When you rate comp, what do you use to determine the rating that you give someone?

I voted 'other'.

Comp (I believe) was used as a way of implementing restrictions on armies (either based in the fluff or based on percieved loopholes in the codex) that should have been in the codex in the first place if it was written as a fully competitive game.

In other words, comp was essentially created to help balance army lists for tournament play that should have been in the codex/rules to begin with.

Of course, it is utlimately a very flawed concept because no two people agree upon what is "fluffy" or "cheesy".

If comp isn't punishing armies that are too "powerful," regardless of the rationale, then I don't know what it is.

I've said for a long time comp should be replaced with 'Handicap' reflected the fact that some armies are much, much harder to win with than others. Someone who goes 3-0 with a foot Ork army deserves a lot more respect than a drop pod army.

So I went with punish strong armies.

In an ideal world, it would be choice 1- reward armies that have a good theme or fit the background well.  Tragically, the majority of players see their made-up, far fetched "background" as an excuse to min-max or cheese out their army.  Also, many feel that if the army won, it must have poor comp.  Therefor, I went with choice two.

While it would be nice if it actually rewarded those armies that have a good theme, fit the background and aren't overly optimized exercises in mathematics, the reality is it's a highly subjective system that is used to punish what people perceive as overly powerful armies, regardless if justified or not. Excellent generalship and good luck with the dice can allow a crap list knock the snot out of some cookie cutter list, especially if the user hasn't a clue what they are doing.

But backgroun does not always mean a balanced army. A 4 ordinence Iron Warrior amry or drop-pod marines are fluffy and they're grossly overpowered.

Ive seen to many guys rock marine army's with two 5 man scout squads and drop all there other points on Termi's and other hard hitting things. For instance one guy in our area has done the two 5 man scout squads and the rest of his army is maxed out with Termi squads with a$$ cannons, land speeders with a$$ cannons, land raiders with a$$ cannons, and dreads with a$$ cannons. 72 a$$ cannon shots a turn bud....weres your comp there?

Regardless its not fun playing this guy, actully no one really plays this guy cause his army comp isnt fair, ya its legal but come on. This same guy destroyed most people in a local turnament we had, he crushed everyone, and then complained that he didnt come in first......and he wounder'd why? Well I think like 7% or his army was troop choices and the army was built around exploting loop holes and what not....

I understand a few armies are built around specific ideas....like the Deathwing, Iron warriors, speed freaks, sticking to fluff is one thing I feel but...........

Thats my rant

Keep it real!

-MR.B

I knew the ratings here would be opposite to Warseer's version. I help keep the ratings that way.



Hell, background is ALWAYS talking about how powerful the ZOMG armies are. All of them. The background says "tehy rox0rz and conquer stuff and have kewl guns and are liek the best!" Seriously, it's weird that people say armies are overpowered and "don't fit the fluff" (in any way you interpret it) because all the codices are meant to sell their army, so they'll talk about that army being the most efficient and brutally efficacious fighting force ever to grace the universe. My Tau are "ultra-mobile, hard hitting" (heh, similar words in every other codex) with a bunch of other adjectives and adverbs but somehow having a 3-head, 3-crisis/stealth, 2-FW, 2-'el basis for a cadre is wrong. Eh.

As for Mr. B, aren't Space Marines said to be hit-and-run special forces? I'm pretty sure that an army that teleports in, hits you as hard as it can, while taking minimal losses, is in the marine background. Then again, like I said, similar backgrounds are written for all the other races, so speed freaks and Deathwing (overpowered?) are fluffy too. Demonbombs are pretty fluffy too - bunch of demons being summoned and utterly crushing their enemies and making their opponents afraid of 'em? Yeah, sounds like Chaos.

Punish the strong.

Crush the weak.

Fondle the Willing.

Pretend it's not In There.

Malfred blushes.

I've always advocated in the favor of comp, just not in the way it is usually used.

I think a clear comp system should be used so that everyone playing can give themselves a comp score prior to the tournament (example, if you field 2+ deep striking units, you get Xpts of comp). Of course, judges would have to confirm the scores. The "cheesier" your army, the more points you get.

Here's the catch, comp points should be used only to determine pairs, which means that if you have a powerfull army, you're more likely to face one. Of course, as the tournament progresses, the top "weak" armies will eventually face some of the top "hard" ones; it simply means someone who decides to field a cheesy army will get to play against tougher opponents even if he loses his first game or two, whereas some people have been rumoured in the past to intentionally get fewer points in their first game just so they would't play on head table all tournament long...

+Of course, once all the games have been played, comp is then discarded to determine final rankings...

You know, that's not a bad idea, Spinsane. Use "Comp" to determine pairings so the cheesemeisters face other cheesemeisters and the balanced guys fight other balanced guys, and then ignore Comp for determining who wins the tournament. Of course, the problem with that is that still 90% of the time the tourney will be won by a cheesemeister, which will thus prompt the balanced players to cry foul.

Posted By MR.B on 12/17/2006 1:13 PM

Well I think like 7% or his army was troop choices and the army was built around exploting loop holes and what not....

I play O'Shovah Tau and take only two minimum-sized (i.e. 6 models) squads of Fire Warriors, regardless of the points size of the battle. So in an 1,850 game, my Troops choices are only 6.5%. But this is typical of O'Shovah armies and I get no complaints. Not only is it fluffy, it's prudent.

If we apply rules to punish the donkey-cannon-toting player in your example, would the same rules punish my army?

I agree with Yakface on the actual purpose of comp.

The fact that few use it correctly or have a proper guide to do so is a different poll entirely.

Is there a thread about comp anywhere else that explains its breakdown?  Ive only briefly heard about it and have no idea how it is figured into the tournement setting.  I dont know which armies are considered to be to strong or to weak (as far as the comp goes). 

Could someone post a link to somewhere that breaks it down for me?

Most people don?t have copies, Vult. Rogue Trader tournaments used to have a fixed checklist, and the US Grand Tournaments have used a couple of different checklists at different times. These were used by the judges to score your list, and you could design your army taking the rules into account, so you knew what you would get. You could choose to make compromises in your army design, deciding where to go for comp points and where to sacrifice them so as not to make changes to your army that you didn?t want to. The Grand Tournament ones were published in advance. The Rogue Trader ones started as a secret, but the judges were allowed to give you feedback afterwards on what you could do to improve, and pretty quickly the list became public knowledge.

