PDA

View Full Version : Painted / Sportsmanship Points, Yay or Nay?



Dag
08-02-2010, 18:01
What do you think about the potential 12points per game that are dictated by your opponent, and can mean more than fighting to a good draw, or winning a tournament.

philbrad2
08-02-2010, 18:03
Not 40K related moving to OTHER GW DISCUSSION

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= +
WarSeer Posting
Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer
Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)

Dag
08-02-2010, 18:04
ya it is. its about a 40k tourny, fantasy follows different rules?

Tomalock
08-02-2010, 18:06
I voted yes. If its all about winning games then shoot for best general. Most tourneys seek to encompass all aspects of the hobby, not just playing solely for the purpose of winning. If that was the case then GW would provide us with painted models and every tourney would be structured like Ard Boys.

philbrad2
08-02-2010, 18:08
Where in the title, poll or thread does it say 40K?

PhilB
:chrome:
+ =I= + WarSeer Moderation Team + =I= +
WarSeer Posting Guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_posting_guidelines)
The WarSeer FAQ (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php)
The WarSeer Moderation/Posting/Forum guidelines (http://www.warseer.com/forums/faq.php?faq=the_forums#faq_rules)

Thud
08-02-2010, 18:11
Not more than 20% of the total points possible to get at a tournament should be soft scores, IMO.

incarna
08-02-2010, 18:12
As a player who tries to pride myself on both good sportsmanship and bringing a well painted army to the table, I strongly feel that players grading opponents is a terrible idea and Iím glad the practice seems to be largely dead at most tournaments Iíve been to in the last couple years.

I think the practice opens the game up to compromising the integrity of the game for many reasons.

Iíve known people whoíve actually admitted to tanking opponent sportsmanship scores to move up in the overall rankings. Iíve also known people whoíve lost games because they felt they needed to compromise on an opponentís misinterpretation of a rule in the name of not wanting to seem like a jerk. Iíve known people whoíve admitted to giving their friends who they happen to get matched up against the best possible sportsmanship rating. Iíve also known players to trash talk competitive players in hopes of influencing that playerís sportsmanship score by proxy.

Itís a bad idea. Well meaning to be sure but anyone who thinks itís a good idea severely underestimates the behavior of large groups of players in a competitive environment.

Earl_UK
08-02-2010, 18:19
imo a tournament is about the players ability to win.

Golden Demon is about your ability to Paint.

As for sportmanship, im not sure it should have any point related bonus.

IAMNOTHERE
08-02-2010, 18:28
MOst tournies these days have 3 prizes.

General, Sportsmanship and painting.

I like that seperation because I doubt very much a guy you've just had a vigourous rules discussion with is going to give you anything for sportsmanship.

I know people who entery tournies just to go for the kudos of getting best painted or sportsman.

PatrikW
08-02-2010, 18:32
Sportsmanship should be used but as a side "contest" of its own, its shouldn't have an impact on tournament score.

Painting I think should be counted in the score but it shouldn't make of break your chances, think 15/20 for standard minimum tabletop painting and the other 5 awarded for greater work. Add a best painted contest as well for the top painters.
(Then of course comp(of some sort) but that is another discussion.)

bigcheese76
08-02-2010, 22:14
I think having a well painted army and being a generally good player are attributes I would hope to see in most games, and specifically tournaments.

Lord of Worms
08-02-2010, 22:29
imo a tournament is about the players ability to win.

Golden Demon is about your ability to Paint.

As for sportmanship, im not sure it should have any point related bonus.

There is a difference between spending 100 hours + on a single model for a display piece, and making a nice well themed-converted army. Remember guys, the rules for these core games aren`t exactly balanced properly for a competitive game. There need to be other factors to determine Best Overall IMO. Somebody who trounces everyone with his obnoxious 2xLash Prince, 9x Obliterator, Plague Marine army is not a tactical genius.

IAMNOTHERE
08-02-2010, 22:32
Lash lists don't win tourneys, they just lose friends.

I can't remember the last net list I saw actually win anything.

Occulto
08-02-2010, 22:34
Best general for gaming.

Best sports for sportsmanship.

