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.

skyth wrote:Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Excuse me. I said no such thing. Winning by a wide margin is not automatically poor sportsmanship. Not allowing your opponent to actually engage in a game with you is poor sportsmanship.

One of the reasons that sportsmanship scores were originally introduced was, if I recall correctly, back when GW tournaments were first starting up, one of the victory conditions was to get to the opponent's deployment zones. Some races, eldar, I believe, had vehicles that could do this in one move. So, people would literally slow-play the entire time, moving their ships to the other player's deployment zone and netting a win.

There is no rule in the book that prohibits that behaviour. There are no time limits for turns in 40k. We, as a community, have decided that deliberately slow-playing your opponent should be considered cheating, but it's not in the rules.

It is horribly against the spirit of the game, legal or not. A game is a social contract between two people. If one person is locked out of the game, it fails. Now, there are clearly different levels of what constitutes being locked out of a game. Some people believe that alpha-strike lists are, by their nature, not very sporting. Do you really want what is supposed to be a game between two people to be reduced to the luck of the die in rolling for first turn? Some people think that this is part of the game as designed.

Different people go to tournaments for different reasons. Some go to play games with strangers, others go to crush heads and win prizes. Neither are wrong, and it's only where the two situations overlap where you really encounter issues.

Personally, I think having a sportsmanship score, or not, should be used to set expectations for an event. I think events that are designed to prove who the best player of toy soldiers is should not have sportsmanship scores. I don't think they should have painting scores either. I think that such events should be clearly advertised as gaming events only, and that those who choose to participate in them should do so with that in mind.

I also think that more social tournaments - casually competitive events - should have sportsmanship scores that are not just a checklist of good manners, but that actually reflect whether your opponent was there to scratch a notch in his armycase, or whether he actually wanted to engage in a game with you. This expectation should also be set, and those players who just want to bash heads would do well to temper their lists and their approach to this other perspective. Because, in a way, that's what sportsmanship is really about. You can still try to win on the tabletop, without needing to resort to spamming the most broken units in the game...

skyth wrote:So it isn't poor sportsmanship to always ask for a 4+...

Yes, no matter what the case.

If you're asking for a 4+ more than a few times a game, you probably deserved to be dinged on sports score, too. It's just abusing it in the opposite fashion.

Redbeard wrote:

skyth wrote:Combine this with the effect that Redbeard is talking about where winning by a wide margin is also considered bad sportsmanship. And you have the reason why Sports scoring generally fails in a tourney in my opinion.

Excuse me. I said no such thing. Winning by a wide margin is not automatically poor sportsmanship. Not allowing your opponent to actually engage in a game with you is poor sportsmanship (...) If one person is locked out of the game, it fails. Now, there are clearly different levels of what constitutes being locked out of a game. Some people believe that alpha-strike lists are, by their nature, not very sporting. Do you really want what is supposed to be a game between two people to be reduced to the luck of the die in rolling for first turn? Some people think that this is part of the game as designed.

Different people go to tournaments for different reasons. Some go to play games with strangers, others go to crush heads and win prizes. Neither are wrong, and it's only where the two situations overlap where you really encounter issues.

And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

skyth wrote:
And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

nkelsch wrote:

skyth wrote:
And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

Nice Strawman. I never claimed that. The problem is is that there is NO correct way to play at a tourney, but some people are under the impression that there is and that when these different expectations meet, name calling results and it's automatically the other person's fault that this wasn't a 'fun' game. This is an inherent problem with scoring sportsmanship.

skyth wrote:The problem is is that there is NO correct way to play at a tourney

While I agree with your larger point in the post above about the inherent problem of sportsmanship scoring, I have a problem with this part. No correct way to play?

Certainly, there are norms that can and should be expected in any environment.

I sometimes get frustrated by the fact that I play with several different circles of gamers, all of whom have different expectations of what is normal, so I get where you're coming from. But there are certain standards that you can expect anywhere. And it's in crossing those, imho, that sportsmanship scoring becomes an important deterrent.

nkelsch wrote:

skyth wrote:
And there you go. Illustrating the problems with Sports scoring. If the expectations don't match, you have an unfun game and it's automatically the other person who is the bad sport and at fault. I wasn't trying to say that you specifically thought winning by a wide margin is bad sportsmanship, but you seem to agree that there are people who do.

