Sooo... I've seen a bunch of posts on composition, but never any polls.

Straight up, do you want composition in competitive tournaments or Not?

Sadly, I could only vote yes once

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:Sadly, I could only vote yes once

- Salvage

Sadly I could only vote no once...

So yea : ) voting once is only fair

No composition just brings bitterness and grief when people complain about it and are unhappy with their score. Composition just does not work because we are human. Just let people play what they want to play.

Does magic penalize people for playing Jund or Mythic?

I voted no, we already have a list of units we can take in every codex.

What would be a good reason for including an additional mechanic to unit selection?

Avariel wrote:No composition just brings bitterness and grief when people complain about it and are unhappy with their score. Composition just does not work because we are human. Just let people play what they want to play.

I don't get to play what I want to play when there is 'no comp'.

I am forced to bring specific types of lists based upon the mission objectives and ones that can weather the current internet metalists. The lack of comp almost forces comp because you know you have to face the same razorspam and leafblowing and if you don't bring a similarly calculated Metalist, you might as well not even play. Not to mention most events that claim NO COMP have horrible comp imposed via missions, scoring and other things that force you to build your army a specific way or lose before the game has begun. The total lack of actual freedom is astounding.

Not to mention, so many people perceive list-building as some sort of rocket science that they get very 'down' on people who are not playing by the internet conventional wisdom. I brought flash gitz to a tourney because I just finished painting them and I wanted to use them. I got so many snippy and off-hand comments about 'list building skill' and how I apparently lacked them because I bothered to bring a bottom tier unit to a tourney.

I am tired of playing against the same tired Metalists. It is boring. Like in MtG or Yu-Gi-oh where everyone plays with the same basic cards and decks. There is no uniqueness or personalization or even attempts to think outside the box.

'No Comp' is way more restrictive a gaming environment that Comp ever is. Sometimes it is fun to attend an event with 'whatever theme or fun units you want' and know that everyone else there is going to be bringing all sorts of random and fun things.

Comp penalizes newer players, and those who already have fixed lists and so cannot adjust them to fit around what really is just a new homewbrew game mechanic.

Power gamers with the greatest number of models who take time to "break" comp benefit the most, and ironically are often what comp is used to try and protect against.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/composition-or-how-to-have-not.html

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/perils-of-composition-broken-comp.html


Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

MVBrandt wrote:Comp penalizes newer players, and those who already have fixed lists and so cannot adjust them to fit around what really is just a new homewbrew game mechanic.

these players are going to be hurt just as badly in an unrestricted environment because their unoptimized lists will get them ground into fine powder because they bought and fielded what was cool to model and not necessarily a spammed out min-max list. And when the missions impose a form of comp, they will not have the models to be able to flex thier list into being optimum for the mission/scoring format. Sounds suspiciously like a form of comp doesn't it?

Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

You are right... No one should re-write 40k ever. No one should use custom missions, no one should replace KPs with VPs. No one should promote specific types of builds via custom missions...

But yet, every event does re-write 40k via custom scoring and missions that both directly impact and impose army composition rules upon players as you have to change your list to succeed at the missions. And those players who just 'play what they have' are just as hurt in a COMP system as they are in a 'optimized metagame' system.

Changing 40k is not a bad thing and neither are custom events... but to pretend one format is the 'true' way to run an event and another is an unreasonable arbitrary way to re-write 40k is absurd as both formats are equally as arbitrary. Comp via missions and scoring is still comp. 'ard boys was amazingly comped due to it's missions and it is supposed to be the hardest of the hard.

I think people are blind to comp as I don't see a single event out there that doesn't have some form of COMP. They like arbitrary comp rules that benefits them personally, Or maybe they like COMP which they can fully see and 'game' in their list building which is why mission-based comp seems to get a pass (as long as the missions are fully disclosed before the list-building is done).

No.

Comp is counter-productive.

It also gives a home-field advantage--unless spite comes into play.

Which it allows.

Er....what's comp? And why no, "Not Sure" button?

/facepalm

in re: nkelsch
I'm sensing some angst in your postings lately. Not sure the need.

That said, custom missions are one thing ... explicitly punishing people for taking the list they own and want to take is entirely another.

You are right that the mission influences the strength of the list brought, but you're neither KEEPING people from bringing the lists they wish to bring nor scoring them based upon it.

To wit, freedom of choice remains with the player when the only "comp" (if you want to call it that) is inherent to variations in mission format from the book. This freedom is removed when a player's list choices are physically removed, and/or when they are explicitly scored based upon them.

The "every different mission = comp" argument is an oft-used but never strong one; it also doesn't really address the fact that the more you vary the situation from the "standards" of 40k, the more a less-well-internet-read (which you seem to dislike) and less-interested-in-game-breaking player is punished.

I fail to see how that's especially good for anyone.

As far as formats ... I don't know how they entered the discussion, or that anyone here said there was one "true" way to run an event. If you've got an axe to grind that's carried over from other threads, maybe keep it there so that things stay topical and make more sense? Not saying this aggressively.

The goal of composition is supposedly to promote diversity in the lists used in a tournament by limiting the choices available to the participants.

If someone could explain how limiting choices will increase the diversity of lists, I am all ears.

Elmodiddly wrote:Er....what's comp? And why no, "Not Sure" button?

Composition. Rating armies based upon notions of what SHOULD be in someone else's list.

Blech, no. Soft scoring gtfo.

I'm perfectly happy to have separate prizes for painting and sportsmanship. Hell, I win enough painting contests that I'll tend to favor tournaments with painting prizes over ones that don't. However, rolling sportsmanship (which is what comp essentially boils down to) and painting into the Best General prize is just stupid.

nkelsch, if you don't like it, don't play in tournaments. Stick to playing like-minded people.

For example, I don't play in Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour qualifiers since I don't like getting utterly destroyed in 2 turns without being able to do anything about it. I'm not good enough at the game, I don't have the best cards, and I don't really care enough to play in tournaments, so if I ever do play Magic I play casually with gakky decks. I'm not throwing a fit and sending e-mails to Wizards demanding that they cater to me and enforce strict composition scoring so I have a better chance at winning, because obviously those events were designed for a completely different kind of player.

@Elmodidly
If you don't know what comp is then this poll probably doesn't apply to you which is why there isn't a not sure button. A not sure vote wouldn't add any value to the discussion.

What comp is, is a system for controlling what units people bring to a tournament by penalizing people for bringing powerful combos. The intent is to level the playing field between fluff players and competitive players and between powerful codecies and less powerful.

What ends up happening in reality though, is that more often than not, people get very upset about the way comp is applied. It works on the honor system but in the heat of the moment people will intentionally lower someone's score and hurt their chances of winning. Also, it can create situations where people have no hope of winning due to low comp scores, or where someone "wins" a tournament when they didn't win that many games because of high soft scores.

I personally think comp is an inherently bad idea. The codecies have lists of what you can and can't take. They are official rules set forth by professional game designers.

Comp is a noble idea that fails in practice.

I don't get to play what I want to play when there is 'no comp'.

No one gets to play what they want with comp. The nature of comp scoring is to force people to take the units the TO likes. I hate to seem rude, because I am not trying to be, but no, you should not be able to come to a tournament with a weak army and expect to win. That is silly. You are expecting the entire field to adjust to accommodate you and your desires. That is inherently selfish. In a competitive environment you must bring a competitive army if you expect to win. If that does not appeal to you, no problem. Perhaps tournaments aren't your thing. You can't honestly expect everyone else to play differently to make you happy. That's like making everyone in a foot race run backwards because you want to run backwards.

I am forced to bring specific types of lists based upon the mission objectives and ones that can weather the current internet metalists. The lack of comp almost forces comp

You must see the hypocrisy in this. No comp kind of forces comp so therefore we should have comp? You are saying it is good and bad in the same sentence.

What people should do, IMO, instead of simply being angry about the perceived "over powered" internet meta game (which, is not representative of actual tournament armies, believe it or not, most people bring what they have) is to find a way to beat them.

The currently number one ranked player int he country by a large margin is a friend of mine and he plays a completely themed, fluff Nurgle CSM list. I am currently ranked number 4 in the country and of my three top tournament performances which influence my rank, two of them were earned with lists that are not considered super net lists.

You can win by being creative. You won't win bringing a crappy army though, and you shouldn't. That would totally undermine what a tournament is.

Organize a hobby event if you would like to see nothing but themed armies which are not powerful. That would probably be more enjoyable for people of the comp mindset. The rule books provide a built in comp system which I feel is all we need to run a successful, fun tournament.

I would love to see a tournament with missions straight out of the book too as I think they are very balanced. However, in a large tournament you need degrees of victory in order to stratify the players in reasonable number of games. So, you have to add in victory conditions, it is simply unavoidable.

Gods forbid also you take the one good option in your codex and it just so happens to combo well with the rest of your list.

Yeah, because then you are obviously a big jerk who doesn't appreciate the spirit of the game! That attitude is annoying. (and just to be clear, I was agreeing with you Kurgash).

The game is different things for different people. Tournaments, while trying to be as inclusive as possible, are competitive by their nature.

I once saw, and this is no joke, a guy in a fluff oriented club here in SD say he would love to see a tournament where a guy who lost all his games could still win by having a nicely painted, themed army and being a good sport.

That to me is like speaking in a foreign language. What kind of tournament is that? And what would be the point? Sounds more like a giant circle-jerk where everyone hugs each other and cries about their feelings than a competition.

Not to come across as Mr. Macho or anything, but come on. Let's have an intense, friendly competition where you bring your A game and your best army and give it your best effort.

If you want a painting competition, have a painting competition. Don't railroad a tournament with things that have nothing to do with the skill of playing the game.

Ok, rant off.

I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys, I am just simply not opposed to it the way some people are. I am confused why some people think you can't possibly enjoy soft scores as well as hard-nosed formats. Some people are capable of enjoying multiple, different types of events.

I am capable of playing a hard list in a competitive meta-list friendly tourney and having fun as well as playing a soft or theme-based list in a COMPed event and playing with a varied army instead of 3x every unit meta list.

I just see people who are screaming 'NO COMP! GTFO' when they in reality are waste-deep in an event format that is very much full of COMP. The only reason why they accept it is because they feel like they can game that system and use it to their advantage.

Mission/scoring based comp is still comp, even if it is less restrictive than judged comp. I am not demanding 'judged' comp (which seems to be the comp people are really uspet against), I just defy the notion that there is actually a format out there that is void of comp and that 5th edition 40k is actually balanced enough that the need for comp in *ALL* gaming circles is gone.

I don't think 40k has come as far as some people have in being a balanced, fair game system, and many of the 'new' people who didn't exist in the 3rd edition tourney realm have no idea how or why COMP *WAS* needed, and believe me, it WAS needed. Arguably the drastic degree of comp may not be needed to the extent of 3rd edition, but we are by no means fully at the state where this gaming system is "legal=fair". The simple fact we speak about 'tiers' of units and codexes speaks volumes about that. Because of all the history with the game and the hobby aspect, I am simply not blindly opposed to comp and support hose who still do it because I can tell you being ground into paste and boardwiped in 2 turns by a spammy metalist is not 'fun' for some players. If games can be won or lost before a dice is rolled simply by the quality of the army lists or low-tier codexes, then people have valid reasons to use comp if they choose for thier event.

And I will bring my flashy models who probably are not wise in an optimized event and have fun regardless instead of giving myself an anurisim about soft scores or attending the event and pissing in everyones cheerios about how 'comp hurts the little guy! The peasants don't know what is best for them!'

Reecius wrote:If you want a painting competition, have a painting competition. Don't railroad a tournament with things that have nothing to do with the skill of playing the game.

Ok, rant off.

lol... Skill. Balance the gaming system and then we can have a true discussion about a skill-based game that can be played competitively. I am still not sold on the idea that a dice game heavily impacted by randomness and bogged down in rule problems and codex imbalance can ever be a true test of skill. Sure you can play it in a format that there is a winner and a loser, but with all the different formats, custom missions and constant codex creep... the idea that you can accurately measure true skill of this game is a little bit over the top to me. Which is why this system will always have a soft-side to it because someone will always 'do more with less' simply because they like to paint a specific model so they play at a disadvantage from other opponents which will hide true skill from ever being recognized.

I do like that a majority of people in the competitive 40k environment are humble and do realize that players can be excellent and place well, and often the best player may not always be the first place. Due to the randomness of the game, you would have to have players play dozens or hundreds of games using the same list and missions to truly get a good representation of 'skill' and the best player to eliminate the statistical anomalies. Which is why people can recognize how making the top tables is a feat unto it self and you don't see anyone with the arrogant expectation to 'win it all' every event because even the best player is going to be incapable of going undefeated in 40k where in a tighter system like chess, they very well could continuously and constantly defeat people they are better than.

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys, I am just simply not opposed to it the way some people are. I am confused why some people think you can't possibly enjoy soft scores as well as hard-nosed formats. Some people are capable of enjoying multiple, different types of events

Because some of us can't afford multiple different armies or 10k points of one army.

So when people buy models from GW, and then get told they can't use them in a GW tournament, well you can see why people might be upset.

Reecius wrote:What kind of tournament is that? And what would be the point?

