Switch Theme:

On scoring for large scale tournaments...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

I would love to see this as a very civilized discussion about scoring for large events. I will state my take on the situ at hand then read the responses. Please try your best to treat this thread as a sanctuary. A sanctuary is where enemies can meet and set aside differences and enjoy each others' company. There is a story about WWII... There was one day recognized as a holiday by both sides and some enemies somehow ended up playing a game of soccer/football. The next day it was all about killing again and back to business as usual but that one day stands out for what it was.

So onto the main subject- scoring for a tournament can be broken into the following categories:

• Battlepoints - This is based solely how well you accomplish the goals set out by the mission rules. A tournament such as Ard Boyz or a Gladiator falls solely under this category. There are no soft scores. It's all about bringing the hardest list and crushing your opponents. There are two possible major drawbacks - a mission could have rules that favor one particular style of army... Shooty versus close combat comes to mind. Say for instance a mission has the Night Fight rules in effect for the entire game, close combat oriented armies will have a huge advantage. The organizers can ideally come up with a set of missions that balance out each other and if there are enough rounds then you might be able to lose one game and still win. The other drawback is if there are no soft scores then there is no penalty for cheating other than bringing it to the attention of the judges for rectification; good luck with that.

The other categories all fall under the heading of soft scores.

Appearance - This is subjective but if a clear set of guidelines are established then everyone should know what to expect. Keep in mind that if you have the funds available you can commission a third party to both build and paint your army so it's quite possible to literally buy these points.

Sportsmanship - A player is judged by their opponents on these points and it should be simply about playing fairly. Unfortunately some people use this as a means to punish other players when they lose.

Theme/Composition - This is the most subjective category and it's very hard if not impossible to come up with a set of criteria that is fair for all armies. You have one side that says if an army is legal then it should suffer no penalty. On the other hand you have gamers that abhor WAAC lists. Like I said this is the most subjective category, you can't make everyone happy.

So I have touched on the main categories. The TOs can select from these and choose how they wish to distribute the overall points. There is no perfect system. Personally I feel that battlepoints should outweigh the soft scores. It's important to realize that gamers can manipulate the soft scores but also the soft scores can hold players in check.

I would like to hear what others think is the best way to distribute the points. If you think that a particular category should be eliminated explain why and provide examples to state your case.

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






The land of cotton.

I guess to tell you how I'd like things split I have to wax eloquent on what these things mean to me.

Battle point is the easiest to enumerate. I mean if you have a unit in the other guy's deployment zone, that's easy to enumerate. On the other hand, if you ONLY count Battle points or emphasize them to the point of dominance then ass-hattery ensues. I've actually heard people say "Well I know I'm screwed for Sports/Theme/Whatever so I have to make it up in Battle Points". Guess what these players do? Hint: It's not be gracious or offer the benefit of the doubt on close calls.

Appearance: I don't think people should get credit towards prizes for armies they don't build and paint. I guess it's fine to buy your way over the entrance requirement of painted and based, but something just sticks in my craw about events where the "Best Overall" brought an army someone else painted and assembled. They aren't the Best Overall... they're the Best General that spent the most money on outsourced painting. If I can pay someone to paint for me, why can't I pay someone to coach me through the game? Or hire a Hooters waitress to bring us beers and load Best Sportsman?

Sportsmanship: I've seen a lot of attempts to enumerate sportsmanship. Did the other player have their own templates? Were they on time? Did they play slow? These aren't sportsmanship attributes, frankly; they are competency tests. I see sportsmanship as being pleasant whether the game is going your way or not; not sulking, not gloating, and above all giving the opponent the benefit of the doubt. Is that charge range 5.99" or 6.01"? A good sport will give you the charge. A power gamer will get out the micrometer and want to deny it.

Comp/Theme: Not my favorite. Any legal army is, well legal. I guess a mix of Nurgle, Khorne and Slaanesh isn't thematic but it's a winning list so I expect it. Comp is dead in my book.

So what's a good mix?

I certainly don't like Ard Boy style events that only emphasize Battle points. I see enough grey legions thank you.

Why not have an event where you simply offer a prize for the Best General, Best Painted and Best Sport? Do that and you don't have to worry about the Best Overall. A tournament doesn't need a last man standing like a Gladiator event, because let's face it: You're usually handing it to the guy with the most Battle Points anyway. Soft scores are the "tie breaker" points. This will also allow you to do some other prizes like runners up, boobie prizes, or worst loser.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

If we eliminated best overall it could possibly bring about a new era of gaming but for certain events you really can't get around it, such as qualifying to play in the Vegas GT next year.

