what's the best way to go about creating an Composition scored list for 40k tournaments?

I have tried have something in each FOC slot, with the majority in troops
I have tried not taking any special characters
I even tried writing up a background for the army as fluff

doesn't seem to make much difference.

As general rule I try to stay away from the whole min/max lists (IG AV12 spam, Nob Bikers/Lootas, MechDar, TW calv/razorspam, etc), this also doesn't seem to change much.

Just wondering what others expectations, experiences are in this regard.

Gah. Misunderstood the question.

Dash is correct. Find out what the criteria is and go from there.

There's only ONE single right answer to this:

Talk to the organizer. If the tournament that you're going to unfortunately has composition scoring, talk to the organizer about what criteria they're looking for. If it isn't spelled out in a rules packet, ask questions. There is no standard, no right answer, no correct list - only the whim of the organizer and the judges.

The last time I took a fluffy list to a comp scored tournament, missing all the normal face beating stuff, I got 7.5/20 points. I decided that I would never again pay attention to composition scoring, and take what I wanted anyway. I'd actually encourage you to do the same, but that's my opinion. Short of that, see item #1.

There is already comp in the game, it is the force org chart. That and only troops can score. I think comp is just a way for tournaments to penalize good players who take solid choices. As far as not min maxing I can appreciate that, but remember those who do are rarely able to make an all comers list for every mission.

Good points all, and I am under the same belief that the FOC already provides for the balance of the lists (even if others may not agree).

This is what I got from the TO last year:

Composition
Player’s composition will be scored by players and game judges. Players will score one another for each game round based on their opponent’s army list. Each round is worth between 0 and 5 points. The game judges will also provide a score for each army’s composition based on the following:
Was the list turned in on time via email? (4 pts)
Does the list have any math errors? (1 pts)
Is the list easy to follow with all the entries clearly marked? (1 pts)
Are characters and units given creative names to help give the army character? (2 pts)
Is there a clear theme/ or a story written to help explain why certain units are picked? (2 pts)
Judges will also score the army list provided based the same composition scoring sheets used by the opponents for each round (5 pts)

Player Comp sheet:
COMPOSITION (Maximum of 5 pts) SCORE _________

Please select only one of the following that appropriately represents your opponent’s army.

 This army is a great representation of a competitive and well balanced army. I found nothing wrong with this great army. (5 pts)
 This is a nice army, but there are a few things this army with a few “tricks”, but very fair to play against. (4 pts)
 This army has some balance and looks good on paper, but there are some strong combinations used to win. (3 pts)
 This army is ok, but there are some obvious combinations or min/max being done here. (2 pts)
 This army is riddled with some very nasty combinations. (1 pts)
 This army’s sole purpose is to win Best General, nothing more. (0 pts)


given the above, suggestions?

That seems fair.

So what army are you using? Like I said, different armies have different fluff.

going for eldar (I run eldar, nids, and IG genestealer cult)

current makeup is brief fluff, everything painted well (I like to think so at least ), minimal duplication (only the heavy is duplicated once)

2 HQ
1 Elite
4 Troop
1 FA
2 HS


don't want to post list as this really isn't the place for it.


I am a fairly seasoned player and can usually make what I have work for me, so I am not too concerned about min-max (although of course some draws are better than others). My typical battle record is 2-1-0 (W/T/L), and I like to think I am not a Dink when played against, but for many of the tourneys around here (at least the big ones) is a combination of points for the overall winner; battle-points/composition/painting/and of course the dreaded sportsmanship.

Just based on that I'd say it should be worth a 3 or a 4 at least.

Basically, it seems to me that these days comp often means "don't spam the best units".

That said, Dash is right, check with the TO and see if you can get lists that scored max at the previous one and use that as a guide (not necessarily a template).

Another thing is that it seems like there is player judged comp. If that is the case take a few seconds to describe the theme to your opponent. It shows you put thought into it beyond what are the best things. Heck, if you are a good enough flim flam artist you can make someone give you a perfect comp score with a nasty list.

Despite being a champion of Comp for many years, I am not a big fan of player-judged comp, especially when it takes the form of a 5pt sliding scale. IME there is a wide disparity of opinion between players on what constitutes what, and a 2 on one table could easily be judged as a 4 on the next.

The closest I ever saw to a decent player-judged Comp score was in Marty ("Mr. Clean")'s WH events at Adepticon. A three-level scale only, to make it easy. The first part completed before the game after exchanging army lists, and the second afterward.

Part 1
1pt: This army is abusive. It is designed purely to win IN A WAY WHICH manipulates loopholes and/or abuses Allies, and disregards player enjoyment, such as a pure Gunline or Magic-fest.
3pts: Tournament hard. A normal army, designed to win.
5pts: Fluffy bunny. An army which has been substantially handicapped by its owner's desire to fit some particular fluff or enjoy/paint certain units, at the cost of making it noncompetitive in my opinion.

Then after the match, Part 2:
-1: This army was stronger than it looked.
0: My judgement before the match was correct.
+1: This army was softer than it looked.

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

I'm still not a huge fan, but I think this one winds up with LESS subjective variance.

Overall, I think that 5th edition in general requires Comp substantially less than 3rd or 4th did. The need Troops to Score and the KPs over VPs mission parameters make it much less in need of it. Modern codices tend to be better balanced, and virtually everyone is on the internet and has access to basic principles of good list design. I am much more comfortable in and happier with non-Comped events nowadays than at any other time in the twelve years I've been playing.

About the only Comp system I really get behind nowadays is handicapping based purely on list power; leave theme or fluff entirely out of it. Some fluffy armies are brutal, and some are pushovers.

If you have a council (3-10, maybe, depending on the size & scale of your event and the guys available) of veteran players who each play several armies, and the TO anonymizes the army lists (to remove any favoritism for or against certain players) before the comp council guys rate/judge them, you can get a decent assessment and give certain armies which are coming from cruddier codices and/or just have units chosen more for flavor than power get a bit of a bonus in the overall standings. This can encourage more variety in the lists used and help keep the top of the standings and the lists there from always showing the same things.

See now that is a pretty good spread for comp and better than the 5pt slide (per player mind you), allows for less 'subjective' assessments of the army list in question

That 3-level comp score is great!

I'm not a fan of comp, but a thought to those who complain about it - Comp scoring is no different from writing your own missions.

As soon as you write a non-book mission, or change the parameters of the mission, you fiddle with the balance of the game, the balance of the codexes, and give some units preference over others. These are all the same reasons that comp is considered 'bad' - because it fiddles with the balance of the FOC and the codexes.

The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

At the end of the day did the SW or the Tau have more tournament points, overall?

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

Mannahnin wrote:At the end of the day did the SW or the Tau have more tournament points, overall?

Not sure I just remeber seeing that he scored very low in comp with a very friendly list in terms of real killing power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

This is how comp should be done if it has to be done at all.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

Razorspam would blow right through this with 20/20 points. Another example that comp doesn't work.

Just to make that clear:

What is comp all about?

If I see such things:

Part 1
1pt: This army is abusive. It is designed purely to win IN A WAY WHICH manipulates loopholes and/or abuses Allies, and disregards player enjoyment, such as a pure Gunline or Magic-fest.
3pts: Tournament hard. A normal army, designed to win.
5pts: Fluffy bunny. An army which has been substantially handicapped by its owner's desire to fit some particular fluff or enjoy/paint certain units, at the cost of making it noncompetitive in my opinion.

Then after the match, Part 2:
-1: This army was stronger than it looked.
0: My judgement before the match was correct.
+1: This army was softer than it looked.

I have to say this can be used very well to "revenge" a defeat against just a good player.
And it implies that good comp necessarily means less strong army.

If I would vote comp. I never would take non-competitiveness on purpose into consideration.

In my opinion there are 2 ways of doing it:

1. If you just want to clear your tournament from certain specific builds, then you should just ban them before it even started. Make a list what you dont want to see and control the players lists before.

But remember, you will not balance the game doing this. You will just see different armies, not different games. If that is your intention: Go ahead.

2. If you want a vote for fluffy or innovative armies, then PLEASE dont vote for non-competitiveness. Otherwise you honour the worst army instead of the most stylish.
Encourage the lads to bring some nicely designed army lists, write fluff stories about it, customize their units and to bring themed armies.
And if a khorne daemon army consists of 2 bloodthirsters, 2x8 crushers and 4x8 letters it is extremely fluffy. (8 units in the army, 8 in the respective FOC-slot and mono khorne)
So it should receive full marks. (If it is painted well, if there is made some effort in it like squad names and such)
Yes, it is not the most competitive army, but certainly is not the worst.

But dont expect to improve the balance at all.

ive never understood how limiting peoples options is supposed to bring more diversity

ive never understood how limiting peoples options is supposed to bring more diversity

OK let me explain:

You have the choice between A, B and C.

C is a common known competetive build (least diversity)
B is a themed build (more diversity)
A is a casual build (most diversity)

In a tournament honouring generalship, why would you not choose C?

or, to speak in numbers (estimated):

C = 1-2
B = 3-5
A = 6-10

So, most players will choose C. Therefore we have mostly number 1 and number 2. There is a possibility to take the other options, but you wont because it soundly decreases your chance to win your games. Especially against C builds.
So we have much hidden diversity but in fact diversity will most likely not exist.
So if we ban 1-2 completely (I spoke of lists, not units), we have 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 at our disposal (with a quite equal chance of running one of them). This is much more diversity than 1 and 2.

