Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Kallidon on Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:09 am

High fives for painted armies all around. For an all encompassing "hobby" event.. ive always liked the 50% battle, 30% painting, 20% sports. Thats not an overall popular choice though.. as it could lead to a nice dude with great painting skills an overall champ even if he lost a game.

Weve been encouraging different people to take ownership of events on the 40k side.. and its resulted in a vast range of ideas and rules.. but the conversation always eventually steers the same way it is here a bit..  does painting and sports need to be scored at all. Some people want painting, but no sports.. some sports but no painting. Its hard to please everyone.. but mixing it up at each event and checking the resulting discussions can shed alot of light on things.

Ive always been a fan of a scored comp of some sort. Not a limitation.. but an incentive.
40k has taken a bizarre route the last two years.. so many books in so little time. Allies, fortifications.. and not many faqs from GW. Encouraging people to leave those units or particularly unfun combos at home seems to be needed. League play or friendly games .. this never comes up.. but at a tourney someones always gonna bring the pain. I dont think its a bad idea to award a player for not doubling up on a certain selection.

In the end.. just having different rules at different events seems to be working. We just had an event this past weekend consisting of no soft scores. It was very simply a winner take all with a separate painting award at the end. There were a couple funny lists.. but not a single issue re: sportsmanship. It was a fun refreshing change.

Just my two cents.

Rob

I wish i could squeeze in some fantasy time.. its been a long long.time.

Kallidon

Posts : 86
Join date : 2008-04-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  decker_cky on Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:12 am

I'll probably make a longer post in the next few days, but one 'comp' I've seen that works very well, but that requires pre-submitted lists, is to rate lists as soft, medium or hard. For seeding purposes, medium lists are considered to have one extra victory, and hard lists are considered to have two extra victories (these were for 5 game events). This means that in round 1 and possibly 2, harder lists will tend to face harder lists. Players with soft lists who play very well won't face those lists until later on. For an event we expect to have 16+ people at, something like this could be would probably be workable in a 3 game tournament (+1 win for hard lists and +1 draw for medium lists?), but it doesn't really work for the smaller 8 man tournaments we often run. What is hard or soft would be relative to the pack, with roughly 4 hard and 4 soft out of 16 lists, and would provide a benefit to not taking a tricked out list, but without directly affecting scores.

I agree with Kallidon that something in the range of 50/30/20 for gaming/painting/sportsmanship is fair, but you have to make sure that that calculates after removing 'gimme points' (eg, points like showing up with your armybook and tape measure, or points for losing shouldn't be calculated in the 50/30/20 breakdown).

For sportsmanship...I really think the top end needs to be something attainable. If the top end is along the lines of "best game ever", it might as well not be on the ballot. To me, something along the lines of "It was a great game - this is why I play Warhammer" should grant full comp points. Then, after the last game, have players write in their favourite opponent of the tournament for a bonus point or two to sportsmanship (not ranking them, as that involves choosing their least favourite opponent which usually feels strange).

Another idea that I've always liked is to have the tie-breaker be sportsmanship points.

edit: Screw it - I'm thinking about it now, so I'll go into the painting stuff.

Contrary to what you'd expect, I was actually terrible for having my army painted for a long time. I try to always play with painted stuff now, but it wasn't until I started going to minor tournaments that I ever got more than a unit or two painted in an army, and it wasn't until I went to Gottacon (big Victoria tournament) that I actually went back and painted my army with some attention for things like basing, converting, painting banners, and picking out eyes. Gottacon had a system that step by step set out things I could do to get my painting points rather than there being a mysterious painting score assigned. Even though I wasn't a great painter, the checklist system they had gave me things to work on, and made me a better painter for paying attention to these areas.