I hate to bring up pro sports when talking about 40k again, but imagine if pro football was like that. We have the Superbowl, both teams play, and then they give the trophy to the losing team because they played with heart or something.

People would die. lol

nkelsch wrote:and many of the 'new' people who didn't exist in the 3rd edition tourney realm have no idea how or why COMP *WAS* needed, and believe me, it WAS needed.

This isn't 3rd edition.

CptZach wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys, I am just simply not opposed to it the way some people are. I am confused why some people think you can't possibly enjoy soft scores as well as hard-nosed formats. Some people are capable of enjoying multiple, different types of events

Because some of us can't afford multiple different armies or 10k points of one army.

So when people buy models from GW, and then get told they can't use them in a GW tournament, well you can see why people might be upset.

I have never seen a system that bans models. I have seen systems that make it harder to win with specific models and armylists, but those are in both 'judged' comp as well as mission/scoring comp.

Every event is going to have models that someone could possibly by that may not do well in that particular format. If you build a specific static list, you may attend a ZERO judged comp system and still be the victim of being put at a arbitrary disadvantage because of the models you bring. It may not be called COMP but the result will be the same.

Then you haven't ever heard of a tournament that bans special characters.

you may attend a ZERO judged comp system and still be the victim of being put at a arbitrary disadvantage because of the models you bring. It may not be called COMP but the result will be the same.

Well the only real way to fix that is to make every unit in the game exactly the same. That way everyone can finally take whatever random bs they want and expect to do reasonably well.

@Neklsh

Actually there is a local group out of Santa Monica here in Cali that uses straight rule book missions. So no comp. just a heads up.

Sidstyler wrote:Then you haven't ever heard of a tournament that bans special characters.

Not since 5th edition I haven't. I mean we have *just* crested 40k in 5th edition being 2 years old, and it didn't even really pick up full swing in the tourney circuit until august-september of 2008.

So we are talking about barley a 2 year period.

The only time I have seen models 'banned' is usually when the event is having very very small battles like a 500pt tourney and they are restricting the force-org more than anything.

Ever since Special characters were the only way to modify force-org for some units, I have not seen events where SCs were banned. Besides, Comp doesn't ban units... Judged comp just puts them at a disadvantage for 'best overall'.

Hulksmash wrote:@Neklsh

Actually there is a local group out of Santa Monica here in Cali that uses straight rule book missions. So no comp. just a heads up.

I like straight rulebook missions with no comp. I think that is ultimately fair to 'casual' players who don't have the heads up to listbuild for a series of custom missions/scoring. Virtually everyone who shows up is familiar with the format regardless of gaming experience.

I think there is plenty of room for custom missions as well, but if we are going to throw in to the discussion of 'what is best for the new person/non-internet savvy gamer' then I would agree 'rulebook is it'.

So the ETC isn't something you noticed? That's a pretty big tournament to not notice the absence of SC's. Honestly Nkelsch I don't think you actually know as much as you think you do about the current tournament environment. You do seem to like making grand sweeping generalizations though

Comp as a judged system is fail. Missions will obviously affect the building of armies in larger events but that doesn't mean they are in and of themselves a system of comp. Comp is universally in 40k meant as a judged system either player or TO based. Sometimes both. Less strawman arguements and more thoughts on the actual state of comp in 5th edition 40k.

@nklesh

Hey brother, no need to get defensive. No one is trying to gang up on you here. I hope I didn't come across that way. I was just disagreeing with you.

Yeah, 2nd ed and 3rd ed both did need comp because the rules were looser than a $2 dollar....well, they were loose.

5th ed is much tighter and while no, it is not perfect, not even chess is perfectly balanced--the player going first is slightly more likely to win, it isn't wildly imbalanced either.

I had major trouble with Crons in round two of Ard Boyz with my missile spam wolves.

Comp stinks because it is a SECOND layer of restriction on a game that ALREADY has a layer of restrictions. I have seen such stupid ideas as no more than three of any unit?!?! WTF? That utterly bones some armies while only mildly hampering others. The point being that all comp does is shift power. Gamers will still game the system, it is the way our brains work.

The existing missions and rule books give what the game designers feel are fair and balanced restrictions to, as much as possible, make things even.

Is it perfect? No. Will adding a second layer of restrictions help? No.

You laugh at 40K being a skill game. Why? The top players are the top players year after year after year. That isn't luck.

Luck is a large part of it, often the difference between winning and losing a tournament comes down to pairing and one or two tosses of the dice, but that is a matter of degree. It is rare to see a truly skilled player not finish well in a tournament when he or she played a good game but just had bad luck.

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but I have yet, in my 15 years of playing 40K, see a comp system that does ANYTHING but make the game less enjoyable.

Hulksmash wrote:So the ETC isn't something you noticed? That's a pretty big tournament to not notice the absence of SC's. Honestly Nkelsch I don't think you actually know as much as you think you do about the current tournament environment. You do seem to like making grand sweeping generalizations though

Comp as a judged system is fail. Missions will obviously affect the building of armies in larger events but that doesn't mean they are in and of themselves a system of comp. Comp is universally in 40k meant as a judged system either player or TO based. Sometimes both. Less strawman arguements and more thoughts on the actual state of comp in 5th edition 40k.

Well, since I have never gamed in europe, you are right, I didn't notice ETC. Most of my experience is US east coast based around GWHQ. Which means I was big into the GWGT tourney as it was organized and run directly in my back yard. I got my start with GW-tun RTTs and GTs before the independent tourney system even existed in any form. Up until 5th edition, For the most part, Soft scores did not received nearly the level of disdain people are now voicing, and for some reason, events who still run Judged comp still seem to have active participants who enjoy attending the event and have a good time at the end of the day.

I just don't get how rigid and unaccepting of different tourney formats people tend to be. This forum really is a microsope of a specific part of the wargaming community and I don't think things are as bad as some of the things are said.

I have only attended Adepticon once, and in the past 2 years of 5th edition I have attended some of the 50-man 40k events and a bunch of the smaller 1-day events on the east coast. Many people here still run Comp, softscores and wacky missions and things go fine, but the internet would make you think the world had ended and everyone died a horrible death because comp and soft scores cause cancer.

I just don't see it, and while I enjoy a competitive tourney format, I also like the old formats and events that still use them. I think there is room for all different types of events in this hobby, but some seem to disagree. And I see some pretty sweeping generalizations about anti-comp too ;D There are plenty of sweeping generalizations to go around here.

I can't wait for GW's take on tourneys, as it is their game and I am curious how they are going to decide to run events nearly 7-8 years after thier GT system ended.

@sidstyler
Hahaha, good point! Hey guys, you scored more touchdowns, but you know what, these guys had such cool uniforms. Really color coordinated, and they were such nice guys that we are going to give them the win! But hey, thanks for coming out!

That whole mentality is so weird to me. Why would you even want to "win" if you lost all your games? I would refuse the award, I wouldn't feel like I earned it.

That whole attitude of it being more important to make everyone feel good about themselves instead of competing at your best level is something that only applies to little, little kids. We're grown men, or young men as the case with the winner of the NOVA open, who can handle losing a tough game.

You have to be mature enough to say hey, I took the wrong tools to this game, or luck just want's with me, or I got outplayed. Next time, I will play better, bring a different list or luck will hopefully be with me.

That is what an adult does instead of throwing a temper tantrum and saying, I don't like anyone else bringing that unit or character because I couldn't beat it, so instead of upping my game I am going to tell you you can't use it.

That is just flat out immature. Look to see what you can do to have more fun and be more competitive rather than expecting everyone else to accommodate you.

And as Capt Zach said, if someone builds a legal army out of the dex, comes to a tournament and sees that for some reason the TO decided he knows better than GW and makes the list illegal, then what fun is that?

I can't wait for GW's take on tourneys, as it is their game and I am curious how they are going to decide to run events nearly 7-8 years after thier GT system ended

Wait no longer: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240205a_ToS_Rules_Pack.pdf

After publishing that the people who take GW seriously when it comes to running tournaments seem few and far between.

Calling GW "professional game designers" seems like a stretch. More like professional miniatures salesmen.

But that doesn't make comp good, or a tournament organizers decisions on comp rules better than the GW rules.

Comp doesn't mean rewarding color-coordination, or saying "you lost all your games,but you're a winner anyway!". It just means the rules are changed. Sometimes they're changed in a dumb way, or maybe to you any change is a dumb change, but it isn't automatically anti-competitive. If someone made comp rules saying you had to take 2 of every force org chart, or couldn't take 3 of the same heavy support for any codex, or banned units that abused the wound allocation rules...well, I wouldn't like these rules, but NONE of those changes makes the game uncompetitive.

Unfortunately, as has been said, these changes are often used to try to make the game more fair for the fluffy bunnies. But it can also just be used to fix perceived problems with the game design, or change codex balance, or just make the game make more sense to the tournament organizer. This is absolutely no different than a TO creating their own special missions that punish or reward certain army types, intentionally or not. This is no different than replacing VPs with KPs, or always happening to end up with 5 objectives in the objective missions. It is a change from the basic rules, for better or for worse or just for different doesn't matter. It isn't just hand-holding for those too dumb or lazy to be "competitive".

The problem with this poll is that "composition" is such a dirty word, because it can constitute so many different types of changes, or judge measured comp instead of objective comp or straight up rules-changing comp. Not all of these are equal.

Reecius wrote:
Hahaha, good point! Hey guys, you scored more touchdowns, but you know what, these guys had such cool uniforms. Really color coordinated, and they were such nice guys that we are going to give them the win! But hey, thanks for coming out!

Well...Best Overall does this . Someone with a better record than you (W/L) can still 'lose' the Best Overall if their army is primed if the guy with a slightly worse W/L record has a stellar looking army. I think that's perfectly fine too.

However, I don't feel comp is the answer. Comp simply adjusts what units are best (By what fits within the comp restriction while retaining power on the table). I think to start though, everyone needs to establish what comp is trying to accomplish. When I hear comp, I'm assuming they are attempting to encourage a diverse selection of units/armies so their event is enriched. (Another PM/Oblit army...another RazorWolf army...I just played these!). Again though, I don't feel comp is the answer.

I've mentioned each time this subject came up but I think a "Theme" or "Unique" factor figured in would be fine. Essentially, a score that encourages people to convert and make armies unique. You can play whatever you want...but obviously my Chaos Noise Marine army is going to score well on the unique/theme scale while the PM/Oblit spam guy is going to struggle. Or maybe he won't struggle...because he really put some effort into making his army pop when placed next to similar armies?

So, TL;DR version;

Best Overall rewards Unique/Thematic Armies

Reecius wrote:The existing missions and rule books give what the game designers feel are fair and balanced restrictions to, as much as possible, make things even.

You laugh at 40K being a skill game. Why? The top players are the top players year after year after year. That isn't luck.

Luck is a large part of it, often the difference between winning and losing a tournament comes down to pairing and one or two tosses of the dice, but that is a matter of degree. It is rare to see a truly skilled player not finish well in a tournament when he or she played a good game but just had bad luck.

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but I have yet, in my 15 years of playing 40K, see a comp system that does ANYTHING but make the game less enjoyable.

I'm not saying that skill is not involved, I am saying that many times the top winner and the best player are not going to be the same thing. I feel the very nature of the rock-paper-scissors design and the dice put a little too much advantage/disadvantage into the game. I totally agree the same people end up at the top tables every year... but the same 'person' isn't winning every event because due to the nature of the system I think it is virtually impossible to do. Even the best players are going to be overcome by the randomness, and single-elimination events or single-day gaming with the 40k rule-set really doesn't address the imbalance and random impacts. Good players will always do well, but the BEST player can not always win. And most players I think realize this and accept this.

I think I am seeing the 'line' as people see it.

I can tell you some people straight up *DO* want an added extra layer because the game is not sold to them as a 'competitive gaming system'. It is sold to them as a miniature collection hobby. They want different looking models and buy what is cool and fun. They see 'events' and to them 'tournaments' are simply a place to get a full days worth of gaming in. It is not a place to go get thier face ground down to bonemeal because they did not buy and paint statistically superior models. The rules developers and even GW as a whole has never really accepted that the rules were written to be balanced or competitive, and up until 5th edition, all of the wonkyness of tourneys and the rules... Tourneys were simply a full day of gaming.

There are still people who want gaming events in the format of tournaments where they can get a full day of gaming without having thier skull caved in by an internet metalist and without being told what the definition of 'tournament' from the dictionary. And many people have been attending these 'tournaments' for years only now in the past few years to see the tournaments they used to enjoy become a totally different event.

I feel like there is a movement to scrub all soft scores from every aspect of the hobby and to make all tourneys only hard competitive events. I have to admit, while I am glad to see the competitive environment is flourishing, lots of people are seeing it as a highly negative environment even when it isn't. And it is very frustrating to try to be part of both types of communities and enjoy all aspects of the hobby without both sides thinking you are a horrible outsider invading thier territory with your 'soft scores' or your 'competitive WAAC' attitudes.

Both sides seem to be increasing in intolerance as they drift further apart and I really don't want to see the day when one side attempts to destroy the other or forces GW to by the nature of thier product. I can see why some people don't 'like' judged comp, but people also don't like other formats and it doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it.

The very nature that someone feels the need to make a thread based upon COMP yes or no is part of the problem and the intolerance out there.