I used to be against pro painted armies but now not having as much free time to paint I can understand why some people are willing to pay to have their armies painted. Some people would simply prefer to see all armies painted to a certain level versus playing against the grey legions.

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





By the way, comp and theme are different things...Are you scoring for how powerful the list is or for how the list fits the background. I've always been in favor of 'theme' points being part of the appearance category and the power level being part of the comp.

I second the thing about NOT having a best overall...With the current tourney circuit, this is not possible though.

Comp shouldn't be part of the overall score, but should only be involved in the pairings. Also, comp should NEVER be opponent scored. I'm a big fan of a pre-published non-subjective comp system (IE WPS)

If you are going to put comp in for battle, you should put it in for painting and sports too...For instance, if you use older models, you should get a comp bonus to your painting score...If you paint in dark colors, you should get a bonus, if you wear glasses, you should get a penalty because you are artificailly increasing your natural abilities. Sports comp scoring should put in a bonus/penalty based on relative attractiveness, with a huge penalty if you are female. Also, a penalty if you lose and a bonus if you win should be included.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Steelcity

The problem with comp to me is that you really need comp rules for each army due to how wildly different each codex can be

However, I do think comp in theory is a great thing as it promotes variation rather than people bring 8 chimeras + artillery every game

Another idea if the tournament is large enough you could have different "classes" of competitiveness.. If you ever watched the 24 hour road races you'll notice that the faster cars tend to win :p but they're also not directly competing against the slower cars even if all cars are on the same track

Most people (excluding the dillusional) know they arent going to win if they bring very average yet fluffy lists and it could be cool to use comp as a way to put people into different brackets

So youd have the winner of the WAAC people.. and then youd have the more comp friendly lists..

I really dont think there is ever going to be a way to balance out WAAC lists with average lists.. its like varsity vs junior varsity.. Almost every time varsity wins

I think there is a huge misconception that ONLy WAAC lists are competitive.. Anything can be just as competitive as long the power scale remains even among lists

Basically GBF.. If you wanna include comp youre going to have to do a lot of micromanaging which may not be all that fun .. good comp requires a lot of oversight just like a good apoc game!. Would take someone with a lot of knowledge about each army and how they win.

EXAMPLE OF COMP
Lets take IG and score comp based on a 0 sum system where 0 = average comp and negative comp = more power gamey
Most units would be 0 comp and say if you take over 4 chimeras youd lose a comp for each one, etc.. Same deal for spamming artillery
However, you could balance it out with say taking Ogryn which are not bad but arent great either and theyd give +1 comp. Or you could take commissar yarrick and hed give like +50 comp because hes that horrible and id love to see him in a tournament

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/21 02:42:40


Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,  
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth






Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.

Battlepoints and Appearance only.

Everyone behaves perfectly.

Of course this is a perfect world.

I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!

The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH 
   
Made in us
Maddening Mutant Boss of Chaos





Colorado

battle, sport, apperance, and maybe theme since them has nothing to do with comp.

NoTurtlesAllowed.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

The last bit was funny skyth and you made your point well.

About comp and theme, I think you broke them up reasonably but still to me they are interrelated. Theme is about your army adhering to it's background but comp also comes into play in my opinion. A lot of people use troops as an example so let's take a look at the more common troop choices we often tend to see. I'll try to start off with the better choices and work my way down.

Chaos Space Marines
Berzerkers and Plague Marines are hands down some of the best with Plague Marines at the top. Noise Marines are also solid with the high initiative, doom siren and ranged noise weapons but you don't see them nearly as often. Thousand Sons you rarely ever see.

Imperial Guard
Mechanized veterans are very strong, cheap for the points and are very popular. You will also see your fair share of platoons but not as much so, probably due to the strength of mech.

Space Marines
Some people list tactical Marines as the best all around choice due to their versatility but they are expensive. Scouts have their advantages but die quickly to stuff like templates.

Space Wolves
I would probably choose Grey Hunters as the best troop choice. They are fairly cheap and excel in close combat plus there are a lot of options. Blood Claws on the other hand no one seems to be fielding for competitive play.

Battle Sisters
Again another solid choice, you can either go for burninate or massive flaming plus they can be mechanized. I think this is a very good choice but the army must be played by a skilled tactician to be competive.