So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

It's only circular in your head, because you believe that sportsmanship scoring is the only way people will be punished for bad behaviour. All anyone here has said is that they cannot see any reason why sportsmanship scoring, with it's inherent flaws, actually encourages good sportsmanship. Your reply every time has been to go on for three or four paragraphs about how important sportsmanship is, then throw in a quick sentence along the line of:

...and that's why we need sportsmanship scoring.

Well, you certainly can't argue that it punishes bad sportsmanship... right?

Hard to prove the opposite side (that it encourages good), as you would need to know what they'd do in the other case which doesn't get played out in the tournament.

But it's defniitely a deterrent... and that can go a long way towards encouraging good sportsmanship, whether or not this can actually be proven out (I'm not sure how you could).

The problem arises is that when you are given the opportunity to judge someone else's sportsmanship, things that are your fault...Such as you not having fun because your opponent plays in a serious/professional manner or having the perfect counter to your army...cause you to punish the other person by docking their sports score.

Sports score isn't used to actually judge sportsmanship (Such as playing by the rules, not gloating, etc) but to judge if they play under the same expectations as me which has nothing to do with sportsmanship.

But who else can judge, besides the opponent? They're the only one engaged enough in the game to know. A player would just have to not "act out" while a judge was passing if it were not player-based.

Personally, my favorite system is the one where you rank your opponents- if it's 4 games, you rank them 1 through 4. If someone gets four "4's" from their opponents, it's pretty obvious they're not that much fun to play.

The more subjective "score them on a sliding scale / 0-10" can lead to people tanking others... but a good TO can check up on that and see if there's a problem.

Overall I just think the lowballing of sports scores due to getting beat just isn't that common. I've heard much more of the opposite (max every opponent hoping they'll do the same). But ranking your opponents keeps this from happening, too, and actually puts them in order of your preference.

The way I've approached it, and I think most people do, is just by who I enjoyed playing the most... not who beat me or didn't. I don't think most people automatically score someone low just for losing to them. If they're prone to that, it's entirely likely they're getting low scores themselves

Again, the problem is that Sports scoring isn't judging actual sportsmanship. It's judging the fun in the game and that fun can be more hampered by yourself than your opponent.

That is a good point... although for me, the two have pretty much always gone hand in hand. I.e., if my opponent is a good sport, I'm having fun regardless of almost anything else game-wise.

Fearspect wrote:

nkelsch wrote:So let's declare crushing heads no matter what the cost and not expecting people to be socially respectful the only correct way to play at a tourney and remove all other events from the planet. That solves everything right? Because some people are cheaters and unable to give an ethical sportsmanships core, no one anywhere should ever be punished for their behavior.

This is getting to be a circular argument... one person somewhere supposedly chipmunks so no scores ever should be the standard...

It's only circular in your head, because you believe that sportsmanship scoring is the only way people will be punished for bad behaviour. All anyone here has said is that they cannot see any reason why sportsmanship scoring, with it's inherent flaws, actually encourages good sportsmanship. Your reply every time has been to go on for three or four paragraphs about how important sportsmanship is, then throw in a quick sentence along the line of:

...and that's why we need sportsmanship scoring.

Nkelsch, myself and AgeofEgos put forward perfectly straightforward and valid explanations of why and how Sportsmanship is important and why it works more often than not earlier in the thread. I even went to the trouble of writing an article.

The counter-arguments mostly don't address the actual points we've put forward; they largely criticize unspecified other systems which aren't what we're talking about. The repeated refrain about how Sports scoring hurts events because it allows cheaters to chipmunk, for example. My system specifically compensates for (or eliminates, if you set it to 0 penalty for one downcheck) chipmunkers, and largely or completely eliminates their ability to impact results. But that goes ignored in the rush to reiterate an old talking point.

