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.

So I was at this tournament yesterday. Shan't say what game, but I'll use chess as a metaphor.

In my 2nd game, I was drawn against a player who'd only played 1 game of 'chess' prior to that day. Now, I'm not Gary Kasparov or anything, but in a tournament setting, I like to play to win. However, to what extent do you go for a win against a novice who doesn't know how the funny horse pieces move? It was supposed to be a fairly friendly tournament and the T/O would occasionally pop over and point out that the pawns take diagonally. Should I have been helping him to learn the game or just going through the motions for the win?

The trouble with the former is that I've occasionally been caught out teaching my nephews to play chess and once, one of the little ended up beating me in four moves (this is not a metaphor, this happened in real life). If I start to point out to an adult in a tournament game that the Queen is a pretty useful piece, it doesn't do me any favours.

The trouble with the latter though is you start to feel like a douche. I knew I could get away with doing stuff that a person more familiar with the game would punish me for - e.g. moving a Rook right next to Queen - which meant I didn't have to engage brain at all. In the end, I don't think either of us gained much from the game. I thrashed him and felt bad while he was none the wiser about what the pieces did.

I attempted to give him a few pointers after the game, but not sure he was in the mood to take it in.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation at a tournament and how did you approach it?

There's an expression used in NFL that is applicable here "Not running up the score".

Basically it means that if you're certain you're going to win (and that means certain) you don't rub your opponents face in it and keep scoring points.*

If I was sure as I was going to win (or reasonably certain) I'd probably start playing defensively just to get to the finish line and maintain that lead. It's a game and you're ultimately there to have fun, and it would kill me to think I'd put someone off playing in the future by un-necessarily face-planting them. If that means I very occasionally get a fluke result come back against me, well that for me is still the better alternative. IMO, if you feel bad about it afterwards while it's good that you obviously have a conscience (and I've met players who don't) then you probably done bad

* Unless you are the Patriots, in which case doing this is the least of your 'sportsmanship' worries.

One problem with not running up the score is that some tournaments use mission points for tiebreakers etc.

I was once in this situation. It was the guys 4th game or something like that. It was puppy kicking. But if I kicked him hard enough, I might have placed overall. I tried to give him pointers as I worked him over, but I felt bad the whole time.

There is a reason I generally dislike tournaments. People tend to play to win, rather then have fun. I’m not that fond of that attitude in other people, and hate it more in myself.

Unfortunately like chess this is a game you have to play until you achieve an outcome and you're also against the clock, so I couldn't really sit back and chill out once I was comfortably ahead. You either get checkmate or you don't.

Thing is, the last tournament I played, I lost every single game but l enjoyed the experience regardless. I'd learned enough of the rules to know what was going on and I was picking things up as I went, so I got a lot out of it. I don't think this was the case for this guy yesterday.

It really depends on the situation, environment and person. Even though I'm competitive at times, I'm also someone who tries to get people into gaming as a whole. That unfortunately will involve losing sometimes. Sometimes that also includes being competitive with myself a little, by helping him... especially if it is something that I knew an experienced player should have known. There is a difference between forgetting a move and simply not knowing how a piece moves.

If the person looked like they weren't having fun, I'd probably be helping them a bit. If they were having fun despite losing, then I may hold out until the end and then give some pointers on what they might have been able to do.

A tournament isn't like the regular season, its like the playoffs. You don't hold back. But you should still be sportsman like.

But afterwards you can help him out, advise him what he did wrong, and try to "buck him up."

In that situation, I pull a straight win, without going for overkill, and I explain what every move I'm doing is for, and why it's beneficial or detrimental.
I explain options for the new player for their turns, without saying which is "right".

"Well you have three choices, and this is what they do..."

It is not the question of whether to beat him or not. He will not grow and cherish his growth unless he gets his ass kicked a few times. But the taste of that 'ass kicking' is what matters.
In my view, if he is a donkey-cave and gives attitude, then you should table him. No remorse. No regret!
If he admits that he is a novice and shows wish to learn, execute your moves with some degree of educational value.

 StarDrop wrote:
It is not the question of whether to beat him or not. He will not grow and cherish his growth unless he gets his ass kicked a few times. But the taste of that 'ass kicking' is what matters.
In my view, if he is a donkey-cave and gives attitude, then you should table him. No remorse. No regret!
If he admits that he is a novice and shows wish to learn, execute your moves with some degree of educational value.

This basically. No reason to be a dick about the inevitable ass-to-boot, but pulling punches in any competitive setting doesn't do anything but build up the new-players sense of how things are supposed to be - in the worst way. Even tabling him, if they're interested in getting better they'll see this as a learning experience (it is, afterall, a game) and take it in stride. If not, take satisfaction in destroying a snotty newb who deserved it.