Best painted for painting.

Prizes for those who do well overall - and are therefore the best all round gamers. So the guy who paints a decent army, is sporting and wins a reasonable number of games does better than the guy who's unpleasant, fields 3 color minimum army and wins 5/5 massacres.

Tarax
09-02-2010, 10:03
I've only been going to the GT for the last ten years or so, so I can't judge other tournaments.

But, in those GTs, sportsmanship wasn't included in the overall score, but served as a tie-breaker. Painting was included though.

I believe that is the right way to do it. As long as the painting is done objectively, or as close to. Everyone is expected to come with a fully painted army and you expect to play against one. It's part of the enjoyment of the tournament.

And there are other thing too, like army composition (WYSIWYG and roster sheets) and a quiz.

So, to me, painting should be included, but not that much, while sportsmanship should be excluded, for some of the reasons already given.

Lexy
09-02-2010, 10:14
The problem with sportsmanship, is that the one giving the points should be a sportsman too.
How many times people have lost sportsmanpoints based on the opponent being a sour loser.

I think that painting should be a part of a tournament in the total score.
But only to the point where you have a painted army on the table.
the so-called wow factor or lots of conversions can give extra points, but should be used as a bit of a tie breaker and not as a tournament winner.

Too many tournaments give 60% of the painting to having the army fully painted and based and 40% on conversions and wow-factors.
That's too much to me.

Playing against a painted army is much more fun, then playing against grey and silver army.

lanrak
09-02-2010, 10:38
Hi all.
I agree that seperate prizes for painting, sportsmanship and amount of games won is the best way of dealing with tournaments for GW games.

As WH and 40k rules are developed as an optional '...something you may want to do with your collections of Citadel Minatures...' , '....the icing on the cake...' for minature collectors.

It is obvious they are NOT develped with competative play as the main focus.
Ask ANY of the GW game development team directly , they will concur.;)

So just playing to win is totaly missing the point of WH and 40k, IMO.

There are other games that are FAR more suitable for competative play, for those that want to prove how good a general they are...

WH and 40k work best when played in a relaxed co-operative narrative driven way.As this is the prefered play style of the people developing them. ;)

Happy Gaming ,
Lanrak.

Art Is Resistance
09-02-2010, 12:44
We took Sportmanship out of Open War after a blatant attempt to get a player docked points.

we noticed as the player in question was probably the nicest, happiest fella you'd ever meet - his opponent's issue with his sportsmanship was that 'he smiled all the time whilst he beat me'!

Painting however, remains. We split points between various criteria, is the model based, wysiwig, squad markings etc... we've now dropped judges opinion (which used to carry 5 points out of 25) as we felt it was too subjective - it's all down to black and white yes/no marks now.

We see the hobby as being about all things - we like to see fully painted armies, rather than 'ghost' undercoated armies that are not only boring to look at when you're playing against them, but generally they're the WAAC players - jsut waiting to move onto the next big thing.

Brother Loki
09-02-2010, 12:52
I like the 3 separate prizes system myself. If there's no effect on the actual competition result there's no incentive to dock your opponent points, so most people vote honestly.

I'm never going to win best general, and nor do I care about it particularly, but I've been nominated for best army on occasion (though not won) and one of the proudest days of my life was being voted best sportsman at one of the Carnage tournaments.

toonboy78
09-02-2010, 13:22
sportsmanship is too subjective.

tournes should have points for army theme (have you bithered to write a paragraph about the army)

painted and based (3 colours and basing)

and that is it. best painted should be a separate award, not related to overall score.

Remoah
09-02-2010, 13:22
Painting above the 3-colour-minimum and with some obvious effort/similarity put in should be rewarded, as should sportsmanship, but obviously game skill and list integrity should be the key deciding factors.

mattjgilbert
09-02-2010, 13:36
As WH and 40k rules are developed as an optional '...something you may want to do with your collections of Citadel Minatures...' , '....the icing on the cake...' for minature collectors.

It is obvious they are NOT develped with competative play as the main focus.
Ask ANY of the GW game development team directly , they will concur.;)

So just playing to win is totaly missing the point of WH and 40k, IMO.However, playing in a competition is by its nature competitive. Most people enter to have fun but also to win. At home and with friends is a (probably) a different thing.

