PDA

View Full Version : tournament sportsmanship



Broadside
16-07-2005, 21:41
what i wanna know is how do you score high in the part at tournaments as i recently took part in conflict midlands. the games were some of the best i played (except game 2 ) yet i scored no points for sportsmanship yet i see my self as a very sportin person .

to let you know i took an iron warrior army with 4 HS 3 squads and oblitartor and a lt leadin it all, as i think this had some thing to do with it

Crazed_monkey
16-07-2005, 22:30
I very rarely give bad sportsmanship points in the tournaments I take part in but I haven't had the...oppertunity to face a dubious character who deserves zero points.

I can see why some people would give you low scores for using Iron warriors but zero? It seems that the conflict is getting more competative every year, what size were your squads? If they were minimum size with heavy/special weapon then it's little wonder why you got zero.

If I faced you I would have given points on the way you played because I know a lot of people actually like the fluff, idea of a heavy armoured army etc.

It's possible that they assumed you took this army soley to win and so they wanted to get "revenge" I don't know it's jsut the sigma attached to that army, like wood elves for fantasy.

How did the conflict go for you? did you win all your games? people can be bitter after losing to an iron warriors army.


Peace out

GAWD
17-07-2005, 02:34
This is one of the reasons why I stopped running (let alone participating in) official GW tournies. The sportsmanship scoring obsession absolutely ruins the tourney environment. No other "gamer geek" hobby that I know of rates sportsmanship at tournies or other official events, not RPG, not CCGs, not board games, not video games. It's assumed that everyone is a good sportsman and the only penalties for being a bad sportsman are shame and stigma (i.e.: no one will play with you, and you'll be lonely to the end) OR in a competitive environment ... being booted is is the ultimate sanction. After 10+ yrs of directing and playing in lots of different "gamer geek" events, i can honestly say that GW's system (and lamentably the system picked up by other wargaming) of actually scoring sportsmanship breeds more problems than it solves. But then again, that describles the 40k and Fantasy rulebooks themselves, so we couldn't expect anything more. :rolleyes:

Taliesynkp
17-07-2005, 03:46
what i wanna know is how do you score high in the part at tournaments as i recently took part in conflict midlands. the games were some of the best i played (except game 2 ) yet i scored no points for sportsmanship yet i see my self as a very sportin person .

to let you know i took an iron warrior army with 4 HS 3 squads and oblitartor and a lt leadin it all, as i think this had some thing to do with it

Don't play 40k but I can tell you part of my judgment for sports in fantasy has always been the army you take. If you take a Skaven SAD it doesn't matter how many beers you buy me before the game you're still rollin' a donut for sports.

There sure is a problem with any type of opponent scoring in any competetive environment: You may run into someone like me. If I think you're a cheezy sod I won't just dock your comp, I'll kill your sports and even nuke your paint score. Taking a stank makes you a dick in my book and I have no problem being a dick right back at you. :evilgrin:

Funny, I've never played anyone I gave less than max scores. Out of dozens of tournies all my opponents have been great guys with fair armies. I've seen "bad" people at tournaments, just never played any of them. ???

Broadside
17-07-2005, 09:02
i came 37 out of 42 which in my view for my second tournament is better than last.
I dident win all my games i got a marginal victory game 1 i was massacred game 2 which i found out recently shouldent of happend and i lost game 3 but gainin only 3 points
to be houest i carnt remeber what i took but im sure it was 2 5 man squads 1 with a autocannon and 1 infiltratin

so next year i aim to improve on both position and sportsmanship by takin something else

Lord Gordonis
17-07-2005, 09:36
*hiya mike* with 2 defilers, basilisk, lt with hounds, a squad with an autocannon maybe??, unit with infiltrate and a plasma or a melta gun??


yeah it was a bit stupid *hahaha i found you :p*

Grimlaw
18-07-2005, 06:19
I don't like the "sportsmanship" score. If you beat your opponant, and they are being a sook about it, then they will use this score to sabbotage your chances of winning the tournament.