Two Things:

MVBrandt wrote:Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames.

I play Fantasy, having become rather sickened by WAAC 40k lists Unfortunately 8th edition means Fantasy is increasingly overloaded with

And number two, I'm not advocating a comp system that simply slaps extra points onto X list because it fit some arbitrary parameters better than Y list. Comp for me primarily means ensuring that first round / day pairings are done based on armies judged to be in the same tier, group, mindset, hardness, etc. This way the WAACers can go smash each other first day and the fluffy bunnies get to have some cuddles together, before Day 2 when it's battle points and all hell breaks loose. Comp means that everyone gets to have at least about half of their games vs opponents and armies of similar mindset, and the softer set don't need to be dissuaded from what ought to be a fun event for everybody. If there's a small part of the total points devoted to "theme" or something, than all the better.

I know that this kind of comment is met by "well don't go to a tournament, bunny-lover!" but I believe that tournaments based solely around winning - i.e. no soft scores of any kind - ought to be and are the minority. As some bleeding heart always says, there's a lot more to this hobby and this game than bashing the other guy's face in. (Not to say that isn't awesome too and clearly important, but 'Ard Boyz, the Adepticon Gladiator, and similar events are special for a reason.)

- Salvage

Composition harms new players and fluffy armies as much as the Über powergaming lists, especially when done in the typical "% restriction" manner.

I've yet to see a composition system that resulted in fewer powergaming builds (different ones yes, but just as many that were just as abusive within the context of the comp system) that did not also seriously harm new/fluff players or help them do better in any way.

I remember under the previous IG codex in 4th edition, my Grenadier army did terribly under most comp systems, but was also an absolutely terrible army, in terms of being able to compete (lol 4E mech IG).

@nkelsh
I hear what you are saying and I understand. The thing is though that tournaments have ALWAYS had WAAC types. The nature of gaming and gamers (in general) is to look through the rules to find ways to make powerful armies while others look for ways to adhere to the awesome background material that we all love.

I remember tournaments in 2nd edition that were obscene. All wolf guard space wolves each with a cyclone and an assault cannon, harlequins, chaos, etc. The cries of cheese were just as loud then.

It wasn't just all the good old days where everyone got along and everything was fluff oriented. The two different types of gamers still existed back then as they do now.

What we are seeing now is an upsurge in the competitive gamers seeking to actively organize and streamline tournament play.

I agree with you that intolerance seems to be on the rise but I believe that is a reaction to the fact that tournaments are becoming more and more geared towards competitive gaming (as they should be, IMO).

The thing is though, that the competitive gamers are the guys going to the tournaments. They are the ones who come out, shell out money and actually attend most of the events. The casual gamers are the guys who may go to the local RTT's and an occasional local GT and they get, as you put it, run over by the serious tournament gamers. But as the regular attendees are the guys who take tournaments seriously, why should tournaments not appeal to them? It only makes sense to do so as they are the ones who financially make tournaments possible.

Where do you find a happy medium? The thing is, there really isn't one. One type of guy loves the competition and practices his skills, seeking to find ways to improve, talking and brainstorming on the net to find new advantages.

The casual gamer plays in a local group with lists that develop organically based off of gaming in a small circle of friends, what they read in the fluff or see in the codexes. The casual gamer doesn't practice, doesn't spend hours surfing the net looking for new and better tactics and when he meets the serious gamer, the outcome is almost certain and crushing.

It's hard to appease both types of players as their skill and knowledge levels are so disparate. No one likes to get destroyed in a game, especially not when it's by tactics and list ideas that are totally foreign to you and that don't seem like they fit the back ground material. You may be the best guy in your local, but in the wider world of the tournament gamer, you're a small fish.

I think the best solution is to run two types of events or to have two types of games at a tournament setting, like BoLS did.

Have "hobby" events for the casual/fluff player who only wants to play games that are on a level in which he or she has a chance to win or where winning isn't the main focus, but that also appeals to their idea of the game as a representation of a rich back story. These can be mega battles, narrative campaigns run in a single day, etc. Market these events as a non-competitive event. Or even have a newbie tournament (or meta-tournament within the larger tournament) where people can come and play other gamers of a similar skill level. That way they can learn without feeling like they are getting corn holed.

Then, let the tournament players have their tournaments. These events are run under the assumption that 40K is a game with mechanics and that the rules are only loose approximations of reality and statistical probability. Everything is run as a competitive exercise and these events are marketed as such.

That way everyone knows what to expect and no one gets their feelings hurt.

@Boss Slavage
You played 7th Fantasy because 5th 40K was out of wack? Wow. I could barely stand 7th ed Fantasy because it was SO out of balance. I played in a few tournaments and the big three in Fantasy were so much more powerful than everyone else it was a joke. When I went to a tournament and 35% of the armies were Daemons, 25%Dark Elves and 25% Vamps, I knew things were screwed up.

Is 8th actually worse? That astounds me. 7th wasn't even fun for me because the system was so screwed up. I beat the pants off every army that wasn't Daemons with my Woodies and Daemons tabled me every single time, even if the other guy was new (not that I was an expert).

MVBrandt wrote:
Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

But Mike, having a hotel on park place and boardwalk is just too damn broke in Monopoly. It needs a nerf.


btw comp is basically a tool used by casual gamers to win their games.

Reecius wrote:I would love to see a tournament with missions straight out of the book too as I think they are very balanced. However, in a large tournament you need degrees of victory in order to stratify the players in reasonable number of games. So, you have to add in victory conditions, it is simply unavoidable.

I've seen it done, with one bonus point for each of the following:

Scoring unit in Opponent's Deployment Zone at the end of the game.

Killing Opponent's Most Expensive HQ Choice.

Killing Opponent's Most Expensive Unit.

And before someone asks, if your most expensive unit is also your most expensive HQ choice it's worth 2 bonus points.

It was awesome, actually. The missions were KP on Dawn of War, Seize Ground on Pitched Battle and Capture and Control on Spearhead. I think it's a great way to run a tournament, because I agree that the BRB missions are pretty well balanced.

I've played in a tournament with book missions as well, it was good fun. Just don't see enough of them.

Every other month or so in Santa Monica for us Reece. Book missions only

Reecius wrote:I once saw, and this is no joke, a guy in a fluff oriented club here in SD say he would love to see a tournament where a guy who lost all his games could still win by having a nicely painted, themed army and being a good sport.

That to me is like speaking in a foreign language. What kind of tournament is that? And what would be the point? Sounds more like a giant circle-jerk where everyone hugs each other and cries about their feelings than a competition.

OT, but....

Well, it's a tournament with a number of different events - playing, painting, sportsmaship and modelling. That's a perfectly valid description of a 'tournament' - a number of DIFFERENT things you're being judged on. If he excels in three of them to a massive degree he'll probably win overall

Of course, he wouldn't win the 'best playing' prize, but that's fine - the person who's best at playing will win that. What's the problem?

Logically, someone who spends lots of time painting and modelling his army, then goes out of his way to give his opponents good games, is actually 'competing' in three events, and therefore being more competitive than someone who only chooses to compete in the 'playing' event.

[EDIT for clarification] Every single tournament I've heard of features a 'Best General' award. The arguments seem to happen when people think they SHOULD win 'Best Overall' just by being a very good general. i.e. people who aren't content with winning one prize. I find the idea that someone who only competes in one part of a tournament, ignoring painting, modelling, etc, can win 'Best Overall' ludicrous, because they are NOT the 'Best Overall', just the best at playing.

Well, you won Olympic Gold at the long jump. Well done. But because you jumped SO far we've decided that YOU WIN THE OLYMPICS! All of it! No, ignore all those guys who competed in all the other events, you were SO good at the long jump you get a much bigger and more expensive medal than all theirs put together!

Back on topic...

I don't like comp. Though I tend to play in quite friendly tournaments I agree that the big netlists are not as common as you think. But I also think that there's no distinction between marking someone down for comp and writing missions that favour one list over another.

I don't agree with the idea that you 'have' to write new missions to allow people massacre results. The rulebook missions often result in draws, yes, but who is the TO to say that's wrong. Don't change the game just because apparently 'competitive' players are so intent on massacres they can't stand the word DRAW.

There are two key problems with comp:
1. It does not do what it sets out to, to wit, provide a "fair and balanced" competitive environment. The reason for this failure is well known--so-called WAAC players just adjust their lists to exploit the comp. rules.
2. The other problem with comp scoring is transparency and arbitrariness. Most comp. scoring is carried out in a mysterious fashion by a judge or judges based on their intuition. The players are left to guess what is or is not WAAC. However, when a TO does attempt to be transparent by giving comp. rules it just reveals the arbitrary nature of the scoring and, further, makes the build restrictions that much easier to design around.

All comp does is add variety to a tournament so you aren't playing the same lists every time. The problem is it has a very high risk of backfiring and unless handled very carefully and well thought out in advance can lead to way more problems that can make it not worth it.


1. Comp does not inherently benefit anyone. The best generals will win no matter what, comp list or not. Simply making the best generals take different options does not give the little guy any sort of advantage.

2. Comp does not inherently increase fun at a tournament....it just makes things different than the normal.

3. Comp encourages abusive lists that skirt the comp rules leaving to some hard feelings. Case in point, I went to the Adepticon fantasy tournament last year with a list that got a mid-high comp score(14-16 I think), but in practice should have been comped much much lower(it rightfully deserved a 3)...and guess what I almost won best general with it. Where as fluffy comp armies (20+ comp scores) almost universally ended up at the last tables.

4. Comp does not balance anything. 40k is well enough balanced that it doesn't need comp (jury is still out on 8'th ed Fantasy).

5. Comp has a much MUCH higher risk of leading to hurt feelings. People will either complain about their comp score feeling artificially high/low, or complain that they were beat by someone skirting the comp system.



I'm not going to make a judgment on if comp is good or bad. Frankly it doesn't make a difference one way or another. But lets not kid ourselves that it fixes anything or needs to be implemented across the board anywhere. It just makes things "different" not "better"...and introduces a high risk of being bad for a low return on variety.

darwinn69 wrote:All comp does is add variety to a tournament so you aren't playing the same lists every time.

Unless it does just the reverse, forcing everyone to bring the same build so they get good comp scores...................

don_mondo wrote:

darwinn69 wrote:All comp does is add variety to a tournament so you aren't playing the same lists every time.

Unless it does just the reverse, forcing everyone to bring the same build so they get good comp scores...................

Right, you aren't encouraging variety, you're just shifting the goalposts. There will still be more powerful lists within whatever comp restrictions are layed out and the competitive players will all bring variations on those.

Personally I think comp is (assuming honesty on everyone's part) the only truly soft score, and doesn't really achieve anything. If there's a particular armylist build that's dominating then circuit that a TO wants to avoid then they need to implement pre-tournament list reviews and a list is either acceptable or not, no scoring. I'm not advocating that, I just think it's the only kind of composition that isn't entirely arbitrary.

While there are situations where comp limitations should be required (i.e. team tournaments). As a whole I think they hinder more than it help.

Different armies are intentionally designed to derive their strengths from different areas of the force org chart and once you start penalizing or rewarding people based on where they pull from on the force org chart you are inevitably going to be crippling some armies' capabilities, while inadvertantly boosting others. I say GW has put a lot of work in creating, updating, and balancing rules and to attempt to change the rules in order to 'better balance' is not really helping at all.

Additionally, when I go to a tournament, I go to have fun, however, I also realize that I am taking a step out of the comfortable casual game and stepping into the arena to pit my abilities against my fellow players. It is expected, in my opinion, to see people bringing the full might of their armies in these situations. A comp score limits your ability to properly field your army in a situation where you definitely want to bring your A-game.

My vote is for - No

Composition has many flaws, but at its root, the concept pertains to assigning "points" that affect the winning and losing of an event, based on what army or unit selection you show up with. In my opinion, it's a very wrong way to look at the game, as you penalize someones performance within an event for a choice they made before they even got there. Some comp systems (transparent ones) are better than others, but at their root, all of them are attempting to force the attendees of an event to play the game in what the TO (or group of TO's) consider to be the "right" way. And thats where the major problem lies.

Comp seems to penalize players, at first glance, for the decision they make in list building prior to an event. In practice, it actually penalizes players for choices they now have no control over (what items they chose to buy, for whatever reason, years ago maybe). This is why, as Mike says, you penalize new players MORE with a comp system. Older, cagier, (wealthier) players tend to have more armies, more unit selections, and more knowledge of how to 'game' the comp system to achieve a high score, and still have the most competitive army within the new artificial environment that has been created. Is this fair?

I've been in the tournament and gaming scene for ~15 years now. I started as a kid (10 years old) who chose to play eldar in early third edition because the models looked awesome, the fluff and feel of the army was just what I was looking for, and I fell in love. As I attended tournaments over the years, at times I was lauded for bringing eldar, and awarded very very good comp scores. In later years (4th edition) I was scorned and awarded poor comp scores for the same army. Why? Because early on my build, which I ran out of reasons other than in-game strength, was ineffective. Later on, taking my beloved falcons was the cat's meow in terms of strength, and I was just a dirty, dirty power gamer.

