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 never play extremely seriously, as it's just a game, so I try to bring decent but fun lists to events at my FLGS. Even though terminators are semi-trash I still run a lot of DW, I use a lot of foot infantry, I don't spam any of my better units, etc. I still win some of my tournament games (1 out of 3 or 4 usually) but I'm mostly just having fun. I'm up against mostly eldar, some tau, some gladius marines, and space wolve deathstar lists.

I don't paint well so never win that award, I've only placed 2nd twice and 3rd four times out of a few dozen events, but at least 50% of the time (lately almost every event) I win best sportsman. More and more I'm beginning to feel bad winning it because it seems like I only win it because people feel bad for me playing enjoyable lists. I mean, at my last event when my first opponent saw my list he said "looks like you'll be winning best sportsman today". It really has me put off and makes me want to build hardcore lists or just give up on tournament play.

What do you guys think?

Nah, a pity prize would be for someone who achieved nothing and contributed nothing to an event, there are plenty of people who lose interest or get salty if the are losing a game or made mistakes. Whereas a good sport is both a gracious winner and a fun loser, you can get best sportsman if you come 2nd or 3rd its rather a measure of how fun you make the game. And someone who makes the game most enjoyable is arguably the best award. Skill in tactics and painting is a totally differant aspect

Every time i want to enter a tournament i have a glimpse at tourney lists people post and don't enter. Not that i can't win vs those net lists with my trukk bully boyz but all the games are gona be the same. Out of like 10 people who post their lists, there's one at best who it wouldn't be boring to play against.

I think the problem is that the ideals that would lead to winning best sportsman goes hand in hand with the type of people who have fun playing regardless of losing or not. The type of player who would write a weak list and still have fun and a great attitude while losing with it is also just going to be a great sportsman

Not a pity prize, exactly, but: People are a lot less likely to nominate someone who beat them as a good sport. If you table someone on turn three, even if you were super nice and friendly and a great guy, they're going to be a bit more sour towards you than if it was a close game, or especially a game that they won.

Thus, it has a tendancy for weaker players to get best sportsman.

It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

Na it isn't a pity price its a trick used to trick some of the more competitive minded players to play nice..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Its the grown up equivalent for the kindergarten good behavior stamps.

Best Sportsman is the most prestigious prize there is in a Tournament.

 CrownAxe wrote:
It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

How does one score sportsmanship objectively?

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

How does one score sportsmanship objectively?

He rolls d6 on a sportsmanship random table every turn.

The fact that there has to be an award for not being a jerk is exactly why tournament 40k is silly.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
It also depends on how Best Sportsman is determined. If it's at the TO's discretion then it will probably be a pity prize. If it's subjective player scoring/nominated then there is a decent chance it was out of pity. If sportsmanship is scored on objective scoring its hard for it to inadvertently be a pity prize.

Unfortunately a lot of tourney's do it in a way that makes it easy to be awarded out of pity

How does one score sportsmanship objectively?

By scoring based on objective "Yes or No" questions

Did this player knowingly cheat? Y/N
Did you enjoy playing against your opponent's army? Y/N
Would you play this player again? Y/N

By asking Yes/No questions (instead of arbitrary/subjective systems like nominating or rating opponent's) you remove the wiggle room for players to let personal bias affect how players get sportsmanship score. It also makes scoring opponent's low out of spite hard because you'll just have to flat out lie and odds are your score card will conflict with that player's other score cards.

Best Sportman shouldnt be a pity prize, and at some events is in faxt the most sought after prize. If it ends up a pity prize either the playerbase sucks, the organizer didnt implement it properly, or both. Best Sportsman should be "who was the most fun to play", and in a good playgroup that wont end up being a pity prize. There's a variety of ways to implement that which can work.

Two of your "objective yes/no questions" are subjective (namely 2 and 3).

Whether or not someone enjoyed playing an army or would play the army again is entirely up to their subjective measure of the army, and 25 or 30 isn't a statistically large enough sample size to say that 1 or 2 are outliers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Two of your "objective yes/no questions" are subjective (namely 2 and 3).

Whether or not someone enjoyed playing an army or would play the army again is entirely up to their subjective measure of the army, and 25 or 30 isn't a statistically large enough sample size to say that 1 or 2 are outliers.

Those aren't subjective questions. Either you had fun or you didn't. Either you'd play that person again or you wouldn't. You can objectively look at subjective ideas.