When I ran GW tournaments, I would question people who gave their opponant a low score, allowing them to explain what their opponant did to earn their low score.

If they could not explain their reason sufficiently (I knew all the players, and had a good idea of who actually deserved low scores), I would warn them against abusing the system, offering them the same sportsmanship score they give their opponant, if they did it again.

Aurelien
18-07-2005, 07:06
Wow Taliesynkp, people like you are the reason that the system doesnt work. :rolleyes:

The problem is people not scoring what the scores are actually for. With your list Broadside, I would probably have given you 0 for composition-because frankly, it was crap. Minmixed to get all the benefits. Your list would have *nothing* to do with your sportsmanship score. Or your painting.

Your choice of a list tells me something about your character, which thus informs on your sportmanship/or playing attitude. But I cant say anymore, not having played you.

I was the ref at a tourney recently, and if the score was odd, I went and asked about it.

Nurglitch_PS
18-07-2005, 08:07
If I think you're a cheezy sod I won't just dock your comp, I'll kill your sports and even nuke your paint score.

You mean - you will cheat, willingly misusing two judging categories because you do not like a list? Geez, I'm so glad I never go to tournaments.

f2k
18-07-2005, 09:22
I think that you might have been docked simply for using IW.

There has been a long discussion (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakka/Default.aspx?tabid=27&g=posts&t=8000) on dakkadakka about automatic-0-points-armies. The point was that some armies (3 Wraithlords in 500 points, 9 oblits and 4 Defilers and so on) should automatically receive 0 points in composition scoring, being inherently beardy, and 0 points in sportsmanship, for obviously being a beardy must-win-at-all-cost player.

It might also be that someone simply thought that their chances of winning would go up if they gave your low scores.



There sure is a problem with any type of opponent scoring in any competetive environment: You may run into someone like me. If I think you're a cheezy sod I won't just dock your comp, I'll kill your sports and even nuke your paint score. Taking a stank makes you a dick in my book and I have no problem being a dick right back at you. :evilgrin:

There sure is. People like you who abuse the system…

Vberg
18-07-2005, 10:00
Ive only played in one offical GW tournament as i found the atmosphere far to focused on winning rather than fun which was not for me.

I can see how an opponents choice of army can influence sportsmanship points. There are certain combinations for certain armies that have everything to do with winning and nothing to do with fun. Such armies will make sure your opponent is miserable all game with no hope of victory. The skill of winning a tournament is in taking a balanced army that can take on all comers, with the right balance of big guns, assault troops etc. Its is the generals with these types of armies that more often and not garner the best results whilst both he and his opponents have fun because those with the cheesy armies get nailed on compositon, sportsmanship and more often than not painting.If you take a cheesy army then already you have shown a disregard for the game and your opponent which is the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot.

So moral of the story is to take a balanced and fair and well painted army to a tournament then you will be truely competitive If you have the skill and the luck that is.

Inquisitor Samos
18-07-2005, 13:12
Ive only played in one offical GW tournament as i found the atmosphere far to focused on winning rather than fun which was not for me.


Same here.

In fact, I think that this thread has touched on just about every factor affecting why I dislike tournaments and have absolutely zero desire to play in one......

GAWD
18-07-2005, 13:40
I think it bears mentioning, again, that you don't need a sportsmanship score at all to run a good tourney (many other tourney systems avoid this nonsense altogether). In fact we've run several tournies in the last year that did not have sportsmanship component and they went off without a hitch.

Vberg
18-07-2005, 13:43
I might give a tourny another bash though,it would make a good incentive the next time i build a new army which realistically i dont invisage being able to do for a few years. But when i have attended conflict tournaments in the past you feel your missing out on all the fun like looking at the FW stand, taking part in participation games etc. But when your chained to the gaming table all day you certainlly miss out.

Taliesynkp
18-07-2005, 16:38
Wow Taliesynkp, people like you are the reason that the system doesnt work. "

"You mean - you will cheat, willingly misusing two judging categories because you do not like a list? Geez, I'm so glad I never go to tournaments."