For the past three years or so they?ve been using opponent-scored comp, in which each player gets a scoresheet with either a 1-3 scale or a 1-5 scale, and rough descriptions of what kind of armies should get what score. Obviously this is a lot more subjective, and has been subject to some abuses by bad sports deliberately underscoring their opponents and friends maxing each other out every time. The current RT scoring sheet has trimmed it down even further to a four point scale for Sportsmanship and a three point scale (actually 0, 1 or 2) for combined Comp and Appearance of your opponent?s army:

http://us.games-workshop.com/community/rtt/downloads/assets/Tournament/ResultSheet.pdf

I?ve got the 2004 GT rules packet in one of my gaming cases, and MIGHT still have the 2001 packet around somewhere too. The 2004 rules include the scoring scale for grading your opponent and his army, and the 2001 packet had the details of the judge-scored comp system, which was VERY strict. Much tougher than the RT checklist below. I?ll try to dig them out for you, if you like.

The old RT scoring list was as follows, 2 points for each check:

1) Was the army list handed in on time and in the correct format?

2) Is the army list correct?

3) Does the army have more Troops choices than any other single category?

4) Do troop selections make up AT LEAST 40% of the total points of this army?

5) Are there at least TWO squads that are at maximum size?

6) Has the player spent less than 10% of their total points on wargear?

(NOTE: This includes all weapons and wargear for characters and all vehicle upgrades. Everything on the Armory page. For Tyranids you count mutations and psychic powers.)

7) Do all individual characters, squads, and the army itself have names?

8) Does the army have a theme or background to it?

9) In YOUR OPINION is this a cool army that would be fun to play against?

10) Is this army one of your top three picks?

------------

Since GW doesn?t support ANY fixed mathematical comp scoring system anymore, comp is often in the eye of the beholder. Many players still retain some general ?rules? in their heads which correspond to the old comp formulae. however. Stuff like ?Troops should make up the bulk of the army?, ?You shouldn?t spend a ton of points on wargear and characters?, ?Max-size squads are fluffy?, and ?Several repeated units with the exact same configuration and weaponry are lame.? I see those a lot, and lists which break those unwritten rules seem to get more complaints and criticisms.

Thank you for posting this.  Looking at what you posted for a checklist and comparing that to my army I think I would score fairly high on that.  Using all grey knights well over half of my points are in troops, and i never take more than 100 pts of wargear so thats all to the good for me.

Another question is are the points you score with comp compaired to your opponents comp score to give you a total? or do you just total up what you got on that list in each game that you play? 

I have a lot of questions because there are very seldom good 40K tournaments in this area, but I would love to find some GW or RT sanctioned tourneys to get involved in. 

Sorry, that checklist system just screams 'Play Loyalist Marines'

Vult-

Remember that this is an old list, not used in the current Rogue Trader tournaments. If you play in a local tournament with different rules, and which uses comp scoring, it might be a similar system.

In most tournaments in the US, you score points for several different things. Playing games, your sportsmanship, your army’s appearance, and your army’s composition or theme are the most common. The judges add all your points together, and the person with the highest total wins the tournament- the Overall Champion.

Skyth-

Most of the shooty marine armies at the time used small squads in Razorbacks.  Only the assaulty armies would usually use 10 man squads. 

 

Any codex could do get max comp.  I fielded a 10 model squad of Dire Avengers and a 22 model (full 20 + weapon crew) squad of Defenders to do it with my Codex: Eldar, which was not the ideal build, but I still won most of the RTs I entered.

I ignore it. All of my opponents get full points for comp. If I can't deal with what they put on the table, well that's my fault. I mostly do the same with sportsmanship, unless your a complete ass.

Comp IMO is a flawed concept designed to cover bad game design.

If the comp sheet has specific requirements then I score them as asked. Otherwise I give full comp for most everything (siren prince would be the only exception I can think of but never seen that in a tournament).

I have to agree with the general sentiment here. Subjectively scored comp is a crap shoot most of the time, unless your list is completely unoptimized (and even then you may still draw ire for some silly reason). And any structed comp system will favor particular armies and builds. The best system I've seen is the one used at Astronomicon but it still has some flaws (major one being it requires a judge to review ahead of time). I don't think it favors any particular army heavily (well drop pods are given a bit of a pass compwise but their torunaments are 1500 points so pods aren't as hard anyways). Also, comp score is used to create first game matchups (as mentioned above). I'm not a huge fan of comp but if its going to be used that is the system I'd prefer.

It's original intent is what Yakface posted in my opinion.

The comp Mannahnin posted from older RTT's turned out to punish some armies simply b/c it made little sense. Necrons had to field 2x 20 strong Necron Warrior squads (or is it 15?) or Chaos would have to field either 15 Demons to a squad or 20 Marines to get max size units. Theme was simply abused (the max number of Las/Plas squads of the past, currently max number of Assault Cannons for a 'theme').

While 40K isn't really designed as a tourney style game, comp was a way to curtail extreme army builds. However, GW never found a way to be reasonable and fair about their army comp scores. I believe this is why they have simply abandoned Comp for their upcoming (and current UK) GT's.

Bear in mind that the RT scoring system was invented by the US RT rules creators, not by the UK design studio.

Also remember that the current Chaos Codex (and its big maximum squad sizes) came out about two years AFTER said comp checklist. The Necron codex was later too. 

The guys who wrote the RT scoring rules did a pretty decent job, but they weren't working with the studio, and the studio didn't pay the RT rules any heed when they worked on new codices.

Ok basically I think the purpose of comp is Australia is so we don't see lists like those at the UKGT, because we don't like those lists.

Other people think many other reasons for why they like comp, but the majority of tournaments use comp to basically encourage variety and discourage lists that will ruin the fun for the opposing player (ie encourage lists that win turn 6 rather than turn 2).

It's used more as a tool to encourage people to do the right thing than to change who wins. The person with the highest battlepoint, painting, and sports score overall actually wins overall more than 90% of the time (I can recall 7 2006 tournaments where this has been true all 7 times).

Comp is just So Stupid, why dont they just get rid of it? we dont have comp scores here in the UK and after reading a few threads on comp I can see Why.
@onlainari REMEMBER its a competition, You donk go to a gunfight with a knife? Unless you want to lose.

What Yakface said.

(But Jester's post made me laugh more)

Posted By beef on 12/24/2006 8:03 AM
Comp is just So Stupid, why dont they just get rid of it? we dont have comp scores here in the UK and after reading a few threads on comp I can see Why.
@onlainari REMEMBER its a competition, You donk go to a gunfight with a knife? Unless you want to lose.

Do you go to gunfights to look at pretty models and interesting guns that you wouldn't see at home? 

Do you go to gunfights hoping to have six different and tactically-varied gunfights?

This analogy has always seemed a bit weak.

I go to gunshows to see pretty and interesting guns I wouldn't see at home. I would also go to gunshows hoping to having varying gunplay such as a mega-gun bonanza or an anachronistic battle, such as a wild west gunfight or "The Battle for _____" thing they did at this year's Baltimore Game- er, Gunshow.

I voted Other.

Yak is right.