Painting and sportsmanship are too subjective. While painting is certainly part of the hobby, you shouldn't be penalised in a gaming tournament for not being as talented at it as another player. Gaming tournaments should be about games with a prize for the best general. To acknowledge the other aspects of the hobby a separate prize should be given to the best painted army.

I dislike the current mantra that the games GW make are the icing on the cake. That's garbage. Without the games they would go out of business because they would not sell a quarter of the models they did. They are "Games" Workshop and shouldn't forget it.

WinglessVT2
09-02-2010, 14:17
Sportsmanship is something that should automatically figure into any and all games.
Painting has absolutely zero reason to be considered in a tournament.

nightgant98c
09-02-2010, 16:07
I am not a good painter. I should not get docked for that in a tournament. And some guy who gets a buddy to paint his army to golden demon levels should not have an advantage over me for that. And sportsmanship is so subjective that it can't easily be judged, unless it's really bad.

Zeroth
09-02-2010, 16:28
For the upcoming local tournament, they've pretty much set a side sportsmanship and painting and put them in a different competition. It's a nice way to find out who's the "best" player.

Personally I wish there was a little point system of sportsmanship that could boost the player towards his top score, but not more than 10-20%.

Having a fully painted army should of course be a requirement for attending at all

Max Jet
09-02-2010, 17:17
I think having a well painted army and being a generally good player are attributes I would hope to see in most games, and specifically tournaments.

I fully agree to that, however I doubt even 5% of the tournament attenders wouldn't abuse the system or have any idea on what basis to judge the sportmanship or painting.
More than often have I seen bad judgements simply because one does not like the army itself.

The idea is fine, the majority of the jury is retarded.

Chaos and Evil
09-02-2010, 17:42
Where's the option for my personal opinion: "The Core Games are no fun when played in a tournament environment" ?

Oguleth
09-02-2010, 17:53
Splitting them up as different contests is the best way in my eyes. Depending on the amount of points one can get through winning and such, the non-gaming categories could either be used as tiebreakers or a small point bonus (like 5% of max points to be gained through gaming).

Dag
09-02-2010, 17:58
lots of posts, wow haha. good to see an actual discussion and not "WAAAAAAAAAAH" thread build up.

I think all the army lsits should be givin to whoever is running the tourny to be looked at and givin an all around comp score for the tourny by a single, non-entry person so its objective. Painting should be its own competition, but you should need to have 90% of your army painted to join. All painted is brutal as sometiems you buy stuff for a tourny but 90% is almost done. sportsmanship is where i get ticked, as if you play an army your opponent doesnt like, seize the initiave, have a rules disagreement, or he gets an unlucky game it can ruin your chances of winning.

dont go to a tourny for a 'fun' game. the games ARE fun, but tournies should have these categories to win

Best General - purely game wins and it dictates who played the best games and won themost

Best Overal - who got the best game scores+painting+sportsmanship

Best painted, obvious

best sportsman, obvious

that would clear it up as (no joke) i went to a tourny and got humped BADLY for sportsmanship. and im usually drunk at these things!

TheDarkDuke
09-02-2010, 21:29
I'm going to say for painting a very big NO. Seriously why deduct marks if the guy is not a good painter?

Sportsmanship is a whole different subject. if the guy is a complete (insert what ever you want here) then yes he should lose some points because nothing is worse then playing someone whos annoying and a jerk (among other things;))

Occulto
10-02-2010, 01:08
We took Sportmanship out of Open War after a blatant attempt to get a player docked points.

we noticed as the player in question was probably the nicest, happiest fella you'd ever meet - his opponent's issue with his sportsmanship was that 'he smiled all the time whilst he beat me'!

That's why I intend to use a checkbox system for my next event for sports:

Did your opponent clearly explain their army before and during the game?
Did they make a copy of their list available to you and did they answer any questions about the army you might have?

