NAF World Headquarters
Strategy and Tactics - Stalling turns before scoring
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 09:29 AM
Post subject: Stalling turns before scoring
Just wondering what people think about someone standing one square away from the endzone to kill turns while they know the other team cannot reach them.
Someone (very well known and NAF ranked high) did that to me at a recent tournament. He then decided to score after standing there for 3 turns, and he left me one turn left in the first half. He said, "you can't score in one turn, so I'll score now". I did try to reach him as well but he had my guys blocked out pretty good, not to mentioned many KO's on that drive.
I gave him the lowest possible sportsmanship points. He didn't violate any rules, but I don't feel it's very good sportsmanship.
Jon
Mordredd - Nov 15, 2004 - 10:15 AM
Post subject:
This has been pretty much done to death in the "Shamefull way to win a match...? " thread (with poll) in this section. Have a read through it; it's only 4 pages long...
Spazzfist - Nov 15, 2004 - 10:18 AM
Post subject: Re: Stalling turns before scoring
jpeletis wrote:
I gave him the lowest possible sportsmanship points. He didn't violate any rules, but I don't feel it's very good sportsmanship.
And this is where the whole subjectivity of the sportsmanship score really starts to show. To give this individual the lowest score just because he did that, I think is extreme. You even said yourself that he didn't violate any rules and that you felt it wasn't very sporting - but was it very "unsportsmanlike"?.
I agree that I do not like it very much, but remember that we do go to a tournament to win, and while it's nice to give the other guy a shot, why should you? I mean, if I am playing dwarves and my opponent is skaven, you're damn right I am going to delay if possible - that is only sound tactics! The skaven score too damn quickly!
You have to consider the strengths of each team. If you are a poundy slow team (like dwarves) then you do want to score slowly and cause lots of injuries on the way. Wood elves and skaven aren't very good at this because as they delay they also tend to get a lot more injuries.
If you don't like it then play halflings or goblins, as they can score in one turn if they have to.
To be honest it sounds like you were the one more deserving of the low sportsmanship score.
Spazz
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 11:09 AM
Post subject:
I disagree spaz. He played Wood Elves and I played Dark Elves. He got a catcher to the end and realisticly I could not get to him with some 6 MA lineman left. The tournament ranked your four games for sportsmanship. I gave him 4th out of 4. My top game was against a great sportsman and we had a blast playing, and my next two were good all around fun games. This opponent took last. It wasn't that fun, not becuase I lost, but because the way I lost.
He played a fast team and could have realistically gotten the back and scored again in those other 3 turns.
I understand playing to win, but that just plain sucks. If you did it to me, I'd give you crappy sportsman scores too. This is a game based on pushing little metal guys around. You can't take that too seriously.
And you say I was deserving of the low sportsman score? I don't see it. I'm a good sport win or lose and don't pull shady things like that.
I've been playing blood bowl since 1992, so I'm not a newbie either.
Mordredd, thanks for the post, I'll check it out.
Spazzfist - Nov 15, 2004 - 11:52 AM
Post subject:
Well your first post was vague on a couple of those points. For example, I did not know what your team and his team were.
Also I was not aware that there was a ranking system in place for the Sporsmanship score so that one person had to be 4th place, and because of that it was him. To my mind (as I have seen most other tourneys played this way) sportsmanship scores are awarded each game with a possible score of 1 - 4 depending on how they behaved in that particular game. I thought that this was the case and you gave him a 1 just because he stalled. To me that looked like you were giving him a real kick in the head for a relatively small thing (when compared to throwing models, tantrums and cheating). This was why I said you were the poor sport.
But I still hold to the point that people would do it. I guess you have to weigh out how much does the overall win mean to you? For some people their NAF rankings, the opportunity to win a tournament, etc, is very important, and sure they will stall.
Little metal models or not - people do take it seriously. I mean look at chess!
Spazz
LouisX - Nov 15, 2004 - 11:59 AM
Post subject:
I hate it. I did it. I whipped myself for doing it. 
I sometime take a turn or 2 when I have a good position to get some casualties. But usually, ball controlling isn't good when you're playing fast teams. You're loosing turns to score more TDs.