Comp is an attempt to rebalance combinations of units which turn out to be undercosted by the standard points system.

Mannahnin- Good points regarding comp creators and timelines. When thinking about those timelines, they did change comp a bit, w/o the % of troops etc... It went to the 'how fluffy or how min/maxed is the army' scoring. On it's face, I don't think the current comp is bad with one notable exception: players scored it.

With comp getting tossed out the window in the '07 GT season (U.S.), I'm very curious if we will see a drastic change in army builds. Did comp really do what they intended for it to do to begin with? I'm betting not as much as some folks may think.

You go to gun fights to win, if you want variety play friendly games and not tournies. Its always lame when peole complain about the same list over and over again.

These list wins so people will be more inclined to use them.

Why use a pistol when everybody else is using a basooka? If you wana be different thats great but doint hate on other people cos they want to win.

Posted By beef on 12/25/2006 3:28 AM
You go to gun fights to win, if you want variety play friendly games and not tournies. Its always lame when peole complain about the same list over and over again.

These list wins so people will be more inclined to use them.

Why use a pistol when everybody else is using a basooka? If you wana be different thats great but doint hate on other people cos they want to win.

Beef, I think you're CAPABLE of seeing the point, I just am not convinced that you're making the effort. 

One of the BEST parts about tournies is getting some more variety in your gaming.  Getting out and playing on different tables than usual, against different opponents than usual, using different armies than usual. 

If the tournament scene is so degenerate that you can't get the latter, then it's a flaw in the tournament system, plain and simple.  Comp is a way to address this flaw.  It's not perfect, but it's certainly usable.  It appears to be working pretty well for the folks in Australia, and for the folks at the WPS WH GT in Britain. 

One of the best parts about tournaments is playing games that test you and your list to the limits without having to listen to people whine about 'cheese'...

Surely the key point of tournaments is to let players battle it out for the right to be acclaimed the best.

Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 9:39 AM
One of the best parts about tournaments is playing games that test you and your list to the limits without having to listen to people whine about 'cheese'...

Do you really think people will stop whining about cheese? Tourneys is usually where I here it the most. Even with army comp (U.S.), folks still whine, a lot.

 

I just meant ideally...I don't think it happens alot, but my ideal tournament would have that happening.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 12/25/2006 9:49 AM
Surely the key point of tournaments is to let players battle it out for the right to be acclaimed the best.

The best what? At building army lists? Or best general?

See, if we're after best general, then we need comp. It's a way of saying "ok you guys scored equally on battle points, but you used a more powerful list, so we're going to give the other guy a few bonus points because he's obviously a better player".

It's not that hard to understand.

Remember, math comp is flawed, peer comp is flawed, TO comp for the win.

TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/25/2006 10:07 AM
Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

I contend that every statement made here is untrue.  I understand that these are your sincere opinions, but my experiences are to the contrary.  

I am also putting my concepts into practice by running successful tournaments featuring comp.  YMMV, but I highly recommend running events which fit your vision of a good tournament, testing how your ideas work and how many players enjoy them.

No-comp, no-whining, pure Battle events (sometimes referred to as Gladiators in the US) are also a successful tournament format.  But I don't foresee them becoming the most popular type of tournament.

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 8:41 PM
TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

This is easily solved by giving the lists to the judges sans player names.  It really just requires a little thought and effort.  If you're not willing to make the effort, obviously you're not going to succeed.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 8:41 PM
TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

This is easily solved by giving the lists to the judges sans player names.  It really just requires a little thought and effort.  If you're not willing to make the effort, obviously you're not going to succeed.

And different TO's have different opinions on what is good comp.  One of the basic problems with comp is the belief that something is bad if either loyalist Marines can't do it or it kills MEQ's easily.

Besides, it's not like TO's wouldn't know who's list is who's if they'd be biased towards certain people.

Add this to the problem of people scoring sportsmanship by composition also.  People cheat this way, but in the end, it means that comp counts for more than winning or losing on the battlefield.   In a competition that is a bunch of bull.

 

Edit-Where I play, battle is only 30% of total score, painting 27%, and the rest is comp/sports.  That right there is a bunch of bull, but no one else in the area runs tournaments.

>>The best what? At building army lists? Or best general?

Some people would argue that building lists -- the ability to recognise good units and combine them in a force to achieve a mission -- is part of being a general. Anyway, the list doesn't win the battle by itself.

Comp scores become part of a meta-game. In an ideal world, comp would be built into the codexes so that any legal army would get the same comp score, and there would be no point in comp scoring.

The problem with comp scoring is that every system I've seen can be shown to penalise one or more non-cheesy armies as well as cheesy armies.

And what is cheesy varies from person to person.

Comp is evil, we understand that in Australia. It's flawed and sucks. We had a fricken 91 page discussion on it last year. 1811 posts.

Anyway, the point is, in the end, comp is what people here want. They want varied lists, and don't want to face the kind of lists you see at the UKGT (highly efficient lists). Comp delivers. You have to give it that.

You can play your fun lists and not get slaughtered turn 2.

Seriously the arguments against comp are all straw man arguments. When there's an experienced TO judging comp and it's only worth 10%, it's great. When it's 30% and math based to the extreme, it sucks.

Here's a gem from the thread I was talking about:

Posted By Ziggy on 8/23/2005 1:12 PM
While I may disagree with a tourney model that relies on comp scores and sports scores, I cannot fault the logic that brought them about.

By forcing all players to "please the masses" these tournaments have successfully won over the average player, who I like to think of as the Lowest Common Denominator (LCD). The LCDs are in the majority, so if you can make them happy time and time again, numbers will be large and the potential for growth is huge. The LCD-approach has made GW tourneys the successes that they are today, and more power to GW for seeing this opportunity and capitalising on it. What is ironic, however, is that people are quick to complain (in these forums no less) whenever GW's marketing division caters to the LCDs for product development and sale (i.e. young children), but are 100% behind the same LCD-based attitude applied to tournaments. Hypocrisy anyone?

Comp needs to be abolished. GW started out in the UK, We dont have comp and for good reason, like Sarigar said what is cheesy varies from judge to judge. The point of a tournie is to win. you should gets points based only on that. The tournies I play at here in the Uk have seperate awards for painting, sportsmanship, overall champ Ie the guy thats scored the most points for winning games.
No stupid comp to reduce scores

Wow beef, I'm expecting you to pop out and yell "O'Doyle RULES!!!" or at the very most be one of those generals in WWI saying "80,000 men are dead and we won, we won, we won!" I kind of feel sorry for you, that winning at any cost is the high accomplishment you can achieve in this hobby.

You go to powergame to a tourney? Great that is awesome, im proud of you.