Yeah, tournament isn't the place to learn the game. Sorry, but I will grind your face into the dirt during that game. I'd be willing to offer up tips and such afterwards though.

I'll try to be nicer and more forgiving than I otherwise would, especially if I don't think it will affect the outcome. (You forgot to fire the Guardsmens' Overwatch at my Grotesques? Go ahead and do it now, it's no biggie.) But I'm still going to go for the win. If the tournament uses accumulated points, then I'm going to break that baby seal like the warranty is already void.

Destroy them without mercy. It is only when you leave your opponent a weeping shell of what was once a human being that you will have won.

There is no victory greater than to drive all others from the hobby so that you alone can rule a vast and mighty empire of ash and ruin.

I would seriously reconsider attending that TO's tournaments in the future if that was the case, that's for sure.

I would never give someone advice during a match. After the match I would tell him everything I could think of and be very friendly and helpful. I think that would motivate him to keep playing even if I beat him soundly.

 Mymearan wrote:
I would never give someone advice during a match. After the match I would tell him everything I could think of and be very friendly and helpful. I think that would motivate him to keep playing even if I beat him soundly.

Good thing Wargames are not "matches" then...

Referring to it as a "match" then giving someone tons of advice after curbstomping them can come across as somewhat patronising to me, especially if said opponent does not ask for it.

I'm not a native English speaker so when I said "match" I basically meant "game", sorry about that. I didn't say I would curbstomp them though, no need for that. I often play conservatively if I'm winning no matter the game or the opponent, just to make things more exciting and even. But I wouldn't give someone advice during a match unless it was to remind them that they forgot something.

 Mymearan wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker so when I said "match" I basically meant "game", sorry about that. I didn't say I would curbstomp them though, no need for that. I often play conservatively if I'm winning no matter the game or the opponent, just to make things more exciting and even. But I wouldn't give someone advice during a match unless it was to remind them that they forgot something.

Sorry about that, didn't see the flag. "Match" has sports connotations and the level of competitiveness that comes with it.

Too many times I've seen people give frankly patronising advice to newbies ("The average Skeleton is a lot like a High Elf archer". Yup someone really said that to a newbie round here ), which is why I'm a little hesitant to see gamers give unsolicited advice when it isn't asked for. If the comes up as a topic or if you can steer it that way (I'm not saying don't give advice, only do it when asked) then go ahead.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
I'm not a native English speaker so when I said "match" I basically meant "game", sorry about that. I didn't say I would curbstomp them though, no need for that. I often play conservatively if I'm winning no matter the game or the opponent, just to make things more exciting and even. But I wouldn't give someone advice during a match unless it was to remind them that they forgot something.

Sorry about that, didn't see the flag. "Match" has sports connotations and the level of competitiveness that comes with it.

Too many times I've seen people give frankly patronising advice to newbies ("The average Skeleton is a lot like a High Elf archer".

You know, playing a newbie at a tournament is a lot like making love to an exceptionally beautiful woman.....

 Krellnus wrote:
I would seriously reconsider attending that TO's tournaments in the future if that was the case, that's for sure.

Really? You think it's the TO'S duty to vet his entrants for experience and refuse entry to people who aren't experienced enough, in what has been specifically described as a friendly tournament?

Sure, if the TO knows someone is new to the game, it's better if he points out that it may not be suitable for new players and to stress that the players are expected to play at a decent pace, etc, but ultimately it's the player's choice to enter.

I agree with what Stardrop says - at a tournament you should be playing to win, and if you can playing to table your opponent. At every competitive tournament I've been to I know all my opponents have been trying to table me. And those VP's are very important at the end of the event.

If you don't want to get tabled - or go through the day trying not to table your opponents, then don't go to tournaments. Simple as that.

The thing is - the majority of tournament players are easier to get on with than the majority of FLGS players. They know the rules better, cheat less due to the dual facts that i) their opponent will know if they are cheating and ii) due to better skill level, often don't have to. They take it easier with their games whether winning or losing as that's the way it goes.

So the short of it is, yes - try to table your opponent whether its a seasoned player or not. Anything else is an insult to their ability and their intelligence.

I qualified for GT finals at the weekend by 3 tournament points. I lost three games narrowly, but scraped most of the secondaries in those games, and my other three games I tabled my opponents. They certainly weren't noobs, but if I had taken it easy on them then I wouldn't have qualified, simple as that. And I know at least one of them voted me favourite opponent. So you can still have a good game with a big loss.

