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.

skarsol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because "the rules" are broken. Assault weapons may be fired after advancing, sure, but a unit cannot be selected to fire in the first place if it advanced, so you never get to the choose a weapon step. It's bogus and stupid, but that's what "anal rules playing" gets you in Warhammer and is why it should never be done this way.

Oh, that's fun. I'd missed that, thanks.

Jesus Christ this is the most preposterous and anally retentive rules lawyering I have ever seen.

njtrader wrote:

skarsol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because "the rules" are broken. Assault weapons may be fired after advancing, sure, but a unit cannot be selected to fire in the first place if it advanced, so you never get to the choose a weapon step. It's bogus and stupid, but that's what "anal rules playing" gets you in Warhammer and is why it should never be done this way.

Oh, that's fun. I'd missed that, thanks.

Jesus Christ this is the most preposterous and anally retentive rules lawyering I have ever seen.

That's exactly what I said when Tony pulled his deep-strike end-of-phase shenanigans on Alec!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

njtrader wrote:

skarsol wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because "the rules" are broken. Assault weapons may be fired after advancing, sure, but a unit cannot be selected to fire in the first place if it advanced, so you never get to the choose a weapon step. It's bogus and stupid, but that's what "anal rules playing" gets you in Warhammer and is why it should never be done this way.

Oh, that's fun. I'd missed that, thanks.

Jesus Christ this is the most preposterous and anally retentive rules lawyering I have ever seen.

That's exactly what I said when Tony pulled his deep-strike end-of-phase shenanigans on Alec!

Big difference. Tony's play was underhanded given the circumstances, yes. Measuring for Alex, the banter about intent (agreement or not) and his complaining when the same stunt was pulled on him - however, the rules are very clear in that regard.

Arguing assault weapons can't be shot after an advance is blatant loop holeism and angle shooting.

This sort of BS only exists in this community. I swear. I never saw it in Warmahordes, or in Bolt Action, or in Infinity.

Moreover, the perception of competitive play is totally different in those metas.

njtrader wrote:

Arguing assault weapons can't be shot after an advance is blatant loop holeism and angle shooting.

Nothing in the rules says you can't shoot Assault weapons at an angle.

karandrasss wrote:
Isn't it universally understood that you can't break the rules in tournaments? I.e. moving after deep-striking is RAW not allowed.

Strictly according to the tournament pack there also are no exceptions for having models broken from their bases. So people could just as easily called a judge once any of his rounds started with his models broke and had them pulled. Of course no players actually pulled this crap because they were understanding, even though IMO at a high level event with spectators I actually think he should have been asked to make some attempt at fixing the models, it's not possible to check line of sight in a game that uses true line of sight after all, and easy to miss bases when your playing your turn.

At the end of the day most people should care more about the enjoyment of the game for the both parties playing and not just focused on the win.

@Breng- Both NOVA and LVO use the thumbs up thumbs down method and it is rubbish. If you think having more options to score your opponents is worse then less then I am puzzled. A binary system that has no impact on scoring and allows players to acquire more then 1 strike means I can pull BS on lower tables so long as I am not caught doing something outrageous, then in the tough rounds allows a player to flat out be TFG for an important game.

I still have not heard a single real argument btw to why tying scoring to sportsmanship is ultimately bad. The idea of playing 40k at a tournament requires a social contract and assumes (rightly so) that 95+ % of the field are good chaps, with integrity. Yet the argument is that TFG players are everywhere and will ding peoples score card JUST because they lost. Which one is it? Because there is a bigger issue at hand if nobody can be trusted to score their opponent fairly on sportsmanship. If we assume the more likely premise that only a few bad apples will maliciously ding people with it, those same folks will probably also be getting hit with poor scores. The better players will still make it to the top regardless, only once there the ones that actually gave a damn about their first round opponents would edge out the cut throats. I never understood sacrificing a crucial element of tournaments that protects the vast majority just to protect against the minority.

BTW, are you only supposed to ding someone for poor sportsmanship when they lose? Generally in my experience some one acts like a dick and polices everything their opponent does, while playing fast and lose on their own turns. Then the guy getting cheated and abused usually just gives up because they want to get it over with. Thats generally why the winner gets dinged, because the other guy bullied the player to the point of not enjoying their game. I don't think it is so much to ask for to try and act pleasant as you table a guy.

njtrader wrote:
This sort of BS only exists in this community. I swear. I never saw it in Warmahordes, or in Bolt Action, or in Infinity.