Did the person make sure all measurements/movement/rolls were clear?
Pretty obvious - make sure your opponent knows what you're rolling or measuring for. Try to make sure all dice rolls happen in the open. Don't roll 20 dice behind a building then proudly scoop up 19 "hits" before your opponent can see what you rolled.

Did you and your opponent resolve any disagreements or rules disputes politely?
It's not about having the perfect smooth running game - occasionally you'll have a difference of opinion or have a situation that's not covered by the rules. It's about working through that without raised voices, sulking or guilt trips. If you need to call a judge or TO over, they shouldn't be walking into the situation where two players are ready to spill each other's blood.

Did your opponent give the game their full attention and did they avoid wasting time?
No one wants to be held at gun point at the table (toilet breaks are OK). But it's poor sports to just keep disappearing without warning, play with your phone or have a 10 minute chat to your mates while the game's in progress.

Was your opponent consistent?
One of the most important things about sports is consistency. Did they roughly work out how far to move their models, but insist you measure down to the last millimeter? Did they turn into a rules-lawyer only when it suited them? Did they ask to take back a move then refuse to let you do the same?

That way, it's not about "how much you smile" - then at the end, players vote for the best sports they played to determine who gets the prize.

So everyone can end up on 5/5 for 5 games, but there's still some way of awarding a winner - plus it's easy to see if someone gets sniped.

What? They got check points for all these things except for one game where they did a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde and started rolling in secret, didn't answer any questions and turned into an inconsistent jerk? :eyebrows:

Dag
10-02-2010, 07:16
cool post occulto.

i just dont like the idea of someone im competing against having a say in my stnading, at all.

he can compete with me but why can players be judges that decide the outcome of a tournament.

Poseidal
10-02-2010, 08:45
To the whole hobby painting/modelling and sportsmanship are just as if not more important. I would rate them all equally, 33% painting and modelling 33% sportsmanship and 33% results.

Actually, since he game is so random only he first two are really fairer to rate on so maybe a 40/40/20 or even a 45/45/10 distribution might be better?

(though more seriously it does penalise poorer painters so I can't really put the above seriously. I think painting could probably have it's own competition wit equal prizes to the playing event, and the playing event split 60/40 for sportsmanship/result to encourage better play experience. The main aim is to avoid someone being 'that guy'.)

snurl
10-02-2010, 09:04
Yes, painting should have it's own category for judging.
However, the people who hold the tournament make the rules. If they require armies to be painted then so be it.

Poseidal
10-02-2010, 09:44
I think a painting requirement would be different to a 'best painted' score.

It's probably seen as a minimum requirement because even q badly painted, but complete army looks better for photo shoots of tables than plain grey or primed.

mattjgilbert
10-02-2010, 12:18
Interesting how the opinions in the post don't marry up with the results of the poll. Mosts post seems to say keep them separate but the results favour the opposite (unless the option is misleading.. )

toonboy78
10-02-2010, 12:46
quick question

what is the criteria for sportmanship?

if you are say 1/100th of an inch too far away to charge and i pull you up on it will i get poor results. if i keep correcting you with the rules you have been playing do i get a bad score, if i roll fantastic dice an wipe you out by turn 2 do i get a bad score?

mattjgilbert
10-02-2010, 13:23
toonboy78... that's why it's too subjective. The answers to your questions will be different to different people, especially in the atmosphere of a tournament.

Dag
10-02-2010, 17:27
yes, in theory and a perfect world "that guy" would give out the correct amount of poitns for a sportsmanship game that was a good game, or a fully painted army even if it isnt the best out there.

but in reality human beings are much more coniving, especially when theres 0 retribution and coupled with anominity they be as douchebaggins as possible because if they give you a bad score you'll never know until they win the tourny by 2 points...

Ujio
10-02-2010, 18:03
Painting has absolutely zero reason to be considered in a tournament.

Why? I personally enjoy a game a huge amount more when I'm facing a painted/based army rather than another army of black demons and I'm sure I'm not the only one. And isn't the purpose of going to a tournament for the enjoyment? Some people enjoy trouncing they're opponent, some people love it. Some people enjoy facing a new opponent. Some (like myself) enjoy playing a game with two fully painted armies. So to me, it has a serious reason to be in a tournament.