Here's the checklist from last year's Gottacon:

Painting:
Up to a maximum of 40 points will be awarded to each player by an impartial painting judge based on their armies appearance based on
the following criteria:

PAINTING, worth up to 35 POINTS
15 points ENTIRE ARMY is FULLY PAINTED (at least three-color standard).
1 point PAINTING IS UNIFORM: Not a mix of schemes, styles, looks (except where appropriate: Eldar aspects, Bretonnian livery, etc.)
1 point CLEAN BASECOAT COLORS: Base colors are painted neatly.
1 point DETAILS: Details are painted such as eyes, buckles, and jewelry.
2 points CLEAN DETAILS: Details are painted well (clean, have highlights).
2 points HAND-PAINTED DETAILS: Details (that are well executed) have been added such as unit markings, banner artwork, blood
marks, dirt on cloaks, etc.
2 points ARTISTIC: Banners, markings, and details are hand painted to an incredible degree.
1 point DISCERNABLE HIGHLIGHTS/SHADING: Drybrushing, lining, shading, inking, etc. (not required to be clean)
2 points LAYERS OF HIGHLIGHTS: More than one layer of highlight (may include shading, highlights over inking, blending, etc.)
2 points CLEAN HIGHLIGHTS: Lines are neat, drybrushing is appropriate, inking is controlled and not sloppy.
2 points BEYOND BASICS: Highlights are blended, shaded, or layered well; beyond the basic highlighting techniques of drybrushing
and inking.
2 points MASTERFUL BLENDING: Highlights have been masterfully blended, shaded, or layered.
2 points OVERALL APPEARANCE: Overall appearance is amazing! Everything works great together to create an awesome scene.

BASING, WORTH up to 5 POINTS
1 point BASED/DETAILED: Bases have basing materials (flock/sand/tiles) or details painted on them.
1 point EXTRA BASING: The bases have multiple basing materials (rocks/grass), extra details painted on them (cracks in tiles), or if
extra basing is inappropriate, basing is done very well (ie. rolling desert dunes).
1 point HIGHLIGHTS: Bases have highlighting (shading/drybrushing).
2 points SPECIAL DETAILS: There are extra details on the larger bases (helmets, skulls, animals, building rubble, etc.)

CONVERSIONS, WORTH up to 4 POINTS
1 point MINIMAL: The army has some elementary conversions (head and weapon swaps, arm rotations) or a couple interesting swaps.
2 points MINOR: Units have multi-kit conversions including head and weapon swaps. This is for more than a few models such as a unit.
3 points MAJOR: The army has some difficult conversions that use things such as putty, plastic card, drilling, sawing, minor sculpts, etc.
This could also apply to the entire army having very well done multi-kit conversions (see above).
4 points EXTREME: The army has some extreme conversions which could be: a scratch built conversion or sculpt of an entire model, a
large amount of models with difficult conversions (see above), or the entire army is extremely converted.

OTHER, WORTH up to 2 POINTS
1 point DISPLAY BASE: Basic based & highlighted or detailed display base.
1 point SOMETHING SPECIAL: There is something above and beyond about a model’s painting, the display base, a conversion, or the
basing (ie. movement trays are based/highlighted).

From here: http://www.gottacon.com/components/2013warhammerrules.pdf

They had a few judges go from table to table, and would ask players to point out conversions, etc.. This works really well during a break - if everyone set up their armies during the lunch break, armies could be judged pretty quickly when everyone gets back. There's no real reason to have painting get added each round so this works.

For our smaller events, I'd simplify the list a bit, and make the totals come out to however much you want (Gottacon works out to 25% of the total score), but I found the list handy in lighting a fire under my ass. A great part of this checklist is that there's more points available than the maximum, so you don't have to paint as well as Carson to max out. If you paint well, focus on some good clean highlighting, and have amazing bases and conversions, you should max out, or come close to it. I wanted my army cleanly painted with shading, decent basing, eyes picked out and had a display base for the tournament (I just based a small bulletin board - comes nicely framed and you can pin in terrain bits). Add in a few minor conversions and some painted banners and I was at 27/35. This type of checklist would also be an easy way to rate whether there was progress in painting people's armies (I loved that bonus being available to encourage players to continue painting).

decker_cky

Posts : 254
Join date : 2011-08-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:41 am

Kallidon and Decker, bring up some interesting points..... Keep in mind my comments aren't really directed AT anyone in particular, just using specific comments as examples .