Moreover, the perception of competitive play is totally different in those metas.

To be fair, those other games are designed with competitive play in mind. 40K, not so much.

-

 Galef wrote:

njtrader wrote:
This sort of BS only exists in this community. I swear. I never saw it in Warmahordes, or in Bolt Action, or in Infinity.

Moreover, the perception of competitive play is totally different in those metas.

To be fair, those other games are designed with competitive play in mind. 40K, not so much.

-

Right, which is ultimately why the silver-backs in their day played grand tournaments looking for the Renaissance man and not simply the best general. Of course in late 5th edition this was mocked into the grave in preference for try hard mode 40k, which I always found adorable since the game is so wildly unsuited for judging strictly on battle points alone. We already are looing for the best faction/list and not whos the best general, the fact that the dame list appeared 3 times seals this truth. I mean, there will always be hard core gamers at these events, and there will always be cheating and TFG behavior but attaching a huge 1st place prize to such an unbalanced game was always going to result in issues. Give the 5 grand to best sport, renaissance man and scrumgrod divided however you like and simply give credit to the top general and you will probably eliminate the majority of this type of behavior.

Ordana wrote:

karandrasss wrote:
Why is Tony's gotcha moment considered poor sportsmanship? Wasn't he just punishing his opponent for a misplay?

Because the game state was not effected in any way. There would have been no difficulty in allowing Alex to complete his movement.

But this is a tournament, not once did I allow any of my opponents to redo something they messed up the whole weekend, and I never asked when I made a mistake. You make a mistake, tough.

The problem with Alex and Tony's was not that Alex did a mistake and Tony didn't let him go back to make things right.

The problem is that Tony SPENT A FETHING 1 HOUR in his first turn, after Alex did his in 15 min, and when Alex tried to recover time doing things faster, he did a mistake, and then Tony punished him for that.

It was obvious that Tony was slowplaying when in the finals, with a enforced maximum of 20 min per turn, Tony was able to do his turns in that time frame (He only did go further in the first turn, 30 min or something, his opponent too)

Theres no way, that with the army Tony was playing, you can reasonably spend 1 full our in your turn. Even being a noob that doesn't know his rules. Is literally impossible to spend so much time with that army unless you are slow playing.

The fact that Tony bitched in the final match after he was corrected is just the cherry on top.

If nothing of this had happened, if Tony didn't slowplayed Alex, then nearly nobody would have said anything. Yeah, maybe it was a little dick move to not let him correct himself, but would have entered in "Semi-finals reasonable hardcore mentality"

Well not only that, but generally its accepted practice that you help each other out on rules. The fact that Tony HELPED Alex measure and deploy his model with a grin on his face then halted Alex when he went to the next model means he willingly was trying to trap Alex in order to garner an advantage.

Comparing this to something like forgetting your psychic phase, or a stratagem before you stared rolling dice are different IMHO. This was caught during Alex movement phase and had no impact on the rest of the game. Besides the fact that there is no rule stating your phase ends, or that you can't go back in the same phase is not actually RAW. RAW says you deploy deepstrikers at the end, so you could just as easily argue that he was well within the rules to pick them back up and complete the other moves first.

Also as others have illustrated, 40k literally breaks when you play it RAW. Your technically supposed to roll dice one at a time according to RAW. By using fast dice your agreeing to play by intent.

@red corsair- the issue is that the scoring is inconsistent and subjective. Your system had 3 ratings excelent, normal, bad. IME many people default excelent as the norm not normal. So if you end up playing someone who actually uses they system correctly and rates most games as normal your score has effectively been docked. If excelent scores required reason and review just as bad scores do, they would be less common and only go to people that deserved them. Thus if you are not going that way binary scoring is inherently more fair, perhaps with a favorite opponent vote if you want to score sportsmanship. The complaint comes down to this essentially paint judging is (in theory) consistent because the same team is doing the judging, generalship is an objective outcome, sports scoring is not.

 Galas wrote:
The problem with Alex and Tony's was not that Alex did a mistake and Tony didn't let him go back to make things right.