 AduroT wrote:
Yeah, tournament isn't the place to learn the game. Sorry, but I will grind your face into the dirt during that game. I'd be willing to offer up tips and such afterwards though.

Sometimes you don't get the choice. For a while, my local Warmachine community was either playing in tournaments or practicing for one. What do you do if you're trying to learn the game and the only events are tournaments?

I've done it; I went to a tournament totally unprepared once (because I'd signed up for a different game, but no-one else had); I got gubbed four times in a row, but everyone was happy to explain why they were wiping the floor with me, and how I could do things better with the army I had.

Apart from anything else, it's not fun to crush someone who doesn't know what he's doing. If it's not fun, why bother going to a gaming event? (Unless you're at the Magic Pro Tour or something where the prize on offer is important)

 Nevelon wrote:
One problem with not running up the score is that some tournaments use mission points for tiebreakers etc.
[...]

That's the problem right here. Especially in 1-day tournaments with few games and lots of players, the score will often have a big impact on the final ranking. In my last FoW tournament, I dropped from a contender for the podium, to somewhere in the 2-digit ranks, because I won my last game 5-2 instead of 6-1. So in a tournament, I'd never gloat over someone, put them down verbally or anything like that, but always bring my best game.

It's also a courtesy towards other novices. If I cut a new guy some slack and win 4-3, where I could easily have pulled off a 6-1 victory, while on the table next to me, another new guys pulls off a 2-5 against a good player who is bringing is "A"-game, my opponent will be placed higher than the other guy, even if he didn't play as well and has me to thank for those 2 VPs.

Overall I don't see it as too much of a problem, though. Having been and being a new guy in quite a few games myself, most tournaments had me pitted against a player in my own strength by game 2 or 3 through the Swiss system, so the chance of getting completely tabled 3-4 times in a row is usually quite low.

 stanman wrote:
Destroy them without mercy. It is only when you leave your opponent a weeping shell of what was once a human being that you will have won.

There is no victory greater than to drive all others from the hobby so that you alone can rule a vast and mighty empire of ash and ruin.

Well, that's what you get when you step into the octagon with pro warhammer athletes.

I must admit this is a tricky one, nobody wants to be appear a douche but I agree that tournaments aren't the place to learn the game.

However I also accept that everybody has to start somewhere and you don't want to put new players off but quite often there is a certain amount of investment put into a tournament and it's frustrating to not get a return on that.

I don't mean it's about playing to win all the time but as an example I experienced something very similar in a tournament last year.

I attended a one day escalating tournament that was organised by a large club.

I spent the weeks prior to the tournament chained to my painting table getting units painted in the hope of winning best painted.

I also bought a couple of new units to give me a more competetive edge and had to get those painted.

I spent ages writing and rewriting my lists to fit with the tournament comp rules and as it was an escalating tournament needed 4 lists increasing in 500pt blocks that also needed to conform to the scenario packs etc.

I had to build and paint objective markers and pay for my ticket.

The point is most of thhe time tournament games are not friendly pick up games. A lot more thought and effort goes into preparing for a tournament setting than it does for standard games.

In other words if you've never been to a tournament before you may not be aware of this but it means that your opponent isn't necessarily being a douche if he is playing to win, but I definitely agree that he shouldn't be what's known in our circle as a "bad winner".

In my third game of the tournament I was facing a guy who hadn't played 40K for over 10 years and had borrowed a friend's army because his friend was attending and he wanted to play. This was essentially his first game of that particular edition.

I also didn't want to be "that guy" and to be honest the chances of finishing the tournie on the top table were slim at best but I had been edging up into the top 10 in my last few tournaments and due to all the hard work and preperation put in was hoping to make a good show of it, but I also didn't want the guy to have a bad game as thhe club is uber friendly and let's face it at the end of the day you play the game to have fun.

Unfortunately though we only had 90 minutes per game which included moving tables so each game should really have been finished in 80 minutes or so.

At the end of 90 minutes we had just finished Turn 3. It was so frustrating as my reserves had literally just arrived and had we gone 2 more turns I would have claimed a major victory but believe it or not through a combination of coaching on my behalf, being over generous on dice roll disasters and the game just taking so long to play he ended up pulling a win.

It was a fun game as he was really chuffed with a win (his only one of the day - I don't think his other opponents were quite so forgiving) and it's a real shame it didn't go to the end but my main concern was about him having fun.

However in hindsight it did kind of stitch up the rest of my day as that loss cost me in the end and I didn't perform very well at all.

It's not the end of the world but as I had paid to attend and the prizes were very good I was a bit gutted to come in the bottom 5.