Or simpler: If we ban C, we allow A and B to exist. 2:1

But the problem is, that this is not completely the case.
If you kill C you must introduce D, which is:

D is a common known competitive build if C is not available.
And we have the same problem.
But we have D instead of C, so thats diversity too.

Illumini wrote:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

Razorspam would blow right through this with 20/20 points. Another example that comp doesn't work.

100% SS/TH + CML Terminator Deathwing also blows right through this. The more elaborate the comp system, the more it fails in its goal.

I would prefer to say:

The more comp is used, the more it just fails.

That comp was just an example of how it should be done if you are going to do it, but now I kinda want to do the impossable and make it work.

6) For every troops unit (excluding the first) that has fewer than 10 models, -1.

That would hopefuly limit Deathwing/Razorspam a bit.

List 1:

2x Imperial Guard Platoons - only 2 troops taken (never mind that they're 400 pts and numerous squads apiece) -1 comp

400 point IG platoon - 2 comp for 20% list total

Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Team - Troops Unit, 3 models, -1 comp for being under 10

Leman Russ Vanquisher with heavy bolter sponsons (largely regarded as one of the worst variants), -1 comp

LR Battle tank, heavy bolter sponsons, -1 comp

LR Demolisher, -1 comp

Max heavies, -2 comp

Lord Commissar and Colonel Iron Hand Straken, max HQ, -2 comp

So far we're at -11 in what's looking to be a diverse and decidedly less-than-optimized list.


List 2

6x Imperial Guard Veterans Squads in Chimera, max melta/plasma, 2x Manticores, 2x min. squad Stormtroopers with melta.

Max comp.

The more you add to this system to "fix 40k army comp" the more loopholes you're going to create for one of the newer, arguably "better" codices to find ways to get a relatively high comp score while an older codex with fewer options simply gets shafted.

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.
6) For every troops unit (excluding the first) that has fewer than 10 models, -1.

This is rubbish. Sourclams pointed out why.
With general "penalties" you cannot create a good balance. It is just plain impossible.
GWs balance is not that bad.
Again, if you dont want certain units, ban them outright, if you dont want certain builds, ban them outright. But dont try to create a better balance.
If you want fluffy lists, then honour it and dont complain about competitiveness...

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:That comp was just an example of how it should be done if you are going to do it, but now I kinda want to do the impossable and make it work.

6) For every troops unit (excluding the first) that has fewer than 10 models, -1.

That would hopefuly limit Deathwing/Razorspam a bit.

And just produce more fail as sourclams has pointed out.

Ah well, was worth a shot.

Cheers!

I am a big fan of keeping it simple and also of not having other players rate your list, because someone is bound to be a dink.


Something like this:


Provide List and Breakdown of Unit Roles/Fluff/or Strategy for TO

1pt No clear purpose for many units; lack of theme, fluff or strategy
3pt Clear Purpose, every unit has a role to fullfill, synergy within the army comprehensible, or fluff clearly represented
5pt This list is sick, tight strategy AND unique

Modified as follows:

for each Win +1
for each Loss -1

I personally think that comp is a way to give the illusion that it will be a fair playing field. I think that Sourclams did a great job illustrating that point. Also, any good player will just build around the rules and still bring a rock list. Lastly, IMHO, comp was necessary back in previous editions, but in the new rules I think that the FOC does a fine job.

I agree that scoring comp is hard and i dont feel that players should have any hand in comp scoring their opponent. Something like the above seems like the best way to do it.
I like comp despiste what everyone says. It encourages players who have a motley collection of random units that they like to play to still come and enter the tourni. And it makes WAAC gamers play a little differently. Otherwise it is really discouraging when joe average gamer dude has showed up and PAID to put away all their models by turn three, three games in a row after having faced what amounts to the same army on three tables. He probably wont come to the FLG to enter into a tourni again. Less diversity of players. Less interest in the community.
Many of you will say that average joe gamer dude should either not play in tournis or he should go out and get a better list. Buy some more competative units. Well... its a game and a kind of expensive one. Lots of players, especially younger ones cant afford to go out and buy a heap of Razorspam or whatever the newest and latest netspam list has to offer. I wont play at one FLGS because you only see one attitude of player in tournis there. WAAC. THey show up with unpainted armies that have stuff they borrowed just for the tourni to make the most hellish list imaginable. ANd guess what. They play a lot of spam. Not very diverse. THe FLGS tournis are suffering because of it. Now half as many people show up as before because it has gotten old.

Personally I think comp should be a simple yes/no you either get max points or no points.

Does the army conform to the force org chart?

Anything else you are bringing in your own biases of how the game is supposed to be played which automatically means that you are going to be telling someone that their way of playing is the wrong one.

Somnicide wrote:Personally I think comp should be a simple yes/no you either get max points or no points.

Does the army conform to the force org chart?

Anything else you are bringing in your own biases of how the game is supposed to be played which automatically means that you are going to be telling someone that their way of playing is the wrong one.

LOL I love this comp

FOC = yes? get 10 pts
FOC= no? get 0 and go home!


I also echo the sentiments in regards to diversity, sometimes playing the same thing (or against the same thing), is just boring and lacks imagination.

I think a way to curb it is to force those lists to play each other for their first round, helps eliminate the spam in later rounds. You would be less likely to play against the same list a second time in a round of bouts.

Comp scores should be eliminated from tournaments. It's a tournament and you're there to win. Unfortunately this gives rise to Rock-Paper-Scissorshammer but that was going to happen anyway, let's be real.

You can eliminate most of the real problem units by limiting people to one codex only. Therefore, no more of this cross-codex "synergy" involving a Psyker Battle Squad and a Callidus Assassin, or an Inquisitor lending deep-strike protection AND a table-wide hood to any imperial force.

Instead, run the tourney like ToS where people are competing mostly against others with like codices. Obviously Crons aren't expected to perform as well as Mech Vets. This levels the playing field a bit.

Agreed and with allies gone now from the new Grey Night Dex, allies are going to be less of an issue going forward.

Diversity is more common than you'd think. Another good way to diversify and accomplish that meaningful goal of comp is to go with something like NOVA's bracketed approach (I talk about NOVA a lot b/c I run it, sorry ... best to talk about what you know!).

Functionally, this approach breaks down the tournament into a series of sub-brackets on its second day - each one based upon your competitive performance on the first day. All subsequent 2nd day rounds are relegated to bracket, so winning doesn't accelerate you back into the frying pan, but accelerates you only within your first-day-record-paired field. The de facto accomplishment here is that you compete for Best General within your field of peers in a list+skill sense, and you'll generally see the more hardcore or "rote" lists in brackets that are isolated from the softer or more experimental lists. It certainly also avoids the very negative approach of applying one's own experiences or homebrew attitudes to what they THINK the game should be played like by everyone else, but doesn't prevent more creative list-builders from fairly competing for prizes and rewards amongst their natural peers.

This also accomplishes a FAR better result than Throne of Skulls, in that it prevents "gaming" the system by bringing a beat-stick from an underplayed dex, yatta yatta .... remember there are just as many fluffier or creative list players running Space Wolves (who've been in some cases running them for a decade) as there are running Necrons, and it's not especially pleasant or fun to bring your fluffy Space Wolves to a Throne of Skulls event and get crushed even WORSE due to your comparison to the "hardcore" Space Wolf players. Rather inconsiderate, in fact, to presume that the only fluffy/casual lists are run via out-dated codices.



More info:

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/12/creative-and-incidental-comp-at-nova.html

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/01/nova-open-is-better-for-casual-gamers.html

Somnicide wrote:Personally I think comp should be a simple yes/no you either get max points or no points.

Does the army conform to the force org chart?

Anything else you are bringing in your own biases of how the game is supposed to be played which automatically means that you are going to be telling someone that their way of playing is the wrong one.

I completely agree Sir.

frgsinwntr wrote:ive never understood how limiting peoples options is supposed to bring more diversity

Because you've misunderstood the core concept. A functional Comp system (bear in mind I said functional, not perfect; every one I've ever seen has been flawed) ADDS options, by handicapping. In a non-Comped tournament, there is never a reason for an Eldar list to include Storm Troopers. Or an IG list to bring Rough Riders. Or a SW list to bring SkyClaws. But in a Comped event, a player who chooses non-optimal units/combinations is rewarded with bonus points to compensate for his weaker army. This increases the variety of army lists brought to the event.

It also creates an interesting metagame for the really competitive guys, in which skilled tournament players strive to build strong/nasty armies which utilize lesser-seen units in combinations which can compete on even ground or at only a minor disadvantage against optimal builds. Thus allowing them to start off with an advantage in tournament points over the guys who just build the best-known top list/use the generally-acknowledged best units from a given codex.

This theoretically creates several positive effects:

A) All players see and get to play against a greater variety of armies/units at competitive events.
B) Skilled players have a secondary route to attempt to maximize their scores at tournaments.
C) Skilled players are encouraged to handicap themselves with less-optimal builds, thus giving lesser players a better shot at beating them.
D) Skilled players develop new combinations and strategies using lesser-seen units, which may shed new light on their previously-overlooked qualities within a competitive venue. This expands knowledge of armies and units and the general quality of play.