The problem is that Tony SPENT A FETHING 1 HOUR in his first turn, after Alex did his in 15 min, and when Alex tried to recover time doing things faster, he did a mistake, and then Tony punished him for that.

It was obvious that Tony was slowplaying when in the finals, with a enforced maximum of 20 min per turn, Tony was able to do his turns in that time frame (He only did go further in the first turn, 30 min or something, his opponent too)

Theres no way, that with the army Tony was playing, you can reasonably spend 1 full our in your turn. Even being a noob that doesn't know his rules. Is literally impossible to spend so much time with that army unless you are slow playing.

The fact that Tony bitched in the final match after he was corrected is just the cherry on top.

If nothing of this had happened, if Tony didn't slowplayed Alex, then nearly nobody would have said anything. Yeah, maybe it was a little dick move to not let him correct himself, but would have entered in "Semi-finals reasonable hardcore mentality"

Some people would call that good strategy. When you're playing competitive, you do whatever it takes to win. There are only winners and losers, no trophies for second place. While the average person finds this issue to be a problem, those who live for competition realize this is part of the game. I have trouble feeling sorry for the guy who lost the rest of his movement phase, he walked right into that trap, and as far as I can say, it was justified. I'd have done the same thing if I was good enough of a player to be competing for such a high spot in the rankings.

Bottom line, competition is ruthless and it isn't for everyone.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with Alex and Tony's was not that Alex did a mistake and Tony didn't let him go back to make things right.

The problem is that Tony SPENT A FETHING 1 HOUR in his first turn, after Alex did his in 15 min, and when Alex tried to recover time doing things faster, he did a mistake, and then Tony punished him for that.

It was obvious that Tony was slowplaying when in the finals, with a enforced maximum of 20 min per turn, Tony was able to do his turns in that time frame (He only did go further in the first turn, 30 min or something, his opponent too)

Theres no way, that with the army Tony was playing, you can reasonably spend 1 full our in your turn. Even being a noob that doesn't know his rules. Is literally impossible to spend so much time with that army unless you are slow playing.

The fact that Tony bitched in the final match after he was corrected is just the cherry on top.

If nothing of this had happened, if Tony didn't slowplayed Alex, then nearly nobody would have said anything. Yeah, maybe it was a little dick move to not let him correct himself, but would have entered in "Semi-finals reasonable hardcore mentality"

Some people would call that good strategy. When you're playing competitive, you do whatever it takes to win. There are only winners and losers, no trophies for second place. While the average person finds this issue to be a problem, those who live for competition realize this is part of the game. I have trouble feeling sorry for the guy who lost the rest of his movement phase, he walked right into that trap, and as far as I can say, it was justified. I'd have done the same thing if I was good enough of a player to be competing for such a high spot in the rankings.

Bottom line, competition is ruthless and it isn't for everyone.

Which is obviously why no one has ever been sanctioned for bad sportsmanship in the history of human competition.

Oh wait.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with Alex and Tony's was not that Alex did a mistake and Tony didn't let him go back to make things right.

The problem is that Tony SPENT A FETHING 1 HOUR in his first turn, after Alex did his in 15 min, and when Alex tried to recover time doing things faster, he did a mistake, and then Tony punished him for that.

It was obvious that Tony was slowplaying when in the finals, with a enforced maximum of 20 min per turn, Tony was able to do his turns in that time frame (He only did go further in the first turn, 30 min or something, his opponent too)

Theres no way, that with the army Tony was playing, you can reasonably spend 1 full our in your turn. Even being a noob that doesn't know his rules. Is literally impossible to spend so much time with that army unless you are slow playing.

The fact that Tony bitched in the final match after he was corrected is just the cherry on top.

If nothing of this had happened, if Tony didn't slowplayed Alex, then nearly nobody would have said anything. Yeah, maybe it was a little dick move to not let him correct himself, but would have entered in "Semi-finals reasonable hardcore mentality"

Some people would call that good strategy. When you're playing competitive, you do whatever it takes to win. There are only winners and losers, no trophies for second place. While the average person finds this issue to be a problem, those who live for competition realize this is part of the game. I have trouble feeling sorry for the guy who lost the rest of his movement phase, he walked right into that trap, and as far as I can say, it was justified. I'd have done the same thing if I was good enough of a player to be competing for such a high spot in the rankings.