I did walk away with best painted though which was good and did enjoy all of my games. Would I do it differently? Yes and No to be honest. I might explain why a tournament game is (IMO) different and maybe not be quite so forgiving as far as dice rolls etc are concerned and i would certainly keep an eye on the clock more.

Seems like there's a bit of confusion about tournaments, even friendly ones. Do people think of them as a competition to be won (graciously), or some kind of speed-dating for wargames?

I was in a similar situation to Flashman's opponent, once. Malifaux mini-tourney, as friendly as you like. I was probably the player with the least experience, and I got absolutely, utterly, comprehensively kerbstomped. It didn't feel great, and admittedly, there was a bit of sour grapes grumbling about just how broken steam golems were; but if I got the impression that the other players were hobbling themselves to let the noob get one or two licks in, it would've felt much more patronising and much worse.

So, speaking as a noob loser myself, if this guy with one game under his belt - unless he was some eager young kid unused to wargames - expected to lay all around him in a tournament with a roster he didn't really understand, then I feel sorry for him, but not to the degree that I'd blame myself for his poor performance. I think you have to go into situations like this with a reasonable picture of what to achieve or expect, and aside from his expectations, I think you're feeling bad about this guy because you weren't given that. If you feel bad for winning in what's been called a tournament, something's broken down along the way. If it's the fact that 'friendly' has been pasted on in front of the moniker and drastically changed the intent, maybe-but-not-really, I think it might be an idea to use less ambiguous terms. If the idea is to get together and just play, rather than defeat all comers, call it a 'mini-convention', or something.

StraightSilver wrote:
I would certainly keep an eye on the clock more.

The clock was a key factor for me. As stated previously, you have to achieve a certain amount of points to win the game. If you clock out, your opponent starts gaining points.

Half way through the game in question, I'd used up twice as much time as he had, because I was explaining each and every action I was doing (not that he was really listening). I realised I was in danger of clocking out, so I started to rush things a bit more and do quite dumb moves which I knew I'd get away with because he didn't know any better.

Another opponent of his actually surrendered points to him because he ended up clocking out. Didn't make a huge difference at the end of the day, but that was the situation I was trying to avoid.

At one point in our game he went to do something and I pointed out that he couldn't. He then left the model where he'd moved it to and did something else which he couldn't have done if the model was in it's original position. We're only talking 1/2 an inch here, but small distances make a big difference in this game. I started to protest, but then realised it wasn't going to affect the outcome of the game so let him complete the action.

All in all, an odd experience, but like any experience of note, I've been musing on it and the discussion here has been useful

@ Vermis - good points.

 Vermis wrote:
Seems like there's a bit of confusion about tournaments, even friendly ones. Do people think of them as a competition to be won (graciously), or some kind of speed-dating for wargames?

They are both.

I’m not a big fan of the tournament mentality. Even in friendly tournaments, winning takes more or a role then having fun. Not that the two are mutually exclusive, but priorities shift. But I will still attend the local tourneys my FLGS has, schedule permitting. Because I know if I show up, put my $5 entry fee on the counter, I’m guaranteed to get three games in. In that way, it’s speed dating to me. They might not be ideal games, but I’ll get to play. I don’t make it to the store that often. It’s a half-hour drive, and I have a family that keeps sucking up my weekends/free time. So when a normal month might see one or two games, the chance to get three in a day is not one to be squandered.

But given my druthers, I’d take a friendly pick up game over a tournament one.

Reminds me of why I prefer League to Tournament.

Right now I am in a Kings of War League that started accidentally, including a once a month Drunken Kings game. (Movement Phase, Missile/Magic Phase, Melee Phase, Beer Phase - Drink!) The result being that each turn made the Drunken Kings (ie Players) just a wee but drunker....

Somehow the first Drunken Kings party became the first games of the league....

Sad to say, drinking really isn't one of my favorite pastimes, I am a true lightweight and given my druthers I would have been drinking shandies.

Yet I still went unde (hic!) feated.

One player decided that Twilight Kin were not for him (a decision that everyone else had come to months ago).

My good lady's idea - she thought that it would balance the playing field.... (I am famous as not being a drinker.)

The Auld Grump - who gets sleepy and depressed when drinking. By the second game my Vampire had developed a Russian accent....

Crush them, without a doubt. Don't be a dick about it though and buy them a beer afterwards.

Stompzilla wrote:
Crush them, without a doubt. Don't be a dick about it though and buy them a beer afterwards.

As it happens, he was on his 2nd beer when playing me. Not sure additional beer would have affected outlook about the day (particularly as he had additional beers afterwards anyway).