Orks
Wow... You have the option to field nobs! I should have mentioned Wolfguard in the Space Wolf category. Boys are cheap plus you can choose from either Shoota Boyz or Slugga Boyz. Some people say that orks in general have passed their nadith but in fact you still see them at a lot of the top tables.

Eldar
Mechanized eldar are still very strong and in my mind Dire Avengers in a Wave Serpent are a great troop choice. Guardians are kind of meh.

Specialist Marines
You can't pass over Dark Angels (bikes & terminators), and I should have mentioned bikes as a troop choice for vanilla SM. Blood Angels have access to assault Marines. These are all expensive units but can be fun to play and have their strengths. I don't rate any of them as top tiered but on the other hand recognize that biker Marines have done well under ideal conditions.

Dark Eldar
Warriors are cheap, can spam lances and be mechanized. Again this is another specialist army.

Grey Knights
Grey Knights are expensive. I don't remember this army ever winning a major event but I think they are fun to play and as an allied troop choice they can be strong.

Necrons
No love for the Warriors!

I have chosen not to touch on the new Nidz yet but they definitely have a lot of great choices and are extremely balanced to say the least.

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Using Inks and Washes






I am with Skyth. No best over all. Don't see the point. I am one of those irritating people who places for fun and uses "bad" units coz they look cool.

However, in a tournie, you bring your hardest list and you duke it out until a stand still. If you are entering the realm of tournie players you owe it to them to bring your best list and your best game.To do any less is disrespectful. I do however expect the same treatment back for a friendly game.

Being a WAAC or hard tournie player doesn't make you a dick. Being a dick is what makes you a dick. Casual gamers have a lot of screaming asses amongst them to.

so what has this got to do with the post. No comp - if it is legal it is OK in tournie. That's what rules are for. No sportsmanship - judges do your job. If someone is a dork fine them points of their battle score. No painting scores - but if army isn't painted to standard 3 colors dock them battle points.

It is like tennis. A fun game on a sunday with a beer is not the same as a tournie game. you have standards of dress (painting) and behavior (sportsmanship) and you can lose a match by having points given to your opponent if you are a dick. One of the Williams sisters will tell you all about it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/21 05:12:05


2014 will be the year of zero GW purchases. Kneadite instead of GS, no paints or models. 2014 will be the year I finally make the move to military models and away from miniature games. 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el






Richmond, VA

I like having a Best Overall.

I do think That battle, sports and appearance have their place. I like the earlier suggested idea of including theme in the appearance category. Particularly as there's a thread over in 40K General about a Tzeentch E-bay army and whether it has theme or not.

Comp is a tricky one. I'm generally against having a comps score, but then I like to build fluffy armies anyway.

I think in any tournament setting, Battle Points and Appearance should be the most important, with the other soft scores as a lower overall percentage, so if I were to run a tournament, the breakdown would be something like this:

Battle Points: 75%
Appearance: 20%
Sportsmanship: 5%

So I guess, I'd encourage TFG's. I'd have the proviso that anyone who doesn't have at least a painted army is ineligible for all prizes, so Best General would go to the est general who bothered painting their army.


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan




Florida

Fair enough regarding discussion of scoring in a tourney. I definitely didn't insinuate running a Ard Boyz type event; not to my liking. Here's just my humble opinion of what it should really break down to that balances hobby/tourney. I've not run a GT level event, but have handled several tourneys ranging from 14 - 30 players over the years.

-Battlepoints; this is the majority of points. Mission developement and playtesting is where you can really ensure balanced armies have the best chance to win.
-Have to bring a fully painted army (not an option), judges can award additional points for fantastic armies/displays etc... By this point, you can tell the stand out armies in a tourney. Up to 5%-10% in total points. I am a big advocate of great looking armies on great looking tables. The game draws most folks in on it's visual appeal and should be recognized.
-Drop Sportsmanship. Institute a system in which a judge can deduct points for poor sportsmanship. There's nothing more frustrating than winning a game and get chipmunked b/c my opponent didn't enjoy the game simply b/c he lost.
-Theme- It is a part of the painting scored by judges.
-Comp- If it is legal by the codex, let it be played.

Even when GW dropped army comp from their GT's, I did not see any real significant changes in what armies folks were building. If you are looking to try to have folks bring a balanced army, I think the missions is where you can accomplish this.