Also what are you talking about for the sample size? I think you are missing the point I was making. It wouldn't be about all of the score cards out of the tournament. You can check for lying by cross referencing the liar's score cards to the opponent's score cards and finding a conflict.

One of the ways I have seen sportmanship implemented well was tickets. Each person gets a ticket to give to their favorite opponent, and whoever gets the most tickets wins. This works best for events with 4-5 games instead of just 3 rounds, but does work. It gives a tangible objective to be achieved (acquiring tickets) that is pursued by actively being pleasant and fun and helps reinforce a fun atmosphere without having score that can be retributively tanked or something else to worry about ranking.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Two of your "objective yes/no questions" are subjective (namely 2 and 3).

Whether or not someone enjoyed playing an army or would play the army again is entirely up to their subjective measure of the army, and 25 or 30 isn't a statistically large enough sample size to say that 1 or 2 are outliers.

Those aren't subjective questions. Either you had fun or you didn't. Either you'd play that person again or you wouldn't. You can objectively look at subjective ideas.

Also what are you talking about for the sample size? I think you are missing the point I was making. It wouldn't be about all of the score cards out of the tournament. You can check for lying by cross referencing the liar's score cards to the opponent's score cards and finding a conflict.

Those things are completely subjective. It's not like you can have a judge observe the game and tell the player "that answer is incorrect, clearly you did have fun and would play that person again".

You also can't say that because three players did have fun playing against someone and the fourth didn't that he's a liar.

It isn't a pity prize. It's an incentive for people to try to make the experience more pleasant for their opponent.

It may be subjective, it may get tossed out as consolation for someone who did poorly on occasion, but if it's taken with a modicum of seriousness it can be a force to combat a**holedom at the gaming table.

I'm okay for the first couple games, but I get irritable by the end.

I personally think it is the most important prize at an event. But that's probably just me.

I think it's simply a combination of the above.

If it's chosen by the players fairly it's something to be lauded. I'd like to pretend that most players (above the age of 12) would be able to vote non-biased whether they won or lost ---- but who are we kidding?

I agree that it's a tournament-based effort to encourage more congenial play --- however this is somewhat silly when the same tournaments put up large rewards for winning, either cash or prize support. Those two are tugging different directions on the same string.

I don't believe it's a pity prize. It would be the best prize (to me, personally). The end goal for me is always fun...everything else is secondary. That means fun for me and my opponent.

I'd rather just have nothing at all.

I'm already chill (at least when playing the game) so I suppose it seems more like this to me.

Yes, it's a pity prize. People vote best sport for the person they felt guiltiest about beating.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The fact that there has to be an award for not being a jerk is exactly why tournament 40k is silly.

^^^^^^^^

I had a guy in his late 40s go beet red when I challenged him saying he could see my infiltrators because he could see a smidge of the orange rim I paint on their base from behind a beer can factory that had a gap underneath it. It was a Wraithknight that he brought to an escalation league where there were meant to be no LOWs...

Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

It is more a prize for being "likable" to play against.
It is also easier to appear more sportsmanlike if you behave well AND lose.
I have seen the prize go to an upper tier player but he was exceptional at being fun to be around.

So no, not a "pity prize" but it can easily be one if say someone loses bad enough and took it will good grace and humor.

No way is it a pity prize!

When we give out the Best Sportsman, we're looking for someone who carries the ideals of the hobby. They're someone whom it is a joy to play against, win or lose. They're the people that make you want to play the game. Sometimes this goes to someone who lost a bunch, but we've often had some high-ranking players score it as well because, despite being very good at the game, they're great players.

Some places might award it differently, but from my experience, a "thanks for not being that guy" or "thanks for losing" is NOT the reason this prize is given.

Being able to win graciously is even more important than being able to lose graciously. It's not a pity prize at all.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Depends on where you play and who you play against.
I've gotten the wooden spoon but didn't get best sportsman to go with it - I've also nabbed top spot and best sportsman at the same competition. Personally I think it was just the players I got paired with being the awesome sort.

A few words to avoid to make a case for Best Sportsman.
*Deathstar
*Cheese
*Over Powered
*Under Costed
*Filth - Unless you're getting into character for a challenge.

Might seem obvious but it's surprising how many people insist on using those phrases directly with their opponent.

What's wrong with deathstar? It's not pejorative, it's a legit list-building strategy.

Or have I missed something?

I'd rather be the guy that people enjoyed spending an hour with, than the guy who won every game. I'm not saying you can't be both, but if you can only be one or the other...