"There sure "is. People like you who abuse the system…"

OK. All of you are runners-up for the CPT Obvious award.

Back on thread. Sportsmanship scores will never work. As long as there are people who don't understand fair play there will be people who will use any player graded scores as payback. Like I said before if you take an army that you know will ruin your opponents fun I will do everything I can to ruin your fun right back. No remorse.

I used to think it was just the warhammer community that was full of WAC people but lately I've been spending a lot of time on Xbox live and the number of "modders" is amazing. I used to report them but now there are so many it's a waste of time. I just quit as soon as someone uses a hack.

f2k
18-07-2005, 16:54
Sportsmanship awards would work if people used it as intended. That is, army composition has nothing to with sportsmanship.

If a player brings an IW list choked full of oblits and pieplates – then, by all means, give him a 0 comp score.
But do not automatically assume that he’s a bad sport…

Aurelien
18-07-2005, 20:01
Like I said before if you take an army that you know will ruin your opponents fun I will do everything I can to ruin your fun right back. No remorse.

And if I, as an organiser heard/noticed you were doing that, I would feel no remorse about kicking you out, or just giving you 0 for everything in every game you play.

Sportsmanship scores work just fine, if you arent a complete arsehat.

Vberg
18-07-2005, 22:09
Sportsmanship scores work just fine, if you arent a complete arsehat.

Arsehat, i like it thats an insult ill imprese my friends with.

GAWD
19-07-2005, 00:03
Actually, we'd never have this problem if two easy things occured in the GW tourney environment.

1) No sportsmanship scoring at all. Bad sportsmanship simply deserves exile from the gaming community, and I've seen people ejected from all sorts of tournies.

2) If the lists were balanced, we'd never have to worry about score bleeding (i.e.: grading someone's sportsmanship based on composition). Alas, no GW army book I've ever seen is immune to the powergamers, so this is a pipe dream.

Archaon
19-07-2005, 01:03
a) I was and never will be at an official GW tournament because judging from the stories i've heard/read it is mostly badly organized and a Win at all costs tournament which naturally attracts powergamers and beards a dwarf would be jealous of

b) I'm going mostly to local tournaments where everything is "normal", i.e. competitive but not overall beardy. Since most of the people know each other there is a kind of self control because powergamers would soon be either "repaired" or simply banned.

The oly big tournament i attend is the one next october in Germany with over 120 players but the organisation is superb.. they are gamers too and know of the weaknesses of WH and by using special army composition rules and mission special rules they tale the most out which can lead to problems.

This year they want to try something different. they want to separate fluff and "hard" lists so that in the first few rounds only players with "background" lists and players with "hard" lists play against each other so that the fun will not be ruined. Only at te final games can the two styles meet.. i don't know how this will work out and i'm rather anxious to see where my Dark Elves will be placed :p

But apart from that i'm not into ruining anyones score intentionally just because he plays contrary to me lik Taliesyn apparently plays. I don't beliebe in revenge and i wholeheartedly believe it is the wrong way and the main problem with sportsmanship scores.
Scores are made by people and they are seldomly neutral.. especially if they got stomped so bad they are still mad or if their opponent simply plays another style.
The Steam Tank is a prime example.. many hate it and to a degree it is warranted but only because someone fielded it i wouldn't thrash his score.

So my point is to just skip it.. it is too easily abused.

Taliesynkp
19-07-2005, 03:03
"If a player brings an IW list choked full of oblits and pieplates – then, by all means, give him a 0 comp score.
But do not automatically assume that he’s a bad sport…"

I disagree. Taking that kind of list is practically the definition of bad sportsmanship.

"And if I, as an organiser heard/noticed you were doing that, I would feel no remorse about kicking you out, or just giving you 0 for everything in every game you play."