Basically, no matter what comp/theme score you institute, some folks will still bring whatever they want and accept losing comp points from their opponent. If they show up with a great looking army, act like and adult and table each opponent, they typically will still have a very good chance at winning. So, what did a comp score really accomplish?

Award System:

1st place overall
2nd place overall
Best Painted award
Favorite Opponent Award




No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby. 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

Comp should only be used for a first game or first 2 games match up. It shouldn't have any effect on the tournament as an overall score. If you decide to include comp it should be a simple checklist that is very, very clear and that will make it easy to see if someone is chipmunking. It's not about making everyone happy but I can guarantee you more people will be happy with a shift to no comp than will complain when it doesn't appear in the scoring. Comp is dead.

Theme is also to me far to subjective. Theme would have to be based on current codexes and fluff but honestly how many people buy all the codexes every edition? So what you get is people hitting other people's comp for something that doesn't exist anymore. Great example would be people that started playing chaos this edition. They know nothing of "rivalries" or anything like that. Also something almost no tournament players would bemoan not seeing in the overall scoring. Theme to me is also dead.

Appearance is extremely important to me. Nothing is worse than playing against grey legions. That being said I could really care less if they painted it themselves. Should they win best painted? No. But I do prefer to see fully painted and pretty armies and not everyone is talented enough. I'm only middle of the road talented and am very tempted to be honest to get an army of mine when I find one I truly love for tournies, professionally painted. A solid checklist should also be used here to let people know approximately where they stand before entering the tournament. Appearance, if theme and comp are left out should be 20% of the total points.

Sportsmanship. Also something that is extremely important but also something that can be gamed. 20% of the overall points but for the love of god not just a 1-whatever scale. Checklists help this (i.e. it's easier to spot chipmunking). No one except the best sport should every score perfectly on sports but I feel it is an important part of the tournament itself.

Battlepoints. It's a damn tournament. I know people call them a hobby event but really your there to play games and win against other people. Minimum 60% of the overall total should be battle points. It is a tournament....Someone should not win it if they don't end up in the top for actual battle points.

That's the way I look at it as well as almost everyone I've talked to recently.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Theme isn't Comp. Comp is *what* you take out of the FOC. Theme is *why* you take it.

   
Made in us
Ancient Chaos Terminator





Deep in the Woods

Well I have played in quite a few Tournys over the years, both locals and national. But one Tourny I attended really sticks with me, They used all the same rules as a standerd GW National tourny(at the time, this was a few years ago) with one major change. All armys have to have 50% or more dedicated to Troops. I think this solves the comp prob all together. No more minimum troops units so you can max out on Heavys or fast attacks or sternguard or what ever. Even those special characters who make other units into troops isnt really effected because they still pay high points cost for those units. WAAC players can still make hard lists, theme/fluffy players(like me I admit) can do our thing, and everyone can have a good time, which is the point after all.

"I have traveled trough the Realm of Death and brought back novelty pencils"
 GamesWorkshop wrote:
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
the band is playing somewhere and somewhere hearts are light,and somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout but there is no joy in Mudville — mighty Casey has struck out. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

Lots of great feedback here! Keep it up please.

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Ellicott City, MD

I think comp can be used but should be very specifically explained before hand. If a tournament wants to use comp that is fine but it needs to be very clearly outlined how to score those points. Such as +1 for over 4 troops units, -1 for two, -1 for more than 10 tanks in the army, etc. Everyone may not agree or like it but at least everyone is on an equal playing field with a setup like that, you know what you are getting into when you sign up and can tailor your army accordingly.

I think Appearance should be included but I think it should be a small part of the over all scoring. There are painting competitions like Golden Daemon for the artist that wants to compete. You go to a tournament to play the game, not paint. It always strikes me as odd that people will complain if painting scores are either not included or are in their opinion to small in a tournament but would cry bloody murder if someone wanted to include game scores in a Golden Daemon contest. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Sportsmanship is a tough one. In my opinion the best way to handle this at a large tournament where you are more than likely playing 5-6 games over all is to keep the scale for rating, smaller, 1-5 for instance labeling out what the event organizer views for each level and then at the end of it toss out each players highest and lowest sportsmanship scores. You play that jerk of a player every once in a while that will tank your sportsmanship score just to be a jerk but the odds of playing two of them in the same tournament are hopefully slim. Same holds true for the people that will just give you a top score as long as you are not spitting at them the whole time.