All this was the expected and standard tournament environment I came up in originally in the late 90s to mid 2000s, at Rogue Trader Tournaments and Grand Tournaments. There are still a fair number of us vets kicking around who still prefer to try to innovate and use less-seen stuff in our armies because this is the philosophy we learned early. Look at Shaun Kemp's 3rd place CSM list or Jay Woodcock's 7th place Tyranid list from The Conflict GT in January, for a couple of great examples. Blackmoor and Greg Sparks (and I believe much of the Toledo crew) are other well-known proponents of unusual lists, as they came up in the same system. Dave Fay's Nurgle Marines on the West coast are another good example. Lots of GT winners and top players have a fondness for doing something different, in part because of the influence Comp had in the tournament scene when they were coming up.

Comp is very tough to do well, though. Sourclams rightly pointed out the manifold flaws and pitfalls you run into when you try to write an objective checklist system. Different codices work very differently, and it's probably impossible to do one-size-fits-all.

The best, most functional system I've seen is the Comp Council system I described earlier. But it's a lot of work, and requires some good players of multiple armies to be available to the TO and willing to put in a little bit of work.

Personally I think an easier approach than comp would be to simply reduce the point values on those sad units that are rarely/never taken today. A unit that is utter garbage in today's meta suddenly begins to look much better if you simply drop their point cost by some amount.

Take IG Stormtroopers, for example. You never, ever see a squad of 10 in serious play. Ever. They're relevated to minimal suicide drop melta, always, and their special character, that Bastonne guy, may as well not exist for all the impact he has on IG gameplay.

They are not a terrible unit, fundamentally. A 4+ save is good, BS4 is good, hellguns are good. But at 16 ppm they're garbage. You drop that to 10 ppm and let them carry a 3rd special, and suddenly they're not garbage anymore. They're not an auto-include because they don't score and you can still get vets for 20 pts cheaper for no appreciable difference from inside a chimera, but you would actually see them on the tabletop.

Same with Ogryn. At 40 points, Ogryn are worthless. They add nothing to your shooting capabilities (indeed it's a net minus because you're losing potential shots from whatever you would have bought with the 200-400 points), and they are almost guaranteed to bog down an assault unit in combat in an army that wants to lose assaults on its opponent's turn in order to shoot on their own. Knock that down to 25 per model and you'd see them on the tabletop. Certainly not auto-include, but you don't get looked at like you're crosseyed stupid for having them. A squad of 10 still runs 250 points and is impossible to transport, and will lose combat versus Tcav and numerous other assault units, but it has enough utility that it can serve a role.

Etc, Etc. You get the idea. Many units are okay, fundamentally, but are ruined by their point costs. Re-tool that, in an appropriate manner, and you fix not only comp, but the game in general.

sourclams wrote:Personally I think an easier approach than comp would be to simply reduce the point values on those sad units that are rarely/never taken today. A unit that is utter garbage in today's meta suddenly begins to look much better if you simply drop their point cost by some amount.

That is the 'correct' way to handle it but that would practically require the whole codex system to change to a Living Rulebook model with rebalances almost every codex release.

They do it in RTS games, it would make perfect sense for codex units to be rebalanced after people play with them thousands of games and things can be really seen.

Of course tourney organizers can't really do this... This would need to be a game design thing done by GW and they honestly have said they don't care about true balance and competitive play. They are happy with what they have and it is balanced enough to be fun. (which they are right) It just isn't balanced enough to be competitive, but since that was never their goal they don't care.

Now if there was an independent rules council that rebalanced point values for competitive play that events could subscribe to, that *COULD* work, but would be a TON of effort and people would complain about it not being GW's rules and all sorts of other things.

IIRC, Mauleed ran an event a few years back with either this or a similar concept. I think the ways his worked, actually, if you took multiples of the same unit, the additional copies cost MORE points. So coming at it from the opposite direction. Partway through making an optimized army, the "best" units got priced up to where you stopped taking them and grabbed something else.

See, I disagree with that approach for two reasons:

1. It turns taking good units into a bad thing, as opposed to taking bad units a good thing. I would rather take somebody's crappy army and miraculously make it competitive than take somebody's competitive army and miraculously make it crappy. Bring everything UP, don't push it all down.

2. It still bones older codices or codices with fewer options. The SW codex has numerous competitive units in all slots. An AC/Las pred, TML speeder, LF squad, and Tcav squad are not necessarily a bad list. Nor a Manticore, Executioner, and Hydra squadron with platoon and vets. 1x Termicide, Dreadnought, Chosen, Land Raider, Predator, Defiler? I think that's borderline terrible. Retributors, Seraphim, Penitent Engine, Exorcist? That is terrible.

Yeah, I think your idea is better (although I have a pretty darn good Chaos list which includes 1 terminator unit, 1 chosen, 1 dread, 1 squad oblits, 1 squad havocs, etc. ).

Unfortunately I think it's also an even tougher sell to most gamers than a Comp score is, and it requires a lot more work for the gamers, thus making compliance a big challenge.

The problem with a comp score is that it encourages lopsided matchups, plus makes matchups even more important to winning the tournament than normal.

Not to mention the post-tourney complaining when people get unexpectedly hammered by thier comp score.

I can't see any evidence to support your first two theses. Would you please elaborate?

Folks complaining about their Comp score is a constant. Just like folks complaining about their Paint score. Or their dice. Or any of a thousand other things they always complain about. There's a reason veteran wargamers are called Grognards:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard

When you have a comp score, it encourages some softer armies. However, when a soft army is matched up with a hard army, the conclusion is typically forgone and it's not as much fun for either person. Ideally a comp system would try to encourage uniform power level in armies rather than wildly divergent army power levels.

As for the second, say you have a 3 game tourney, and a 0-20 comp score. In this example, one guy has a 5 comp score, the other a 15. Both have the same record (w/l). However, the guy with a 5 comp score played against all 2 comp armies, whereas the 15 comp guy played all against 20 comp armies. Even though the 5 comp guy had harder battles, the 15 comp guy scores ahead.

With the wildly divergent army power levels, this increases the effect matchups have on who wins. In the example I provided, it's not likely that the 15 comp guy would have had the same record as the 5 comp guy had the 15 guy played the same armies. He got lucky with the matchups and thus scored better in the tourney.

As for the complaining, there is a difference between just complaining and justified complaining. It's all too easy for an outsider to be surprised by a huge hit to thier comp scores because they don't know the local way of scoring. I've experienced it and seen it happen to other people.

skyth wrote:When you have a comp score, it encourages some softer armies. However, when a soft army is matched up with a hard army, the conclusion is typically forgone and it's not as much fun for either person. Ideally a comp system would try to encourage uniform power level in armies rather than wildly divergent army power levels.

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though. In most cases folks are still building armies they intend to win games with. The only guys who make really fluffy bunny lists are either total newbs, or guys who genuinely don't care about winning (like Allan McNabb at several of the Crossroads and Colonial events, just bringing out his old-school metal armies for the fun of it). Neither of which kind of player is ever really in contention.

skyth wrote:As for the second, say you have a 3 game tourney, and a 0-20 comp score. In this example, one guy has a 5 comp score, the other a 15. Both have the same record (w/l). However, the guy with a 5 comp score played against all 2 comp armies, whereas the 15 comp guy played all against 20 comp armies. Even though the 5 comp guy had harder battles, the 15 comp guy scores ahead.

With the wildly divergent army power levels, this increases the effect matchups have on who wins. In the example I provided, it's not likely that the 15 comp guy would have had the same record as the 5 comp guy had the 15 guy played the same armies. He got lucky with the matchups and thus scored better in the tourney.

I don't think it materially increases the matchup factor, though. As above, a total newbie or a guy who just doesn't care (like Allan, above) is always going to be a soft draw, no matter what army he brings. Varying terrain from table to table, or matchup of army/scenario is always going to make pairings a significant factor. I got matched up against Tau in game 3 at Conflict last month, and while I would probably have rolled that army in an Objective game, I had to fight like hell and have him make a mistake to get a strong win like I did in Spearhead Annihilation, which was what we played. Matchups always matter and are always a big deal.

skyth wrote:As for the complaining, there is a difference between just complaining and justified complaining. It's all too easy for an outsider to be surprised by a huge hit to thier comp scores because they don't know the local way of scoring. I've experienced it and seen it happen to other people.

Sure. And I have no doubt that you've genuinely been hard-done-by, by incompetent, unfair TOs. But IME from the Comp Council events we had in the NE Indy GT WH scene, no one ever got blindsided by a "huge hit". All the grumbling and complaining was over a point or two on a 20-pt scale. And almost EVERY grumble someone made was that they thought they deserved 1 or 2 more points. Not that they got a 3 when they were expecting a 12. When everyone thinks they were graded 1-2pts low, then it seems manifestly clear that they were all graded on the same scale, and fairly.

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.
I like it done as a separate score, so people have some extra encouragement besides winning games.

This also takes comp. out of the annoying relation with competitiveness.
If an army is strong and fluffy at the same time, it is as good concerning comp. score as an army, that is only fluffy.

And deciding which army is fluffy is always subjective and should be accepted like that.
General comp score parameters will just ruin most of the styles. Because many armies contradict each other concerning character.

Many troop choices means Imp-fists losing termies, Biel tan Eldar lose many options...
No identical choices: How about Necrons? How about biker armies (DA Ravenwing)? How about IG tank company?

There will always be armies that can be built with passion and nice ideas behind it, that will be scored less than armies built for competition with no sense of style.

Not that they got a 3 when they were expecting a 12.

Of course that happens. But it does not happen, if the TO publishes his score parameters before the tournament, so the players have a clue what his reasons will be.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.