High fives for painted armies all around. For an all encompassing "hobby" event.. ive always liked the 50% battle, 30% painting, 20% sports. Thats not an overall popular choice though.. as it could lead to a nice dude with great painting skills an overall champ even if he lost a game.

That's actually why I started this thread. I guess I'm having a Warhammer "mid-life crisis". Although relevant and mandatory, painting, comp and sports simply don't need to be half of your tourney score. I'm not a fan of comp, but Warhammer can be abused and letting a guy know after the fact that he brought a dick list is too little too late. And, thinking about it, the "no double rare" idea. Would it actually kill any player if they couldn't bring 2 Eagles, Manglers, Giants, Bolt Throwers, etc? Would this not actually encourage more unorthadox lists? Curious.

I wish i could squeeze in some fantasy time.. its been a long long.time.

For goodness sakes, stop buying into the 40K marketing and hang out with the big kids.  Very Happy 

I'll probably make a longer post in the next few days, but one 'comp' I've seen that works very well, but that requires pre-submitted lists, is to rate lists as soft, medium or hard. For seeding purposes, medium lists are considered to have one extra victory, and hard lists are considered to have two extra victories (these were for 5 game events). This means that in round 1 and possibly 2, harder lists will tend to face harder lists. Players with soft lists who play very well won't face those lists until later on. For an event we expect to have 16+ people at, something like this could be would probably be workable in a 3 game tournament (+1 win for hard lists and +1 draw for medium lists?), but it doesn't really work for the smaller 8 man tournaments we often run. What is hard or soft would be relative to the pack, with roughly 4 hard and 4 soft out of 16 lists, and would provide a benefit to not taking a tricked out list, but without directly affecting scores.

My thoughts and intentions are to simplify these things as much as possible. Rating an army "hard, medium, soft" is way too grey area in my opinion. And, who rates these? Would we all rate them the same - very unlikely.

For sportsmanship...I really think the top end needs to be something attainable. If the top end is along the lines of "best game ever", it might as well not be on the ballot. To me, something along the lines of "It was a great game - this is why I play Warhammer" should grant full comp points. Then, after the last game, have players write in their favourite opponent of the tournament for a bonus point or two to sportsmanship (not ranking them, as that involves choosing their least favourite opponent which usually feels strange).

I agree with Decker here. Having a "was best game evaaaar" seems silly, and I'm feeling that the 1-2-3 sports we have used is starting to feel strange and ultimately forces you to rank a good guy last simply out of circumstance. The thing is, and here's my whole thought on sportsman; Why is it even needed? Why do I have to thank a fellow for not being an @$$hole during a game? Isn't that simply expected? Shouldn't sports be left out of the equation unless something drastic happens? Just let a room full of guys play - some games will be more fun than others..That's Warhammer and gaming in general quite frankly. In the unlikely event that someone almost comes to blows, shows blatant cheating, grabs your butt, etc, THEN go to the Tourny Organizer and state you case(s). Dock the bastard points, or kick him in the huevos in front of the other guys. I dunno, I feel that when there's a sportsman rating in an event that players draw way too much attention to it, when most of those "moments" during a game would have been forgotten if it wasn't even relevant to your score. Players themselves can become vindictive and kill a guy on sports because they feel slighted, are losing the game and full of emotion. When I hosted an event, out of 16 players, 14 scored their opponents 4 out of 5. There was one 5 and one 3. just as I suspected. I had sportsman in the event pretty much as a social experiment as I already knew how it was going to go down. Just let the boys play and punch out the odd jerk that shows up. Wink 

From here: http://www.gottacon.com/components/2013warhammerrules.pdf

Wow, I didn't know the ETC was doing painting scores now.  Wink  While I love the idea of what's presented, that seems waaay to clinical for a regular event. I also find it hard to believe that one fellow could do 16-30 armies "over lunch". Again, that's the direction my mind is going in regards to painting but that seems pretty involved.


squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  decker_cky on Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:31 am

squalie wrote:My thoughts and intentions are to simplify these things as much as possible.  Rating an army "hard, medium, soft" is way too grey area in my opinion. And, who rates these?  Would we all rate them the same - very unlikely.