On the other hand, 3 turns isn't that bad. And dwarves can't really play otherwise...unless they're really beating you up.
another thing is that when your opponent leaves you with no other options than dodging 5+,5+,6+,2 dice against you and you make it, he can't complain
TuernRedvenom - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:09 PM
Post subject:
Nothing wrong with stalling IMHO. If you don't like it then put some pressure on the carrier so he can't afford to. Clock management is all part of the game, just like in the NFL.
Only time when I wouldn't do it is when I'm 2 td's up and the other guy is taking such a beating he can never come back in the game. But even then I would think it's fair (even tough I wouldn't do it myself).
Grumbledook - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:22 PM
Post subject:
bottom line is, he only was able to do that cause you didn't defend well/deep enough
if you havn't left someone back deep enough to cover for that why should he not take advantage of it?
now I will usually stall and give the other guy 2 turns to score, though i may think twice if its getting twards the business end of the tournament, or if they still have rerolls left
why should i let the other guy have a good chance of beating me when I am already outplaying him?
people moaning about stalling is the one thing that really winds me up about the game
I tihnk I have only been stalled against once in a tournament and that was by tim, purely because he got really lucky on his armour rolls, I rolled loads of skulls and I couldn't stop his cage. To his credit though he left me 2 turns to score back on him (which it turns out I managed) and I ended up beating him. If you aren't going to leave people back to defend your endzone, then expect to be out manouvoured, its not bad sportsmanship to use better tatics.
Mordredd - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:24 PM
Post subject:
LouisX wrote:
another thing is that when your opponent leaves you with no other options than dodging 5+,5+,6+,2 dice against you and you make it, he can't complain
Pretty much what happened to me 3 turns from the end of one game at Spikey, whilst going for a draw. Stopped me equalising too. @!#£$* Gutter Runners. 
Grasshopper - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:26 PM
Post subject:
"This is a game based on pushing little metal guys around. You can't take that too seriously. "
Well... maybe it's just me but, sounds like you're taking this a little too seriously as well, no?
Hoshi_Komi - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:33 PM
Post subject:
I'll stall one turn....on turn 7. because if I score...there's no way I can score again barring a blitz....
If I can score before turn 7, I'll take it. But usually when I play my khemri it takes me 8 turns to get down the pitch.
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:38 PM
Post subject:
No I'm not actually, I just asked what people thought of giving someone poor sportsmanship scores for stalling. To win at all costs in a table top board game is stupid. Especially when you meet someone for the first time. What a great impression. It's like "Hey buddy, I've read your posts for years on the internet and like what you had to say. Now that I finally played you, however, you resorted to lame stalling tactics to win. Nice job."
I love playing GW games. But it's just a game, meant to be played for fun and enjoyment. Why stall the game? I understand to win, but I don't want to win like that.
Grumbledook - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:44 PM
Post subject:
i disagree that stalling is lame though
i don't see that it has anything to do with sportsmanship, just like fouling, one turn scoring or anything else along those lines
like i said if you don't want someone to stall on you then stop them on the pitch
Aramil - Nov 15, 2004 - 12:52 PM
Post subject:
jpeletis wrote:
I understand to win, but I don't want to win like that.
For many teams that's THE way to win...
Stalling is a tactic like giving Very Long Legs+Sprint to a Gutter Runner... or giving Pass to a Troll in order to ReRoll a Throw Team Mate... The other person cannot do nothing against it... except playing in a better manner in order to avoid that situation
By the way... I play all the Elves teams... and I stall... like my friends with Chaos Dwarves or Dwarves or any other team... If I play, I try to win... it's not the only thing... I don't care to be the number 1 or 18.000... but if I play a game I try to win it... with all the fun possible for me and my opponent... but in a game with a winner and a loser, I try to be the winner, but I have nothing against being the loser (as I normally am ).
PS: Sportmanship points are wrong... they don't reveal the most sportman but can ruin the ranking of someone who do not deserve it... 
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 01:02 PM
Post subject:
I hear ya Aaramil. If I had a slow team, I would do it as well. And I guess I'll just have to live with that is how some people play.
On a side note. I do think Sportsmanship points given by oppoents are dumb. Subconsciously, other factors may pop into your head about your points for that person. You may have rolled bad, and even though you say that won't have a factor on your decision, maybe it does for some people.
I really don't think sportsmanship (or painting for that matter) should come into play in a tournament. Separate awards are great though for those things though. Maybe impartial judges monitoring the games for attitudes and behaviors or something, or sensing both coaches enjoyment factor. In some cases it's the other way around and all yoru games were against fantastic opponents, who do you penalize then?