We're not so far off, then. I still support Comp scores, but since 5th edition I am more willing to participate in events without them. In 4th (and especially 3rd) non-Comped events were often total crap, and dominated by absurd lists. Remember some of the Ulthwe Seer council armies you always saw on the top tables at the GWUK GT? Up to and including a list with two five man squads of Guardians with no upgrades, with the rest of the army being comprised of a single enormous Seer Council?

-Nazdreg wrote:I like it done as a separate score, so people have some extra encouragement besides winning games.

I don't generally see a need for it as a separate score. Though "Fluffiest army" could indeed be a legit prize.

-Nazdreg wrote:

Not that they got a 3 when they were expecting a 12.

Of course that happens. But it does not happen, if the TO publishes his score parameters before the tournament, so the players have a clue what his reasons will be.

I was referring to a specific set of tournaments in the past, a specific system for scoring Comp, a specific set of judges who did it, and the complaints they got. In that actual, real-world example, no one got blindsided by a 3. In practice it worked out pretty well, which is one of the reasons I think that system (as I posted earlier in the thread) was the best I've yet seen.

Mannahnin wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.

We're not so far off, then. I still support Comp scores, but since 5th edition I am more willing to participate in events without them. In 4th (and especially 3rd) non-Comped events were often total crap, and dominated by absurd lists. Remember some of the Ulthwe Seer council armies you always saw on the top tables at the GWUK GT? Up to and including a list with two five man squads of Guardians with no upgrades, with the rest of the army being comprised of a single enormous Seer Council?
.

I honestly wonder if people who are so anti-comp ever played a game before 5th edition. Legal lists in 3rd and 4th editions were so widely unbalanced they broke the game wide open. Warhammer 40k was UNPLAYABLE in a competitive setting due to massive imbalance. People who would say 'Codex legal = Fair' were laughed out of stores into the street. There was no end to absurd and broken combos that made the game simply not fun... which is why COMP had to exist.

But if anyone needs a refresher... I will be glad to pull out my 60 model 3rd edition ork HQ unit that gets to take 30 wounds against squig wargear before you even get to harm an ork due to majority rules. All with 5+ KFF saves and Doks patching them up. With the mobups, that unit basically becomes an unstoppable fearless crushing machine. Also the return of unassaultable units and the funhouse mirror formation that made it impossible to target and shoot models standing in plain sight. Without Comp, games at competitive events became unplayable. Games literally could not be finished due to imbalance and brokenness.

5th edition did a lot, but I am not going to pretend we have reached the holyland of balance and fairness and codex design.

I cannot speak to 3rd - I took that edition off. That said, the notes about 4th? Not sure I fully buy it, from my and my group's experiences. We all played fairly powerful lists, I guess, but ... nothing broken or whackadoodle; late game falcon contesting wasn't all that great, nidzilla wasn't all that great, necron treble lith wasn't all that great; all were very good, but they have parallels today.

Note - I don't think the game was better on the balance front; there were surely more dexes that struggled or lacked any real depth, but ... man, just ... laughing people out of the store and such? I must be fortunate never to have lived in that kind of 40k world either at the LGS or gaming group level ... just lots of dudes affably playing hard lists, many of them the same ones you saw bs'ed about around the intarweb as being "Broken," but certainly not all.

I don't mean to interject too hard - fair's fair, opinions are opinions, yattayatta - just, seems kinda OTT in the far-reaching / wide-spread environment.

Like I said, though - I can't attest to 3rd edition; I took that one off, and the first half ish of 4th Ed I think.

imweasel wrote:I would prefer to say:

The more comp is used, the more it just fails.

Word.

Comp sucks.

nkelsch wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.

We're not so far off, then. I still support Comp scores, but since 5th edition I am more willing to participate in events without them. In 4th (and especially 3rd) non-Comped events were often total crap, and dominated by absurd lists. Remember some of the Ulthwe Seer council armies you always saw on the top tables at the GWUK GT? Up to and including a list with two five man squads of Guardians with no upgrades, with the rest of the army being comprised of a single enormous Seer Council?
.

I honestly wonder if people who are so anti-comp ever played a game before 5th edition. Legal lists in 3rd and 4th editions were so widely unbalanced they broke the game wide open. Warhammer 40k was UNPLAYABLE in a competitive setting due to massive imbalance. People who would say 'Codex legal = Fair' were laughed out of stores into the street. There was no end to absurd and broken combos that made the game simply not fun... which is why COMP had to exist.

But if anyone needs a refresher... I will be glad to pull out my 60 model 3rd edition ork HQ unit that gets to take 30 wounds against squig wargear before you even get to harm an ork due to majority rules. All with 5+ KFF saves and Doks patching them up. With the mobups, that unit basically becomes an unstoppable fearless crushing machine. Also the return of unassaultable units and the funhouse mirror formation that made it impossible to target and shoot models standing in plain sight. Without Comp, games at competitive events became unplayable. Games literally could not be finished due to imbalance and brokenness.

5th edition did a lot, but I am not going to pretend we have reached the holyland of balance and fairness and codex design.

3rd edition to present.

MVBrandt wrote:Like I said, though - I can't attest to 3rd edition; I took that one off, and the first half ish of 4th Ed I think.

3rd was so broken, they tried to release 4th edition assault rules half-way through development of 4th edition and then ruined a whole tourney season forcing the hybrid 3rd/4th rules on GW events as a way of playtesting things. I blame it for killing GWs GTs (even though it was mostly the economy) the attempt to fix the rules with the hybrid assault rules, the game legal chapter approved VDR garbage and many of the other untested chapter approved reorg lists that led to totally unfair subcodexes (imagine if all forgeworld rules were tourney legal), it was simply a nightmare. If you missed that period of time, consider yourself lucky. That was roughly 1998 to 2005ish. Things got bad around 2003.

frgsinwntr wrote:3rd edition to present.

You think 3rd edition to present was balanced and 'codex legal = fair'?

I disagree, that simply isn't reasonable.

I'm willing to say I wasn't good enough at the game then to make the call of what was broken or not. Maybe If I was a top player at the time I could tell you the answer to that.

I have to say 5th ed for the most part is balanced. 4th ed was also balanced for the most part.... But what do I know. I've only won a GT and was ranked top SM player on the rankings HQ for almost a year... Not the best credentials... But certainly not lacking for any.

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm willing to say I wasn't good enough at the game then to make the call of what was broken or not. Maybe If I was a top player at the time I could tell you the answer to that.

I have to say 5th ed for the most part is balanced. 4th ed was also balanced for the most part.... But what do I know. I've only won a GT and was ranked top SM player on the rankings HQ for almost a year... Not the best credentials... But certainly not lacking for any.

I never questioned your ability to play 5th edition... but being good at 5th edition I don't think rewrites history. Many "Chapter Approved" rules and lists were not balanced, fair or competitive... they were fun but making them tourney legal was a mistake. Just like how making Forgeworld now 'tourney legal' would be a mistake. There was a reason specific CA articles were banned and COMP rules that resemble modern rules like forcing troops and trying to shrink HQs were put in place. The reason 5th is so much better is because they took a lesson from the comp rules that were implemented and integrated them into the core rulebook and codex designs. That is the whole point.

Right now 5th edition rulebook core missions and scoring rules are not 'liked' by lots of people so tourneys replace them with custom rules... and in 6th edition these changes may be core rules. So the min 40% troops and max 25% HQ limits of 3rd edition are now alive an well in 5th by making HQs single cheaper ICs instead of 900pt mega-units and requiring troops via scoring objectives with them. 3rd edition COMP *IS* 5th edition core rulebook which is why 5th edition is as good as it is.

A very simple answer to those who are complaining about composition scores in a tournament.

No one told you to sign up and play the game.

Comp or not, it is your decision, your choice to make if you "want" to go and play in a tournament that has that built in component in it.

And if you do not like the way the rules are in that particular tournament, then don't play.

Go to a tournament that has no comp component in it if that is your thing.

You must have missed the point above where there was some talk about people showing up with hard lists to comp tournies and just smash everyone they play.

The only way to have a totally objective comp system is to simply wait until the tournament is done, and mark down anyone who won too many games. Clearly they had some sort of advantage over the other players, and they need to be penalized for it.

My dream: to actually have enough models to have the options to make a list that is able to break any comp system wide open. I have not yet seen one I could not do this to, but unfortunately only have so much at my disposal at any given time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further to this, it seems like the argument that in a sport like basketball, it would be better if one team was known to be really slow and weak, but were still let into the Olympics anyway with a starting score of 50-0. Do they really deserve to be given a bonus just so that they can stand a chance, despite not having spent time training like everyone else?

Fearspect wrote:Further to this, it seems like the argument that in a sport like basketball, it would be better if one team was known to be really slow and weak, but were still let into the Olympics anyway with a starting score of 50-0. Do they really deserve to be given a bonus just so that they can stand a chance, despite not having spent time training like everyone else?

This is why Comp issues are ultimately GW's fault. GW doesn't playtest enough, release rules updates enough (8 years between codices, no problem, amirite?), and doesn't strive for internal and external balance between its armies.

The player base responds, rationally, by running the most attractive unit and army combinations, resulting in the New York Yankees of the current 40k lineup (Space Wolves being the obvious one) showing up everywhere.

Fearspect wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further to this, it seems like the argument that in a sport like basketball, it would be better if one team was known to be really slow and weak, but were still let into the Olympics anyway with a starting score of 50-0.