MikeMcSomething wants statistical proof of causation, and tries to make a comparison with a survey of a non-similar sociological situation. When the truth is (as was ably explained by other posters) that the comparison is unrelated and invalid. And we really don't need statistical proof. Any given TO just needs sufficient evidence to justify to themselves (and their players) the inclusion of any given scoring metric. While detailed player surveys haven't been done, the existing evidence comparing behavior at non-sports-scored events like Ard Boyz with that at only judge-scored like the UKGT, and player-scored like Adepticon, seems clearly to indicate that the sports-scored events evince a lower incidence rate of bad behavior. Overall most players are good and fine and totally cool at any of them, of course. But dicks get away with more shenanigans atonly- judge-scored events. And even moreso at no-sports events.

If players don't like any part of an event's scoring, of course, they can always vote with their feet, and/or engage the organizer in constructive dialogue. Matthias, for example, has taken feedback on his (IMO good but flawed) system from this year's Adepticon and is planning to change it. All conscientious and competent organizers accept player feedback and modify their systems as appropriate to the attendees.

The biggest kick back from Sports scoring is that it is judging if two people get along...Basically if they play with the same expectations.

Add into that the judgement and name calling that goes along with it...Talking about banning people from events, etc...Basically saying that they are bad people for playing under different expectations.

This is especially prevalent when a serious (In outlook/game play) gamer with an optimized list goes against a 'casual' player with a silly list. Neither player is neccessarily a bad sport, but likely the serious gamer will get marked as a bad sports because the casual player didn't enjoy themselves (Even though it's also the casual player's fault). Now the Casual player goes and complains to people about the 'bad person' that 'ruined his game' and the mood of his opponents start dampered because of his new reputation.

The situation above leaves the serious gamer pissed off about sportsmanship scoring because he didn't do anything wrong, but is labeled as a bad sport.

skyth wrote: The problem is is that there is NO correct way to play at a tourney, but some people are under the impression that there is and that...

I have to dispute this.

There ARE some easily agreed-upon common standards of good behavior. Be polite and friendly with your opponent. Be open and honest with your army list and questions about your army's equipment and special rules. Measure accurately and consistently. Be consistent in your dice procedures, and in rolling them where your opponent can see them and in agreeing on the results. Hold yourself to the same standards as your opponent regarding things like LOS, taking back forgotten moves, etc. Don't insult or mock or belittle your opponent. Don't walk away from the table (unless it's with your opponent's consent) or waste time. Play at a reasonable rate of speed so you can complete the game in the alloted time. Don't display an actively BAD and unpleasant attitude, swearing profusely at bad dice and making your opponent uncomfortable and worried that you have anger issues. These are all pretty universal.

I agree with you that different people have different personal tastes in what kind of opponent affect and behavior they prefer. Some folks prefer to be quiet and "professional". Some folks like to be jovial and joking. Some like to roleplay, hamming it up with sound effects and battlecries. (At different times, I'm all of these types).

I agree with you that no one should be marked down for being quiet, or for enjoying the game in a different way than their opponent. Unless the way they do it makes the entire experience unenjoyable and a chore for their opponent.

This is why I set such a high standard for a downcheck in my system. Only if your opponent's behavior and attitude were so unpleasant as to entirely ruin the fun of the game, making the experience overall an unpleasant waste of time, are you asked to downcheck them. And a disclaimer specifically notes that the result of the game and the person's army list should have NO bearing on the mark.

skyth wrote: ...when these different expectations meet, name calling results and it's automatically the other person's fault that this wasn't a 'fun' game. This is an inherent problem with scoring sportsmanship.

Here, I have to suggest, that you are universalizing one or two personal negative experiences inappropriately. I'm sorry you've had some bad experiences. I've gotten low/mediocre marks myself in a few subjective 1-5 or 1-10 scored events, where I was quiet, or in a bad mood, or cursing my dice. But IME the majority of opponents are good, honest folks, and most people don't resort to namecalling or other childish and bad behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:Add into that the judgement and name calling that goes along with it...Talking about banning people from events, etc...Basically saying that they are bad people for playing under different expectations.

