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.

Just more expampled, partially justified or not, why a 48% completely subjective scoring system is junk.

Because my 6 man squads are cheesy while someone elses 6 man squads are fluffy and perect? Yeah right.

It is balls crazy to empower a guy you just beat to be able to affect your over all score and outcome. In the top ranks every point counts and dinging someone 4 to 6 or even 10 points basically keeps that guy from winning the over all. Dumb.. d you m b.

But where do you draw the line? When is it really time to ding someone? It should be a simple pass fail (1 point or no point) system. This prevents the bad sports (and often times the losers) from being able to completely screw the winners. This 10 points per game swing or 28% of your total points is garbage.

 

When the judges aren’t looking (and sometimes if they are if they aren’t giving the right calls-sort of a message as it were) they high stick the opponent or body check into the wall. Why do you think Inquisitor Bob was there? Certainly not for his looks…

See above.  That’s why Ed powerlifts. 40k IS a full contact sport you know…

Seriously-I think it’s a joking reference to the fact their guy probably paints as well as I do (sympathies dude) so he’s going there to play.

Now that would be a tournament worth seeing! Hulk “Maneus Calgar” Hogan vs. Jake “Snakes on a Plane” Roberts in a death cage match. Where’s my popcorn?

I'll stick with Clay...

Hobbs - Pete's always been an "enforcer". And again - take that term lightly. We have been traveling to tournaments since 1997 and he has always brought a strong list. The enforcer term was just added here recently as a fun in-group term. Until his painting is improved, his chances of winning overall are slim. Now as far as tournaments go - our records speak for themselves. We have all done well for years and yet this is the first time this is coming up. Interesting.

That being said though, we are a team. We will not deny this. Mike and I work together on painting to help keep each other motivated and to improve out techniques. We work to refine each other's lists. We all practice and play games together every week. We argue, we laugh, we debate. However, once it comes to the game day though - we are on our own. It's just like any normal club, except that we term it as a "Team" since Mike, Pete and I are the original founders of our AdeptiCon teams. We like "team" and we will not ever stop referring to us as a team. Heck, I wish we had a pit crew.

Kesher - as far as the three falcons is concerned, there are ways to deal with that. Most people play against it completely wrong. I'm not going to give you the tactics on how to deal with the army. That's for us to know and others to learn. As far as friends go, Pete took salamanders for years and players (even tournament organizers) would laugh at him because salamanders "suck". Yet, he would win 99% of his games (a lot in under 45 minutes) and players would mark him down on comp and sports. The discussion of a crutch only goes so far when talking about generlship.

As far as being "those guys", then so be it. We ran an experiment with three of us taking the same exact IG list to Chicago 2005. We received three very different comp and sportsmanship scores. Hell I got tanked by a drunk guy that was cheating like a mad man. After that final tournament test, we feel trying to appeal to everyone's tastes just isn't going to happen. Therefore, we just play what we want to play and of course what ever we have painted.

My favorite quote from the weekend was "We don't play like this" referring to my force and yet there was a drop pod force just as tough sitting across the table. My basic response was "You'r kidding, right?" Too many people hold themselves in too high regards as playing "fair" armies and I use the term "fair" loosely. At least you know from us that we will play what is considered to be tougher forces. And you won't get marked down in sportsmanship or comp because I really don't care what you bring.

Finally, fun is in the eye of the beholder - The players that are at the top 15 tables after round 2 typically have very strong lists. If a player has an army that would be in the top 5% of the toughest armies, then what is the difference between the top 1% and the top 5%. Really not much. The all gretchin force can be extremely lethal and I wish that Jason and I got to play with a different scenario. It would have been a great match up. I would rate it high as far as overall toughness. My most enjoyable game was against John Hermann with his 2 monoliths, almost all necron warriors and orb of resurrection army. It came down to the last dice roll of the game in the final round on table #3. It was a very tactical game with a lot of manuevering. We find the games like the one with John where we are pushing the limits to be the most fun.

