# Soft Scoring in Tournaments



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

So, soft scoring.

For those of you who don't know what the term means, it generally applies to two main catagories - Painting and Sportsmanship. It can also be applied to other minor areas of organising and running a tourney such as having your list submitted by a due date, having your list in the correct format, arriving on time etc.

"Soft scoring" simply means adding or taking away points from your tournament score based on the above, so to take an example from a tournament I recently attended, their score system looked like this:



> Points for Games
> 
> Win: 20pts
> Draw: 10pts
> ...


If, after adding all these together, two or more people were tied, total VPs from all games would be used as tie breaker. Sportsmanship was awarded on a seperate basis.

This seems to be a pretty standard setup for small-to-middling tournaments going by events I've been to and what others have said about theirs. This leads me to a few logical questions:

*What is the purpose of a tournament?*

Well, to my mind, it's to give people a chance to compete for a prize, by being the best player there, with the measure of "best player" being determined by how many games you win, and how much you win each game by. That's a pretty standard definition of a tournament for any sporting or gaming event, and I would hope that most people would say something similar.

*So why do our tournaments feel the need to grade you on your painting and behaviour?*

No other sporting or gaming event does this. What if football tournaments gave points out for "Grace and Aesthetic Appeal"? What if athletics gave out points for "Being a really nice guy"? Can you imagine?

"But painting is part of the hobby, so it should be taken into account"

If I wanted to be judged (and win or lose) based on my ability to paint models, I would enter a painting competition, not a tournament. In the same vein, if I enter a darts tournament, I don't want to be judged on how pretty my darts are.

"Everyone prefers playing with painted models, instead of unpainted plastic and metal"

Fair point. But surely the best way to make that a certain thing is simply to state "All armies must be painted to a basic standard or you will not be allowed to participate". That ensues that everyone has a painted army, without having it affect the final result.

"No-one wants to play a complete tosser"

True, and I laud the attempt to make good behaviour and sportsmanship a central part of our hobby. However, almost every single other sport does it the other way around - you get points deducted for being a dick, or even banned. You argue with the ref? You get sent off. You foul someone? You get sent off. You are a good player and a nice person for the whole match? You don't get an extra goal for your team. Being a pleasure to play with should be the basic level of entry, not something that can alter who comes first, second and third.

On a side note, when was the last time you saw the "Most sporting" award also go the person in first place? Almost never. That's because for most people, getting their army massacred is a negative experience, while smashing someone else into the ground is a positive experience. Basic psychology says we are more likely to reward someone who gives us good experiences than someone who gives us bad ones - ergo the "Most Sporting" award can often be paraphrased as "The person who got his ass kicked repeatedly, but with good grace" or even possibly "The person we felt most sorry for".

"If you put extra effort into building your army and making it look nice, you should get a benefit from it"

Yes, you get the satisfaction of having all your playing pieces looking nice. You can enter "Armies on Parade". You can have people come up to you and say "Hey, I really like your army". However since we don't give race car drivers points based on how much they waxed and polished, I don't see the need to give you points in gaming tournaments.

"If you don't like it, just run your own tournament or go to ones that don't soft score"

Bollocks. This isn't about me, personally, it's about changing the opinions of people too lazy to do anything except mindlessly continue with the tradition of allowing your ability to paint to interfere with your ability to write good lists, play well with few mistakes on the day, evaluate matchups, and ultimately win games. Why are we the ONLY hobby or sport that insists on factoring a judges personal bias regarding what makes an aesthetically pleasing army into the outcome of a competitive event?

*Does soft scoring even affect who comes first?*

Well, yes. If you have a W/L/D system like the one above, there are always going to be big leaps in points, for example:

Bob: Won 6 games. 120pts
Joanne: Won 5 games, drew 1. 110pts.
Rico: Won 5 games, lost 1. 101pts

So those are gaps of 10, 9 and 19 separating the top three players. There are 15pts available for painting, and 10pts available for having your name on your list, and submitting it on time, so 25pts in soft scores. If sportsmanship was also soft scored, that would be another 5-10pts.

Let's say Joanne and Rico both have the same painting scores, but Joanne forgot/didn't know to submit her list on time. Suddenly she's tied with Rico, and he may very well come out on top depending on how many VPs he garnered during the games - which can be easily affected by matchups (Kill Point games with Draigowing vs Mech IG, for example) rather than player skill.

In another example, you might be tied with someone else on tournament points in every single regard, but for some reason the judges decided to give him the "Extra Effort" point in painting. You would miss out on first place (and maybe second and third as well, depending on how closely tied the front runners are) simply because you forgot to highlight a biker, or you don't quite have a "cohesive scheme" in their opinion, or just because you're playing against last years Golden Demon winner.

With sportsmanship it's even worse depending on how people do it. I've seen people give marks out of ten (which are then added to your score), I've seen the "Voted most sporting" get anywhere from 1 point to 10 points.

Not only that, but if you move away from a W/L/D system (and just go by VPs, for example) then the gaps between players tend to narrow incredibly.

*So why does all this annoy you so much?*

_Because you can have your empirical performance rendered useless by the subjective opinion of someone else._

It's like working your ass off to pass your A-Level Maths exam, but being told by the Invigilator "I think that girl over there is pretty, so I'm going to give her the answers to question 1 and 2" and as a direct consequence she gets an A* instead of an A. Just how cheated would you feel?

You spend two or three days under a great deal of stress, sweating over every decision you make on the table, and scrape win after win against increasingly more difficult opponents, before being told "Sorry old chap, we're giving the prizes to this guy instead because people said he was a little bit nicer than you"... Excuse me if I'm not at my most social while I'm trying to pan someone into the ground as hard as I can. Maybe if you wanted to judge my sportsmanship you could do so while I'm having a beer with my mates over a pool table?

So that's why I hope eventually, TOs will stop soft scores altogether, and instead say "If you want to come to our event, your army needs to be painted and based. If you act like a tool we'll kick you out or knock points off your score." Instead of allowing their personal opinions of your skill with a paintbrush or your ability to smile and make small talk with strangers to affect the result of an event that purports to reward winning games.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

I'd say the both of you have pretty much wrapped it up :laugh:


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

depends on your point of veiw of the points, you can see them as soft scoring or you can see them as getting ahead of the pack, the way i see it you can rack up 23 points before you have even rolled a dice, how is that a bad thing?, thats a win and bit in the bag just for doing what you should be doing anyway? as for comparisons, its not acceptable for a sports team to show up without the correct kit for a match, but plenty of wargamers are perfectly ok turning up with unpainted models, maybe if you look at the painting points as automatic and if you turn up unpainted you have been penalized by loosing the points rather than gaining them because you did what you should have done anyway.