If that is happening, then it's the fault of those people being immature and nasty people. It doesn't have anything to do with Sportsmanship scoring. If there was no Sports scoring at all they could do exactly the same things; badmouthing players and talking about banning them.

Mannahnin wrote:
There ARE some easily agreed-upon common standards of good behavior. Be polite and friendly with your opponent.

Polite yes. Friendly has nothing to do with Sportsmanship.

This is why I set such a high standard for a downcheck in my system. Only if your opponent's behavior and attitude were so unpleasant as to entirely ruin the fun of the game, making the experience overall an unpleasant waste of time, are you asked to downcheck them. And a disclaimer specifically notes that the result of the game and the person's army list should have NO bearing on the mark.

So in other words, the person has to follow the instructions of your system in order for it to work? Therein lies the problem of all Sports Scoring systems. People don't read and/or pay attention the actual criteria listed in a sports system a large portion of the time. They go by a gut feeling. Not to mention that people with different expectations meeting could result under a downcheck even under your system through not doing anything wrong even if the instructions were followed.

Yes, as with all scoring systems, players are expected to read the instructions and follow the rules. If you both hand in 20s for your battle points when 20 is a massacre win, that's a problem too.

One of the major points of my system is that it simplifies Sports scoring to make it easy and quick.

Friendly is an expected norm in most social activities. Smile, shake the person's hand, be willing to respond to conversation. If a player can't engage in at least a minimum level of social interaction, tabletop wargaming tournaments and events are probably a bad fit. Anyway, I think you're nitpicking a bit, here. Do you dispute my other nine or ten criteria?

One of the biggest problem with all sports systems is that people don't read the instructions for them. How many people give 'Best Game Ever' out like candy when they simply had a decent game? How many people will ignore the 'don't base on the army list' part of yours?

Shaking the other person's hand and responding to conversation is polite, not friendly.

Smiling shouldn't be a requirement to win a warhammer tournament.

skyth wrote:One of the biggest problem with all sports systems is that people don't read the instructions for them. How many people give 'Best Game Ever' out like candy when they simply had a decent game? How many people will ignore the 'don't base on the army list' part of yours?

Shaking the other person's hand and responding to conversation is polite, not friendly.

Smiling shouldn't be a requirement to win a warhammer tournament.

So now people don't read the instructions along with people are all predisposed to cheat and do anything to give themselves a personal advantage. My opponents are too dishonest or stupid to be allowed to judge me.

If you are entering every game with that level of distrust and skepticism, then that attitude and level of base disrespect towards your fellow man will pour out of you like a dense fog and everyone will pick up on it. And then you claim, 'this is how I am, I am playing technically correct and fair so you can't say anything' is dehumanizing at its core. You can't play 40k like it is a RTS on battle.net against an anonymous kid from Korea who you never have to interact with except for killing his 1s and 0s off the map. But this is the attitude I see and it is no wonder opponents are turned off by the whole interaction with those people.

Lots of behavior that shows contempt or disrespect counts as unsportsmanlike... and that is often what TFG actually does. You spend the whole game wondering 'Why are you here if this is your attitude?' when playing them and it has nothing to do with winning or losing.

I guess what bothers me is how black and white some people try to make this issue when this whole issue is by definition about shades of grey because it is human interaction. I honestly think these people can't see shades of grey and they always end up being judged poorly and they simply can't figure it out but are too unwilling to accept maybe it is their actions that are wrong. Removing everything and having no standard solves nothing... except for the person who correctly is being impacted by the sportsmanship policy. Those who are truly good sports succeed fine in the sportsmanship scoring arena. Those who claim to be excellent sports but constantly fail and claim chimpmunking might have other issues... In my experience I have yet to meet someone who was chipmunked unfairly and the people who got low scores from my observations deserved it and it was corroborated by multiple players and the TO. I am not ready to accept there are people falsely convicted of being TFG through false scores is common or even happens on a rare occasion.

But since we mostly don't know each other in real life it is hard to know if these harsh-word posts on the internet are just internet toughguy talk or really how people are in real life. So we have to agree to disagree... Vote with your feet.