Posted By jfrazell on 06/08/2007 7:05 AM

 

What exactly is an "enforcer" doing at a tournament?

When the judges aren’t looking (and sometimes if they are if they aren’t giving the right calls-sort of a message as it were) they high stick the opponent or body check into the wall. Why do you think Inquisitor Bob was there? Certainly not for his looks…

Are you saying then that you feel that your players in your team can't win without someone else going around and knocking off other good players?

See above.  That’s why Ed powerlifts. 40k IS a full contact sport you know…

Seriously-I think it’s a joking reference to the fact their guy probably paints as well as I do (sympathies dude) so he’s going there to play.

Guys like you are making these events into less entertaining and less cerebral versions of the WWE. Until we see someone take a folded chair and a cheese grater to someone's head....

Now that would be a tournament worth seeing! Hulk “Maneus Calgar” Hogan vs. Jake “Snakes on a Plane” Roberts in a death cage match. Where’s my popcorn?

ROTFLMAO - thank you very much.  That is exactly where the reference came from.  I'm buying Pete a big hockey stick tonight.  

Also, save me a seat - that would be a kewl match-up to watch. 

And really, you can't exactly blame anyone for bringing their A game and A list to a tournament. It is more the problem of the lists than the players.

I do not know if it is true but I heard someone was scored three zeroes in a row the first day for sportsmanship. If that is true GW should consider banning them from anymore GTs this year.

To say there is no problem with three Falcons is total bullsh*t.

- Greenie

First, let me apologize for calling someone a name that was childish of me.

 

Now, allow me to clarify since I sent my original post in late last night.

 

• Outside the game Pete was very cool and I have no problem with him on a personal level.

 

• I did not “only” tank Pete because of the comment he made to the Judge it just set the tone.

 

• I took nothing away because of his army comp in fact I was happy to see how this list played.

 

• I would have no problem with how the terrain was done in the game before mine if the craters could have been moved but they were static. Honestly it was a flaw in the bored and I should not think too much of this.

 

• I Tanked Pete for his overall Tone and attitude throughout the game. In addition to the way he carried himself and acted. Not a smile not a laugh not a funny comment came out of him it seemed he was only there to play and only to play.

 

• This event is supposed to be fun and I did not have fun at all during out game. You can be competitive and have your A game going and still have a great time with your opponent. Its all about people skills.

 

• 2 Oblit 2 quit guys you guys are legends in this game and it was great to watch some of your games and talk with you. You have some of the best players around and I picked up a ton of pointers.

 

• Pete Won Best General which means he kicked a lot of tail. Good for him however he did have the lowest sportsmanship score. To me that speaks volumes. That means there were 4 other people that did not have a fun game aginst him. Had he had higher scores he could have won the event regardless of his painting ability.

 

• Maybe your team could help him out with his in game people skills and he would finish stronger.

 

So uh, what exactly was in the 3 falcon army? What makes that force so deadly? ( I'd like to know the list so I can plan against it).

 

I don't know Pete, but he sounds like a good friend of mine that plays in the same style. It's not a personality flaw, he just gets super focused on what he's doing during a game and pretty much zones everything else out. On the other end of the spectrum, another bud of mine is quite animated during a match up and continually talks and laughs during its course.
What's funny is that in two back to back Seattle GT's they've been to, both have placed 2nd and 5th. The talker placed 2nd in the first and 5th in the second, then the focused guy took 5th in the first and 2nd in the next tourney. Both got good sportsmanship scores, so it seems to me it comes down to who you're playing as far as what you get on the soft scores. Some people just have thinner skins than others about certain things.
  What other factors were there besides the fact he was focused and discussed terrain issues??  Did he mock his opponents, haggle over every point of the game, or try to cheat?  It doesn't sound like he did.

Great now Pete got tanked because he's not a stand-up comic. To be honest I hate it when people talk to much during a game. I'm not interested in your family, your kids, or your new found paint technique. You can expect a lower score if you open your mouth to much during the game and I especially hate it when someone is condesending.