----------



## Calamari (Feb 13, 2009)

I'm part of the TO group at the Giants Lair (yeah, shameless plug, google it!) and we don't use soft scores in our tournaments. Painting and sportsmanship go into seperate categories from the main standings. We do have a slight soft scoring system in that we have penalties in place for people that don't have their list in on time for checking and/or have it in a format that isn't in our rules pack. The reason for this is that our first big event was a nightmare for list checking. Between 5-6 of us it took 18 hours total to check all the lists. The Northern Warlords GT heat has a slightly different system where they offer bonus points to players that have their lists in on time and so on. This punishes/rewards a player's organisation and cuts down on the TO's admin which leaves more time for other event related stuff and stops us from tearing our hair out in the build up to the day.

Those "soft scores" have their place and have to have an impact on the standings for them to actually work. The painting and sportsman ship ones don't belong in the main list for exactly the reasons you said. Even the "must be 3 colours and based" rule should be enforced as either disqualification or removing the offending models and not some half arsed and completely subjective method that will almost always leave someone disgruntled by the arbitrary decision.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The rules of the tournament are there for all to see. If you don't like the scoring set up then don't play in it.

You could always lobby the TO to have the situation changed, if enough object then the tourney can become a fest of dull grey.

The tournies in my area tend to play down the painting aspect so that shit plying uber painters don't win all the time. Everyone gets the average painting score as a minimum.

"So why do our tournaments feel the need to grade you on your painting and behaviour?
No other sporting or gaming event does this. What if football tournaments gave points out for "Grace and Aesthetic Appeal"? What if athletics gave out points for "Being a really nice guy"? Can you imagine?"

Ever heard of a "Best and Fairest" award ?

How do you think an NRL team would get on if their strip wasn't washed, or was torn or they all just wore what ever shorts they wanted ?

I'll tell you, they would forfeit any points from the game.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> thats a win and bit in the bag just for doing what you should be doing anyway? as for comparisons, its not acceptable for a sports team to show up without the correct kit for a match, but plenty of wargamers are perfectly ok turning up with unpainted models, maybe if you look at the painting points as automatic and if you turn up unpainted you have been penalized by loosing the points rather than gaining them because you did what you should have done anyway.


Kind of.  I view:

- Arriving on time
- Submitting your list on time and in the correct format
- Having a painted army and dice etc
- Being friendly to your opponent

As being the basic minimum requirements to allow you into the tournament at all. So why affect the outcome of the tournament on those factors? Why not just say "Sorry, if you don't follow the rules we disqualify/penalize you"? In the same way you don't routinely reward your child for basic civilized behaviour, you shouldn't reward the fundamentals of attending an organised event; it should be implicit.

And painting points are hardly automatic, depending on how stringent the TO feels like being. I've heard a firsthand account of a tourney in England where you got points for WYSIWYG *but* to get all the points you had to have things like every single Marine wearing grenades somewhere on their person, because that's the equipment they have in the codex entry. The result was that only people local to the club (or had been before to one of their events) knew about the rule and had bothered to comply with it at the model building stage, ergo tilting the table in their favour from the get-go.

Likewise if I'm not an amazing painter (I do good tabletop standard, but I wouldn't call myself an artist) then I can easily miss out on some of "details" that are awarded points by judges.

So to follow your suggestion of having the painting points as default, how about you simply imposed a sanction of "For every unpainted or unbased model in your army, you lose 1pt"? That way, so long as your army is finished (no matter the standard) you're on a level playing field, and don't need to panic about that one guy you forgot to highlight.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> The rules of the tournament are there for all to see. If you don't like the scoring set up then don't play in it.
> 
> You could always lobby the TO to have the situation changed, if enough object then the tourney can become a fest of dull grey.


As I said in my first post: Bollocks. Please re-read it. 




Magpie_Oz said:


> Ever heard of a "Best and Fairest" award ?
> 
> How do you think an NRL team would get on if their strip wasn't washed, or was torn or they all just wore what ever shorts they wanted ?
> 
> I'll tell you, they would forfeit any points from the game.


No, I haven't. Because I couldn't really care less about Team Sports. I assume it's some kind of "Man of the Match" award for being a good participant? I'm not saying "Don't have a painting score" or "Don't have a sportsmanship score". I'm saying to segregate it from the scores obtained by actually winning games.

To use your example, an NRL team wouldn't get any points if they turned up wearing whatever, but on the other hand, does a judge compare their handsomeness, tans, shiny white teeth and immaculately ironed clothing to the other team, and decide to award a Try to the team who is best presented before the game begins? No. Because although you need to wear a uniform to compete, the competition isn't about who is best dressed, it's about who plays the game better.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Sethis i wasnt really talking specifics just pointing out that you can veiw the points awarded for painting in a different way, but yes you could penalize people for unpainted armies or as the tourney organiser your could kick a player in the nuts for every unpainted model, but essentially the desired outcome is the same what ever method you use, which is to stop people turning up with grey models which for many players is a huge turn off to play against, but as people tend to pay a fee to enter these things its not really good for business to disqualify or deduct points from a person paying to play, however if you offer them the chance to get there army ready and list up to scratch prior and reward them for doing so your more likely to get a good return of spending players.

But hey whats it really matter, there are strong feelings both for and against but ultimately if your in the tourney the rules are the same for all entrants, if your not a strong painter and you feel unduly penalized talk it over with the TO or dont enter.

personally i agree that painting should be a requirement for entry but not carry any weight when it comes to competitive play and results.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Sethis said:


> As I said in my first post: Bollocks. Please re-read it.


What is bollocks is reading the rules for a tournament, entering the tournament and then complaining about how the tournament rules work. 

Create a tournament that doesn't give points for painting and sportsmanhip. The whole point of putting those things in is to make the competition open to a wider sector of the hobby community. 

If you want an exclusive "Combat Only" tournament then, like I said, make one.




Sethis said:


> No, I haven't. Because I couldn't really care less about Team Sports.


Then why mention it?



Sethis said:


> I'm not saying "Don't have a painting score" or "Don't have a sportsmanship score". I'm saying to segregate it from the scores obtained by actually winning games.
> 
> To use your example, an NRL team wouldn't get any points if they turned up wearing whatever, but on the other hand, does a judge compare their handsomeness, tans, shiny white teeth and immaculately ironed clothing to the other team, and decide to award a Try to the team who is best presented before the game begins? No. Because although you need to wear a uniform to compete, the competition isn't about who is best dressed, it's about who plays the game better.