The way I'd do it is to have lists due a week early, and have them posted. People can privately vote on the 4 armies they find hardest, and the 4 armies they find softest. Anyone submitting late automatically is considered a hard list, and otherwise, take the top 4-5 armies in each category (likely will be a division that makes sense where it drops off from 4-5 votes to 1-2). I actually think the ambiguity of this system deals with meta differences more than any of the formal comps I've seen, and the threat of it can be a moderating force on the overall power level.

As to sportsmanship - everyone getting 4-5 out of 5 should be the norm in my mind, and a bonus for best opponent should differentiate the best opponents. It's a lot easier just having those points than it is to have someone come in and need individual complaints to the TO (doesn't force a conflict). If being a dick won't win the event, then people who are potential dicks will be swayed to trying to be a good opponent. If the points end up being irrelevant, that doesn't hurt the tournament compared to not having sportsmanship. It just means everything is decided on whatever points you put in painting and gaming, much like if there was never any sportsmanship at all.

Regarding the checklist, it's pretty quick overall to judge that stuff aside from conversions which you just ask players to point out. While I don't think that particular checklist is perfect or particularly appropriate for our events, I do like the idea of clear guidelines on taking your painting to the next level, and having a list that can be filled out with a variety of focuses.

As to a formal composition - things like no double rares make no sense. Double hellpit abominations, hellcannons and skull cannons are one thing, but it doesn't make sense to paint those with the same stroke as chaos spawn (WoC are one per choice), cygors and rock lobbas. I'd argue there's just as many problematic special choice, and unlike special choices, rare choices are actually restricted on points (50% restriction is essentially meaningless since most armies reach 50% on core + characters). The only way to do something that makes sense is to go through army by army, and suddenly you have something that looks like the ETC. By the way, I actually may try a double cygor list once my next Mierce order arrives, so please don't restrict me from a double cygor list. Razz

decker_cky

Posts : 254
Join date : 2011-08-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:00 am

The way I'd do it is to have lists due a week early, and have them posted. People can privately vote on the 4 armies they find hardest, and the 4 armies they find softest. Anyone submitting late automatically is considered a hard list, and otherwise, take the top 4-5 armies in each category (likely will be a division that makes sense where it drops off from 4-5 votes to 1-2). I actually think the ambiguity of this system deals with meta differences more than any of the formal comps I've seen, and the threat of it can be a moderating force on the overall power level


This sounds like it came from a Lawyer. Very Happy 

I do like the idea of clear guidelines on taking your painting to the next level, and having a list that can be filled out with a variety of focuses.

I totally agree on this.

As to a formal composition - things like no double rares make no sense. Double hellpit abominations, hellcannons and skull cannons are one thing, but it doesn't make sense to paint those with the same stroke as chaos spawn (WoC are one per choice), cygors and rock lobbas.

I'm not actually fighting for this, just to be clear, but trying to wrap my brain about some counterpoints that have been brought up...

What does it matter if Spawn, Cygors and Rock Lobba's (which are actually pretty good in an O&G list) are restricted to one? Who takes those anyways? And certainly not more than one? Out of simplicity, I would totally restrict a fellow from bringing 2 Cygors, Spawn, and Lobba's to prevent the really ugly double rare stuff from showing up. I really can't think of one example where not allowing double rare (just to keep it REALLY simple) would affect one single list. I mean seriously. I would very much like 2 Eagles, but would concede that if it prevented 2 Stanks, HPA's, etc. And you would need to run a double Cygor list in a tourny so badly that you would campaign against knocking double rare. Just curious.