All of this back and forth proves one thing, subjective scoring has no place in competitive tournament play. My fun is not your fun and vice versa.

Unless he cheated, argued over every other rule question or called you names, I don't see why the hell you Z'd his comp score. I thought the game was supposed to be the entertainment, not the guy on the other end of the table. I hope karma catches up to you in a significant way.

While I wouldn't have zeroed anyones score just for placing other terrain over craters, I do consider that bad sportsmanship. The tables were designed with a certain amount of terrain and most of them were very light on terrain as is. 40k is more fun with a decent amount of terrain and reducing the terrain from little to minimal reduces the fun by making the game less tactical. I don't reduce sportsmanship scores for hard lists, but making the game less interesting in order to give yourself an advantage is WAAC and should get you dinged on sportsmanship.

But lets wait and see what the posted scores are. If he scored consistently low against five opponents than I would lean towards him needing to work on his Sportsmanship. If it's just two people marking him low that could be chipmunking. If 5 people rated him very low then I think he needs to have a little more fun in games. I wasn't doing well enough to play him so I couldn't say which it is.

Posted By Fatman on 06/08/2007 9:31 AM
While I wouldn't have zeroed anyones score just for placing other terrain over craters, I do consider that bad sportsmanship.

That's a stupid comment if you look at it from a realistic or wargaming POV. If you look at it from the dumbed-down GW POV, then I suppose it makes sense - after all, they see flat grassland as the absence of terrain, not as a variation of terrain.

But as it is, the entire table is terrain. So placing the hills anywhere on the table would get a zero? No, because that's not what you think of as terrain. I see that, I understand it, but it just seems really stupid to me.

Posted By Fatman on 06/08/2007 9:31 AM
40k is more fun with a decent amount of terrain and reducing the terrain from little to minimal reduces the fun by making the game less tactical. I don't reduce sportsmanship scores for hard lists, but making the game less interesting in order to give yourself an advantage is WAAC and should get you dinged on sportsmanship.

There's a contradiction here, can anyone spot it? Actually, there's several.

Which is why I'm beginning to agree with some of the people clamouring for no more subjective scoring.

Posted By Fatman on 06/08/2007 9:31 AM
But lets wait and see what the posted scores are. If he scored consistently low against five opponents than I would lean towards him needing to work on his Sportsmanship. If it's just two people marking him low that could be chipmunking. If 5 people rated him very low then I think he needs to have a little more fun in games. I wasn't doing well enough to play him so I couldn't say which it is.

There's a third alternative. He was a good sport and a nice guy but got dinged on all five Sportsmanship scores because he's quiet/tough player/concentrates on the game/shy/whatever.

It's possible to be slammed for something totally out of your control here. Personally, I don't like it when players yammer on all through the game. Say hello, shake hands, let's get down to business. You don't have to talk to me again unless it's about the game, and even then it should just be about this game and our armies, that's it.

Does that make me a bad sport? Should I mark their sportsmanship score down (or tank it) just because they're too noisy IMO? After all, they're deliberately making the game less tactical by diverting attention away from the game itself, right?

I have not discussed the game itself nor will I! That is a private matter. If you know me you already know all about it. If not when and if I run into you ask me I'll talk about it.

There are many factors the drove me to give him a zero. Those people that know me understand how much it pained me to do that to him because I do not believe in the soft scores. In fact this is the first it I have done this to someone. 

Also I was not the only one that did. He had the lowest Spots score in the tournament. What does that tell you?

Occam's Razor: If 5 people gave him a bad sportsmanship score simplest answer is that he's not fun to play against. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Stu-Rat you were not there so pls see your way out of this conversation. I am trying help you out here buddy.

- Greenie

Posted By Stu-Rat on 06/08/2007 10:10 AM

Posted By Fatman on 06/08/2007 9:31 AM
While I wouldn't have zeroed anyones score just for placing other terrain over craters, I do consider that bad sportsmanship.

That's a stupid comment if you look at it from a realistic or wargaming POV. If you look at it from the dumbed-down GW POV, then I suppose it makes sense - after all, they see flat grassland as the absence of terrain, not as a variation of terrain.