I goto a tourney to enjoy the whole thing, the playing, the various conversions, the various shops, etc etc. I want to see a Forgeworld table, and drop some bank on some gaurd or orky things or anything else i choose.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/25/2006 10:07 AM
Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

I contend that every statement made here is untrue.  I understand that these are your sincere opinions, but my experiences are to the contrary.  

Please provide support to your contention that those arguments are untrue. Each list has strengths and weaknesses. It is impossible to develop a comp list that is nuetral between codexes, that does not favor on over another.

Posted By moosifer on 12/26/2006 9:37 AM
Wow beef, I'm expecting you to pop out and yell "O'Doyle RULES!!!" or at the very most be one of those generals in WWI saying "80,000 men are dead and we won, we won, we won!" I kind of feel sorry for you, that winning at any cost is the high accomplishment you can achieve in this hobby.

You go to powergame to a tourney? Great that is awesome, im proud of you.

I goto a tourney to enjoy the whole thing, the playing, the various conversions, the various shops, etc etc. I want to see a Forgeworld table, and drop some bank on some gaurd or orky things or anything else i choose.

So what is your point here?  Are you saying thats its unfair that he came to a TOURNAMENT to win? 

Your not even there to win, (supposedly) So why do you care that his list is vastly superior to yours... 

Maybe he finds it fun trying to outplay opponents with a powerful, refined lists instead of calling them power gamers who care about nothing but winning at any cost.  (just for giggles, why don't you go to a magic PTQ and tell them they're power gamers after going 0-6.  Then see what kind of reaction you get.)

There is going to a tourney to play to win, and then there is going to a tourney with an army list you had little to do with creating except here or there. This is not to say beef does that, I have never played, nor probably will ever play him.

There is something definitely wrong when the same armies consistantly come out on top, ultramauleens and the drop pod legion of doom to name a few. As a player what satisifaction do you find in taking someone elses work then claiming it as your own? It is with the internet and other mediums thru which super armies can be found a mouse click away, the neccessity of a numerical/player/TO comp score to exist. When I make a list, I might see something good from something I have seen but I dont copy it. What satisifaction can be gained by playing an army that has proven time and again to win. This is called being a bandwagoner, and it holds true in 40k, as well as other gaming hobby's.

I respect beef, while I dont agree with him, he has stuck to his guns. That is not to say his attitude is one of the reasons why many gamers refrain from going to big tourney's, because they already know what they are going to face. Mech Tau/Eldar, Ultramauleens, Lysanderwing, SAFH. It really is no fun when you, as a player, want to beat someone on generalship, instead go up against a list that is really not my oppenents at all, but instead a copy of someone who found a loophole, or a super-combo that works.

And to contest your



my list is 100% better, because I came up with it, not someone on the intraweb

Posted By moosifer on 12/26/2006 1:14 PM There is something definitely wrong when the same armies consistantly come out on top, ultramauleens and the drop pod legion of doom to name a few.

There might be a problem with the rules that allow such army lists.  There's absolutely no problem with choosing to play such a list.

What satisifaction can be gained by playing an army that has proven time and again to win. This is called being a bandwagoner, and it holds true in 40k, as well as other gaming hobby's.

No, it's called playing to win, which is what you're supposed to be doing in a competitive environment, not whinging about people who are better (read smarter) players than you because they chose to use what is already known to work.

my list is 100% better, because I came up with it, not someone on the intraweb

Really?  Your list is 100% better at winning while following the rules as written?  Because that's the only thing that matters in any competitive environment for any human activity.  If you want to play recreationally, then play recreationally, don't try and drag competitions down to the level of the lowest common denominator.

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.

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.

Yes my list is 100% better because I made it, not copied and pasted it from some internet forums. 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.

This back and forth over comp will never end, the players who want to see some "balance" in the game have their chance with comp. The majority of those against, sans a few, say it has no purpose because it affects their army in a negative way. And if it were only their list, then maybe some more mature individuals would not dock them for their list. But it is the attitude that you are displaying not just here, but at the tournaments that get you docked.

Stop being huge pricks and take a look at who you are playing. Sure you might have wiped his army off the table by the end of turn 2, but Im willing to bet dollars to peso's you still have a crap attitude about how great a general you are. 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.

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

At a tourney it's the same as any other similar hobby - people will do what works to win.

I don't play tournies, so my lists are never optimized 100%. I make sure I can put up a good showing, but I don't worry about optimizing every single point.

A tournament list is the same thing as a Magic the Gathering deck. Every card/unit is going to be carefully optimized to be the best possible in terms of contributing towards winning the game. This leads to lists looking a lot alike since gamers will independently settle on the same lists and being the most powerful. Top tourny lists were similar in 2nd edition too - long before places like Dakka.

Similarly, the top contenders at Street Fighter II and Tekken tournaments tend to use largely the same characters and rely on the same special moves. In a competition people will find what's most effective and exploit it to the utmost.

You can't fault a competitive gamer for making a competitive list. If I was to play such a list, I'd probably get smoked. It doesn't come up much though since I don't play them (I wouldn't refuse to, it just doesn't come up).

The solution for more variety in tournaments is to better balance the armies and the choices within each army so more units are viable.

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 10:55 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By skyth on 12/25/2006 8:41 PM
TO comp is flawed as much as any other form. Everyone has thier biases and people they like better that they'll score better.

This is easily solved by giving the lists to the judges sans player names.  It really just requires a little thought and effort.  If you're not willing to make the effort, obviously you're not going to succeed.

 

 

"And different TO's have different opinions on what is good comp."

Different TOs do have different opinions, but if they're experienced and mature they can certainly make good judgements.

"One of the basic problems with comp is the belief that something is bad if either loyalist Marines can't do it or it kills MEQ's easily."

This would clearly be a prejudice of immature and inexperienced players who lack the perspective of playing multiple different types of armies.  Not the kind of people you would choose as TOs.

"Besides, it's not like TO's wouldn't know who's list is who's if they'd be biased towards certain people."

TOs who would actively attempt to subvert anonymity and the validity of the scoring system would also be bad TOs.  You can't say a system is inherently bad because it wouldn't work using incompetent and biased organizers.  Duh.  NO system will work with such a  stone around its neck. 

"Add this to the problem of people scoring sportsmanship by composition also.  People cheat this way, but in the end, it means that comp counts for more than winning or losing on the battlefield.   In a competition that is a bunch of bull."

Again, you are tarring all comp systems and tournaments which use them with the same brush.  Who says comp has to count for more than winning and losing?  At my tournaments, Battles are half your potential points allowance.  Comp is a max of 25-ish points out of 150-odd.   Sportsmanship is a clearly defined list of questions unrelated to army composition.  Your complaints are based on certain specific situations and systems, but you're applying them to EVERY tournament system involving comp.  It's bad reasoning based on a lack of experience with better systems, and it's leading you to inaccurate conclusions.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/26/2006 12:04 PM

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/25/2006 9:31 PM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/25/2006 10:07 AM
Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another. On its face the concept is flawed. Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament.

