feeling some of what you call over competitive I call simply competitive, while the rest of it I call cheating or being a tool.

I'll use an example that works for this: In paintball there are tournaments for people that just use the renter guns and rely solely on there in game tactics and intelligence (something I refer to as the gentlemanly sport), then there are tournaments for people with hand cannons that can fire 1000+ rounds a second and you dont need to rely so much on tactics when you have something that can do the work for you (something I refer to as the savage chest beating "I need testosterone" sport). You cannot possibly inter mingle the two.

Already, you clearly have a dislike for a version of play, one that's usually clearly marked and utterly voluntary. I'd like to point out that while you're totally in the clear in not enjoying super competitive paintball, I think it's a little disrespectful to assume that there is not valid reason others might like it.

I think the problem with this debate is that most tournaments Ive gone to, there has been very little in the way of over competitive people and everyone shows up with a fairly balanced list and are there to have a fun weekend, so that is my standard. However occasionally I (and what appears to be many of you) play the no-hold-bars over competition where your sole purpose is to win, which I find to be a good thing occasionally (the GT).

So, again, the highly competitive environment is clearly marked. I'm just pointing that out.

Most of the time they share the same prize though, which is a crappy plastic trophy, so playing in an over competitive environment without the reward of money or something worth winning, makes zero sense to me. It just seems like a pointless venture to act like an a**hole and treat each other with contempt.

Here you really go off the tracks. You keep insisting that there is an inherent inability to play competitvely, highly competitvely, without becoming TFG. You don't seem to have any personal anecdotes, and very few people do, because virtually all competitive gamers are polite and genteel.

That’s the thing with comparing to major sports, Insaniak compared it to championship tennis, with them they get paid to do so and winning means you get endorsements and what not. In the paintball example the teams that have those crazy guns generally play in tournaments for money. Even magic the gathering has a $1 million dollar grand prize. In those tournaments being over competitive makes sense because you are actually achieving something, in 40K you achieve nothing. There is no grand accomplishment, no money, no recognition, and no endorsements. So why tell yourself that winning that wall plaque is the most important thing on earth?

I find it hard to believe that you can't see any reason to play in a highly competitve manner against other like minded gamers. Have you ever played a video game on a difficulty over easy? Do you still play paintball against 12 year olds? No, because you like to test your skills against people of a similar level. So yeah, sometimes it's nice to craft your nastiest, most brutal list and take it against another hard core list in a match between two skilled players. If you can't see any appeal to that, then I think you're being willfully obtuse. There is a certain prestige, geeky as that sounds, and there is pride in winning. One reason there is pride, BTW, is because your playing against people trying equally hard to win. This thing ties together pretty neatly.

Ravenous D wrote:
I'll use an example that works for this: In paintball there are tournaments for people that just use the renter guns and rely solely on there in game tactics and intelligence (something I refer to as the gentlemanly sport), then there are tournaments for people with hand cannons that can fire 1000+ rounds a second and you dont need to rely so much on tactics when you have something that can do the work for you (something I refer to as the savage chest beating "I need testosterone" sport). You cannot possibly inter mingle the two.

I disagree with this statement. I enjoy playing paintball roughly five or six times a year if not more and I have my own equipment. It's a dencet gun that can put out a good ROF if I need it to, but it has nothing to so with "chest beating" or "needing more testosterone". I bought my own equipment because it made sense. I enjoy having my own marker and being able to tinker with it. I also feel it makes me more competitve becuse I don't have to worry about the condition of my marker, I know it is well maintaned and in good working order.
Considering my experience with rental guns has been touchy at best, poor maintenance and old overworked markers make for a disappointing day and I wouldn't play with one ever. Sure, it's fun to "spray and pray" once in a while when other guys on your team are doing some crazy run in to grab the flag or you are pinned down but I use game tactics and intelligence when I play more often then not and encourage those on my team to do so as well. In fact, most places see people with rentals mixing with people with their own gear and there seem to be few problems, they just make more money off paint sales for those crazy rapid fire guns .
Perhaps a better analogy would be "speed ball" vs. "woods ball". But even then, speed ball needs some tactics....