But as it is, the entire table is terrain. So placing the hills anywhere on the table would get a zero? No, because that's not what you think of as terrain. I see that, I understand it, but it just seems really stupid to me.

I have to completely disagree with you here.  And in particular with your choice to use the terms "stupid" and "dumbed-down" to describe an opposing POV. 

The game has an established standard for terrain- approximately 25% coverage.  If the tables are already light on terrain (as they have been reported to be) due to the organizers not having enough, anything a player does to take the game even further from the standard is not appropriate.  I wouldn't zero someone for that alone, but I've only ever experienced those sorts of terrain shennanigans from players who turned out to be unusually poor sports in the rest of the game.

Posted By Unseth on 06/08/2007 10:29 AM

I have not discussed the game itself nor will I! That is a private matter. If you know me you already know all about it. If not when and if I run into you ask me I'll talk about it.

Translation: I will not discuss this on a public forum but I will tell everyone I ever meet. And I will accuse someone of something, without telling the whole story (and changing events to suit my purposes).  

Posted By Unseth on 06/08/2007 10:29 AM

There are many factors the drove me to give him a zero. Those people that know me understand how much it pained me to do that to him because I do not believe in the soft scores. In fact this is the first it I have done this to someone. 

 That's fair enough. But that's not what you claimed originally. 

 

Posted By Unseth on 06/08/2007 10:29 AM

Also I was not the only one that did. He had the lowest Spots score in the tournament. What does that tell you?

That he no longer had acne?  Seriously though, it tells us that chances are he was a terrible sport. However, all we know (and not even for certain) so far, is that you have said:

1. You claim someone before you tanked his Sports for doing something legal, approved by a judge, and approved by that someone.

2. You adjusted your Sports for him based on a previous game.

3. You tanked his Sports on a single comment that had no bearing on the game whatsoever.

4. You later recant and state you tanked his Sports based on the whole game.

So what are we to believe? Your first story, which shows how bad a Sportsman you are, or your second, which shows that you might have behaved well during the game but have certainly behaved poorly since?

Posted By Ozymandias on 06/08/2007 10:35 AM
Occam's Razor: If 5 people gave him a bad sportsmanship score simplest answer is that he's not fun to play against. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that out.

Granted, the simplest answer is usually the right answer. But if we're actually using Occam's Razor here we have to use the whole principle, not just the pop-culture version. We don't know if all things were equal, do we? And that's the problem with subjective scoring.

 

We don't and neither do you. So please don't call someone stupid and bash them when you don't know what the whole story is. Unseth has stated he doesn't want to get into the game and that is fine. We have heard conflicting things, on the one hand from an opponent, and on the other from his teammates. I get the feeling I would not enjoy playing against him, but if you would, then that's great. But there is no need to call someone stupid.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Yeah I agree that Stu-Rat should stop speculating. He is adding nothing of value here.

- Greenie

Well in Stu's defense, he's correct in that your either have to give the full story, or none of it. I'd suggest moderators delete the posts but keep the overall thread open as the overall Vegas GT topic is relevant.

GT related query. How was the mix of players? Tier One mostly marines/eldar what? (or did I miss that already). Any DA players and how did they do? And the Showgirls. Its Vegas tell us about the Showgirls!

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/08/2007 11:03 AM
Yeah I agree that Stu-Rat should stop speculating. He is adding nothing of value here.

- Greenie

Actually Stu-Rat is adding the exact points that need to be made.  The only reason why I'm not posting more is I need to actually get some work done today.  As a quick side note, it is quite easy to get the worst sportsman when two players tank someone to zeros.  More to come later. 

You say that because he supports what you are trying to sell. However he was not there and can only play the 'he said, she said' game. Really it adds nothing to the crux of the matter.

- Greenie

Its a valid opinion like anyone else on the thread (if polite and exempting Big O of course).

Holy crap guys. Over react much?

