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.

Dudeface wrote:
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

Any system with a score can be gamed, that's just the way it is and I agree it needs to be scored independently. Maybe "best overall" needs to vanish and just have best painted, sportsman, general etc?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective. People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.
It's also very easy to manipulate in smaller events if you join an event with a group of people. You just mark down everyone not part of your group and you are pretty much guaranteed to get the price.

So while I support having a sportsmanship score (preferably just as a yes/no), it should be separated from both painting and game score.

That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

Nope that's a personal thing I'm afraid, I have no emotional attachment to someone based on their model or scheme choice.

Dudeface 784721 10700551 wrote:

Let's look at this another way, complete a-hole wins the tourney and leaves everyone annoyed and they think "what a douche I won't come to this event again because of TFG's like that", vs "Oh Jimmy won overall, he wasn't best general but he's a decent dude and made sure everyone had a good time, this is a welcoming community and one that's worth sticking around in". which event grows and which community has the better atmosphere?

what do you mean by everyone? The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot. now usual GW tournament stories aside,

I don't know much more about tournaments the stories people tell around the store or what I can read on forums. I do know something about sports. And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nope that's a personal thing I'm afraid, I have no emotional attachment to someone based on their model or scheme choice.

it is a question of example, and not of emotions. People have their own likes and dislikes. . If someone comes with a shirt with X on it, and you hate X, your not going to like them much. And I say this as a person who generaly gets confused by feeling and human interactions. WWII german stuff is one of those things, I have no confusion about. But again this is just me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

On painting:

Do you have to paint your own army to get that score - I get most of mine painted (because I can, I have better things to do with my time and I am rubbish at it) - does that matter in this context? Is it just bringing a well painted army?

Painting awards were more of a thing before commission painting became more common. I don't think it has a place anymore due to this. Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.

 Eldarsif wrote:
As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.

Its not about GW competing with the ITC, its about the ITC warping the meta and the balance of the game due to how vocal its players are about perceived imbalances.

Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.

Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).

People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.

Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.

Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).

But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.

Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.

Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.

And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.

Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.

Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.

But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.

Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.

Dudeface wrote:
Any system with a score can be gamed, that's just the way it is and I agree it needs to be scored independently. Maybe "best overall" needs to vanish and just have best painted, sportsman, general etc?

That's how it was at the store here - top general got a box of models or two (often traded away/sold by the winner), worst general got some metal model blister(shows how long ago this was), top painter got some brushes and paints and top sportsman got a t-shirt, some dice and a poster. You can't exactly transfer those prices to a modern GT, but I think the idea of awarding different things for different parts of the hobby works fine.

 Eldarsif wrote:
As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.

Those are all great things and not what the discussion is about. The ITC can continue to exist and should do so, their tracking in particular is great.
It's the ITC missions specifically we are discussing, and they aren't required for the tournament circuit to exist. The AoS ITC uses the GW missions for play.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.

Those are all great things and not what the discussion is about. The ITC can continue to exist and should do so, their tracking in particular is great.
It's the ITC missions specifically we are discussing, and they aren't required for the tournament circuit to exist. The AoS ITC uses the GW missions for play.

My point is that the ITC guys are probably vested in their own system and I honestly doubt they would switch considering how long they've worked on it. AoS missions managed to come in a decent form before a large entity like ITC came to fill in the gaps like they did originally with 40k. Maybe that is pessimism on my part, but I can't help but be a little cynical regarding this

The AoS tracking on ITC is also woefully low and uninteresting. AOS is not exactly ITC's strong suit currently. I see more and more people move towards 40k ITC, but AoS seems less centred around a single third party like in 40k.

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
As much as I would enjoy CA missions to get more popular in the tournament circuit I believe GW has already dropped the ball on all of this. ITC currently provides ranking, best in factions, and what not. They already have infrastructure for competitive play in place that encourages participation and tracks scoring. GW needs to do the same if they want to counter ITC.