I feel bad when my army outclasses the other players army.

In a tournament setting though, it's unfortunately 'too bad' syndrome.

You can always be a loser and mark the soft scores down to feel better about yourself.

Oh right, that's what happens now...and has for years.

Man, don't get me started.

Polonius wrote: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.

For me, it's the game. I've also had games with great friends that I wouldn't care to repeat. But if you're not rating the game, then what are you rating? Are you not then applying outside factors to the scoring of the one game? How is that different from giving your friends max points, when you come across them in a tournament?

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

Reread that bolded part there. Now consider: what expectation is revealed in the statement? (I'm not trying to pick on you, Polonius, but it is indicative of the general trend in the thread, and this was the easiest example to highlight.)

Somehow, people have the conception that receiving a low sports score equates with being penalized by the other player. Try it from the other perspective - NOT receiving a high sports score means I haven't been rewarded by the other player. Why not? Odds are, because the game wasn't fun for him. If I made the game more fun for him, irrespective of outcome, I might be rewarded with a higher sports score. (If I bring a better-painted army, I might be rewarded with a better painting score. If I bring a better-balanced army, I might be rewarded with a higher battle points score. If I can manage all of these things, and the stars are properly aligned, I might be rewarded with Overall success.)

lambadomy wrote: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.

Hopefully the above helps explain my perspective a little, lambadomy. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with your conception of "the opponent's job" - when I go to a tournament, I go with the understanding that my participation includes the (often explicitly stated!) requirement that the games be fun. If the game is not fun, I have failed that requirement. Because it takes two to tango, my opponent has also. As such, neither of us may be the best candidate for Overall or Best Sportsman that particular day, and the scores should reflect that.

And yes, you WILL run across people who only have fun if they win. Such is life. Frankly, if you AND your opponent can't have fun playing with your toy soldiers, then neither of you should be in contention for the "Best 40k Player in the House Today" award, as represented by Overall placement.

Janthkin, I have to come more down on the Polonius side here. The usual sports scoring scale includes low, moderate, and high scores. It’s not just “penalize” and “reward”.

There can be a variety of factors that result in a game being less than satisfying, and quite frequently those factors are not under my opponent’s control. If the terrain is off, the mission badly written, or my army poorly suited to the matchup, it’s not appropriate or fair to blame those things on my opponent. He’s not in control of those things.

IMO an opponent who deliberately goes out of their way to make the game more fun despite those things deserves to be rewarded with an exceptional sports score. An opponent who plays competitively and takes their win without being rude or actively unpleasant is displaying normal but not exceptional sportsmanship. A zero, no matter how you slice it, is below normal expectations, and generally considered a penalty for doing something/acting in a way that makes the game less fun than it would be normally.

Two points:


1) Shenanigans on the IG guy.
You play games with the desire to have fun, but nobody should be playing with the intent to lose.
Play the best game you can. Period.

If he wanted a different game, he should have taken it to the SM player...
Charge some units out to draw out some targets.

There are ways around every offense and every defense.

Le Grognard wrote:
Not cool, bro. Read the fine print in his sig.

No excuse.
Two words; Spell Checker.

---> Edit: I agree that it's not cool to post with misspellings purposefully with the intent to humiliate someone. I DON'T think it's incorrect to comment on atrocious spelling that is hard to read (there were words in there I had to read 3 or 4 times -maybe more- to figure out what he was saying). Nobody here's spelling is perfect, or expected to be, but if you know you spell so horribly that you need to make an excuse for it in your sig, then you should DEFINITELY be using a spell checker <---


His posts are indicative of a poor speller, not of a dyslexic.

Eric

Mannahnin wrote: A zero, no matter how you slice it, is below normal expectations, and generally considered a penalty for doing something/acting in a way that makes the game less fun than it would be normally.

Exactly.

I'm not attempting to justify a "I didn't win, so you get a zero" approach to sportsmanship. Those people should be weeded out of the game entirely - they provide no benefit to other players, and are poor representatives of the hobby (and possibly of humanity). I don't believe in "punishing" my opponent using the sportsmanship score. I also (try) not to hold my opponent accountable for factors beyond his control - army mismatch, bad terrain, bad scenarios, etc.

