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.

Bang on target except that GW didn't invent comp and broadly speaking they don't use it. Of course that's just because they think the codexes are already well-balanced.

If GW did not envent comp and its not in the rule book than its a pointless rule at tournies.

As for balance once again my idea of balance is totally different to yours. Remember the majority of people who play dont have this sort of problem and its that majority that Gw focuses on (not the minority on these types of forums)

What somebody said about UK players complaing about Italian players and their codexes? Well most of the gamer I game with at my local stores and games clubs who go tournies dont have that problem.

Posted By Lost_Boys on 12/28/2006 2:46 AM
If GW did not envent comp and its not in the rule book than its a pointless rule at tournies.

I don't see how it's pointless. If it's what most people want, then obviously it's a good idea, you get more players.

Posted By onlainari on 12/28/2006 4:23 AM

Posted By Lost_Boys on 12/28/2006 2:46 AM
If GW did not envent comp and its not in the rule book than its a pointless rule at tournies.

I don't see how it's pointless. If it's what most people want, then obviously it's a good idea, you get more players.

It's not pointless. As long as it makes everyone unhappy, and actually gets a few people to cry, then comp has won the day. Like the evil robot that comp is, it longs to see people weep.      

Posted By Hordini on 12/27/2006 10:49 PM

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!

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?

This is not a new point.  Yes, if GW did a better job of balancing the codices, Comp would be unnnecessary.  GW has even built a very minor form of comp into the rules in the form of the Force Org charts.  In a standard mission you have to have a minumum of 2 Troops and can have 6, while EL, FA, and HS are all 0-3.  So there is a nod there to armies being made up more of basic guys than of specialists.

Unfortunately, getting better codex balance takes a lot of work and time and testing, and GW doesn't seem to test in quite as much depth as we'd like.

 

Posted By Hordini on 12/27/2006 10:49 PM

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. 

It's not really synonymous with taking a weak list.  It often just means taking a slightly weakER list than the two or three dominant lists presently out there.  Many SM players out there abandoned using Rhinos and Razorbacks after 4th came out, as they have lost a lot of their power and gained new vulnerabilities.  I still include three of them in my standard DA list, and I still win almost all of my games.  Would I do as well if most of my opposition was 4 HS/9 Oblit IWs, old-style Ulthwe, and Drop Pod marines?  Probably not.  My DA are a pretty solid shooty army with good fighty bits and a lot of mobility, and can definitely beat up a "weak" or poorly designed army.  But they do have a lot of unit variety and at least some elements (like the transports) which you don't see all the time, so even if I do beat up my opponent's army, at least he's not fighting the same old, same old.

Posted By Lost_Boys on 12/28/2006 2:46 AM
If GW did not envent comp and its not in the rule book than its a pointless rule at tournies.

That's just silly.  GW also didn't say you must roll the dice in front of your opponent, or that all the models you field at a tournament must be painted, or that you may not stall and must attempt to complete your game in the time allotted. Yet these are all good and common rules in tournaments.

Posted By Lost_Boys on 12/28/2006 2:46 AM

As for balance once again my idea of balance is totally different to yours. Remember the majority of people who play dont have this sort of problem and its that majority that Gw focuses on (not the minority on these types of forums)

 

I wonder.  I do see comp discussions on more than one international message forum.  British players do use it at many tournaments, even though the GW sanctioned GTs there don't.  The majority of tournaments I see discussed being held in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Australia also have comp.  It's tough to accurately say whether the majority of people who play do or don't have an issue with comp or with the codices being unbalanced.  I will say, however, that tournaments probably provide more usefu data.  People just playing at home can't be counted or measured by us, and they have the much simpler and more casual method of peer pressure to use on their friends if the get sick of a given list or combo.

Posted By syr8766 on 12/28/2006 4:49 AM

It's not pointless. As long as it makes everyone unhappy, and actually gets a few people to cry, then comp has won the day. Like the evil robot that comp is, it longs to see people weep.      

No Syr, you're thinking of God.  Remember what Chef taught us- he feeds on our tears. 

Posted By Hordini on 12/27/2006 10:49 PM

It seems that in 40k, taking a "balanced" list is synonimous with taking a "weak" or "unoptimized" list. 

When the comp whiners talk about taking a balanced list, that's exactly what they mean.

I almost always take what I consider to be a balanced list (As any list should be able to deal with almost any situation).  The better lists out there (Including the ones people whine about-Iron Warriors, Ultramauleens, Mech Eldar, Dual monolith Necrons, etc) ARE balanced lists for that reason.