I don't normally care about scores. I usually score very high in sportsmanship (yes, really) and get very low battle scores. My low battle scores are due to not playing enough to develope any real tactical acumen not to playing against cheezy lists. I've been very lucky and never played against a bad sport.

Oh, and if a player gave me a decent score in sportsmanship and you decided to change it you would need to kick me out too, and call the police, and an ambulance.

Sportsmanship scores work just fine, if you arent a complete arsehat.

Yes, and so does communism.

Nurglitch_PS
19-07-2005, 07:06
"If a player brings an IW list choked full of oblits and pieplates – then, by all means, give him a 0 comp score.
But do not automatically assume that he’s a bad sport…"

I disagree. Taking that kind of list is practically the definition of bad sportsmanship.
[/I]

This is fun. With every such post I am closer to the "cheese does not exist" camp. Aren't Iron Warriors supposed to cary a lot of hardware? Why does an IW player have to make a list that goes completely against his army fluff to be considered "fluffy"?

Aurelien
19-07-2005, 08:35
Oh, and if a player gave me a decent score in sportsmanship and you decided to change it you would need to kick me out too, and call the police, and an ambulance.[

Ooo, you're so tough. :rolleyes:

Your actions, as you have stated them are cheating. There is no two ways about it. You are cheating. People get kicked out of tournaments for that sort of thing.

McMullet
19-07-2005, 09:28
Wouldn't it be simpler to have a line next to the score to justify it? That way you don't have to go around afterwards checking up on people, because they have to give a reason for every score they give. So you'd say "Composition - 0 (min-maxed)" and "Sportsmanship - 0 (he set fire to my models and brought a doctored rulebook)", and so it would be easy for people to challenge them.

f2k
19-07-2005, 09:58
I still fail to see why playing IW = bad sportsmanship. As Nurglitch_PS points out, IW are supposed to be armed to the teeth. And while 9 oblits and 4 Defilers is a wee bit too much, something like 6 oblits and 2 defilers would, IMHO, be ok.

But still, the point is that you use the scoring system in the wrong way. If you don’t like your opponent’s army, then let this be reflected by the comp-score – not the sportsmanship score.

I’ve played against *bib* players who, while not using particularly beardy lists, were definitely not good sports. And I’ve played against people who used the most beardy and tweaked lists you can imagine, but they were still fun to play against.

To me, the army and the guy who plays it is 2 entirely separate things. Yes, you are right – sometimes an army is indicative of the players mindset, but not always. Giving someone a 0 score across the board just because you don’t like his army is not just wrong, it’s blatant cheating!

Aurelien
19-07-2005, 10:25
McMullet, those are very helpful, but I think the primary guide to tell if someone is cheating is that he gave someone a 0, but the persons other opponents all rated him highly.

As for IW and automatic cheese, thats not my opinion. In the list given, it was the two 5 man squads that did it for me. And as you say, player list and player personality are two different things.

Nurglitch_PS
19-07-2005, 11:09
I fail to see why would this score be needed at all. It introduces a huge element of randomness to the tournament - you can be a great player, beat anyone with your balanced (whatever that means) list and still land some remote place, because some prat gives you 0/0/0 just for getting beaten. It's virtually voting who wins, and if it's a vote than it isn't a tournament. What's the point?

f2k
19-07-2005, 11:29
Some years ago a GW representative visited my LHS. One of the things he discussed with the owner was how to organise and judge in-store tournaments.

GW representative: We have made these cool rules regarding army composition and such…
Me (walking up to him): But why judge army composition?
GW: To ensure that it’s a fair tournament, of course.
Me: But why shouldn’t the tournament be fair for all? The rules are balanced, right?
GW (slightly annoyed): Of course they are!
Me: But then, why army composition?
GW: (rather annoyed): I already told you! To ensure that the tournament is fair.
Me: But still, since the rules are balanced, fairness shouldn’t be a problem.
GW: *silence*
Me: Are you trying to tell me that your rules are not fair and balanced?
GW: *more silence*
Me: After all, that’s what you’re implying, right? If the rules were fair then…
GW: (angry): Our rules are just fine! You just need these extra rules to ensure that the tournament is fair!
Me: But…
GW: (very angry): Look, if you don’t like the rules, why don’t you go play Magic!?