If you found Mr. 3 Falcons unfun to play against, or felt that he was abusing the terrain set up and gave him a zero on sportsmanship... THAT IS TOTALLY WITHIN YOUR PEROGATIVE - just as it is the other player's perogative to take as abusive a list as he or she pleases! They paid to play in the tournament the same as you. Demanding that they go out of their way to satisfy your definition of FUN is just assinine, and any calls for them to be booted from the GT circuit are clearly uncalled for!

On the other hand...

If you paid to attend a GT with a less than spectacularly painted army and have a tricked out army geared to do well in the Generalship category ONLY - I hate to say it - but is getting tanked on soft scores anything of a SURPRISE? Let's be honest here, but there's certain negative stigma attached to tight competitive builds and as seeing your opponent's army is usually part of the first impression, pulling additional terrain placement (or other pregame) shenanegins (while tactically a good move) is just going to increase the PERCEPTION that you're a cheese monkey.

Finally I'd like to add that the moniker of "Enforcer" is unfortunately inappropriate. Enforcers are there to make sure nobody lays out your star player or subjects members of your team to excessive roughing. They aren't supposed to INSTIGATE (as they get enough penalty minutes already without that) and are rarely iced if theres nothing going down... i.e. if all is going as it should... they aren't "Enforcing" squat.

You guys were all playing seperately, if your opponent was being unsporting or being a downright donkey orrifice, its not like he could watch your back and/or deliver them a crushing cross-check from across the hall.

Forgot to say How I did

Me IW 118 BP

Round 1: Slaughtered Ultras 20pts

Round 2: Slaughtered Sisters 20pts

Round 3: Got Slaughtered by Eldar opts

Round 4: Minor Victory 13pts

Round 5: Got Slaughtered by Nids

40 points in Sportsmanship

25 points for painting

Record 3-2-0.

For the most part had a good time and would go again.

Chipmunking is wrong period and I dont condone it at all.

TO exactly get a zero in sportsmanship from me you have to either have an illegal armylist or commit some blatant cheating to warrant a zero. Most of my games I score High to max on sportsmanship win or lose and like what Marc Parker says: its just a game of toy soldiers.

Now having an enforcer to bring to a tournament is nothing new and I dont see anything wrong with it. Its part of the game and we would all be intellectually dishonest with one another if we said we wouldnt try to support our friends.

I dont know what happened at the Vegas GT and I only asked questions on what happened there.
Finally my comment about banning comes from if someone is problematic and constantly making the games not fun plus is blatantly cheating throughout the tournament then there should be a consideration to ban and not just because he played the game fair and honest.

Posted By keezus on 06/08/2007 11:38 AM


You guys were all playing seperately, if your opponent was being unsporting or being a downright donkey orrifice, its not like he could watch your back and/or deliver them a crushing cross-check from across the hall.

You're just not thinking creatively Keezus.

Enforcer to his opponent.

"All right, I'm just going to move these three hundred grots"

pager buzzes (do they still have pagers?).  Star player buzzes. Opposing Player A is being annoying.

Enforcer

"sorry I need to catch a drink. Need anything while I'm at the bar?"

Enforcer dons appropriate hockey gear.

Enforcer goes to bar. As walks by Star player's table he nonchalantly checks the Opposing Player A into the stands. Continues on to the bar for a well deserved drink for himself and his opposing player (see, even the enforcer can always be the conscientious player). Brings drinks to table and his game contuinues. All is good.

See this is why Ed Maule never wins tournaments. He forgets to bring his table mate back a drink when he's off high sticking opponents.  Its just common courtesy Ed. A good rum and coke goes a long way to cover over short breaks...

Actually, Stu does have a very good point about subjective scoring.

I'm one of the shy guys in person with new people that is quiet and doesn't talk much. Just talk about the game. I also like playing by the rules and I tend to win alot.

Translation-I get tanked on sports and comp most of the time. It's almost to the point of me not wanting to play any more because of that.

And Stu does have a very good point about the OP changing his story after being called on it when badmouthing someone.