Those are all great things and not what the discussion is about. The ITC can continue to exist and should do so, their tracking in particular is great.
It's the ITC missions specifically we are discussing, and they aren't required for the tournament circuit to exist. The AoS ITC uses the GW missions for play.

My point is that the ITC guys are probably vested in their own system and I honestly doubt they would switch considering how long they've worked on it. AoS missions managed to come in a decent form before a large entity like ITC came to fill in the gaps like they did originally with 40k. Maybe that is pessimism on my part, but I can't help but be a little cynical regarding this

The AoS tracking on ITC is also woefully low and uninteresting. AOS is not exactly ITC's strong suit currently. I see more and more people move towards 40k ITC, but AoS seems less centred around a single third party like in 40k.

By rights the ITC committee or whatever should do what the community wants. Plenty of people have expressed displeasure with what magic box terrain has done to ITC events and now people are thinking secondaries need a rework. Now would really be the best time to say "look, we'll try CA2019 over the next few events and see how it goes". Then they can rework their own missions and such while they get data from running CA2019. They lose nothing from trying CA2019 and if it doesn't work out they can say "we tried, it didn't work, quit asking."

But then that would expect a ruling power to do whats best for its community and that basically never happens.

The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Catulle wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sportsmanship should always be rewarded. Sorry, but how you treated your opponents should be a factor in how well you place, in ANY kind of event.

Obviously, if you're being a complete ass, you should be kicked out early on, but even the winner should be more than just the person who played the game the best. Don't we want to encourage a friendly, healthy community?

No it really shouldn't. If one person was 3 points ahead of 2nd place, should he win overall because he bought everyone beer? No, one person played better, period.

There we go, sportsmanship is bribery, close her up we're done.

Obviously! There's no way someone could genuinely be a nice person, the only way to get good sportsmanship scores is bribery!

(I mean, I'll take the beer anyway. Who am I to complain?)

Completely great way to miss the point.

I don't think they're the ones missing the point. Best overall isn't just battle points, that should be best general. The nice guy who nearly came first absolutely should get rewarded with best overall.

Then the guy who shook your hand saying "good game" instead of the one just saying it. Take your pick. It has nothing to do with the game though so it's asinine to have it affect your overall score.

Let's look at this another way, complete a-hole wins the tourney and leaves everyone annoyed and they think "what a douche I won't come to this event again because of TFG's like that", vs "Oh Jimmy won overall, he wasn't best general but he's a decent dude and made sure everyone had a good time, this is a welcoming community and one that's worth sticking around in". which event grows and which community has the better atmosphere?

Which is just "pick your favorite person", especially the won you beat instead of the one that beat you to be petty!
No, that's also bad for the community. People who are more chummy with each other are going to pick each other. Nobody will be objective about that, sorry.

Just make the different categories ACT like different categories, no? isnt that the simplest fix?

Best General - strongest player, this is actually based on the tournament results
Best Hobbyist - paint and modeling and stuff
Best Sportsmanship - chillest dude to play with

That way a good painter could get in the actual tournament for fun while he knows he's actualyl competing for the best hobbyist part, his results in the tourney wouldnt affect him, and his painting skill wouldnt affect his result in the tournament.

that way you still reward good palyers without "stealing" points from them because they aren't the artistic type

that way you still reward players with good attitude and that are enjoyable to play with. This then tells onlookers that 40k rewards good sportsmanship and not just skills.

Isnt something like this a win-win situation?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.

Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).

People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.

Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.

Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).

But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.

Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.

Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.

And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.

Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.

Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.

But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.

Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.

I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?

 Ishagu wrote:
The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,

What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.

Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.

@Slayer-Fan123

The best general absolutely should be planning their army. What are they planning for, however?

Are they making a list that can adapt to varied mission conditions (Chapter Approved)?

Or are they planning a list which spams units that are effective at scoring points in objectives of their choosing (ITC missions)?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Jidmah wrote:The thing is, sportsmanship is subjective.