If a list isn't a balanced list, then it's a themed list.  Of course, a themed list is only considered a themed list by the whiners if it loses.  The only time I took a not balanced list to a tournament, rather a weak themed list that was based on being in combat quickly (Heck, I took flying possessed)...I got killed on comp because it was scary and because I won.  Who cares that the list was really inefficient and easily beatable. 

skyth, a balanced list is just that, balanced. Not maxing your Elites/FA/Heavy/Cmd Squads with the same thing, which, correct me if I am wrong, is what these powerful lists are all about. Finding a loophole/tactic and exploiting it to its full advantage.

I honestly think if GW really wanted to do something in terms of being fair to all, is not change the rules around, and instead either limiting the number of choices to 0-1, increase the point cost so you dont see 3 elites of the same config, or even better create a USR that only allows you to take the same config of wargear/weapons in 2 units, and every other unit of the same type has to be different

Posted By onlainari on 12/27/2006 5:37 PM

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.

Exactly what "evidence" are you citing? Under the old comp rules of 40% troops marines did just fine. The "mauleed" pattern min/max marine list was the standard during that time. Exactly how did "power" lists get hampered? Yet a Tau troopy list would have been hard pressed to meet a 40% standard for troops.

Really, comp is garbage.  Those who justify comp state that it gives weaker lists a chance and evens the playing field. It doesn't.  Unless everyone has identical lists comp will never be fair to all armies.

In a tournament bring the most powerful list you can if you want to be competitive. If you want to play to have fun, then bring the list you like, just don't expect to win every game.  if you really want to be different bring a non-MEQ list and see the stunned looks of other people "who are...orks?"

 

 

 

Posted By moosifer on 12/28/2006 7:22 AM
skyth, a balanced list is just that, balanced. Not maxing your Elites/FA/Heavy/Cmd Squads with the same thing, which, correct me if I am wrong, is what these powerful lists are all about. Finding a loophole/tactic and exploiting it to its full advantage.

I honestly think if GW really wanted to do something in terms of being fair to all, is not change the rules around, and instead either limiting the number of choices to 0-1, increase the point cost so you dont see 3 elites of the same config, or even better create a USR that only allows you to take the same config of wargear/weapons in 2 units, and every other unit of the same type has to be different

 

First off, a balanced list is one that can win under any circumstances and against any opponent, as opposed to a rock-paper-scissors army, which are great in certain missions vs certain opponents, but will automatically lose vs certain missions/opponents.  One of the most balanced units in the game is a las/plas tac squad (More so with a power fist sergeant).  What opponent can't it deal with?  Especially when backed up by other units that are more mobile?

 

And, quite frankly, the forces of ORDER (IE Space Marines, Imperial Guard, etc) should have multiple units, if not having ALL thier units, of the same type having the same configuration as opposed to a chaotic mish-mash of weapons and/or upgrades?

Posted By onlainari on 12/27/2006 5:37 PM
 Make your powerlist and send it to a tournament with TO comp and it will get the right comp mark.

No...You'll get the comp that the TO thinks you should get.  No guarantees that it is the 'right' comp.  They are as biased as anyone else is.  I was discussing comp with one TO and he told me my Marine list would get better comp than my Chaos list because Chaos is cheesy...

I think we have come to a great impass because we are both using different definitions of balanced.

I say balanced is more in the configuration of the army in terms of using the Force Org chart in a very skewed manner, and yours is more the ability of the list you create to deal with your opponent.

Either way, if you look at ForceOrg charts there really should be more regular guys, because at the rate that 40k goes, the attrition rate for soldiers is astounding. I think they should up point cost of the elite units. Yes it will be unpopular but remember you are not paying for Joe Schmoe, but the best of the best

Posted By jfrazell on 12/28/2006 8:27 AM

Exactly what "evidence" are you citing? Under the old comp rules of 40% troops marines did just fine. The "mauleed" pattern min/max marine list was the standard during that time. Exactly how did "power" lists get hampered? Yet a Tau troopy list would have been hard pressed to meet a 40% standard for troops.

Really, comp is garbage.  Those who justify comp state that it gives weaker lists a chance and evens the playing field. It doesn't.  Unless everyone has identical lists comp will never be fair to all armies.

The only evidence that matters.  Fun tournaments, with lots of players, and with a variety of armies represented and competing for the top slots, instead of just a few stale, cliched lists. 