That's because you can't compete at all if your uniform doesn't meet a particular presentation standard.

That is what it is all about. Tournament organisers want to present their competition as something with a degree of prestige some thing to be proud to be associated with. However so as to not lock out the hobby to new starters or less advanced painters they make it a sliding scale so everyone has a chance rather than just "not good enough, your not allowed" which is how a great many other sporting events works.

Case in point. Before this hobby I used to participate in Motorsport, specifically very small time Rally Cross. Before each race my car was examined for safety and presentation. If either wasn't up to standard I simply was not allowed to compete, END OF. Letters to big, undercoat showing, DIRTY (from last event), you got time out of your allowed maintenance time to fix it or see ya. 

Also if I stopped on the course to help another competitor I received a time bonus, not so I would win but so that I wasn't disadvantaged by helping out someone else.

They are all just basic methods by which we move a competition away from WAAC and more into a fun time for all.

There is nothing soft about getting points for spending HOURS painting you army to look fantastic.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> What is bollocks is reading the rules for a tournament, entering the tournament and then complaining about how the tournament rules work.
> 
> Create a tournament that doesn't give points for painting and sportsmanhip. The whole point of putting those things in is to make the competition open to a wider sector of the hobby community.
> 
> If you want an exclusive "Combat Only" tournament then, like I said, make one.


I can't seem to rephrase myself so that you understand me. This isn't about what tournaments *I* choose to go to - it's about the entire global tournament scene and why I think it's flawed on a basic level. For example having a painting score doesn't make the competition open to a wider sector of the hobby community, if anything it just penalises people who aren't as good at painting as someone else. If we were talking about painting competitions, then fine. But we're not. We're talking about gaming competitions. It's exactly the same as saying "Adding a gaming tournament to determine the winner of Golden Demon would open it to a wider selection of the hobby community" which is pure nonsense.



> Then why mention it?


You mentioned it... not me. :dunno: I was just saying it would be ridiculous if the winners of a major sporting event (team or otherwise) were determined not by winning at the sport, but by how well tailored their uniforms were.



> That's because you can't compete at all if your uniform doesn't meet a particular presentation standard.


Exactly. And our minimum standard should be "three colours, based".



> However so as to not lock out the hobby to new starters or less advanced painters they make it a sliding scale so everyone has a chance rather than just "not good enough, your not allowed" which is how a great many other sporting events works.


If you can't manage three colours and based, then I'm happy with not allowing you to compete. What I disagree with is giving someone bonus points because they've been painting for 25 years compared to someone who just started, and allowing those points to affect the results obtained by winning games.



> Case in point. Before this hobby I used to participate in Motorsport, specifically very small time Rally Cross. Before each race my car was examined for safety and presentation. If either wasn't up to standard I simply was not allowed to compete, END OF. Letters to big, undercoat showing, DIRTY (from last event), you got time out of your allowed maintenance time to fix it or see ya.


That's what I'm saying. Three colours, based, or no-go.



> Also if I stopped on the course to help another competitor I received a time bonus, not so I would win but so that I wasn't disadvantaged by helping out someone else.


That's why we have a sportsmanship award, seperate and distinct from the tournament winner, with seperate prize support.



> There is nothing soft about getting points for spending HOURS painting you army to look fantastic.


No, I appreciate it's something that takes dedication and skill. That's why we have painting competitions. That's how you seek reward for doing a good job with painting, not by entering a gaming tournament.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

The way we do things around here is pretty fun, and fair. We have points you accumulate through the games themselves (margin of victory, etc), a different score for painting (determined by the judges/to in between matches when your army is on display), and finally for sportsmanship, after each match you rate your opponent, those get added up at the end. First and second place is determined by battle points, obviously. Best appearance and best sportsman are completely separate , and 1st/2nd place can't win either award. It spreads out the prizes, and gives people who had a bad round or whatever a chance to walk away with something.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Sethis said:


> I can't seem to rephrase myself so that you understand me. This isn't about what tournaments *I* choose to go to - it's about the entire global tournament scene and why I think it's flawed on a basic level. For example having a painting score doesn't make the competition open to a wider sector of the hobby community, if anything it just penalises people who aren't as good at painting as someone else. If we were talking about painting competitions, then fine. But we're not. We're talking about gaming competitions. It's exactly the same as saying "Adding a gaming tournament to determine the winner of Golden Demon would open it to a wider selection of the hobby community" which is pure nonsense.



So start your own that have different rules.
You believe that tournies are about gaming only, that does not seem to be the view of tournament organisers the world over.
The painting component of tournies are there for quite valid reasons.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

I have multiple issues with soft scores.

To start with- painting is inherently unfair because of commission painting. The fact that a player can literally pay someone else to contribute what is often a significant amount to other their score defeats the purpose of the tournament in the first place- it becomes less about the person who owns the army, when they can get a boost as high as 20%, purely based on whether they could afford a commission. You can't really try to ban commission painted armies either, as that would be next to impossible to enforce without having unscrupulous honesty on the part of multiple parties who have every reason to be dishonest.

Sports is also a farce, no other competitive game/sport/event has such a pussyfooted way of dealing with poor sportsmanship. Every other event will happily boot you if you're a poor sport, but for some reason 40k has opted for a system that not only fails to guarantee good behaviour, but actually gives poor sports a method of getting ahead in the form of "chipmunking" or "sports sniping".

And let's not even talk about the C word...

Anyways, luckily my club holds monthly tournaments that basically get around these issues. Zero sports, and painting is a separate competition- actual tournament placings are determined by 100% battle. It generally attracts some pretty strong local players, usually having around half the NSW ATC team there. If you're ever in Sydney, Australia Sethis, we'd absolutely love to have you along .


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

And there we have it. If you don't like it just play it your own way.

I have to say it is a pretty sad individual who has to pay a commission to win points in a gaming tournament or what ever the fuck chipmunking is, for the good sportsman awards. 

Pretty much missing the point all round I reckon.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> And there we have it. If you don't like it just play it your own way.
> 
> I have to say it is a pretty sad individual who has to pay a commission to win points in a gaming tournament or what ever the fuck chipmunking is, for the good sportsman awards.
> 
> Pretty much missing the point all round I reckon.


Tons of people do it. I've been to several events where the top tables have largely been painted by one or two guys. One or twice a TO has asked a prominent local commission painter to judge painting at his event- and the guy has ended up marking like 5 armies he painted personally. That said, I doubt most people who have armies commission painted to so with the sole intention of getting ahead in a tournament- but it is a very happy side bonus, and it is unfair.