My personal preference for tournaments is battlescore, with small painting scoring, average sportsmanship scoring, and no comp.

Vonjankmon
Death Korp of Krieg
Dark Angels 
   
Made in us
Hunter with Harpoon Laucher




Castle Clarkenstein

Another possible point of discussion would be about the purpose of a tournament. People argue about the point of sports, comp, painting, etc at a tournament, without every agreeing on why they are coming to a tournament.

I had one person argue with me, (quite heavily, and for days), that he didn't like my tournaments, and I was running them wrong. His veiw was that a tournament was a no holds barred, fight for supremacy, to decide the best player in the room. For him, a tournament is the competition, and that's it. Battle points all the way.

His arguements made me realize that we saw touraments in different ways. When I talk try to encourage someone to come play in a tournament, I never say "Come battle it out, and prove your better!!". If that was my focus, I'd have the majority of players in the area walk away, as they don't expect to win the tournament. All they want is 5 games of warhammer, and a fun enviorment.

With different people having different veiws on what a Tournament is, it's no wonder that we also have different veiws on how to score one.

....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




New York

Do college basketball teams get bonus points for having pretty uniforms at the NCAA tournament?

Do Olympic athletes get a few seconds shaved off their times if they say "good game" to and shake hands with their opponents?

Frankly, if painting, sportsmanship, comp, etc. are being included in the overall results then you're not talking about a "tournament" at all--you're talking about a hobby competition. The difference is important yet apparently lost on the Warhammer community.

I'm not advocating having unpainted armies and giving license for douchebaggery, but to include soft scores and still call the event a "tournament" is laughable. The winner isn't the best player, he's the best hobbyist.
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el






Richmond, VA

Some would argue that the point of a hobby tournament would eb to find the best hobbyist...

 
   
Made in us
Screamin' Stormboy



Hattiesburg, MS

I have not been in many tourneys but here is my thought on sportsmanship. Couldn't you require that the person doing the scoring document what he is docking the other player for? Then if the judges see something "funny" they could throw it out or investigate it. The only real time I docked someone was in the last tourney I was in. I thought I was playing an 8 year old. He did not think things where going well for him. He picked up his IG and literally threw them into a box before the game was over. He claimed he had a head ache and had to pick up his girl friend. In the process he spilt his soda all over the floor and left without cleaning it up. So it is a little obvious why he got docked.
   
Made in ca
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Toronto, Ontario

Danny Internets wrote:Do college basketball teams get bonus points for having pretty uniforms at the NCAA tournament?

Do Olympic athletes get a few seconds shaved off their times if they say "good game" to and shake hands with their opponents?

Frankly, if painting, sportsmanship, comp, etc. are being included in the overall results then you're not talking about a "tournament" at all--you're talking about a hobby competition. The difference is important yet apparently lost on the Warhammer community.

I'm not advocating having unpainted armies and giving license for douchebaggery, but to include soft scores and still call the event a "tournament" is laughable. The winner isn't the best player, he's the best hobbyist.


This. A tournament should be about who plays the game the best, not who is the nicest and has the prettiest models. You can have separate events for those if you;d like, but they should not, in any way, affect the outcome of the actual game results.

=====Begin Dakka Geek Code=====
DR:80SGM----B-I+Pw40k99#+D+++A++/aWD-R+T(S)DM+
======End Dakka Geek Code=====

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Cheaters should be removed from the tourney, whether there are soft scores or not. It doesn't matter if it's Ard Boyz or not. This isn't Nascar ("If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying!").

What it comes down to, is how much do you want to weigh the soft scores? Everyone agrees that the best tactical mind, with the best paint score, who fields a fluffy-not min/maxed army, and is a great guy, deserves to win. Beyond that, does the best general who is a jerk and has a legion of pewter deserve to win over an average general with a great-looking army? From that, you need to establish how much of an effect each soft score can have. If someone maxes all the soft scores, but is middle of the pack in battle points, can they win the tourney (and you may or may not want them to)?

Personally, I prefer a checklist style system like Adepticon uses. Even if it's as simple as:

Comp:
Army represents background of the race. +3 points
Army doesn't represent background, but wasn't built to WAAC either. 0 points
Army is OTT and built to WAAC. -3 points

I don't like using a "1-10" scale. Some people use 5 as a default, and some use 10. Giving a checklist-style at least forces people to give a more consistent scoring method.