Bottom line, competition is ruthless and it isn't for everyone.

Which is obviously why no one has ever been sanctioned for bad sportsmanship in the history of human competition.

Oh wait.

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

One can always take an argument to the highest level of absurdity. There are always limits, even to what I say.

However, the strategy he used [assuming he really did slow play on purpose in order to cause his opponent to increase his chances of making a mistake, with which he could be punished for] is valid. You may not agree with it, and many have cried fowl. But the organizers haven't [to my knowledge] revoked the win, and thus it seems they agree.

It is the same reason female players can, and often do use low cut clothing and "innocent" flirting in order to cause distraction in less mentally well defended male players. Is that wrong? Should we say that behavior such as this is bad sportsmanship? What if a male does it [Did anyone who was at LVO see the guy running around in athletic shorts so tight you could literally see the outline of his whole package?] in hopes to distracting women or gay men?

Using tactics other than what is printed in the rules is a more advanced form of tactics. Why are some people upset by this?

If you honestly can't see why this isn't bad, then I'm glad I don't live in your meta.

Sportsmanship is a thing which humans do because they respect each other.

"Respect your opponent" isn't in the rulebook, to be sure, but I guess it really needs to be or else, apparently, people won't do it.

This is what WAAC is.

 Togusa wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The problem with Alex and Tony's was not that Alex did a mistake and Tony didn't let him go back to make things right.

The problem is that Tony SPENT A FETHING 1 HOUR in his first turn, after Alex did his in 15 min, and when Alex tried to recover time doing things faster, he did a mistake, and then Tony punished him for that.

It was obvious that Tony was slowplaying when in the finals, with a enforced maximum of 20 min per turn, Tony was able to do his turns in that time frame (He only did go further in the first turn, 30 min or something, his opponent too)

Theres no way, that with the army Tony was playing, you can reasonably spend 1 full our in your turn. Even being a noob that doesn't know his rules. Is literally impossible to spend so much time with that army unless you are slow playing.

The fact that Tony bitched in the final match after he was corrected is just the cherry on top.

If nothing of this had happened, if Tony didn't slowplayed Alex, then nearly nobody would have said anything. Yeah, maybe it was a little dick move to not let him correct himself, but would have entered in "Semi-finals reasonable hardcore mentality"

Some people would call that good strategy. When you're playing competitive, you do whatever it takes to win. There are only winners and losers, no trophies for second place. While the average person finds this issue to be a problem, those who live for competition realize this is part of the game. I have trouble feeling sorry for the guy who lost the rest of his movement phase, he walked right into that trap, and as far as I can say, it was justified. I'd have done the same thing if I was good enough of a player to be competing for such a high spot in the rankings.

Bottom line, competition is ruthless and it isn't for everyone.

Tonya Harding, is that you?

Breng77 wrote:
@red corsair- the issue is that the scoring is inconsistent and subjective. Your system had 3 ratings excelent, normal, bad. IME many people default excelent as the norm not normal. So if you end up playing someone who actually uses they system correctly and rates most games as normal your score has effectively been docked. If excelent scores required reason and review just as bad scores do, they would be less common and only go to people that deserved them. Thus if you are not going that way binary scoring is inherently more fair, perhaps with a favorite opponent vote if you want to score sportsmanship. The complaint comes down to this essentially paint judging is (in theory) consistent because the same team is doing the judging, generalship is an objective outcome, sports scoring is not.

Actually no, now your suggesting that people are going to default to one ranking based on zero evidence. This is the same argument af malicious scoring being used as a weapon just turned in reverse. If the packet CLEARLY defines and sites examples then its fine. Your assuming again that gamers are incapable of a pretty simple task. To which I say, what is the point in the tourny in first place?