You really can't compare that to 40k.

Being an Olympic basketball player takes drive and years of intense physical training in most cases, not simply buying a win-button army.

There aren't win-button armies in 5e. The same veterans who are defending comp know this fairly well. While not a reason to avoid comp in and of itself, "win button armies" don't exist, especially in non-comp systems.

To fearspect's point, a win-button army becomes more purchaseable in comp systems where the game's fairly strong CODEX balance is broken by screwing with core list options in any given codex that help it be balanced.

The problem is, almost every codex can bring at least one list to a non-comp tournament and compete with the big boyz in every way using it. As long as that is the case, comp'ing the system is problematic if you're trying to achieve balance or fairness.

If you just want to encourage variety, I guess it makes some sense, but you need to either do a natural bracketing comp system, or a hell of a qualified comp council (and even that is "wrong," b/c you CAN end up with gasbags who think they are god's gift to wisdom in 40k).


I think the problem here is that you don't take slow handicapped basketball players to the NCAA tournament out of some charitable notion. You don't bring NBA pros into casual adult leagues, either. A tournament is a tournament; feeling a need to comp it to let people who shouldn't be in it participate is a little backwards.

That said, it's also a little backwards to hate on a comp tournament just b/c it is one - just don't go. They are rapidly waning in popularity anyway, as GW stumbles into a fairly good semblance of balance and most dexes are competing at the higher levels regardless.

I tend to think it becomes a non-issue, live and let live as it were. The ONLY thing that really gets to me is the "I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS YOU JUST DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER" mentality, or similarly, the "YOU JUST MUST PLAY WITH CRAPPY PLAYERS EVERYTHING IS FINE COMP IS FOR RETARDS" mentality.


I'll again reiterate what the NOVA is doing this year - using the first of two x 4-round days to seed everyone according to skill and list level, and then splitting into 16 "mini" tournaments on the 2nd day in terms of players only competing with their seeded levels, and every bracket guaranteeing one of its subsequent participants will go 4-0 and get some sort of a prize. Let the combination of player skill and list establish where their list belongs FOR THEM. Not every tournament has the time or attendees to do this, but, it's not exactly awful, and avoids a lot of unnecessary criticism.

The term "win-button" may have been hyperbole, but I think you understand the point I was making.

Personally, if just make my lists based on the event that I'm going to based on their comp or lack thereof. It seems to be working out okay.

Dashofpepper wrote:There's only ONE single right answer to this:

Talk to the organizer. If the tournament that you're going to unfortunately has composition scoring, talk to the organizer about what criteria they're looking for. If it isn't spelled out in a rules packet, ask questions. There is no standard, no right answer, no correct list - only the whim of the organizer and the judges.

The last time I took a fluffy list to a comp scored tournament, missing all the normal face beating stuff, I got 7.5/20 points. I decided that I would never again pay attention to composition scoring, and take what I wanted anyway. I'd actually encourage you to do the same, but that's my opinion. Short of that, see item #1.

I agree with your first point more than your second.

I, personally, don't have a problem playing in a tournament that has comp scoring. However, if that tournament doesn't have a well thought out system for the comp scoring that is made available to the attendees far enough in advance for them to adjust their list, I won't attend that tournament.

I'm not going to risk Dash's second point. If I put together what I think is a "fluffy" list based upon no guidelines from the TO, and my opponents/TO don't agree, I'm stuck with a list I will have more trouble winning with and I get docked for comp. That's a no-win situation.

However, if I know how the comp will be scored ahead of time, I can adjust my list building to account for the comp scoring and playtest that list to adjust my play style. Some might call that "gamesmanship" or "working the system," but I don't really care. I like to think that being able to win with multiple different armies from a given codex makes me a better player than someone who only ever plays with his/her "perfected" and "highly tuned" list.

Saldiven wrote:I like to think that being able to win with multiple different armies from a given codex makes me a better player than someone who only ever plays with his/her "perfected" and "highly tuned" list.

You can like to think that all you want, but it is wrong. You winning a game with odd selections in the codex that are arbitrarily mandated against another list that is made in the same fashion means nothing because there is no telling how much/little they were actually affected compared to yourself.

With a highly tuned list, it is just that for a reason. I test my list through a gauntlet of solid lists to ensure it is in fact good, and through this I master the abilities of my personal selection of units that most match my personal take on competitiveness. When it comes short, I either have to make a list or a tactics change to account for that situation. This testing cycle makes me better, and you certainly cannot say that just showing up with a cobled together battleforce and winning against another is making you a better player. Me and my list have changed as I realized that there is some part of my game lacking.

I really think that the, "GW doesn't playtest" argument should really be taken out of this discussion. I have found no evidence to support this whatsoever, and there is no army out there that is at a great advantage if you are actual playing a win/loss tournament. Want to know why IG and SW tend to do well in tournaments? Battle points. A TO got greedy and wanted as many people as possible to play with as little rounds as possible invested out of his time. The only way to separate the dozens of players with 3-0 records is to assign battlepoints to each round. Players who can do mass fire are given a large advantage in this environment because they actually have the opportunity to win big (vice an army like Mech Eldar, which can do great in a denial/contesting style of play but will never table an opponent).

Has anyone actually stopped to think that it is not Warhammer 40k that is unbalanced, but it is in fact the most common tournament format that is causing these issues?

Fearspect wrote:I really think that the, "GW doesn't playtest" argument should really be taken out of this discussion. I have found no evidence to support this whatsoever, and there is no army out there that is at a great advantage if you are actual playing a win/loss tournament.

External balance in 40k is overall okay, internal codex imbalance is not. There are, quite clearly, units in every codex, both new and old, that are "garbage" or are not taken in competitive/serious gameplay.

Want to know why IG and SW tend to do well in tournaments? Battle points. A TO got greedy and wanted as many people as possible to play with as little rounds as possible invested out of his time. The only way to separate the dozens of players with 3-0 records is to assign battlepoints to each round. Players who can do mass fire are given a large advantage in this environment because they actually have the opportunity to win big (vice an army like Mech Eldar, which can do great in a denial/contesting style of play but will never table an opponent).

Killing your opponent has intrinsic value. Although 2/3 missions will probably incorporate objectives, 1/3 is almost sure to be oriented towards kill points or obliterating your opponent. An army good at the latter can make the former unnecessary, but the same isn't necessarily true when reversed. Variable game length and an abundance of psychic protection shuts down Eldar late-turn denial gameplay just as hard as battle points.

sourclams wrote:External balance in 40k is overall okay, internal codex imbalance is not. There are, quite clearly, units in every codex, both new and old, that are "garbage" or are not taken in competitive/serious gameplay.

Okay, so don't bring them. I really don't get what the issue is. I certainly do not feel better having an opponent setting up rough riders on his table instead of something more relevant and synergistic to his list. Maybe you have lots of fun goofing around with that unit with your friends, or you painted them super-great, but why is your hobby spilling over into a competitive game. How is someone who happens to really like Vendettas and Chimeras for their combination of looks and power wrong?

Killing your opponent has intrinsic value. Although 2/3 missions will probably incorporate objectives, 1/3 is almost sure to be oriented towards kill points or obliterating your opponent. An army good at the latter can make the former unnecessary, but the same isn't necessarily true when reversed. Variable game length and an abundance of psychic protection shuts down Eldar late-turn denial gameplay just as hard as battle points.

Okay, so you are backpedelling on your first sentence in this post already. Being able to deny killpoints is as equally effective as being able to make killpoints. The issue with this tournament format is that someone can make three minor wins in a row (possible with any army) and would not even make the top ten, and thus not get reported on from a tournament.

Not bringing the crap units is resorting to the "cookie cutter" win build; it's one of the bullet points in the comp proponents' argument.

And I fail to see how I'm backpedaling. Eldar kill point 'denial' is predicated on psychic defense adding to vehicle resilience and objective disruption. 1/3 of games don't have objectives, and the abundance of psychic defense means that fortune fails on the flat-out wave serpent fairly often. Add variable game length to that, and you have to be willing to ping pong your serpents around for 3 turns while getting missile spammed.

Thus 'denial' is not a truly valid tournament tactic in 2/3 of missions, and is pointless in the final 1/3. The eldar list in question would be hard pressed to get even the 3 minor wins you reference.

There is no cookie cutter win build for any army.

That is true in the sense that no single army has an IWIN button that a player just mashes their face into and beats 90% of opponents.

It is not true in the sense that there are options, in many codices, that you simply see taken over and over and replicate in many lists, especially the 'netdeck' lists.

Long Fangs
IG Vets
Deathwing TH/SS Terms with CML
Las/Plas Razorbacks

In the past, individualized Nob Bikers, the horribly cookie cutter Dual Lash/PM Rhinos/Oblits/Termicide.

Comp proponents seek to avoid the generic spamming of the same units over and over.

How many is 'many lists' that these fall in? I noticed that you forgot to add, "...in my personal opinion." at the end of that in an attempt to disguise your own casual observation as a fact, by the way.