HOWEVER, I fully understand and endorse the "this game was no fun to me, you were the proximate cause of that problem, and your sportsmanship score will appropriately reflect that" philosophy of sportsmanship scoring. And in cases where that happens, I fully expect my own sportsmanship score to be similarly unrewarding - very rarely will a game be fun for one, and no fun for the other.

Janthkin wrote:

Polonius wrote:
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

Reread that bolded part there. Now consider: what expectation is revealed in the statement? (I'm not trying to pick on you, Polonius, but it is indicative of the general trend in the thread, and this was the easiest example to highlight.)

Somehow, people have the conception that receiving a low sports score equates with being penalized by the other player. Try it from the other perspective - NOT receiving a high sports score means I haven't been rewarded by the other player. Why not? Odds are, because the game wasn't fun for him. If I made the game more fun for him, irrespective of outcome, I might be rewarded with a higher sports score. (If I bring a better-painted army, I might be rewarded with a better painting score. If I bring a better-balanced army, I might be rewarded with a higher battle points score. If I can manage all of these things, and the stars are properly aligned, I might be rewarded with Overall success.)

I would argue that under your view, in which Sportsmanship is a reward, Sports scores becomes a highly subjective, even utterly discretionary allowance. This is one reason it's being cleaned up for major events, and certainly the overall tenor or vibe or "Funness" of the game should be a factor. What I challenge is the notion that a player could be polite, respectful, fair and aboveboard and then recieve a zero sports score. A 5 out of 10 is still odd but arguable. A 3 out of 5 is ok. But zero? I don't like the idea of giving "it was the greatest game I've ever played" scores to every RTT opponent any more than the next guy, but I also don't think scoring a game "it was the worst game every and I would never play the guy again" is any better.

I would argue that if you bring a well painted army, you deserve a high paint score, you shouldn't hope to be rewarded with one. I think that there are certain objective bnechmarks that can prevent an extreme sports score.

Finally, here's a question for the peanut gallery: how could the SM player have made it more fun for the IG player? If i'm imagining the scenario right, there was probably wide open firing lanes from the IG side across the board. If there was enough terrain to block the SM army, I'm imagining a lopsided terrain deployment, not a cityfight board. I'd imagine the SM player realized that there is no way he's getting any of his infantry units into the IG deployment zone at half strength, meaning the game would boil down to kill VPs. In a VP slugfest between two shooty armies, the shootier army wins most of the time. What does all of this mean? How exactly should the SM player have "made it more fun" while still trying to win? I'm going to assume that he's not a bad guy for wanting to win, but I think a lot of posters here are convinced that this was an utter domination by the SM guy, when I think it was a taut minor victory. He didn't play in an odd way to gain a huge massacre, he did what he had to to squeak out a win. In addition, I still don't buy that the IG player couldn't do anything for six turns. He could have moved his army into position to rush the SM deployment zone, or find some shooting lanes, etc.

Janthkin wrote: Hopefully the above helps explain my perspective a little, lambadomy. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with your conception of "the opponent's job" - when I go to a tournament, I go with the understanding that my participation includes the (often explicitly stated!) requirement that the games be fun. If the game is not fun, I have failed that requirement. Because it takes two to tango, my opponent has also. As such, neither of us may be the best candidate for Overall or Best Sportsman that particular day, and the scores should reflect that.

That is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. It takes two to dance, but if one refuses to - then the other shouldn't be penalized or in your case not rewarded for putting forth the effort. What the hell is this BS that we have to cater to everyone's desire in an event? People don't pay to travel to events to stroke little jimmy's ego the right way or account for all his sensitivities. It's a 'game' of toy soldiers. You are going to lose models and games.

Janthkin wrote:And yes, you WILL run across people who only have fun if they win. Such is life. Frankly, if you AND your opponent can't have fun playing with your toy soldiers, then neither of you should be in contention for the "Best 40k Player in the House Today" award, as represented by Overall placement.

