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.

bananathug wrote:

The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.

Furthermore, if a player
controls the same objective marker with
the same CHARACTER for more than one
of their turns consecutively, the number
of victory points scored is increased; they
score 2 victory points at the end of their
turn for an objective marker that has been
controlled with the CHARACTER for two
of their turns consecutively, 3 victory
points if it has been controlled with the
CHARACTER for three of their turns
consecutively, and so on.

No Prisoners: At the end of each battle
round, a player scores 1 victory point if
more units from their opponent’s army
were destroyed during that battle round
than from their own army.

Siphon Power: At the end of each battle
round, if one player controls more
objective markers than their opponent,
they score 1 victory point. If they control
all four objective markers, they score 3
victory points instead. A player controls
an objective marker if they have more
models with the Troops Battlefield Role
within 3" of it than their opponent does
(other units cannot control objective
markers; ignore them when determining
who controls each objective marker in
this mission).

bananathug wrote:
Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).

The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.

Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.

I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.

Apple fox wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).

The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.

Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.

I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.

The last paragraph I think is really a big part of it, but I think one of the issues is that I wonder if the faction design even considers the rules and missions.
Some factions I feel are just left out in design that mission design is probably suffering.
It really does not matter how good a mission is, if some factions cannot even build to play it competitively.

bananathug wrote:
Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).

The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.

Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.

I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.

Dudeface wrote:
But the idea is to have varied enough missions you don't "build to the mission" as during the course of a tourney there will different objectives for each one.

 Ishagu wrote:
@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)?

Dudeface wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Yep, played the CA 2019 missions a couple times each now and found that they don't quite produce the skew of results that ITC mission packs do (which is why the point spread seems like it could be an issue).

The missions Ascension and Pillars seem to provide the least competitive games and are too prone to becoming runaways and I would hate to have to use them in a tournament because some armies are just so much better at them than others.

Once we start using VPs to determine draws kill more because over important (IMHO) and while I think the new missions do help to get away from that I'm not sure if there is a perfect world where it is not the most important metric.

I'd love to see a tourney with the new CA 2019 missions (minus ascension and pillars) near me but GW has screwed the pooch so long with poorly designed missions it is going to take a lot of effort from them to push their mission pack back on the community. Maybe if they got more involved instead of letting independent tournament circuit organizers do their job for them we would see some traction but as long as the tournament scene is dominated by third parties I'm not sure if things are going to change.

The last paragraph I think is really a big part of it, but I think one of the issues is that I wonder if the faction design even considers the rules and missions.
Some factions I feel are just left out in design that mission design is probably suffering.
It really does not matter how good a mission is, if some factions cannot even build to play it competitively.

But the idea is to have varied enough missions you don't "build to the mission" as during the course of a tourney there will different objectives for each one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
@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)?

That doesn't tackle my point whatsoever. Whoever won all their games won all their games, period. You deciding they shouldn't be 1st place because the guy who lost by three points shook everyone's hands is a garbage attitude towards the actual better player, period. Why would someone want to attend a tournament where you might not actually win because someone's friends decided you don't deserve it or someone just doesn't like you beat them?

Dudeface wrote:

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.

 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.

 Ishagu wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
@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)?

That doesn't tackle my point whatsoever. Whoever won all their games won all their games, period. You deciding they shouldn't be 1st place because the guy who lost by three points shook everyone's hands is a garbage attitude towards the actual better player, period. Why would someone want to attend a tournament where you might not actually win because someone's friends decided you don't deserve it or someone just doesn't like you beat them?

I actually don't think that sportsmanship should come into account because it's far too subjective.
We do need more strict hobby requirements, however. In my opinion. Far too many ugly, minimal effort armies out there.

 Ishagu wrote:


I actually don't think that sportsmanship should come into account because it's far too subjective.
We do need more strict hobby requirements, however. In my opinion. Far too many ugly, minimal effort armies out there.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

Why do you need to "accomodate" your list to be a nice person? Boxers can be nice people, doesn't mean they pull punches.

That and I just realised your response had nothing to do with what sim-life insinuated.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

Why do you need to "accomodate" your list to be a nice person? Boxers can be nice people, doesn't mean they pull punches.

That and I just realised your response had nothing to do with what sim-life insinuated.

Yes it does, because they think it's unreasonable to expect a fair game like that. So I think the question deserves to be asked.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?

New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote: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?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Spoiler:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

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.

I'm polite and cordial because that's who I am. What I am not, though, is accommodating an army I created because you won't stop using a bad army. I shouldn't have to negotiate an army because of shoddy rules writing that's defended by the white knights here, and I think that's pretty damn reasonable.

It really isn't.

What's not reasonable about me bringing a 2000 point army against a 2000 point army and expecting a fair game?

No, you said you won't accomodate people using a bad army. Thats whats unreasonable. Would you accommodate someone who's only just started playing? How about someone who can't afford a new army? There's any number of reasons people play "bad" armies, why should they not be allowed to enjoy the game as well? What makes you so special that only your fun matters?

New people can accidentally end up with significantly better armies, like someone starting Iron Hands or Custodes vs someone starting Tyranids or Dark Angels. Also I'm not made of money either. So why should anyone accommodate anyone because of GW's shoddy writing that you're defending?

 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

Dudeface wrote: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.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The topic is that it's unreasonable for you to approach a social interaction where the aim of the outcome is to enjoy yourself and decide that you won't compromise on anything in order for your opponent to also enjoy him/herself either.

I'll repost what I said on the third page of this thread for your benefit.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The donkey cave is the person who doesn't understand that playing a game is a social interaction the aim of which is for both players to enjoy themselves and walk away from the game happy that they had a good time.

happy_inquisitor wrote:
The jump from playing with GW published missions to playing ITC is pretty painful. Not only do you need to deal with unfamiliar and far more complex missions but you quickly find that a lot of units within your faction which you thought were good are suddenly a liability and lose you games because they give up secondary points. Anything that inhibits those youngsters from progressing into competitive play is something I want to set aside - the top LVO players do not care if they have to buy a whole new army for the mission pack but your average teenager does not have that kind of money. This acts as yet another gatekeeper preventing youngsters from getting engaged with tournaments in this format - after all who wants to play with much loved models that are suddenly feel-bad hindrances because of the secondary missions?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Dudeface wrote: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.

Yup, agreed.

ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?

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?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Dudeface wrote: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.

Yup, agreed.

ITC is essentially a set of pre-existing conditions, which you are completely aware of, and can build to tailor to a specific one - is there generalship in that? Where's the initiative, the flexibility?

Yoyoyo wrote:

happy_inquisitor wrote:
The jump from playing with GW published missions to playing ITC is pretty painful. Not only do you need to deal with unfamiliar and far more complex missions but you quickly find that a lot of units within your faction which you thought were good are suddenly a liability and lose you games because they give up secondary points. Anything that inhibits those youngsters from progressing into competitive play is something I want to set aside - the top LVO players do not care if they have to buy a whole new army for the mission pack but your average teenager does not have that kind of money. This acts as yet another gatekeeper preventing youngsters from getting engaged with tournaments in this format - after all who wants to play with much loved models that are suddenly feel-bad hindrances because of the secondary missions?

These are really good points.

It's not just competitive balance that makes a good experience after all. Things like fun, flavour, accessibility, and player agency all really matter.