So to recap:

To push for game completion

Chess clocks: Bad because TFG will game it

Battle points given as a percentage of game finished, for example you finish 2 of 6 turns you get 1/3 of your points scored: Bad because TFG will game it

To address TFG

Bring back sportsmanship points:

1. Bad because TFG will game it

2. You don't need any soft scores because the vast majority of gamers are not TFG



I am seeing a ridiculously silly pattern here. Seems to me the reality is that most of the field are good fellas, yet all the answers toward protecting those guys from TFG are contingent uponj TFG behavior. It makes no sense.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@red corsair- the issue is that the scoring is inconsistent and subjective. Your system had 3 ratings excelent, normal, bad. IME many people default excelent as the norm not normal. So if you end up playing someone who actually uses they system correctly and rates most games as normal your score has effectively been docked. If excelent scores required reason and review just as bad scores do, they would be less common and only go to people that deserved them. Thus if you are not going that way binary scoring is inherently more fair, perhaps with a favorite opponent vote if you want to score sportsmanship. The complaint comes down to this essentially paint judging is (in theory) consistent because the same team is doing the judging, generalship is an objective outcome, sports scoring is not.

Actually no, now your suggesting that people are going to default to one ranking based on zero evidence. This is the same argument af malicious scoring being used as a weapon just turned in reverse. If the packet CLEARLY defines and sites examples then its fine. Your assuming again that gamers are incapable of a pretty simple task. To which I say, what is the point in the tourny in first place?

So to recap:

To push for game completion

Chess clocks: Bad because TFG will game it

Battle points given as a percentage of game finished, for example you finish 2 of 6 turns you get 1/3 of your points scored: Bad because TFG will game it

To address TFG

Bring back sportsmanship points:

1. Bad because TFG will game it

2. You don't need any soft scores because the vast majority of gamers are not TFG



I am seeing a ridiculously silly pattern here. Seems to me the reality is that most of the field are good fellas, yet all the answers toward protecting those guys from TFG are contingent uponj TFG behavior. It makes no sense.

Actually, I can give you a ton of evidence that yes, the system would be broken.

All you have to do is look at the US Air Force Enlisted Performance Report system. A system where Airmen were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, and the higher your score, the more points you got for promotion. The system IMMEDIATELY got flooded with 5's, because no one wanted to give the average person the 3, because it would mean they'd never be promotable, when everyone else was being given 5's (because everyone else was being given 5's, because everyone else was.) An entire military service of consummate professionals couldn't be fair with a numbered rating system, when they knew that adhering to it properly might hold someone back. There is no way you're going to argue that Sportsman scores are going to be fair.

You are citing arguments I never made. My evidence is years as a TO using sports scores, many (most) people (regardless of what you say in you packet) will default to max points if they have a decent game, that is what I have seen, some will actually go with the packet as intended and those people end up docking their opponents on sports scores by following the packet. Don't see why you would have an issue with requiring a reason for max sports score as well as poor sports score. It reinforces the notion that normal is normal, and anything else requires explanation. Further everyone's expectations of normal/bad/great are going to be different.

As for clocks I personally think they will detract from the experience for most people and are unneeded in most games, I'd be fine with judges having them to drop on tables in the case of slow play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@red corsair- the issue is that the scoring is inconsistent and subjective. Your system had 3 ratings excelent, normal, bad. IME many people default excelent as the norm not normal. So if you end up playing someone who actually uses they system correctly and rates most games as normal your score has effectively been docked. If excelent scores required reason and review just as bad scores do, they would be less common and only go to people that deserved them. Thus if you are not going that way binary scoring is inherently more fair, perhaps with a favorite opponent vote if you want to score sportsmanship. The complaint comes down to this essentially paint judging is (in theory) consistent because the same team is doing the judging, generalship is an objective outcome, sports scoring is not.

Actually no, now your suggesting that people are going to default to one ranking based on zero evidence. This is the same argument af malicious scoring being used as a weapon just turned in reverse. If the packet CLEARLY defines and sites examples then its fine. Your assuming again that gamers are incapable of a pretty simple task. To which I say, what is the point in the tourny in first place?

So to recap:

To push for game completion

Chess clocks: Bad because TFG will game it

Battle points given as a percentage of game finished, for example you finish 2 of 6 turns you get 1/3 of your points scored: Bad because TFG will game it

To address TFG

Bring back sportsmanship points:

1. Bad because TFG will game it

2. You don't need any soft scores because the vast majority of gamers are not TFG



I am seeing a ridiculously silly pattern here. Seems to me the reality is that most of the field are good fellas, yet all the answers toward protecting those guys from TFG are contingent uponj TFG behavior. It makes no sense.

