2776
Post by: Reecius
A friend of mine who is a really nice guy and not a power gamer in any way recently went to Kubla Khan to play in the 40K tournament. He got axed on his comp score with what I feel is a pretty soft Marine List. I am curious to hear what others think. Let it be known in advance though, that I am totally opposed to comp systems as I feel they are arbitrary, silly and actually make the tournament experience less enjoyable. We just ran a tournament here with no comp scores and everyone was raving about how much fun and how simple of a system it was.
Anyway, here is the story in my friend's words:
Alright, as some of you know, I went to Kubla Con over the weekend and had a great time. The highlight being the 40K tournament they put on every year. This year was an 1850 point army list using current codex's and all Rogue Trader rules. Fairly straight forward.Of the three battles I fought I had one victory and two losses. Every game was close and in some cases it was down to the very last turn (the seventh turn in my final battle). Great players and some of the best sportsmanship one could hope to come across.
Here was my army.
HQ 17.02%
Captain Caddius Brom of Terra (Lysander) 200pts.
Command Squad 115pts.
Elite 11.62%
Honored Brother Poe (Ironclad Dreadnought) 215 pts.
-x2 Hunter killer missiles, Ironclad launchers,
-Heavy flamer, and Drop Pod
Troops 43.24%
Tactical Squad Foil led by Sgt. Erickson 225pts.
-10 man tactical squad with Lascannon, melta-gun, and Razorback
Tactical Squad Rapier led by Sgt. Fillius 225pts.
-10 man tactical squad with Lascannon, melta-gun, and Razorback
Tactical Squad Axe led by Sgt. Drake 175pts.
-10 man tactical squad with Plasma Cannon and flamer
Tactical Squad Halberd led by Sgt. Dram 175pts.
-10 man tactical squad with Plasma Cannon and flamer
Fast Attack 3.24%
Land Speeder “Pegasus” 60 pts.
-heavy flamer
Heavy Support 24.88%
Land Raider Crusader “Iron of Terra” 260 pts.
-Multi Melta
Predator Tank “Broadsword” 85 pts.
-Predator Destructor w/ heavy bolters
Vindicator Tank “Bruiser of Dorn Mk. II” 115 pts.
Total: 1850 pts. 100%
Fairly straight forward. It played well and the combat squads (the ability to split any 10 man squad into two 5 man squads) helped alot.
The question I pose to all of you is this; Is this a broken or min/maxed list?
Kubla judges seemed to think so on a few fronts; My weapon selections and my choice of Razorback transports.
The judge even went so far as to mimic waving a bad smell from his nose when he said the list smelled "fishy". So, here I am, looking to all of you to tell me, is this list, which follows all the rules, a min/max job?
Thanks for your time.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Comp scores do suck. That's pretty friggin ridiculous. It's about the same as being voted off America's Next Top Model. "Sorry, you weren't... ya know... enough"
221
Post by: Frazzled
Moving to 40K discussions.
9655
Post by: barlio
I don't think it's a case of bad comp. You have a judge that sounds "fishy". What a douchebag to make a public statement. Over 40% troops with no minimum sized units. Unless the points don't add up I see nothing wrong with the list.
I could maybe see their point on the Razorbacks since the unit wouldn't be able to ride in them, but nothing says you have to meet the transport requirements in order to purchase it right?
3104
Post by: fatal_GRACE
This list has excellent comp, especially for a filthy Imperial scum list.
But joking aside, I would give this list an excellent comp score, as it seems to be well rounded, take all comers, and doesn't seem to take advantage of rules loopholes or cheesy combos. Especially considering the game record you had, which clearly reflects a very balanced list, calling this list a bad comp list is just crap. There was clearly some sort of bias going on with those judges. It is EXTREMELY bad form for a judge to make such an overstated and public display of negativity towards your list, and even if you had a list that did deserve a bad comp store (which, again, you don't), I'd say that comment was way out of line and probably should have seen that judge removed from his chair.
The problem with comp systems isn't that they suck, it's that they are like communism: They sound good on paper, but are far too easy to abuse to be successfully applicable.
11837
Post by: jgemrich
Seems solid to me as well. Balanced. Good troops choices. Each with a roll to play w/ the special weapon choices.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
I imagine that the judge freaked out because of Lysander. A lot of people seem so skip over the section of the SM codex that says using the SC's with other chapter's is fine.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Yeah I agree, and am glad I am not an the far fringe of this.
My friend got screwed, what a bunch of sissy la la judges. If it had been me, I would have been pretty mad and asked them direct questions about why they thought it was cheesy.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The razorbacks seem to stick out a bit. Whats wrong with the weapons? The whole list seems kind of "standard Marine list on any given sunday" vanilla to me. Actually the more I look at it, the more balanced and fun it looks to play against. A relatively decent amount of troops and not in pods (I'm bored with drop pods).
Whats the deal? EDIT: Now we've been burned before. It would be good to hear the other side before judgements are made.
123
Post by: Alpharius
It certainly seems as if your friend got screwed.
There is not a lot (any?) min/maxing going on in that list at all!
Overall, a nice, well rounded list!
Oh well, at least he had fun, right?
2700
Post by: dietrich
Would a bad list have scored better? Was he supposed to field a 10-man assault squad and 10-man dev squad to be a half-company? Because it's Lysander, did he 'have' to take terminators?
I think it's a decent list, but it's no Dual Lash-max oblit or 20 Nob Biker list either.
This is the problem with comp scoring. What someone sees as cheddar, another sees as being fine.
14973
Post by: rzsanguine
A very good way to add extra fire power instead of rhinos. The only fish the judge could smell was his own bias otherwise he would have invalidated your army but didn't have any good reason.
752
Post by: Polonius
WEll, what was the actual comp standard? Was there some written guidelines, or was it utterly Judge's discretion?
I mean, I've seen every possible abuse and screw up in terms of comp. I had my all infantry IG company knocked down, because there were too many plasma guns and no Fast Attack or Heavies. I was shocked, as I thought all infantry IG to be one of the fluffier possibilities, but I guess it's ok to bring MEQs, just not the weapons that kill them. More recently, I was knocked for "spamming" tactical squads in razorbacks. A guy running three units of sternguard in pods with Pedro got full marks.
6872
Post by: sourclams
I think this is a total battlebox list that would get completely steamrolled by any hard lists played by equivalent-ability gamers.
I don't mean to offend, but your friend has got totally random elements thrown in willy-nilly ala a White Dwarf battle report:
naked command squad, no bikes, no apothecary, no special weapons
Lysander, but no obvious squads (Terminators or Sister Bolterdrill Spam) to put him with
one totally bloated ironclad
one speeder, no multimelta
one vindicator
As far as a list goes, this one has no redundancy and no duality. He can kill everything sort of okay, but only has the survivability of 45 T4 models. Any "real" tournament list should just run him over.
Bottom line, this is basically the perfect example of a Generic Chapter Space Marine army. If he got the axe on composition, I shudder at what sort of list-fu crap fest the judge considered "good". I'm guessing he just looked at Lysander and said 'OMGSPESHULKARAKTOR PHAIL!!!'.
This is just another example of why composition scores should stay dead, forever. It may as well be named the 'Is the Judge my BestFriendForever?' category with a yes/no box to be ticked. If yes, you win the tournament. If no, then better luck next year, and here's a list of the judge's favorite foods and pasttimes so you can spend the next year bribing him into being your BestFriendForever.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nah Polonius, they just found out about your bar card (aka its not business, its personal  ).
7841
Post by: Linkdead
What other kind of armies showed up to the tournament.
The real question should be: does comp even stop broken lists?
506
Post by: the_trooper
My guess would be Lysander and the cut / paste tactal squads.
Boring? Sure. Cheesey? Nah.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Comp doesn't stop broken lists. It is either so many points, that people build their lists to get max comp score and the most power possible. Or, it's not worth enough points to offset getting a bunch of massacres, so people still play the toughest lists.
6872
Post by: sourclams
All comp systems do (at best) is create another set of criteria by which Gamey players can game the system. This is if they're posted beforehand and have clearly defined guidelines. Gamey players then find whatever optimal combo that will give them full comp points while still yielding as much theoretical power as possible.
Meanwhile, non-gamey players will show up with their list that isn't maxed out for comp, get dinged there, and probably also get rolled by the gamey players.
At worst, it's just whoever the judge likes the most, in which case it becomes a game of 'Do you play what I play?'
11452
Post by: willydstyle
I've been struggling to convince the guys running a local tournament to drop comp scores. They don't use subjective judge-scored comp, but a comp "checklist"
Here was my army at the last tournament:
Farseer (not on a bike, standard stuff)
Maugan Ra
10 dire avengers (no upgrades)
Flamey flame of doomy flame storm guardians (in a BL waveserpent)
5 pathfinders
Firedragons with firepike exarch in EML waveserpent
One BL/sword wraithlord
one EML/Scatterlaser wraithlord
3 twin-EML warwalkers.
Not a bad list, but not a super list either.
Here's a list that I could have brought, that makes full comp:
125 Sorceror w/ lash of submission + mark of slaanesh
225 3x obliterators
225 3x obliterators
225 3x obliterators
244 8x plague marines, powerfist champion two melta guns
50 rhino w/ havoc launcher
267 9x plague marines, powerfist champion two melta guns
50 rhino w/ havoc launcher
267 9x plague marines, powerfist champion two melta guns
50 rhino w/ havoc launcher
The stated reason for their comp scoring is to encourage "fun" lists. That second list would be a helluva lot less fun to play against, and yet makes full comp. My Eldar list got 2/10 list-build comp points.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Comp is totally flawed. It makes the gaming experience WORSE as it allows those it is meant to penalize a chance to gain an advantage.
Cool people give each other top or near top marks every time.
The one DB in the mix tanks people and gains an advantage.
Therefore, the DB is actually benefiting from a system meant to ding him or her. Fail.
Here is the report of another friend of mine at Kuble Khan, and she is a super nice girl, still learning the game for crying out loud:
I was there too and got judge-screwed as well. My tyranid list wasn't "Niddy" enough. Apparently I can have Nid'zilla or swarm and no in between. >.<
But the games were awesome and I still had a great time.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Reece:
Fluff-wise, I'd score it no higher than 3 out 5. Clearly, the player tried to soften a lot of the edges, and deserves credit for doing so. By the Codex Astartes TOC, if he's taking Razors & Raider, then he really should be capable of full-transport. Also, with so much Heavy, there should be more variety with a Dev squad or else an Assault Squad. And then, there's the Special Character.
From a technical comp standpoint, I'd could score it a bit higher, up to 4/5. Lysander isn't such a big deal, but MAX Heavies don't outweigh the 4 Troops.
____
@willy:
I have no idea what checklist you're using that doesn't penalize maximum identical Heavies in the second list. On a 10-pt scale, I'd subtract at least 2 points for the Heavies alone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reecius wrote:Comp is totally flawed. It makes the gaming experience WORSE
Comp makes the experience DIFFERENT, not worse.
There's nothing wrong with Comp, as long as all players know that Comp will be part of the event beforehand, and can have some idea as to how Comp will work.
The fact that Comp cannot perfectly capture and penalize all bad builds, nor recognize and reward all good builds simply means that it is a human endeavor, and inherently flawed.
But to say that Comp is more flawed than non-Comp is odd.
The only issue I'd have is if Comp were imposed as a requirement, or a last-minute surprise. Otherwise, I wouldn't sweat it.
8152
Post by: The Defenestrator
all comp scores do is take the responsibility out of the hands of the players, and put them in the hands of the judge. In this case, one with serious mental issues
seriously though, I think comp scores have their place, but shouldn't be a singular decision. The last tournament I was in handled it quite well, I think. They had a handful of judges (5 or so) and each individually comp scored all the lists (they took in army lists a month prior to the event), then the scores were averaged and THAT became your comp score. Leaves most of the subjectivity out of it.
What gets me is that I've yet to see a comp scoring system that properly handles gamey lists without being biased army to army. Most systems I've seen give all but the worst ork lists (see killa kan/kustom force field spam, or 5 battlewagons) virtually perfect comp, whereas other armies it's hard to field even a reasonable, let alone competitive, army within the confines of the system. 40k's rules favour particular armies, it's just a fact of life (look at how many armies got much stronger/weaker when 5e came out). All comp scores do is shift that favourtism to a different group of armies, depending on the style of system.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we stop comp scoring all together; then we just end up with the same dozen or so power lists, because people think they'll auto-lose if they don't bring them. I just haven't seen a system yet that properly balances army vs. army, and comp score vs. battle score.
3802
Post by: chromedog
Can't see an issue with it, really.
Would've scored pretty well here (except for lysander, but a lot of people just don't like SCs still).
Need to see the actual tournament comp guidelines to get the context, though.
Sounds like not so much that 'comp' sucked as the TOs might have disliked certain armies.
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
i think comp sucks. there was a reason GW dropped it out of the codices.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Dis-satisfaction with composition rules is one reason why I think that some tournaments should have pre-generated lists that Tournament Organizers should publish upon announcing sign-up for the tournament. If Tournament Organizers want to see a particular list, or don't want to see others, then they should define what is acceptable and what is not.
Leave the list-building to the 'Ard-boyz, as sometimes players should just bring miniatures and rely on their skill at playing the game with the forces they have available, like a real general. It would certainly make it easier for Tournament Organizers to tune scenarios, and it would make painting a matter of comparing apples to apples.
752
Post by: Polonius
Well, there are several issues that make any standard tough to articulate.
First is the difference between Fluffyness, theme, comp, and cheese. Most systems seem to really only check a few of these.
Fluffiness is the how well the army hews to the established background of the 40k universe. This mostly involves armies looking like examples of task forces from 40k stories. This is a hard one to judge because not all fluff is equally accessible, and some armies have far more established background than others. It's easy to, say, give an example of a typical 1500pt Ultramarine army, but it's much harder for Nids or Necrons.
Theme is how internally consistent the army is in the story it's telling. An army with good theme looks like an actual fighting unit in the 40k universe. This is probably the most subjective way to judge, as theme is what you make of it. It's also the least punishing to powerlists, as it's easy to craft a theme around the best units in any codex.