Comp rewards people for bringing something a little different, and for trying unexpected combinations.  Ever hear the term "stealth cheese"?  The concept is something that is very powerful but looks fluffy, and gets in under the rader because it doesn't look nasty.  It only matters in a comp-scored environment, and it's an example of innovation in list design.  Innovation in list design is the result of skilled gamers applying their list design skills to the challenge of making strong armies which aren't just copies of an established list.  And that's a good thing.  It makes the playing environment richer and the tactical challenges more interesting.

BTW, re: "Comp is garbage".  How nice of you.  Do you see anyone in this thread saying "no comp play is garbage"? Do you see comp advocates calling you a "whiner" or other names?  Get over it and use better means of expression.

Posted By skyth on 12/28/2006 9:07 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/27/2006 5:37 PM
 Make your powerlist and send it to a tournament with TO comp and it will get the right comp mark.

No...You'll get the comp that the TO thinks you should get.  No guarantees that it is the 'right' comp.  They are as biased as anyone else is.  I was discussing comp with one TO and he told me my Marine list would get better comp than my Chaos list because Chaos is cheesy...

I see your problem.  Your local play environment is full of whiners and incompetent TOs.  No wonder you think everything sucks and you wish for a different tournament system.  Maybe you should put your efforts where your mouth is and actually run some events yourself?

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/28/2006 10:51 AM

Comp rewards people for bringing something a little different, and for trying unexpected combinations.  Ever hear the term "stealth cheese"?  The concept is something that is very powerful but looks fluffy, and gets in under the rader because it doesn't look nasty.  It only matters in a comp-scored environment, and it's an example of innovation in list design. 

Er....ok so a slight tweek to a powerlisting army to make it  comp friendly is what you're looking for? Yet everyone complained about the mauleed style lists when comp was in vogue.

Just by saying its in a tournament doesn't support the argument that comp leads to balance in any form.  All you're doing is putting a cute pink collar on an attack dog.  You still have the power gaming lists, but now you have a structure that is beneficial to some lists and harmful to other lists. Again, with the old comp styles stealth cheese was the rule.  Frankly I prefer unadulterated cheese. 

At least with unadulterated cheese I know its fair as you can form the best lists possible.  If you want to play a less powerful list then go ahead. Its what I would do.  But I would be honest and say it, and not expect to win every game.  If I get ticked off for losing then its my fault, not false conceptions of comp.

 

 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/28/2006 11:13 AM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/28/2006 10:51 AM

Comp rewards people for bringing something a little different, and for trying unexpected combinations.  Ever hear the term "stealth cheese"?  The concept is something that is very powerful but looks fluffy, and gets in under the rader because it doesn't look nasty.  It only matters in a comp-scored environment, and it's an example of innovation in list design. 

Er....ok so a slight tweek to a powerlisting army to make it  comp friendly is what you're looking for? Yet everyone complained about the mauleed style lists when comp was in vogue. 

I'm looking for a more interesting army.  Whether it's something really unexpected (like JT Scott taking 2nd place at the Boston GT using  Tau under 3rd edition rules), or something just a little less annoying (maybe IW with only a couple of Oblits), the whole point is to see more and different armies.

I don't know who this "everyone" you're invoking is.  I've been on these boards, and a supporter of comp, for seven years now.  I don't remember ever complaining about Ed's lists. 

 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/28/2006 11:13 AM

Just by saying its in a tournament doesn't support the argument that comp leads to balance in any form.  All you're doing is putting a cute pink collar on an attack dog.  You still have the power gaming lists, but now you have a structure that is beneficial to some lists and harmful to other lists. Again, with the old comp styles stealth cheese was the rule.  Frankly I prefer unadulterated cheese. 

You're still talking about math comp, and not listening to the concept of TO comp, or mixed math/TO comp.  You are free to prefer "unadulterated cheese".  Personally, I think it leads to a degenerate and less-interesting form of the game.    "Stealth cheese" was a humorous nickname for a goal.  A goal of making a strong, competitive army which looked and played in a more interesting way, which would be more enjoyable to opponents and thus get better comp scores.  This is not a bad goal.
 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/28/2006 11:13 AM

At least with unadulterated cheese I know its fair as you can form the best lists possible.  If you want to play a less powerful list then go ahead. Its what I would do.  But I would be honest and say it, and not expect to win every game.  If I get ticked off for losing then its my fault, not false conceptions of comp. 

I want to play, and play against, cool and interesting lists.  I'd rather than they were powerful, because I like a competitive game.  I make competitive lists, and because I am a good player and somewhat arrogant, I generally do expect to win.   I don't blame my losses on anything but my own play (or occasionally the dice).   

Not always Mann. Comp can be a double edge sword.

The last comp list thrown out by GW, my mech sisters, which had 5 troop(all the same) 3 heavy(all the same) 1 fast attack, 1 HQ scored almost MAX comp and could out do most fluffy armies in comp.

*shrug* SOme comp ideas work great. Others punish lists un intendedly- non-mech tau get hammered in certain comp rule sets.

There isnt any hard and fast way: some are good, some are very bad. When someone can win a tournment without winning the vast majority of points.....its a problem....

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/27/2006 10:11 PM
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.

If you're advocating docking all SM on comp then I can certainly get behind that.  If "variety" is what you're after then that certainly would be a step in the right direction.

But if you seriously want to use comp to balance the game the fairest way to do it is to look at the win % for each army and then handicap each of them accordingly.  So footslogging orks and Thousand Sons would get huge bonuses while Iron Warriors and drop pod marines would get penalties.  The problem of course is that the relevant statistics aren't readily available (at least not in the level of detail that would be helpful).  You could just use the crude statistics available (which lump all Chaos together, all space marines together, etc) but that would be unfair to some armies (Thousand Sons would be penalized for being from the same codex as Iron Warriors).  But realistically any comp system is going to be unfair to somebody.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/27/2006 10:11 PM
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'm not talking about tournament organizers.  I'm talking about players who whine about powerful lists but refuse to use them themselves.  If you want to run a tournament with no 3+ saves or no heavy support or whatever other crazy comp rules you like then more power to you.  But if you're having to respond to the whining of players that are unable/unwilling to make their list more competitive/learn to play better then that's just sad.  Not you, the whiners.

And yes, I'm being an ass butt hat's just the way I am.

Posted By moosifer on 12/28/2006 7:22 AM
skyth, a balanced list is just that, balanced. Not maxing your Elites/FA/Heavy/Cmd Squads with the same thing, which, correct me if I am wrong, is what these powerful lists are all about. Finding a loophole/tactic and exploiting it to its full advantage.

I honestly think if GW really wanted to do something in terms of being fair to all, is not change the rules around, and instead either limiting the number of choices to 0-1, increase the point cost so you dont see 3 elites of the same config, or even better create a USR that only allows you to take the same config of wargear/weapons in 2 units, and every other unit of the same type has to be different

Some armies have really good troop choices (like marines) while others need their Elites/FA/HS to pick up the slack (like eldar).  And restricting people from taking the same configuration in multiple units would simply benefit armies that have a variety of effective options and penalize those with few.  I shudder to think of what would happen to Thousand Sons if they were required to take horrors/possessed/chosen for the sake of comp.  And what about those armies that have very little variation in their options?  What would necrons do?

Posted By carmachu on 12/28/2006 5:14 PM
When someone can win a tournment without winning the vast majority of points.....its a problem....

In reality, you should not be opposed to comp, if this is sincere.

Even with comp in practically every tournament in Australia, so far practically all of the time the player with the highest battle points, sports, and painting (combined), wins. So comp has no effect on first place.

What's the point in comp if it has no effect on first place? It has an effect on the army lists. We don't have players facing against IW SAFH and having a bad game. We don't see siren princes ruin the tournament for 6 opponents.

Why dock people who play marines? Are you gona tell them what to play with aswell? what the hell happened to people being free too choose what ever army theu want to play? Marines make up 50% of list cos they are cool. Most people like playing with them.

Its mainly the loser that want comp. Thats the main problem. If you wan play for fun at a tournie by all meens. Yes its good to have variety but not at someone who has come to wins expence.

Posted By beef on 12/28/2006 11:21 PM
what the hell happened to people being free too choose what ever army theu want to play?

I'm really, really confused. When did comp say you can't take what you want? Take a hard list and you just don't get a few bonus points, that's all.

It's a handicapped designed to better find the better general (and it works).

Posted By beef on 12/28/2006 11:21 PM
Its mainly the loser that want comp. Thats the main problem.

I can only speak for myself here (others in my position do the same!) but I'm no loser by any means. My tournament w/d/l record is 9/3/1.

Posted By beef on 12/28/2006 11:21 PM
Yes its good to have variety but not at someone who has come to wins expence.

It generally doesn't. Sure some people will turn up to some tournaments in Australia with cheesy lists and don't do well in comp, and lose a few postions, but the best players play with nice lists and still win with them, thus at the top end comp has no effect.