Actually, I can give you a ton of evidence that yes, the system would be broken.

All you have to do is look at the US Air Force Enlisted Performance Report system. A system where Airmen were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, and the higher your score, the more points you got for promotion. The system IMMEDIATELY got flooded with 5's, because no one wanted to give the average person the 3, because it would mean they'd never be promotable, when everyone else was being given 5's (because everyone else was being given 5's, because everyone else was.) An entire military service of consummate professionals couldn't be fair with a numbered rating system, when they knew that adhering to it properly might hold someone back. There is no way you're going to argue that Sportsman scores are going to be fair.

This, the same is true with customer satisfaction surveys where stores only count max scores as passing. Essentially that will be the case here as well anything other than max will end up being failing the opponent on sports relative to the field. Because in order to compet for overall you will need max sportsmanship

Then reverse the mechanic. Game went fine zero points added. Player was a jerk -X.

Currently they use a binary thumbs up and thumbs down method which either gets you ignored or someone thrown out of the event which is idiotic. To act like there should be no middle ground for consequences is the issue.

For example, some people act like brats when their dice go cold or when their opponent is killing their stuff only to turn around and celebrate when they win. The thumbs up/down system does nothing to address this behavior despite it being unsportsmanlike. Nobody is going to want to get this guy possibly thrown from the event, but surely this type of behavior can sour games for folks. Docking his score teaches the guy to grow as a person.

The issue is two fold, first that sportsmanship isn't tied to overall scoring and second that there is prize support for winning at such an event where winning alone gets you there.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Galef wrote:

njtrader wrote:
This sort of BS only exists in this community. I swear. I never saw it in Warmahordes, or in Bolt Action, or in Infinity.

Moreover, the perception of competitive play is totally different in those metas.

To be fair, those other games are designed with competitive play in mind. 40K, not so much.

-

Right, which is ultimately why the silver-backs in their day played grand tournaments looking for the Renaissance man and not simply the best general. Of course in late 5th edition this was mocked into the grave in preference for try hard mode 40k, which I always found adorable since the game is so wildly unsuited for judging strictly on battle points alone. We already are looing for the best faction/list and not whos the best general, the fact that the dame list appeared 3 times seals this truth. I mean, there will always be hard core gamers at these events, and there will always be cheating and TFG behavior but attaching a huge 1st place prize to such an unbalanced game was always going to result in issues. Give the 5 grand to best sport, renaissance man and scrumgrod divided however you like and simply give credit to the top general and you will probably eliminate the majority of this type of behavior.

Hey, I'm a silverback!

I'll add that we also played for a trophy from GW and bragging rights. Not merch, and definitely not cash prizes. That's because everyone recognized that the game simply wasn't suited to be a competitive sport, no matter how much one distorts it.

Then came the demise of the GW GTs and the rise of 'Ard Boyz, and with that some very different attitudes for that generation of players. There was always drama at GTs, but the drama now is heightened by the stakes (such as they are, LOL). And showing up with armies full of grey plastic, proxies, etc. didn't happen. Hell, competitive guys tended to show up with freshly painted, good looking NEW armies every year in order to ensure a good paint score.

I liked the old days better because I think they were more...honest...about what a Warhammer tournament can be. But that's just my opinion, and clearly there many players who prefer what the GTs have become since GW got out of that business.

karandrasss wrote:
Isn't it universally understood that you can't break the rules in tournaments? I.e. moving after deep-striking is RAW not allowed.

He was also slow playing, which is out and out cheating


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
@red corsair- the issue is that the scoring is inconsistent and subjective. Your system had 3 ratings excelent, normal, bad. IME many people default excelent as the norm not normal. So if you end up playing someone who actually uses they system correctly and rates most games as normal your score has effectively been docked. If excelent scores required reason and review just as bad scores do, they would be less common and only go to people that deserved them. Thus if you are not going that way binary scoring is inherently more fair, perhaps with a favorite opponent vote if you want to score sportsmanship. The complaint comes down to this essentially paint judging is (in theory) consistent because the same team is doing the judging, generalship is an objective outcome, sports scoring is not.