Comp is usually a more mechanical system, judging lists based on what is included, in what proportions, the rate of repetition, and so on. The problem here is that any system of standards is easy to "game." There is a pretty well established idea of what the best armies in the current metagame are. Simply pick the one that does the best under that system, and profit.
Cheese is what all these are meant to limit, of course. This isn't a "is there cheese" type post, so just bear with me that I mean "powerful" when I type cheesy. There are a few instances of "I know it when I see it" type stuff, but outside of a few gimmicks, few lists are really unbeatably good.
To really succeed, I think a comp system would need to attack the problem at it's base: simply ban or restrict the best units or combos, and/or provide a bonus for taking subpar units.
Go through every codex, and assign a value to each unit. Multiple the value of each unit by it's cost, add it all, divide by the size of the army and that is your armies rough power level. As time goes on, and it becomes more refined, certain unit combos might be seperated (so tactical marines with melta, combi-melta, multi-melta and razorback score higher than the same with flamer, missile launcher, and rhino).
The key is to balance how much of the overall this comp counts for, but if done properly, I think it should be enough to allow a midlevel list that went 2-1 to equal a top notch list that went 3-0.
131
Post by: malfred
frgsinwntr wrote:i think comp sucks. there was a reason GW dropped it out of the codices.
What are you talking about? Comp was in the codices?
3802
Post by: chromedog
Yep, back in 2nd ed, it was.
% for this.
% for this
% for support units.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@chromedog:
The % system wasn't "comp", at least not as we now know comp, because you couldn't take 100% Support.
The % system was effectively the old FOC, except it counted points instead of units.
The FOC was brought in, because it allowed for games (with more models) to be played at arbitrary points sizes, simply counting the total, rather than having to count multiple subtotals. Simpler and easier, in the same way that KPs finally replace VPs.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Polonius wrote:Go through every codex, and assign a value to each unit. Multiple the value of each unit by it's cost, add it all, divide by the size of the army and that is your armies rough power level. As time goes on, and it becomes more refined, certain unit combos might be seperated (so tactical marines with melta, combi-melta, multi-melta and razorback score higher than the same with flamer, missile launcher, and rhino).
How is the size of the army defined here? Is it the number of separate units in the army?
752
Post by: Polonius
Points value. So, an army with 100pts of value 5, 400pts of value 6, and 500pts of value 3 would have a total value of 500+2400+1500=4400, divided by 1000 for a comp rating of 4.4.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Polonius: How does the PV rating factor repetition?
That is, most stuff, taken singly, isn't a big deal, especially if the category isn't maxxed out. That is, 1 unit of TH&SS Termies isn't something that anybody would care about.
But synergy and linkage (LR Crusader & the Special Character) turn that on its head. Now, it's a combination problem that amplifies the Termies power considerably. What was a "2" unit now is a "4" unit.
Same thing with the flamer dude - if you don't max his linkage combos, he's a "1" or "2".
It seems to me that your proposal would be exceedingly complex if it were to capture the details of what you suggest.
And even then, there's subjectivity in the rating from 1 to 5 (or 6, or whatever your maximum is).
Really, it's like the now-abandoned WPS system for WFB.
14005
Post by: athba
What's a comp score?
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: How does the PV rating factor repetition?
That is, most stuff, taken singly, isn't a big deal, especially if the category isn't maxxed out. That is, 1 unit of TH&SS Termies isn't something that anybody would care about.
But synergy and linkage (LR Crusader & the Special Character) turn that on its head. Now, it's a combination problem that amplifies the Termies power considerably. What was a "2" unit now is a "4" unit.
Same thing with the flamer dude - if you don't max his linkage combos, he's a "1" or "2".
It seems to me that your proposal would be exceedingly complex if it were to capture the details of what you suggest.
And even then, there's subjectivity in the rating from 1 to 5 (or 6, or whatever your maximum is).
Really, it's like the now-abandoned WPS system for WFB.
Well, I think repetition is pretty easy to factor in. For non troops, it's pretty easy to come up with scores for the first, second, and third choice taken, for troops a simply rate increase could be included.
As for synergy, it's actually easier than you think. I mean, you only take a LRC or LRR if you have something worth transporting, right? Now, for relatively low cost units like Vulkan that make large chunks of the army better, you can either rate him very highly or simply add a notation that he adds an additional value to certain units.
I'm not saying it would be easy, I'm saying it would be fair. As for the actual values, simply have a ton of input from tournament goers, and keep adding up lists to see what you can break.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Polonius:
I think that the problem with your system is that the assignation 'values' to units is essentially arbitrary. And that just shifts the problem of how to define army composition rating to how to define the composition value of each unit.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Easy? The level of complexity proposed is such that I don't think it's even possible.
And I definitely don't think it'd be fair, due to non-uniformity of players and winners. Non-winners can easily over-penalize winners.
752
Post by: Polonius
Nurglitch wrote:Polonius:
I think that the problem with your system is that the assignation 'values' to units is essentially arbitrary. And that just shifts the problem of how to define army composition rating to how to define the composition value of each unit.
Well, don't you more or less disagree with the notion that any unit is more powerful than another? Of course it'd be arbitrary for you. No offense, but for nearly everybody else, it's a matter of execution, not theory.
I mean, the easiest possible way would be to simply split the field three ways: low, middle, high. I like a 1-10 system, but that's probably false accuracy, 1-5 is probably better.
I can't see opening up the rating to the general public, but I think any healthy sized pool of, say, a few dozen tournament players could come up with something that works. You can quibble about the details, but I think that there's more debate or discussion on the extent to which units are better than one another, not always which units are better.
The advantage to this is that it is a mechanical test that involves no discretion by the end user: simply plug and chug.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:
[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy
Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name
If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Polonius wrote:I think any healthy sized pool of, say, a few dozen tournament players could come up with something that works.
The advantage to this is that it is a mechanical test that involves no discretion by the end user: simply plug and chug.
I dunno. Even a 5-point scale is tough for people to make those kinds of decisions on, especially to make the kinds of fine-grained separations and weightings required.
Let's talk about SM Terminators as an example.
Terminators (in general)
- SB& PF Termies?
- - with HF?
- - - with Heavy Flamer and the Flamey Character
- - with AC?
- - with CML?
- LC Termies
- TH& SS Termies
- - with the Special Character Dude
- with Terminator Chaplain
- with Land Raider
- with Land Raider Crusader
- with Land Raider Redeemer
Ouch!
752
Post by: Polonius
Because your system provides huge advantages to certain armies. Nercrons only have one troop, so they can either take 4 troops or less than 3 spammed units. Tau have no real anti-tank outside of heavy, and rarely take the field with less than max heavy.
Ironically, I think it helps marines more than anything, followed closely by IG and Eldar. Anything with more diverse codices. An army with two good troops choices will prosper under this system.
208
Post by: Bahkara
Who won the tourney? Did any of the better comped armies know the TOs?
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's talk about SM Terminators as an example.
Ouch!
Terminators (in general)
- SB& PF Termies 3
- - with HF? 3 (the heavy flamer is
- - - with Heavy Flamer and the Flamey Character 3 (this boost can be included in the SC)
- - with AC? 3 (If you take the HF or no heavy, than you clearly have a cunning plan, but get no bonus)
- - with CML? 3
- LC Termies 4
- TH& SS Termies 4
- - with the Special Character Dude 5 (I think this would be a rare case of including a special rule, that it gets the bump if vulkan is included)
- with Terminator Chaplain 4 (this bonus is restricted to a unit, and thus can be included in the value of the chaplain)
- with Land Raider 4 (The LRC is a 5, because it's really good and is taken to transport good units.)
- with Land Raider Crusader 4
- with Land Raider Redeemer 4
It's really not that hard. I mean, we could get really fine toothed and start weighing for every option, but I'd rather see a broader diversity of units and archtypes rather than see, say, more Heavy Flamers or terminators or Eldar Rangers not upgraded to pathfinders. I see no problem assuming in most cases, the units will be properly and wisely outfitted.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
If Tau end up taking their free point on Max Heavy, why is that so bad?
If Necrons end up using their free point on Spammed Warriors or <4 Troops, again, why is that such a big deal?
Either way, they're still scoring the full 5 points. The point is that they're not maximally powerful, just like everybody else.
Nor is the point that the system is perfect. All it intends to do is to clamp down on the worst abuses of non-Comp (i.e. Max Spammed Heavies and pure Repetition). The key point is that it is easily transparent to the player about how it does that.
I don't see why the player can't be forced into making some simple choices between power and comp points, nor do I see why those choices are "bad".
As for specific Codices, SM Scouts are kind of poor for their points, and I'd gladly give up the Spam point not to take them. IG and Eldar, aren't exactly powerhouse Codices, so how they'd "prosper" is only relative to being mid-pack today - that is, I think they'd stay the same. But Lash Chaos? Heavy penalties.
752
Post by: Polonius
Ok, I see what you mean now by a free break. You only need to hit five of the six. I still think you could create some broken stuff there. I mean, it'll change the game, certainly, but I think it's still a "the rich get richer" style system.
Well, Eldar get a boost because they can grab singletons easier than any other army by adding things like Jetbikes, Rangers, Harlies, falcons, Vypers, or their specials.
IG Have two good troops choices, and with tank squadrons can bring plenty of pain there without maxing on heavies.
The other problem with your system is that it torpedoes some really interesting armies. Things like Deathwing would score nothing on there (assuming they took three land raiders, oh, they might get 4+ troops as well).
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
I'm not sure how that's such a problem.
Eldar wanting max 5/5 probably aren't much impacted at all, aside from choosing between 4+ Troops and 3 Elites. But then, they're not top tier right now. And even if this were under 4E rules, they'd be forced to choose between Tri-Falcon (Heavy) and the units within (Elite).
IG will still be points limited, after filling compulsories, and those Squadrons are very-much of a double-edged sword. Assuming you want a 5/5, there is a decision whether to take a (bad) Elite, limit Fast / Heavy options, or spend more points on T3 Sv5+ Troops.
It's not perfect, but then it doesn't purport to be. It merely places a small number of very basic choices in front of the player, choices that are relatively simple to evaluate when list building, for which the impact can be well-understood before walking into the event.
It's kind of like the difference between the current tax code and a flat tax. Or SFB vs BFG. Simplicity is something of a virtue in and of itself. 
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:
[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy
Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name
Armies with good troops: SM, IG, Eldar, Orks, Chaos, Witchhunters, Daemons, Dark Eldar,
Armies with two good troops (to avoid spamming troops): Chaos, IG, Eldar, Chaos
Armies with a good Fast Attack: Necrons, SM, IG, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau
Armies that do well absent three Heavies: SM, Chaos, IG, Necrons, Witchhunters, Daemons, Dark Eldar, Eldar
Since not maxing on elite and fast is easy, a max list only really needs four others. We'll save singletons for last, so we need lists that can do three of the following four: four troops, nothing spammed, an elite and a fast, and non-max heavies. The best armies for that are:
IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters
Of those, they all can take singletons. Necrons simply can't take enough troops while avoiding the spam penalty, Tau are really restricted in terms of build (can't spam suits, must take a fast, can't take three hammerheads, must take four troops, must take kroot, etc.), Daemonhunters are totally boned, as are Dark Angels.
I guess I fundamentally oppose any comp system that punishes people that play weak codices.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
What if it's sexy punishment?
752
Post by: Polonius
JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm not sure how that's such a problem.
Eldar wanting max 5/5 probably aren't much impacted at all, aside from choosing between 4+ Troops and 3 Elites. But then, they're not top tier right now. And even if this were under 4E rules, they'd be forced to choose between Tri-Falcon (Heavy) and the units within (Elite).
IG will still be points limited, after filling compulsories, and those Squadrons are very-much of a double-edged sword. Assuming you want a 5/5, there is a decision whether to take a (bad) Elite, limit Fast / Heavy options, or spend more points on T3 Sv5+ Troops.
It's not perfect, but then it doesn't purport to be. It merely places a small number of very basic choices in front of the player, choices that are relatively simple to evaluate when list building, for which the impact can be well-understood before walking into the event.
It's kind of like the difference between the current tax code and a flat tax. Or SFB vs BFG. Simplicity is something of a virtue in and of itself.
Well, much like the flat tax, simplicity has value, but is it worth grotesque unfairness?
Here's a quick IG list:
CCS, Stand, Melta x3, PP 105
Chimera 55
Marbo 65
PCS, 4xFlamer 50
Chimera 55
AC/ PG 75
AC/ PG 75
Vets, 3x Melta 100
Chimera 55
Vets, 3x Melta 100
Valk 100
PCS, 4xFlamer 50
Chimera 55
AC/ PG 75
AC/ PG 75
Executioner 230
Executioner 230
LRBT x2 300
1850
Don't forget, Marbo is a 65pt unit that's both a singleton and an elite. The valk is my fast, I have four troops, nothing spammed, and three heavies as my freebie.
If marines are more your style, you can take:
Vulkan
8 TH/ SS termies
7 TH/ SS termies
10 Tacticals, melta, MM, Rhino
10 Tacticals, melta, MM, Rhino
MM speeder
MM Speeder
LR Crusader
LR Redeemer
That's max points.
131
Post by: malfred
Why would you punish an army for repeating FOC?
Aren't armies meant to be standardized?
edit: Thanks for the clarification on the 2nd edition style codex. I never played 2nd
edition, but I bought various army books as reading material. When 3rd edition rolled
around I thought of it as force organization as well.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Polonius wrote:Well, don't you more or less disagree with the notion that any unit is more powerful than another? Of course it'd be arbitrary for you. No offense, but for nearly everybody else, it's a matter of execution, not theory.
I'm sorry, but it appears that I've somehow managed to give you a very misleading idea about what I think. Please let me try to explain. I disagree with the notion that any unit is more powerful than another of the same points value, because different units have different uses, and to simply say that one unit is more powerful than another is to ignore the conditions which validate that judgment. The power of units can only be judged according to the conditions of their use, and assigning some general power rating or ranking is a lossy abstraction.
Warhammer 40,000 already has a misleading and lossy abstraction for measuring the value of units, called points. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because assigning absolute values would detract from the fun of figuring where and how 200pts of unit x is better than 200pts of unit y. But it would be nice if ~(200x = 200y), so that the values of x and y weren't sometimes so opaque, and hence easier to evaluate for the purposes of competition.