Players don't pay to be in these events to be mind readers. You can do your best and still have an opponent that "lost his favorite model" or "hates a certain unit" or "hates a certain tactic" or "hates that you talk too much" or "hates your hair" or "hates your buddy" or "has male PMS". How the hell are you supposed to know what some stranger likes/dislikes or how they are feeling? To penalize or "not reward" a player for not being able to read minds is simply moronic.

Seriously folks - if you can't handle losing models and games against an opponent that is friendly/corgial, handles all in game mechanics fairly, and who showered that day, then please stay home. The tournament scene doesn't need you. All top teir tournament veterans (except for Stelek of course ) have lost games. It happens to the best of us.

Sportsmanship should reflect the player, not the game. Period. Otherwise you get into "what makes a game fun for me" not "what makes the player fun to play against".

There are too many factors BOTH players have no control over to make it anything than a reflection on your opponent, his demeanor, and how he plays, such as:

being nice
not cheating or "accidentally" cheating
how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

playing to win should be rewarded as well. Purposefully playing badly when he has a clear advantage doing something else is not good sportsmanship, it's being dumb.

A player has NO CONTROL over a lot of factors that go into the individual game, and therefore should not be penalized for it in sportsmanship. The marine player didn't pick recon, it was given to them. The marine player didn't place the terrain, it was given to them. The marine player didn't pick the IG player's dumb army, but he played against it the way he should have. NONE of this is bad sportsmanship. It may have made the game less fun for the IG player, but none of it is the SM player's fault! Why would he deserve to be penalized?

Polonius wrote:
I would argue that under your view, in which Sportsmanship is a reward, Sports scores becomes a highly subjective, even utterly discretionary allowance. This is one reason it's being cleaned up for major events, and certainly the overall tenor or vibe or "Funness" of the game should be a factor. What I challenge is the notion that a player could be polite, respectful, fair and aboveboard and then recieve a zero sports score. A 5 out of 10 is still odd but arguable. A 3 out of 5 is ok. But zero? I don't like the idea of giving "it was the greatest game I've ever played" scores to every RTT opponent any more than the next guy, but I also don't think scoring a game "it was the worst game every and I would never play the guy again" is any better.

No need to argue - I agree with you; it is a subjective system. And I'm okay with "objective" markers for some aspects of sportsmanship. But it is impossible to render the entire "Did I enjoy this game, today, against this player" question into objective form. To attempt to do so is to render Sportsmanship meaningless (beyond eliminating those few people who would have been weeded out in a subjective system anyway).

And there ARE people out there who deserve "it was the worst game ever and I would never play the guy again" scores.

Polonius wrote:I would argue that if you bring a well painted army, you deserve a high paint score, you shouldn't hope to be rewarded with one.

I would disagree. If you bring a well-painted army, you might "deserve" a decent paint score. However, as nearly every painting judgement scheme includes subjective judge-determined factors in the upper ranges of the point scale, you shouldn't expect a high score. (Put another way: a "great!" RTT army might look downright plain at Adepticon).

Where there is room for debate, in both painting and sportsmanship, is in the respective weighting of objective & subjective factors.

Finally, here's a question for the peanut gallery: how could the SM player have made it more fun for the IG player? If i'm imagining the scenario right, there was probably wide open firing lanes from the IG side across the board. If there was enough terrain to block the SM army, I'm imagining a lopsided terrain deployment, not a cityfight board. I'd imagine the SM player realized that there is no way he's getting any of his infantry units into the IG deployment zone at half strength, meaning the game would boil down to kill VPs. In a VP slugfest between two shooty armies, the shootier army wins most of the time. What does all of this mean? How exactly should the SM player have "made it more fun" while still trying to win? I'm going to assume that he's not a bad guy for wanting to win, but I think a lot of posters here are convinced that this was an utter domination by the SM guy, when I think it was a taut minor victory. He didn't play in an odd way to gain a huge massacre, he did what he had to to squeak out a win. In addition, I still don't buy that the IG player couldn't do anything for six turns. He could have moved his army into position to rush the SM deployment zone, or find some shooting lanes, etc.

Impossible to answer. All we have are bare on-the-table assertions provided by a third party. I'm sure most people who've gone to tournaments have run into a heavily-lopsided contest before, and I hope most of us have had at least one fun game*, even in view of such imbalance. Often, how fun the game is involves few battlefield considerations.