At this point in time I simply gave up and walked away.


“Remember kids, our rules are perfectly fine and balanced.”

“Just not for tournament play…”

McMullet
19-07-2005, 11:52
Some years ago a GW representative visited my LHS. One of the things he discussed with the owner was how to organise and judge in-store tournaments.

GW representative: We have made these cool rules regarding army composition and such…
Me (walking up to him): But why judge army composition?
GW: To ensure that it’s a fair tournament, of course.
Me: But why shouldn’t the tournament be fair for all? The rules are balanced, right?
GW (slightly annoyed): Of course they are!
Me: But then, why army composition?
GW: (rather annoyed): I already told you! To ensure that the tournament is fair.
Me: But still, since the rules are balanced, fairness shouldn’t be a problem.
GW: *silence*
Me: Are you trying to tell me that your rules are not fair and balanced?
GW: *more silence*
Me: After all, that’s what you’re implying, right? If the rules were fair then…
GW: (angry): Our rules are just fine! You just need these extra rules to ensure that the tournament is fair!
Me: But…
GW: (very angry): Look, if you don’t like the rules, why don’t you go play Magic!?

At this point in time I simply gave up and walked away.


“Remember kids, our rules are perfectly fine and balanced.”

“Just not for tournament play…”

I do like that. In a way, the problems with cheese and suchlike are due to the armybooks never being quite up to spec - if they were done right, then there would be no need. The problem is, it would take an enormous tome of rules and restrictions to do it in the current form - chenging the restrictions on unit A if you have 2 of unit B, unless you have less than 3 of unit C, in which case the size of unit D must be no more than X, and so on. It's easier to leave it to individuals, and most of them seem to get it.

Broadside
19-07-2005, 11:52
Originally Posted by Aurelien
The problem is people not scoring what the scores are actually for. With your list Broadside, I would probably have given you 0 for composition-because frankly, it was crap. Minmixed to get all the benefits. Your list would have *nothing* to do with your sportsmanship score. Or your painting

Just to let you know i decided to take the IW to the tournament because i wanted to not because i wanted to win i could of took my iyandan me deathwing or my own chapter but as none of them were ready other than the deathwing so i took the IW as they were ready.

also remeber this was my second tournamnet so i was still testin forces out at the time.
btw my win/loss record with the IW is pants

Nurglitch_PS
19-07-2005, 12:11
I do like that. In a way, the problems with cheese and suchlike are due to the armybooks never being quite up to spec - if they were done right, then there would be no need.

It is not possible. You cannot create list with any serious complexity level (which means - combinations of choices) that cannot be abused. This is going to happen, you may as well accept that.

Having said that - sportsmanship/army selection/painting and so on scores are barmy. Poor sportsmanship should result in a warning and than a boot in the ****, not 0 score. Painting has nothing to do with the tournament - it is supposed to be a tournament, not the Golden Daemon. Army selection? Everyone has different ideas about what is cheesy and what is not. If I played in torunament, I wouldn't give a 3xWraithlord army a lower score, because I think this is exactly how Eldar should fight - small elite, not a horde. I would give lower scores to SM player with squads other than 5/10. I wouldn't crack down on IW for heavy stuff, because this is how they should fight. Than the same army fights against a different opponent and gets completly different scores, because he has other ideas. Thus all the army selection score becomes completely random and immaterial, exept maybe for being a tool for the loosers to get their revenge.

If this score is to mean anything, it should be assign by the organisers, not the players. This means consistency at least, if not fairness. But it's best to get rid of it altogether.

f2k
19-07-2005, 13:07
Problem is, that if you get rid of comp-scoring altogether, the beard really grows long. Comp-scoring, at least in theory, means that people think about the army they bring to the tournament – not just in terms of raw power, but also in terms of army composition.