Moreover of course this is a matter of execution, the whole problem is about how to implement a composition system that's more accurate than a points system but less arbitrary than a weighted points system, and still user-friendly. The accuracy that your system offers simply increases the input of arbitrary value into the system. This is because you're building your house on sand, on the assumption that some units can be better than other units of the same points value in some abstract general sense, rather than in the specific ways in which a player can employ them.
Of course, such situation-specific valuation would require a fair bit of abstract algebra, and that's not terribly user-friendly, although your mileage may vary and a variety of mileage is the problem at hand.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Polonius: I don't see what's obviously wrong with either list.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
I always have and always will despise the very concept of comp scores.
The idea that you are being penalized for taking a perfectly legal army just pisses me off in principal.
If something is not allowed, then dont allow it, if its allowed then its allowed and dont penalize me for it.
If you as the TO have some kind of problem with repetition in a list ( despite the fact that this is a war game and that is how wars are fought) then dont allow it. Just say, you are not allowed to bring more than one of any single heavy support choice. Or you must bring a minumum of 4 troop choices, whatever. It solves nothing to just make random decisions on what makes a "more compy" list and penalize anyone who does not follow those arbitrary guidelines. At the very least any comp critera should be very clearly published in advance, what happend to the OPs friend is not just wrong its flat out corruption as far as I am concerned. If you are going to make that kind of rating then you damn well better let people know what is expected before hand.
sigh, I could go on but its pointless.
I will say that a recent local tournment I went to was at least honest about it. The TO said "Im rating everyone on comp based on how hard to beat I think your army is, its totally subjective and is basically a handicap to try and balance out list building with playing skill."
I don't agree with that either but at least I respect that more than this random idea that some things that are legal and allowed in the codex are somehow less Compy than others.
 May the Holy Inquisition purge all comp nazis with the beautiful fires of holy prometheum.
608
Post by: Hokkaido23
The comp at KublaCon was standard RT comp. 40% troops, no more than 25% in any other category, no more than 10% in wargear, etc.
Kublacon is usually an outstanding regional tournament. This year's event was run by a new group of people, and while Im sure they thought they were doing the best they could, there have been scores of complaints about the judging overall. Id love to hear their perspective on things, but from what I saw it was terrible. A friend's chaos army (gorgeous, btw) was given a mediocre paint score partially because it contained Slaanesh, Khorne, and Nurgle models - the army composition and paint score were linked in the judge's explanation, and the score suffered because those 3 gods did not like working together in the fluff. The fact that fluff is completely outdated was besides the point, I assume. I also saw the tyranid player above catch flak for not being a good army in the judges eyes.
Dont blame the con or the tourney itself. This lies squarely on the judges.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
Hokkaido23 wrote:The comp at KublaCon was standard RT comp. 40% troops, no more than 25% in any other category, no more than 10% in wargear, etc.
Kublacon is usually an outstanding regional tournament. This year's event was run by a new group of people, and while Im sure they thought they were doing the best they could, there have been scores of complaints about the judging overall. Id love to hear their perspective on things, but from what I saw it was terrible. A friend's chaos army (gorgeous, btw) was given a mediocre paint score partially because it contained Slaanesh, Khorne, and Nurgle models - the army composition and paint score were linked in the judge's explanation, and the score suffered because those 3 gods did not like working together in the fluff. The fact that fluff is completely outdated was besides the point, I assume. I also saw the tyranid player above catch flak for not being a good army in the judges eyes.
Dont blame the con or the tourney itself. This lies squarely on the judges.
I can totally accept the comp standards posted, again dont agree with the concept, but at least its clear what should have been expected. Of course its pretty outdated now since most of the new books dont have wargear to any extent, but anyway.
I think the example of what happened with the judges at Kublacon is a perfect example of what is wrong with soft scores in general, they are so totally subjective and it just takes a couple people who are locked into a local FLGS mindset to come up with some bizzare rulings that make perfect sense to them but everyone else just looks at and shakes thier heads.
608
Post by: Hokkaido23
The tournament was won by an Ultramarines army consisting of tac squads, Marneus Calgar, and twin dreads. That player, in addition to getting good draws (which is essential to winning a tournament) is a very good player who is also at the top of the local scene, so props to him - he deserved the win, after a math error screwed him out of first place in 2006.
To bigtmac68, thats exactly what happened. The judges, who happen to be players as well in the NorCal scene, imposed their idea of the fluff on comp and paint scores. Since some people didnt adhere to that, and why would they, they were given correspondingly lower scores for what seems like no reason.
Im fine with RT comp, since if theres going to be a comp system ts almost always the least restrictive. But since missions require troops to win and we come to play with fancy toys that blow things up, why should we have comp at all? A subjective judge on top of that is redundantly bad.
208
Post by: Bahkara
Hokkaido23 wrote:is a very good player who is also at the top of the local scene
This is the problem I have as he may have had access to the comp they were using while those from outside the local scene do not. If you are going to have comp in a tourney you need to give everyone a fair chance at seeing what it is, not just those that happen to live near the TO.
In addition it seems like the TOs ruined the tourney for a number of people. I'm curious if those that weren't local or part of the local scene were the ones that were "poo-pooed" 
EDIT: Hey it's answered here!
Hokkaido23 wrote:
To bigtmac68, thats exactly what happened. The judges, who happen to be players as well in the NorCal scene, imposed their idea of the fluff on comp and paint scores. Since some people didnt adhere to that, and why would they, they were given correspondingly lower scores for what seems like no reason.
Then this is the problem and unfair to the other players and give a huge advantage to the local players in terms of comp and the other relative categories if they didn't lete everyone know beforehand. I'd have called shenanigans and probably never go back as long as that group was running the event.
I've used comp before in tournies I've run but never as part of the overall score but as a way to set up 1st round pairings.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
I can say from experience that the Sacramento "scene" is extremely cliquish and the local players will often tank outsider's soft scores at the "Contest of Champions" Sacramento tournament series.
2776
Post by: Reecius
I HATE comp systems.
What is the number one thing you hear people complain about with a tournament? Comp scores.
Drop them already.
They are totally arbitrary.
The one and ONLY fair and universally accepted way to judge an army is this: Legal / Not Legal.
That is a simple, binary issue. If it is allowed in the codex then it is legal and anyone else can take their opinion and shove it.
As they used to say around these parts when I was a Dakka noob, instead of complaining that someone kicked your ass, play better.
Comp systems are for the weak.
608
Post by: Hokkaido23
Bahkara wrote:This is the problem I have as he may have had access to the comp they were using while those from outside the local scene do not. If you are going to have comp in a tourney you need to give everyone a fair chance at seeing what it is, not just those that happen to live near the TO.
In addition it seems like the TOs ruined the tourney for a number of people. I'm curious if those that weren't local or part of the local scene were the ones that were "poo-pooed"
The tournament and its rules used were advertised on the Kublacon website months in advance. Everyone had the same access to them, plus its RT comp so its been around forever. Hardly a surprise. Furthermore, the SF/East Bay gaming area and the Sacramento gaming area are completely separate. Players know of each other, they play each other sparingly at local tournaments, but thats about it. The winning player is from my local area, which is completely separate from SF/East Bay.
Bahkara wrote:Then this is the problem and unfair to the other players and give a huge advantage to the local players in terms of comp and the other relative categories if they didn't lete everyone know beforehand. I'd have called shenanigans and probably never go back as long as that group was running the event.
I've used comp before in tournies I've run but never as part of the overall score but as a way to set up 1st round pairings.
Again, the player that won is not close to the organizers, I dont believe. Lets not jump to wild conclusions, they come from different areas of the state. Despite it being one of the only events in Northern California, Im considering not going back either as long as its run by this group of people but we take what we can get, you know?
willydstyle wrote:I can say from experience that the Sacramento "scene" is extremely cliquish and the local players will often tank outsider's soft scores at the "Contest of Champions" Sacramento tournament series.
Why put it in quotation marks? Are you implying that its not a scene? And im sure it can seem cliquish to those outside the percieved clique. Im also sure its the same as other game store cultures around the world.
To steer the conversation back on topic, I think the fault lies less with the actual comp system and its associated evils and more with the specific group of judges in this instance.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Personally I find a lot of comp just bizarre.
The FOC allows 3 heavy, 3 fast, etc. But you get penalized for taking 3 heavies?
Either the FOC stands or the tournament needs a revised FOC.
Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Hokkaido23 wrote:Why put it in quotation marks? Are you implying that its not a scene? And im sure it can seem cliquish to those outside the percieved clique. Im also sure its the same as other game store cultures around the world.
Well, I know that at the insistence of the aforementioned Ultramarines player (whose name I know, but won't mention) the composition scoring for the Contest of Champions has been changing a lot recently. It may be coincidence, but the composition scoring is changing in such a way as to attempt to put the players from Ukiah and Petaluma who are dominating the tournaments in Sac at a disadvantage, and to give the Ultramarines force, which is comprised largely of tactical squads more of an advantage.
I say this because it is another example of why comp just doesn't work. My friend has taken Best General at the CoC probably 90% of the time in the last year, and they keep changing the comp, and he just keeps bringing a different army with full comp to get the award again, including with Necrons and pre-new-codex IG.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Comp shouldn't exist.
The only criteria should be that the list is legal and complies with whatever structure the Tournament Organiser has set out prior to the event.
Yes, this results in power-builds, but that's GW's fault for making a pathetic set of rules, not the players' fault for finding their mistakes.
7883
Post by: Rhyskalor
The tourney scene in Germany never used comp scores (at least the last couple of years I was part of it) and I never met anyone who missed it. We use restrictions in many tourneys, e.g. no triple Heavy Support or Elite, no SC, no double HQ or no double psychic powers in HQ.
That works really well. Reading threads like this (and there are many on dakka like this) I really pity US tourney players for this random and arbitrary factor in their tourneys.
But we in Germany also don't have sports scores, so it's quite different over here.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?
It's a question of "can" versus "should".
In the real world, there's no law requiring manners or good judgment. One is free to act as boorish and foolishly as one desires. That is similar to a non-Comp build.
In the same way that manners are supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive behavior, Comp is supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive army building.
That is, just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.
But rather than strait-jacketing players by changing the FOC and thereby making their armies illegal, Comp allows them to continue playing, but at a penalty of scoring less than full points.
If we changed the FOC to:
1 HQ
1-2 Elite
4-6 Troops
1-2 Fast
0-2 Heavy
that would have a similar effect, but now, you wouldn't even have the option of fielding 3 Heavies. So I don't see how changing the FOC is better than applying Comp. Comp still leaves the decision of what to field in the player's hands. A new FOC takes that away entirely.
The other way to look at it, is as a handicapping system, whereby choosing to take only strong stuff reduces the players need to play well. If your list is inherently strong, you don't need to be as clever of a general to get a win, all else being equal.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nurglitch wrote:Dis-satisfaction with composition rules is one reason why I think that some tournaments should have pre-generated lists that Tournament Organizers should publish upon announcing sign-up for the tournament. If Tournament Organizers want to see a particular list, or don't want to see others, then they should define what is acceptable and what is not.
Leave the list-building to the 'Ard-boyz, as sometimes players should just bring miniatures and rely on their skill at playing the game with the forces they have available, like a real general. It would certainly make it easier for Tournament Organizers to tune scenarios, and it would make painting a matter of comparing apples to apples.
Nurglitch and I disagree often, but in this there is agreement.
Whats with the maple leaf? I thought you were USA nurgle powered?
208
Post by: Bahkara
Hokkaido23 wrote:Bahkara wrote:This is the problem I have as he may have had access to the comp they were using while those from outside the local scene do not. If you are going to have comp in a tourney you need to give everyone a fair chance at seeing what it is, not just those that happen to live near the TO.
In addition it seems like the TOs ruined the tourney for a number of people. I'm curious if those that weren't local or part of the local scene were the ones that were "poo-pooed"
The tournament and its rules used were advertised on the Kublacon website months in advance. Everyone had the same access to them, plus its RT comp so its been around forever. Hardly a surprise. Furthermore, the SF/East Bay gaming area and the Sacramento gaming area are completely separate. Players know of each other, they play each other sparingly at local tournaments, but thats about it. The winning player is from my local area, which is completely separate from SF/East Bay.
I checked the website and there is mention of comp but not what it is or how it will be used. At least with GW GTs and RTTs you new what the criteria was. Like I said I use comp only for pairings and not actually as part of your score.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
JohnHwangDD wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?
It's a question of "can" versus "should".
In the real world, there's no law requiring manners or good judgment. One is free to act as boorish and foolishly as one desires. That is similar to a non-Comp build.
In the same way that manners are supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive behavior, Comp is supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive army building.
That is, just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.
But rather than strait-jacketing players by changing the FOC and thereby making their armies illegal, Comp allows them to continue playing, but at a penalty of scoring less than full points.
But the problem with comp, as previously mentioned, is that it's too subjective and corruptible.
Changing the FOC leaves everyone knowing exactly where they stand.
12510
Post by: Dronze
Speaking simply as an outsider to the tourney scene, I find myself vaguely confused when it comes to some of the basics of comp scoring and "spamming". My confusion stems from this: Most complex military design/organization is based on multiple redundant systems, from fire bases and squad deployment to the fuel lines in your vehicles. This kind of layout is meant to prevent a massive systematic failure by providing backups and, in some cases, backups to those backups.
Having a bunch of fire teams that can't fill the role of the other fire teams in the unit is nothing shy of a disaster waiting to happen.
Spamming, as it were, is actually a pretty solid strategy, as it provides multiple redundant systems to prevent mass failure within your forces.
Example:
You're composing a list of Chaos Space Marines. Your troops choices have been filled out with 2 units of (10x) CSMs with 2 flamers each, mounted in rhinos, a pair of minimized terminator squads with Chaos Land Raiders, 2 units of Khorne Berserkers, and you're trying to choose between Defilers and Obliterators to fill in heavy support.