*Adepticon Gladiator, 2006: My Slaaneshi daemonbomb w/mutated, possessed Heavy Support vs Marc Parker's Wych cult. He got first turn, and the game was effectively over. But it was a blast!

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:

Janthkin wrote: Hopefully the above helps explain my perspective a little, lambadomy. Basically, I fundamentally disagree with your conception of "the opponent's job" - when I go to a tournament, I go with the understanding that my participation includes the (often explicitly stated!) requirement that the games be fun. If the game is not fun, I have failed that requirement. Because it takes two to tango, my opponent has also. As such, neither of us may be the best candidate for Overall or Best Sportsman that particular day, and the scores should reflect that.

That is so wrong that I don't even know where to begin. It takes two to dance, but if one refuses to - then the other shouldn't be penalized or in your case not rewarded for putting forth the effort. What the hell is this BS that we have to cater to everyone's desire in an event? People don't pay to travel to events to stroke little jimmy's ego the right way or account for all his sensitivities. It's a 'game' of toy soldiers. You are going to lose models and games.

Greg, you're a great fellow, a fabulous player, and a sharp dresser. And the actual tabletop differences between our philosophies in the vast majority of cases are so minor as to be not worth discussing.

HOWEVER - what I get from your post is a concern in a single specific case, that if one player is a jerk, it shouldn't affect the other. From there, you seem to generalize out to the premise that you have no obligation to the guy on the other side of the table, beyond the movement of your toy soldiers. And I don't agree with the generalization.

YES, you will run into jerks. YES, you will encounter players who will tank you for beating up his toy soldiers. YES, we've all been there before, and YES, we'll be there again. Unless you strip out all subjective scoring*, you will never escape that. Does that mean we should all be jerks? Does that mean we should rework the system so that it doesn't matter? Does that mean there really is no difference between playing against the best sportsman & worst sportsman at a GT? Does that mean there should be no difference?



*The Gladiator is a great example of how this *can* work: no subjective scoring, and of the 4 tournaments/16 games I played in, there was 1 game which I wouldn't voluntarily play again. This is much better than my usual tournament ratio, which is more like 1 in 10. I have a few suspicions of why this is so, starting with the cost to participate as a filtering factor.

Janthkin wrote:
No need to argue - I agree with you; it is a subjective system. And I'm okay with "objective" markers for some aspects of sportsmanship. But it is impossible to render the entire "Did I enjoy this game, today, against this player" question into objective form. To attempt to do so is to render Sportsmanship meaningless (beyond eliminating those few people who would have been weeded out in a subjective system anyway).

And there ARE people out there who deserve "it was the worst game ever and I would never play the guy again" scores.

There are, but most sports scales state that a zero is for an opponent with which you had serious problems and the game was awful. I think that a person shouldn't get tanked to zero because the opponent had a problem with his completely legal style of play. And lets not kid ourselves, that's all this was. It's like Stealer shock vs. Mech Eldar, or an IG player being forced to be the attacker in a mission.

I would disagree. If you bring a well-painted army, you might "deserve" a decent paint score. However, as nearly every painting judgement scheme includes subjective judge-determined factors in the upper ranges of the point scale, you shouldn't expect a high score. (Put another way: a "great!" RTT army might look downright plain at Adepticon).

Where there is room for debate, in both painting and sportsmanship, is in the respective weighting of objective & subjective factors.

Ok, but if you bring a well painted army, lets say Biel tan. It's neatly painted, shaded, highlighted, squad and army marked, and fully based. However, you painted every unit and vehicle White, Grey and Green for craftworld colors, with Aspect Temple colors only as trim. If the paint score were out of 10, would a zero be appropriate because the paint judge didn't like your aesthetic choice? I would say no, there are certain qualities of a well painted army that we all can agree on, at least below the top teir.

I think this is the same way. If you play by the rules, are polite and respectful, and in general act in every way other than in game decisions around the idea that the game should be fun, I don't think that in game tactics should ever result in a zero sports.