On to your little list:
-Long Fangs: One unit in Heavy Support is not a great example of a cookie cutter build. On top of that, I see varying sizes and weapon loadouts in top finishing lists.
-IG Vets: I have never run more than one unit of vets in the past and been quite successful. If you want 3x Meltagun on a BS4 troop choice, then you take vets. If you instead want more of a gunline, for example, platoons are far more effective. Clearly you have not played a vast array of lists and it has clouded your judgement.
-Deathwing: This is an old codex that has to be used one way to overcome the overpricing of units in relation to the new edition. We know this army (along with Tau, Necrons, etc. that can only function one way) needs a rewrite/update. Non-deathwing Dark Angels are just much better played using the new Space Marines Codex.
-Las/Plas Razorbacks: All 4-6 of them? What about the rest of the army? What about Blood Angels which are far more effective with twin-linked razorbacks as opposed to a mix?

The only one you have listed that is actually 'cookie cutter' is the Dual Lash/PM Rhinos/Oblits/Termicide which is a dinosaur that won't place you in the top half against a mech game. Nob Bikers are another example of something that got everyone excited for about a month before everyone learned how to deal with them. Maybe they just stuck around your local tournament scene a little longer than most?

Look, I'm not going to derail the whole thread with you in a pissing match over what constitutes cookie cutter and what doesn't.

What's the cookie cutter loadout for a SW list heavy support slot?

It's not triple dakka preds.

What's the cookie cutter loadout for Mech Guard troops?

It's not platoon blobs, although cheap screens for mechvets aren't uncommon.

Etc. Etc.

Homogeneity is rampant in many 'ard builds. This is 'my opinion', after reading what various forum community constituents have posted for their 'ard builds on dakka and other relevant sites.

Fearspect wrote:A TO got greedy and wanted as many people as possible to play with as little rounds as possible invested out of his time. The only way to separate the dozens of players with 3-0 records is to assign battlepoints to each round. Has anyone actually stopped to think that it is not Warhammer 40k that is unbalanced, but it is in fact the most common tournament format that is causing these issues?

The 'Battle Points are why 40k is unbalanced' is a Red Herring. Players still want to win all their games, battle points or other format. They aren't going to take worse lists because a tournament doesn't use battle points. Sure, they don't need to club a seal as hard in round one, but no way in hell will they take less than what they consider their best build in case they run into someone tough in round 5.

And please, debate tourney format all you want, but don't throw garbage at TO's.

Greedy? When Tournaments are a lot of work and it's rare that one doesn't lose money? And profits get thrown right back into the budget for the next tournament?

And how much time does it take a TO to run 4 rounds vs 3? Negligible. The work is in the preparation and cleanup, not an extra two hours of watching people roll dice, complain about their dice, and move toy soldiers around a board.

MVBrandt wrote:There aren't win-button armies in 5e. The same veterans who are defending comp know this fairly well. While not a reason to avoid comp in and of itself, "win button armies" don't exist, especially in non-comp systems.

Agreed. 5th ed and its codices is substantially more balanced than prior editions, which is why I actually play in Ard Boyz and other non-comped events since the release of 5th. Prior to 5th, events with no soft scores were almost always total crap.

MVBrandt wrote:To fearspect's point, a win-button army becomes more purchaseable in comp systems where the game's fairly strong CODEX balance is broken by screwing with core list options in any given codex that help it be balanced.

You really want to buy into something Fearspect posted? He's been trolling the heck out of this thread and the Sportsmanship one.

I don't think this argument of yours makes much sense. As you know, as as competitive-afficionado Sourclams already pointed out, there are still significant issues with internal codex balance; some units which are notably inferior to others in every codex. IG Vets vs. Storm Troopers, for most purposes, as an example. Comp is a way of handicapping/giving a material incentive for players to go exploring outside the "top 5" or whatever best units in any given codex and bringing some more variety to the competitive scene.

MVBrandt wrote:If you just want to encourage variety, I guess it makes some sense, but you need to either do a natural bracketing comp system, or a hell of a qualified comp council (and even that is "wrong," b/c you CAN end up with gasbags who think they are god's gift to wisdom in 40k).

A good council who knows what they're talking about is key. It worked pretty darn well for the year or so it was going in the NE Independent WH GT circuit. The only reason it's not still going right now is that 8th was such a major change that the Comp Council didn't feel they could fairly score, and voluntarily recused themselves. But 8th ed is broken enough that new restrictions are starting to come in; witness last month's Onslaught GT adopting ETC restrictions.

MVBrandt wrote:I think the problem here is that you don't take slow handicapped basketball players to the NCAA tournament out of some charitable notion. You don't bring NBA pros into casual adult leagues, either. A tournament is a tournament; feeling a need to comp it to let people who shouldn't be in it participate is a little backwards.

This is an absolutely terrible anology, Mike. "people who shouldn't be in it"? Seriously? There are no professional 40k players, even if a couple of guys do now have limited sponsorship deals. Those deals still don't cover all the costs associated with making an army and bringing it to tournaments. This is a hobby, and a labor of love. Not everyone puts the same level of work into the competitive side. Many of those guys who don't have the passion and time to devote to mastering the game still come out to play at tournaments because as busy adults with jobs and families that's the best chance for them to get in some gaming. Even some top players are like this; barely getting in gaming between big events. It's not just about letting people participate, either. It's sometimes about getting some older codices played at all. How many Necron, Tau, or Witchhunters armies do you see at the average event? How common were Orks before their current codex came out?

MVBrandt wrote:I'll again reiterate what the NOVA is doing this year - using the first of two x 4-round days to seed everyone according to skill and list level, and then splitting into 16 "mini" tournaments on the 2nd day in terms of players only competing with their seeded levels, and every bracket guaranteeing one of its subsequent participants will go 4-0 and get some sort of a prize. Let the combination of player skill and list establish where their list belongs FOR THEM. Not every tournament has the time or attendees to do this, but, it's not exactly awful, and avoids a lot of unnecessary criticism.

It's pretty darn cool, Mike. I respect what you're doing a lot. I know how much work and responsibilty is involved in running even a small local tournament, with a few folks coming from neighboring states and me wanting to make sure everyone has a good time. The scale of your event and the effort you're putting in is darn impressive.

Okay, sourclams, we won't pursue that one.

Here is another issue with limiting redundancy within lists (because you were showing how repetition of items is bad):

If I know that I am going to be playing against a more 'battleforce' style of list, the best option for me is to bring something unbalanced. I don't mean unbalanced as in strong, I mean unbalanced as in "Only effective in a single phase of the game". With a list like this, I can focus down my opponent's few elements meant to deal with my type of list and spend the rest of the turns walking through their entire army. I 100% guarantee you that if you design a comp system, with a little time I can break it wide open.

This sort of imbalanced game will not occur in a tournament that simply accepts the entire army list as useable, allowing for balanced, take-all-comers lists. That is why they are strong.

Further, I think there is a lot of confusion about why certain selections are made in a balanced list like I discussed.

Let's take building a SW army as an example. In the case that you are loading up min-sized squads into razorbacks, you will require anti-tank/troop capabilities. Razorbacks of any configuration offer little of either. Now, in a normal SM build Predators would be a great solution to shore that up a little (along with Speeders), but SW have a special option in their longfangs that breaks the single target rule that holds CSM Obliterators back, the ability to split fire. In the transport case, Longfangs are a strong choice.

Another option you could take is drop pods with Logan and MM longfangs that can splitfire the turn they land. A more drop-focused list does not need a backing of longfangs. Neither do successful 'Loganwing' lists because of access to portable, survivable CML.

Was I showing how repetition is bad? That wasn't my goal. Repetition is bad from a 'oh boy, I'm facing the Homogeneous Marines with their nine identical Razorback units', but homogeneity in 'all comer' units is typically quite good from a list building perspective in terms of both redundancy and target saturation.

And I agree that any comp system, no matter how rigorous, unless it literally boils down to taking preselected armies specifically designed for general balance against each other, good list builders can break it wide open. This is actually one of the reasons I'm staunchly opposed to comp; comp systems simply create another aspect of rules to be gamed. Good gamers will game the rules and get max points or limit the handicapping factor; 'casual' gamers will not do so and often get dinged for having poor comp or an older, more limited codex.

Wow this thread has grown larger than I had expected.

Let me focus the thread once more as it seems to be derailing into a "what makes a good army, because comp is bad" thread.


Assuming that the intent is to play a comp tournament
Assuming that by building a comp list, overall battle-points would be higher given that comp is factored in and the win/loss/tie ratio is the same had the list been a 'win button' list (see I read my thread )

What in your mind makes for a good scoring composition list, one that if you saw it across the table you would go "hey that 's different, even looks challenging, this could be an interesting game, and wait why is my opponent wearing Transformer costume?"

Is it fluff? Unlikely as that is not making it tough
Is it the "win button" list? Unlikely as that is just the same old rinse/repeat army to play against, even if the opponent is new.

I guess that is where I am going, I offered up some scale that the TO used last year to get feedback in that regard, not to hate on tourneys if they use comp or why comp is bad or good.


Please continue...

beardy wrote:I guess that is where I am going, I offered up some scale that the TO used last year to get feedback in that regard, not to hate on tourneys if they use comp or why comp is bad or good.


Please continue...

Alas, on Dakka using the word "comp" or even the letters c, o, m, and p in too close a proximity is going to result in just such a conversation.