A pair of defilers would be alright here, but given that you're already geared to deal with a good number of infantry threats, it's a secondary concern. The units, as presented, have a glaring lack of true versitility, but can deal moderately well if they can keep from being overrun. Obliterators can fill in the gaps here, providing anti-tank fire in a harder to deal with package, as well as providing redundancy within itself, in case one of the squads fails in it's task.
Units are meant to fill specific roles withing your armies, and if your opponent has to divide his fire to keep you from being able to deal with what he's brought to the table, then all the better for you, both as a commander and a player. Assemble your armies like you have a specific goal in mind, and outfit them so that they can overcome all or most of the obstacles that may be presented to them. Your army is meant to act as a single organism, with multiple systems comprising the greater part of the whole to achieve a single, unified purpose.
Why would one enforce an arbitrary set of scoring to penalize players who actually want to make a sound strategic decision? I can see why a rules abuse list might take a hit, but a penalty for multiple redundant units is kinda weaksauce in my eyes. It kinda detracts from the idea that this is a tabletop wargame, in most cases.
11933
Post by: number9dream
I think this game is far too expensive to punish people for playing what they want to play -_-
Comp is slowed.
Nice post btw, Dronze.
9655
Post by: barlio
I figured out who the tournament judge was.
http://www.simpsons.nl/marten/cbg.gif
No wonder.
I like when comp is judged in tourneys, but only when the judge follows some sort of check sheet and then is able to grant additional points if he/she sees fit. At our local indygt comp is graded by the players after each game. A certain group (that will go unmentioned) likes to give max points to their own guys. Giving too much power to one person or players is generally a bad thing in tournaments.
Without comp I feel that tournaments just become the spawn of Ard Boyz. I know a lot of people like this style, but from my own experience it just leads to pain.
6872
Post by: sourclams
JohnHwangDD wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?
It's a question of "can" versus "should".
In the real world, there's no law requiring manners or good judgment. One is free to act as boorish and foolishly as one desires. That is similar to a non-Comp build.
Just as in the real world, behavior varies considerably by locale. Sitting with the bare feet extended in Saudi Arabia is a vulgarity. In the U.S.A., it means you're doing pilates. Having hard lists is perfectly normal for my store. At other people's it's a sign of some sort of moral inferiority.
The other way to look at it, is as a handicapping system, whereby choosing to take only strong stuff reduces the players need to play well. If your list is inherently strong, you don't need to be as clever of a general to get a win, all else being equal.
And again, the fundamental problem is that not all codices and not all entries within codicies are equal. The most obvious example is Lash/Oblit/Plague Marines. 2x3 oblits with a Lash Daemon Prince and a Slaaneshi Sorcerer with Plague Marines spammed out the ying yang (or even just 3 PM squads and Berzerkers in rhinos) is about as hard a list as can be played. It also fits into the majority of Comp systems very, very easily.
The fundamental problem with GW is that they don't create truly balanced systems where all options are as viable as others. Until that is fixed, any attempts at judging "comp" is just jury-rigging a broken system.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
All composition systems are arbitrary, but if you know what you'll be judged upon ahead of time, if you get a low score, it's no-ones fault but your own.
In order for my Iron Warriors Army to be fluffy, I would have more heavy support than anything else, and yes, there would be 3 of things. Heck, I wouldn't even take an HQ or Troops if I didn't have too. I AM Iron Warriors. We ARE Tanks. We ARE F-ING GUNS. WE ARE F@CKING BULLITS!
In order to keep with the comp, I have to go against the fluff, or vise versa. So what is an Iron Warrior to do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on Spamming. Taking multiples of something has gotten a bad rap, I don't know how. The word "Spamming" is derogatory, and really shouldn't be used. An Imperial Space Marine player should be taking 50% tactical squads in rhinos according to fluff, but to have 3 tactical squads is now somehow a bad thing? If someone wants to make a Death Guard army (and these were quite popular all the way back into 2en edition), how is it cheese if they take 4 squads of 7 Plague Marines? Dark Eldar are supposed to take lots of raiders. If you are going up against a Death Wing army, and you don't take lots of anti terminator weapons, it is not your opponents fault you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure that any real world army has more than 3 squads of infantry and more than 3 tanks. Heck, just look at the size of China's army. Are you gonna go and tell them that "It's not fair, you have too many"? Do you think that they'll care? It's time to MAN UP, you "He's spamming" whiners out there, and realize that's how it's supposed to be done.
305
Post by: Moz
A well designed game shouldn't need a comp system. Just sayin'.
4767
Post by: hancock.tom
JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:
[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy
Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name
If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.
I think this is actually a really good start. This sort of list is the right idea, though I don't think it is perfected yet.
Certainly you might need some special rules. For example, put a star beside the no spam requirement and state that, * for codexes with less than types of troops, troops do not count as spam. Bam- Necrons and Tau don't get nailed for spamming cron warriors or fire warriors. Another way to write that rule would be *If you take one of every troop type available in your codex, they do not count as spam. Again, crons and tau are fine (though the tau would have to take a singleton unit of kroot, which isn't a bad idea anyway.
What bothers me is that it is going to be pretty easy for the most broken cheese lists in the game to STILL score 4/5 comp points running essentially the same cheese lists they are running now... and at most tournaments, 4/5 comp and 4 wins will beat 5/5 comp and 3 wins.
Example: double lash prince, spam oblits, spam plague marines with some zerkers and a termicide. That is a common cheeseball army. It just buys one spawn ( FA for 40 points) and suddenly they are scoring 4/5 comp points, missing only the 3 heavies and no spam rules.
So I think it needs work, but I like the simplicity of it and the ideas behind it.
9954
Post by: Perturabo's Chosen
JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:
[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy
Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name
If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.
I think something slightly better would be:
Are there more troops than elites? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than fast attack? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than heavy support? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than elites+fast attack+heavy support? yes=5, equal=3 no=1
personaly, I would also like to see
Is there a special character? No=5pt, yes 1=3pt, yes 2=1pt, yes there were 3or more=0pt
2776
Post by: Reecius
I think the above systems are garbage.
No system will apply equally to everyone, it is impossible, the codexes are made to be different form one another.
You know what system would work REALLY well: using the codexes and the rule book! Wow!
Comp systems are a thinly veiled attempt by TO's to try and force people to play the game they want to play it. It is weak, petty and childish.
People should be able to bring whatever they want, so long as its legal.
As I had mentioned, we just ran a tournament here with a 16 person turnout. We had no comp scores and played missions straight out of the book. No stupid, goofy new scenarios you had to learn 5 minutes before playing them.
Everyone LOVED it. We had not problems with sportsmanship, no issues with army builds, everyone had a great time and went out of their way to say how fun it was.
Don't try and "improve" the game according to your own agenda by implementing an arbitrary comp system, just let people play how they want to play.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
Reecius wrote:I think the above systems are garbage.
No system will apply equally to everyone, it is impossible, the codexes are made to be different form one another.
You know what system would work REALLY well: using the codexes and the rule book! Wow!
Comp systems are a thinly veiled attempt by TO's to try and force people to play the game they want to play it. It is weak, petty and childish.
People should be able to bring whatever they want, so long as its legal.
As I had mentioned, we just ran a tournament here with a 16 person turnout. We had no comp scores and played missions straight out of the book. No stupid, goofy new scenarios you had to learn 5 minutes before playing them.
Everyone LOVED it. We had not problems with sportsmanship, no issues with army builds, everyone had a great time and went out of their way to say how fun it was.
Don't try and "improve" the game according to your own agenda by implementing an arbitrary comp system, just let people play how they want to play.
STANDING OVATION!!!!
THe thing that really chaps my rather massive ass is the way the above system so heavily penalizes you for "Spamming"
Its like saying, ok this is a war game but unless you put together a force that would have any actual military comander shot for stupefiying incompentence in the face of the enemy, you get penalized.
What the hell is wrong with taking muliples, how is that cheezy, it does not make your army somehow uber, its just simple logic in a game where there is usually only one good choice per FOC slot for a particular style of army.
Why the hell should and Air Cav force be penalized for taking multiple Valkyries, or a Marine Drop Pod army be penalized for taking multiple tac squads. It makes not sense either fluff wise, or for the sake of competition. Someone somewhere decides that its not "cool" to actually build a tactially sound army and chooses to penalize anyone who does not play the way they like.
God I hate comp!!
Im adding this to my sig for sure
Man up, Bring your best, and play like your playing a Wargame, not a kindergarten team building excercise.
Comp is for the weak!
6872
Post by: sourclams
Perturabo's Chosen wrote:I think something slightly better would be:
Are there more troops than elites? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than fast attack? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than heavy support? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than elites+fast attack+heavy support? yes=5, equal=3 no=1
personaly, I would also like to see
Is there a special character? No=5pt, yes 1=3pt, yes 2=1pt, yes there were 3or more=0pt
So by your chart, battlesuit Tau score very low comp.
Man-Spam IG score very high comp.
Unless you're playing Cadian IG with Creed, Kell, Bastonne, and Pask, then you score average comp.
Ork hordes led by a warboss score very high comp.
Battlewagon Orks led by KFF mechs score very high comp.
Nob Bikers score very high comp.
Lash+Oblits and Plague Marine Spam scores very high comp.
Eldradzilla scores very high comp.
Aspect Eldar scores average to low comp.
So let's see... Nob Bikes and Lash Chaos are fine, compy, armies and battlesuit Tau can sod off because they totally shouldn't be able to do that. WTF?
The basic assupmtion of this checklist is that troops are equally viable or unviable across all codices. Which is completely false. Comp systems fail because they have to deal with the fundamental truth that codices are not balanced internally. Automatically Appended Next Post: bigtmac68 wrote:What the hell is wrong with taking muliples, how is that cheezy, it does not make your army somehow uber, its just simple logic in a game where there is usually only one good choice per FOC slot for a particular style of army.
Why the hell should and Air Cav force be penalized for taking multiple Valkyries, or a Marine Drop Pod army be penalized for taking multiple tac squads. It makes not sense either fluff wise, or for the sake of competition. Someone somewhere decides that its not "cool" to actually build a tactially sound army and chooses to penalize anyone who does not play the way they like.
Exactly. Comp is worthless. If you really want battles to like White Dwarf articles, then demand that GW balance codices internally so that all options are viable. What's funny is that the people who most complain about 'hard' lists are the same ones that say ' GW IS A MINIATURES COMPANY, NOT A RULES COMPANY'.
You can accept that the speed limit is 70 miles per hour, or you can stay off the highway.
2700
Post by: dietrich
Moz wrote:A well designed game shouldn't need a comp system. Just sayin'.
Word.
In any point based game, there will always be something that is 'the best' for the points spent.
The problem isn't with comp scoring. The problem is that people show up with unoptomized lists and get beat up by people with optomized lists. Matchups are still a big part of winning a tourney. Sometimes unoptomized lists match-up really well against the current 'best build', but get destroyed by all the middle of the pack armies. Imagine the BW spam list against a Broadside and markerlight heavy Tau build. Tau are going to Markerlight the BW, deny the KFF save, and are getting +2 on the damage roll (open-topped, AP1). But, a foot-slogging ork list might just wade across the board, losing a few handfuls of boyz, and then win in assault.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Scott-S6 wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?
It's a question of "can" versus "should".
But the problem with comp, as previously mentioned, is that it's too subjective and corruptible.
Changing the FOC leaves everyone knowing exactly where they stand.
If I pre-publish a checkbox comp system, based purely on the FOC, then there's nothing subjective or corruptible.
The problem with changing the FOC is that not everybody has the models to play a revised FOC. They might need that 2nd HQ or 3rd Heavy just to make points. So now they can't even play. Not being able to play is worse than Comp, IMO.
____
Dronze wrote:Spamming, as it were, is actually a pretty solid strategy, as it provides multiple redundant systems to prevent mass failure within your forces.
Why would one enforce an arbitrary set of scoring to penalize players who actually want to make a sound strategic decision?
Completely correct.
Because players tend to only spam the "good" stuff, rather than the basic stuff. In theory, massed Obliterators / Tank squadrons / Elites are rare, so they wouldn't be available in the quantities desired by every commander. If the Nazis could have had KoenigsTiger at the same numbers and cost as inexpensive PzIII & StuG III (along with their other superweapons), then Europe would be speaking German today. Thankfully, those super units were only available by the handful.
____
hancock.tom wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:
[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy
Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name
If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.
This sort of list is the right idea, though I don't think it is perfected yet.
double lash prince, spam oblits, spam plague marines with some zerkers and a termicide. That is a common cheeseball army. It just buys one spawn ( FA for 40 points) and suddenly they are scoring 4/5 comp points, missing only the 3 heavies and no spam rules.
Like any other human system, I don't think it can be "perfected". It's merely a guideline, with limited application. Sure, we can change the Anti-Spam to exclude Troops, which solves the Necron Troops problem, but there quickly comes a point at which the foundation of Codex imbalance simply cannon be overcome without rewriting the Codices. In this kind of thing, think it's easier to pick a few "obvious" things to focus on, and not worry about the minutiae too much - after all, if the base Codices were perfectly-balanced, Comp wouldn't even be an issue in the first place...
The problem with your "cheeseball" Dual Lash army is that you assume to allow far too many points.
2x Lash Prince = 310
3 Termies ( tB& PW) = 90
8 Zerks (2 PP) = 183
3x 7 PM (2 PG) = 573
1 Spawn = 40
3x 3 Oblit = 675
1871 pts with minimal upgrades, which is nearly 400 pts over where I'd want to set a Comp event (1500 pts).
The true core of the Lash army (2x Prince, 2x 7 PM, 3x Oblit) is 1367 pts by itself, so it's very difficult to keep all the "good stuff" in there at 1500 pts and still score full comp.
If you reset against a 1500 pt limit, and want full comp, the army looks more like this:
1 Lash Prince
3 Termies
8 Zerks
3x 7 PM
1 Spawn
2x 3 Oblits
That's under 1500 pts, and scores 5/5 (Spam PMs). It's also a lot less powerful than the previous list, losing the backup Prince, and the 3rd Oblits.
At 1500 pts, the player needs to make a some tradeoffs between power and comp, and that's the point. Comp shouldn't be something to agonize over, because ultimately, it should be a permissive system, by which, I mean that it should always permit any legal army to play.
2776
Post by: Reecius
That is JohnHammer 40K, not Warhammer 40K.