I'm not a huge fan of player-judged Theme. Not everyone knows 40k background very well. I can see someone showing up with 'count as' Eldar Exodite army and newer players going 'WTF? Eldar on lizards as Jetbikes?' and docking the army. Comp is OK, but not everyone is up on the current 'best' lists and they may confuse their poor play with the other army's dominance.

I think that Sportsmanship has a place. Even as simple as:
This guy was fun to play. +5 points
This guy wasn't fun to play. 0 points.
I need to see a Judge, because this guy should be kicked out of the tourney.

Soft scores, being subjective, are always a difficult item to balance. As long as the judging criteria is well-established beforehand, it puts everyone on a level playing field.

In the dark future, there are skulls for everyone. But only the bad guys get spikes. And rivets for all, apparently welding was lost in the Dark Age of Technology. -from C.Borer 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

Hmmmm... In basketball if you foul the other team and the referee blows the whistle then the other team gets to shoot free throws. If you double dribble then you must turn the ball over to the other team. There lots of penalties that apply in sports so I don't think those are good examples. Maybe chess would have been a better example...

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




New York

chaplaingrabthar wrote:Some would argue that the point of a hobby tournament would eb to find the best hobbyist...


I don't know about you, but when I think of a tournament I think of a competition. How do sportsmanship and comp scores fit into that? Are we competing to see who is the best sportsman? Are we competing to see who can bring the an army least suited to the event?

Painting is similarly problematic. Would it be appropriate to label a pure painting contest as a "tournament"? One can quote definitions from Webster all day long, but I think most people would regard that labeling as more than a little silly. People spend up to two full days playing Warhammer at a "tournament" in which the outcomes are in no small part determined by things that didn't happen at said tournament. In fact, people might be using the same models painted years before and using them to score points in any number of "tournaments". Paint an army well once and score max points for life (or at least until the next edition). Worse still, cheating is rampant in this scoring category because people know they can have their armies professionally painted (or simply have a friend do it) to get max points. Wasn't there an instance of this at a recent GT?

While I respect that others like these kinds of events, I just find calling them "tournaments" to be wholly inappropriate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Green Blow Fly wrote:Hmmmm... In basketball if you foul the other team and the referee blows the whistle then the other team gets to shoot free throws. If you double dribble then you must turn the ball over to the other team. There lots of penalties that apply in sports so I don't think those are good examples. Maybe chess would have been a better example...

G


Basketball is a perfectly suitable example.

Why do you get to shoot free throws when the other team fouls? Because the rules explicitly say that you do. Why do you turn the ball over if you double dribble? Because the rules explicitly say that you do.

Why does your Space Marine get removed when he fails his armor save? Because the rules explicitly say that you do.

Penalties are part of the rules of basketball. Just because the games have different rules doesn't mean they are incommensurable. By that logic, no two games can ever be compared unless they have identical rules (and are therefore the same game). However, even with chess as an example the arguments are unchanged. You don't get extra points for what you wear to a chess match, nor do you get an edge over your opponent for being voted a nicer guy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/21 15:58:25


 
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

It depends if you want a tournament that emphasis just WINNING or more of a 'hobby' event. I'd always prefer a hobby event, in which you have to assume that everyone's take on the 'hobby' is equally valid.

So, some people mainly play. Some people mainly paint. Some people mainly convert. Some people enjoy theming their army most of all. Some people play 'for fun' but aren't that competitive. You have to take into account that each of these people is right, and their view is valid.

In this case, I'd scrap overall, and have battle points, painting and all the rest. I'd certainly keep sportsmanship (I'd MUCH rather compete against sportsmanly opponents than ones who have amazing tactics, for example) and I'd also keep theme in. Comp wouldn't be needed, or controversial, as it wouldn't affect battle points. I think three paint minimum would be acceptable.

Most importantly, though, you have to recognise that each area is considered AS IMPORTANT by some players. (I personally consider Sportsmanship and Theme the most interesting but YMMV.) This means prizes must be equal, or the amount of recognition equal, since different people consider them equal.

So my preference would be for

Best General (Barttle points)
Best Painter
Best Converted
Best Themed
Sportsmanship

And have five equal prizes. No best overall, though if you DO want a best overall it has to be an equal split.

And of course, if you want to run an even that just concentrates on one area of the hobby (for example, gaming) you're welcome to....