Did comp affect me fairly in those situations? In the earlier one I was rewarded, but in a lot of ways, it didn't truly reward me. Sure I did better at events, but it gave me terrible guidance as to how to build a competitive army, and more guidance as to how to build a 'game the comp system' army. Later on, I was being punished because I didn't have much money, and wasn't able to buy new models.

Let the game design be the comp, composition is already influenced by the design of the codex's (whats good and whats not) and how the core mechanics interact with all of the other rules. Adding in another layer only serves to complicate things and serve one selfish (whether he is doing it knowingly or not is another matter) TO's desires or vision of how the game should be played.

We all had to purchase a core rulebook. We all had access to the same codex's and models. Let's all start with an even playing field of "composition" and stick to letting those decide what is "good" at an event and what is "bad"

plastictrees wrote:
Right, you aren't encouraging variety, you're just shifting the goalposts. There will still be more powerful lists within whatever comp restrictions are layed out and the competitive players will all bring variations on those.

Right, a Comp list the rewards players for taking all different units (like DaBoyz) moves the goal posts of good armies to codex's that have many choices of good units that work in cohesion such as space wolves. Where Orks, Dark Eldar and Necrons are really hurt with this. It's like playing baseball and if you let all your 3rd stringers play you get an extra 20 points right away.

Even Jervis is recommending not using comp scoring anymore, It's not been needed for a while.

@Gorkin
Wow, that is a great reference! Thanks for pointing that out, that is a very useful piece of information.

@ArbotiorIan
First off, thanks to contributing the conversation. I am going to disagree with you, but please don't take it as an attack, because it isn't.

Your argument holds no water because it relies solely on semantics.

Someone who paints well and is nice is in no way being more competitive than someone who plays with a powerful list but isn't the best painter.

That is just bending language to fit your argument.

If you come to a tournament with a soft list and a lack of tactical skill and lose a game that is by its very meaning a contest to determine a winner, you are not being competitive. You are being the opposite of competitive.

If you paint your army well and are talented at and enjoy that aspect of the hobby, then great! We all love admiring a beautiful and creative miniature. It is one of the best parts of the hobby.

But that should not have an impact on who wins a tournament, at least not IMO.

It should absolutely and obviously impact who wins the best painted award, and kudos to them. That is an award that means more to that person in all likelihood, anyway.

A tournament should be a contest of skill on the table top.

A painting competition should be a contest of painting and converting skill.

The two things are totally different. They appeal to wildly different types of gamers. One of them really relies on artistic skill and practice, the other on tactical skill and practice.

It is right brain vs. left.

To mix them together is like having a boxing match combined with water colors. Toss in who's the nicest dude and that is what the traditional tournament consists of.

I know and understand the hobby consists of all of those things, but to mash them all together doesn't really work, IMO.

Have competitive tournaments with painting competitions separate. Let anyone bring what they want to so long as the list is legal. That takes all subjectivity out of the game. Put up guidelines for expected behavior with a clearly defined criteria for what types of things will constitute a penalty and ejection from the tournament.

Give an award to the best player and the best painter, hell, give them equal billing if it makes a difference.

But the game is a game and a hobby. Those two things, while combining to create the hobby we love, don't mix that well in a tournament setting, IMO.

Recognize both, but keep them separate.

and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Reecius wrote:
To mix them together is like having a boxing match combined with water colors.

Or Chess Boxing !!

Sorry, I tried to resist for an entire minute.



On topic though, I recently tied for first but lost a tourney because of comp, and had no real issue as it was used as a tie-breaker, basically.
That was about as close to appreciating comp as I will get.

I don't want composition scores (too subjective), but I definitely want aspects of the game that help shape army composition.

The fact that Troops are Scoring Units and many missions require Scoring Units to hold objectives has definitely helped. Fantasy has a decent system that simply puts a hard limit / requirement on legal armies between Rares, Lords, and Core choices. I like both systems.

- Marty Lund

@kirsanth
I think Boxing and chess have a lot in common, actually. Less so than Boxing (stereotype: uber manly, competitive) and visual arts (stereotype: slightly effeminate, non competitive).

So maybe: interpretive dance boxing!

Comp is basically used for two purposes. The first is to 'balance' the game. The second is to increase the fun level of the game.

Now, as 'fun' is subjective, I use that term with the assumption that people bring lists that they think are fun to play and are the types of lists that they would want to play against.

Part of the problem is how a comp score is typically implemented in the US. Typically (At least, every place I've seen it used) is as a score tacked on at the end of the tournament.

When you look at the balance angle, supposedly comp is supposed to make the person who had the hardest matches win.

The problem is when someone with a 5 comp score (out of 20) plays against 3 people with a 2 comp score, winning all the games and the person with a 15 comp score plays against 3 people with an 18 comp score, winning all the games.

Assuming that the comp score is accurately judged (that's another ball of wax...), the person with the 5 comp score has the harder battles, but loses out to the person with the 15 comp score for overall (And Best General if comp is addeded into battle for that award). This represents an epic fail on the part of comp for balance purposes.

If you have a person with a 5 comp that plays against a person with a 15 comp, the outcome is almost pre-ordained. While the comp score may help 'balance' this for overall, there was no point to the game, and thus no fun for either player. This represents an epic fail on the 'fun' part of comp scoring.

Generally, this leaves comp as currently implemented a failed concept. Granted, there are a lot of places that actually use comp as a way of discouraging people who don't play 'right' from attending and keeping them from winning anything if they actually do attend.

Reecius wrote:
and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Chuck Norris could. Just saying.

I don't have a problem with Comp as a theory, I just don't like my opponent having a subjective way to bone me if he felt that the reason I whipped his heinie for him was that I had Vulkan and not because he was fielding a horrendous list and didn't know how to play. It happens.

If one were to have the comp built right into the Tournament Rules and have it be a requirement to play that would be one thing. I'd still play in a tournament that had requirements of say, minimum of 50% troops and no special characters and no maxing out FOC sections. I'd be fine with that. What I don't like is my opponents, who also want to win(and for the most part are pretty good about not abusing it but then about 10% of every group of people are gak heads) deciding what my score is.

I think if there was a comp system that balanced every codex and major build, and opened up tons of interesting new armies while restricting the boring ones, more people would be excited about comp.

There isn't one, and I'm not going to hold my breath. Subjective comp will always run afoul of either chipmunking or completely arbitrary judging, and objective comp can always be gamed, eliminating many armies.

How do you even define good comp? Is it solely a matter of in game strength? Theme? Fluff?

to answer the actual question, no, I don't think it should be used in tournaments. I won't avoid a tourney with Comp, but when I see "comp" on a score sheet I simply assume, at best a randomly determined score, at worst it's a way for the judge to buck up local favorites.

Monster Rain wrote:

Reecius wrote:
and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Chuck Norris could. Just saying.

Haha, I stand corrected!

I'd still play in a tournament that had requirements of say, minimum of 50% troops and no special characters and no maxing out FOC sections.

Agh! These types of systems to me are the worst! 50% troops BONES some armies (Necrons anyone?) while no three of anything or no maxed FOC BONES others. Comp just can't encompass all of the armies as they are so different. You would literally have to have a comp list for every Codex to make it even remotely fair, but guess what, the codexes do that already. They have a built in comp system.

@Polonius
I agree, I will still go to a tournament with comp, but I know it will open up the door to subjectivity and introduce a variable I can't control. It stinks.

The only comp system I saw that I actually liked was the SoCal slaughter's system of judges comp, pairing similarly powerful lists against one another in the first round of a GT. After that, it was strictly battle points.

That helped to mitigate bad luck in first round pairings, but still, Comp stinks.

I'm tempted to start a new thread of people sharing examples of counterproductive comp restrictions. Basically, ways Tournaments tried to "shake things up" only to see yet another typically competitive list win.

My best example is from two weekends ago, when I played in a 1500pt tournament. There were two rules: each army could include double HQ choices, but must include at least 2, and no non-troops choices could be duplicated.

I took my standard mech IG with Medusa, Vendetta, Valkyrie, Marbo, CCS, Primaris, two AC/GK squads, flamer PCS in chimera, flamer SWS in Vendetta, and four veteran squads, three meltas in Chimeras, one meltas and Demo charge in valk. I won out, with max points. I played a marine player that could only take two dreads instead of the three he liked to, an Ork player with only one battlewagon, and a tyranid player that was more hosed by mission and matchup than comp.

So, despite an honest effort to limit the power of spam, I instead fielded a list from a deep codex (IG) and prospered. The biggest penalty was having to take the Psyker, although he's cheap and came through with 10 shots against Tyranid Warriors at one point.

The only comp system I saw that I actually liked was the SoCal slaughter's system of judges comp, pairing similarly powerful lists against one another in the first round of a GT.

Was that the one where they paired all the IG players against each other? I heard something about a large tournament around here recently that did something like that, and, at least the way it was described to me at the time ('hey, lets pair up all of these similar armies against each other and take half of them out right away') didn't sound too impressed, but I may have only been hearing one side of it.

Reecius wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Reecius wrote:
and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Chuck Norris could. Just saying.

Haha, I stand corrected!

I'd still play in a tournament that had requirements of say, minimum of 50% troops and no special characters and no maxing out FOC sections.

Agh! These types of systems to me are the worst! 50% troops BONES some armies (Necrons anyone?) while no three of anything or no maxed FOC BONES others. Comp just can't encompass all of the armies as they are so different. You would literally have to have a comp list for every Codex to make it even remotely fair, but guess what, the codexes do that already. They have a built in comp system.

Meh. I still would prefer it to subjective scoring by my opponents. Maybe knock the troops down to 40%. I used to kick ass with Necrons in tournaments such as this in NH, then again that was 4E...

@Monster Rain
Ah yeah, in 4th Necrons were great! Could you imagine needing to bring 1,000 or even 800 pts of warriors now? You'd be done for.

@Vaktahi
The system sort of worked out that way because most of the IG armies had low comp scores. But basically you got paired with a comp score as close as possible to your in the first round. That is all the impact it had.

After that, it was just about who got how many points.

Hulk had the second lowest score (Missile Spam Wolves) and played the lowest (Bloodcrusher Spam Daemons). That was pretty funny!

@Polonius
That is a great point. A deep codex like IG, or even Marines has so many options where a lot of armies like Crons or Tau just don't. The comp system that is meant to boost them, ends up hurting them.

One comp system will not work for all the books because they are all so incredibly different.

Ive played in comp events. I played in an event where your opponent got to pick between two lists to play against. Each player brought 2 lists, and they picked which one of their opponents they wanted to play against. I brought nearly identical space wolf lists. The poor guys though who were new or just not as solid gamers didnt do this, so they had little choice, I on the other hand could really choose what to play against.

I have never seen comp do anything good. Same for whacky missions. I played in an event 2 weeks ago which featured 3 missions, one that required you to take objectives in your opponents deployment zone. The second was night fight the whole game. Thirds objectives were centered around killing stuff in hand to hand combat. This is the equivalent of comping the event by preventing shooty armies from winning.

Nothing good comes from this kind of gaming but angry gamers and lost customers.

Comp generally seems to be used by those unwilling to understand and exploit their local meta-game. Or is used to prevent outsiders from doing something "unexpected" and force them to play by the local rules for army building

Ive never seen it do anything except try to make the weaker players better.. When in reality it just makes the stronger players stronger by letting them further exploit the very ill conceived new rules since there are usually huge oversights

The eurozone seems to hate special characters for some reason but all that does is make some armies better than the other. I don't see how space marines are supposed to win in a competitive (key word) environment without Vulkan or Pedro. Then you have Orks who can get a S10 T6 character for less than 150 points. It accomplishes nothing other than make people feel better about their personal bias

This might sound "unfair" but no matter what you do and no matter what biased rule you implement.. a bad player is a bad player and will generally find ways to lose games

I voted no. I'm a recent convert to the no-comp camp.

What really turned me from composition has been the internet. When I started in 3rd Ed it took sometime to really disect and reveal the main tactics for every army. Now anybody is within a few clicks of solid strategies, builds, and lists that make armies powerful, but boring. In Imaginationland 40k land where everybody brings lists that were based (or plagiarised) from some internet site the guy who came up with an original, well-oiled list may win, because he brings the unexpected. Composition Scoring says the Judge(s) and/or Player(s) knows what is best and that combo XYZ should be docked or limited. Comp is an outdated method of limiting what someone may, or may not, bring. Let the Scenarios and rolls of the dice decides who wins.

The person whom I can really thank for an anti-comp attitude is probably one of the biggest proponents of it. I was listening to an episode of Heelanhammer and one of the ETC-Fanboys/creator of Judging criteria played a game of Fantasy. As he was building a list and/or playing he stated that he caught himself being limited in a way that hurt how he wanted to play his army. When asking a friend of his about the limitation the friend politely reminded him that he himself had created the restriction. To me this showed that most of the proponents of Comp probably have neutered themselves more than once, but because they've taken a stand on the place of Comp in tournaments they won't back down. It's a ham-fisted example, but if you heard the example you know what I mean.

I voted No, as every comp system I've seen has either been a subjective judgment (with all the problems that lack of objectivity implies) or an objective FOC limiting rule-set that rarely helps lists that really need help (one tournament I saw required that no 2 units be identical- this HOSES Necrons, where SM/IG could take a 5-pt piece of wargear and be 'legal' in spite of flouting the spirit of the rule).