I still maintain that comp-scoring can work. The problem is people who:

Dumps your score because they hate your army.
Dumps your score because that increases their own chance of winning.
Dumps your score because they got trounced.

Nurglitch_PS
19-07-2005, 13:16
Problem is, that if you get rid of comp-scoring altogether, the beard really grows long.

Which is already the case and which does not seem to be altered in any way by the scoring.



Comp-scoring, at least in theory, means that people think about the army they bring to the tournament

The keyword here is "theory". It is a nice theory, but I think I can safely say that it has been proven not to be true.



I still maintain that comp-scoring can work. The problem is people who:

Dumps your score because they hate your army.
Dumps your score because that increases their own chance of winning.
Dumps your score because they got trounced.

You have enumerated some reasons for it not working. The big one, though, is the one of people having completly different (and random) ideas about what the "balanced" and/or "fluffy" army is. This factor makes the comp score totally random and not reflecting anything. You might as well roll dice for it.

McMullet
19-07-2005, 13:19
It is not possible. You cannot create list with any serious complexity level (which means - combinations of choices) that cannot be abused. This is going to happen, you may as well accept that.
Well, that's pretty much what the rest of my post said. In theory, it's possible, but in practice it's too complex.

GAWD
19-07-2005, 13:51
Doing my best impersonation of a broken record:

1) No sportsmanship scores are necessary in any tournament ever, especially those doled out by your opponents. Bad sports deserve exile not accomodation, which is what a scoring system actually affords them. In fact, what we've seen in this thread is that actually scoring sportsmanship leads to BAD sportsmanship.

2) Contrary to Nurglitch_PS's sentiments, I know that it must be possible to create more balanced lists. I'm in the middle of writing a dissertation, and it sickens me that GW can't craft decent army books, ~15-20 pgs of rules, in the 6 month schedule they've set for themselves. It's a *******' game ... get it right! If the rules and books were balanced, then army comp. should't be an issue either. So, operating under GW's own head-in-the-sand approach to rule problems, GW tourneys should NEVER judge comp either.

McMullet
19-07-2005, 14:40
Doing my best impersonation of a broken record:

1) No sportsmanship scores are necessary in any tournament ever, especially those doled out by your opponents. Bad sports deserve exile not accomodation, which is what a scoring system actually affords them. In fact, what we've seen in this thread is that actually scoring sportsmanship leads to BAD sportsmanship.

2) Contrary to Nurglitch_PS's sentiments, I know that it must be possible to create more balanced lists. I'm in the middle of writing a dissertation, and it sickens me that GW can't craft decent army books, ~15-20 pgs of rules, in the 6 month schedule they've set for themselves. It's a *******' game ... get it right! If the rules and books were balanced, then army comp. should't be an issue either. So, operating under GW's own head-in-the-sand approach to rule problems, GW tourneys should NEVER judge comp either.

I'm not a copmpetitive player and I don't play at tournaments, but I agree with point 1. Even if people aren't intentionally abusing the system, they still have different standards and so two people may well give wildly different scores according to their opinions - it's completely subjective.

Point 2 however, I'm less sure about. There are certainly some army books that are far more balanced - Dwarfs, for example, seem very hard to beard out with, whereas Skaven and Empire are constantly derided as cheese. There has to be a point, however, when the games designers stop adding caveats and restrictions, or it just gets silly. In some cases, the character of the army makes it harder to do, although that's really no excuse for things like the Skaven book.

Taliesynkp
19-07-2005, 17:09
This is fun. With every such post I am closer to the "cheese does not exist" camp. Aren't Iron Warriors supposed to cary a lot of hardware? Why does an IW player have to make a list that goes completely against his army fluff to be considered "fluffy"?

I don't know what Iron Warriors are, I don't play 40k. From context I assumed it was like taking a Skaven SAD. It is very possible to take a fun, fair, and competetive Skaven list without resorting to a SAD. I assumed the Iron Warrior list was the same type of thing, my bad.