EDIT - Furthermore, the one tournament I would completely expenct to be a 'Hobby Event' like this is the Grand Tournament. I couldn't see GW promoting an event where gaming is promoted as 'more important' than other areas of the hobby.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/02/21 16:24:24


   
Made in us
Loyal Necron Lychguard





St. Louis, MO

I have to agree, we are talking about two completely different animals. Personally, for me a tournament is all about the game itself as opposed to the hobby. I want to test my ability to stomp face directly against someone else's ability to stomp face. That's not to say you have throw everything else out the window. Establish minimum painting standards, have entirely seperate painting competitions, have refs that are more proactive and heavy handed against cheating and general bad sportsmanship. Comp is just entirely rediculous and can never be balanced to give all races an equal shot unless you micromanage it to the point of impracticality. The hobbyist side of it is when you are just hanging out at the FLGS and playing some pickup games while chatting it up. Just my opinion though, and not everybody shares it.

11,100 pts, 7,000 pts
++ Heed my words for I am the Herald and we are the footsteps of doom. Interlopers, do we name you. Defilers of our
sacred earth. We have awoken to your primative species and will not tolerate your presence. Ours is the way of logic,
of cold hard reason: your irrationality, your human disease has no place in the necrontyr. Flesh is weak.
Surrender to the machine incarnate. Surrender and die.
++

Tuagh wrote: If you won't use a wrench, it isn't the bolt's fault that your hammer is useless.
 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard




New York

ArbitorIan wrote:
Most importantly, though, you have to recognise that each area is considered AS IMPORTANT by some players. Ipersonally consider Sportsmanship and Theme the most imteresting but YMMV. This means prizes must be equal, or the amount of recognition equal, since different people consider them equal.

So my preference would be for

Best General (Barttle points)
Best Painter
Best Converted
Best Themed
Sportsmanship

And have five equal prizes. No best overall, though if you DO want a best overall it has to be an equal split.

And of course, if you want to run an even that just concentrates on one area of the hobby (for example, gaming) you're welcome to....


I think eliminating best overall is a very elegant way to deal with the situation. I still wouldn't refer to it as a tournament, but it's certainly the best way I've seen of being equally respectful to each of the ways in which people enjoy the hobby.

People can go and "compete" in whichever aspects they like without being forced to take part in all aspects if they want to take home the top prize. This is done to some extent at existing tournaments, but having a Best Overall position compromises the legitimacy of the others, since often the person receiving Best Overall would often have qualified for at least one of the other Best awards, but instead they are given out to the second highest scorer (rather than give multiple prizes to one person).
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






mikhaila wrote:Another possible point of discussion would be about the purpose of a tournament. People argue about the point of sports, comp, painting, etc at a tournament, without every agreeing on why they are coming to a tournament........

......With different people having different veiws on what a Tournament is, it's no wonder that we also have different veiws on how to score one.


This point is well taken. Maybe we should look at how we go about classifying tournements?

Tourneys that use a lot of soft scores mght be called a "40K Hobby Tournament".
Tourneys that use minimal or no soft scores might be called a "40K Battle Tournament" (best I could come up with quickly )

I personally would enjoy both formats, but people that have more extreme views on the matter can now make more informed decisions without resorting to the uber critisism that has permeated the GT scene the last few years.

For example.."Hey I'm going to a 40k hobby tournament, man there is to much reliance on soft scores, comp is dead!!" "Well then why did you sign up when there is Battle tournament next month?"

Just totally drop the "GT" handle.

GG
   
Made in gb
Dispassionate Imperial Judge






HATE Club, East London

generalgrog wrote:Stuff about naming


I'd call each specialised tournament by it's area of the hobby. So, 40k Painting Tournament, 40k Gaming Tournament, etc.

But a GRAND Tournament is where you can compete in everything, in as many or as few categories as you like.

   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Steelcity

Equal prizes is a very good way to also quietly discourage super competitive people from attending.. Im not saying being competitive is bad (I like to place top 3 in every tournament) But its more the mentality

Large battle prizes promotes MORE WAACers showing up and it also encourages more anti-social behavior during the event due to money being involved. Honestly I think any GW game is a HORRIBLE place for WAACers given the unbalanced nature and spotty rules

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/21 16:29:45


Keeper of the DomBox
Warhammer Armies - Click to see galleries of fully painted armies
32,000, 19,000, Renegades - 10,000 , 7,500,  
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: