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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:
How exactly is playing with one hand tied behind your back and still pulling of the occasionally win a pity prize?

Because most of the time the people who get the pity prize aren't skilled players playing "40k on hard mode" and still winning, they're people who suck at the game getting massacred because they're incapable of doing any better (or stubbornly obsessed with "casual at all costs" rules and unwilling to do better). It's a participation trophy, you give it to someone who has no hope of ever accomplishing anything else so they can be happy that they won a prize.

Well you won't be winning any with that attitude.

 Pouncey wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Partially this.
But also, late in a tournament, particularly if you've done well, some players are just fed to the teeth with hearing people moaning about their 'Deathstar' call it a meatgrinder unit and suddenly you're the coolest person in the world.

The people who complain about "Death Star" units should watch Star Wars episodes 4 and 6 to see what happened to the original thing the term was a name of.

Then episode 7, too, to see what happened when we had a few decades to come up with a new version.

It might give them some perspective.

Yeah except before anything happened to either one, the first destroyed a planet, and the second destroyed a system. I guess it's a good thing death stars can only exist until the end of the world, but then, end of the world and all that

Well, I mean, what happened is that the Death Star spent the first two movies blasting the hell out of capital ships and planets, but found small targets like X-wings such unsuitable targets that it couldn't even target them properly, even though if it had fired at them it would've killed them too. So then the small craft just, like, ignored the fact that the Death Star could kill any single one of them it wanted to (or even just if they were in-between it and its target when it fired), and went for the victory condition that ends the battle regardless of the Death Star's overpowered ability to literally erase anything it fires at, but can only shoot at one thing at a time.

Being able to destroy anything you shoot at, but only kill one thing at a time, is precisely where the name "Death Star" in 40k comes from. They are so expensive that they are effectively the only unit the army has - you have a few squads of support troops who can't offer much of a fight. And it is defeated the same way the one in the movie was, take a whole crapload of small units and let it kill whatever it wants, because it can only kill 7 units per game and you have WAY more than that. Then IGNORE it and take the objectives that actually dictate whether you win the game or not.

And if you're gonna play a game mode where the number of units you kill matters, just, like, DON'T play a game mode that basically guarantees that Grey Knights are going to win over Imperial Guard, okay?

My grandmother needs lessons in sucking eggs. Are you available for help?

 slip wrote:
Well you won't be winning any with that attitude.

Given my utter contempt for the idea of sportsmanship scoring/prizes in tournaments I'm not really too sad about this fact.

What if we rebranded it to 'Man of the Match'? or would that be more 'best overall' (including hobby, sports and game result).

nareik wrote:
What if we rebranded it to 'Man of the Match'? or would that be more 'best overall' (including hobby, sports and game result).

Rebranding it doesn't change the facts of the situation.

Why so contemptuous then?

nareik wrote:
Why so contemptuous then?

Because one of three things inevitably happens: "good sportsmanship" means "didn't play a list that could beat me and lost the game" (because clearly everyone is an amazing god of 40k and can not possibly lose unless their opponent is a WAAC TFG), the competitive players automatically give zero scores to their opponents to maximize their own chances of winning the sportsmanship prize, or "good sportsmanship" is defined by being friends with the person you're playing against rather than anything in the game itself. The 40k community is too much of a toxic mess of "casual at all costs" players to have sportsmanship mean anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

nareik wrote:
Why so contemptuous then?

Because one of three things inevitably happens: "good sportsmanship" means "didn't play a list that could beat me and lost the game" (because clearly everyone is an amazing god of 40k and can not possibly lose unless their opponent is a WAAC TFG), the competitive players automatically give zero scores to their opponents to maximize their own chances of winning the sportsmanship prize, or "good sportsmanship" is defined by being friends with the person you're playing against rather than anything in the game itself. The 40k community is too much of a toxic mess of "casual at all costs" players to have sportsmanship mean anything.