Oh, absolutely - someone who's incredibly bubbly and happy could just be seen as annoyingly naive/infantile by someone else, but that's just people for you. If anything, I just prefer sportsmanship scores just to hammer home "hey, actually treat your opponents well, and be a good person to them". And, in all fairness, most forms of scoring are subjective - painting contests are subjective, and arguably, even something like "best general" is a subjective score (why am I the 'best general' when all I did was take a strong meta army, and play to predetermined objectives that I can pick at my leisure? That doesn't sound like something that separates a good general from a bad one).

People might hate your army composition, your faction in general, your paint scheme, the way you roll dice or your face. Marking down people because they played orks/knights/ultramarines is a thing, just like marking down anyone who defeats you is.

Well, if someone's marking people down because they beat them, or because they just don't like how the other person's army looks, I think it's pretty clear who's at fault there.

Karol wrote:That is true. And sometimes you can't do anything about it. I don't go to events. But I would never score high someone who comes with a WWII german style army. Wouldn't matter how good it is done, and how well converted and painted it is. I hate the esthetics. Same with gross stuff. I hate how nurgle stuff looks, it makes me sick even thinking about the models. And in general if you hate someones looks, you hate them too. Specialy if you don't know them better, at least that is how it is for me.

While your feelings are valid, that's not what voting on sportsmanship is about. At the very least, if you can recognise that you only dislike them because of their looks/paint scheme/army, you should just give them a default score (so, 5 out of 10).

But, with enough games played, hopefully biases like these should iron out across a range of players. I imagine, over the course of the event, it shouldn't be took hard to work out which players are being given low scores, and which players are giving out intentionally low scores. It might not be enough to question them about it, but if Player A, who has been getting consistently high scores from just about everyone they play, gets a low score after opposing Player B, who always seems to give people lower than average scores, it shouldn't be hard to work out what's going on.

Karol wrote:The top is going to be full of exact same aholes trying to get the top spot.

Perhaps, but now they have an incentive to be less of a ahole. Putting a score on it is a way to essentially speak directly to the score-orientated mindset of said people, and making it clear that being nice is not optional.

And the people that are at the top are never nice people, or to be specific they are as nice as they have to, and if they know they are not going to get caught or if they are important enough to a sport branch they are untouchable, they do a ton of not nice things.

I think that might just be your experience there. I've seen plenty of cases where the winner was someone who completely deserved it, and was a great sport about it - because that kind of behaviour was encouraged and rewarded.

Obviously, I agree that there's people at the top who completely abuse their position and use it as an excuse to treat everyone else like trash, but that's not a reason why such a score system shouldn't be used - if anything, surely that's why it should!

And then people get suprised that sportsmen X did bad things Y, or that he is not paying taxs, or that he is running a litteral gambling skeem etc Even in lower tier sports, people that know they are in the plans of country trainers for the olympics often do a 180 character change. It is like fighting in your opponents home country only ten times worse. Because all the judges know that they can't just kill the career of the person they are going to be making money off. So they don't count their fouls, seals are being attached pre bout to their stuff, when everyone else would be disqualifed etc. And in professional sports, when there are milions or even bilions on the line, there is absolutly nothing a company wouldn't cover up as long as the player makes them money to not be in the red. That is how sportsmenship is. It is an illusion for people that don't do sports, but only consum it.

Perhaps true, but we're not talking about olympic level sports here. We're still talking Warhammer games here, and the prizes and money involved are nowhere near as significant, as well as the geopolitics around it.

Okey. So lets say you know the judges and your opponent doesn't. There is no way for the judges to treat you and your opponent the same. Worse, if the judges know you, specialy privatly and dislike or hate your opponent, there is always going to be huge problems. Because stuff you do is going to fall for the judges in to the he isn't a bad guy, he just acts like that, and for your opponent it is going to be F that ahole for breaking the rules.

Firstly, the judges aren't the ones to assign sportsmanship scores - it's the opposing player. However, what you describe here (a biased judge) could be a problem even without a sportsmanship system - just get the judge over and make rulings supporting you. The problem there is with a biased judge, not anything else.