Impossible to answer. All we have are bare on-the-table assertions provided by a third party. I'm sure most people who've gone to tournaments have run into a heavily-lopsided contest before, and I hope most of us have had at least one fun game*, even in view of such imbalance. Often, how fun the game is involves few battlefield considerations.

This is kind of my point. Once the draw and mission are finalized, the vast bulk of how engaged the IG player will be were already decided. his anger about being impotent in a game is being unfairly directed at his opponent, not at himself (for not haveing options in his list to deal with this or playing more aggresively), Stupid luck (for drawing another shooty army), or the mission (for being winnable in such a lame manner).

Interestingly enough, it's reasons like this that have lead to the minor/major/massacre system, and it's more refined offspring, the Primary/secondary/tertiary objectives. You can't do what the SM player did in those missions because the IG player could either claim the other objectives or deny him the big win he needs for best general. I only point it out becaue there are people who point out that playing to table your opponent is unsportsmanlike, when in many tournaments, it's the way to win.

Edit: after reading your respond to Inq. Malice, I think you're starting to run out of room. Of course there will always be subjective factors in soft scores. And there will always be tournies that allow them. And nobody should be a jerk. This isn't about being a jerk. IM was writing that it shouldn't be required that I change my style of play, or play soft, or shave points to be judged a good sport. What shouldn't be allowed, or at least what should be condemed, is the use of subjective factors as vendetta under the cloak of "I didn't have fun." I think a palyer has an obligation to do everything in his power outside of tactical decisions to make the game fun for his opponent. What I think IM's point, and what my point is, is that a player should not be penalized for his opponent refusing his attempts to make the game fun.

MagickalMemories wrote:



His posts are indicative of a poor speller, not of a dyslexic.

Eric

1that one was whit spelling check.
2 do you now how many kinds of dislexia I dare are
3 I belong in the top 3 of the words kinds of dislecia when I was a kid I had a exta 4 hour of school for my dislexia.
4 and to be onist my spelling is beter in english than in my mouther tong
5 my dislecia is purly in my spelling not in my reading or taking
thats the reson I put it in my signatur
( sorry for going of topic )

Polonius wrote:I think this is the same way. If you play by the rules, are polite and respectful, and in general act in every way other than in game decisions around the idea that the game should be fun, I don't think that in game tactics should ever result in a zero sports.

With maybe one WHFB exception (fanatic slingshot, if you're curious), I would cheerfully agree with you.

What shouldn't be allowed, or at least what should be condemed, is the use of subjective factors as vendetta under the cloak of "I didn't have fun." I think a palyer has an obligation to do everything in his power outside of tactical decisions to make the game fun for his opponent. What I think IM's point, and what my point is, is that a player should not be penalized for his opponent refusing his attempts to make the game fun.

I agree with all of this as well. I think the only place we actually differ is that I classify an opponent who refuses to have fun as a jerk, and already dismissed him from the discussion as a "can't do anything about it" factor.

Well, good to have that cleared up. To be honest, I think that there are a lot of positive ways to show good sportsmanship, rather than have it be a simple "you must be this civilized to play with toys" standard.

Allowing an opponent to move a unit in the shooting phase that he forgot.

Letting a player use eldar psychic powers at any point other than at the beginning of the turn.

Reminding him of army/game/mission rules that help him.

In Polonius happy land, a sports score of 7 represents a blandly pleasant non-cheater. A 9 or 10 is somebody that went out of his way to make the game fun and/or helped out his opponent. A 5 would be for annoying habits that aren't completely malicious (stalling can be hard to judge), or for a couple of really nasty rules disputes. A 3 is for somebody that was clearly cheating in a minor way, while a 1 or 0 are for cheaters. I'd take on a bonus or penalty for really pleasant guys and absolute tools.

lambadomy wrote:how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

Could you elaborate on this part please?

Crimson Devil wrote:

lambadomy wrote:how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

Could you elaborate on this part please?

Many players consistently pickup either hits or misses. Misses are prefered, as it leaves all the successes on the table for inspection. If you swap back and forth, you can "accidently" pick up a hit that was actually a miss, for example.