Whilst I disagree to an extent (as the vast majority of tournaments I've played in have not had this problem) I can see where you're coming from as I've been on the receiving end of a grumpy opponent sabotaging my sportsmanship score. How dare I actually play by the rules and tell him to take the Meltagun save separately on his bike commander (he insisted to take them all at the same time as his commander had turbo boosted so his save was now invulnerable (this was 4th ed btw)) as it caused instant death?

The guy got arsey and gave me a zero for sportsmanship.

Is "best sportsman" a pity prize?

No. There are some excellent players out there that treat their opponents with respect and can still rock out with a win at any major event.

When you play at a tournament, game store, at home, or at a table at Denny's, rule #1: Don't be a dick!

 Peregrine wrote:
Because one of three things inevitably happens: "good sportsmanship" means "didn't play a list that could beat me and lost the game" (because clearly everyone is an amazing god of 40k and can not possibly lose unless their opponent is a WAAC TFG), the competitive players automatically give zero scores to their opponents to maximize their own chances of winning the sportsmanship prize, or "good sportsmanship" is defined by being friends with the person you're playing against rather than anything in the game itself. The 40k community is too much of a toxic mess of "casual at all costs" players to have sportsmanship mean anything.

I largely agree with this.
Many of the older gamers had invested heavily in the game during a time it was "competitive" (myself included).
It is terribly hard to play 40k and keep reminding yourself that the rules mean very little since people penalize you for using them to their fullest.
"Sportsmanship" would be easy to be fair and gracious but for some reason "playing by the rules" with competitive lists is considered bad manners: no-one should be penalized for playing according to the documented rules.

So yeah, it could largely be a pity prize only because it is far easier to field an underperforming army, play by the rules and lose graciously to "win".
I can be a really nice guy and play a competitive army and if I have the "bad luck" of utterly destroying your army, I will not be seeing any sportsmanship points coming my way.

Thats why well designed sports scores arent built around a numerical value assigned by an opponent that just end up being another competitive ranking mechanism. Sportsmanship awards can be done in other ways which have been highlighted in these discussions that work much better.

 Peregrine wrote:

 slip wrote:
Well you won't be winning any with that attitude.

Given my utter contempt for the idea of sportsmanship scoring/prizes in tournaments I'm not really too sad about this fact.

Well, you won't win best sportsman, but you do win my pity. This is only a game about toys, but you're missing that. Theres nothing worth proving that's more valuable than having a good time.

Honestly I do not get Peregrine's viewpoint. I don't think it's the "casual at all costs" people who are the toxic ones. But I'm curious since he's so vehement (and often, while I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, completely condescending in his tone) why he thinks the way he does. He seems to be of the mindset of David Sirlin in his book "Playing to Win", that is the only reason to play a game is to "win" at it, by any legal (within the game rules) means necessary and to never feel shame at all about using the most powerful choices because those choices maximize the endeavor of winning. As opposed to what Sirlin refers to as "The Scrub" and Peregrine seems to lump under the "casual at all costs" umbrella:

David Sirlin, Playing to Win wrote:
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant.

In short, a player who adds their own arbitrary restrictions to the game in the interest of "fairness" and as a result directly hinders their chances at winning, for example Player A refusing to take a Wraithknight because it's "too good" and calling Player B "cheap" when they field a Wraithknight because the rules don't prohibit them from taking it.

However, if we go from Sirlin's writing I think Warhammer (of any flavor) is the definition of a "degenerate" game in that once you reach the "chasm" (of trying to become competitive) in that there isn't much depth to it unlike, say Magic: The Gathering or chess or Street Fighter or even other wargames (Warmahordes, for instance).

So I don't really get the vehemence and anger against "casual" players when 40k (and AoS) is clearly intended to be a casual and laid-back game, not a cutthroat competitive one where winning should be the only goal.

In fairness, a player that decries his opponent's army as "cheap" or "too good" at a tournament does not deserve to win best sportsman.