And it can be absolutly anything. Army type, painting or how models are painted if painting is important to you, way of throwing or picking up dice. etc You always treat people you know as friendly , even if they kind of a break the rules, and those that you don't know as not.

I mean, maybe in your case, but not mine. If anything, I'm more lenient with people I don't know.
Regarding something like throwing and picking up the dice - that's only going to be a problem if the way they're throwing those dice is causing a risk to our models on the board (ie, hurling them at the models), but at that point, that's so much more than just "are you being a nice guy or not".

Or to make it realy simple, if your dad borrows your chainsaw without asking your not going to call the police on him, the same way you would If I took it. Same action, same object taken, drasticly different reaction.

That depends on what you mean by borrowing. Did they borrow it with or without my permission? Do I actually even know the existence of the person who "borrowed" it? If you borrowed it from me, and I knew you had, and you'd asked if you could, no, I would not be calling the police. If you *stole* it - if I knew who it was who stole it, then I'd be talking with them about it, parent or not. If I had no idea who took it, you're right I'd call the police, parent or not.

But, a borrowing someone's chainsaw is very different from playing a game with someone.

Sim-Life wrote:Sportsmanship absolutely does however.

Agreed - while the game is still being played between two people, sportsmanship must be respected.

I'm sorry but are you seriously questioning why the best general actually took their time to make sure their army was carefully planned, mathematically and strategically, to cover all their bases to ensure victory during the tournament? You're really not grounded in reality are you?

You just summed up why people are suggesting ITC is bad for balance. It shouldn't just be a mathematical pre-determined series of actions, some variance between missions or objectives to force varied lists puts the strategic element back into the hands of the general.

Regards sportsmanship, you've shown multiple times in multiple threads that it's not something you value and seem unable to understand the value in players having a pleasant time against just WAAC. There is definitely an argument that it can be affected by social circles, I won't argue that, but I'll leave that point since we're evidently on the opposite sides of the coin.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,

What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.

Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.

Spoiler:

https://www.goonhammer.com/chapter-approved-2019-matched-play-mission-review-part-2-schemes-of-war/

I think the new CA Maelstrom missions are similar in regards to Deck Building. I actually love Maelstrom missions, but I think they are a tad too swingy and random at times. In a casual setting where winning isn't important they are simply brilliant, but I can imagine some feel bad moments in a tournament environment.

Case in point, not long ago I played in a tournament using ETC rules, and the objectives I drew in the initial turns lost me the game. This is less likely now due to the 18 card deck, but could still happen with some particularly bad luck.

The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.

Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.

I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.

Nothing wrong with more games ending in a Draw. It's a legitimate outcome to a game. Use tie breakers to decide who the winner is, highly unlikely that both players lost the same number of points.

bananathug wrote:
The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.

Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.

I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.

If you draw with CA 2019 and its a knock out not a league or table. Then you simply evaluate who did most damage. Done. If it;s a league or table then it carries over no need for secondary rules.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,

What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.

Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.

Spoiler:

https://www.goonhammer.com/chapter-approved-2019-matched-play-mission-review-part-2-schemes-of-war/

I think the list building criticisms for ITC would also apply to Schemes.

As Thousand Sons I have "D3 for destroying a unit in the psychic phase", "destroy an enemy unit (D3 for IMPERIUM)", and 6 points for casting 12 powers.

If I pull these cards and have built my list to send as many smites as possible then I would score D3 + D3 + 6 for killing a single unit of 5 Intercessors in a single turn. Then I shuffle those back into my deck and that's literally all I spend CP on other than the occasional perils.

Obviously those don't all come up simultaneously, but when they do it would be devastating and it's a pretty easy set of objectives to accomplish.

But how do you determine who is the highest ranked player when you have 8 guys that went 1-1 with the same round scores in a 50 person tournament? Or 5th place between all the 4-1 players?