Janthkin wrote: Greg, you're a great fellow, a fabulous player, and a sharp dresser. And the actual tabletop differences between our philosophies in the vast majority of cases are so minor as to be not worth discussing.

HOWEVER - what I get from your post is a concern in a single specific case, that if one player is a jerk, it shouldn't affect the other. From there, you seem to generalize out to the premise that you have no obligation to the guy on the other side of the table, beyond the movement of your toy soldiers. And I don't agree with the generalization.

YES, you will run into jerks. YES, you will encounter players who will tank you for beating up his toy soldiers. YES, we've all been there before, and YES, we'll be there again. Unless you strip out all subjective scoring*, you will never escape that. Does that mean we should all be jerks?

Hey Kevin - I don't think we should all be jerks at all. Here's what I believe are good requirements from an opponent.

1. Be friendly, corgial, curteous and respectful.
2. Handle all in game mechanics fairly (ie: die rolling, measurement, rules and more).
3. Shower that day (before the event).

This in no way alludes to me condoning everyone being a jerk. I guess from what I listed above, what else do you expect from a player? For me, if someone goes beyond that - then great. If not, then great.

Janthkin wrote: Does that mean we should rework the system so that it doesn't matter? Does that mean there really is no difference between playing against the best sportsman & worst sportsman at a GT? Does that mean there should be no difference?

*The Gladiator is a great example of how this *can* work: no subjective scoring, and of the 4 tournaments/16 games I played in, there was 1 game which I wouldn't voluntarily play again. This is much better than my usual tournament ratio, which is more like 1 in 10. I have a few suspicions of why this is so, starting with the cost to participate as a filtering factor.

Bingo - you hit the nail on the head. Rework the system. The US sportsmanship scoring systems are broken. They are currently the best of a bad system. After playing in four AdeptiCon Gladiators and a 2007 UK GT heat / Final, I've played a total of 28 games in events without a sportsmanship scoring requirement. I have only had one game where I was exceptionally irritated at my opponent. So I've had 27 out of 28 games that were fun in a system with no comp and sportsmanship. I've also made several friends in those games. What more could I ask for?

Polonius wrote:

Crimson Devil wrote:

lambadomy wrote:how he does dice (pick up misses, etc)

Could you elaborate on this part please?

Many players consistently pickup either hits or misses. Misses are prefered, as it leaves all the successes on the table for inspection. If you swap back and forth, you can "accidently" pick up a hit that was actually a miss, for example.

Ah, I thought that was what he was saying, but I wanted to be sure.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
Bingo - you hit the nail on the head. Rework the system. The US sportsmanship scoring systems are broken. They are currently the best of a bad system. After playing in four AdeptiCon Gladiators and a 2007 UK GT heat / Final, I've played a total of 28 games in events without a sportsmanship scoring requirement. I have only had one game where I was exceptionally irritated at my opponent. So I've had 27 out of 28 games that were fun in a system with no comp and sportsmanship. I've also made several friends in those games. What more could I ask for?

I think the uniting factor of our (admittedly tiny) data set for successful no-sports tournaments is "cost as a barrier to entry." Relatively few jerks are willing to fork out the dough for travel, lodging, and expensive tournament. RTTs lack that barrier to entry, sadly - while the vast majority of players are STILL not jerks (and local groups tend to be self-policing), I, at least, still seem to encounter a higher population of jerks at these events, who aren't part of my local group.

I can't speak on US GTs - I haven't been to one since 2002, though I'm going to Vegas in September.

Here's what I believe are good requirements from an opponent.

1. Be friendly, corgial, curteous and respectful.
2. Handle all in game mechanics fairly (ie: die rolling, measurement, rules and more).
3. Shower that day (before the event).

This in no way alludes to me condoning everyone being a jerk. I guess from what I listed above, what else do you expect from a player? For me, if someone goes beyond that - then great. If not, then great.

I'd add
3a. Deoderant;
4. Reasonable patience; and
5. Fatalism (at least towards dice results).

And I feel obligated to offer my opponents the same (plus a little humor, when possible/appropriate).

If you're opponent is too stupid to win then he deserved the loss and should not complain about it.

I treat all my games as if they were tournament games. No mercy. The only way a player can learn is by losing games.