I will be at NOVA this year if some of you non-sports crowd want to convince me you are naturally a good sport and the event is just as good without the scoring. I am pretty flexible for tourney format as long as I get to look at pretty figures across from me.

If you want to play a game that is all tactics and strategy, play chess. 40k is meant to be played for fun. Thats the "Most Important Rule", its right there in the rule book. If you want to play without all the rules, or think that sportsmanship isnt part of the game, there is always ard boys.

Many of the posts i have seen here make the claim that sportsmanship scores do nothing to change peoples behavior. I can tell you from first hand experience that this is not the case. Lots of smart tourni players work the system to gain as many sportsmanship points as they can. They are nicer, freindlier etc. Who cares if its fake, if it makes the game more fun then its a good thing.

One of the biggest powergamers in my area suddenly became the most fun to play games with. He repeatedly won tournis sportsmanship award. This was a surprise to me since i was used to hearing him say " your tears are like a fine wine". Why. Sportsmanship scores baby. He was just working the system.

Running up the score also came up earlier. In profootball this is considered to be poor form. I feel like its poor form in 40k too. If your going to achieve a massacre no matter what, then feeding the looser a unit or two so he wont find some reason to tank your sportsmanship score is really not a big deal. The ONLY time i have gotten a zero for sportmanship, i deserved it for a total massacre of my foes army, when i knew i had the game in the bag. I got what i deserved.

The only player i know that really will play the system by tanking your sportsmanship score to win, is a total putz. He is also the only person i know that scores a zero in sportsmanship almost every match. He deserves it. He looses often because of it. even though sportsmanship is worth only 10% of your total score locally, he still looses because he reaps what he sow's.

RiTides wrote:

skyth wrote:So it isn't poor sportsmanship to always ask for a 4+...

Yes, no matter what the case.

If you're asking for a 4+ more than a few times a game, you probably deserved to be dinged on sports score, too. It's just abusing it in the opposite fashion.

So your 'un-biased' opinion, that even though you didn't understand the rule correctly, but he did, he should have just caved in rather than you and agree to a 4+ die roll just because you say so?

And he is the bad sport?

Ya. Sportsmanship isn't arbitrary or biased at all.

nkelsch wrote:So now people don't read the instructions along with people are all predisposed to cheat and do anything to give themselves a personal advantage. My opponents are too dishonest or stupid to be allowed to judge me.

Mannahnin's sports system wrote:The 1-5pt and 1-10pt scales are prone to a lot of problems with people interpreting and applying them differently, especially if they don’t bother reading the scale on the score sheet (which happens a lot).

By the way, nice ad hominum. Obviously anyone against sportsmanship scoring must be a bad sportsman...

@imaweasel: Agreeing to a 4+ isn't caving in. If you view it that way, you're probably going to have a hard time playing at any tournament scored with sportsmanship... and I can see why you're taking the position that you are.

You also continue to argue as if a rule is "right" or "wrong" when, if it's in dispute, it's likely one of the grey areas that you have to make a judgement call on until GW FAQs it. Otherwise, simply looking it up would solve the issue. If you exhaust looking it up, discussing it, and asking for a judge ruling... then you 4+ it. Simple as that.

I think you're being intentionally obtuse, so I'll stop re-stating this point now. It's pretty simple and I think the reason you're having to resort to hyperbole is that you can't argue the simple point of how you solve a rules dispute in this game: looking it up, discussing it, and if it is still in dispute doing one of two things. 1) Getting an outside ruling by a judge or, if one is not available 2) D6'ing it.

In my view a sportsmanship score should exist but for the tournament organizers not for scoring. It should act as an alert system for potential problem people that the organizers need to keep an eye on.

The problem with integrating it with the scoring system is that while there is a chance it might make someone who is a jerk normally be a good sport for the duration of the game, that person is still a jerk and will chipmunk their opponent. Sportsmanship doesn't all of a sudden make them a good person, they are still as ass hat, they're just going to go about being one within the bounds of the rules.