I mean, if we really wanted to get into it, we certainly wouldn't need a blanket restriction. It's pretty obvious that 10 fellows could sit in a room and readily agree that Nurgle DP's, Chimera's, HPA's, Stanks, Skullcrushers, Warplightnings, can be a problem - while Spawn, Cygors, Sisters, Bolthtowers, Bone Giants...aren't. The ETC started down this path, got tainted and simply didn't know when to lift the pen.

Hey, I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm trying to go as far away from ETC as possible. If we dissect the books, there really aren't any characters that are broken (Nurgle DP), core that changes the game so much that they honestly shouldn't be allowed and even the specials are usually "just special". Generally, the complaints revolve around rares - most of the time (except Nurgle DP Wink ). The only specials that give me a rash are Warplightnings and Chimera's, and even then I mostly just shrug my shoulders.

squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Mhael on Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:12 am

Not going to lie i skipped a few posts here but i get the overall view. In our most recent games day i purposely segregated my point system to recognize the painting talents of veterans vs rookies. Also seperated best general (bring your killy army if you want) but rewarded a prize to a player who fielded a fluff list bc thats what they wanted to play (gnoblar carrying a feather lol). The greater prize of the day should go to the best overall hobbyist who represents all aspects (painting judged by a panel or tourny organizer, sportsmanship based on submitted player scoring, composition judged by a submitted army list to the tourny organizer, victory points versus lost army points straight from the gaming) with indiviual recognition for each category. None of us are playing to recieve a prize i think. Is not gaming the prize? It does entice people to enjoy the hobby how they choose. I will and have taken fluffier lists bc i enjoy creating a backstory for how my army came together. Someone else may field an army bc they are proud of their painting skills and want to display what they created. Some may take two rare to reflect what a model should be compared to one they have done alot of conversion on. Others may field a power list bc they have a competitive nature (or their mom never hugged them as a child lol). The point is that their is multiple reasons we are in this hobby and none should be critisized for what aspect they derive enjoyment from, rewarding the person who best encapsulates a well rounded view (will also likely draw the most interest from curious newcomers) should be our hobby champion.

Mhael

Posts : 1300
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:43 am

Where'd THIS guy come from?!  Very Happy  Seriously good points.

squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Galadros on Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:40 pm

squalie wrote:    
 I mean, if we really wanted to get into it, we certainly wouldn't need a blanket restriction.  It's pretty obvious that 10 fellows could sit in a room and readily agree that Nurgle DP's, Chimera's, HPA's, Stanks, Skullcrushers, Warplightnings, can be a problem - while Spawn, Cygors, Sisters, Bolthtowers, Bone Giants...aren't.  The ETC started down this path, got tainted and simply didn't know when to lift the pen.
 
Going down this route is a point of no return, and actually is more work than you may think. Firstly, peoples' perception of filth will vastly differ. I for example, beleive in a holistic approach to measuring unfair armies. In other words a Nurgle DP in an army with predominantly marauders, may be less offensive than an Empire army full of 1+ saves, or a Slaan with a handful of skink priests to cast his spells through. Getting a consensus on it requires level-headed people with broad experience (have played with and/or against every army) to meet and discuss. Then these people have to meet and discuss again with some regularity as new army books are released (5 last year), or at least quarterly to address any 'new concoctions' that have arisen. Once you've come to a consensus, you then have to defend it. I promise you that you will have no shortage of "Hey! Why did you ban Banner of the World Dragon, yet allow that guy to take the Hellheart?", and other such things. This all makes the process of composition restrictions very unrewarding for those that undertake it.
 
squalie wrote:Hey, I'm not saying it's perfect, but I'm trying to go as far away from ETC as possible.  If we dissect the books, there really aren't any characters that are broken (Nurgle DP), core that changes the game so much that they honestly shouldn't be allowed and even the specials are usually "just special".  Generally, the complaints revolve around rares - most of the time (except Nurgle DP ;)).  The only specials that give me a rash are Warplightnings and Chimera's, and even then I mostly just shrug my shoulders.
 