A good player thinks "I can win with a cheesy list, I can win the same amount (20 points) with a less cheesy list, I'll play with the less cheesy list thanks".

Posted By onlainari on 12/28/2006 8:00 PM

What's the point in comp if it has no effect on first place? It has an effect on the army lists. We don't have players facing against IW SAFH and having a bad game. We don't see siren princes ruin the tournament for 6 opponents.

So what about the people (like me) that would like to fight against the hardest armies, but can't because people whine about it so they never get brought?

As stated before:

THere's good comp and there's bad comp. I've seen HORRIBLE comp scoring procedures.....and seen some good ones.

When you force someone to take say, 40% in troops when they had it, it hurts a non-mech tau and possiblely eldar. While it will have no effect on my mech sisters army, and if fact rewards it for its brutality.




It shouldnt be like several years ago where you could lose or draw most of your games, and still place extremely high. Battle points were something like 25-30% of the total score one year(or something close to that) where as painting, comp, and sportsmen made up the majority of points....this isnt a beauty contest, its a tournment.

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/28/2006 5:44 PM

Some armies have really good troop choices (like marines) while others need their Elites/FA/HS to pick up the slack (like eldar).  And restricting people from taking the same configuration in multiple units would simply benefit armies that have a variety of effective options and penalize those with few.  I shudder to think of what would happen to Thousand Sons if they were required to take horrors/possessed/chosen for the sake of comp.  And what about those armies that have very little variation in their options?  What would necrons do?

Just write a better system, and use some organizer discretion for armies with unusual restrictions.  Here's an example:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/13/postid/113472/view/topic/Default.aspx

Yes that is one of the comp lists I am referring to. It beautifully favors lists with hard troop units while negatively impacts codexes where their strengths lie in other areas.

Posted By beef on 12/28/2006 11:21 PM
Its mainly the loser that want comp. Thats the main problem. If you wan play for fun at a tournie by all meens. Yes its good to have variety but not at someone who has come to wins expence.

 

Posted By Xtapl on The Warhammer Forum on Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:51 pm  
If your position is that only people who can't win care about composition, then you're an idiot, full stop.

I'm only posting that because I know you won't take it personally, Beef.  It's actually from a largely very civil and evenhanded comp discussion regarding the use of Dogs of War in WHFB.  TWF is hosted in the UK and the majority of the posters are British.  Xtapl's a bit harsh, and he's American, but most of the folks in the thread aren't.

http://warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=23798&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=26

I think variety is a higher good to serve than a person's freedom to bring an IW list with 4HS and 9 Oblits in 1500pts without any sort of handicap.  Remember that you're still free to bring such a list to a composition scored event, you just won't get as many bonus points.

For the record, my GT record is 11/3/2 (highest ranking 9th), and my record in Rogue Traders and local tournaments is better.  I've taken the Overall prize in more than half of those that I've entered.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/29/2006 9:12 AM
Yes that is one of the comp lists I am referring to. It beautifully favors lists with hard troop units while negatively impacts codexes where their strengths lie in other areas.

Really?  Have you tried counting up the points for any lists? 

This particular system actually penalizes loading up on the same Troop selection too many times.  The armies which score best are those with the largest variety of selections across all categories.

Posted By skyth on 12/29/2006 5:39 AM

So what about the people (like me) that would like to fight against the hardest armies, but can't because people whine about it so they never get brought?

As has been repeatedly suggested, you should play in non-comp events, often referred to as Gladiators in the US.  If there are not enough of these in your area, you should run some.  If they are well-attended, then you have served your gaming community, and demonstrated the fun of non-comp events.  

Out of a large group of players, no doubt other people will be willing to step up to the plate and run some which you can play in too.

If they are not well-attended, and no one else is willing to run one, then perhaps this need is not as great as you thought it was.

The problem is the majority of people would love a tournie without comp. However most cant organise it. the one who can think comps a good thing such as your self Mannahnin. Its a lose lose situation for people who dont want to be penealised for taking wehatever they feel like.

Posted By beef on 12/28/2006 11:21 PM
what the hell happened to people being free too choose what ever army theu want to play?

Posted by Onlainari I12/28/2006 11:36 PM

'm really, really confused. When did comp say you can't take what you want? Take a hard list and you just don't get a few bonus points, that's all.

It's a handicapped designed to better find the better general (and it works).


Yeah you said it. Ok you can take what you want but get bonus points. That might make a difference to winning or losing. So in essence you are not free to choose unless you are fine with losing points over it