Sorry for off topic, it just got me thinking.
Hoshi_Komi - Nov 15, 2004 - 01:24 PM
Post subject:
I think the Champion should not be influenced by painting or sportsmanship, but most tourneys have another award for Overall player which I think should include both.
IE..the Champion played the Best blood bowl at the tourney and had the best record. But the overall player embodied the spirit of the blood bowl community which is all encompassing which combines ALL the reasons we play this game 
Another reason for two day tourneys...the camraderie at a bar/pub drinking beers after a hard day of blood bowl
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 01:28 PM
Post subject:
Yes, overall is important I agree. If you at the top in all three, you should be recognized.
I wish I could paint better. 
Darkson - Nov 15, 2004 - 03:43 PM
Post subject:
Mordredd wrote:
LouisX wrote:
another thing is that when your opponent leaves you with no other options than dodging 5+,5+,6+,2 dice against you and you make it, he can't complain
Pretty much what happened to me 3 turns from the end of one game at Spikey, whilst going for a draw. Stopped me equalising too. @!#£$* Gutter Runners.
Seem to remember that one to!
Zombie - Nov 15, 2004 - 05:45 PM
Post subject: Re: Stalling turns before scoring
jpeletis wrote:
I gave him the lowest possible sportsmanship points. He didn't violate any rules, but I don't feel it's very good sportsmanship.
For me, it would be unsportsmanlike not to stall. Playing the game without doing everything in your power to win (i.e. holding back) makes for a dull game. The worst insult you could ever throw at me would be to score earlier just to give me a chance to score back. That would automatically get you the lowest sportsmanship score if you played against me, and bare in mind that i've never given the lowest sportsmanship score before.
What you did (i.e. giving him low sportsmanship because he played to win), now THAT'S unsportsmanlike!
Doubleskulls - Nov 15, 2004 - 07:26 PM
Post subject: Re: Stalling turns before scoring
If you believe your opponent's tactics are ruining your enjoyment of the game then its quite reasonable to give a low sportsmanship score.
TBH if you are that upset you should say to your opponent after the game that his tactics ruined your enjoyment of the game. Winning is not everything. We are playing for fun.
garth - Nov 15, 2004 - 07:28 PM
Post subject:
Hey, they regularly do this in the CFL/NFL to kill time. It's a legitimate tactic. No deep man? YOUR problem...
Doubleskulls - Nov 15, 2004 - 07:49 PM
Post subject:
garth wrote:
It's a legitimate tactic.
I don't think that's the question. I think the question is whether its reasonable to give low sportsmanship scores for it.
Spazzfist - Nov 15, 2004 - 08:03 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
garth wrote:
It's a legitimate tactic.
I don't think that's the question. I think the question is whether its reasonable to give low sportsmanship scores for it.
But I think the legitimacy of the tactic does speak to the question of how sportsmanlike it is to do it.
If the tactic is valid and for a good reason, then you should not be able to fault somebody for doing it. For example fouling a wardancer in the first half of a match. You would be stupid to let such an opportunity pass you by! If someone did this to me then I would expect it and not see a problem with his action.
However if the person was doing something that I did not feel was a legitimate tactic, then I would have a problem with it. For example, my casualty box is full, while his is bare and he still continue fouling me. That would suck, and I would like to let him know through a low Sportsmanship score.
So if the tactic is legit, then why penalize? If it is not, then nail 'em to the wall.
Personally, I treat stalling like fouling, I don't like doing it, but sometimes it is really your best strategy and needs to be done. I play to have fun above all else, but I also play to win.
Spazz
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 08:16 PM
Post subject:
Zombie said Quote:
What you did (i.e. giving him low sportsmanship because he played to win), not THAT'S unsportsmanlike!
Your opinion, but keep in mind, you cannot give someone low sportsmanship scores for giving someone low sportsmanship scores. That score is based on the how you felt your opponent played the game.
I feel stalling when you have a fast team like wood elves is cheap and a bullshite way to win. I gave him the score I felt matched the way he plays the game. My other three opponents played great and they were all fun and exciting games, I wish I could give all three of them the highest ranking I could, but unfortunately, I had to rank them 1 thru 4.