Has anyone looked into/participated in/organized games where different codexes are afforded more or less points based on the strength of the army? For example, SM/IG get 1000 points, Necrons get 1100, DH get 1150, etc, etc...?

I can see where varying the points could become problematic, too (do SW get fewer points than C:SM?)... just something that popped up.

I have also voted no to comp. It is too easy to play favorites with comp and many times it hits a good player too hard.

kartofelkopf wrote:I voted No, as every comp system I've seen has either been a subjective judgment (with all the problems that lack of objectivity implies) or an objective FOC limiting rule-set that rarely helps lists that really need help (one tournament I saw required that no 2 units be identical- this HOSES Necrons, where SM/IG could take a 5-pt piece of wargear and be 'legal' in spite of flouting the spirit of the rule).

That just seems like TO fail, to me. There's nothing wrong with enforcing the spirit of a rule. If you're going to go to the trouble of having an arcane tournament structure you could at least keep people from bearding all over it.

Agreed- actually was a tournament posted here on Dakka (by a now-banned user). My group ended up not going because of the comp scoring.

Reecius wrote:If you come to a tournament with a soft list and a lack of tactical skill and lose a game that is by its very meaning a contest to determine a winner, you are not being competitive. You are being the opposite of competitive. If you paint your army well and are talented at and enjoy that aspect of the hobby, then great! We all love admiring a beautiful and creative miniature. It is one of the best parts of the hobby. But that should not have an impact on who wins a tournament, at least not IMO. It should absolutely and obviously impact who wins the best painted award, and kudos to them. That is an award that means more to that person in all likelihood, anyway.

A tournament should be a contest of skill on the table top. A painting competition should be a contest of painting and converting skill. The two things are totally different. They appeal to wildly different types of gamers. One of them really relies on artistic skill and practice, the other on tactical skill and practice. It is right brain vs. left. To mix them together is like having a boxing match combined with water colors. Toss in who's the nicest dude and that is what the traditional tournament consists of.

Have competitive tournaments with painting competitions separate. Let anyone bring what they want to so long as the list is legal. That takes all subjectivity out of the game. Put up guidelines for expected behavior with a clearly defined criteria for what types of things will constitute a penalty and ejection from the tournament.

Give an award to the best player and the best painter, hell, give them equal billing if it makes a difference. But the game is a game and a hobby. Those two things, while combining to create the hobby we love, don't mix that well in a tournament setting, IMO. Recognize both, but keep them separate.

and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Thanks - I'm aware that you can't win the Olympics, but I think that's one of the points on which we agree - painting, playing etc are different events, and the idea that your score for one can influence the other is absurd.

I think it's quite possible to be just as competitive in painting as it is in playing. If you enter Golden Demon, and spent the upcoming months feverishly perfecting the painting on one model, then you are competing against other painters, arguably harder and for a longer time than the players competing against each other for Best General.

Secondly, there's nothing wrong with subjective scoring. Boxing and watercolours is quite an extreme, but even in boxing, at anything other than the highest level, more matches are decided by judges rather than by a KO - what people in this hobby would call a 'soft score'. A better analogy might be Football vs Gymnastics. However, both are still Olympic sports, and scored in a completely valid way. The idea that a score is 'subjective' does not make it any less valid.

My argument is based on semantics, but I think so is yours. Having 'competitive tournaments with painting competitions separate' is what we have already - in any tournament with a score for Best General and a score for Best Painted. Problems arise when we impose the (as above) silly idea of a 'Tournament Winner'. The problem is, the arguments for the removal of everything other than 'playing' seem to smack of people just wanting higher billing.

It seems that, with your semantics, we would have to call most tournaments "40k Tournament (plus Painting Competition, Sportsmanship Competition and Theme Competition)" just so that the people who win 'playing' can stand above everyone else and say 'I'm the TOURNAMENT winner'.

If there are multiple events going on at the same time, it seems silly not to define the whole thing as 'the tournament'. There's nothing wrong with this - we don't take anything away from the Best General. He's still the best player there (as far as that means anything in a game like 40k). We should just drop the silly idea that we can in some way 'combine' all the scores to get an overall in a mutually agreeable way. Nobody will be happy with this. Have a Best General, Best Painted, Best Sportsman, Best Modelled, whatever. Allow people to compete in as many or as few events as they like, and award an equal prize for the winner of each, but the idea of a 'Best Overall' is where every argument on these forums starts.

Anyway, back On-Topic

As above, I don't think the playing award should be for anything other than PLAYING. For this reason comp seems out of place. If we want to determine the best player, we need to play the rules according to the book, with nothing other than missions from the book and units from the codex. Anything else is not playing the game as written. I believe this applies to custom missions too.

Now, there is a tendency for this to result in a lot of the same army though, and since I tend to play in small, friendly tournaments, we go to town with the crazy missions and odd armies. Fine. But if we want to be serious about trying to determine the winner we have to be as restrictive as above. (With the massive disclaimer that 'determining the best at 40k is silly')

No Comp tournaments are for poor players who can't win when there is Comp.

They tend to be TFG.

In my opinion, Comp merely changes the definition of what is a hard list.

Without breaking it down to an army by army, or even better, list by list system you are simply pissing in the wind with it. Sure, I won't see Gateway FTW or Double Hydra, but something else will prove de rigeur, rendering the whole effort moot.

Just let people take what they want, and whinge about it if they need to.

General Hobbs wrote:

No Comp tournaments are for poor players who can't win when there is Comp.

They tend to be TFG.

I lol'd.

General Hobbs wrote:

No Comp tournaments are for poor players who can't win when there is Comp.

They tend to be TFG.

Comp tournaments are for poor players who can't win unless their opponent is handicapped................

They tend to be TFG.

With that out of the way, I've run comp tounreys, I've participated in comp tourneys. Our club runs a comp tourney every year, and we run a Race for the Cure charity event that is comped by way of granting extra points for doing certain things when building your list. But we consider both of these to be outside the norm. As a general rule, I don't like comp tourneys. Why should YOUR opinion of my army affect my score? Oooo, IG Mech Vet spam is too powerful. Check the NOVA Open standings, see how many went undefeated (Hint: none). We have rules that already tell us how to build an army list. I don't need you or your opinion telling me what a legal list is for my army. I've got the codex and rulebook to do that.

Here's your comp.
Is it within the points limit for the tourney?
Is it legally built per the codex(es)?
Done.
If both are yes, it's good.

Mr Mystery wrote:In my opinion, Comp merely changes the definition of what is a hard list.

Without breaking it down to an army by army, or even better, list by list system you are simply pissing in the wind with it. Sure, I won't see Gateway FTW or Double Hydra, but something else will prove de rigeur, rendering the whole effort moot.

Just let people take what they want, and whinge about it if they need to.

Well, this actually may be the only acceptable situation. We agree that all comp does is changes what lists are considered hard, not 'solve' the problem of imbalance. This may, however, be an advantage all of it's own.

I went to a tournament last weekend. Of 20 players, 5 were marines, 6 were orks, 5 were guard and 3 chaos marine. I went as Daemons just so that there were more than three different armies involved. Of the 5 Guard armies, 3 or 4 were Mech. The others were blob. It was a fun tourney, but I go to a tourney to play new players and new armies, not the same three over and over again!

In a friendly tournament, maybe there could be some advantage in introducing a particularly restrictive/crazy comp or mission system, forcing people to play really different armies? I'm not suggesting it for the GW Grand Tournament or anything, but it might be fun....?

General Hobbs wrote:

No Comp tournaments are for poor players who can't win when there is Comp.

They tend to be TFG.

well the first sentence doesn't make sense... since if they are a poor player they couldn't win with or with out it....

and the second is trolling to be honest...

As far as comp goes. I think its pretty clear.... 80% of people who frequent tourny events appear to be against having comp at all...

Comp screws older codices - you might go 'huh?' Because Wolves and Angels are currently tearing things up uncomped, with IG right behind (and nids and vanilla marines sitting around with their thumbs up their butts waiting for a good build). But really, look at the Space Wolves or IG codex sometime. How much in there is actually bad? Not 'narrow' or 'I could do that with something else' but 'why would anyone with brain matter in their head run that?' In the space wolves, really only Skyclaws (even bloodclaws have a few uses). In the IG, sentinels, Ogryns (50 points for no power weapon anywhere in the squad is so fail) and the Deathstrike. Even Eagles are reasonably good.

Now go through a codex like the Tau. They have one usable Fast attack slot (piranahs) out of 5 units (I think 5, right?). Their best build involves Railheads and Broadsides, PERIOD.

I can take the following out of the HS slot in the IG.
Leman Russ Battle Tank
Leman Russ Executioner
Colossus Siege mortar
2x Hydra flak trak

None of those except maybe the Hydra are hyper competitive, but they all do things very goddamn well.

The Tau will be fielding this.
2x Hammerheads, with Railguns
Broadside Battle suit team, with rail rifles.

That's IT. MAYBE at high points you switch them around, and do 1x Hammerhead, 2x Broadsides.

And fast attack? Iit's piranahs. IG could bring Vendettas, gunships, spice things up with some rough riders (a tad silly, but also kinda worth it), or just grab good ol Bane Wolves or hellhounds or something.

So basically, I could grab an IG codex, and unless the rules are specifically designed to REQUIRE me to take crap like Armored Sentinels and Ogryns, you're going to be DEAD if you're playing Tau. Either you bring a good list, at which point I MURDER you on comp, or you bring a terrible list, at which point I just murder you.

Or the tourney designers can realize this and just design comp scores to piss on new codices, which is really fun for EVERYONE, amright?!?

(basically, GW needs to do some balancing in their codices. The problem people are trying to solve is that there's entire codices that are just terrible, and people have a thousand dollars sunk into armies that don't work. We don't need a two year turnaround time for them to fix this, but comp isn't the answer)

In 40k, not so much, though I am reserving final judgement until after I see some results from next weekend. The standard triangle of IG, SW, and BA is getting too prevalent to notice, however. I am firmly against point based comp systems and any system where judge based comp has any direct impact on the scoring, however. I think once a few more books get done in 40k and the FAQs get sorted out, there will not be any need for it.

Fantasy, is a whole other animal and still rife with abusable builds that suck the fun out of the game. Plus the fantasy crowd tends to be less "go for the juggular" than the 40k crowd. I think even in an ideal world it will take Fantasy about 3 years of cycling the books to reach a point where some form of comp is not needed. That is unless you want every tournament to be won by gunline or "power scroll + facerape spell X" lists. In some ways, 8th has actually made the problem more severe, through the introduction of tons of new items.

One thing I plan on doing, starting with NeonCon, however, is require players to give their comp assessment prior to the game being played, to eliminate the butthurt factor.

Is that only for Fantasy Phazael or are you going to re-institute comp for 40k? Just curious

And we'll see if it's just IG/SW/BA this weekend when I brings my Nids!!!!

Jervis Johnson wrote:

Finally, I'd recommend playing with the rules and army lists 'as written', and only start to use army composition restrictions (i.e. additional limits on what units may be used in the tournament) once you have run a few tournaments using the new rules. I think you'll find that army composition is a lot less of an issue because the new rules make the game more balanced, and makes the differences between armies far less pronounced. While talking about balance, it is important to note that the balance between different armies and different builds of army varies slightly from scenario to scenario. So, for example, an army that does well at Battleline may have a tougher time with Blood and Glory, and an army that is ideal for Battle for the Pass could find fighting for The Watchtower challenging, and so on. In addition, certain armies, or rather certain army builds, have moved up and down the scale more than others have, so that some popular builds are now rather less effective, while other rarely seen builds have become more effective.

However, it's important not to overstate the impact these things have, especially when compared to your skill and experience. As with every edition of Warhammer so far, and no matter what some pundits might say, how good a player you are is always more important than what army you use.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440002a&categoryId=500004§ion=&pIndex=2&aId=12400020a&start=3

@ArbitorIan

Your response to my comments was right on the money. I agree with everything you said.

@Rising Phoenix

I still see Vanilla Marines winning tournaments or placing well frequently. And not just with Vulkan or Pedro (although Vulkan lists seem to do the best). Khan lists perform well as do some true vanilla lists. I have seen Nids winning events as well, just not as frequently. I think a lot of that has to do with Nids being underrepresented as well.

@General Hobbs

You are officially this thread's troll. Thanks for coming out from under your bridge and blowing a fart in everyone's general direction!



I actually have heard of tournaments were you play the other guy's army. So long as you don't mind someone else touching your models, this can be a blast as each guy makes the crappiest army they can. Like screw your buddy.

I would love to play in a tournament like this as it would just be a good laugh and a change of pace.

In general though, book comp is good enough in 40K. My opinion on Fantasy is worthless right now as I have not played 8th ed yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Jervis Johnson

Here here! That almost makes up for the Dark Angels codex!

Reecius wrote:
Here here! That almost makes up for the Dark Angels codex!

Whoa there ! Let's not get carried away here !


.. I kid, I kid, several players, especially sexy DCMs for example, have done very well with the codex still.