6872
Post by: sourclams
So a mixed bag of Chaos, including units that by all rights don't even work together (Slaanesh and Khorne) scores full comp.
By contrast:
1500 pts
Kharn
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8xChaos Terminators
8xChaos Terminators
Defiler
Defiler
Gets poor comp. That's an awesome system. No, really, Slaaneshi/Khorne/Nurgle is way more fluffy than Kharn and fellow berzerkers of the Blood God.
Comp sucks. It does nothing to moderate power in a meaningful way, and adds nothing but an arbitrary restriction to the system based on the prejudices of the Comp System designer.
MY FUN IS BETTER THAN YOUR FUN.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Reece: I'm not changing anything. Just making a suggestion, that people are free to ignore.
If I really were creating "JohnHammer" (which I have neither the time, nor inclination to do), I suppose I'd go about things differently.
____
@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.
As for the Khorne army, if you want to be compy, how about this:
Kharn
8xChaos Terminators
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x MoK CSM/Rhino
8x MoK Raptors
Defiler
This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Reece: I'm not changing anything. Just making a suggestion, that people are free to ignore.
If I really were creating "JohnHammer" (which I have neither the time, nor inclination to do), I suppose I'd go about things differently.
____
@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.
As for the Khorne army, if you want to be compy, how about this:
Kharn
8xChaos Terminators
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x MoK CSM/Rhino
8x MoK Raptors
Defiler
This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!
That is a perfect example of why I hate comp. In order to score full comp I have to take a crap unit that has nothing to do with my army theme. Raptors. You mention that some people may not have the models to play an altered foc but that is exactly what is being done here by forcing the player to purchase a unit they dont want, and does not fit well with thier army.
Again its just some random retriction that is being imposed on a game system for no apparant reason.
Comp is pure unadulterated evil! (j/k but god do i despise the very concept of comp in every possible way)
8218
Post by: Raxmei
A player who fills all three HS slots with a single basilisk apiece gets dinged for spamming basilisks and taking too much HS, but a player who fills two HS slots with three basilisks apiece is not spamming basilisks or using too much heavy support.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
Raxmei wrote:A player who fills all three HS slots with a single basilisk apiece gets dinged for spamming basilisks and taking too much HS, but a player who fills two HS slots with three basilisks apiece is not spamming basilisks or using too much heavy support.
DING
another example of COMP=FAIL!!!
If it's Legal, Its allowed.
6872
Post by: sourclams
JohnHwangDD wrote:
@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.
Sooo.... comp is based on what, then? If someone was going to make a Deathguard Legion, I doubt they'd be adding Noise Marines to their ranks. Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as a game mechanic, it is still fully existant in the background material.
As for the Khorne army, if you want to be compy, how about this:
...WRONG FUN...
This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!
So the purpose of comp is to compensate weak armies by handicapping powerful ones... okay.
DA GROTZ!
Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun
Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
Killa Kan with Grotzookax3
Killa Kan with Grotzookax3
Killa Kan with Grotzookax3
Skorcha Trakx3
Skorcha Trakx3
Skorcha Trakx3
Here's a ridiculously weak army with a single recurring theme, that of two Big Meks and their huge retinue of Grots, with every model that incorporates Grots in some way, and it gets a 1/5 on your comp system.
The simple fact is that I can make dozens of armies that would 100% adhere to background material or some sort of overarching theme, that are completely fluffy and not very powerful, and they would be at or near minimum composition points.
Comp systems fail. They simply add another mechanic for Gamey players to game the system, and the real loser is the bad-to-average player that needed all the help he or she could get. Fixing the game (making all codices internally balanced) is what fixes the game. Shoehorning the game into your vision of what it should look like just breaks it in different ways.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
Rather than just give another standing ovation I will try to add something to the conversation.
We have discussed how comp makes no sense in any kind of "realism" terms.
It makes no sense in terms of fluff as repeatedly demonstrated by Sourclams and others.
It does not help balance the game also as repeatedly demonstrated.
It does not stop players from gaming the system.
It does not help less skilled players play on an even playing field.
What does it do?
It adds useless restrictions and encourages the idea that some armies are somehow "better" than other armies based on a purely random and totaly inconsistent set of criteria.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
bigtmac68 wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!
In order to score full comp I have to take a crap unit that has nothing to do with my army theme.
Yes, that's pretty much the very definition of Comp - limiting the most powerful builds.
____
Raxmei wrote:A player who fills all three HS slots with a single basilisk apiece gets dinged for spamming basilisks and taking too much HS, but a player who fills two HS slots with three basilisks apiece is not spamming basilisks or using too much heavy support.
Yes, that is because Squadrons have disadvantages along with advantages. Squadrons have vulnerability to Immoblized = Destroyed, along with distribution of hits across the squadron... If a Wave Serpent unloads 10 Fire Dragons next to a Squadron of 3 Basilisks, how many Basilisks can they Destroy, compared to 3 individual Basilisks? If there are 3 smallish targets, 2 Squadrons can only target 2 of them, instead of all 3 separately.
____
sourclams wrote:JohnHwangDD wrote:
@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.
Sooo.... comp is based on what, then?
If someone was going to make a Deathguard Legion, I doubt they'd be adding Noise Marines to their ranks. Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as a game mechanic, it is still fully existant in the background material.
When you talk about Deathguard & Noise Marines and Ancient Enemies, you are talking about THEME, not COMP. Theme is how well the army adheres to GW's established background Fluff, whereas Comp simply looks at the FOC. The two have nothing to do with each other from a scoring perspective. Theme will always be subjective, whereas Comp can be handled objectively.
sourclams wrote: DA GROTZ!
The simple fact is that I can make dozens of armies that would 100% adhere to background material or some sort of overarching theme, that are completely fluffy and not very powerful, and they would be at or near minimum composition points.
To which, I say: "so what"?
That Grot army isn't going to win much more than it would before, although the Comped opposing armies will give it slightly better chances. But then, winning probably wasn't a priority of such an army in the first place. That army will probably score very high on Theme, likely fulfilling the player's objective.
It is always possible to create a weak army, or weak deck, or otherwise weak force. Nothing prevents that in any game system which allows for detailed selection or construction.
We all know for a fact that the strongest lists spam the strong units (e.g. Dual Lash & Triple-Max Oblits), and that is what Comp attempts to address. Trying to sidestep the fact that most Codices have strong Heavies, and most armies benefit from having more Heavies is kind of strange. All else being equal, more Heavies, and repeated units is more powerful, so if you're going to apply mechanical Comp, that's where you should clamp down.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
We all know for a fact that the strongest lists spam the strong units (e.g. Dual Lash & Triple-Max Oblits), and that is what Comp attempts to address. Trying to sidestep the fact that most Codices have strong Heavies, and most armies benefit from having more Heavies is kind of strange. All else being equal, more Heavies, and repeated units is more powerful, so if you're going to apply mechanical Comp, that's where you should clamp down.
To which I respond, why? Whay does it need to be adressed at all, everyone knows what the strongest lists are and how to beat them. I dont need or want a handicap to compete against a strong build. I want the challenge of either figuring it out and doing it myself. If I cant do it and loose, then I loose and I deserve to.
I find the very idea of comp insulting if It is in my favor, and frustrating if it works against me. I have never, once, ever had an experience with a comp system that was positive. It has never added to my expereince.
I think the best example is how in tournaments where it does not exist it is NEVER missed, yet in tournaments where it does it is ALWAYS a source of controversy and ruins the experience of someone.
In sports do you tell each team, " you cant bring your three best players. " or " you can only have one good player at each position, any more than that and they have to stay home. "
Everyone knows what works the best and what wins. So why would you artificially penalize that just to reward people who choose to bring lists that are less effective??
I will just never understand the reason anyone would want comp in the first place.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
bigtmac68 wrote:In sports do you tell each team, " you cant bring your three best players. " or " you can only have one good player at each position, any more than that and they have to stay home. "
That depends entirely on the sport, and its goals, but in general, the answer is YES to every one of your questions above.
If you look at US professional sports, they have salary caps that teams need to stay under. You can't just buy an team consisting of the very best players at any price. You have to trade off against the salary cap. The NFL and NBA Drafts rewards poor teams by giving them better draft positions, to improve parity. And they have revenue sharing in the NFL and NHL so that smaller-market teams can continue to compete with larger-market teams. Even the NCAA Collegiates have revenue sharing, which similarly pushes things toward parity.
If you look at many forms of racing sports, they apply a handicapping system to penalize winners. Horses and race cars may carry extra weight to handicap them. If you've ever done any bracket racing, the slower car gets a time advantage. If you look at Le Mans, they race different classes of cars under different rules, with different handicaps, to provide a better race. If you look at F1, WRC, and NASCAR, they're all based on templates and specs to promote parity.
Most fighting sports are organized by weight class, because it's not good competition to have a big guy fight a small guy. And of course, most sports are also gender-segregated, so men don't compete against women.
And that's the common denominator, parity to improve competition, rather than a pure winner take all.
So based on most sporting, I'd say that Comp is alive and well.
7841
Post by: Linkdead
Yea it's not like wargames have any sort of system in place to keep armies at even strength....
2776
Post by: Reecius
John, your example has little merit. Once a team has its players, it uses them to best effect. I can't trade my crappy swooping hawks for sternguard. Also, that only applies to the pros, all other sports bring the best they can get their hands on all the time.
Sports teams are ruthless in the exploitation of any advantage, and that is why they are so much fun! I don't want to watch or play a sport with a bunch of gentlemen that play at half speed so that they don't hurt anyone's feelings.
To which I respond, why? Whay does it need to be adressed at all, everyone knows what the strongest lists are and how to beat them. I dont need or want a handicap to compete against a strong build. I want the challenge of either figuring it out and doing it myself. If I cant do it and loose, then I loose and I deserve to.
Spoken like an adult. I applaud you. 
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Reece:
That's the same as with Comp - once you have your list, you play it to its best effect. If you spent the points on Scouts, you can't swap them for Tacticals.
2776
Post by: Reecius
Right, but in relation to your sports analogy, teams try to get the best player for every position.
That doesn't hold up in wargaming as we all have a set codex we can not deviate from. We can't "draft" the best unit from every codex.
My point was that it was a comparison that didn't hold water. That in fact, sports teams are ruthlessly competitive and do not encourage fair play beyond the small child level. You do what it takes to win within the confines of the rules and no one faults you for it, but in fact applauds it.
However in wargaming here in the states, a lot of people feel that the rules need to be further modified. That is saying that the TO can makes a better game than GW can, which is stupid and arrogant.
Play the game according to the rules given, nice and easy.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
@Reece:
True, aside for things like the salary cap. It's not possible to get the best player for every position, because the salary cap just doesn't allow it.
And as Comp adherence is voluntary, you can still play, whether you have good comp or bad comp.
Nor does Comp scoring affect any of the rules by which the game is played. Armies with good Comp don't get to move farther, extra shooting, or anything like that. Comp has no impact on any of the rules.
Comp simply encourages players to play by a voluntary "gentleman's agreement" so that both players have an enjoyable game, following The Most Important Rule.
Now if TMIR weren't in place, then you are absolutely correct that Comp wouldn't be necessary.
But with a requirement that players work together to have an enjoyable game, then you move over to more of a cooperative endeavor, in which the play is more important than the result.
8044
Post by: Arctik_Firangi
Okay, but the TO changing rules is different to the TO scoring comp. In my experience cometitors score comp either pre-tournament or post-game beside sportsmanship (I prefer pre).
I'd still be happy with no comp score, it just doesn't affect me in the personal way that a lone dick judge might.
I think the judge originally in question had lost a few games to Lysander. If TOs are going to make special characters legal there should be a clear subset of rules on their use and treatment, so everyone is on the same level.
9742
Post by: doc dragon
Kubla Con Comp Scoring:
5 Questions you can control (2 points each)
1) More Troop Choices then any other single catagory?
2) Troops 40%+ of army total?
3) Fast Attack, Elite & Heavy less then 25% each?
4) Units and Characters have Names or Designations?
5) 15% or less on wargear?
4 question you should be able to control (2 points each)
1) Do Troop chooices Not fall into Min/Max?
2) Is the list the same one being played?
3) Was army list turned in on time and in correct format?
4) Is the math correct?
1 question you have little control over (2 points)
1) In the Judges opinion does the list capturethe spirit of the army being played.
Also, each player votes for there favorite army they faced that day for 1 point each. For a max of 23 of which you directly or indirectly control 18 points.
The two female Tyranid players scored 19 & 17 for comp. The average for the day was 16.2
As for the original post about the Imperial Fist army got a 18 comp. (at lest that's the only IF army listed in the final score sheet.)
Also, I don't think comp should be used in Tournaments, but I don't really care one way or the other as I'll play any way.
11933
Post by: number9dream
Here's a quote I saw on another forum, about a different game, but a similiar situation:
LOL. That's as absurd as telling White they can't open with the Ruy Lopez.
9708
Post by: Orkeosaurus
Here was my army...
What the hell?
I'm sure it's been said, but that's a fine list. Based on tactical marines... completely different heavy support choices... I don't know what those judges were thinking, truthfully.
207
Post by: Balance
Linkdead wrote:Yea it's not like wargames have any sort of system in place to keep armies at even strength....
Yup. To me, comp is a pretty open admission that GW does this poorly, so a secondary system is needed.
131
Post by: malfred
Balance wrote:Linkdead wrote:Yea it's not like wargames have any sort of system in place to keep armies at even strength....
Yup. To me, comp is a pretty open admission that GW does this poorly, so a secondary system is needed.
Are you aware of any such systems by any chance? 
Not trying to put you on the spot, but do you think that Heavy Gear Blitz!'s dual systems
would work in 40k?
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
the sports analogy does not work because we already have a salary cap,
points cost. We already have an even playing field.
No one tells the Patriots that they cant play their starting quarterback in the same game as they start their staring running back. You play the best of what you have, anything else is not even trying.
No one tells the coach that he can only use one of his best plays or has to bench half his starting d line because, they are too good and it would not be fair.
everyone has equal points, and everyone has the same FOC choices available.