I contend that every statement made here is untrue.  I understand that these are your sincere opinions, but my experiences are to the contrary.  

Please provide support to your contention that those arguments are untrue. Each list has strengths and weaknesses. It is impossible to develop a comp list that is nuetral between codexes, that does not favor on over another.

"Any discussion of comp inherently favors one list over another."

Untrue. A discussion of comp can make an effort to be impartial and to be inclusive of every army. So can a system of comp (which is probably what you meant to write). Due to the differences between codices, it is difficult to come up with a system that accounts for everything. It is particularly difficult (and perhaps impossible) to come up with a MATH-BASED comp system which is perfectly evenhanded in judging every codex. This can be compensated for by using a committee of tourney judges who have experience with multiple armies, and who make the judgements. The perfect system may be one which includes both components. I've been using one such system at the tournaments I've run this year, and it's been pretty successful. It could probably be better, but so far its seemed to work fairly well at the points level (1500).

"On its face the concept is flawed."

This is a statement of opinion, which I disagree with and believe the evidence does not support. You may be content with it, but I don't think I have to leap to conclusions based on a gut assessment of how something works "on its face." From the evidence of the UK GTs, the balance between armies in 40k is flawed, and not implementing some sort of comp system leads to proliferation of unfun, boring, cookie-cutter army lists. If a No-Comp tournament format encourages someone to field an army consisting of two 40pt Defender squads and a 1419pt UIthwe Seer Council, then the No Comp system is clearly flawed.

"Add to that the "play to win crowd" vs. "play to play" crowds and its just a snarked concept in a tournament. "

A tournament is actually the place where it works best, as long as it's well-organized.  You make the rules and publish them in advance.  If I run a tournament using comp and tell everyone that fact and how it works beforehand, everyone has the choice to play or not, and if they choose to play they're choosing to abide by the rules.  If I run a Gladiator with no comp and a "no whining" policy, and you sign up for it, you're choosing to abide by that rules.  If the tournament format is one that you won't enjoy, or you can't obey the rules, don't play. 

 

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

If you take an underpowered list to a competition why shouldn't you get your arsed kicked?  If you didn't choose an army optimized to win then why should you be surprised when you lose?

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?

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

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 10:09 AM
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

Weren’t you the one just saying people shouldn’t whine and should just compete as best they can?  This is just a larger and more complex competition.  Are you complaining that it’s too hard for you?  Should we dumb it down to one scoring category (battles) to make it easier for the guys who are no good at the other elements of the hobby (painting, sportsmanship, making an interesting army) to win? You see how the same argument works in reverse? 

 

With comp it’s a balancing act.  You build an army, and you choose how much you want to compromise on making it as strong as it can possibly get in order to serve your comp scores.  Maybe you’ll make up the difference just by getting bigger wins.  But if your brother does have a weaker army, and he gets an equal or better Battles score than yours, it would seem to indicate that he’s a better player.

 

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006

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.

 

Bullpucky.  Why can’t they organize tournaments?  What’s necessary to run a tournament?  A venue, and a little time and effort to write the rules, publicize it, and actually run it on the day.  It doesn’t take that much work.  Obviously there are some incompetent TOs out there, but it’s not rocket science.  If it were true that only people who like comp have what it takes to run a tournament, then what does that say about people who don’t like comp?  Nothing good.

 

Anyway, we know it’s not true because there ARE non-comp events.  The Gladiator at Adepticon in <st1:city w:st="on">Chicago</st1:city> is the biggest one in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  The GW GTs are the biggest in the UK.  But there are certainly smaller events in both countries.  The Dakka Dakka store (RIP) generally held at least one Gladiator per year, in addition to events with comp scoring.  Events with comp were more popular, but the non-comp game was a nice change of pace. 

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/29/2006 8:45 AM

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

The only lists I see that system really penalizing are Godzilla nid lists, and mech Tau/Eldar.

I don't see it penalizing the IW SAFH...(Just take two units of oblits...not a big change).

Marine SAFH doesn't take a big hit either.  My marine list only loses 3 points on it...Hardly game breaking.  If I took one less troop choice, then it'd only lose a point for taking no elites, and that's it.

Some codexes only have one good, or alot better unit in each slot...Others have multiple. 

Oh, so you say that in the comp system I designed your marine list only scores 3 points (might actualy be 6) less than the maximum? In an event with 150 possible tournament points? What conclusions can you draw from that?

Note that there is some more variation- each player can accumulate up to 2 extra points from each of their opponents, and there are a few judge?s discretion points in case the organizer sees something extra cool, or an army that suffers due to unusual restrictions.

What part of my post did you not under stand Mannahin, Ok i sometime am not clear, granted. Once again

1) my brother is better than me, 2) have seperate trophies for painting, sportsmanship and theme. 3) comp is not fair as there is no official way to regulate it.

Obviously you being in support of comp wont see it any other way but I hope atleast I clarified 3 points that I was trying to. fingers crossed

If only there was some way to know what an individual army can take and in what quantities... Oh wait...

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 12:27 PM
What part of my post did you not under stand Mannahin, Ok i sometime am not clear, granted. Once again

1) my brother is better than me, 2) have seperate trophies for painting, sportsmanship and theme. 3) comp is not fair as there is no official way to regulate it.

Obviously you being in support of comp wont see it any other way but I hope atleast I clarified 3 points that I was trying to. fingers crossed

What part of my post(s) did you not understand, Beef?

1. Okay. 

2. I give separate awards for Painting, Sportsmanship (see below), and Overall.  Your painting, sportsmanship, compositon, and battles all figure into Overall.  The idea behind not having a separate Best General prize is to discourage jerks from just shooting for that and disregarding everything else.

3. You are talking nonsense again, as there are many ways to regulate it, all as official as the tournament itself.

I understand exactly what you're saying, I just think it's a bad idea.  In the US GTs, prior to comp and sportsmanship being introduced, we had lots of jerks and boring, min-maxed armies.  In the UK GTs, with no comp, you have lots of boring, min-maxed armies. 

Like you said there are many ways to regulate comp. I bet they vary from place to place, tournie to tournie.

ATleast here in the UK GT's we dont have to suffer ego's/power trips from organisers adding non official rules such as comp. Is it Something GW does in its UK tournies? I dont think so?
wELL YOUR TOUrnie so your rules. Obviously enough people will turn up to play. Its the same as people who complain about GW price or whatever who still buy and play 40K.

Even if you said only troops allowed you would still get people who would come and play simply as they may have nowhere else to play.

Lastly the sportsmanship award is for people who were fun to play, humourous, generally nice guys. there army .list has nothing to do with it. Even if they had a min/max armies they can win sportsmanship as there list does not factor into why they win it.

To play devils advocate: a good number have OTHER awards for those catagories: BEST painted, BEST sportsmanship....

If your going to advocate that being best general requires a balancing act at the other elements of the game, should we not then Demand that if your taking best spotsmanship, you should show some other elements of the game, such as Comp, or if you are going for best painted show some degree of playing such as battle points?

Whats good for the goose.....

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/29/2006 11:59 AM
Oh, so you say that in the comp system I designed your marine list only scores 3 points (might actualy be 6) less than the maximum? In an event with 150 possible tournament points? What conclusions can you draw from that?

Note that there is some more variation- each player can accumulate up to 2 extra points from each of their opponents, and there are a few judge’s discretion points in case the organizer sees something extra cool, or an army that suffers due to unusual restrictions.

What I'm saying is that it's worthless because of that.  My list is fairly nasty and would get killed for comp.

My daemonhunters army that I scored dead last in comp in a tournament would get full points. (Okay, it's slightly changed now, but if I took the modified version, it would have scored just as low)

IW SAFH would get close to full points under your system.

Only a couple armies get thier best lists really hammered because they don't have alot of equally good/close to equally good options (Mech Eldar and Tau, Godzilla 'nids).

When the only true differentiation in comp scores is OPPONENT SCORED...With all thier biases, cheating, etc...It's a worthless system.  If a comp system tells me that the most effective lists with the best comp will be loyalist Marines, then it's worthless as a comp system.

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 3:50 PM
Like you said there are many ways to regulate comp. I bet they vary from place to place, tournie to tournie.

ATleast here in the UK GT's we dont have to suffer ego's/power trips from organisers adding non official rules such as comp. Is it Something GW does in its UK tournies? I dont think so?
wELL YOUR TOUrnie so your rules. Obviously enough people will turn up to play. Its the same as people who complain about GW price or whatever who still buy and play 40K.

Even if you said only troops allowed you would still get people who would come and play simply as they may have nowhere else to play.

This is your argument?  That taking the time to run an event for your gaming community, and attempting to make it more fun and interesting is an ego/power trip?  And that wargamers are so pathetic and starved for ways to spend their time that they will come to a cruddy event because they have nothing better to do?  What an awful way to look at our hobby. 

Posted By Carmachu 12/29/2006 6:52 PM

To play devils advocate: a good number have OTHER awards for those catagories: BEST painted, BEST sportsmanship....

If your going to advocate that being best general requires a balancing act at the other elements of the game, should we not then Demand that if your taking best spotsmanship, you should show some other elements of the game, such as Comp, or if you are going for best painted show some degree of playing such as battle points?

Events can give out awards for whatever they want to.  And you can demand whatever makes sense to you.   If you think the best painted award should be influenced by the battles score, go for it.  Let me know what the event attendees think.  Many events I've been to have used other categories to break ties, like Sportsmanship to break ties in Battles score.

Do you disagree with the statement that army composition and the ability to play the game are more closely related than playing the game and painting?  Do you disagree that a superior player can perform better or equally with a mixed or weaker list than will a lesser player with a "power build"? 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

What I'm saying is that it's worthless because of that. My list is fairly nasty and would get killed for comp.

It would get killed for comp, you say?  But last post you said that it only lost out on a few points in my comp system.  Which is it?  And if it doesn't get killed under my comp system, what does that tell you?  You might try thinking about it for a little while.  You're clearly not analyzing it now.  I didn't write it without putting any thought into it.

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

When the only true differentiation in comp scores is OPPONENT SCORED...With all thier biases, cheating, etc...It's a worthless system.

How much havoc do you think these biased, cheating players are going to wreak with their one compulsory vote for the army they liked the best, out of the three they played against? You really only have jerks and idiots around to play with, don't you?  It's amazing that you're still in the hobby. 

You do also realize that something can be flawed and still have worth, right?  Like 40k?  Or Dakkadakka.com?  Or life?

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

 If a comp system tells me that the most effective lists with the best comp will be loyalist Marines, then it's worthless as a comp system.

You really haven't put any thought into it, have you?  You can't see the handicaps in there for marines?  Seriously?

It is an ego trip. And I did not say gamers are starved its just that it hard sometimes to find events/stores/opponents. Its a realistic look at the hobby. dont just see it your way.

"f you think the best painted award should be influenced by the battles score, go for it. Let me know what the event attendees think" Carmachu was not saying that? Did you not understand his point? hopefully he will explain it again for you as I dont want to make his very valid point seem less valid with my basic explanitory skills.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/29/2006 6:56 PM

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

What I'm saying is that it's worthless because of that. My list is fairly nasty and would get killed for comp.

It would get killed for comp, you say?  But last post you said that it only lost out on a few points in my comp system.  Which is it?  And if it doesn't get killed under my comp system, what does that tell you?  You might try thinking about it for a little while.  You're clearly not analyzing it now.  I didn't write it without putting any thought into it.

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

When the only true differentiation in comp scores is OPPONENT SCORED...With all thier biases, cheating, etc...It's a worthless system.

How much havoc do you think these biased, cheating players are going to wreak with their one compulsory vote for the army they liked the best, out of the three they played against? You really only have jerks and idiots around to play with, don't you?  It's amazing that you're still in the hobby. 

You do also realize that something can be flawed and still have worth, right?  Like 40k?  Or Dakkadakka.com?  Or life?

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

 If a comp system tells me that the most effective lists with the best comp will be loyalist Marines, then it's worthless as a comp system.

You really haven't put any thought into it, have you?  You can't see the handicaps in there for marines?  Seriously?

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

If a comp system is biased towards certain codexes, then it isn't a good system.  I have yet to see a comp system that isn't biased towards certain codexes. 

Is it just me or is godzilla and mech tau/eldar actually more powerful than marines (that do well at comp, remember, we're not talking about marines that do as bad in comp as mech tau); thus deserve to be penalised? Thus the comp system works?

No, it's not just me. My friend agrees.

If a comp system is biased towards certain codexes, then it isn't a good system.  I have yet to see a comp system that isn't biased towards certain codexes. 

Exactly.  Thats the whole crux of my argument.

Posted By onlainari on 12/30/2006 6:18 AM
Is it just me or is godzilla and mech tau/eldar actually more powerful than marines (that do well at comp, remember, we're not talking about marines that do as bad in comp as mech tau); thus deserve to be penalised? Thus the comp system works?

No, it's not just me. My friend agrees.

So if its better than a marine list it must be penalized?  Ah the truth comes out.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 5:42 AM
It is an ego trip. And I did not say gamers are starved its just that it hard sometimes to find events/stores/opponents. Its a realistic look at the hobby. dont just see it your way.

Is this anything like “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”?