Also I keep hearing about what NFL football does. Last time I checked we are playing a tabletop board game based loosely on football. Enough with the comparing. Also, after NFL games, teams don't get to rate the sportsmanship of the other team. When you see Orcs and Elves take the field in the NFL, then we can say Blood Bowl and the NFL are really that similar.
garth - Nov 15, 2004 - 08:48 PM
Post subject:
Quote:
Also I keep hearing about what NFL football does. Last time I checked we are playing a tabletop board game based loosely on football. Enough with the comparing. Also, after NFL games, teams don't get to rate the sportsmanship of the other team. When you see Orcs and Elves take the field in the NFL, then we can say Blood Bowl and the NFL are really that similar.
jpeletis, aren't you a Bears fan?!?
I don't expect Blood Bowl to accurately recreate football exactly, of course. But why call it a "Fantasy Football" game if you don't use 'real' football as a baseline to understand the board game? Monopoly isn't supposed to be an accurate recreation of the world of real estate speculation, but the 'real' parts of the game help us relate. Personally, I love football. I don't play 40K or any other fantasy game -- I like football so I like Blood Bowl.
It's kinda like using 40K armies to recreate a historical battle, (such as the "Guns of Navarone" assault, even though there were no Eldar or Chaos there!) You use FACT to help you recreate the (fantasy) game. I'm sure Jervis, et al. looked at 'real' football (the North American kind) when they created this game, modified this game, and as they continue to revise it.
garth - Nov 15, 2004 - 08:58 PM
Post subject:
Check out the thread http://www.bloodbowl.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=479&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
It revisits the 'old' rules (from the 1990 Companion) that make the game MORE like football. No surprise -- I am playtesting a ruleset that works well with the newest edition (if possible). Soooooooooo, you can see why I have a tendancy to compare it to 'real' football...
Xtreme - Nov 15, 2004 - 09:21 PM
Post subject:
I haven't stalled in a tournament yet, but if given the oportunity I would stall if it was for a win, but I would never stall for a draw. It would be a very situational decision and how sure I was that I could stop my opponet from scoring.
As for it bieng sporting, I have no problem with it, it is a valid tactic IMO. As fouling sometimes frowned upon, to me its all part of the game.
Jonny_P - Nov 15, 2004 - 09:40 PM
Post subject:
Oh yeah, I am a big Bears fan! In fact I wish we could freeboot some Ogres on the team!
The main point I want to make is yes, it is a fair and legal tactic to stall. I just personally feel that it doesn't deserve top sportsmanship points to the person doing it, especially with a Wood Elf team. Sportsmanship points are subjective and that is a flaw in tournaments I believe.
TomB - Nov 16, 2004 - 04:00 AM
Post subject:
in my opinion i dont beleive any on feild antics should go towards the sportsmanship score. if you are a sore loser and dont enjoy losing then it is your problen. if you cant handle the fact you are being beaten so you decide to give someone low sportsmanship it is you who is the petty one.
I think it is possible to enjoy a game when your team is being decimated, your opponent is winning 1-0 and is purposefully putting as many players as he can in the injured box.
i think there is no point playing if you are not playing to win, otherwise the game will lack the passion and the energy, and will not be fun anyway.
every game i play i let my opponent know i am out to win, ok if im playing a newbie i will give him a chance, give him advice and let him off with missing the turn counter, but at the end of the day the 2nd game i play against him i will play to win at all costs.
Spazzfist - Nov 16, 2004 - 05:48 AM
Post subject:
jpeletis wrote:
The main point I want to make is yes, it is a fair and legal tactic to stall. I just personally feel that it doesn't deserve top sportsmanship points to the person doing it...
Okay then, but do you agree that a person should not be given lower sportsmanship scores for it? (I agree that your situation was different as you had to rank the opponents 1st through 4th).
But as DS touched upon earlier, I think that the sportsmanship score should also reflect the person's efforts to make it an effort to have
his opponent enjoy the game. But by the same token, you can not please all of the people all of the time, and sometimes people will get mad just because they are losing.
Come right down to it, in a tournament situation you have to do what you have to do in order to win. If it is a viable tactic, then go for it. Maybe we all just need to do our own mental check when bothered by something during a game and ask ourselves: "Is this really unsportsmanlike, or am I being a sore loser"?
But as for the tournament system being flawed - I think that there are many different ways and styles, that it is just a matter of time before a the best method is realized and a common consensus is established. But IMHO it is no longer fair to include sportsmanship scores in the determination of an overall champion. Too subjective.