If the purpose of comp is to improve the experience or the players the OP is just another of an endless stream of examples of how it fails miserably. That is why comp has been dissapearing from more and more major tournaments because it does nothing but ad an additional layer or complication and restriction without in any way effecting the competitive environment.
If you feel there are certain builds that are too over the top, then just man up and ban them don't hide behind a comp system that is designed to do that but in a cowardly way.
We all know GW makes gakky rules, and we still choose to play in tournaments with them. if you want a game that fair play chess.
2776
Post by: Reecius
I just talked to another buddy that went to Kubla Con and he hated the comp system too! He went 2 and 1 and placed higher than a guy who went 3 and 0 despite the fact that according to the my friend who has a very well painted army, the other guy had a gorgeous Chaos Army built around Slanesh I think he said, who got tanked on Comp. According to my friend, it was a themed army too, not a cut throat tournament list.
How the hell does someone who goes 3-0 with a great looking army place lower overall than the guy who goes 2-1 with an admittedly less nicely painted army? That is absurd.
A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.
15597
Post by: Dogstar34
Kublacon's 40K tournament is usually pretty cool. New people took over this year and I dont agree with their interpretation of theme/appearance; the judges explanation of my paint score was partially based on old fluff of certain gods not liking each other. Thats no longer current and I feel it should be disregarded especially in an appearance score. I got dinged pretty badly on my Slaanesh army that usually gets really good paint scores for having a squad of Plague Marines and a squad of Berzerkers to go with 4 squads of Noise Marines and a Slaanesh daemon prince. I figure in the future ill have to either add Thousand Sons and call it Black Legion and hope thats acceptable or just go all Slaanesh.
@willydstyle: I dont agree with all the decisions that have been made regarding comp at the CoC, so youre not the only one. I also dont want you guys to feel like outcasts so Ill be sure to give you and Casey a big Slaaneshy (or Blood Angels - your choice) hug at the next tournament. 
Sirus
edit: I forgot to say thanks to Donnie Orr, we had a great game in the 3rd round. Remember to promote the sergeant that held up the daemon prince for 4 turns!
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Dogstar34 wrote:Kublacon's 40K tournament is usually pretty cool. New people took over this year and I dont agree with their interpretation of theme/appearance; the judges explanation of my paint score was partially based on old fluff of certain gods not liking each other. Thats no longer current and I feel it should be disregarded especially in an appearance score. I got dinged pretty badly on my Slaanesh army that usually gets really good paint scores for having a squad of Plague Marines and a squad of Berzerkers to go with 4 squads of Noise Marines and a Slaanesh daemon prince. I figure in the future ill have to either add Thousand Sons and call it Black Legion and hope thats acceptable or just go all Slaanesh.
@willydstyle: I dont agree with all the decisions that have been made regarding comp at the CoC, so youre not the only one. I also dont want you guys to feel like outcasts so Ill be sure to give you and Casey a big Slaaneshy (or Blood Angels - your choice) hug at the next tournament.
Sirus
edit: I forgot to say thanks to Donnie Orr, we had a great game in the 3rd round. Remember to promote the sergeant that held up the daemon prince for 4 turns!
I moved to Portland 1 1/2 years ago, so I haven't played in the CoC in a while. I've just been following the exploits of my fellow Ukiahans pretty closely, talking to Casey on the phone a lot, etc.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Well after reading through this entire thread I have come to the conclusion that comp does indeed suck hard. It's fairly obvious that those who advocate comp want to use it to force other players to build lists that fit into their view of how an army should be played. That is just wrong.
What really irks me is people who hate special characters. GW has dropped the restriction so you no longer need permission to field them. They are a big part of the game now and to me are intended as such. SM special characters are there to build armies to represent a specific chapter such as Imperial Fists or Crimson Fists.
G
8660
Post by: Maxus
Dogstar34 wrote:Kublacon's 40K tournament is usually pretty cool. New people took over this year and I dont agree with their interpretation of theme/appearance; the judges explanation of my paint score was partially based on old fluff of certain gods not liking each other. Thats no longer current and I feel it should be disregarded especially in an appearance score. I got dinged pretty badly on my Slaanesh army that usually gets really good paint scores for having a squad of Plague Marines and a squad of Berzerkers to go with 4 squads of Noise Marines and a Slaanesh daemon prince. I figure in the future ill have to either add Thousand Sons and call it Black Legion and hope thats acceptable or just go all Slaanesh.
I have to say I don't agree with GW changing their fluff that the Chaos gods don't have a problem at all working together, that being said, they changed it. You should not be penalized for mixing the groups in any type of theme issue.
@willydstyle: I dont agree with all the decisions that have been made regarding comp at the CoC, so youre not the only one. I also dont want you guys to feel like outcasts so Ill be sure to give you and Casey a big Slaaneshy (or Blood Angels - your choice) hug at the next tournament.
I do have to say that the comp score at the Sacramento CoC is designed so that every codex can get a maximum comp score. That being said, you can make a more effective list with some codex vs others, especially at higher points:
Power models. Divide the tournament army point limit by 10 (125 in a 1250 point tournament). Any model that costs more than this number or that has three or more wounds in its profile is considered a power model (except for swarms and named characters).
Zero or one power models in the army – 3 points
Two power models in army – 2 points
More than two power models – 0 points
Extreme example: in November, at the 2500 point game, Space Marines can take 3 stock Land Raiders and keep a 20 comp score, while a Nid player still looses comp scores if they take 1 Hive Tyrant or Broodlord as their HQ choice and 1 Carnifex as a HS choice (which by the way, would be the same at any point level for the Nids, while other groups can keep adding tanks and keep a higher comp score as points go up. The Nids cannot add their tanks/anti-tank and keep their comp score up with their current codex).
Thus another issue with comp scores in general, you cannot compensate for every codex even though you attempt to.
The FOC is really your only comp you should worry about, 1 HQ and 2 Troop choices. If you follow the Missions in the 40k book, you have to have redundant troops choices anyway for 2 of 3 missions. Running 4-5 troop choices seems ideal (Ignoring that some special characters can change scoring unit types).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Green Blow Fly wrote:
What really irks me is people who hate special characters. GW has dropped the restriction so you no longer need permission to field them. They are a big part of the game now and to me are intended as such. SM special characters are there to build armies to represent a specific chapter such as Imperial Fists or Crimson Fists.
G
Have to agree, I think people have issues with special characters from past editions, as they used to be extremely disgusting. From the Space Marine and Imperial Guard codex, their special characters seem at least manageable, and you will know how their armies are going to run if they do put a special character down.
208
Post by: Bahkara
Reecius wrote:
A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.
Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun. Going into a tourney a player should know what to expect in regards to what it is about. So if painting is part of the equation then you have to deal with it. This isn't a sport but a hobby (hence the inclusion of paint and sport scores. That's not to say you can't run tournies similar to a 'ard Boyz tourney or one in which one category is weighted more than the other. As long as it is known beforehand I have no issues with it.
As a player I don't really care if there is comp or not, I just want to play. As a TO I try my hardest to be as fair and even as possible. I personally try to make it so the there is no questions of shenanigans in a tourney I run. Maybe I take too much pride in running a good tourney. This attitude also carries over into other aspects of my life when I'm officiating or coaching games/tournies
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Bahkara wrote:Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun.
Talk about restrictions - you declared more than half of the Codices illegal to play...
BTW, Adam, I had a great time at the event.
14005
Post by: athba
Ok, so now i understand comp systems and it seems i disagree with them - if you have an army isn't it nice to battle against whatever opponent, whatever their choices as long as its legal?
Surely this can only improve players skill to deal with whatever battles they face in the future - a loss against an unfamiliar opponent / force choice is surely a learning curve.
14573
Post by: metallifan
In my own personal opinion, scored competitions do suck. Downright. There's no easier way to put it without getting into language that would see me banned
I've seen some scored comps played before at the two Rogue Traders in town and a big one that was held in one of the many arenas here. While I observed some good friendly and easygoing players, the majority were quite stingy on every kill. Every point mattered to death with these players, and they would argue it until the same. While I realize that not all tournaments are like this and players in one city would obviously differ from players in another, I can't help but feel completely turned off by the prospect of a scored tournament. Between the utter restriction, "I'm better than you" attitudes, and the bickering I've seen from local players, I can't agree with Comp systems at all.
I'm more of a casual player. I focus more on painting than playing, for the same reason that most of the local players here are too stingy to forsake even the smallest of rules and hate to lose. Our small gaming group has a ton of fun just playing map campaigns, scoreless games, "Last man standing" or "Majority points standing" matches rather than tallying points killed as it just makes for a less enjoyable and more restricted game. We love our house rules and general casual game styles, so scoring games really don't appeal to us either. So to repeat, I have to agree with the OP. Scored comps suck.
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Metal, I don't think you know what a "comp score" is. (I didn't till about a month ago either) Comp scores are a "soft score". Comp scores are supposed to limit power builds and encourage balanced lists. They don't really do that, and they don't take into account different codices limitations and nuances.
Edit- Comp scores can be created in a variety of ways, from Opponent scoring, to check list, to judge scoring. The middle would be the best, since it limits theamount of bias.
2208
Post by: Corum
One of the things that makes Army Comp an ineffective tool is the same thing that hoses a lot of the rest of tourneys: Lack of Manpower.
If it had been a committee of 5 judges averaging out the comp score instead of just one guy with his preconceived notions of what a SM army 'should be', you probably wouldn't have gotten scored so badly. Personally, I would have given 4 out of 5 stars (minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird).
Same thing with a lot of tournament stories I hear about players getting hosed by rules lawyer opponents. Calling a judge over shouldn't be a rarity or a 'sportsmanship score breaking' event. we have all seen it done - you call a judge over to clarify a point and the sports score goes to Zero. Hell, Tennis has the least judges of any sport, and they have one guy watching the field of play at all times. Even chess has a ref watching - how can you have questions about chess? Really?
As a rule, tourney organizers should have 1 judge for every 4-8 players in the event, and they should rotate around the tables - NOT sit behind the scoring table discussing how hot that other guy's bored girlfriend is. I understand that the '40k experience' calls for an agreement between you and your opponent, but I've seen people with weak personal skills get fast-talked by their opponents (I catch myself doing it sometimes.). Judges should feel free to intervene if they see something fishy going on, and one of them should be holding someone's (Adepticon/Dakka/GWI don't care) FAQ in hand.
14573
Post by: metallifan
Metal, I don't think you know what a "comp score" is. (I didn't till about a month ago either) Comp scores are a "soft score". Comp scores are supposed to limit power builds and encourage balanced lists. They don't really do that, and they don't take into account different codices limitations and nuances.
Edit- Comp scores can be created in a variety of ways, from Opponent scoring, to check list, to judge scoring. The middle would be the best, since it limits theamount of bias.
Ahhh, I thought "Comp Score" was referring to a player's scored "kill-points" at the end of each battle. Now that you've clarified though, I can still see how this is ineffective and poorly planned. Especially considering most armies are still using 3rd or 4th ed Codices.
I still believe however that the kill-point tally is not really the best system to be using either when deciding a winner. I've seen a lot of heated arguements start over 2 or 3 point losses. In general, I just dislike tourneys for their overcompetative nature (at least around here). Bad experiences and observations led me to see them in such negative light I guess. Which is a shame because I'm sure there're a lot of good tourneys out there that use neither of these formats.
2776
Post by: Reecius
minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird
And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.
What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.
195
Post by: Blackmoor
Hokkaido23 wrote:The tournament was won by an Ultramarines army consisting of tac squads, Marneus Calgar, and twin dreads. That player, in addition to getting good draws (which is essential to winning a tournament) is a very good player who is also at the top of the local scene, so props to him - he deserved the win, after a math error screwed him out of first place in 2006
There are always allegations of favoritism with the locals almost everywhere. I have played across the country and I can tell you that it is true, but I like to play in new game stores all over against people whom I will never see again for a fun game of 40k. Sometimes I have to remind myself of that after a tournament where I went 3-0 with a well painted army and I lose out someone who is a regular at the shop who went 2-1.
Although after the fact there might have been an accounting error where the Ultramarine player did not receive all of their battle points, I did not receive all of my comp points (back then they had a similar check list, but less objective questions), and I built my army so that I would score near max points that I did not receive and again put in back into the lead.
4767
Post by: hancock.tom
JohnHwangDD wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:
The problem with your "cheeseball" Dual Lash army is that you assume to allow far too many points.
2x Lash Prince = 310
3 Termies (tB&PW) = 90
8 Zerks (2 PP) = 183
3x 7 PM (2 PG) = 573
1 Spawn = 40
3x 3 Oblit = 675
1871 pts with minimal upgrades, which is nearly 400 pts over where I'd want to set a Comp event (1500 pts).
You can easily fit all that stuff into 1850, which is where I was headed. You didn't build it exactly as I would, which got you a hair over 1850 (too much plasma, that is what the oblits are for)
If your comp system ONLY applied to 1500 point games, you should have said so. I think it is actually more broken at that points level, and works better for bigger games, because for many elite armies (thousand sons, grey knights, deathwing, etc.) it is very hard to fit 4 troop choices in 1500 points and have enough points left over to spend on an elite and a fast attack.
We could go round and round on this all day...... one thing most of us (pro-comp and anti-comp) can probably agree on is this:
we wouldn't need a composition score system if the codexes were balanced and encouraged fluffy builds.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
If you look at many forms of racing sports, they apply a handicapping system to penalize winners. Horses and race cars may carry extra weight to handicap them.
It's not necessarily to "penalize winners" , but more to get to an "all else being equal" state, so that the horses are carrying an equal -load- for example, so an ultralight jockey/tack combo doesn't take away too much from the speed of the -horse- , and the -skill- of the jockey being the important thing, similarlly they're cracking down in the olympics on the hightech body glove swimsuits, and ultralight racing bikes so it get back to being about the athlete again.
In 40k however, this should be taken care of -allready- by the FOC and points cost of various units, and multiple scenrios. Comp is layering another system -on top- of that one, and it's a even more subjective one. In this case, it's like giving a horse 10 extra pounds because he's got a white sock on his left hind hoof..
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Actually, Comp is most like the synsuits / bicycle disc brakes / full-carbon bikes, because not every competitor has access to them...