@ the OP- use comp and painting. its a good thing. painting should be done via a rubric so that less subjectivity is included into the judging. Comp should be doen akin to what has been suggested. 1 pt fluffy, 3 pts normal hard list, 5 pts for total cheese. easy enough for a judge to pull off. I liked the idea that wins should add 1 to your score and losses should subtract one from your score. When prizes are dolled out the biggest prize should go to best overall. best painted and best general (only Battlepoints) should be next and i am a firm believer in a moderate grot award being given to the biggest looser.
I used to think that comp was BS and loved to play the most cheesy and broken list i could come up with. I had a Hybrid Nids choir that often won tournis based on the fact that my army was simply abusing an aspect of the rules to my advantage. was i a better player. No. It was my list. One of my foes didnt get to move or shoot for three turns because his entire army was either pinned or had fallen back off the table edge. This is an extream example but had i been scored on comp i would have suffered. my list sucked to play against.
Despite what many in dakka would like to believe there are win button lists. Thats why the current meta lists have names like leafblower. That style of list is a win button. it can be beaten but not usually by any non netlist. lets face it, older codex players cannot compete on the same level with the current net spam.
what are older codex player options. NOT PLAY in tournaments (i think someone actually suggested that. Yeah like less support for the gaming scene is a really great idea. Good on ya for thinking this is a great solution). If you dont have the newest and latest then you cant play with the big boys. go out and buy a net spam win button list so that you can compete, great idea. what a way to improve the diversity of the hobby. How about kids who cannot afford the newest net spam. How are they supposed to compete with someone who rushes out and buys whatever the newest and latest net spam list. which i might add is usually fielded without much in the way of a paintjob because it has been hastily thrown together just so that it (the list) can win the next tourni. without a comp score and painting score figured into the most valuable prize, the best overall; pretty soon things boil down to less people playing because loosing to leafblower or razor spam is a sure thing unless you too have a netlist. 40k is not chess where both players have evenly matched sides and a battle of wits ensues. the modern tourni scene as supported by the anti comp legion is one in which he who has the newest dex with the best netlist is most likely to win. Its the main reason why i have stopped playing at my local shop. Attendance of tournis is down by half because those of us who dont want are faces stomped in by the win button got tired of going. what do you think the FLGS owner thinks about his reduced attendance. Is that a good thing. Is it helping keep the sprit alive.?

I dont run any of these win button lists, and have a fairly good record at tournaments. Sure leafblower is scary at first, but once you play it enough you could care less. I cant remember the last time I got nervous or really lost hard to guard/wolves. I used to be one of the guys who cried constantly about netlists and win buttons and whatever. Then I manned up and started to actually play those lists and realized they are a lot of internet hype.

A lot of the complaining I see too, at least in real life, is from people who just dont play well. Guys who put their immolator spam sisters in the open against my rocket spam space wolves. No, your tanks didnt all get shot in the first 2 turns cause im cheesy, its cause you are bad.

And for feths sake people, theres nothing wrong with redundancy or spamming. You might think its 'boring to look at', or that it 'takes less skill'. Those are just excuses for being a bad player.

I think another point to note is that when people start talking about the 'win button' lists, the number of them starts to get high pretty quickly. I can think of three or four off the top of my head alone just for Iimperial Guard (lists that have a name describing their choices/playstyle).

Also, (almost) no two are alike, other than the overblown coverage of the leafblower list that actually had bits stores selling the entire army in one package. I actually find this kind of cool personally, where people go off a theme, then add 'tech' based on their own thoughts on the shortcomings (SW: TWC or not, for instance).

Furthermore, Eidolon said something really important in his immolate spam example: a lot of people play poorly and a balanced list will take advantage of something like that very quickly. No comp in the world is going to help those people do better in a competitive setting because they will keep making those mistakes. When you start playing the optimized stuff regularly you quickly learn what works and what doesn't.

is there a good web site where we can go to locate the win loss records for variouse tournaments along with the army that was played. It seems like a broad sample of 2010 tournament wins would either show a trend indicating that some lists like IG, SW Orks and BA win more becuase they are apparently located closer to the win button that everyone keeps talking about, or... that the win loss percentage of all the armies is rather uniformly distributed. I.e 9% of wins are BA, 9% of wins are Necrons, 9% sisters of battle. It would be hard to quantify because we would have to also try to correlate the number of people who actually play the armies. But ... it would be real non opinion driven data.

I can tell you my suspicion. Some of the newer armies have a disproportionat advantage otherwise the major tourni players wouldn not be playing as much orks, SW and Guard as they do.

what is the solution. If some armies have codex written so that they play at an advantage to other codex, and they are used unregulated in tournaments involoving a monetary reward, what is the solution.

As i mentioned befor, the local tournament scene has shrunk to half because lots of players who have older codex that are less likely to be able to even hold their own against the newer codex have stopped competeing because they stand no chance at all against these newer codex. it amounts to a lame way to spend 10 hours, lossing game after game to somewhat cookie cutter lists that you have no chance at all of winning against. AND you paid so that these WAAC gamers can kick you butt.

beardy wrote:Assuming that the intent is to play a comp tournament
Assuming that by building a comp list, overall battle-points would be higher given that comp is factored in and the win/loss/tie ratio is the same had the list been a 'win button' list (see I read my thread )

What in your mind makes for a good scoring composition list, one that if you saw it across the table you would go "hey that 's different, even looks challenging, this could be an interesting game, and wait why is my opponent wearing Transformer costume?"

My first recommendation would be to have 'comp' be a completely separate category, with a completely separate prize pool. This keeps a 'tournament' feel, but also rewards somebody trying to build a 'fluff' army list.

For a true 'comp' tourney, you could also consider something like what Privateer Press calls a '1-1-1' format.

1,000 points

HQ
1 Troops
1 Elite
1 Heavy
1 Fast

That is, of course, going to be a lower number of points but in that sort of structured context it should be a little more fun for everyone involved than the normal BS of trying to enforce no spam and no duplicate units. You're also going to have to adapt objective missions a bit; anything over 3 is probably too much considering that the max number of scoring units would be 1-4 including stuff like combat squadding and non-troop units that can score.

Fearspect wrote:

Saldiven wrote:I like to think that being able to win with multiple different armies from a given codex makes me a better player than someone who only ever plays with his/her "perfected" and "highly tuned" list.

You can like to think that all you want, but it is wrong. You winning a game with odd selections in the codex that are arbitrarily mandated against another list that is made in the same fashion means nothing because there is no telling how much/little they were actually affected compared to yourself.

To quote a late post of yours, you forgot to include the phrase, "...in my opinion."

I do not believe I am wrong. Being able to win regardless of the outside restrictions placed upon a player absolutely shows that player to be superior to someone who can only demonstrate their ability to win with no restrictions. It shows adaptability. It's the exact same reason that I like non-traditional missions; the player that can only win with a single list while only playing book missions is failing to demonstrate the most important skill that any player of any wargame can ever have: the ability to adjust his/her playstyle and tactics to the situation at hand. Few will argue that the ability to win the wide variety of missions played at such events as Adepticon, Necronomicon, Ard Boys, etc. prove a player better than one who only wins in rule-book missions; why is it hard to believe that a player who can win with a wide variety of army lists is a superior player to one who only demonstrates the ability to win with a single list.

(BTW, I used "highly tuned" in quotes for a reason; those words are often used by players complaining about composition rules to describe their own lists. I think the term is laughable. We're not talking about a Lamborghini here.)

But seriously, it's a simple matter. If you don't like comp events, don't go. But please do not tell other players that their tournaments shouldn't have comp scoring. Years ago, when comp scoring was the norm, the no-comp players all complained that they just wanted some tournaments that catered to the style of play they preferred; which was a valid argument. Now, the no-comp crowd is often just as guilty of trying to force their views of the game on everyone else as the pro-comp crowd was, say, ten years ago.

No problem, Saldiven, have as many comp tournaments you like. Just don't name them a 40k tournament because you decided to make up your own rules instead. It gets really confusing with everyone making up their own game system and then calling it Warhammer 40k.

Fearspect wrote:No problem, Saldiven, have as many comp tournaments you like. Just don't name them a 40k tournament because you decided to make up your own rules instead. It gets really confusing with everyone making up their own game system and then calling it Warhammer 40k.

If a tournament has a comp component, it's still 40k. Just as are kill teams, gladiator, team tournaments, charity events, and other tournament formats. This is just another fallacy spouted by some people "don't call that a tournament, it's a hobby event" "don't call it 40k, you're changing the rules".

There is no standard set of rules for running a 40k tournament. Be boring as hell if there was. Definitely don't head to Adepticon, they have a lot of different formats, that all have different rules, and yet all seem to be 40k.

Fearspect wrote:No problem, Saldiven, have as many comp tournaments you like. Just don't name them a 40k tournament because you decided to make up your own rules instead. It gets really confusing with everyone making up their own game system and then calling it Warhammer 40k.

Like how the many of the tourneys make up their own mission and scoring rules? Anything that diverges one syllable from the infallible GW rulebook is not a real tourney right?

You do realize that GW has even said their rules cannot be played competitively and the only reason we have competitive tourneys is because people ALTER the core rules to make them more suited for competitive play and more fair for all involved. Sure the alterations today are not as drastic as yesteryear, but it is still being done and still needed. Many of these customizations will be added to the next edition... so these changes you seem to hate now for being unreasonable aberrations of the rules will become your manifesto in the next edition!

Funny how yesterday's COMP is today's BALANCE. 5th edition has all the COMP guidelines of 3rd edition rolled into the core rulebook and codex design.

It sure is easy to dismiss something a 'fallcy spouting' without actually explaining why.

Of course there is no standard set of rules for running a 40k tournament, but you can get some direction from a few areas:

1) GW no longer advocates comp in any of its own official tournaments, why do you still cling to it?