Reecius wrote:@nkelsh
The thing is though, that the competitive gamers are the guys going to the tournaments. They are the ones who come out, shell out money and actually attend most of the events. The casual gamers are the guys who may go to the local RTT's and an occasional local GT and they get, as you put it, run over by the serious tournament gamers. But as the regular attendees are the guys who take tournaments seriously, why should tournaments not appeal to them? It only makes sense to do so as they are the ones who financially make tournaments possible.

I just had to point out that this is the exact reverse of reality. The Competitive gamers ore the ones who spend the money to fly places and attend a lot of events (that is why you see a lot of the same faces at many events) but for every one of them that comes to an event there are like 5-10 casual players (all of the guys that you don't recognize at a glance) who look at the event as a way to get in a bunch of games in a day and to meet other gamers. So really it is the casual gamers that make the event financially viable.

I am not for or against comp as in the last 15 years of organizing and running tournaments for various game systems I have used both systems.

@reds8n
I jest! Ozzmandias uses them well, and I have seen doublewing lists kick butt. It's just that in general, they are the worst MEQ's.

@vhwolf
Perhaps that is the case in your neck of the woods, but here in SoCal the guys gong to the RTT's and GT's are predominantly the same crew and predominantly share a very similar gaming philosophy.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong by any means, or that I know all, because I clearly don't. Just that in LA to SD, the majority of the guys attending the events, especially the bigger events, are competitive gamers.

Not always, sometimes at RTT's we see a lot of the casual guys just out for a laugh which is totally cool and which I encourage.

But typically, the majority of the field, at least here, are guys who play regularly in tournaments and competitive leagues.

Reecius wrote:

I actually have heard of tournaments were you play the other guy's army. So long as you don't mind someone else touching your models, this can be a blast as each guy makes the crappiest army they can. Like screw your buddy.

I would love to play in a tournament like this as it would just be a good laugh and a change of pace.

I've run one of those. A few years back all the members of our club (12 or so, IIRC) that were attending that year's Baltimore GT had a army-swap tourney. Basically, it was to help each other learn how to face toher armies, by using those other armies. You played three games, each game with someone else's army. One of the requirements was to include a 'game plan' along with the army list. My IG list did rather poorly in other player's hands, while I took it to Baltimore and took 2nd Best General with it.

Reecius wrote:@reds8n
I jest! Ozzmandias uses them well, and I have seen doublewing lists kick butt. It's just that in general, they are the worst MEQ's.

@vhwolf
Perhaps that is the case in your neck of the woods, but here in SoCal the guys gong to the RTT's and GT's are predominantly the same crew and predominantly share a very similar gaming philosophy.

I'm not trying to say you are wrong by any means, or that I know all, because I clearly don't. Just that in LA to SD, the majority of the guys attending the events, especially the bigger events, are competitive gamers.

Not always, sometimes at RTT's we see a lot of the casual guys just out for a laugh which is totally cool and which I encourage.

But typically, the majority of the field, at least here, are guys who play regularly in tournaments and competitive leagues.

I agree in the Socal Area you tend to see a lot of the same people because they are local but how many of them went to ECT or NOVA or Wargamescon?? I know it seems like the Socal crew might all be the competitive group but a lot of them might be great players however they might be more of a casual player as they tend to attend stuff that is close to them because it is a good way to kill a day playing games with friends.

Most locals tend to play in the leagues and competitions because it is convienient and they can get in a few games.

I agree with vhwolf. The majority of the players in attendance at most events are there just to get some games in and see cool armies.

I think Composition can be a useful tool when used to handicap armies for straight potency. It is very difficult to do, however. A council of veteran players who each play at least 3-4 armies to do the scoring is necessary so they know the strengths and weaknesses and good combos. This can enable a wider variety of armies to show up at events, increasing everyone's fun.

Yes, hardcore players can tweak and adjust their list to try to make "stealth cheese" armies, but stealth cheese armies usually are not steamrollers. Even if they still win consistently, they usually don't crush lesser lists/players AS badly, thus making the experience of the game less one-sided and more fun.

Overall, however, I find Comp to be much less necessary and important in 5th than it was in 3rd and 4th editions. I am much more comfortable with it being minimized (and occasionally eliminated) in events than I once was. Heck, in 5th I've even enjoyed 'Ard Boyz.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. At the tournaments I run/organize, we have comp. It's a score that we calculate based on the sheets that have questions like "Did you opponent's army have a unifying theme" and "Would you like to face a list like this again" and other craps.

See, what we do then is award prizes for different things.
- There's a prize for winning the tournament.
- There's a prize for having the best painted army.
- There's a prize for being the best sportsman.
- There's a prize for having the best comp.
- There's a prize we call the "Most likely to get beat up in the alley after the event" which usually goes to the person who was a...less than ideal opponent perhaps.

You see, 40K has multiple facets as a hobby: it is a competitive game with an artistic element and a social component all rolled into one game. By taking (and rewarding) excellence in these different facets you avoid stupid scenarios like giving a guy a low comp score to push up your rankings in a given match.

Want to bring that 'cheese list' you read about online and try and dominate the game part? Go ahead, don't be suprised if you don't win the comp score though, but see that's okay because that's not the part of 40K you were building that list to 'compete' in...paint 'em up real nice and maybe you'll get the painting prize too!

ADD'N: I think that the typical 'Ard Boyz list/scenario/whatevers are just about the worst way to build and plan your list. The format that it is usually played in is not really one that is designed with the books and rules in mind and it really throws off the spread.

Mannahnin wrote:
I think Composition can be a useful tool when used to handicap armies for straight potency. It is very difficult to do, however. A council of veteran players who each play at least 3-4 armies to do the scoring is necessary so they know the strengths and weaknesses and good combos. This can enable a wider variety of armies to show up at events, increasing everyone's fun.

The problem with this is the local players are going to know what these veteran players think is over the top. In fact I hardly ever see veteran players actually agree on what it too good. Because there really isn't any norm for what is great.

Meaning Comp, even like this is very subjective. And anyone traveling to a tournament or new players who don't really know any better are at a huge disadvantage to the local vets.


(not @ Mannahnin just in general) Besides if even Jervis can see that 5th ed doesn't need comp, why can't the rest of you?

I don't think it can be stressed enough that 5th Edition sort of "comps" itself. You have to bring enough troops to capture objectives or you'll have a hard time winning.

@vhwolf
You make a good point. Most of the local guys, while traveling around Southern Cali to play, don't fly to other locations.

We do get a lot of guys going to big tournaments though such as Adepticon and such, but that is also largely due to the fact that we have a big population and proportionally a larger representation of traveling gamers.

At NOVA we had at least Hulk, at Adepticon we had I think a solid 5 teams (20 guys) and I couldn't say as for Wargames con. But again, a lot of that is because there are just lots of gamers in our area.

@RXGhost
Your system actually seems decent. It lets each type of player do what they like without penalizing them for it.

I think AribtorIan said it best. It really comes down to our ego. It bums most of us out to think that someone is crowned "the best" when they might play the game or focus on an aspect of the hobby we don't much care for.

My idea to run separate events, one hobby and one competitive is pretty dumb on second thought. It's hard enough to draw a crowd for tournaments now. Splitting the field would only exacerbate that issue.

I think giving an award with equal importance to each type of winner is a good idea and encourages all types of players to come and incentivizes them to do what they like doing.

If you want to win more loot and more awards, it behooves you to play well, paint well, and be nice with a themed army.

That to me seems like a nice middle ground. Take away the "best overall" category and simply award to each category and encourage people to try and win as many of those as they can.

I like that.

I like comp scores. I didnt used to because i didnt see any problem with fielding a LIST that allowed me to win tournis despite bad luck and sometimes a lack of skill. One list i took on a regular basis worked great. It was hard to loose with. my freinds saw me play it a few times, told me it wasnt fun to play with and talked me into playing different lists. Just my humble opinion.

sennacherib wrote:I like comp scores. I didnt used to because i didnt see any problem with fielding a LIST that allowed me to win tournis despite bad luck and sometimes a lack of skill. One list i took on a regular basis worked great. It was hard to loose with. my freinds saw me play it a few times, told me it wasnt fun to play with and talked me into playing different lists. Just my humble opinion.

nice feel, felt, found sales pitch! But I'm not about to drink your coolaid

list with no skill? Bad luck not a problem? I'm calling bs on that...

It's fine you and your friends play with "nice" things but those ideas of what are nice have no place in a competitive setting.

Reecius wrote:@Rising Phoenix

I still see Vanilla Marines winning tournaments or placing well frequently. And not just with Vulkan or Pedro (although Vulkan lists seem to do the best). Khan lists perform well as do some true vanilla lists. I have seen Nids winning events as well, just not as frequently. I think a lot of that has to do with Nids being underrepresented as well.

Those armies are both 5th edition, and have multiple strong choices in all slots. It's really hard to point at one slot and say 'this should be X' (although Hive Guard are close to auto-includes, just because of how weak the rest of the army is to mech).

Do the Tau really have multiple strong units in every slot? The Orks? The Necrons? No. Comp will cost them in a way that it doesn't cost the stronger codices.

Tau have 1 strong HQ, 1 strong elites, 2 strong fast, and 2 strong heavies.

Necrons have 1 (maybe 2) strong HQs, 1 strong elites, 1 strong and 2 very decent fast, and 2-3 strong heavies.

Orks, on the other hand, have two rock solid HQs, 5 strong elites, 2 naturally strong troops (plus the option for more), 2 strong fast, and 3 strong heavies.

The difference isn't that the orks have a deeper bench (even though they do). It's that Tau and Necron troops choices are support units, not fighting units. Winning books have fighting troops. Everything else is gravy.

Nearly any comp system will hurt necrons and tau more than help them.

Just curious, but do you folks think the awarding of a "Best Overall" as the top prize is what causes the comp angst?

Is it the crossing over of aspects of the game, which often do not get along, the root of problems?
Is it really necessary to crown a Grand Supreme Little Darling at an event, or can folks be happy with a First, Second, and Third in various categories like battlepoints, painting, sportmanship, etc?

If it's in my codex, why should I be punished for bring them to a tournament? Who the hell are you to decide that I get -10 points because you're scared of lash lists.

feth you.

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

MVBrandt wrote:Comp penalizes newer players, and those who already have fixed lists and so cannot adjust them to fit around what really is just a new homewbrew game mechanic.

Power gamers with the greatest number of models who take time to "break" comp benefit the most, and ironically are often what comp is used to try and protect against.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/composition-or-how-to-have-not.html

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/perils-of-composition-broken-comp.html


Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

I agree, it also penalises you if you dont have wads of cash and time to paint up stuff. In addition I agree with not turning wargaming into magic the gathering. Seriously MtG a standard deck rotates once a year and will cost you £300+ to build. Wargaming is supposed to be beyond 'builds'. A list should help but a player's skill (tempered by luck!) should be the deciding factor, not who can spend £400 on the 'haxxor list from bols/the interwebs/wherever'
If warhammer was meant to be magic it would have tighter rules. Magic rules are tighter than a ducks bum in water.. 40k... well according to some a chaos Daemon prince isn't a daemon.. next of all you'll be telling me an Orc Warboss is not an Ork...

@rising phoenix

I agree that comp ends up hurting the weaker dexes more, who it is meant to help.

But were does all this Ork hate come from? I just don't get it. The Ork dex is savage. Some of the best armies I have ever played have been Orks. It is beyond my comprehension that some people think they are weak. Ah well, to each their own, I suppose.

I just played in a no comp RTT and everyone had a great time. No complaints about comp scores, everyone had fun. Comp just adds another thing to upset people to the mix.

@The RHino

I agree, the best overall title I think is the root of the problem. There should just be 3 or 4 prizes. Best general, painter, sportsman and maybe theme. Give them all equal billing and then everyone is happy, or at least less pissy!

Just a Quickie before i vote... whats Comp o.O?!

Reecius wrote:@rising phoenix

I agree that comp ends up hurting the weaker dexes more, who it is meant to help.

But were does all this Ork hate come from? I just don't get it. The Ork dex is savage. Some of the best armies I have ever played have been Orks. It is beyond my comprehension that some people think they are weak. Ah well, to each their own, I suppose.

They're not weak. They're just lacking in one giant way - survivable methods of killing armor at range. Comp really hurts them there, as whatever the 'solution' (Rokkits on buggies, Lootas, or Kanz (everything else is just kinda bad, yes, that means Deffkoptas) it ends up looking sort of spammy. Comp systems where not more than 1 unit of Lootas can be taken, and Kanz are frowned on... good luck ever killing anything that needs to die.

I'd say they're two or three things away from being very good (1: Ork boyz being stubborn in groups of 10 or more, not fearless, 2: units in transports are automatically put into base-to-base with a close combat unit that destroyed their transport (rather than getting a turn of fire/charge) 3: Zzap guns being strength 3d6 (with ammo runts for rerolls) or Mek boyz in burna squads getting a twin linked Melta gun rather than a Kustom Mega Blasta 4: transports that don't accidentally evaporate).

But really, not an ork thread. I'd happily discuss the codex, which I think is excellent with a few major drawbacks that render them just... okay. Start a thread and pm me

I agree, that this shouldn't degenerate into an Ork discussion. I will kindly disagree with you about their power level as three of the best players in the country all pretty much dominate with them, losing only about 1 in 20 or so games.