2208
Post by: Corum
Reecius wrote:minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird
And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.
What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.
I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).
So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Corum wrote:Reecius wrote:minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird
And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.
What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.
I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).
So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.
Seriously... it's not a loophole at all. Razobacks and Combat Squads go hand-in-hand. You made a bad ruling.
13756
Post by: Mad Rabbit
I don't get the point of comp at all.
If the point is to create uniformly balanced lists then it's stupid. Why would you ever limit players that much? You're just handicapping creative list builders. Enforcing certain balances between elites, troops, fast attack and heavy support is incredibly stupid. Some players want to build an army around a theme that doesn't use up every section of the FOC. If I want to play fluffy Night Lords, why should I be penalized for taking tons of Fast Attack and little Heavy Support. Every system that has been proposed is exceptionally lame. All they do is limit choices and try to homogenize armies.
Sure, a battle between two identical armies would be a great test of gameplaying ability, but that completely eliminates the aspect of army list building, which is essential to the hobby.
2208
Post by: Corum
willydstyle wrote:Corum wrote:Reecius wrote:minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird
And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.
What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.
I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).
So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.
Seriously... it's not a loophole at all. Razobacks and Combat Squads go hand-in-hand. You made a bad ruling.
The ability to take over-sized squads, 1) makes no sense (what does the other half of the squad do for battlefield mobility? Run along side?); 2) was shoehorned into the game in the Dark Angels FAQ - so it WAS an oversight. When the SM codex came out, they had apparently abandoned all pretense at making a coherent doctrine out of mechanized infantry and let folks buy dedicated transports for whatever reason they wanted.
The ability to even purchase the Razorback in that squad is never mentioned in the Combat Squads rule, nor is it actually mentioned affirmatively in the codex. By lack of negation (It doesn't say a 10 man squad can't buy a Razorback - so you can), the purchase is legal. It just makes no sense, except from a points/firepower standpoint.
And yes, Reecius, if the 5% point difference from the perfect score I could have given this army, and the 95/100 (or whatever the scoring system is) I actually gave it keeps someone out of the finals, I would still sleep soundly at night - even if the 4 other judges I mentioned agreed with me - which they might not. When comp systems were used, they were used as tiebreakers. People lose tourneys just as much on sportsmanship score (because they wore the wrong cologne, like to say 'dude' too much, or voted for Bush...) as they used to on comp scores. I, for one, feel much more comfortable being arbitrarily scored by a 3rd party than the guy whom I just pummeled on Battle Points.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
The DA FAQ did not "shoe-horn" the rule into the game, it simply answered a question that a lot of players had, because they were used to seeing that limitation. The Chaos Codex doesn't have the limitation either: you can buy a squad of 20 CSMs a rhino, and they don't even have the option to combat-squad to fit inside of it.
Where you see a loop-hole, I see a paradigm shift.
And this is one of the biggest problems with comp systems with any amount of subjective comp scoring: judges are people too, and may make unfair rulings based on their own prejudices.
131
Post by: malfred
Just think of it as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that is attached for mobile fire support rather than
as a transport assault option.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, Comp is most like the synsuits / bicycle disc brakes / full-carbon bikes, because not every competitor has access to them...
Questionable anology at best, since given what they're taking, the folks who get bad comp scores -have access- to the same stuff as the folks who get good ones, they're just -choosing- not to take em. mind you they might be choosing them because they don't want to take the time to paint up 60+ infantry models, but it's still a matter of choice.
But again, that kind of handicapping is hypothetically -taken care off with points/ FOC/Missions -allready- and if that's broken, comp seems to be making it -worse- on ocassion..
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Green Blow Fly wrote:Well after reading through this entire thread I have come to the conclusion that comp does indeed suck hard. It's fairly obvious that those who advocate comp want to use it to force other players to build lists that fit into their view of how an army should be played. That is just wrong.
What really irks me is people who hate special characters. GW has dropped the restriction so you no longer need permission to field them. They are a big part of the game now and to me are intended as such. SM special characters are there to build armies to represent a specific chapter such as Imperial Fists or Crimson Fists.
G
I detest comp. I cant stand being subjected to someone elses evaluation of my play and my list when there is no telling before hand WHAT requirements I might be subjected to, since it is sompletely up to the opponents opinion/judgement and there is no ETLLING what direction that can come from. It's not like there is some guideline that is universally followed or adhered to that you could use to guide your builds if you so desired. Guidelines may be there in a general or individual tourney sense, to be sure; however if you think that all opponents are applying the required guidelines evenly and impartially (effectively attempting to make every player a judge in the impartial sense) then you are living on laughing gas. Oh, GBF; the above really just used your quote as a springboard; I read it and it struck a chord I decided to add my voice to. Not trying to poke holes in your verbage or nothin.
As far as spechars, I detest them as well. I use them, simply because GW has driven their rules down the direction GBF describes above. Me? I see it as limiting. If you want to play a certain TYPE of build, you have to take that character. Y'know, I used ot be able to run that build WITHOUT spechars at all; now I have to take Special Captain Humptysquat with his Neato Phoar rule to be able to do it? Yeah, additional restrictions in a game are ALWAYS fun.
I use them, and I use them a lot in certain armies. But I think it would be more fun if I could make that build without having to dump so many points into one model.
$0.02
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Rabbit wrote:I don't get the point of comp at all.
The point of comp is to attempt to make a competitive framework for the game that does not exist in the game itself. 40k was originally designed to give a gaming framework to boost model sales for a line of models that already existed. The rules of 40k are merely an add-on to the model line designed to get people to buy more models. Rick Priestley wrote out the rules at the behest of his boss strictly to that end. To boost model sales. This boosting of model sales is a far cry from creating a fair and balanced ruleset that a group of people can all use without questions or need of interpretations to play competitively; it's much more along the lines of a cocktail napkin sketch than the AutoCAD drawing we as players would like to see. Now, on the one hand, I think that 40k rules have come far since that time. Indeed, I htink we have never seen a tightening up of the language and closing of the loopholes as we have between 4th and 5th (when Alessio the Power Gamer took the reigns, and I do not say that insultingly). Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it tighter? Hell yeah. Could I do a better job? No because I would be judged by such a widespread and disparate group of people. Aint no WAY you gonna please them all.
This game is still looked upon by the designers as a beer and pretzels game to be played amongst a bunch of folks where everyone is friends and we all sing kum-by-yah m'lord around the campfire. Which is fine, but it is not where some of the fans (ie: us) have taken the game in our own desires and minds. We want a competitive version. A game where you can honestly conquer and play to the edge of your wit, not to the standards of someone elses pacific mindset. Most of all we want a game system whos clarity priduces the portability that enables a true comp-less tourney system of epic scale because epic scale ALWAYS attract people like us like blood in the water to sharks. Really, I think that, with the advent of players in the design studio such as Alessio Cavatore, the gamers are getting more of a voice in things than before. Alessio is widely regarded as a power gamer and overly competitive. Maybe the gamers are narrowing hte gap in models sales comepared to the modelers that GW constantly claims are the true staple; their bread and butter. Maybe we are getting a second generational voice in the rules of the game. Maybe Jervis, with his first gen design concepts that marry up right along with Rick Priestly's origianl design purpose, is really the last gasp of the non-competitive crowd in the design studio.
Maybe when the pendulum swings the full other way, we still will not have what we want. But MAYBE we will be a little cliser to it.
And in case you haven't noticed by now, I'm drunk as a fething monkey. As a shameless plug, I encourage all of you of legal age to go buy Peg Leg Imperial Stout by Heavy Seas Brewery, because real good beer blocks sunlight completely.
Is there a rule on Dakka that once you realize you are poasting and toasting at the same time (ref: earlier monkey comment), you have to stop?
malfred wrote:Just think of it as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that is attached for mobile fire support rather than
as a transport assault option.
The simplest explaination I have ever heard for this. Is it just me, Malf, or are you posting a lot more lately. I am profoundly impressed. Must be the fault of summertime.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Lanceradvanced wrote:
But again, that kind of handicapping is hypothetically -taken care off with points/FOC/Missions -allready- and if that's broken, comp seems to be making it -worse- on ocassion..
I have yet to see comp make anything better. At its best, it's 'My Fun is Funner than Your Fun'. This is when the requirements are known beforehand, and players can tailor to the event (although less gamey gamers, and gamers with a smaller budget or model pool who can't take a unit of chaos raptors just to satisfy weird categorical requirements, are often penalized). At its worse, it's just whether or not the judge likes your army, you as a person, or some combination of the two.
263
Post by: Centurian99
I see John is back on his moral high horse here, trying to spread the word of the glories of comp.
And once again, its epic failure. Any comp system that's objective epic fails, because any system can be gamed. Any comp system that's subjective is intrinsically unfair, and has no place in a competitive environment.
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
Perhaps you should learn to read a bit more carefully.
I'm not saying Comp is better or moral or glorious.
I'm saying that Comp is different, and not a problem.
Or at least no worse than non-Comp.
So please stop making stuff up.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
I think a lot of posters have done a pretty good job of showing why they think that comp is worse than no-comp. If you don't honestly think that comp is better, why do you continue to advocate for it?
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Centurian99 wrote:I see John is back on his moral high horse here, trying to spread the word of the glories of comp.
And once again, its epic failure. Any comp system that's objective epic fails, because any system can be gamed. Any comp system that's subjective is intrinsically unfair, and has no place in a competitive environment.
You know, I think you just pointed out my biggest bitch with comp. It isn't a system, not in it's design and not in it's application. Not when you look at it from the perspective of tourney's in general. Different tourneys can (and do) handle comp differently, and so do different people within a tourney. Some people try very hard to stick to the given criterea, and others just blast out any crap they feel like regardless of comp design for that specific event. If comp systems were a uniform design across tourneys, and were uniformly applied in a consistant manner, then I would have no real complaints with it. It's when every sore loser or otherwise pouting Nancy-boy decides to MIS-apply comp that the system breaks down (yes, yes folks Captain Obvious returns). That's when it becomes a steaming pile of crap. If it were a system that was actually systemic; I would approve.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps you should learn to read a bit more carefully.
I read fine, I just think that your anologies, don't work very well, because they're closer to something that's in the system -before- comp..
5421
Post by: JohnHwangDD
willydstyle wrote:I think a lot of posters have done a pretty good job of showing why they think that comp is worse than no-comp.
If you don't honestly think that comp is better, why do you continue to advocate for it?
A bunch of of no-comp tournament-centric players have done a stifling job of stating that they don't care for it, but that's purely their opinion.
I advocate for diversity and variety in gaming. Why should every game be a no-comp tournament game when it doesn't have to be?
I happen to believe that variety in gaming is good, and that it's nice to mix things up so that it's not always the same thing every time one plays. Comp helps do that to some extent. So I think it's good to have Comp from time to time simply for variety's sake.
Changing the format entirely to things like "No MEQs" or a different FOC is even better, but limiting to those who don't have the models for the alternate format.
But god forbid that we change the rules once in a while...
3934
Post by: grizgrin
Changing the rules is good, and I agree about shaking things up a bit. However, since comp is the norm, how does it's presence "shake things up"? Or are there other GW tourneys besides Ardboyszsz hat remove comp?
Yes, presence of comp in my local tourneys is not representative of tourneys in every local, but I think that the majority of tourneys arounf use comp. You are welcome to disagree as I am pretty sure you will (well, you kinda have to given your assertion of shaking things up and changing the rules everyonce and a while), however unless someone digs up stats of tourneys with vs. without then it's just opinion on opinion which is fairly meaningless in any kind of debate. Sigh. That was fun.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
JohnHwangDD wrote:So please stop making stuff up.
GAH! My Irony-Detector just exploded! Damnit DD - now I have to get a new one! 
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Corum wrote:Reecius wrote:minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird
And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.
What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.
I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).
So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.
And this is exactly the problem - you don't like 10man squads with Razorbacks so he got marked down for doing something perfectly legal.
In my chapter (which has a reasonably well developed background) all tac squads use razorbacks. Two ten man squads deploy from a T-hawk transporter - two combat squads on foot with heavy weapons, two combat squads in razorbacks.
This isn't an "exploit", it's a perfectly valid option. But he loses points because you don't like it. Were there any guidelines regarding this issue available before the tournament? Or did he get penalised on the day for doing something he thought was fine?
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Wow just wow! This is simply amazing! If you field up to six tactical Marines you cannot take a heavy weapon or special weapon. To me it's obvious that the razorback is intended for full squads that split into combat squads. This just shows how subjective is comp and why it has no place in tournaments. I am truly amazed at this.
* shakes head *
G
Corum wrote:Reecius wrote:minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird
And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.
What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.
I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).
So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Precisely. And I could come up with fluff or real examples to justify it also.
However, the judge thinks it's cheesy and the player gets penalised.
If the TOs want to amend the FOC or alter codex lists then that's fine - everyone knows what's going on. It's when you get some wishy-washy guidelines and then a judge marks you down on the day just because he doesn't like it.
That's why comp doesn't work and it serves only as a source of annoyance for people - it gives the impression of being arbitrary and in many cases it is.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
This one is by far the most ridiculous that I have ever heard of yet.
G
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
What's wrong with a 10-man Squad split into Combat Squads where the Heavy weapon covers the advance of the Sergeant and Special Weapon in their Razorback?
11452
Post by: willydstyle
H.B.M.C. wrote:What's wrong with a 10-man Squad split into Combat Squads where the Heavy weapon covers the advance of the Sergeant and Special Weapon in their Razorback?
[sarcasm]Because it's obvious that GW did not intend this when they wrote the codex that allows you to split your unit into halves that are capable of fitting into the razorback. They also didn't intend for SM players to always purchase 10 man units: those free heavy and special weapons for hitting that 10th man was clearly an oversight.[/sarcasm]
4362
Post by: Ozymandias
Bahkara wrote:Reecius wrote:
A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.
Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun. Going into a tourney a player should know what to expect in regards to what it is about. So if painting is part of the equation then you have to deal with it. This isn't a sport but a hobby (hence the inclusion of paint and sport scores. That's not to say you can't run tournies similar to a 'ard Boyz tourney or one in which one category is weighted more than the other. As long as it is known beforehand I have no issues with it.