 

Those who can run tournaments (and aren’t too lazy) do; those who can’t be bothered to so so *female dog*, complain, and impugn the motivations of those who do?  Nice.  You should be proud of yourself.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 5:42 AM
"f you think the best painted award should be influenced by the battles score, go for it. Let me know what the event attendees think" Carmachu was not saying that? Did you not understand his point? hopefully he will explain it again for you as I dont want to make his very valid point seem less valid with my basic explanitory skills.

I’m taking him at his word.  He is (as devil’s advocate) trying to cast aspersions on the practice of combining two aspects of the game for scoring purposes.  I am pointing out that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so, and that what “makes sense” is in the eye of the beholder.  I personally think that army composition interacts more directly with playing games than does painting.  If he wants to equate the two pairings, he should feel free to put it before a larger audience and see if they buy it.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

“Normal” opponent scored comp?  What’s normal?  I thought you said that opponent-scored comp is worthless because it’s subject to bias and cheating.  “Probably should” get killed in comp?  That’s an interesting statement coming from someone who claims not to believe in comp.

 

You’re also confusing reward and punishment.  Claiming that certain lists are “punished” is a semantic trick to try and elicit sympathy for the poor, put-upon power lists.  We weep for them. 

In point of fact, the players have just as much chance as anyone else of getting a good comp score.  One of the nice things about published math comp is that the players go into it with their eyes open, and can see whether or not they would need to alter their lists to get more points, and choose whether they want to do so.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

Again, you didn’t bother to read it or figure out the implications.  The best score is achieved by (among other things) taking no more than three of one specific type of Troop, and by taking any two units in each HS, FA, and Elite (three in a category, but not more than two of the same choice, also gets the points).  If you’re saying there’s a codex out there with NO useful FA, or NO useful Elites, or NO useful HS, please point it out.  If there is, they would probably qualify for discretionary points.

 

Powergamers often deride Scouts, but that’s the only way for a SM army to go if they want maximum points and more than three troops.   Marines are also fairly pricey, and filling out those other force org slots costs some points if they want to do it.  1500 is not all the points in the world.  Feel free to show me an overpowered marine list which maxes out on my comp scale.   I'd like to see it. 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/30/2006 11:23 AM

So if its better than a marine list it must be penalized?  Ah the truth comes out.

Is that an argument by wishful thinking?  That’s not what he wrote.  You even quoted it, but you misread it.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/30/2006 12:18 PM

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

“Normal” opponent scored comp?  What’s normal?  I thought you said that opponent-scored comp is worthless because it’s subject to bias and cheating.  “Probably should” get killed in comp?  That’s an interesting statement coming from someone who claims not to believe in comp.

 

You’re also confusing reward and punishment.  Claiming that certain lists are “punished” is a semantic trick to try and elicit sympathy for the poor, put-upon power lists.  We weep for them. 

In point of fact, the players have just as much chance as anyone else of getting a good comp score.  One of the nice things about published math comp is that the players go into it with their eyes open, and can see whether or not they would need to alter their lists to get more points, and choose whether they want to do so.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

Again, you didn’t bother to read it or figure out the implications.  The best score is achieved by (among other things) taking no more than three of one specific type of Troop, and by taking any two units in each HS, FA, and Elite (three in a category, but not more than two of the same choice, also gets the points).  If you’re saying there’s a codex out there with NO useful FA, or NO useful Elites, or NO useful HS, please point it out.  If there is, they would probably qualify for discretionary points.

 

Powergamers often deride Scouts, but that’s the only way for a SM army to go if they want maximum points and more than three troops.   Marines are also fairly pricey, and filling out those other force org slots costs some points if they want to do it.  1500 is not all the points in the world.  Feel free to show me an overpowered marine list which maxes out on my comp scale.   I'd like to see it. 

Why take more than 3 troops choices for marines?

No, alot of armies have ONE choice in each category that are alot better than others.  Loyalist marines have several good in each category...So if Loyalists wanted a heavy-support heavy mech list...That's easy.  Tau want that?  They get dinged.  They only have the hammerhead, whereas Marines have two types of Preds, so can take 3...Fast attack, Alpha legion only has one type that goes with the army...Raptors, and they're overpriced. 

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/30/2006 12:18 PM

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

“Normal” opponent scored comp?  What’s normal?  I thought you said that opponent-scored comp is worthless because it’s subject to bias and cheating.  “Probably should” get killed in comp?  That’s an interesting statement coming from someone who claims not to believe in comp.

 

You’re also confusing reward and punishment.  Claiming that certain lists are “punished” is a semantic trick to try and elicit sympathy for the poor, put-upon power lists.  We weep for them. 

In point of fact, the players have just as much chance as anyone else of getting a good comp score.  One of the nice things about published math comp is that the players go into it with their eyes open, and can see whether or not they would need to alter their lists to get more points, and choose whether they want to do so.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

Again, you didn’t bother to read it or figure out the implications.  The best score is achieved by (among other things) taking no more than three of one specific type of Troop, and by taking any two units in each HS, FA, and Elite (three in a category, but not more than two of the same choice, also gets the points).  If you’re saying there’s a codex out there with NO useful FA, or NO useful Elites, or NO useful HS, please point it out.  If there is, they would probably qualify for discretionary points.

 

Powergamers often deride Scouts, but that’s the only way for a SM army to go if they want maximum points and more than three troops.   Marines are also fairly pricey, and filling out those other force org slots costs some points if they want to do it.  1500 is not all the points in the world.  Feel free to show me an overpowered marine list which maxes out on my comp scale.   I'd like to see it. 

Why take more than 3 troops choices for marines?

No, alot of armies have ONE choice in each category that are alot better than others.  Loyalist marines have several good in each category...So if Loyalists wanted a heavy-support heavy mech list...That's easy.  Tau want that?  They get dinged.  They only have the hammerhead, whereas Marines have two types of Preds, so can take 3...Fast attack, Alpha legion only has one type that goes with the army...Raptors, and they're overpriced. 

Actually Manahinh those who think they know better than the creators host there own versions of tournies with rules that make it better for themselves.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/30/2006 8:23 AM
So if its better than a marine list it must be penalized?  Ah the truth comes out.

[On one hand comp benefits marines, on the other it penalises marines, depends what you guys feel like. What an argument, well done.]

I'm leaving that in because the poster below responded to it, but it's wrong so ignore it.

Let's not be a moron for a second, and think what the purpose of comp is. Oh that's right, punish powerful armies, reward weak ones.

You think I'm biased? I play mech tau for pasta's sake.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 3:10 PM
Actually Manahinh those who think they know better than the creators host there own versions of tournies with rules that make it better for themselves.