Spazz
Mordredd - Nov 16, 2004 - 07:16 AM
Post subject:
Too subjective? IMO probably not, but all too often these things are too inconsistently applied by the coaches. Most often due to a failure to read/understand the instructions completely.
I once talked to one of the GW people over the sportsmanship at the 40k tourneys and was told a little of the history of that systems evolution.
They started with a system where you checked series of yes/no sportsmanship boxes to give an overall score. But they dropped this because too many people were clearly not being honest about it.
They then tried the good/average/bad system where your score was the sum over all your opponents (i.e. 2 good + 2 bad = average score). This didn't work because people started to give scores tactically, to damage an opponent who beat you or to deny a rival a higher ranking in a close competition.
Then they went for the pick the best opponent method. This removed most of the abuse which went on but had the side effect of making typically good and down right unsporting behaviour almost indistinguishable. (They rejected picking the worst opponent because they wanted to avoid getting too negative. I think they also rejected the ranking of opponents because they felt that it was unfair on the good opponent who comes last simply because someone had to.)
Seeing this as imperfect they said they were going to test some new ones using the other non-40k/WFB GTs. I don't know if this has filtered trough to 40k yet as I haven't been to the last few GTs but they have now gone on to what they tested at the BB this year. A good/average/bad rating system where you had to receive above a certain number of good or bad to have your score affected. I think this one is quite fair as you do have to have at least 2 opponents abuse the system to affect your score. (And subjectivity becomes less of an issue.)
So what about the best method then? Well I think that is pretty subjective too. At one end of the scale you have people like me who want to see all aspects of the hobby taken into account, including team history if the coach has done one (you can always read it after the game 
). At the other end there are those who only want to see the win/loss record count (not even TD difference, except as tie break perhaps). It is hard to see how these two can be reconciled under a single 'best' tournament set up.
As for painting marks, well it would help if people realised that they don't have to be good to score well (under the GW system). It would also help if people didn't deliberately sabotage the thing on the grounds it doesn't work well, because they sabotaged it. And it would be a whole lot more consistent if people applied the guidelines as written instead of making up their own based solely on the headings.
mtn_bike - Nov 16, 2004 - 12:41 PM
Post subject:
jpeletis wrote:
I gave him the lowest possible sportsmanship points. He didn't violate any rules, but I don't feel it's very good sportsmanship.
Jon
jpeletis wrote:
I feel stalling when you have a fast team like wood elves is cheap and a bulls#@te way to win. I gave him the score I felt matched the way he plays the game. My other three opponents played great and they were all fun and exciting games, I wish I could give all three of them the highest ranking I could, but unfortunately, I had to rank them 1 thru 4.
Definition of sportsmanship
1)The fact or practice of participating in sports or a sport.
2)Conduct and attitude considered as befitting participants in sports, especially fair play, courtesy, striving spirit, and grace in losing.
You admit it was a leagle tactic. You may be right to give the guy a less than perfect score for that tactic, that's your opinion. But in my opinion, since you chose the lowest score because he didn't allow you a chance to catch up sounds like your a sore loser which should have cost you a point or two in Sportsmanship. Not all the games are close and exciting.
OT!
I hope the judges take Sportsmanship scores into consideration when looking at the results. If this guy recieved a bunch of high Sportsmanship scores during other wins/loses and you were the only one to give the guy the worse possible Sportsmanship score and you lost, that reflects poorly on you.
Just food for thought.
angryrob - Nov 16, 2004 - 12:52 PM
Post subject:
Amen,Brother 
Jonny_P - Nov 16, 2004 - 01:31 PM
Post subject:
Quote:
But in my opinion, since you chose the lowest score because he didn't allow you a chance to catch up sounds like your a sore loser which should have cost you a point or two in Sportsmanship. Not all the games are close and exciting.
I recieved one of the highest sportsmanship scores of the tourney. My game with this opponent in question was the least fun of my 4 games and gave him my sportsmanship mark accordingly. Had nothing to do with losing. I really couldn't give two craps if you believe me on that, but it's true. I rated them on fun. Wasting time to close out a half isn't fun. If I did it to someone, I wouldn't expect great sportsmanship scores either. I love close games, win or lose. But that's not why I gave him the low sportsmanship scores.
You aren't going to change my opinion. Sportsmanship is an opinion, there is no right or wrong.