Actually no, now your suggesting that people are going to default to one ranking based on zero evidence. This is the same argument af malicious scoring being used as a weapon just turned in reverse. If the packet CLEARLY defines and sites examples then its fine. Your assuming again that gamers are incapable of a pretty simple task. To which I say, what is the point in the tourny in first place?

So to recap:

To push for game completion

Chess clocks: Bad because TFG will game it

Battle points given as a percentage of game finished, for example you finish 2 of 6 turns you get 1/3 of your points scored: Bad because TFG will game it

To address TFG

Bring back sportsmanship points:

1. Bad because TFG will game it

2. You don't need any soft scores because the vast majority of gamers are not TFG



I am seeing a ridiculously silly pattern here. Seems to me the reality is that most of the field are good fellas, yet all the answers toward protecting those guys from TFG are contingent uponj TFG behavior. It makes no sense.

Chess clocks are way less gamable than the current standard. Again, with the "If it doesn't solve every conceivable issue, do nothing!" is a bad idea.

 gorgon wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Galef wrote:

njtrader wrote:
This sort of BS only exists in this community. I swear. I never saw it in Warmahordes, or in Bolt Action, or in Infinity.

Moreover, the perception of competitive play is totally different in those metas.

To be fair, those other games are designed with competitive play in mind. 40K, not so much.

-

Right, which is ultimately why the silver-backs in their day played grand tournaments looking for the Renaissance man and not simply the best general. Of course in late 5th edition this was mocked into the grave in preference for try hard mode 40k, which I always found adorable since the game is so wildly unsuited for judging strictly on battle points alone. We already are looing for the best faction/list and not whos the best general, the fact that the dame list appeared 3 times seals this truth. I mean, there will always be hard core gamers at these events, and there will always be cheating and TFG behavior but attaching a huge 1st place prize to such an unbalanced game was always going to result in issues. Give the 5 grand to best sport, renaissance man and scrumgrod divided however you like and simply give credit to the top general and you will probably eliminate the majority of this type of behavior.

Hey, I'm a silverback!

I'll add that we also played for a trophy from GW and bragging rights. Not merch, and definitely not cash prizes. That's because everyone recognized that the game simply wasn't suited to be a competitive sport, no matter how much one distorts it.

Then came the demise of the GW GTs and the rise of 'Ard Boyz, and with that some very different attitudes for that generation of players. There was always drama at GTs, but the drama now is heightened by the stakes (such as they are, LOL). And showing up with armies full of grey plastic, proxies, etc. didn't happen. Hell, competitive guys tended to show up with freshly painted, good looking NEW armies every year in order to ensure a good paint score.

I liked the old days better because I think they were more...honest...about what a Warhammer tournament can be. But that's just my opinion, and clearly there many players who prefer what the GTs have become since GW got out of that business.

I'm 33, not sure if that's a silverback, but I know I learned to play as a kid in the mid 90's from the silverbacks at least and I say that as a term of endearment. I agree with everything you said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Stratigo, exactly, the whole if it doesn't 100% fix the problem it's trash. Same goes with soft scores, can't have them because the 1% donkey caves might abuse them.

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

One can always take an argument to the highest level of absurdity. There are always limits, even to what I say.

However, the strategy he used [assuming he really did slow play on purpose in order to cause his opponent to increase his chances of making a mistake, with which he could be punished for] is valid. You may not agree with it, and many have cried fowl. But the organizers haven't [to my knowledge] revoked the win, and thus it seems they agree.

It is the same reason female players can, and often do use low cut clothing and "innocent" flirting in order to cause distraction in less mentally well defended male players. Is that wrong? Should we say that behavior such as this is bad sportsmanship? What if a male does it [Did anyone who was at LVO see the guy running around in athletic shorts so tight you could literally see the outline of his whole package?] in hopes to distracting women or gay men?

Using tactics other than what is printed in the rules is a more advanced form of tactics. Why are some people upset by this?

Advanced form of tactics? this is most excusatory, ridiculous, childish form of apologism I think I've ever seen.

Monopolizing time by willingly slow playing on purpose is poor sportsmanship and is DQ worthy.

In a prior example, a guy played empire at a fantasy GT some years ago. He would spend his first turn killing a unit or two, just enough for 300 pts to minor victory, then disappear into the restroom for the remainder of the event.

Is that "advanced tactics"?

