Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/31/2006 4:10 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/31/2006 9:19 AM

Argument by reductio is weak here.  No one is going to be rewarded for not bringing a list.

A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.  How about a nice game of chess?

Awesome Matthew Broderick film reference

Technically.....yes. Actually I do belive there are 4 parts to the GW hobby(not to be confused with other games)

battle(playing the game)

Comp(what you bring)

Sports(how you play)

Painting


*Shurg* I'm just saying I keep hearing how a "best general" needs to be influenced by other factors of the game(say, comp). If thats the case, why SHOULDNT other aspects of the game follow the same stadard?

If best general is, he who racks up the most points, why should it be affected by soft scores?(note overall means overall, ALL aspects).


I dont really know if a lesser army list in good hands will out beat a better list in lesser hands. Thats a mixed bag.

Posted By carmachu on 01/01/2007 6:40 AM
*Shurg* I'm just saying I keep hearing how a "best general" needs to be influenced by other factors of the game(say, comp). If thats the case, why SHOULDNT other aspects of the game follow the same stadard?

You're mixing two different arguments together. 

"Best General" is an award I don't personally use.  If a given tournament has a Best General prize, I could potentially support that being based purely on performance in the games, without any other factors bearing on that particular award.  You could also mix it, honestly, as comp/army design do have a strong influence on play of the game, or even mix it with Sportsmanship, as GW did with the Best Tactician award at the US GTs a couple of years ago, on the rationale that a player who wins by exploiting loopholes and cheating on their measurements is going to lose out to someone who plays fair.  Not my first choice of how to do it, but I can see an arguement for the idea. 

Aside from a specific Best General prize, however, we can still talk about player skill and who is the best player of the game.  Army design definitely factors into game performance, so it really is relevant.

Posted By carmachu on 01/01/2007 6:40 AM
If best general is, he who racks up the most points, why should it be affected by soft scores?(note overall means overall, ALL aspects).

Two part answer, again.

IME, the best player (or general) is not necessarily the one who racks up the most victory points.   Who's better- a player who racks up 6000vps in three big wins and a loss, or a player who racks up 4000vps in four moderate wins?  IMO, the guy who wins all his games is better.   Different armies give up VPs more or less easily, and some armies (particularly assault ones) are better at finishing off units and running up the score.  The player who can achieve their objectives and win the game more consistently is the more skilled player, again IMO.

This is also why I vastly prefer the secondary objectives/bonus tourney points system of Battles scoring over pure VP or VP differential.   Say 5 for a loss, 10 for a draw, 15 for a win, with 3-6pts worth of secondary objectives you can try for to increase the base score.  These reward the player who is skilled enough to work towards and achieve multiple goals at once.

As for soft scores bearing into it, again, army design is important in 40k.  What's the old saw?  A good army list won't win the game for you, but a bad one can lose it?  Being able to build a strong list is important to success in play, but being able to moderate the min-maxing and make something interesting, unusual, or non-optimized work demonstrates superior skill.  Ed says as much pretty much any time someone performs well with what he perceives as a weak army, like spikydavid's Orks at the UK GT. 

Posted By carmachu on 01/01/2007 6:40 AM
I dont really know if a lesser army list in good hands will out beat a better list in lesser hands. Thats a mixed bag.

There are a lot of variables.  Terrain, scenario, how the two particular armies match up, etc.  And it will depend on exactly HOW big the difference is in the two armies' power levels and the skill of the players.  If I took an Eldar army of nothing but an Autarch and Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents with Scatter Lasers, I'm going to get my butt handed to me by any half-decent Necron player with a Monolith. 

But still, I think skill does weigh strongly in the equation.  I'm playing in a Warhammer league right now with a couple of other Wood Elf armies which are, at least on paper, significantly more min-maxed than mine.   I've got a lot of experience with my style of WE play though, so I'm fairly confident in those matchups. 

BTW, the harlies did arrive Saturday, though I didn't get a chance to open them up and look at them until last night.  Sweet!  Thanks.  It's really great to have so many.  Now I need to pick up the revised DE codex and start pointing up lists.

Did the stuff I sent you arrive?

Posted By beef on 01/01/2007 12:59 AM
ok Mannahnin, I agree about the rhino rush but thats gone now and people dont use it any more as its not official. Would you let me rhino rush in your tournie? if so then fine have your comp. If not why not? I am sure more people would want rhino rush then comp. and what Graatz said was totally correct have seperate awards for sep thing.

You’re awesome, beef.  One day you’re dead-set against comp, and you’re insulting people who organize tourneys by saying they’re doing it to stroke their own egos and to change the rules in their benefit.  The next you’re saying you’d play in a tournament with comp if the organizer changed the rules of the game to your benefit. 

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/31/2006 10:57 PM

I have a solution; Give the Over All award to the guy who lost the most games. He must have brought the most fluffy list. And it fits GW's attitude toward winning.