Hoshi_Komi - Nov 16, 2004 - 02:17 PM
Post subject:
if the sportsmanship method was you COULD choose ONE opponent to receive a good score and another to recieve a bad score---would you still have given him a bad score?
ie. if all opponents were equal you would give no one the bonus. If you had an exceptional opponent you give him a good score if you had a poor opponent you give him a bad score
that's the ? because of the scoring system used, someone had to recieve the lowest score. You gave it to him because of the stall. Easily justifiable due to you were forced to give someone the low score.
The ? is would you still do it if you didn't have to, and I don't think you would have.
Jonny_P - Nov 16, 2004 - 03:27 PM
Post subject:
It's tough to say. Probably not, but since I had to it will always depend on how much fun I had (win or lose). This was my first NAF tourney. I have played others, but in the others sportsmanship was a separate award and was not related to the overall score. I thought long and hard about the 1-4 ranking. I really didn't pay attention to how many points each ranking was worth. I thought about the 4 games I played and said Bob (who won top sportsman) was my #1, 2-3 were very fun games, and 4th was this person who stalled and albeit a very competitive game, his attitude throughout didn't evoke as much fun as the other 3. What would you do?
Zombie - Nov 16, 2004 - 06:31 PM
Post subject:
In your place, i might have given him top score and no bonuses for the others. I enjoy hard fought games and it sounds like he gave it his all, which is all i really ask for. This probably would have been for me the most fun game of the tournament.
Doubleskulls - Nov 16, 2004 - 06:52 PM
Post subject:
Spazzfist wrote:
If the tactic is valid and for a good reason, then you should not be able to fault somebody for doing it.
A long time ago an English cricket team went to Australia to play a series of games. The English tactic (to stop the best batsman in world) was to bowl the ball directly at the batsman rather than aiming at the wicket. This was perfectly within the rules of the game at the time, but I don't believe anyone believes it was sportsmanlike conduct. It was the win at all costs menality revealing itself in the tactics used.
If you feel someone is not playing the game in the right spirit then the sportsmanship score is a way of showing that. If that behaviour shows itself in the tactics they use then why not penalise them?
I don't really see any need for consistency here either. The one thing I'd like to see is people really marking their opponent and not the game, but other than that how people allocate their scores I don't care. There is a difference between getting marked down for winning and getting marked down for winning dirty.
dwarfcoach - Nov 16, 2004 - 07:00 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
In your place, i might have given him top score and no bonuses for the others. I enjoy hard fought games and it sounds like he gave it his all, which is all i really ask for. This probably would have been for me the most fun game of the tournament.
Hmm, I suppose it all comes down to how many tournaments you've been to and what happened...
My best game and player that would score highest in sportsmanship points at the Blood Bowl 2004 was a guy called Andy. I met him on table 1 on game 2 of the event. He was a very friendly, amiable guy who I would've loved to play against with any team, friendly league-play or competitive tourney play. He was a guy who loved the game, was dead chuffed at being on table 1 at the Blood Bowl and bloody well new his stuff. We had a fantastic game, talked about past games/defeats/victories/breasts of the barmaids/guys passing the top table saying 'How did you get here?' etc etc I loved the game and my main regret was not being able to stay longer on the Sunday and chat (I had to catch my lift home).
He beat me. He lined up his men and explained to me (in a very friendly and /matter-of -fact-ly way) that his Vampire, the star player Luther, will do everything in the game. And he bloody well did!! 
The main reason I gave this guy top sportsmanship was because I learnt from him (not something that happens in every tourney game), we got along great and I wanted to play him again! (Again? of course I did, it was only Luther doding into 2 tackle-zones, dodging out and long bombing to a Ghoul that meant he won 
)
If you think winning or having a 'fair game' is all their is to BB then you really need to re-think a little. To quote an old school friend of mine;
"Well the goal-posts do move occasionally but you have to admit, its still a game.."
Zombie - Nov 16, 2004 - 07:44 PM
Post subject:
Winning is not important. Having a fair game is not important. Doing everything in your power to win, however, is important. The opponents i most enjoy playing against are those who do just that. I doesn't matter if i won or lost.
Spazzfist - Nov 16, 2004 - 09:26 PM
Post subject:
I think what we are seeing here is what really makes sportsmanship so difficult to fairly assess. Clearly some people have different opinions of what makes for a fun game. In turn then they setermine a sportsmanship score from their own enjoyment of that particular game. So while my style of play may be very sporting to some, to others who are more competetive, like Zombie, it may be seen as an insult to his martial pride.
