Excellent, (in my best Montgomery Burns impersination!) After those well put round of comments taking both sides of the necessity of sportsmanship scores, I am now able to layout my master plan.
For this past tournament a win got you 15, a tie gave 10, a loss gave 5, with a possible 12 for sportsmanship. Score range 5 - 27! Regardless of any argument, this makes for a possible runaway tournament.
I think that Sportsmanship scores are necessary but there weight in the scoring should be decreased. In a 5-10-15 scoring scale, a MAX sportsmanship of 5 would balance things out. A loss with a good sportsmanship score would keep you in the tourney while a win with a bad sportsmanship would keep you from running away with the tourney but not keep you from winning it all if you take the next two games, (skulls!)
Another possible solution is an even lower sportsmanship MAX score with some sort of SACRIFICIAL scoring system. Ill give you a MAX of 3 sportsmanship and I will give another bonus 3 points that will be deducted from my score. If he is that good of an opponent, prove it! If no one gives the bonus three, and that is likely, then the 3 base sportsmanship score that everyone has will cancel each other out. If you get tanked, or if you get upset and tank the other person in a bad decision that you regret later, than the 3 points will most likely not have a large impact on the tournament. A little, but not a lot.
These are just some ideas I had in my head. If you think these are bad ideas to an old problem then by all means show me how stupid I am in public and not in a private email. But please leave your address so we can talk in person ;)
7 comments:
I wish the score was not a score but a check list.
- Did your opponent act in a respectful manner
- Did your opponent play at an expectable pace
- Did your opponent attempt to follow the spirt of the rules
- Did your opponent listen to any concerns you had
- Did your opponent win or lose graciously
Five check boxes 5pts or 2pts each and 10pts
This gives you definitive criteria to rate and more importantly challenge the score. If someone tanks you a Judge can come over and over rule on a bad score because it is not mostly quantifiable.
Ash
Love your blog, I run CSM Black Legion and love them. Though I only run one Lash and a Khorne Lord for a mixed bag of tricks. I find that you can deal with the screaming berserkers in the Land Raider or the Lash with the Oblits raining Plasma Hell. But not both, at least not both effectively.
Keep up the posts I read (Watch) everyone of them.
First off, I can not believe that sportsmanship was worth almost as much as a massacre! If you think that sportsmanship is a necessary component of 40k that is okay, no one wants to play a jerk. However, sportsmanship should not account for that large a portion of your score. I had always believed that 40k was a game of tactics….maybe I am wrong.
I do believe that lowering the overall points awarded for sportsmanship is probably a good idea. Additionally, I am a strong believer that a rubric should be used: (1) Opponent show up on time – Yes = 1 pt, No = 0 pt; (2) Opponent Answer your questions about his army – Yes = 1 pt, No = 0 pt….etc, etc.
I think for an battle weighted all around tourni winner the scores should probably be something like 20 per game for like 3 games, 20-30 for total sportsmanship, 20-30 for painting. That way a tool without a painted army who wins all his games is not likely to win the event.
I do like the idea of the three categories having the same weight. But painting and Sportsmanship need to be quantifiable scores in order to have the same weight as your battle score.
Ash
wow 12 pts for sportsmanship?? thats absurd.
For a long time GW Canada had the Hall of Heroes kit, that gave a great outline for tournaments and we've always kind of stuck to a similar format.
Main battle results were between 5 and 15, then up to 5 given for sportsmanship, 3 for appearance and 3 for army selection (This has worked great for lessening the pure cheese lists)
The other thing you could suggest local tournaments do if they are use to the 12pt spread, is add one average sportsman score.
I think it's actually good that sportsmanship scores count for a lot (if you're going to have them at all), but it would be better to have a simpler system.
So, instead of 5 - 10 - 15 for lose - draw - win, plus 0-12 for sportsmanship, try 2 - 4 - 6 for lose - draw - win and 1-3 for sportsmanship.
This would reduce the warping effect of people trading 12s or crushing your chances 1ith an undeserved 0.
Eg. Good sport (most players) - the average 2 points. Horrible opponent = 1 point. Really great opponent = the full 3.
Here is what Dicehead Games in Chattanooga uses. They run great tourney's - this works out very well.
UPDATED SPORTSMANSHIP SCORING SYSTEM:
Possible Total of 10 Points per Game Played
o Did your opponent show up on time (or early)? 1 Point
o Did your opponent have all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army list, rules for their army, rules for the game)? 1 Point
o Did your opponent play their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)? 1 Point
o Did your opponent measure accurately for both model moves and shooting distances? 1 Point
o Did your opponent solve rules disputes by showing you the relevant passages in their rulebook (or, if that could not be found or remained confusing, was amicable about bringing over a Rules Judge)? 1 Point
o Was your opponent's army easy to understand with clear conversions or completely WYSWIG? And did they point out anything not WYSWIG (example: a power fist that is on the model, but not paid for in the points)1 Point
o Do you think your opponent built an army based on the theme of the relevant gaming universe and supplied background for that army (as opposed to a force built purely for winning with little or no regard to that army's established background)? 1 Point
o Was your opponent of good humor and amicable when not concentrating on strategy or planning out moves (this does not mean they put on a one man circus for you, but rather was not angry/grumbling/complaining/obtuse during your game)? 1 Point
o Was your opponent helpful in explaining correct rules, explaining how their army works? 1 Point
o Win or lose, was this person the type of opponent you look forward to playing again? 1 Point
PLEASE NOTE: If any of these topics did not apply to your game (no rules questions, etc., then you should still give your opponent points for that topic!)
Post a Comment