I think you're trying to over-simplify the choices people make by thier categorization. I can quickly think of many examples that are not RARE, that give me fits. Throgg's CORE unit troll, Demigryphs, Tzeetch Horror spam, beasts of nurgle, and chimeras (Special choice). So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is Rares are not the only power choices. It's the combination of choices that makes an army feel unfair. Therefore it brings me back to the point above... You either design a defensible list of restrictions that encompasses all armies that was reached by consensus, or not at all. I don't think there is any middle ground.

Galadros

Posts : 218
Join date : 2008-07-06
Age : 44
Location : Edmonton

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:44 pm

In other words a Nurgle DP in an army with predominantly marauders, may be less offensive than an Empire army full of 1+ saves, or a Slaan with a handful of skink priests to cast his spells through.

I get what you're saying and think this is a good point.

I keep repeating that what I'm writing isn't so much a formula, just a "direction". I'll admit that some specials are extra special, but it really is the rares that are guilty of really making your eyes roll a bit.

As much as I'm blabbering I really don't have a dog in this fight. I may not like some units, but I really have little interest in comp generally speaking. I'm even thinking on using special characters for the first time in my 18 year Warhammer career (gasp!)

I like Andre's comment:

The point is that their is multiple reasons we are in this hobby and none should be critisized for what aspect they derive enjoyment from, rewarding the person who best encapsulates a well rounded view (will also likely draw the most interest from curious newcomers) should be our hobby champion.

squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Mhael on Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:19 pm

OMG!! Are you going to break out the high elf Lord Don the Neverbattler? Lol

Mhael

Posts : 1300
Join date : 2008-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:40 pm

Mhael wrote:OMG!! Are you going to break out the high elf Lord Don the Neverbattler? Lol

Ok, I give - I didn't get the joke.

squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:49 pm

*double post*

squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  GeoffKlassen on Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:37 am

I still have issues playing the killer armies form the net that come in mostly plastic grey because someone decides that they want 300 Skaven slaves but doesn't want to paint it. Or a chaos player who doesn't want ot pay for lots of guys and just buys the least amount of fluff. These players cause issues and lose the flavor of the army. These books are written to and to the flavor of the world not for lawyers to sit around and max min them, its always been my issue with some armies and players. I have always tried to field armies that consist of 50% core since they are your generic troops anyways, but that is why composition scores have come and gone I have seen a lot of different systems in my 21 years and even I have taken some pretty bad armies I try to see how my opponent feels as well its not fun to fight the massive Skaven army or the all 1+ chaos or empire armies but you take what you can get and try to beat it that's what being the best general is all about.

The only way you can balance this kind of system is for you to set up your army and then surprise switch sides then make your opponent play your army and see how you like fighting your own monstrosity, but that would be only for fun with people you trust but it keeps your honest.

GeoffKlassen

Posts : 224
Join date : 2008-10-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Kal on Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:46 pm

This sounds like we all need to sit down for food and a beer this friday and sort this stuff out!

Kal

Posts : 1931
Join date : 2013-04-07
Age : 27
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Carson on Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:17 pm

The Masters round 3 thread has been updated to try out a few of the ideas brought up here.

My tournaments have been missing some awards that have been sorely missed. I've brought these back and have brought in some new ideas. None of the new ideas will be difficult for any of us to use and hopefully this format will be a keeper.

We'll use this format for Sat. but I'm more than ready to hear how much you hate or like the new additions

_________________
What is best in life?
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of thier women.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2852
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Kal on Tue Dec 31, 2013 8:23 pm

I like it! Potential for points without a brush ever touching my army!

Kal

Posts : 1931
Join date : 2013-04-07
Age : 27
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  squalie on Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:20 pm

Kal wrote:I like it! Potential for points without a brush ever touching my army!

Just shut up and get painting...

squalie

Posts : 3636
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Kal on Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:45 pm

Im working on it!

Kal

Posts : 1931
Join date : 2013-04-07
Age : 27
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tournament Comp vs. Sportsman? Yes, there is a difference.

Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:29 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum