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 12/26/2006 11:42 PM
If you didn't choose an army optimized to win then why should you be surprised when you lose?

Who ever said it was a surprise?

I must be blind. You with all your wisdom must point it out to me...

The player takes the list they want, they see cheese in front of them, they know they're going to lose, they lose, they have no fun.

In fact if they are surprised at the result, they probably liked the game more.

The art of playing with comp is taking a nice list and still winning.

Taking a weak army to a tournament is an insult to your opponent. Instead of giving them a challenging game, you have them wipe you off the table. Not much fun in that. The fact is armies that are 'good comp' are boring to play and play against.

And Moosifer...The only thing that is copy-pasted about the armies at tournaments is the whining about them just being copy-pasted. Just because the armies are similar doesn't mean that they are just copies of one another. This is not a hugely complex system, so what is effective is not a huge mystery to figure out. Most good armies take what's effective, thus look the same, but are not exactly the same. Definitely player flavor in. I've had my list accused of being a clone of Mauleed's, but it fits my own style of play better...Using some different stuff that works for me.

Posted By moosifer on 12/26/2006 6:26 PM
Whining about comp is what makes the "powergamers" sleep better at night, because they know that their lack of creativity can be made up for by someone else's list. I applaud the ORIGINAL owners of the big 5, the ones that win every tourney, because THEY thought of difficult strategies and listings to beat the crowd. Would I be upset if I played the ultramauleens if it were played by mauleen? Hell no, the list is name after him ffs. But if you buoyancy, were to play ultramauleens, i would consider you absolute trash. Make up your own list, I sure did.

You apparently have the same kind of mental problem that's many people do.  It's a typical anti-science viewpoint that a person's decisions only have value if they arrived at them without any outside help.  Oh, and don't worry, since you are obviously a poor sport, given your constant whinging about army composition in this thread, I don't have to work very hard to consider you trash.

But it is the attitude that you are displaying not just here, but at the tournaments that get you docked.

What atitude am I displaying?  That there's nothing wrong with playing to win when you are in a competition If you have a problem with that atitude, then perhaps you shouldn't get involved with competitions in the first place, and should stick to recreational games instead of insulting competitive players with your poorly constructed army lists.

And the worst part is you are not a good general at all. A good general takes a list, that is not tooled out beyond belief, and wins with it. He uses his imagination, tactics, and feel of the game to best an opponent.

Tournaments for a game are not about determining who is a better general, they are about determining who is better at playing the game.  That you think that Warhamer has some kind of relationship with actual battlefield generalship is laughable. 

Comp is my way of telling you, up yours hoser, learn to play nice

It's nice that you are such a poor sportsman that you wish to punish people for being better players than you. To the person who claims that comp scores produce more variety: That may be true, but you are assuming that variety has some kind of intrinsic value. I'm glad that you think that professional sports teams should be win based on how much variety they use in their offensive plays, and not on how often they score.

Posted By onlainari on 12/27/2006 1:44 AM
The player takes the list they want, they see cheese in front of them, they know they're going to lose, they lose, they have no fun.

In fact if they are surprised at the result, they probably liked the game more.

The art of playing with comp is taking a nice list and still winning.

The player takes the list they want, they see a weak army in front of them, they know they're going to win and their opponent is going to whine about it, they win and their opponent whines about it, they have no fun.

Why doesn't the player with the weak list simply take a stronger list?  If you don't want to take a strong list then it's your problem if you lose.  If you don't have fun because you can't win with the list you want, what makes you think that other people will have fun when you force them to take a list that they don't want?

So rather than take a stronger list or learning to play better you just want to force everyone else to take equally weak lists?  How sporting...

Im a poor sport? No sir, good try though. Anti-Science viewpoint, are you really serious. This is a game ffs, not discovering space travel



There is playing to win with your team, and then there is playing to win with someone elses 10x champion team. Am I getting thru to you yet?



That is right, a tournament is about who can play the game better, not rip off someones list from an online forum then parade around like the cock of the walk, because you have zero creativity. And to say that WARGAMING has nothing to do with battlefield generalship just shows you immature ignorant attitude towards the game in general. Hence you compulsion to play the next big fad, which you added ZERO to since well, you cant think up of your own lists...



You are NOT a better player. I am a gakky player as a matter of fact, but I'm still better than you because I dont rip off lists, claim that I am competitive and absolve myself of any blame. I play the game my way, and yes Im competitive but then again, I win at other things so 40k doesnt matter that much in the scheme of things

And if you are talking about a sport like baseball, 99% of the time there is little to no variety to win. Well unless you count steal bases, the hit and run, and the bunt as lacking variety. But then you look at (American)Football, and you have wait what is it? Varying and creative play books meant to upset the opposing teams balance and score. You have run plays, pass plays, split backs, empty backfield, the combinations go on and on.

You are using sports as an example but you are confusing things. Sports have offense and defense, those are the absolutes. There is no one or two ways to do things that work every time or else the sport would be boring. Seeing the same pitch or the same play every time would drive the fans crazy. That is what the tournies have/will become unless GW does something to fix it, one pitch baseball

If you dont mind me asking if someone compared your list to mauleens list, how much varience would someone see? This is not to say you are not beiing truthful, i have no doubt you put some sort of twist, but is it enough to say "Man that skyth's list, it was killer" and not "Man skyth says he has his own list, but barring one unit, it really is the ultramauleens"?

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/27/2006 7:48 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/27/2006 1:44 AM
The player takes the list they want, they see cheese in front of them, they know they're going to lose, they lose, they have no fun.

In fact if they are surprised at the result, they probably liked the game more.

The art of playing with comp is taking a nice list and still winning.

The player takes the list they want, they see a weak army in front of them, they know they're going to win and their opponent is going to whine about it, they win and their opponent whines about it, they have no fun.

Why doesn't the player with the weak list simply take a stronger list?  If you don't want to take a strong list then it's your problem if you lose.  If you don't have fun because you can't win with the list you want, what makes you think that other people will have fun when you force them to take a list that they don't want?

Some of us like to play the game the way we do, or we just want to win in a way that hasnt happened before.  Some of us, I seem to be the minority on the internet, dont feel as though taking completely powergamed armies (Im sorry mauleen, yours is the one I know the most, no harm meant) is fun or exciting.  To us it is like using IDKFA and IDDQD in Doom, it takes the fun out of the game when you have max ammo and armor as well as being in god mode.  Some of us have moved past that point in their lives.

GW really needs to do something, to even the score so there will be more that just the "top 5" winning.  Maybe dont dock em points, but start the people not playing tooled out armies with base points.  Heck have the TO's categorize the lists, and define before hand how this would work.  That way the tooled up armies dont have to whine about comp because there is none, and the other players will be able to get some points and if they have a good day maybe win a tourney

Posted By moosifer on 12/27/2006 7:49 AM
There is playing to win with your team, and then there is playing to win with someone elses 10x champion team. Am I getting thru to you yet?

There is using tactics that are proven to work and there is refusing to use those tactics because "it weren't invented here!"  You talk about the relationship of real-world "generalship" to 40k, but only foolish generals eschew good tactics simply because they were invented by someone else.  After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did the US decide not to use their own carrier-based navy since it wasn't "original" enough?

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/27/2006 8:02 AM

Posted By moosifer on 12/27/2006 7:49 AM
There is playing to win with your team, and then there is playing to win with someone elses 10x champion team. Am I getting thru to you yet?

There is using tactics that are proven to work and there is refusing to use those tactics because "it weren't invented here!"  You talk about the relationship of real-world "generalship" to 40k, but only foolish generals eschew good tactics simply because they were invented by someone else.  After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor did the US decide not to use their own carrier-based navy since it wasn't "original" enough?

Yes you are right, not using tactics that have been proven, is silly.  I agree with you here

It is not that I wont use tactics because they are unoriginal.  A tactic is holding a squad of Assault Marines behind your lines to counter-charge any enemy unit that hits your lines.  A tactic is using heavy weapons to cover your advancing troops right?

But is filling your list with assault cannons and using the very overpowered rending rules really a tactic, or just an exploit of game mechanics?

Posted By moosifer on 12/27/2006 8:08 AM
But is filling your list with assault cannons and using the very overpowered rending rules really a tactic, or just an exploit of game mechanics?

Is filling your navy with aircraft carriers using the very overpowered torpedo and dive bombers to sink battleships from far outside the range of their guns really a tactic, or just an exploit of reality?

Nope, because aircraft carriers without support of destoryers and cruisers will get lit up by your enemies submarines and light cruiser You are using very poor examples. A tactic would be to create fleet carriers by converting old merchant ships, give them a destroyer escort, and have them patrol seas independent of one another, so that you can cover more space while true carriers can be built.

(was it fleet carriers or escort carriers that were converted from merchant hulls in WWII i cant seem to remember)

First, his forum account is "mauleed", not "mauleen".

Second, this is just silly. A while back I wrote a program which generated every possible Chaos Lord within specific parameters, then simulated it in combat millions of times and printed out the configurations which were viable in a nice table. I posted it here, too. By your logic, now anyone else who uses a Chaos Lord is uncreative, unoriginal, a bad player et cetera because they're just ripping off stuff from Dakka.

Really, there are a finite number of possible lists at any point value. Anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of mathematics will tend to pick up on the useful stuff fairly quickly with a brief analysis. I ran six-man las/plas squads before I was even aware of Dakka because, well, their optimality as tactical squads is self-evident.

Stupid question from someone who doesn't look at 40k that often: Is comp in the rulebook?

Posted By malfred on 12/27/2006 8:37 AM
Stupid question from someone who doesn't look at 40k that often: Is comp in the rulebook?

No. But remember, if you follow the rules, you're a big meanie. 


I mean, Moreso.

They should seriously consider adding it then. Or maybe they should come
up with their own comp system so that armies that take "fluffy" combinations
benefit in a single way...and put it in the rulebook.

Make everything worth "composition points" as well as victory points.

Eldar:

Avatar of Khaine: 1 point
Farseer with two powers, no wargear: 5 points.

Etc. etc.

They already have something kind of like that.  They're called "points".  Unfortunately they don't always make things cost the appropriate amount of "points".

I've seen tournaments that awarded benefits for fielding certain units. Ed Maule, actually, used to run tourneys that gave a discount for 'rare' units (examples from 3rd edition: Dire Avengers, Shining Spears, jetbikes); rare units also factored into the scenarios for the tournaments (a rare unit would be worth 2x any other scoring unit, for example). I think that's right. Always seemed like a neat idea, and encouraged people to bring a couple of rarely fielded units. You could do the same thing with 'unique' units (i.e. the more different units you field, the more benefits you derive in terms of game points or scenarios).

Frankly, the best motivation for fielding different armies has been, for me, league play and scenario play (especially things like COD). That's going to work a heck of a lot better than giving out 'popular' points.

Abba: what I meant was:

Full man space marine squad: Many points, high comp
Two half man space marine squads: Same points, lower comp

It has to vary from codex to codex.

Posted By onlainari on 12/26/2006 5:59 PM

Posted By Buoyancy on 12/26/2006 5:35 PM

Comp scores serve absolutely no worthwhile purpose in a competitive environment.  Al they accomplish is to punish people for having the audacity of playing a game with the intention of winning it.

I've said it over and over and over, but you obviously don't read. Maybe because I'm quoting you you might read it this time.

Comp produces variety.

It also means players can go to tournaments with the lists they want to use and not get their arse kicked without having a chance.

 

Your lethal min/max list can do very well under most conceptions of "comp." The traditional comp was very favorable to the marine min/max list, but you’d be hard pressed to field a non-Mech Tau. Give me a comp list that is viewed as fair and we can immediately show how powerlists can be modified easily to accommodate them.
I too would like variety and it’s the total lack of non MEQ that soured me on tourneys. But comp is not an effective mitigate to that.

I was a MEQ, now im not. They get boring after a while

Posted By malfred on 12/27/2006 9:14 AM
Abba: what I meant was:

Full man space marine squad: Many points, high comp
Two half man space marine squads: Same points, lower comp

It has to vary from codex to codex.

I know.  But why do people take 2 half squads rather than 1 full squad?  Because smaller squads get just as many heavy/special weapons as large ones.  So the 2 half squads get more firepower per pt.  So if you want people to field full squads then simply make full squads cheaper or half squads more expensive.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/27/2006 3:55 PM

Posted By malfred on 12/27/2006 9:14 AM
Abba: what I meant was:

Full man space marine squad: Many points, high comp
Two half man space marine squads: Same points, lower comp

It has to vary from codex to codex.

I know.  But why do people take 2 half squads rather than 1 full squad?  Because smaller squads get just as many heavy/special weapons as large ones.  So the 2 half squads get more firepower per pt.  So if you want people to field full squads then simply make full squads cheaper or half squads more expensive.

Or eliminate the advantage ala potenial DA changes.

@moosifer, let me clarify it for you, my point was when I go to a tournie I go to win, I know that wont happen because my army lists and my style of play is not very good. I like to rush out in the open and charge things with no concept of victory conditions (i play SW afterall).

The guys who continually win tournes have the same (so called powerlist) and are at the same time good players. My brothers listare so crap you would not believe but he came 3rd in the last tournies we played and he beat those powerlists cos he is a very tactical player.

If we had comp here he would have got 1st place as his army was very fluffy and different from the usual list you see. However it would be unfair to the guys who actuall came first with there (so called cheese lists) as they won fair and square.

Why is it only in wargames like 40k you hear cheese lists etc? if you were racing in F1 and you use a crap car when everybody is using the latest or best with traction control dont complain when you lose and expect to be given extra point for showing variety. If everybody used the same F1 cars then the true greatest driver will still win.

We have seperate winner for painting, sportmanship generalship. they are all seperate. Making somebody score less points for having a cheesy list is just taking the piss. after all they have come to win.

Posted By skyth on 12/27/2006 5:16 AM
Taking a weak army to a tournament is an insult to your opponent. Instead of giving them a challenging game, you have them wipe you off the table. Not much fun in that. The fact is armies that are 'good comp' are boring to play and play against.

Well here in Australia, if you take a nice list, you don't get wiped off the table by the opponent. Thus it is no insult. As well as that, players find that if you take a hard list, they wipe their opponents off the table, thus their lists are boring to play and play against.

So basically, it depends what tournaments you go to. Because here in Australia, you couldn't be more wrong.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/27/2006 7:48 AM

So rather than take a stronger list or learning to play better you just want to force everyone else to take equally weak lists?  How sporting...

Interesting point. I really don't think it goes like that. Everyone gets encouraged to take equally weak lists, that is true. But in the end, that makes everyone have a good game. The masses take average armies, everyone is expected to take lists about as powerful. Comp is there to punish armies that use overly powerful unit combinations that your 'average' army would be hard-pressed to defeat, since not all Codices were created equal. The "Monolith Wall", "Siren Bomb" and "IW SAFH" armies come to mind.

This aspect of Comp scoring, to me at least, makes the battles more even - so the outcome of a battle comes down to the players themselves, rather than one list simply being stronger than another.

So in the end, people have to learn to play better with their weaker lists, rather than just use a powerful list and win without effort.

So where you are wrong is: You can use a powerful list and win, but use a weak list and win makes you a better general. Duh.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/27/2006 12:32 PM 

Your lethal min/max list can do very well under most conceptions of "comp." The traditional comp was very favorable to the marine min/max list, but you’d be hard pressed to field a non-Mech Tau. Give me a comp list that is viewed as fair and we can immediately show how powerlists can be modified easily to accommodate them.
I too would like variety and it’s the total lack of non MEQ that soured me on tourneys. But comp is not an effective mitigate to that.

That is ridiculous. I shouldn't be so hard on you as I was the guy I quoted in your quote of me, the thread is quite big now so not reading everything isn't a crime. But I have said it before. Math comp is flawed, TO comp for the win.

There is no math comp system that can't be abused. Make your powerlist and send it to a tournament with TO comp and it will get the right comp mark.

Comp is effective (read the quote for context). Plenty of evidence of that.

Posted By beef on 12/27/2006 5:12 PM
The guys who continually win tournes have the same (so called powerlist) and are at the same time good players. My brothers listare so crap you would not believe but he came 3rd in the last tournies we played and he beat those powerlists cos he is a very tactical player.

If we had comp here he would have got 1st place as his army was very fluffy and different from the usual list you see. However it would be unfair to the guys who actuall came first with there (so called cheese lists) as they won fair and square.

Why is it only in wargames like 40k you hear cheese lists etc? if you were racing in F1 and you use a crap car when everybody is using the latest or best with traction control dont complain when you lose and expect to be given extra point for showing variety. If everybody used the same F1 cars then the true greatest driver will still win.

We have seperate winner for painting, sportmanship generalship. they are all seperate. Making somebody score less points for having a cheesy list is just taking the piss. after all they have come to win.

Sure.  But it's always up to the tournament organizers WHAT is necessary to win the tournament.  The players reinforce this by attending or not attending. 

We're not always necessarily measuring "who kicks the most ass with complete free choice of list, no matter how old, boring, or tired it is".  If we want that, we can always go to the UK GT. 

Sometimes we want to know "Who kicks ass while using a cool, well-painted army and being a fun opponent while he's at it."  In fact, many players seem to think that's a better question, because GW games involve all of those qualities, and the player who can balance them all is probably a better exemplar of the hobby and someone we'd like to see more of.  I'd rather give someone like that a prize, and encourage the powergamers to paint well, build more interesting armies, and be fun opponents if they want to be tournament champions too.

Funny thing, it also makes for events involving more varied and attractive armies, often having NO players at all who are unpleasant to play against.  And those are better events for everyone. 