The big tournaments have max scores per round of 30-40 points so that there is such a small chance of 10 dudes winning their games with 14 out of 18 points.

I didn't get it at first and took a couple posters to explain it to me but without a wide range of scores the GW missions just are not practical to run a tournament and determine parings and in some cases a winner without a larger range of potential scores (which means secondaries which means homebrew).

Besides, I still find the CA 2019 missions pretty boring when compared to something like the newest adepticon mission pack

edit: you would have to remove all faction specific cards from deck building to have anything that resembled a "fair" game when using maelstrom decks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,

What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.

Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.

Spoiler:

https://www.goonhammer.com/chapter-approved-2019-matched-play-mission-review-part-2-schemes-of-war/

I think the list building criticisms for ITC would also apply to Schemes.

As Thousand Sons I have "D3 for destroying a unit in the psychic phase", "destroy an enemy unit (D3 for IMPERIUM)", and 6 points for casting 12 powers.

If I pull these cards and have built my list to send as many smites as possible then I would score D3 + D3 + 6 for killing a single unit of 5 Intercessors in a single turn. Then I shuffle those back into my deck and that's literally all I spend CP on other than the occasional perils.

Obviously those don't all come up simultaneously, but when they do it would be devastating and it's a pretty easy set of objectives to accomplish.

But those may be the last 3 you draw in the game when you've not got enough units to actually manage powers, or not face imperial players, or run into armies that are very heavy on psyker defense.

bananathug wrote:
But how do you determine who is the highest ranked player when you have 8 guys that went 1-1 with the same round scores in a 50 person tournament? Or 5th place between all the 4-1 players?

The big tournaments have max scores per round of 30-40 points so that there is such a small chance of 10 dudes winning their games with 14 out of 18 points.

I didn't get it at first and took a couple posters to explain it to me but without a wide range of scores the GW missions just are not practical to run a tournament and determine parings and in some cases a winner without a larger range of potential scores (which means secondaries which means homebrew).

Besides, I still find the CA 2019 missions pretty boring when compared to something like the newest adepticon mission pack

edit: you would have to remove all faction specific cards from deck building to have anything that resembled a "fair" game when using maelstrom decks.

I really don't see as many people going unbeaten when using the CA rules.

The GW events manage to do it with no problems.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
The CA missions would need to be trialled for a year at least. Not every ITC player competes in every event, and most would need to experience them multiple times before they can form an educated opinion on the matter,

What are your thoughts on the Schemes of War missions? The ITC used to play with a modified Maelstrom format not all that long ago.

Goonhammer review linked in the spoiler for those who not familiar with them.

Spoiler:

https://www.goonhammer.com/chapter-approved-2019-matched-play-mission-review-part-2-schemes-of-war/

I think the list building criticisms for ITC would also apply to Schemes.

As Thousand Sons I have "D3 for destroying a unit in the psychic phase", "destroy an enemy unit (D3 for IMPERIUM)", and 6 points for casting 12 powers.

If I pull these cards and have built my list to send as many smites as possible then I would score D3 + D3 + 6 for killing a single unit of 5 Intercessors in a single turn. Then I shuffle those back into my deck and that's literally all I spend CP on other than the occasional perils.

Obviously those don't all come up simultaneously, but when they do it would be devastating and it's a pretty easy set of objectives to accomplish.

Most missions you get to remove X amount of cards from the deck before game begins. Remove as appropriate.

bananathug wrote:
The problem that people have brought up with the CA2019 missions is there is simply not enough points to differentiate between players.

Even at a local RTT a couple players going 2-1 could be tied with the limited points you can score in a CA 2019 mission.

I don't see how you get around this without adding more ways to score and once you do that we are back into the "homebrew" problem that people have with the ITC.

Its almost as if there isn't decades of experience in this across the pond in Europe. Instead of scoring Win-Loss you gradient it by splitting 0-20 points between the players based on VP difference at the end.
You win by 5 points 17-3, you win by 10 15-5 ect