In the end though, I assume people went to Mannahnin and congratulated him on a good tournie. His rules are there because the creators have made imbalances in the first place. Thus he is quite right to run tournies with rules that make the tournie better, and result in more gamers and better appreciation of the tournament all round.

you made me log in just to tell you your a moron

are you even reading what their writing? 

and if the purpose of comp is to punish powerful armies and reward weak ones..should we just call it a failure now and leave it for dead?

Especially since you people have been saying that comp rewards better list builders this entire time..now your saying it rewards players for making weak lists..perhaps next it will reward players who dont bring a list!

Posted By IntoTheRain on 12/30/2006 7:00 PM
you made me log in just to tell you your a moron

are you even reading what their writing?

You're right I didn't read it properly. Sorry.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 12/30/2006 7:00 PM

Especially since you people have been saying that comp rewards better list builders this entire time..now your saying it rewards players for making weak lists..perhaps next it will reward players who dont bring a list!

Two generals play in a tournament and score equal battle points. One used a weaker list. I argue that the person with the weaker list is a better general (that's pretty obvious), thus comp is used to give him a few bonus points.

why? The other person was smart enough to dismiss the inferior list infavor of the stronger list, and then optimize it for the metagame. Couldnt you also logically say that he is the better general? (especially in a game involving a luck based dice system)

The other person dismissed the inferior list to win more. This can help your position in a tournament by itself. Reasonable comp systems are 10%, generalship 40-60%. If however he could win with a weaker list (because he was a better general), he could still do well in generalship and get a few bonus points.

In the end, comp is a game players must play, it's a formula more complicated than simple "what is most effective". You now have to add in "what is effective, fluffy, doesn't look nasty, doesn't annoy players, but still wins".

So yes comp does reward good list building, in that you can build a weak list and do well in comp, but you failed because you lost too many of your games. What you need to do is find out which list best suits the formula above.

Comp wouldn't be too bad if it only counted for 10%. Problem is Comp+Sports (Often judged the same way) are 2 times more than battle or 1.5 times battle for final scoring around here. So stuff that is impossible to objectively rate and subject to cheating by the players is worth more than how well you do on the field.

Posted By skyth on 12/30/2006 10:16 PM
Comp wouldn't be too bad if it only counted for 10%. Problem is Comp+Sports (Often judged the same way) are 2 times more than battle or 1.5 times battle for final scoring around here. So stuff that is impossible to objectively rate and subject to cheating by the players is worth more than how well you do on the field.

So since you're dissatisfied with your local situation, you *female dog* and complain about all comp systems, even when you're shown a better one.  Comp is a maximum of what, 26pts on my scale?  That's roughly 15% of the total, but that's a bit misleading, because as you've already noticed, the scoring difference between a strong list and a fluffy list on my scale isn't 0 to 26.  It's more likely 10 or 12 points at worst, or maybe only a couple of "favorite opponent's army" votes difference if you were careful and used the checklist when building your army.  Even if 10pts separate the "power" list from a fluffy list, that's what, 7% of the possible max? 

Posted By IntoTheRain  on 12/30/2006 10:00 PM

Especially since you people have been saying that comp rewards better list builders this entire time..now your saying it rewards players for making weak lists..perhaps next it will reward players who dont bring a list!

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

Comp rewards a player for bringing a more interesting, varied list.  Usually this will be weaker than one of the top 2 or 3 strongest list designs in the game.  You are not a better list builder if you made another copycate IW, Ulthwe, or Drop Pod army.  You are just another imitator of the dominant paradigm. 

As Olainari pointed out, if I can make a more interesting list, even if it is a bit weaker, but I can still win with it, I am probably a better player than the guy who does equally well with a list already proven to be dominant.  If I manage to make a really nasty army that isn't just an imitation of one of the established builds (one with more variety and able to pick up favorite votes from opponents), then I'm demonstrating the skill in army design you were talking about.

 

Posted By Graatz on 12/30/2006 7:03 PM

1.       I am not in favor of comp scores of any kind as I have seen situations at tournaments where a team of guys will show up and collude on their scoring so as to help their guys benefit. Think of it as "blocking for the lead back".
2. Since scoring of some kind is here to stay I offer the following solution: Award three prizes:

The fact that people cheat does not mean that the rules are bad.  It means that people aren't following them.  Some people also buy a painted army online and enter it into painting competitions.  Does this mean we should throw out painting awards?  Obviously not.  We just need to do our best to look out for this kind of cheating, and quash it where it's found.

Collusion on scoring like this is a form of cheating.  What you can do is make a system which minimizes the ability to do it (mine only allows players to vote for a favorite opponent's army, and they MUST vote for one of their opponents), and look out for odd scoring patterns.  Judges can adjust the scores if it looks like something funny's going on, and can throw players out if it's blatant.

Your suggested system of awards is also a viable one.  You should try it out.  I suspect you might see more repetitive, boring armies using it though, since it lacks comp.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 6:10 PM

Actually Manahinh those who think they know better than the creators host there own versions of tournies with rules that make it better for themselves.

And who amongst us has not repeatedly thought he knew better than the creators?  You certainly did when you saw what they did to Rhinos in the 4th edition rules.  Are you changing your tune now?  Have you decided that the creators are all-knowing and have created a perfect, and perfectly balanced game?

"Rules that make it better for themselves"? Is that another misguided insult?  I'm not even playing in the bloody thing, so I obviously don't stand to benefit.  My DA also use 4-6 Tac squads, so I'd have to modify my Dark Angels list if someone else ran a tourney using my rules, I got to play in it, and I wanted to max out my comp.

Posted By skyth on 12/30/2006 3:32 PM
Why take more than 3 troops choices for marines?

Because Tac squads are great, maybe?  How long have you been playing this game again?  I could swear you said in this very thread that Marines have great Troops, and that's one reason comp systems favor them.  Were you talking about Scouts, or are you contradicting yourself? 

Posted By skyth on 12/30/2006 3:32 PM

No, alot of armies have ONE choice in each category that are alot better than others.  Loyalist marines have several good in each category...So if Loyalists wanted a heavy-support heavy mech list...That's easy.  Tau want that?  They get dinged.  They only have the hammerhead, whereas Marines have two types of Preds, so can take 3...Fast attack, Alpha legion only has one type that goes with the army...Raptors, and they're overpriced. 

Reading is fundamental.  I've asked you at least three times to actually read it, or commented that you weren't reading it.   But either you're not paying attention or you're too lazy to make an honest effort .  Two Hammerheads get the same points as a Hammerhead and a Broadside.  Look at it again.

Raptors are a solid unit.  You should read Centurian99's Adepticon Batreps.  Even if Raptors weren't, are you suggesting that Alpha Legion couldn't use any handicaps?  They're a very solid list that can make some very powerful armies.  Losing out on 2pts in comp is not an unreasonable burden for them to labor under.

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?

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.

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.

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.