 

Posted By beef on 12/27/2006 5:12 PM
Why is it only in wargames like 40k you hear cheese lists etc? if you were racing in F1 and you use a crap car when everybody is using the latest or best with traction control dont complain when you lose and expect to be given extra point for showing variety. If everybody used the same F1 cars then the true greatest driver will still win.

It's not "only in wargames".  It's in all kinds of customizable games.  Try playing some others.  This comes up in card games, video games, computer games, and even professional sports (the NY Yankees are cheesy because they have more money to buy all the best players).   Whenever the game itself is not perfectly balanced, players will complain, and social pressures will be exerted on the people who are benefitting from/exploting the broken bits of the game.  Comp scoring is a way of giving weaker/more varied lists a little boost to enhance everyone's enjoyment of the tournament.

Posted By onlainari on 12/27/2006 5:23 PM
The masses take average armies, everyone is expected to take lists about as powerful.

So why should a competitive player be penalized because the "masses" are apparently unable/unwilling to take strong lists?  It's not like they only sell Iron Warriors in super secret special stores where the masses can't get them.

If ya can't beat em, join em.  Actually, on second thought, if ya can't beat em, whine about it and zero them on comp.

I wanna make a list that consists of only Tzeentch horrors (the models are totally sweet!), a Lord of Change (he's by far the coolest greater daemon - awesome!), and a huge unit of Tzeentch chosen all with Twisting Path (sooo Tzeentchy!!).  Then I wanna whine about how everybody else's space marine army is cheese and zero all my opponents' comp scores.  Way cool!

Is it a good thing that half the armies you see in 40k are SM? Would it be a good thing if half the armies you saw in tournaments were one particular build of one particular flavor of SM? The answer to both questions is the same- No. Because variety is better.

Equating this argument to "I wanna make a list that consists of only Tzeentch horrors (the models are totally sweet!), a Lord of Change (he's by far the coolest greater daemon - awesome!), and a huge unit of Tzeentch chosen all with Twisting Path (sooo Tzeentchy!!). Then I wanna whine about how everybody else's space marine army is cheese and zero all my opponents' comp scores." just makes you look like an idiot or a jerk.

Implying that people who disagree with you, and who put their time and effort where their mouths are when it comes to running tournaments are people who "whine about it and zero them on comp", is just being an ass.

I've stuck up for you and been restrained with the edit and delete buttons on many an occasion, but don't be an ass, Abby. That entire post was crap, and completely failed to advance the discussion. You can do better.

First off, I understand that at this point, 40k players have to work with what they've got.  What I mean by that is that everyone knows that not all of the codices are out for every army, and several armies are underpowered compared to others.    So you work with what you have, and maybe comp is a temporary solution for some people.

I agree about variety being good thing.  The predominance of marine players is one of the main reasons I stopped playing 40k, and I'm a marine player myself!

So while I understand that everyone has to figure out how to deal with the crappy unbalanced codex situation, whether that means just play marines, or use comp, or whatever, I'm a bit curious as to what your feelings are about the long-run balance of the game.

In some other games (I'll use Flames of War as an example, since it's what I primarily play now) the armies that you can play in the game are all very different, and have different play styles.  The armies are also well balanced, so that there are very few "weak" or "useless" army list choices.  You can basically take whatever units you are allowed by the rules, and if you have a balanced force and are a good player, you won't have any problems being competitive. 

It seems that in 40k, taking a "balanced" list is synonimous with taking a "weak" or "unoptimized" list.  I really think this shouldn't be the case. It's simply poor codex design on GW's part.  In Flames of War, if you don't take a balanced list, you're going to get your clock cleaned, straight up. 

There are no real overpowered units, because there are multiple counters for everything.  Your tanks can't handle the Tiger that the German player keeps throwing at you?  Try using some artillery, or heavy anti-tank guns, or combat engineers, or flame throwers.  Are your half-tracks getting shot up by medium tanks like Shermans or T-34s?  Then you pull out the Tiger to keep them honest.  Is a Tiger too much of a points sink for your taste?  StuGs often work just as well.

You see where I'm going with this?

I'm saying that if 40k was pushed to be a more balanced game rules-wise, there would be no need for comp.  Everyone could take a list from whatever army they wanted, and come up with something good.  It's possible to have a game balanced enough to encourage variety without stupid things like comp - and in the end, everyone has more fun! You have good variety, good balance, good gameplay....a good tournament!

Because honestly - I myself could easily get past some of the stupid ambiguous rules problems in GW games if the armies were simply more balanced.

Isn't that what we should really be pushing GW for?  More balance in codices and rulebooks, as opposed to artificial, and often times unfair, balancing tools like comp?

What do you guys think of that?