I'm going to say for painting a very big NO. Seriously why deduct marks if the guy is not a good painter?


Maybe where I'm from it's the exception but I've found that a lesser-skilled painter doesn't be deducted marks as you say. However, if an army stands out it gets a few extra which imo is on the money. Surely if I put much more effort and detail into my army I should be awarded a few more points than joe-3 colours?



I think that a tournament should encompass many aspects of the hobby. If you want to get 5/5 massacres, gz on your Best General Award. However, come along with your nicely painted army, be polite, play some fun games and win them.....well you deserve to win the tournament.

UberBeast
10-02-2010, 19:04
My first tournament back in 2000 (3rd edition 40k) soured me against sportmanship points.

I came in third overall instead of first because my last opponent docked my sportsmanship score simply because he didn't like that I challenged him several times on the rules and was proven correct each time. He kept trying to bamboozle me on little rules like making his destroyed vehicles count as blocking LOS to his figures in my shooting phase but then shooting at me through them in the following turns as well as arguing that his talos skimmer didn't have to take dangerous terrain tests because it was entering and staying in close combat.

The game ended on a close call where he tried to use an empty transport skimmer to contest the objective and the judge instead of just ruling against it (as per the rules) had us flip a coin because he was tired of arguing with my opponent. I won the coin-flip and my opponent threw a fit.

So long story short I was tied for most battle points, I had a perfect score for painting, and this guy gave me the worst rating for sportsmanship just because he had to play by the rules. I didn't even give him the worst sportsmanship score. If he had even given me a couple of points I would have come in first overall instead of third.

Bad sportsmen give bad sportsmanship scores.

theunwantedbeing
10-02-2010, 20:19
I think a good way of doing it is to grant everyone X points for having a painted army and another X points for gaming without annoying any opponents.

So you lose points for being unsporting and having an army that doesnt meet the minimum painting requirements and this affects your overall tournament score adversely.
But gain nothing towards the overall tournament score be being extra nice or having an excpetionally pretty army. Merely towards each individual painting or sportsmanship trophy.

I guess you'de need a reason to deduct sportsmanship points as well as just giving a score at the end of the game, that the judges can then decide upon.
Stops people abusing the system.

iamfanboy
10-02-2010, 22:40
Bad sportsmen give bad sportsmanship scores.
Exactly.

Painting is kind of important - hell, really important IMHO because it shows some dedication and more than just "I had daddy buy me this army and glue it together" - but in every tourney I've been in, the only people who give bad sportsmanship scores ARE the bad sportsmen. Everyone else knows that the game is for fun and rules arguments should be finished with a smile and a shrug, but those jerks?

The 12 year old whiner who barely knows how to roll dice let alone measure movement, the fat teenage boy whose entire ego depends on NOT losing horribly despite having no skill and being unwilling to learn, the twenty-something walking rectum who claims Asperger's Syndrome because he doesn't want to bother treating others with basic politeness especially when they're *gasp!* winning over HIM, the middle-aged 'veteran' who expects everyone but himself to play the fluffiest possible armies with no possible chance of winning so he and his Plague Marine/Oblit army can tromp their way to victory.... all of them and more are the ones who give bad sportsman ratings, and the thing is that his opponent will give him a good sportsman rating because that opponent IS playing it for fun and is generally a nice guy.

That's the irony of it all; the ones who deserve bad sportsman ratings aren't usually the ones who GET bad sportsman ratings.

Do I sound slightly bitter? Or is it just that I've hit all of those stereotypes more than once in better than 15 years of playing 40k and had the serious urge to just shove their crappily-painted general figure down their throat?

Fortunately, most of them are playing World of Warcraft nowadays - it's easier to get your jerktard fix on that game than it is in wargaming. Less effort involved, and when one community finally ostracizes you it's easy to move on to the next who don't know a thing about what a waste of human excrement you are.

Occulto
11-02-2010, 04:16
and the thing is that his opponent will give him a good sportsman rating because that opponent IS playing it for fun and is generally a nice guy.

That's the irony of it all; the ones who deserve bad sportsman ratings aren't usually the ones who GET bad sportsman ratings.

Good intentions or not, any player who does that is an idiot. That's like giving the kid who's throwing a tantrum a lolly, then wondering why he keeps throwing tantrums. :rolleyes:

Get a bad sport, hit 'em where it hurts and make sure the TO knows precisely why you just gave out a big fat zero.

That's what it's there for.

Radium
11-02-2010, 06:25
Painting - yes.
Sportsmanship - no.

And there should be 4 prizes
Best overall - Highest combined score of painting and battles
Best General - Highest score in battles
Best Army award
Sportsmanship award

WinglessVT2
11-02-2010, 07:38
I've played against bad winners and bad losers, but never really bad sportsmen.
I've also played against outright snobs, who not only think - but expect - me to own every book ever, refuse to answer questions during games, and demand I have a fully professionally painted army.

Vermin-thing
11-02-2010, 08:01
Here's how I think it should work. (others might think differently)

Each player is given three scores.

One for painting, assuming that his/her models are not grey.
-Consistency of painting, 20 points.
-Conversions, 20 points.
-"Theme", 20 points.
-Style, 20 points.
-Effort, 20 points.
= a score out of 100. 1= didn't even try, 100= fantastic.
*note you can still get points here if your stuff is grey*

One for army composition/how well you played.
-You start with 100 points.
-Your points go up or down depending if you use all common Globbos, or duel stank, and pope-wagon.
-You also get a point per minor Victory, 2 points per Massacre.

One for how well you played with your opponent.
-You start with 100 points.
-You lose points for being a jerk, abusing the rules.
-You gain points for good sportsmanship.

DeeKay
15-02-2010, 17:12
I agree with previous posters that the definition of sportsmanship is a bit ambiguous. Allowing a player to cast one last spell when he has declared combat may not be too bad but back-tracking to a point where a potentially game-winning charge was forgotten about and declared after normal movement is a potential sore point. It seems the more important the mistake, the less willing players are to let it slide.

As for painted models, no-brainer. If a player does not turn up with a minimally painted (3 colours) force at least, they deserve to be penalised.

With regards,
Dan.

gwarsh41
15-02-2010, 17:15
My last tournament had paint points, but no sports points. I was looking forward to them...
Plus if we did my opponents might not have said "dont move too far" every time I rolled my slow and purposeful. and then promptly somehow made 2 inches 3 inches. I think it could result in faster games too. I see obvious delays in order to keep my army from arriving on the table as some of the worst sportsmanship. We had an hour, we got to turn TWO!!!
Some people just cant comprehend fighting daemons, so they hide lol.

blackcherry
16-02-2010, 11:25
Now I'm not quite sure if this is a problem in the larget tournaments (carnage etc) but in all the ones I have tended to play (PAW, Exeter Legionnair) the points scoring tends to be laid out like this.

Different awards for sportsmanship, well painted armies, best general for the best player and 'best in tournament' for the best all round player that mixes army/sportsmanship and game results. During the tournament, its just a tick box for 3 minimum colours and basing, good/ok/brilliant for sportsmanship and the game results count a lot as well.

Now I think this is the most important thing what constitutes good/ok/brilliant for sportsmanship is laid out in the same way that one would lay out conditions for winning the scenario as it stops a person from being a dick about things usually.


More often than not I have found that if the people running/judging the tournament clearly explain everything at the start, say that they can be there to help rule over any unfair decisions and will not take any **** it instantly cuts down on a majority of the cheating just like that.

For best painted, the 3/4 judges look at all the different armies during the luchtime break, and ask players to do the same, voting for just one army that is 'the best painted'. By looking themselves they reduce the chance of any fixing as they ultimatly have a say in things too.

Tarax
17-02-2010, 10:34
In most 2-day tournament, you play 5 battles.
This is just a suggestion: in those 5 battles you get 5 scores for sportsmanship. To get your final score you take away the lowest and highest score and take the average of the other 3. Like they do in some sport events. This means that if you score low on a single battle, because of some !@#$% you played against, you still have a chance of getting a decent score. Those !@#$%-players will score low on all battles, so to them it doesn't matter, and you will not get punished by it.