@Bloodhorror

If you read the thread, comp is explained in detail.

Essentially it is a system where a tournament or event organizer sets arbitrary limits on what you can bring. For example, a system where you can not bring more than two of the same unit, etc.

The intended purpose is to make the game more "fair" but in practice it rarely, if ever, works.

oh right
thanks!


And no comp shouldn't be allowed... i think thats a bit absurd ¬¬...

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

I almost 100% agree with the sentiments put forward Here.

There is room for all formats and all of them are valid and all competitive.

nkelsch wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

So vote Yes?

Or were you reading a "Yes or No" poll as allowing for answers other than "Yes" or "No"?

I think if we found a way to integrate all of these types of formats into one system, that would be the holy grail of tournaments. That way they would draw more people and make everyone happy.

I like the idea of equal billing for:

Best General
Best Painted
Best Theme
Best Sportsman

You can win more than one category but the prize support and prestige is equal for all four categories.

No comp. Judged painting. Simple rubric for sportsmanship.

Reecius wrote:I think if we found a way to integrate all of these types of formats into one system, that would be the holy grail of tournaments. That way they would draw more people and make everyone happy.

I like the idea of equal billing for:

Best General
Best Painted
Best Theme
Best Sportsman

You can win more than one category but the prize support and prestige is equal for all four categories.

No comp. Judged painting. Simple rubric for sportsmanship.

I kinda think sportsmanship shouldn't really enter into it. Maybe small scores, but I think sportsmanship should definitely be a mandatory bottom type of deal. If someone is being enough of a poor sport that it becomes a serious issue, a judge comes over and takes them aside and talks to them, and if it keeps up, they leave.

If they're not at that level, they're probably being fine.

My problem essentially is that poor sports can do more damage with that score than anything else. There's someone who published in a different location (indignantly) how DashofPepper once insisted that his Boarding Planks allowed him to make attacks on walkers and insisted on asking a judge rather than giving in when his opponent insisted it worked differently. Apparently this was bad sportsmanship and terrible rules lawyering and earned him a goose egg on sportsmanship (I'm not making this up).

I kinda can't see my way into having some sort of competition over this score when you can be goose egged for getting an opponent who has an insane set of house rules and wants them to be followed in tournaments.

At best, maybe make sportsmanship a part of some other score (I did like the Renaissance man approach). If prizes enter into it, people are going to start gaming the system.

You make a good point. I think sportsmanship is pretty much mandatory amongst adults, but a lot of people like to see it at events because it makes them feel better.

Perhaps most spirit or something? Or maybe just the other three categories.

Personally I found sportsmanship scores work best when they are not something you can actually mark someone down on, but that has to be earned instead.

What I mean is something like how many of the events in the PacNW are run, where you give your most sporting opponent a best sportsmanship token or ticket or whatever, and the players that get the most of these get best sportsmanship or whatever. It turns sportsmanship into a competition of how fun you can be, rather than a soft score you can game.

Vaktathi wrote:Personally I found sportsmanship scores work best when they are not something you can actually mark someone down on, but that has to be earned instead.

What I mean is something like how many of the events in the PacNW are run, where you give your most sporting opponent a best sportsmanship token or ticket or whatever, and the players that get the most of these get best sportsmanship or whatever. It turns sportsmanship into a competition of how fun you can be, rather than a soft score you can game.

Sadly Most people who are for comp also see people with stronger lists as poor sports... even when this is the exact opposite of the truth!

And as for the POLL purposes... My intention was to say straight up, no in between answers, which way do you prefer tournaments. Yes there are middle grounds but if you had to choose which way would you go.

Reecius wrote:You make a good point. I think sportsmanship is pretty much mandatory amongst adults, but a lot of people like to see it at events because it makes them feel better.

Perhaps most spirit or something? Or maybe just the other three categories.

One of the things I proposed for my local shop was a "Mister/Miss Popularity" award. This one comes from getting the most "Favorite Opponent" votes at the end of the event. You get one vote, and may only select an opponent you played against.

nkelsch wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

I almost 100% agree with the sentiments put forward Here.

There is room for all formats and all of them are valid and all competitive.

Didn't say there wasn't room for differing formats, etc. I've run and played in 'comp' tournaments. What I said was that THIS POLL has two choices, yes or no. Yes means comp, no means no comp. So a yes answer means yes, you believe comp should be used in tournaments. And there is no maybe or sometimes or anything in-between included as aprt of the poll. Just yes or no. If the person who wrote the poll meant otherwise, there needs to be a third option..................... And as he posted:

frgsinwntr wrote:And as for the POLL purposes... My intention was to say straight up, no in between answers, which way do you prefer tournaments. Yes there are middle grounds but if you had to choose which way would you go.

Sounds like the OPs intent was indeed a yes = mandatory comp.

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

I almost 100% agree with the sentiments put forward Here.

There is room for all formats and all of them are valid and all competitive.

Didn't say there wasn't room for differing formats, etc. I've run and played in 'comp' tournaments. What I said was that THIS POLL has two choices, yes or no. Yes means comp, no means no comp. So a yes answer means yes, you believe comp should be used in tournaments. And there is no maybe or sometimes or anything in-between included as aprt of the poll. Just yes or no. If the person who wrote the poll meant otherwise, there needs to be a third option..................... And as he posted:

frgsinwntr wrote:And as for the POLL purposes... My intention was to say straight up, no in between answers, which way do you prefer tournaments. Yes there are middle grounds but if you had to choose which way would you go.

Sounds like the OPs intent was indeed a yes = mandatory comp.

Then the OP's poll is based on a flawed premise.

So for people who are not for mandatory COMP but are not against comp in some competitions, where do we answer the poll? This is not a question that has only two valid options, by forcing people to choose either extreme, especially extremes they don't fit in to fully, it is attempting to distort the issue and the thread becomes this weeks troll against softscores.

Biased poll is biased.

And since this OP didn't feel the need to specify 'judged comp' which is what he seems to be talking about, all current formats have COMP via missions and scoring so if you are for any type of mission other than the core rulebook missions then you are FOR COMP via missions and scoring. So I would feel very confident in saying all tourneys should have COMP because currently they all do.

So write your own poll.............. I'll still answer that, no, I do not believe comp belongs in the current tournament scene.

nkelsch wrote:
Then the OP's poll is based on a flawed premise.

So for people who are not for mandatory COMP but are not against comp in some competitions, where do we answer the poll?

It's a pretty simple question, if you are for comp vote yes. In your case where you are not against comp in some competitions then vote yes.

nkelsch wrote:
And since this OP didn't feel the need to specify 'judged comp' which is what he seems to be talking about, all current formats have COMP via missions and scoring so if you are for any type of mission other than the core rulebook missions then you are FOR COMP via missions and scoring. So I would feel very confident in saying all tourneys should have COMP because currently they all do.

As it has been pointed out previously, Comp dictates what you can bring. You get docked points from a total sum of points based on what units you bring, even though your choices were valid choices in your codex.

Missions on the other hand can be approached by any means at your disposal and do not limit your list to what ever the judge thinks is not overpowered this week. It lets the player approach the mission the way they want to, not the way they have to through an arbitrary scoring system.

Until someone presents a good reason for comp, it has no place in a competitive environment.

Grokin wrote:

It's a pretty simple question, if you are for comp vote yes. In your case where you are not against comp in some competitions then vote yes.

It is a slanted question as it forces all people in the middle who feel COMP is ok sometimes to answer 'no' because of the implied interpretation that this poll means 'MANDATORY JUDGED COMP'. You can be against Mandatory Judged COMP but still Like Judged Comp.

Which is why biased poll is biased because it attempts to make the point "SEEEEEE? EVERYONE HATES THE COMPZ!" when that may not actually be the case.

As it has been pointed out previously, Comp dictates what you can bring. You get docked points from a total sum of points based on what units you bring, even though your choices were valid choices in your codex.

Missions on the other hand can be approached by any means at your disposal and do not limit your list to what ever the judge thinks is not overpowered this week. It lets the player approach the mission the way they want to, not the way they have to through an arbitrary scoring system.

Really? You seem to have a real handle on this whole 'comp' thing.

So you mean if a TO judges that mechanized and fast units are overpowered, overplayed and unfair, and he gives everyone who uses fast units negative COMP, then it is unfair..> Even though you are clearly allowed to bring them and play with them, you just lose comp points.

But yet, when you have a mission made by a TO that gives extra kill points for all units that can move over 6" in a single phase which basically punishes fast units making it hard to win, then that *NOT* an arbitrary system that doesn't change on a whim based on what the Mission Writer thinks is overpowered this week? How is giving an all speed army basically an instant loss *NOT* telling you what you can bring?

Hard boys mission 3 would like to have a word with you about the idea that there is no such thing as Mission comp. I cannot think of anything *MORE* arbitrary or focused at 'what is powerful this week' than mission 3 was. And many other events also do this by having special rules like extended nightfight or deployment zones or HQ special scoring explicitly to spoil the metalist of the week on the internet blogs. As soon as we hear one superlist is crushing at a tourney, almost if on cue the very next tourney releases missions that totally are designed to prevent and harm that specific army. Is it coincidence? maybe, it is still COMP.

My impression is people are fine with COMP when they have an opportunity to game the system. *KNOWING* that Mission 3 screws you allows you to tailor a force that is still WAAC but overcomes that mission. The only difference between JUDGED and MISSION is people demand to know the missions upfront so they can game the missions but judging they can't see upfront so they cry unholy about it.

If the missions were private and not released until the day of the event, I guarantee people would be crying about Mission based comp because they didn't have an opportunity to game them. It doesn't mean mission/scoring COMP doesn't exist and isn't alive and well it that people want to be able to game the comp for them to accept it.

Edit: I would think WAACers who want to emphasize win records would like 'judged comp' better. You can then play rulebook missions, have toilet comp and then go 4-0 win record and win best general. In this magical land of 'no judged comp' the TOs will just make biased missions designed to spoil gadget list and powerful metal lists so while you don't have negative comp, you can choke on that auto-loss mission for a 3-1 record and win nothing! Biased missions do much much more to hand metagamers a loss that knocks them out far more than judged comp does. GW even promoted this mission design by making the missions drastically different so you needed to bring a balanced army with aspects of all parts of your codex to not get spoiled by the missions. Which is why Hardboyz mission 3 shows that mission comp still exists and is designed to accomplish the exact same thing as Judged comp... Sending people who bring gadgetlists or 1-trick pony metalists home with no prizes.

By the way, as opposed to comp, if someone made a 'casual tourney' where they wanted to encourage different playstyles, and did something like give each army cool limits or weird starts to armies, I'd be all for that.

For instance, offer an interesting style of IG:

1) Prison battalion - The IG start out with 600 points of prison battallions as troops, and may only take one veterans squad as other troops choices. Artillery may not be taken, but tanks and other support may. (For purposes of this tournament, all standard guardsman may be fielded counts as prison battalion despite WYSIWYG)

While such a format would be clearly unbalanced and silly, and thus not competitive, it would be very cool and fun to build armies in. I think people might enjoy it.

Comp just rewards you for having a codex with lots of quality units and built in redundancies in slots. It's the lazy man's version of the above. Yay, Gun Dreads, Las sponson Predators, and Long fangs with missiles are all ranged HS that trashes light armor to medium armor. I can get good comp by bringing 1 of each! Alternatively, it's done by clever judges who will 'clearly' catch the above, and thus rewards you for 'pulling a fast one on the judges' (or punishes you for accidentally invoking a judge's ire).

The poll does not imply mandatory judged comp ... at all.

It simply implies comp.

Also, the mission/scoring = comp stuff is something you fire off a lot, but not something I think most people buy into. While some extreme examples exist, and while people will opine on their impact extensively, there are no facts to really support that the majority of simpler / better thought out tournament missions really have that much impact on what the best lists / etc are.

Composition judging / scoring / etc. is generally unpopular for a reason. While some like it, and as a result it should not be abolished from tournaments everywhere (people putting in the time to run a tournament should always have final say, and not be bullied by e-polls), trying to redefine comp as being "everywhere and everything lolz" is a little excessive / pointless. I don't know anyone is really buying what's being sold in that regard, so I don't know what the point of extensively repeating it is.

MVBrandt wrote:The poll does not imply mandatory judged comp ... at all.

I was just told I was wrong and it does mean this poll is about Mandatory COMP of the judged kind. Which is why I said the poll was biased if that is how they inteded it to be.

So anyone who believes comp has a place but maybe for not all events is forced to vote 'NO' by the OP's own statement.

Composition judging / scoring / etc. is generally unpopular for a reason. While some like it, and as a result it should not be abolished from tournaments everywhere (people putting in the time to run a tournament should always have final say, and not be bullied by e-polls), trying to redefine comp as being "everywhere and everything lolz" is a little excessive / pointless. I don't know anyone is really buying what's being sold in that regard, so I don't know what the point of extensively repeating it is.

You are blind if you do not think some TOs write missions explicitly to spoil armies. GW explicitly says they do this and has done it for years at their events. The result is the same be it a comp score that brings down your overall total or a Mission designed to sink specific types of armies. It is something to limit what types of armies people bring. How explicitly changing the system to promote specific army builds while punishing other is not COMP... I don't know how you can say that.

I'll say it again. Write your own poll instead of continuing to whine about how this one is 'unfair'. Yes, this poll forces you to choose sides. Yes or no. Deal with it.

NO COMP!

Coming out of WHFB, and the tournies in my area that it entails, I was perpetually sickened by "the comp" and how important it was, how it had to be handled a certain way, and how it had to be subjective. Even when I felt it was "done pretty well" (translated to: "mostly in line with my own biases"), I still would have preferred none.

Granted, WHFB 7th was completely unbalanced, but I would have preferred no comp.

One of the nice things I see in potentially coming back to playing 40k (now that I'm not too interested in 8th Ed WHFB), is that Comp seems to be more generally disdained, or not used, or seen as unnecessary. The varying missions (even from just the BRB) and the books themselves appear to be "balanced enough" where Comp isn't as merited.

I see that as a very big plus; I don't like going to a tournament where what I take gets rated poorly, but an army that is just as bad, but in a "different" or somehow "more accepted" way, gets a much higher score.

Don't play in the Rochester area then.

skyth wrote:Don't play in the Rochester area then.

Is it bad there?

It's a very comp heavy area..

Voodoo, come back to 40K!

Comp stinks. It makes the game less fun, IMO.

Can everyone who's in favor of composition go over to the thread on Tyranid comp and tell that guy how to construct a Tyranid army that will always score high composition points? I think that if there's any validity to having composition scores, the people in favor of it should be able to tell someone how to make a properly composed army. Oh, and because this is a game, the army has to be something that can function reasonably well on the table, since an army that is just plain bad isn't any fun to play. For painting, you can make a checklist of artistic qualities (details, multiple colors, shading, neatness, etc). For battle, you just win your fights. But for comp you... start off as a friend of the judges? That's the only way I can see to consistently get high comp scores. And while a well-painted army will do well anywhere, from what I've seen the exact same army can score anywhere from zero to max in comp.

It's easy to say that composition encourages some kind of 'good' or 'fun to play against' army, but it's a lot harder to actually show how. If it's not possible to tell someone how to make a functional, high-comp-score army, and how to make an army that will score high comp in a variety of tournaments, I think it's pretty clear that composition does nothing legitimate but lets judges give points based on their whim.

Reecius wrote:@ArbitorIan

Your response to my comments was right on the money. I agree with everything you said.

Wow. Thanks, Reecius. I've been yelling that on these forums when this sort of thread crops up, but it usually gets ignored as it's hidden somewhere in between the masses of flame posts...!

It's an impractical solution for a lot of smaller tournaments (as it centres around finding four equal prizes big enough that people still want to enter a competition to win) but I think it should be the idea the bigger tourneys go for.

TheRhino wrote:Just curious, but do you folks think the awarding of a "Best Overall" as the top prize is what causes the comp angst?

This is exactly right - just what we were discussing. It's the elusive title of 'Tournament Winner' that causes the divisions.

RisingPhoenix wrote:My problem essentially is that poor sports can do more damage with that score than anything else. There's someone who published in a different location (indignantly) how DashofPepper once insisted that his Boarding Planks allowed him to make attacks on walkers and insisted on asking a judge rather than giving in when his opponent insisted it worked differently. Apparently this was bad sportsmanship and terrible rules lawyering and earned him a goose egg on sportsmanship (I'm not making this up).

There's always a possibility that people might get dinged for sportsmanship, but I think the idea with Separate Scoring is that there's MUCH less incentive to do so, since your Battle Points aren't going to be affected, and there's no Overall score anyway...

TheRhino wrote:Just curious, but do you folks think the awarding of a "Best Overall" as the top prize is what causes the comp angst?

I think a lot of the comp angst is the result of the 'one right way to play' casual players that demonize people who play mid to hard lists. It's kind of stuck in the player psyche that if you get a low comp score, you are a bad person. Kind of the result of a lie being told enough times that people start to believe it's the truth.

ArbitorIan wrote:

RisingPhoenix wrote:My problem essentially is that poor sports can do more damage with that score than anything else. There's someone who published in a different location (indignantly) how DashofPepper once insisted that his Boarding Planks allowed him to make attacks on walkers and insisted on asking a judge rather than giving in when his opponent insisted it worked differently. Apparently this was bad sportsmanship and terrible rules lawyering and earned him a goose egg on sportsmanship (I'm not making this up).

There's always a possibility that people might get dinged for sportsmanship, but I think the idea with Separate Scoring is that there's MUCH less incentive to do so, since your Battle Points aren't going to be affected, and there's no Overall score anyway...

The problem is not that it effects Dash's tournament record. It's not that it would be reflected in his overall tournament score. It's that the procedure is inherently unfair. Goose egged, for... showing a guy the rule in his codex, then calling a judge when he still didn't believe it worked as written?

Remember, this was PROUDLY recounted by someone to show what a 'rules lawyer' Dash was, and how he tried to get 'every advantage possible by gaming the rules.' Not making this up at all, PM me for the link. It's one of the sickest things I've read in my life.

And that's frequently how the community rolls. People get angry if you call a judge. ANGRY! For calling a judge! I've NEVER seen anything like it in ANY other competitive setting. The ONLY time I ever got annoyed at someone calling a judge was when a spectator called a judge on me for using a shortcut me and my opponent had established without even saying anything in magic (long story short - there's a spell that allows you to reveal cards until a certain condition was met (treasure hunt), and another that caused you to duplicate all spells (so you did it twice). We were simply flipping until the condition happened two times. I was also in the middle of a long train of thought, and I think my opponent was angrier than me at this). I've NEVER been annoyed that my opponent called a judge, but I've seen people suggest that it's tantamount to just launching into a barrage of insults at your opponent, or maybe a psycho killing spree.

Really, sportsmanship needs to just be a soft thingy that doesn't matter for anything besides maybe a small plaque and kudos. Especially until certain members of this community sort themselves out.

No Comp!

Why? It does not do anything in favour of players, who want to support personal aspects of their lists. And it does not prevent list lamers to write lame lists.

Composition simply limits the possibilities of army concepts. If you do not want certain units or combinations, then it is fine. But you wont have a better balancing, because the lamers will surely find a way where your comp failed to balance properly.
At the moment we have a fairly balanced system. We should use that for freedom.

The ETC restricted SC, because some work especially against certain enemies and that would be highly imbalanced due to the pairing process. But if you noticed: in the single player mode SC were allowed.

I dont know about 40k, but fantasy really benefits from the comp system.

I used to be a hater of composition then i started playing in WAAC tournies and they are not as fun as comped tournies...

The biggest problem comes with characters more then actualy composition. Some characters are extremely cheap for what they do, or are still pretty expensive but incredibly powerful. Most tournies have these characters banned, or you take a nasty comp hit taking them.

All in all they are there to make the tourny more fun for players, and to encourage everyone to bring what they want to bring.

Comp is a horrible idea what good to you I could view as weak and what strong to me you could view as broken.

ETC on the other hand was amazing they give you a list of rules and restrictions and that made it allot of fun. People’s opinion on list they can go away.

ShivanAngel wrote:I dont know about 40k, but fantasy really benefits from the comp system.

I used to be a hater of composition then i started playing in WAAC tournies and they are not as fun as comped tournies...

The biggest problem comes with characters more then actualy composition. Some characters are extremely cheap for what they do, or are still pretty expensive but incredibly powerful. Most tournies have these characters banned, or you take a nasty comp hit taking them.

All in all they are there to make the tourny more fun for players, and to encourage everyone to bring what they want to bring.

The thing is, none of those really exist in 40k. Sure, Mephiston is a ton of bricks to anything he is hitting, but he's also playing in Land Raider categories for points. Logan Grimnar is absurd, but you can also get a full squad of Tac Marines, in a rhino, with heavy weapons, a sarge, a combi melta, and a power fist. And throw in a Land Speeder with multimelta and flamer. No one likes getting smacked in the face with Ghazgull, but Ghazzy also pays for that. Sure, with his waaugh he can solo a squad of terminators... but he costs more than that squad of terminators by a fair cry, and if he doesn't blow his extra special, 1 turn waaaugh, he gets roflstomped by them.

The closest is god-Archon with Captain Blade Man and escort, and they're pricy as hell, and despite the 2+ invul, the Archon tends to evaporate (something about the 2+ invul going away after the first unsaved wound...)

skyth wrote:I think a lot of the comp angst is the result of the 'one right way to play' casual players that demonize people who play mid to hard lists.

Well, the argument that seems to be developing is that, yes, you're right that half the problem IS people like this, but the other half is the 'one right way to play' competitive players that demonize any other scoring category as 'soft' and so less important.

Comp is a flawed system of dealing with both, but doesn't work. However, comp is based around the premise that battlepoints should be balanced with other things so that someone can 'win' overall.

RisingPhoenix wrote:Really, sportsmanship needs to just be a soft thingy that doesn't matter for anything besides maybe a small plaque and kudos. Especially until certain members of this community sort themselves out.

I agree that, in your example, it IS possible to be unfair in your marking. I don't see this as a reason to completely remove comp. I'm aware that there's a possibilty that someone might win a painting award for a commission painted piece without declaring it, but I don't think that's justification for calling a stop to all painting competitions.

I disagree with the idea that Sportsmanship is somehow 'soft' or 'less important' and thus only deserving of 'maybe a small plaque and kudos'. I think it should be included in tournaments - not so that people are nice to each other (adults should have this as a REQUIREMENT) but because it's the single biggest thing that makes my day of gaming enjoyable. If someone goes out of their way to make me have a really good game, and does this consistently and with infinite patience to all of their opponents, I want them to get an award. It's as important to my tournament experience as painted models, or tactically challenging games.

Sportsmanship does not need to be soft imo.

If you come to a tournament and are a dick to everyone you play, crush them, and talk gak about it, then you dont deserve to win.

ArbitorIan wrote:I agree that, in your example, it IS possible to be unfair in your marking. I don't see this as a reason to completely remove comp. I'm aware that there's a possibilty that someone might win a painting award for a commission painted piece without declaring it, but I don't think that's justification for calling a stop to all painting competitions.

But there's no chance that a guy with an army that scores perfect for painting in one tournament will score low in another. If you paint to a reasonable standard, you'll score on painting. While with comp, when making an army you have no idea at all what to do to get a good comp score, and a 'perfect comp' army in one place can score a zero as a 'WAAC army' at another. After all, not a single one of the 'comp is good' people has managed to hop over into the Tyranid thread to explain to the Tyranid player what he should do to stop scoring badly on comp other than 'play another army' or 'only go to tournaments where he's friends with the judges so they score him high'. I think that speaks volumes about the legitimacy of comp scoring.

I disagree with the idea that Sportsmanship is somehow 'soft' or 'less important' and thus only deserving of 'maybe a small plaque and kudos'. I think it should be included in tournaments - not so that people are nice to each other (adults should have this as a REQUIREMENT) but because it's the single biggest thing that makes my day of gaming enjoyable. If someone goes out of their way to make me have a really good game, and does this consistently and with infinite patience to all of their opponents, I want them to get an award. It's as important to my tournament experience as painted models, or tactically challenging games.

While you are willing to say that you think 'people are nice to each other' is something that 'adults should have this as a REQUIREMENT', your endorsement of comp and sportsmanship scores runs contrary to that. Making someone lose points in the competition because you don't like the army they chose to pay for, or because they beat you is not nice at all in my book, but that's what player-driven comp scores are all about. Making someone lose points for the horrible crime of wanting to play the actual game and not your personal set of house rules, or for wanting the game to be completed within the time limit is also not nice, but that's what you want to use sportsmanship scores for.

Lots of people dislike sportsmanship scoring not because they dislike sportsmanship, but because sportsmanship scores as typically implemented allow poor sportsmen to hurt players unjustly, enable chipmunking, and typically punish players who actually practice good sportsmanship instead of bend-over-and-take-it-manship. A player who allows someone to ignore the rules of the game is practicing very bad sportsmanship, and by artificially inflating the win-loss record of the guy he allows to play by made-up rules he's directly damaging the integrity of the competition as much as a boxer who throws a match, but since he's not practicing 'infinite patience' with your rulebreaking and 'going out of his way to make you have a really good game' by letting you win, he loses points under your system.

Most tournies drop your lowest sports score, that way if someone is being a douche and giving everyone low sports it wont hurt you.

So if oyu get a 5, 4, 5, 5, 1, obviously someone is just being a dick.

But if you get a 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, you are probably a dick.

sportsmanship != composition. Sportsmanship is how well you behave and your actions towards the other player. Im known to bring pretty hard lists to tournies, but what is funny is i usually get really high sports scores, even tho my comp scores might suffer.

skyth wrote:

I think a lot of the comp angst is the result of the 'one right way to play' casual players that demonize people who play mid to hard lists. It's kind of stuck in the player psyche that if you get a low comp score, you are a bad person. Kind of the result of a lie being told enough times that people start to believe it's the truth.

I totally agree with this. It's funny because the most aggressively negative and exclusionary gamers are the "casual" gamers who play for "fun." Competitive gamers appreciate creative and intelligent builds, where as casual gamers, in general, feel that even a slight deviation from the (ever changing) fluff is heresy. It is silly.

Play what you want to play! No one should be forced to play what others want them to play, that is absolutely ass backwards.