So basically you ensured a relatively friendly game at the cost of points for the person. Better outcome? Maybe, that would depend heavily on who you ask. IMHO it would be better if it was not included in scoring, a jerk may not care at that point and act like an ass hat because it won't affect his score but after the first game the TO should be keeping an eye on them and telling them that they can kindly leave if they can't act like a civil human being. In my opinion many TO's use a sportsmanship score to absolve themselves of having to do that with a person, which is not the way to go.

My 2 cents.

skyth wrote:

nkelsch wrote:So now people don't read the instructions along with people are all predisposed to cheat and do anything to give themselves a personal advantage. My opponents are too dishonest or stupid to be allowed to judge me.

By the way, nice ad hominum. Obviously anyone against sportsmanship scoring must be a bad sportsman...

No, claiming people who claimed to get chipmunked must be bad sportsmanship is more like it, which is my observation. And then people regurgitate the bad sports Internet stories as evidence that it doesn't work without ever verifying first hand that thisnperson who claims to be chipmunked earned a legitimate score or if he was dun wrong. If opponents are to biased to judge your sportsmanship, than you are too biased to your own sportsmanship as well. So claims of chipmunking are biased on their face. At least most sports scores are confirmed by multiple players and a TO so I will take that standard over someone calling themselves a good sport.

Saying you were chipmunked is valid when you didn't do anything that was actually bad sportsmanship. That's the whole problem with Sports scoring...That when people go in with different expectations, the other person is automatically in the wrong and it's solely their fault that you didn't have a good time.

No, claiming people who claimed to get chipmunked must be bad sportsmanship is more like it, which is my observation.

I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

It might be time to re-evaluate your assumptions about sportsmanship in general...

Redbeard wrote:

One of the reasons that sportsmanship scores were originally introduced was, if I recall correctly, back when GW tournaments were first starting up, one of the victory conditions was to get to the opponent's deployment zones. Some races, eldar, I believe, had vehicles that could do this in one move. So, people would literally slow-play the entire time, moving their ships to the other player's deployment zone and netting a win.

You mean the original problem was slow play, and instead of implementing timed rounds that are unambiguous and easily understood and adjusted, the community opted for the continuous abomination of 'sportsmanship' scoring?

Danny Internets wrote:I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

I thought you won Renaissance Man?

Which seemed kind of ironic after seeing how much you dislike soft scores . Although it was good to see that, even though that's your preference, you can do so well with them...

sourclams wrote:

You mean the original problem was slow play, and instead of implementing timed rounds that are unambiguous and easily understood and adjusted, the community opted for the continuous abomination of 'sportsmanship' scoring?

Sorry, timed rounds is garbage and has no place in 40k because the game is not designed around or balanced for it. Too many of the actions on each players turn is interactive especially the assault phase. All i would have to do is 'be slow' during your turn with my reactive actions and then I have no ability for you to 'play faster' during my turn. And some army builds totally remove whole phases of the game which means balanced time is not necessarily fair or intended by the game designers.

There is a difference between 'slow play' and 'phases taking a long time'. Slow play is rude 'at best' and like pornography, it can't be defined but we all know it when we see it. I have yet to see a valid functional time system that is actually fair or works with 40k. I just see systems who clearly benefit specific army playstyles and people who play those armies wanting another advantage by further unbalancing the meta by adding another set of composition guidelines to the game which is not supported by the rules... But it isn't 'arbitrary comp' right? Adding timed rounds is no different than any other form of composition rules that give benefits or penalties for taking specific builds and units. I shouldn't be punished because I am moving 20 orks on foot opposed that takes 45 seconds to move VS pushing a trukk across the table which takes 5 seconds. If you want to punish that, then bring on punishing leafblow and longfang spam too!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:

No, claiming people who claimed to get chipmunked must be bad sportsmanship is more like it, which is my observation.

I've been chipmunked before and I've won Best Sportsman at several tournaments, including the NOVA Open (well, tied).

It might be time to re-evaluate your assumptions about sportsmanship in general...

My observation is my observation based upon events I have attended. I will be going to NOVA this year so I can add that to my observations and see how that is.

I say the assumptions are people over exaggerating chimpunking and peoples natural inclination to always cheat for personal advantage. Those are assumptions I don't believe are valid and do not match up to my interactions over the years.