I agree Tony did nothing wrong in refusing Alex his movement phase, but assuming one player is allowed to monopolize all the time in an event is some form of "advanced tactics" is absurd and ridiculous.

You can throw your dice to the floor so your opponent cant see them when you are rolling your armour saves. Thats advanced tactics too. Were in the rules they say that dice should be rolled in the table?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you honestly can't see why this isn't bad, then I'm glad I don't live in your meta.

Sportsmanship is a thing which humans do because they respect each other.

"Respect your opponent" isn't in the rulebook, to be sure, but I guess it really needs to be or else, apparently, people won't do it.

This is what WAAC is.

All I'm saying is that WAAC exists because humans naturally compete and will do whatever it takes to win said competition. Arguing against it is like arguing against evolution. It's never going to change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

njtrader wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

One can always take an argument to the highest level of absurdity. There are always limits, even to what I say.

However, the strategy he used [assuming he really did slow play on purpose in order to cause his opponent to increase his chances of making a mistake, with which he could be punished for] is valid. You may not agree with it, and many have cried fowl. But the organizers haven't [to my knowledge] revoked the win, and thus it seems they agree.

It is the same reason female players can, and often do use low cut clothing and "innocent" flirting in order to cause distraction in less mentally well defended male players. Is that wrong? Should we say that behavior such as this is bad sportsmanship? What if a male does it [Did anyone who was at LVO see the guy running around in athletic shorts so tight you could literally see the outline of his whole package?] in hopes to distracting women or gay men?

Using tactics other than what is printed in the rules is a more advanced form of tactics. Why are some people upset by this?

Advanced form of tactics? this is most excusatory, ridiculous, childish form of apologism I think I've ever seen.

Monopolizing time by willingly slow playing on purpose is poor sportsmanship and is DQ worthy.

In a prior example, a guy played empire at a fantasy GT some years ago. He would spend his first turn killing a unit or two, just enough for 300 pts to minor victory, then disappear into the restroom for the remainder of the event.

Is that "advanced tactics"?

I agree Tony did nothing wrong in refusing Alex his movement phase, but assuming one player is allowed to monopolize all the time in an event is some form of "advanced tactics" is absurd and ridiculous.

I guess I have to say it. I'm arguing DA here. Many of the attendees I spoke with made this exact argument Monday morning. I neither agree or disagree with it, simply stating how others have chosen to look at it, using their descriptions.

Was it sleazy? Probably. Was it understandable, absolutely.

This is turning into one of the worst kinds of YMDC threads...

 Togusa wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Togusa wrote:

Oh believe me, it does and should happen. But that is the duality of competition. I've heard older athletes argue that sportsmanship itself is little more than a social construct which has no place in the sport, because winning is the end goal, and it shouldn't matter how you get there, only that you do.

This might be the most harsh form of SoTF, but that's nature. You are or you are not. Man's structured laws matter not.

Which is why we are not following the structured laws of Warhammer 40k for our games to decide the best Warhammer player, and instead deciding it through the lawless method of murdering eachother to take the trophy.

Oh wait.

One can always take an argument to the highest level of absurdity. There are always limits, even to what I say.

However, the strategy he used [assuming he really did slow play on purpose in order to cause his opponent to increase his chances of making a mistake, with which he could be punished for] is valid. You may not agree with it, and many have cried fowl. But the organizers haven't [to my knowledge] revoked the win, and thus it seems they agree.

It is the same reason female players can, and often do use low cut clothing and "innocent" flirting in order to cause distraction in less mentally well defended male players. Is that wrong? Should we say that behavior such as this is bad sportsmanship? What if a male does it [Did anyone who was at LVO see the guy running around in athletic shorts so tight you could literally see the outline of his whole package?] in hopes to distracting women or gay men?

Using tactics other than what is printed in the rules is a more advanced form of tactics. Why are some people upset by this?

This is a false comparison, and frankly rather disturbing.

If someone dresses a certain way or says things to you (that are not outright verbal attacks) and you can't get past it, that's on you.

If someone plays slowly to deny their opponent a full game, runs off to the bathroom, constantly interrupts their opponent's turn to measure things themselves or ask rules questions to gain an advantage, that's on them, and should be punished accordingly. It's against the spirit of fair competition, and should not be allowed.

So no, it's not the same reason.