Wayniac wrote:
So I don't really get the vehemence and anger against "casual" players when 40k (and AoS) is clearly intended to be a casual and laid-back game, not a cutthroat competitive one where winning should be the only goal.

I have no problem with "casual" players. I have a problem with "casual" players who show up at a competitive event and complain about people bringing lists that are intended to win, "casual" players who post smug rants about how everyone who isn't "casual enough" is ruining the game, etc. A tournament is an event where you play competitively to find out who the best player is. Whining and crying because people make the best choices and win games is directly against the intent of the event. If you're so opposed to the idea of people making the best choices and winning that you think it's poor sportsmanship to do so then don't go to tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
However, if we go from Sirlin's writing I think Warhammer (of any flavor) is the definition of a "degenerate" game in that once you reach the "chasm" (of trying to become competitive) in that there isn't much depth to it unlike, say Magic: The Gathering or chess or Street Fighter or even other wargames (Warmahordes, for instance).

This is probably true, but the solution is to make clear and quantifiable rules to fix the game. If, say, Wraithknights are overpowered to the point that they create a generate game then the solution is for the people running the tournament to add a rule saying "Wraithknights now cost 500 points and you can not take more than one". It is NOT to leave Wraithknights degenerately overpowered and whine that anyone who brings "too many" of them is a bad person.

Yeah the whole "Best Sportsman" thing drives me nuts. For me at least, getting that prize actually hurts more than not getting anything at all

nareik wrote:
In fairness, a player that decries his opponent's army as "cheap" or "too good" at a tournament does not deserve to win best sportsman.

True, that attitude is just as bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
So I don't really get the vehemence and anger against "casual" players when 40k (and AoS) is clearly intended to be a casual and laid-back game, not a cutthroat competitive one where winning should be the only goal.

I have no problem with "casual" players. I have a problem with "casual" players who show up at a competitive event and complain about people bringing lists that are intended to win, "casual" players who post smug rants about how everyone who isn't "casual enough" is ruining the game, etc. A tournament is an event where you play competitively to find out who the best player is. Whining and crying because people make the best choices and win games is directly against the intent of the event. If you're so opposed to the idea of people making the best choices and winning that you think it's poor sportsmanship to do so then don't go to tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
However, if we go from Sirlin's writing I think Warhammer (of any flavor) is the definition of a "degenerate" game in that once you reach the "chasm" (of trying to become competitive) in that there isn't much depth to it unlike, say Magic: The Gathering or chess or Street Fighter or even other wargames (Warmahordes, for instance).

This is probably true, but the solution is to make clear and quantifiable rules to fix the game. If, say, Wraithknights are overpowered to the point that they create a generate game then the solution is for the people running the tournament to add a rule saying "Wraithknights now cost 500 points and you can not take more than one". It is NOT to leave Wraithknights degenerately overpowered and whine that anyone who brings "too many" of them is a bad person.

Agreed 100% on both counts, especially the first one; it's stupid to go to a competitive event, bring a non-competitive list and then complain about getting your teeth kicked in by "cheese" lists (it's a competitive event, what else did you expect them to bring?). That's just as asinine, although in my experience less common, than a competitive player going to a casual event with a power list purposely to disrupt it (sadly I feel that behavior is worse because, as I've stated previously, the competitive player has tournaments for them to show their power lists and can reaosnably expect that casual players won't attend, while casual players often don't have any event of their own that doesn't run the risk of a powergamer showing up to try and steamroll it with "easy pickings"). The second one is pretty spot on too but I am not sure how it would work in practice for a TO to make arbitrary rules like that, but I agree it's better to do something than say it's fair game with the unwritten "But you're a bad person if you take more than 1 Wraithknight" even though taking more than one is allowed by the tournament.

What I don't get though, is the mindset of approaching 40k with the intent to "win by any means necessary" and not care about the fun of your opponent. I get wanting to win, but at the cost of you having fun and your opponent being miserable? That seems like a douche move regardless of how you try to justify it, whether your opponent brought a poor list or a not-so-poor list. Warhammer always felt to me like the kind of game that is best approached like going to a buddy's house for a day of watching football. Relaxed, enjoy some snacks and beverages, some friendly trash talking, and both people have a good time. Yet I far too often see trying to turn it into this strict competitive game where it's all serious fething business and a matter of life and death.

For example, the rules might LET you take a lot of particular powerful units. But SHOULD you? Yes, it's clear it means the rules are flawed for letting you take so many of a strong unit, but at what point does the onus fall on the player to realize "This unit is REALLY good, if I take three it might result in an unfun game for my opponent" and restrict themselves? I far too often see the counter of "GW rules are bad and that's why I can take three of an OP unit" and that is 100% true, but that seems like an excuse with no resolution.

This might be better suited to a topic of its own but I see a lot of excusing bad behavior and very little actually fixing it. Yes, a game is bad if it lets you abuse powerful units with nothing to reign it in, and yes the game is bad for saying "You can do this, but you're a bad person if you do" but then why do people still do it and still use that as an excuse to justify it? If the game won't police you, then you have to police yourself, not blame the rules while continuing to take advantage of it, and that's what I too often see from the "WAAC" crowd. "The rules are terrible and let me do this. A good game wouldn't let me do this!" all the while as they continue to do it.

Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

The problem with the tournament scene is that "best sportsmen" isn't considered the top award.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
The problem with the tournament scene is that "best sportsmen" isn't considered the top award.

Depends on the person. I would consider it a privilege to win, so would any of my game group.

However, Best Painted is the best award there ever will be!

Still my favorite prize I have ever earned at a tournament. (Best Sportsman in 2011) It's a wooden plaque - handmade and painted by one of the group that used to run Da Grand Waaagh in California. Tournament had about 120 people in it.

Scoring was interesting. You rated the people you played from best to worst games you had. So if you played 5 games you rated one a 5, one a 4, one a 3, etc. People balked at the harsh scoring method ("But I had 3 GREAT GAMES!" was the common complaint.) but I found that if you were forced to think hard about it, something differentiated even those three great games. (Its a stacked ranking system ultimately).

I was really happy to find that so many of my opponents genuinely enjoyed playing with me - even the ones that I stomped.

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

Why though? The game is clearly skewed towards not competive so should it not be on the competitive player to adapt, rather than force everyone else to adapt to them (and conversely in a highly competitive game like Warmachine, the casual player should adapt).

Again, what I don't get is the continued "GW rules are trash" approach while someone is continuing to abuse them. If you recognize the rules are bad and allow for abuses, and on top of that go out of your way to point out the rules are bad because you can abuse them, then why the feth do you continue to abuse the rules and then deflect blame by saying "It's not me, the gak rules let me do this!"

That's the mentality I don't understand, trying to force a round peg (40k) into a square hole (competitive play) and doing it by cutting the hole larger and saying "It's not my fault, this peg wasn't meant to fit into this hole even though it should!"

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

Why though? The game is clearly skewed towards not competive so should it not be on the competitive player to adapt, rather than force everyone else to adapt to them (and conversely in a highly competitive game like Warmachine, the casual player should adapt).

Again, what I don't get is the continued "GW rules are trash" approach while someone is continuing to abuse them. If you recognize the rules are bad and allow for abuses, and on top of that go out of your way to point out the rules are bad because you can abuse them, then why the feth do you continue to abuse the rules and then deflect blame by saying "It's not me, the gak rules let me do this!"

That's the mentality I don't understand, trying to force a round peg (40k) into a square hole (competitive play) and doing it by cutting the hole larger and saying "It's not my fault, this peg wasn't meant to fit into this hole even though it should!"

I am actually a very casual player but I agree with CrownAxe here. This is why there are events at Adepticon such as the "40k Friendly" tournament. This is also why I do NOT play in events such as the Adepticon or LVO main tournaments. (I primarily play in the other events there such as "Narrative" events or the aforementioned "40k Friendly".

Those main tournament types of events have clearly stated "This is a no-holds barred, winner take all, type of event." Expecting someone to "play casual" at one of these has the casual player in the wrong setting. The current state of 40k is what you make of it. The guys from Frontline are making their tournament (including their rules adjustments) to be a competitive level event. 40k CAN be played that way (its not my particular method of choice), but I certainly won't begrudge any players that want to play that way.

Nor would I ask them to change the way they play to suit my needs. Just like they wouldn't ask me to change the way I play to suit theirs.

 cvtuttle wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because some people have their own fun playing that way. Some people enjoy the game by trying to maximize the efficiency of their army and playing to the best of their abilities. But when you say "but that's unfun for their opponent" you ignore the fact that its unfun for those players to have to play with one hand tied behind their back and handicapping their army. To make it fun for their casual opponent make it unfun for the competitive player which basically defeats the point.

Expecting your opponent who wants to take competitive lists nerf himself "so that you can have fun" is just as selfish as the WAAC player

Why though? The game is clearly skewed towards not competive so should it not be on the competitive player to adapt, rather than force everyone else to adapt to them (and conversely in a highly competitive game like Warmachine, the casual player should adapt).

Again, what I don't get is the continued "GW rules are trash" approach while someone is continuing to abuse them. If you recognize the rules are bad and allow for abuses, and on top of that go out of your way to point out the rules are bad because you can abuse them, then why the feth do you continue to abuse the rules and then deflect blame by saying "It's not me, the gak rules let me do this!"

That's the mentality I don't understand, trying to force a round peg (40k) into a square hole (competitive play) and doing it by cutting the hole larger and saying "It's not my fault, this peg wasn't meant to fit into this hole even though it should!"

I am actually a very casual player but I agree with CrownAxe here. This is why there are events at Adepticon such as the "40k Friendly" tournament. This is also why I do NOT play in events such as the Adepticon or LVO main tournaments. (I primarily play in the other events there such as "Narrative" events or the aforementioned "40k Friendly".

Those main tournament types of events have clearly stated "This is a no-holds barred, winner take all, type of event." Expecting someone to "play casual" at one of these has the casual player in the wrong setting. The current state of 40k is what you make of it. The guys from Frontline are making their tournament (including their rules adjustments) to be a competitive level event. 40k CAN be played that way (its not my particular method of choice), but I certainly won't begrudge any players that want to play that way.

Nor would I ask them to change the way they play to suit my needs. Just like they wouldn't ask me to change the way I play to suit theirs.

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

Additionally the rules and the fluff are currently easily separated.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Wayniac wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Oh I agree, I'm just curious why the dynamic exists. It feels like the minority trying to make the majority adjust to them instead of vice versa. I absolutely agree that someone shouldn't go to a "cutthroat" tournament with a casual list and complain about the type of lists they face. However I also find that a lot of venom tends to come from the competitive crowd about casual lists and players (the often "build lists that suck" response), when most tournament lists are egregiously lore-breaking (and typically are not built with any care to the lore). But I also see those same people repeatedly say how bad the rules are, and how the rules let them abuse things, yet continue to abuse it knowing how easily abused the rules are.

Bad rules and unbalanced games don't stop people from playing it competitively

I get that, but with all the people who say how gak the rules are, they sure seem to abuse those gak rules competitively. That's what, I think, doesn't sit well with me. I see a lot of people continually bash the rules, but remain adamant about playing competitively all the while saying how the rules are awful. I just find that sort of behavior odd because if the rules are the game are so terrible that it's easily broken, why play it competitively and willfully abuse the rules, and then on top of that use the poor rules as a crutch to justify the behavior.

Abusing and exploiting the weaknesses of a game IS being competitive. Being competitive means actively gaining as much of an advantage as possible out of the systems the game makes available to you. Calling a game out for being poorly designed and unbalanced is completely irrelevant to playing it competitively.

You can recognize a flaw and bemoan its existence and still play to win. They're not mutually exclusive.