Shakespeare said it best through the mouth of Polonius: "to thine own self be true". Play like you mean it, but it is your own face that you have to look at after the game. If you are happy with the way you play - then more power to you. Just so long as your style does not spoil the enjoyment for others, I say play on.
Dave - Nov 17, 2004 - 03:18 PM
Post subject:
just a general question ..
IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Assuming stalling is not unsportsmanlike (and I feel that way) NOT stalling can never, ever be unsportsmanlike either.
They are both a different way of playing the game and feeling what's fun in the game
Spazzfist - Nov 17, 2004 - 06:08 PM
Post subject:
Dave wrote:
IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Huh?
garth - Nov 17, 2004 - 06:34 PM
Post subject:
Quote:
IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Huh?
garth - Nov 17, 2004 - 06:40 PM
Post subject:
Hey Spazzfist, check out the following link, especially the last few replies...
http://www.bloodbowl.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=839&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=
Doubleskulls - Nov 17, 2004 - 06:41 PM
Post subject:
Zombie wrote:
Doing everything in your power to win ... is important.
No disrespect but that is cr*p.
So if you believe your chances of winning are increased but upsetting your opponent all the way through the game then you should? I know (if I was a complete git) I could argue about whether dice were legal, call people for IP. Argue about time limits (either way) - anything to disturb my opponent's concentration and focus. Or alternatively just insult my opponent continuously or make farting noises (well I do that anyway, but it isn't intentional ).
The important criteria is which you allow your pursuit of victory override the desire for you both to have an enjoyable time.
Zombie - Nov 17, 2004 - 06:50 PM
Post subject:
Let me rephrase that : "doing everything in your power on the board to win is important".
Doubleskulls - Nov 17, 2004 - 11:41 PM
Post subject:
I wouldn't mark someone down for stalling, but I have no problem with deducting sportsmanship marks for it.
Grumbledook - Nov 18, 2004 - 12:18 PM
Post subject:
which is exactly why it shouldn't be imcorperated into the final scores
can't say i have ever played a complete gompa in any tournament and the ones that didn't bother with sporting scores, well i noticed no difference in the games to the tournaments that did
being sporting should be something you do anyway not cause the rules demand it
Darkson - Nov 18, 2004 - 03:32 PM
Post subject:
Grumbledook wrote:
being sporting should be something you do anyway not cause the rules demand it
Finally a sensible post from Grum.
Doubleskulls - Nov 18, 2004 - 05:49 PM
Post subject:
Grumbledook wrote:
can't say i have ever played a complete gompa in any tournament and the ones that didn't bother with sporting scores, well i noticed no difference in the games to the tournaments that did
I'd prefer a system that made it extremely difficult for an arsehole to win (a la Dungeon Bowl) but I haven't found sportsmanship to be an issue in any independent tournament.
I do believe tournaments ought to have a prize for the best sportsman/most entertaining opponent whatever because its an important aspect of the hobby that deserves encouragement.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 18, 2004 - 05:53 PM
Post subject:
Dave wrote:
IF stalling is not unsportsmanlike, isn't it unsportmanlike to classify the guy who doesn't like stalling and thus scores quickly because HE feels that is more fun for the BOTH of you as an unsportsmanlike person ???
Played my Halflings vs Chaos at the Chaos Cup. I've never lost against Chaos with Flings in league or tournament play ... I LOVE Chaos ... ANYWAY. )side note: Darkson is trying to change that right now .. but end of the first half has us at 0-0 and his team was 80+ TR points higher ... anyway.)
My opponent at the Chaos Cup was really PISSED off because I beat him 5-0. He felt I didn't need to run up the score ... but my only other option was playing stall ball which I'm not a fan of.
He was so upset that he threw a 2 dice my choice block against my treeman with a Chaos Warrior and when he rolled Pow and Skull ... he reminded me that I didn't "have" to take the Skull. 
I tried to be a good coach ... but the game really depressed him .... wasn't surprised to see he rated me last for sportsmanship ... oh well ... I tried to cheer him up ... heck I was actually silently cheering him on for about the last 4 turns. Got last place from another oppponent at the Chaos Cup who I set up on my turn 8 of the 2nd half for the last turn of the game in a formation solely meant to CAS one of his players for the 5 bonus points that it meant. It worked. He wasn't amused as I set up everyone on the LOS and had no one back to even try to catch the ball or pick it up.