You have clearly not played against anyone from GW.   The ones I’ve played against have certainly tried to win. 

 

You’re also laboring under the common (but silly) misapprehension that GW is a monolith of unanimous opinion, when in fact it’s a multinational corporation with different opinions held in different countries and departments (not to mention individual people's heads).  Even in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region>, the studio guys aren’t necessarily on the same page as the marketing staff or the guys who organize the GTs. 

GW staffers are, by and large, quite fun to play. They tend not to care about the rules too much.

Posted By carmachu on 01/01/2007 6:40 AM
Technically.....yes. Actually I do belive there are 4 parts to the GW hobby(not to be confused with other games)

battle(playing the game)

Comp(what you bring)

Sports(how you play)

Painting

You forgot one:

Grooming (personal hygiene, showering, etc)

I think there should be an award for Best Groomed.  I think that would enhance everyone's enjoyment.

At one of the major WHFB tournaments here in Australia we have a 'sexiest general' award, selected by females who wander into the hall.

Its been won the last 2 years by the same guy and players now turn up like they are hanging with James Bond in a casino, with siut and tie, cuff links and shoes so shiny they are like mirrors.

*sniffs opponent*

"You get a 5. Next time change your shirt before you go to sleep at night"

thats a 'different' award but fun none the less. lets add that into comp as well. I.e who looks the part aswell so if you are using orks and come in to the tournie witha loin cloth and green paint over your body than max comp points for you.

Posted By Waaagh_Gonads on 01/01/2007 4:03 PM
players now turn up like they are hanging with James Bond in a casino, with slut and tie, cuff links and shoes so shiny they are like mirrors.

I fixed your typo.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 01/01/2007 3:44 PM

Posted By carmachu on 01/01/2007 6:40 AM
Technically.....yes. Actually I do belive there are 4 parts to the GW hobby(not to be confused with other games)

battle(playing the game)

Comp(what you bring)

Sports(how you play)

Painting

You forgot one:

Grooming (personal hygiene, showering, etc)

I think there should be an award for Best Groomed.  I think that would enhance everyone's enjoyment.

SWBO (She Who Must Be Obeyed) helped out at a 40K tournament once. She would definitely have given an award for that.

Its a grand day today. Its the day we see the death of comp for the 2007 GT season.

I did not feel like reading all 5 pages and the rules as they dont really affect me but i see no comp in there? why?> I guess it was not as good as posters made out then?

Probably the few bad ones who abused comp scoring.

Comp COULD be good, but as one person who has been on the recieving end of low balled comp scores because of sour grapes, I say good riddance.

Comp has been argued about for years when it came to the GT's (U.S.). People arbitrarily tanked other people at events which led to the big problem with their scoring system: letting people score it. Ripe with abuse, I'm glad to see it is gone now. Therefore, no whining against Demonbombs, Iron Warriors, Mech Eldar/Tau, Drop Pod Marines, Assault Cannons of Doom Marines or 2 Monolith/Warrior armies.

I actually like army comp, but it just simply gets abused. Better to be w/o it then since some folks can't be mature enough to handle the responsibility of fair scoring.

As a matter of interest, when did it become logistically impossible for tournament organisers to score comp? They did in my day, and this would seem to offset the cries of outrage from those who have apparently experienced  'poor loser' fallout

How many tournament organisers other than GW are canning comp (in the US) ?

Maybe GW are dropping it to save the trouble of scoring it. They are always money-conscious.

Money conscious or not, it was a sound choice to make.

Hopefully other tournie organiser will follow suit,

I like comp, i think it is neccessary. It would be nice if people were mature to not tank the scores, but we are all human.

Despite Beefs objections, TO comp seems to be the best way to even things out. Regardless if it is your army or not, if you have a cheesy list, it is more than likely already been out there for a bit so the TO's know about it. That is why the tourney packages that certain tourney's put out are good as a gauge as to how well your army SHOULD score.

No point argueing this further but hey thats your pinion and you are lucky then that some tournies do COMP so you can play there aswell.

To sum it all up, the codexes are not balanced, comp is an attempt to right the imbalance but comp is also unbalanced.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 01/05/2007 10:03 AM
To sum it all up, the codexes are not balanced, comp is an attempt to right the imbalance but comp is also unbalanced.

Therefore, applyingthe rule of Sci Fi, attempting to use an imbalanced comp list from an imblanced codex will immediatley cause a tear in the space / time continuum, throwing you into an alternate reality where fluffy bunnies rule the world, Romania is known for its international cuisine, and  Ed Maule is a NY Times #100 author with his latest work Why Fluffy Armies are Cool and Deserve to Win.

Thats pretty scary, Jfrazell.

I want to go to sleep, but that will give me nightmares, I am afraid.

Posted By Hellfury on 01/06/2007 5:22 AM
Thats pretty scary, Jfrazell.

I want to go to sleep, but that will give me nightmares, I am afraid.

Yes the dreaded terrifying combo of both scary thoughts and scary spelling.