Chipmunking, or sports sniping, is where you deliberately give an opponent a bad sports score in order to harm their chances of making the top tables, regardless of how good a sport they actually were. It's not a very common occurence, but it does happen, and is generally done by the exact kind of people that sports scores are supposed to vet out- it's a stupidly counterintuitive system. It's sad, but it happens.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Like I said, totally missing the point.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

I'm also against soft-scores, master painters don't go to gaming tournaments to be awarded for painting, they to painting tournaments, gaming tournaments are to award good gaming, not good painting or small talk, a Nate minimum of painting is not harse, it's normal in sports, same with booting out or punishing dicks, you can reward your prince Charles, which is fine, but you should keep it separate
In a tounament I go to, they award you points for fluff as well and to have large portions of the points given by personal opinions is just wrong in gaming events, that TO doesnt think your squads look different enough because their both blue? Points should not be deducted.
You should not award basic behaviour or requirements, you should punish sub par ones though, and keep none relevant scores separate


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

coke123 said:


> If you're ever in Sydney, Australia Sethis, we'd absolutely love to have you along .


In all seriousness, give me a year or two.  I'm currently building up my CV as an outdoor activity instructor with the ultimate aim of getting a job in NZ, Aus, Canada or USA once i have enough qualifications. Of those places, Aus seems to have the best tournament circuit.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

I think WHW events have a pretty good system with most of there softer events, they don't have sportsmanship points they just have an awars that they give out and they only give out if one someone goes up to them and say 'this guy was really polite, friendly etc.' and it is generally the painting which splits all the players who win all there games (as there are generally a lot of them), if in a tournament everyone plays everyone then painting scores become unfair because it is eady to find who is the best. 

You may be asking well why not use VP to distinguish but the scoring for the 6th ed games types can vary from a max of 6 pts in one game (Relic) to 18 in other (like the scouring) so person X can win the relic and lose the scouring and have a total VP of say 10 whereas it could be the other way around and you have 16 VP. Some tourneys put winners against winners but this won't solve that probelm because you could win but have a huge range of different VP results, and it would just depends who you are put up against (whether it is someone who is of equal skill or is just starting out) as to whether you get more VP or not.

The player is the person who controls how well they paint or whether they win or not, but the victory points per game depends on the scenarios played and who they are put up against). As I said WHW have a very good system and the painting is split up into several categories worth 3 pts (may be wrong) and they are, basing, sqaud markings, leader, appearance as a whole and something else I can't remeber, this gives you a maximum of 15pts and the games can get you 30pts and in softer tourney's this doesn't really matter because if you have an amazingly painted army you could be put against 3 grand tournament finalists and lose all your games. But it more competitive tourneys this amount of points is brought right down to balance it.

I do though completely agree with the having your list in on time points as its not a skill as to whether you can give it in, anyone can do it, it justs speeds things up for the TOs and makes the tourny run more smoothly .


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

I think WHW events have a pretty good system with most of there softer events, they don't have sportsmanship points they just have an awars that they give out and they only give out if one someone goes up to them and say 'this guy was really polite, friendly etc.' and it is generally the painting which splits all the players who win all there games (as there are generally a lot of them), if in a tournament everyone plays everyone then painting scores become unfair because it is eady to find who is the best. 

You may be asking well why not use VP to distinguish but the scoring for the 6th ed games types can vary from a max of 6 pts in one game (Relic) to 18 in other (like the scouring) so person X can win the relic and lose the scouring and have a total VP of say 10 whereas it could be the other way around and you have 16 VP. Some tourneys put winners against winners but this won't solve that probelm because you could win but have a huge range of different VP results, and it would just depends who you are put up against (whether it is someone who is of equal skill or is just starting out) as to whether you get more VP or not.

The player is the person who controls how well they paint or whether they win or not, but the victory points per game depends on the scenarios played and who they are put up against). As I said WHW have a very good system and the painting is split up into several categories worth 3 pts (may be wrong) and they are, basing, sqaud markings, leader, appearance as a whole and something else I can't remeber, this gives you a maximum of 15pts and the games can get you 30pts and in softer tourney's this doesn't really matter because if you have an amazingly painted army you could be put against 3 grand tournament finalists and lose all your games. But it more competitive tourneys this amount of points is brought right down to balance it.

I do though completely agree with the having your list in on time points as its not a skill as to whether you can give it in, anyone can do it, it justs speeds things up for the TOs and makes the tourny run more smoothly .


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Most tourney lists are just copy and paste from internet forums and at the moment the majority of strong army lists are more about who can throw the most money at new models and codexes.
How can you say which player deserves to win based purely on tactics and results when there is such disparity between different army books.
Soft scores mean that players have to put at least something into army creation instead of just picking a list from the forum of their choice paying a fortune for flyer spam and walking over whatever army is put in front of them.
Sportsmanship scores make players realise that social skills are important too far to many players seem to think that they can act like they do on faceless internet forums and treat others without even common curtesy in there desperate need for a win with toy soldiers making a veneer of civility matter at least tempers some of the rudeness.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I'm sorry, but neither Sportsmanship scores nor Painting awards help to avoid dickheads with too much money winning tournaments, because if you can afford to buy 5+ flyers, you can afford to get your army comission painted, and so long as you're not a total mong, you won't at least get penalties to your score on the sportsmanship front.

Of course, you could be a good painter, a nice guy, and happen to have lots of money to spend. In which case you're getting a leg up on all three fronts instead of just one. Again, a good argument against their inclusion.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

So basically which ever way you look at it tournaments are shit?


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

Depends on what you want from the games you play if your a beer and pretzel player just happy to throw dice around with your mates then generally yes there shit as your forced to play random people many of who are the complete opposite of you.
If you like competative play then you may enjoy the tourney scene as you'll probably come up against some decent tough competition unfortunately in my experience you'll also meet a fair few dicks with bare minimum social skills which makes the hour or so your playing them an irritation rather than an extension of a fun weekend.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

neilbatte said:


> Depends on what you want from the games you play if your a beer and pretzel player just happy to throw dice around with your mates then generally yes there shit as your forced to play random people many of who are the complete opposite of you.
> If you like competative play then you may enjoy the tourney scene as you'll probably come up against some decent tough competition unfortunately in my experience you'll also meet a fair few dicks with bare minimum social skills which makes the hour or so your playing them an irritation rather than an extension of a fun weekend.


If you're a beer 'n' pretzels guy, I would suggest that tournaments probably aren't the event for you. Look for a campaign weekend instead, you'll enjoy yourself much more at a non-competitive event.

In my experience, most people are pretty well mannered at competitive events; there's only ever been one or two people I've encountered that are legitimately either cheats or aggressive. The vast majority of people are fine, and frankly you're quite likely to come up against dicks outside of a tournament- that's not an element of competitive 40k, it's a part of life. The only difference is in how you decide to handle them- you can either let it get to you, or you can proceed to utterly manhandle their cut-n-paste army that they have no idea how to play.

I recommend the second option.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> So basically which ever way you look at it tournaments are shit?


I'd take it as a courtesy if you didn't try to inaccurately paraphrase my point of view into a single perjorative phrase. 

I'm simply giving my reasons as to why I believe Painting and Sportsmanship scores do nothing but harm the international tournament scene when combined with scores from gaming to determine a winner.


----------



## Hydraulix (May 5, 2013)

I fail to see how soft scoring really changes the score so severely that people are that upset about it. If its part of the tournament rules then its part of the rules. You might as well complain about people spamming lists built by pro players that other people steal cause they didn't make them themselves if you want to complain about commission painting. If you don't have time to learn to paint your models to a high standard, you could just as easily claim its unfair cause you don't have time to practice the game enough. It seams like an easy thing to get around... you get X number points for something that you are already doing... YEHA! Oh, you didn't do these basic things that are expected? Well you miss the free points... 

And as far as people being dicks or not, I think if someone was being a true dick he would get kicked out. The award is there for that guy that keeps the places mood good while everyone is stressing out over rules. I have a guy that does that in my Army unit. If someone is being an outright ass then he gets a stern lecture, that's completely different from what the award is for.

Just my 2cents, Felt like magpie was all alone so i tried to give him a look out sir.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Sethis said:


> I'd take it as a courtesy if you didn't try to inaccurately paraphrase my point of view into a single perjorative phrase.


Well let me recap it for you then.



Sethis said:


> I'm sorry, but neither Sportsmanship scores nor Painting awards help to avoid dickheads with too much money winning tournaments, because if you can afford to buy 5+ flyers, you can afford to get your army comission painted, and so long as you're not a total mong, you won't at least get penalties to your score on the sportsmanship front.


So you're saying that Tournaments are won by dickheads with too much money who buy an unbeatable army, win the painting comp by paying someone else to do the work and are able to avoid being a total mong.

Ergo tournies are total shit because they are not "... a chance to compete for a prize, by being the best player there, with the measure of "best player" being determined by how many games you win, and how much you win each game by. " but rather, by your own definition, a comparative measure of one's wallet.

So a tournament is basically pointless and you may as well just turn up with your income tax return.

To my mind the way around all of this is to insist on fluff based armies which removes the power builds and hence the income disparity, but of course that is the complete antithesis of your average "competitive players".



Hydraulix said:


> Just my 2cents, Felt like magpie was all alone so i tried to give him a look out sir.


Cheers mate, sadly I'm not that special so it's 4+ only for me.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

I had a proper weirdo at an event I was at that was not only aggressive, he felt he should show me his wolf tatoos on his chest every 10 minutes sying how he was a proper space wolf as he was drinking a beer or two... except he forgot his space wolf army so had to borrow a friend's salamanders...

I think soft scoring should be included but it should be so many points that it lets someone who only won 2 games beat someone who won all 3, but more as a tie breaker thing


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

LOL, how does one go to an event and forget your army !!!!! ?????


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

I have absolutely no idea, I think he was staying at his friend's the night before and forgot to bring his army with him, but I was still scared of the guy, he had this really weird 'man shake' which is a weird handshake but you grab their wrists but he crushed my whole arm...


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> So you're saying that Tournaments are won by dickheads with too much money who buy an unbeatable army, win the painting comp by paying someone else to do the work and are able to avoid being a total mong.
> 
> Ergo tournies are total shit because they are not "... a chance to compete for a prize, by being the best player there, with the measure of "best player" being determined by how many games you win, and how much you win each game by. " but rather, by your own definition, a comparative measure of one's wallet.


No, I was replying to Neilbattes stance which was "Soft scoring helps to prevent it" - I don't believe it does. I'll steadfastly defend the point that a good player with a mediocre list can easily beat someone with a top tier net list who has no idea how to play. Ergo skill matters, therefore tournaments are not just a measure of your money and are, by extension, not shit.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Sethis said:


> No, I was replying to Neilbattes stance which was "Soft scoring helps to prevent it" - I don't believe it does. I'll steadfastly defend the point that a good player with a mediocre list can easily beat someone with a top tier net list who has no idea how to play. Ergo skill matters, therefore tournaments are not just a measure of your money and are, by extension, not shit.



That's not what you said before

"dickheads with too much money winning tournaments, because if you can afford to buy 5+ flyers," that reads to me like if you can afford to buy 5+ flyers then nothing else matters.

If a good player with a mediocre list can beat a no hoper with a top list then it seems that a mediocre player with a bucket of cash can field a list that will beat even the "best". 
So cash becomes a skill multiplier and really what is being compared.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

Hydraulix said:


> I fail to see how soft scoring really changes the score so severely that people are that upset about it. If its part of the tournament rules then its part of the rules. You might as well complain about people spamming lists built by pro players that other people steal cause they didn't make them themselves if you want to complain about commission painting. If you don't have time to learn to paint your models to a high standard, you could just as easily claim its unfair cause you don't have time to practice the game enough. It seams like an easy thing to get around... you get X number points for something that you are already doing... YEHA! Oh, you didn't do these basic things that are expected? Well you miss the free points...


"Netlisting" isn't even really a thing- mostly because most "netlists" are so painfully obvious that anyone with more than two brain cells to bash together is capable of creating these netlists. The thought that people wouldn't have been able to come up with Cronair, Serpent Spam, Double Heldrake, IG mech, two Riptides + infantry, Flying Circus, or Bolter Banner armies is ridiculous. The people who seriously needed to copy these lists are generally new guys who don't understand how the game works, and hence can be easily outplayed.

However, 90% of the regular tournament scene is absolutely more than capable of coming up with these same general ideas, albeit with minor tweaks, so the comparison between people bringing already established archetypes and commission painting is nonsense- you're assuming that they couldn't have made their list without the help of another person, whereas with commission painting we KNOW they had to have someone else help them in order to bolster their score.

Being OK with commission paintjobs getting points in a tournament is more equivalent to having someone else play your games for you, and then you just come in afterwards to pick up your prizes- and I doubt most people would be OK with that.

And if you fail to see how soft scores often affecting around 30% of your tournament scores is worth being annoyed over, maybe you need to consider that people who want to have an event based around gameplay tend to be annoyed when something not relevant to gameplay is used to greatly affect their score.

If you go to a painting competition, no-one judges you based on how strong your model is in game. So why should a competition based around gameplay be subjected to a paint score?



Hydraulix said:


> And as far as people being dicks or not, I think if someone was being a true dick he would get kicked out. The award is there for that guy that keeps the places mood good while everyone is stressing out over rules. I have a guy that does that in my Army unit. If someone is being an outright ass then he gets a stern lecture, that's completely different from what the award is for.


You clearly don't get how sports scores typically work.

Yes, there is generally a best sports award. I don't think anyone in this thread has complained about there being a best sports award.

What people are saying they don't like is how the "1st place" or "Tournament Winner" award is often calculated. It generally has something like 60-70% Battle, around 20-30% Paint, and typically 10% comes from your sports score. People don't like that 10% of their overall placing comes from simply having to demonstrate that you're a decent human being, and that something like 20-30% comes from a section where you can literally pay to have it done for you via commission. Rather than have this bizarre system which is utterly open to being gamed by the very people it is supposed to punish, why not just boot people who are being problematic from the event? It's what literally every other competitive event ever conceived does.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Just my two cents, and I don't think anyone mentioned it.

Warhammer tournaments were traditionally put on by GW especially in the earlier days of the hobby. GW is in the business of selling miniatures and selling the hobby. Publicizing photos of poorly painted armies doesn't do much to advance the hobby as a whole.

Additionally, I don't believe GW have_ ever_ considered their hobby as designed for serious player competition. It isn't built to be a sport or to be played like a sport. The game by the necessities of production schedules and sales will never be totally competitive.

While I understand your frustration, Sethis, I think your thesis is based on an incorrect assumption. Soft scoring is only inappropriate if you accept that the purpose of the game is strict competition. I believe the makers of the game (from every era) would disagree, and the constraints of army books, models, player income, skill, and development cycles combine to make strict competition inherently unbalanced and something of a non-starter. GW TO's seem to have always wanted subjective qualities to their tournaments, in my opinion because the game itself isn't well suited to serious competition.

If one intended to make a tournament entirely competitive then I think your philosophy of meet X, Y, Z standards or forfeit your slot world have to be the way to go. And in order to make it equitable your TO's would need to have a _very_ clear and impartial system for judging wysiwyg, paint color/quality, and army list creation. And by very clear I mean writing a tournament rules packet with photo examples of correct models for visual and wysiwyg standards, as well as rubrics with detailed descriptions showing the grading appropriateness of entries including showing bad examples.

But as I said earlier, all of that seems . . . wasteful in an inherently unbalanced play environment.


----------



## Jonny B (Aug 22, 2013)

How do tournaments compare to something similar to Warhammer that isn't a sport? What's the closest tournament to a Warhammer tournament?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Jonny B said:


> How do tournaments compare to something similar to Warhammer that isn't a sport? What's the closest tournament to a Warhammer tournament?


Chess? 

It's pretty hard to compare across other genres or hobbies. 

Flames of war have a presentation and painting component.

The Infinity ITS tends to focus more of pure gameplay. They do require good sportsmanship but painting is optional. 

Privateer Press run much the same as Infinity.

GW Throne of Skulls has a fairly rigorous system of points based purely on gameplay and sportsmanship, however your army MUST be painted and based for you to compete. There are separate prizes and awards for a range of things that reward prowess on the table and skill with the brush or converting.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Kreuger said:


> Additionally, I don't believe GW have_ ever_ considered their hobby as designed for serious player competition. It isn't built to be a sport or to be played like a sport. The game by the necessities of production schedules and sales will never be totally competitive.


I'm not sure that most sports or games (Chess, Football, Skiing, Ice Skating, Rifle Shooting, whatever) were ever "Originally" designed for tournament play, however that doesn't prevent you from having competitions in those sports or games.

The thing is, I believe GWs stance of "We're aiming to sell to beer and pretzel gamers, so we don't need to write rules of sufficient quality to play tournaments" is fundamentally flawed in and of itself.

Who enjoys rules arguments? No-one. Even the most well natured, friendly and casual game can be slowed by imprecise wording and debate, and on the other end of the spectrum you've got "that guy" at your local club who cries/gets into screaming matches/becomes an asshole when you question his interpretation of the rules.

Because rules arguments are a not-fun part of the game, I believe that writing clear and concise rules doesn't just help equip 40k to be better suited for tournament play (therefore generating more revenue and promotion for GW with no investment on their behalf) but also benefits the target audience they claim to be aiming for - the casual player. However that's something of a digression from the topic at hand.

Regarding your actual point, that 40k is unsuited to rigorous competitive play, I believe in trying to ameliorate problems, instead of exacerbating them. If 40k isn't quite suited to tournaments, then skewing the results even _further_ with biased and subjective scores only damages the hobby more.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

I whole heartedly agree that more concise and clear rules benefits everybody. 

GW should probably have a team of actual lawyers and technical writers review the rules for consistency before release.

As for the fitness of 40k for competitive play . . . I generally agreed with you, but I think both perspectives have potential problems. The more subjective style hinges on using human judgement to preserve and ensure 'fun' while a more rigid system of scoring is more or less effective based on the current meta game and player resources. 

For instance, when relying on 'more' subjective criteria the validity and impartiality of the judging is of paramount importance. The main outcome is intended to be fun, and the secondary outcome is competition. At best it means that a skilled player who is a jerk is not rewarded for being a jerk. And at worst means that the TO's could be capricious or corrupt.

On the other hand, relying on a more strict, 'harder' scoring system means implicitly that while fun is intended the first desired outcome is competition. At best it means the best player wins, and at worst that the player with the newest, most powerful codex and the most money has a distinct advantage.


----------



## big rob (May 12, 2012)

Sethis, once again you totally impress me, and I am grateful for your thoughtful, quality effort here on a topic near and dear to my heart! I generally love blind tournaments, and used to sponsor them regularly, and participated regularly in ones I couldn't sponsor. I come down squarely in your camp, Sir! 

I hate painting and sportsmanship scores factoring into tournament winner scores. Now, I routinely had a separate award for best-looking army and runner-up, as well as best sportsman, and for the most bloodthirsty player, etc- yeah, you had to be around the San Francisco Bay Area scene to see it, but I always offered separate awards for all kinds of participation modes I wanted to reinforce and see regularly. I even had awards for people who made the best "Waaaagh" cry, and awards for most violent kill! Yeah, I was a true hard core gaming zealot, and still am to some degree, from time to time.

However, I take the view that in the end there can be only one, and always made my largest cash prize by far to the player who had the most wins, or prevailed in some kind of tie-breaker if records were the same. Painting and sportsmanship didn't factor into this award at all! 

Now, I love to see beautiful armies, and I much prefer that all participants be reasonably good sports, and gave cash awards accordingly for them, but the Lion's share of the prize money went to the winner, then a smaller amount to the runner-up, and a smaller amount still to the third place finisher.. People who were acclaimed good sports and had beautiful armies got smaller cash prizes.

I try now to find those types of tournaments out here. I stay away from tournaments where soft scores factor into determining a tournament champion.

Big Rob out....


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

The worst thing GW could ever do from their perspective is have clear consise rules. This thread alone show how it generates discussion.

GW tell us how to resolve things in a quick and fair manner. People will always ignore this and argue at the table regardless of how watertight the rules are.


----------



## big rob (May 12, 2012)

Oh, one more thing- whats this army composition scoring BS? I've seen tournament evaluation sheets having provision to evaluate your opponent's army list, mostly scoring on a 1 to 5 point scale! WTF?? Give me a break! So long as the lists are legal- and has been determined so beforehand by tournament staff- then just play your opponent! Too bad if you don't like the fact your army just got squashed by an army whose composition you don't like! Man up, warriors! If it was a legal list that just smashed your army, then just lick your wounds and learn your lessons! If I had a dollar for every time I saw or heard some crybaby complain in tournament play about his opponent's list, I would be retired now...... 

All's fair in love and war!


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I think the idea of list ratings is as a counter to the previously mentioned "money wins" problem. 

Someone might have the money for 5 flyers but if everyone marks them down because of it then it is kinda pointless.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Likewise, if somebody runs a killer army which violates either the spirit of the game or is obnoxiously min/maxed. Those are perfect times to take points for army construction.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Kreuger said:


> Likewise, if somebody runs a killer army which violates either the spirit of the game or is obnoxiously min/maxed. Those are perfect times to take points for army construction.


Guess you could throw in .... oh I dunno .... maybe a painting component to help with that too ? :shok: :wink:


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

If you to a football tourney, do you bitch and say that team are spammy dicks because they bring the best players? No
So why do you in 40k?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

kiro the avenger! said:


> If you to a football tourney, do you bitch and say that team are spammy dicks because they bring the best players? No
> So why do you in 40k?


They would if the team with all the good players had them because they have more money and can afford better training facilities or paid their players not to go to work so they could train more.

That is why top end football competitions have salary caps.

No one has a problem with being beaten by a better player but when they are beaten by a player who has an unfair advantage, that is a different story.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

And painting being 20% off your scores helps how?


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I just adds another dimension and makes it less about winning on the table is all.
It also makes for a better looking event.


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

But mobey bags over there gets another advantage with his commissioned painting


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

kiro the avenger! said:


> But mobey bags over there gets another advantage with his commissioned painting


So we're back to where we started :



Magpie_Oz said:


> So basically which ever way you look at it tournaments are shit?


----------



## kiro the avenger! (Nov 8, 2010)

Tourneys arent shit, just because money bags has more stuff than you, it's about tactics, gaming skills, not painting and small talk skills, those have their place
Gaming tourneys should judge gaming
Painting tourneys should judge painting
Simple, fair


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Throne of Skulls it is then.


----------



## big rob (May 12, 2012)

Light a candle instead of curse the darkness! 

If you build it they will come!

Early in my 40K gaming career I hated playing in tournaments where army comp, painting, sportsmanship, etc factored into determining the tournament champion. I quit going to those long ago, since I hate crybabies, sore losers and political assholes....

I started sponsoring my own tournaments in my area- I sponsored tournaments for years that were popular and fun, and attracted mostly like-minded gamers/warriors! Even in the tournaments I sponsored that were played in GW stores I often got GW store staff to chip in half the prize money from an entry fee they charged all participants. I never sponsored tournaments where sportsmanship, painting, army comp lists, etc factored into the tournament winner. I simply gave separate small cash prizes to those who painted well and were judged by peers as the best sports, etc. The tournament champion was determined simply on their overall record! Over time I got several co-sponsors from fellow players! A total win-win!

I no longer attend tournaments where such things as army comp, painting, etc are factored into determining a tournament champion. 

I always had a 'crybaby' rule however, and even in GW stores where some of my tournaments were conducted GW staff upheld it: If a participant cried too much about the unfairness of it all, was a total dick, thought he/she should get 'special consideration' due to lack of $ to build the army they wished they had, or otherwise undermined the tournament with appeals to 'soft score' namby-pamby crap, he/she was refunded their entry fee, and banned from any future Big Rob tournaments. It was invoked only once...

May we each support what we like, and join together to create what we mutually desire!

I am sure that throughout the 40K gaming universe we can self-select such that everyone on either side of this whole 'soft score' controversy finds or mutually creates their preferred tournament types!


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Actually Bob by the parameters set by the OP that isn't an opion



> "If you don't like it, just run your own tournament or go to ones that don't soft score"
> 
> Bollocks. This isn't about me, personally, it's about changing the opinions of people too lazy to do anything except mindlessly continue with the tradition of allowing your ability to paint to interfere with your ability to write good lists, play well with few mistakes on the day, evaluate matchups, and ultimately win games. Why are we the ONLY hobby or sport that insists on factoring a judges personal bias regarding what makes an aesthetically pleasing army into the outcome of a competitive event?"


----------



## big rob (May 12, 2012)

"Actually Bob by the parameters set by the OP that isn't an opion"

What is it you are trying to contribute to with that comment?

You lost me here, Magpie_Oz. I think you are trying to tell me that Sethis would rather not go my route of sponsoring/joining only tournaments where 'soft scoring' doesn't factor into determining tournament champions, but rather keep fighting/debating to change minds so that more and more players see it his way. I am sure Sethis will do what he is motivated to do, and I wish him well in changing minds on this issue. I feel the market, so to say, will respond to demand. There will be some on each side who stick with what they already like, and some will experiment before settling on the type of tournaments they want to participate in. I won't debate much more about it. Sethis may be a revolutionary, and I wish him complete success here!


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

If you read through the thread bob you'll see that one of my very early posts suggested pretty much what you too are suggesting.

Such suggestions have been wholly rejected.


----------



## big rob (May 12, 2012)

Happy gaming, Magpie_Oz.

Thanks for facilitating a useful discussion, Sethis.


----------



## Grins1878 (May 10, 2010)

Magpie_Oz said:


> If you read through the thread bob you'll see that one of my very early posts suggested pretty much what you too are suggesting.
> 
> Such suggestions have been wholly rejected.


He did actually suggest it big rob, it was dismissed by Sethis in post #7. Magpie said:



Magpie_Oz said:


> The rules of the tournament are there for all to see. If you don't like the scoring set up then don't play in it.
> 
> You could always lobby the TO to have the situation changed, if enough object then the tourney can become a fest of dull grey.


To which the reply said to re-read this bit:


Sethis said:


> "If you don't like it, just run your own tournament or go to ones that don't soft score"
> 
> Bollocks. This isn't about me, personally, it's about changing the opinions of people too lazy to do anything except mindlessly continue with the tradition of allowing your ability to paint to interfere with your ability to write good lists, play well with few mistakes on the day, evaluate matchups, and ultimately win games. Why are we the ONLY hobby or sport that insists on factoring a judges personal bias regarding what makes an aesthetically pleasing army into the outcome of a competitive event?


Magpie suggested exactly what you did, but was shot down. 

Was going to write more but you get the idea.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

As an FYI, that Q/A was more there to shut down the inevitable use of that response to invalidate the entire issue. Roughly equivalent in purely hypothetical analogy to saying "If you don't like racial segregation, start your own restaurant where you don't have it" without any attempt to actually engage with the topic of "Is racial segregation even a good thing to start with?".

That's just an example. Don't get all het up about it. I'm not claiming soft scores are in any way relative to racial discrimmination on an ethical scale.

Thanks for the support big rob, means a lot to me. Wish I had more regular internet access so I could keep the conversation flowing longer. The point was to generate debate and find out what the communities stance was. If a TO happens to read it and reconsiders how he scores his event in the way you've already done, then so much the better.


----------



## DarKKKKK (Feb 22, 2008)

I have personally yet to participate in an actual tournament, only big game day events where its just a free for all of playing 40k. Although I've been in enough tournament atmospheres to understand your argument. Hobby shops will always have different "add-on" or soft scoring rules depending on their history of hosting tournaments. One hobby shop I go to doesn't have much of the soft scoring in their rules, where as another does because there had been problems in the past with overly-competitive players, so they wanted to reward the players with good sportsmanship. There is even one hobby shop that has a store wide rule asking people to practice good hygiene. Yes its actually there because enough lazy slobs play in Friday card game night and all come together as if performing a ritual for Nurgle (we have learned to never go there on Friday nights :wacko: ).

Now as to your points, I agree with most of them. It does suck that you can work extremely hard practicing your tactics and reworking your list down to the last point and someone could beat you by a few points based on the Refs "opinion" of another players well painted army or sportsmanship. I think that painting should be judged in a painted army contest as just an add-on to the tournament and not part of the scoring for the games themselves. I personally haven't had much time to paint my army at all, even prime them. So in tournaments where a well-painted army affects my scoring, I'm already at a disadvantage. ALTHOUGH, it brings up my main point, Rewards vs Penalties.

As you mentioned, most sports these days go by the "punish with penalties" way of dealing with negative actions and behaviors. Which most of the time, because of the nature of the sport/game, it has to be that way. Your right, we can't give extra points to football players who make good clean tackles versus someone who still made the tackle, but wasn't as "perfect." Plus most tackles are done with multiple players tacking down one guy so figuring out those points would be.....well I'm trailing off, back to the main points. At its core, 40k is a HOBBY with the main 3 facets of Building, Painting, and Playing. Not to say it can't be competitive, it definitely can be, but playing the game isn't everything this hobby is about. 

Now think about it as a hobby store owner. Lets say you set the tournament rules like you want, negative consequences for negative actions a.k.a. penalties. The rules are set that it can eventually escalate to the player getting banned if their actions continue. Yes this can work, but no good comes of this system. A player gets penalized, argues about it for a bit, goes back to game frustrated. Maybe the player gets hit with another small infraction because of some bad sportsmanship, more arguing. Arguing can eventually lead to some tempers flaring and finally the thought of banning that player. That is a lose lose scenario. You have lost a player to your store, the other players in that community may have lost a player, and possibly that player is more likely to stop playing. 

With the current, more frequently used soft scoring, it provides positive reinforcement to the players. As I mentioned, I don't have a painted army, but if I think I'm going to participate in a tournament with soft scoring dealing with painting, I'm more likely to actually paint my army and have it look cool. I'll be more motivated to actually participate in all facets of the hobby itself. As well, from what I've been told, sportsmanship "points" or rewards are mostly decided on after the match or near the end of the tournament, whereas penalties are mostly done during a game. We all know if we were deducted points after the match because we said something insulting its going to become a giant argument of "he said - she said." Plus can you imagine getting penalties in the MIDDLE of your games. That can completely throw off your mind set and change your attitude for the night.

Overall, its definitely a good argument to bring up, but I think the common way hobby shops have been running tournaments with soft scoring is a lot more fun to play in than tournaments that would just penalize the players. It would just have a negative feel about it. Yes, the Refs still have the overall opinion of good/bad sportsmanship, but that comes down to your experience in that hobby shop and if you feel the Refs are trustworthy and unbiased in their decisions. If I were to run a tournament personally, I would have the tournament with a side painting contest and would reward good sportsmanship during the tournament with small prizes, BUT it still wouldn't factor into the final standings of the tournament. If someone becomes enough of a problem consistently during the tournament or in multiple tournaments, they will be dealt with.


----------



## big rob (May 12, 2012)

Sethis said:


> Thanks for the support big rob, means a lot to me. Wish I had more regular internet access so I could keep the conversation flowing longer. The point was to generate debate and find out what the communities stance was. If a TO happens to read it and reconsiders how he scores his event in the way you've already done, then so much the better.


You got it, Sethis! I understand you are trying to open a dialogue on a matter that has long been a source of friction among tournament organizers and attendees for many years, and hopefully your efforts here will get more hidebound adherents to soft scoring factoring into determining tournament champions to reconsider, and perhaps find the middle ground to make ALL tournament attendees happy, or at least focusing their anger and hostility towards their gaming opponent's army, and not on tournament organizers and whatnot. My way seems to have been pretty well received in my gaming circles for over a decade now, and in a way its simple to achieve the best of both perspectives on soft scoring: simply provide SEPARATE awards for each category or facet of gaming each tournament organizer cares to emphasize. At one point I had 10 different awards, but the biggest by far each tournament was the one for the winner; the one with the best W-L-T record. Thats what most of my fellow players thought the most worthwhile and desired! Let the free market decide!

Great discussion Sethis! I always look forward to your contributions!


----------