As a player I don't really care if there is comp or not, I just want to play. As a TO I try my hardest to be as fair and even as possible. I personally try to make it so the there is no questions of shenanigans in a tourney I run. Maybe I take too much pride in running a good tourney. This attitude also carries over into other aspects of my life when I'm officiating or coaching games/tournies
Did this tournament happen to occur at Game Empire in Pasadena? Man, I need to get down there again for another tournament.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
My tournament attending colleagues recently ran into a decent Comp System.
You submitted your list before hand, and it was either accepted, or rejected. If rejected, you were told why. And that was it. Comping without the chance of Chipmunking, plus a guaranteed explanation.
If you're going to comp, thats the way I think I'd do it. Of course, sheer scale of Tournament could bugger that!
5872
Post by: ChrisAsmadi
All soft scores are bad, in my opinion.
Painting should be considered a separate competition (though it should have an award).
Sportsmanship should be a separate award based on opponent given numbers.
Overall Winner should be given to the best general.
EDIT:
Soft scores are way too open to abuse, for instance the multitude of examples for Comp in this thread, or people marking sportsmanship down so they might win easier.
Painting, too, is subjective.
I for instance would vote down say NMM or specific models (such as Kroot), because I think it looks bad or for whatever reason.
15553
Post by: Myshlaevsky
I support the existence of a sportsmanship score to penalize opponents who are extremely rude, difficult (purely in terms of adherence to the rules) or insulting to play. However, I agree that the standard soft score is far too open to abuse and can think up no better solution on my own.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
ChrisAsmadi wrote:Overall Winner should be given to the best general.
Shouldn't Best General go to the best general, and then Overall Winner go to the best overall? 
Scores and awards for scores should be separate other than 'Best Overall', which, by definition, is an award given to the person who did the best overall. So Best General should just be awarded based upon their scores in games, not their scores in games + sports/comp/painting/knitting/cooking prowess. By the same token painting should be judged on how well you paint, not whether you were a nice guy or if you won all your games.
And I think in most places painting is kept separate. So why not Best General?
11181
Post by: OddJob.
I personally really like the UKGT system:
Three heats of 150 with the top 40 (in pure gaming points) from each qualifying for the final. The top five painted armies in each heat also qualify along with some wildcards (organisers discression).
In each event there is no 'overall'. 1st, 2nd and 3rd in gaming, 1st, 2nd and 3rd in painting, best sportsman (generally for a specific moment) and a crapton of misc awards for freak occurances/best team.
Why is there a need for an overarching 'best overall'. There is no way to subjectively compare painting skill to gaming ability so why try? I've known people who go to the heats to have a stab at best army without much chance in any games. I personally go to pwnzzor. Pick your event and go for it.
It's worth noting that the tournament is still heavily weighted towards gaming- 40 qualifying spots compared to 5. Rightly so in my opinion. Painting competitions don't involve gaming.
15579
Post by: Fearspect
I guess the simplest way to point out the flaws, even with the loosest comps, is the difference between how competitive lists are made.
Let's compare two often-played armies: Orks vs Eldar
Orks have a proven competitive list that spams Troops in transports. This list can take an entire tournament while easily taking full comp points.
Eldar, due to the inherent weakness of their troops, make themselves less competitive with the more troop choices they pick.
Point values mitigate this. If someone chooses to take a special character, or to load up on Land Raiders, for instance, they pay for it by putting all of their eggs into one basket, so to speak. If they face an opponent with the means to deal with their points-sink, they would lose horribly. Meanwhile, if you choose to load up on cheaper troops, you will (usually) lack an effective means to deal more widespread damage. You pay more points for things that have more of an effect on the battlefield, meanwhile, for objectives games you have to have scoring troops survive to the end of the game.
2057
Post by: Lanceradvanced
JohnHwangDD wrote:Why should every game be a no-comp tournament game when it doesn't have to be?
Ask instead.."why make something comp if it doesn't have to be" - non-comp is the explicit default, straight out of the box, -comp- is add on, and an ill-defined one at that, (lets see, there have been 3-4 different systems mention here, all pushing towards "take 4 troops choices and you -might- get a good score, unless you take an AFV instead of an APC) so unless you're a little more explicit with what your advocating for, expect folks to take you with a grain of salt...
Unless you -like- having judges randomly score your army based on their own biases...
I happen to believe that variety in gaming is good, and that it's nice to mix things up so that it's not always the same thing every time one plays. Comp helps do that to some extent. So I think it's good to have Comp from time to time simply for variety's sake.
I'm introducing a type of tourney where folks are scored on their Froz... From an argument that more diversity of gaming, is a good thing, it seems that Froz tourney are the next best thing since sliced bread, because before we had only Non-Froz games, now we have Froz -and- Non-Froz games, once however it's revealed that your Froz score is based on how much you've spent at the FLGS in the last month you'll find that it's negativly impacted the actuall diversity in gaming, since it's effectivly limited the pool of players to the more well heeled folks in a particular county.
Given that comp as you've said "penalizes" folks for taking particular lists, it explicitly -reduces- the variety of the lists at a given tourney, pushing toward a vanilla middle, rather then letting folks explore extremes, and since you can take those exact same vanilla lists at a non-comp tourney, it seems to me that it detracts from the variety of play rather than enhancing it
An additional option does not allways increase diversity, so perhaps you should set out what you feel a good comp system does, and how it actually -does- increase diversity, other than in the Froz/Non-Froz way..
.
2776
Post by: Reecius
No comp in tournaments.
Yes this is a hobby, but a tournament is a competition to determine who the best player of the game is.
If you want painting and nice guy points to be more important than who wins the most games (and believe it or not, someone said that is the way a tournament should be run at my old gaming group in SoCal) then call it a game event, or something. Don't call it a tournament.
For those of us who like the competitive aspect of 40K, who enjoy a tense game where you use every ounce of your experience, tactics, tricks and brainpower to win against a skilled opponent doing the same, it is a slap in the face to lose based on the fact that someone edged you out due to a factor you had no control over, such as a stupid judge's unfounded opinion of the "fluffiness" (I even hate how sissyfied that word sounds) of your army.
Tournaments should be legal/illegal. That is it. Let the non competitive players gather to admire one another's paint jobs (which is fine) in another venue.
9655
Post by: barlio
IMHO
Ardboyz: For killing stuff   . Battle points only
RTs: Battle, painting, comp, sportsmanship. Leave it up to a combo of TO and participants. TO breaks ties. Prep for GTs and/or IndyGTs
GTs and/or IndyGTs: Award for top three, no overall 
Something for everybody right?
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Comp is there to make power lists weaker... which means that other power lists will pop up to fit the comp and now they are the strongest...
DUDE just play the game! If its legal, it's Legal! Deal! You can't stop people from doing their best to win if they think winning is fun. As long as they don't cheat and play completely by the rules!
Example of comp ruining my experience at a tourny.
tourny event organizer said no comp except in pairings... OK I can deal with that. seemingly the night before... he changes his mind and does comp in scores and pairings... SO i spent 6 weeks working on an army and then the rules change... I still took best general because I know the rules and how to play... but if comp was dropped I would have won best over all. Instead best overall went to the guy with the best comp... wtf?
My paint job was better (scored by judges 19/20)
My battle points were better(49/57)
My opponents were tougher.(Vulkan terrmi list/Dual Lash oblit spam/Drop wolves)
His comp was higher (I had like a 2 for comp, he had 17 this was out of 20)
Seriously? Does that sound like best over all? Or just best comp?
I still had fun, and the organizer was a cool guy... but comp made the tourny less fun then it could have been for me.
5228
Post by: bigtmac68
frgsinwntr wrote:Comp is there to make power lists weaker... which means that other power lists will pop up to fit the comp and now they are the strongest...
DUDE just play the game! If its legal, it's Legal! Deal!
QFT again.
If you dont like the way 40k is written then dont go to a 40k tournament, FAQ and clarificatiions are one thing, randomly deciding that your idea of what is legal is better than the game designers is a universal fail.
Not because I love the choices of the designers, but because that is the default standard everyone knows, changing it just adds another random element that gives someone else an unfair advantage. We all know what the power builds are, its no secret, so consider it a challenge to your list building and playing skills to beat it.
Patton did not ask someone to make Tiger Tanks illegal during the invasion of Normandy. He knew that Shermans sucked, and he adjusted his tactics and forces to compensate. I loved his mindset because he loved it when he faced a tough determined and skilled enemy. It made him feel that he had a challenge worthy of his massive ego,,, err.,,, skills.
O'l Blood and Guts would break out the slapping glove the moment someone tried to mention Comp based handicap systems.
This is war EmperorDamn it, no ones gonna hold your hand!
15211
Post by: Mars.Techpriest
The only Comp scores I've seen that ever work are the ones that are deliniated beforehand. Things like 40% troop, <20% HQ, etc. Otherwise it's far to much at risk of becoming a 'does the judge like your army' score.
I understand the point of them - does the army fit the 'fluff' of how these armies are constructed (due to avaliablity, etc), but it really is a secondary thing. It should be used as more of a Tiebraker then a major component.
Your Patten example is kind of off though, your example would be more equivilent to a Turny orginizer saying landraiders are illegal, not reqireing composition scores (which, by deffinition, a IRL army can't fail)
2776
Post by: Reecius
Bigtmac68, I am drafting you onto my team!
11452
Post by: willydstyle
OddJob. wrote:I personally really like the UKGT system:
Three heats of 150 with the top 40 (in pure gaming points) from each qualifying for the final. The top five painted armies in each heat also qualify along with some wildcards (organisers discression).
In each event there is no 'overall'. 1st, 2nd and 3rd in gaming, 1st, 2nd and 3rd in painting, best sportsman (generally for a specific moment) and a crapton of misc awards for freak occurances/best team.
Why is there a need for an overarching 'best overall'. There is no way to subjectively compare painting skill to gaming ability so why try? I've known people who go to the heats to have a stab at best army without much chance in any games. I personally go to pwnzzor. Pick your event and go for it.
It's worth noting that the tournament is still heavily weighted towards gaming- 40 qualifying spots compared to 5. Rightly so in my opinion. Painting competitions don't involve gaming.
I agree with this guy. Although we don't have them any more, American GTs are basically meaningless because they're simply made up of gamers who can afford to go; they serve as no true test of who the best gamers are. The Heat system means that you know the guys who win the last heat are the best gamers with the best armies.
Mars.Techpriest wrote:The only Comp scores I've seen that ever work are the ones that are deliniated beforehand. Things like 40% troop, <20% HQ, etc. Otherwise it's far to much at risk of becoming a 'does the judge like your army' score.
I understand the point of them - does the army fit the 'fluff' of how these armies are constructed (due to avaliablity, etc), but it really is a secondary thing. It should be used as more of a Tiebraker then a major component.
Your Patten example is kind of off though, your example would be more equivilent to a Turny orginizer saying landraiders are illegal, not reqireing composition scores (which, by deffinition, a IRL army can't fail)
Actually, in his Patton example, land raiders are perfectly legal, but the space marine player knows that his opponents will have tons of rail guns so chooses not to bring them.
4921
Post by: Kallbrand
Sounds like a classic case of comp-cheating, the thing thats been going around since comp came into the picture and the reason why GW europe at least removed it.
Somethimes a cheating organizer/judge just borked people over and some other times the rumorus about it was just as damaging to the store/organiser making them loose craploads of players(potential customers). But this case just sound like blatant cheating, I would never visit that place again and recommend anyone I know to stay the hell out of there.
443
Post by: skyth
We've had people around here whine about power-gamers and such, but it's funy how the worst whiner gives good comp to a dual monolith list played by his son...
208
Post by: Bahkara
Ozymandias wrote:Bahkara wrote:Reecius wrote:
A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.
Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun. Going into a tourney a player should know what to expect in regards to what it is about. So if painting is part of the equation then you have to deal with it. This isn't a sport but a hobby (hence the inclusion of paint and sport scores. That's not to say you can't run tournies similar to a 'ard Boyz tourney or one in which one category is weighted more than the other. As long as it is known beforehand I have no issues with it.
As a player I don't really care if there is comp or not, I just want to play. As a TO I try my hardest to be as fair and even as possible. I personally try to make it so the there is no questions of shenanigans in a tourney I run. Maybe I take too much pride in running a good tourney. This attitude also carries over into other aspects of my life when I'm officiating or coaching games/tournies
Did this tournament happen to occur at Game Empire in Pasadena? Man, I need to get down there again for another tournament.
lol, no, it was run at someone's home. We had maybe 16 players. It's been a few years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tournament - a contest of many persons in some sport or game in which the competitors play a series of games.
Although there are other factors in a GT/ RTT I believe they can still be called tournaments as a series of games are played.
11181
Post by: OddJob.
willydstyle wrote:OddJob. wrote:I personally really like the UKGT system:
Three heats of 150 with the top 40 (in pure gaming points) from each qualifying for the final. The top five painted armies in each heat also qualify along with some wildcards (organisers discression).
In each event there is no 'overall'. 1st, 2nd and 3rd in gaming, 1st, 2nd and 3rd in painting, best sportsman (generally for a specific moment) and a crapton of misc awards for freak occurances/best team.
Why is there a need for an overarching 'best overall'. There is no way to subjectively compare painting skill to gaming ability so why try? I've known people who go to the heats to have a stab at best army without much chance in any games. I personally go to pwnzzor. Pick your event and go for it.
It's worth noting that the tournament is still heavily weighted towards gaming- 40 qualifying spots compared to 5. Rightly so in my opinion. Painting competitions don't involve gaming.
I agree with this guy. Although we don't have them any more, American GTs are basically meaningless because they're simply made up of gamers who can afford to go; they serve as no true test of who the best gamers are. The Heat system means that you know the guys who win the last heat are the best gamers with the best armies.
Money is certainly a factor for the UKGTs as well- £55 ticket + Travel + Accommodation mounts up quickly. In my experience however, it is generally the gaming head honchos that are prepared to put in the time, effort and cash to attend. The Yankie GTs (if they were still around) are just as valid as the heats.
To put it another way- if you don't go to the big tournaments you can't be a top player. You are only as good as your opponents, and the best opponents are at the top tables of the big tournaments.
|
|