All that said .. I still think sportsmanship is important for an overall best coach award ... but I'm willing to remove it from the 1st and 2nd place decisions for my next tournaments.
Galak
Darkson - Nov 19, 2004 - 05:07 AM
Post subject:
And both those example show to me why sportsmanship is a bad way of decideing tournaments. Neither of those 2 examples galak listed are worthy of "marking down" imo. I expect someone to go for TD or Cas, especially in a scoring system where they count. To mark someone down for doing so is imo, more unsporting than the actual onfield event.
Mordredd - Nov 19, 2004 - 05:16 AM
Post subject:
No I think his examples show the big flaw in a sportsmanship system that forces you to rank your opponents rather than mark them critically on their actual level of sportsmanship.
Jonny_P - Nov 19, 2004 - 01:06 PM
Post subject:
Galak, I would have loved to have a crack at those Iron Chefs! I tied against another Halfling team. Great game....damn those special seasonings!!!!!!!!
Disdane - Nov 19, 2004 - 02:26 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
I wouldn't mark someone down for stalling, but I have no problem with deducting sportsmanship marks for it.
Would you deduct sportmanship marks for someone playing Skaven using their teams ability to score in one turn? What you call stalling I would call smart ball control.
I've played against a very strong Orc team that used ball control to win all of their games. They would always chose to kick off in the first half concede the score unless there was a quick turnover. Then get the ball back with plenty of time left to score in the first half. Start the second half with the score tied 1 - 1 use ball control to score with only 1 turn left. End result season champions.
I don't see how good tatics can be translated into poor sportsmanship. To me that would be name calling, making snide remarks and bragging.
Doubleskulls - Nov 19, 2004 - 03:53 PM
Post subject:
If you feel your opponent's on pitch tactics have effected your enjoyment of the game then I have no problem with you deducting sportsmanship marks as a result. The legality of those tactics is irrelevant.
Galak's opponent's I'd consider amazingly petty, but if they really felt his tactics reduced their enjoyment then its fair enough. In reality it sounds like they were both sore losers and were looking for any excuse to penalise someone who kicked their arse with 'flings. This is the fundamental problem with sportsmanship - people mark the game, not the opponent.
BTW Antony - I really like the idea of check boxes. However can you get a list of no more than say 5 questions that gives reasonable coverage? If so its worth including in the tournament pack.
Disdane - Nov 19, 2004 - 04:07 PM
Post subject:
So it's not really sportsmanship that is at question. It's how much did you enjoy playing Bloodbowl against this person.
GalakStarscraper - Nov 19, 2004 - 07:49 PM
Post subject:
Doubleskulls wrote:
Galak's opponent's I'd consider amazingly petty, but if they really felt his tactics reduced their enjoyment then its fair enough. In reality it sounds like they were both sore losers and were looking for any excuse to penalise someone who kicked their arse with 'flings. This is the fundamental problem with sportsmanship - people mark the game, not the opponent.
Interesting note on the Chaos Cup to me.
I played 2 NAF coaches and 2 non-NAF coaches. The two non-NAF coaches marked me last for sportsmanship and the two NAF coaches gave me decent marks overall.
Both of the games against the non-NAF folks I had to explain a lot of rules to them. Now I try to be nice when I do this ... but when they both during the game questioned whether I actually knew the rule or not ... I said I was 100% sure but was more than willing to show them in the rulebook if they wanted to see it. NOW ... I "thought" I did this in a friendly and helpful manner ... but ... strong confidence in knowing the rules quickly can be twisted into arrogance. So playing two rookie coaches may have been a side effect of my sportsmanship points as well.
I'm glad to see the debate on the sportsmanship ... many thoughts on how to do this next year.
Galak
garth - Nov 19, 2004 - 07:57 PM
Post subject:
I played in my first tournament recently (Death Bowl II) and I was a REAL rookie. My first game (Zombie I think) really took the time to patiently go over the rules with me, and even suggested some strategy. Most other coaches clearly explained the strengths and limitations of the team they were playing, and even provided some hints about how to exploit these limitations.
Clearly, these coaches deserved (and were awarded) high sportsmanship marks. If anything, I may have deserved lower ones, since I probably made thier games a little slow and boring! Kudos to these fine BB representatives!