2) When units are comped, you have supplanted your own rules onto the Warhammer 40k ruleset, which quite explicitly outlines the use of the force organization chart. Tournament organization aside, the individual games within it are no longer following the rules provided by your books.

I had to look up what gladiator was, definitely a different game with made-up rules, as it lets you add illegal units to your list. Kill teams is definitely not 40k either. I have no idea why you listed charity events with those others, so we'll just ignore that. Team tournaments are either two FOC or one split FOC, seems reasonable to me.

Composition restrictions and scoring are an ancient tournament mechanic that has been invalidated by newer rules iterations.

All this aside, despite many comp proponents posting within this threat about how great it is, not one example of an actual comp system has been posted here for examination. What exactly are you argueing for if there is nothing that anyone is willing to post that can stand up to any criticism?

Fearspect wrote:All this aside, despite many comp proponents posting within this threat about how great it is, not one example of an actual comp system has been posted here for examination. What exactly are you argueing for if there is nothing that anyone is willing to post that can stand up to any criticism?

I did post the adopted 1-1-1 format (although I'm not an advocate of Comp).

I think it's viable, and no less balanced than current 40k. It does favor armies with better options in all slots, but what else is new?

If anything, it's the point level that needs tweaking moreso than anything else. IG or SW are the only ones with any real chance of filling the requirements at 1.5k; Orks are one of the few that don't struggle at 500.

True sourclams, but that one can be torn apart as easily as you did with some of the earlier posts.

I do agree with the points values issue, 1500 is really wonky for power levels. Again, an example where more restrictions prevent balance, which is always fun to point out.

It can be made less than ideal, but as long as the point level is appropriate (which is something testable/measurable), I don't think it's any less balanced than current 40k while achieving the goal of diverse units and appearance.

Fearspect wrote:It sure is easy to dismiss something a 'fallcy spouting' without actually explaining why.

if you make a grand statement or simply one with nothing to back it up, it's up to YOU to prove it not others to definitively disprove it. i can claim that confucius was actually from louisianna but that doesn't mean its true.

Fearspect wrote:
Of course there is no standard set of rules for running a 40k tournament, but you can get some direction from a few areas:

1) GW no longer advocates comp in any of its own official tournaments, why do you still cling to it?

doesn't the throne of skulls use awards based on how you did relative to others playing your army instead of an overall metric? that's a form of comp.

Fearspect wrote:
2) When units are comped, you have supplanted your own rules onto the Warhammer 40k ruleset, which quite explicitly outlines the use of the force organization chart. Tournament organization aside, the individual games within it are no longer following the rules provided by your books.

um, hate to burst your bubble but EVERY tourney does this in some form or another. ANY time you use a custom mission, you're no longer following the rules provided by your book. ANY time the TO makes a ruling for a question that isn't adequately covered or is confusing, they're effectively making up their own rules.

Fearspect wrote:
All this aside, despite many comp proponents posting within this threat about how great it is, not one example of an actual comp system has been posted here for examination. What exactly are you argueing for if there is nothing that anyone is willing to post that can stand up to any criticism?

use the search function to find the dozens of other threads where they are. the problem is that when you post a comp system people tend to focus on the one or two things that can be gamed/tweaked in order to throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of looking at the overall effect it has on the event. NO comp system is perfect but NEITHER is the game we're using it with. use the sportmanship thread you trolled earlier in the week as an example. mannahiem posted a sportmanship grading scale that overall was very well recieved but you continued to pick at one or two points regardless of how the system worked overall. i get it. you don't like comp or sportmanship and probably painting too. fine. simply play in ard boys where NONE of that will affect your score. simply because you don't like something doesn't mean that its wrong and doesn't belong for the rest of us.

Fearspect wrote:It sure is easy to dismiss something a 'fallcy spouting' without actually explaining why.

With some of the things you say, yes it is. Glad we agree.)

Definitely stay away from Adepticon if you don't know what Gladiator is, and think Kill Teams isn't 40k. KT is some whackjob rules set that...oh, dear, did it really appear in a 40k rulebook? fancy that! Guess it is 40k after all. I mention Charity events because they generally have strange rules mean't to make players/and or spectators part with cash for Charity. Strangley enough, the people playing consider them 40k. Templecon did a great one this year, that raised several hundred dollars.

You've got a very narrow veiw of what you call 40k. You also haven't experienced these varieties of 40k. Rather than denounce them, you could just let it go and let other people play the game the way they want to? If it never affects you, what do you care?

@warboss: Sorry, warboss, if you are the one that is deciding to make changes, don't you understand that for you to support it, it is you that has to prove it is effective and not the other way around? On another note, thank you for agreeing with me that every comp system has holes in it. That sure is a great argument for using it.

@mikhaila: I know exactly what Gladiator is, I looked it up. In addition I have played at quite a few comped events, and still contend that the game is better without those rules.

Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

Fearspect wrote:
Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

I think the restricted ForceOrgs for low point quicker tourneys are pretty effective. 40k in 40minutes and other tourneys are a funw ay to play and there is really no reason for everyone to have a full forceorg and 3 HS slots in a 500point army... not to mention a lot of codexes are not even remotely balanced or fair for under 1000 points. Restricting things like no combined AV over 33, Restricting forceorg slots and restricting wounds and AV work pretty well in those low-point games. The games are fun, and the COMP makes it more fair. Can people game it? Sure... but you then have people bringing an suped up engine to a car race instead of a supersonic jet. People can game the comp but the extremes are less drastic and most times 99% of the people have a good time.

And like they did for fantasy, those years of comp got combined into the core rulebook for the next edition. I really hope 6th edition 40k includes official point totals for competitive play and sliding forceorgs for lower and higher point games.

Fearspect wrote:Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

+1. Completely agree.

Fearspect wrote:Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

prove you wrong? what's the point. simply look at the other thread and the explanations given for sportmanship; someone did post an effective sportmanship system and you just kept trolling along ignoring the valid points raised and addressed by it. as for every comp system having holes it in... sure... but they're meant to plug even bigger holes caused by a lack of tourney rules in the core 40k set. as for comp proponents "changing" the rules, there are no official tourney rules from GW and comp systems have been a part of GW tourneys (even the official ones) for over 10 years. by advocating that they all be thrown out, you're actually the one advocating change (a change which is unfortunately slowly occuring regardless but nontheless).

warboss wrote:prove you wrong? what's the point. simply look at the other thread and the explanations given for sportmanship; someone did post an effective sportmanship system and you just kept trolling along ignoring the valid points raised and addressed by it. as for every comp system having holes it in... sure... but they're meant to plug even bigger holes caused by a lack of tourney rules in the core 40k set. as for comp proponents "changing" the rules, there are no official tourney rules from GW and comp systems have been a part of GW tourneys (even the official ones) for over 10 years. by advocating that they all be thrown out, you're actually the one advocating change (a change which is unfortunately slowly occuring regardless but nontheless).

Except that 'effective' sportsmanship system doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Enforce sportsmanship.

Are there penalties? Sure. Insignificant ones. If someone decided to be a total jerk to (on average) half of their opponents, the penalty is miniscule. With zero long standing repurcussions. The paint scores used in the example of the system could have a GREATER effect on the outcome of the tournament than the sportsmanship scoring.

Seriously, the answer is simple. If you don't like comp and sportsmanship, don't choose to play in tournaments that have them. There are plenty of tournaments out there that do not have these scores; in fact, the majority of tournaments today do not have them. Please leave be those people that want them without trying to browbeat them into your personal view of how the game should be played.

Honestly, I really don't see what the big deal is. I, personally, have a good time playing in tournaments both with and without soft scores of any type. In the Atlanta area, there are a decent number of both types of tournament, so there are options available for all different preferences. I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over this.

Just as an aside, years ago when soft-score events were the most common, I was on the side of those who wanted more non-soft score tournaments. I believe there is room in the community for both types, and I really cannot understand the mindset of those people who try to force others to accept that their personal view is the way every tournament should be.

imweasel wrote:
Except that 'effective' sportsmanship system doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Enforce sportsmanship.

Are there penalties? Sure. Insignificant ones. If someone decided to be a total jerk to (on average) half of their opponents, the penalty is miniscule. With zero long standing repurcussions. The paint scores used in the example of the system could have a GREATER effect on the outcome of the tournament than the sportsmanship scoring.

if you're a total jerk and continually get marked off on sportmanship for the first half of a tourney, you're likely to be in the bullseye of any competent TO who will either watch you carefully (thereby affecting your level of doucheness for the rest of the time) or simply get ejected before the next round. either way, mannahnin put it best so i'll just quote him and link the other more appropriate thread for the other soft-score debate.

Mannahnin wrote:The first question you need to ask in implementing a Sportsmanship system is:

What is/are your goals?

Is it to reward the Best Sportsmen out there? Is it to encourage good/great Sportsmanship, including specific positive behaviors? Is it to prevent donkey-caves from winning events while being donkey-caves? The system you design or choose needs to support which of these goals you want to accomplish.

Other important considerations are ease of speed and use (IME with a 1-5pt or 1-10pt subjective range, many players ignore reading the criteria; with an objective checklist I believe more players actually read through them, but it adds time), and resistance to "Chipmunking", or dishonestly scoring someone badly as a manipulation of the tournament system.

If you just want to REWARD the Good/Great Sports, you can basically divorce the Sports scoring from the overall scoring, and use one of the above systems. Forced Ranking of opponents is good at creating separation in this department, and if a low score doesn't hurt your Overall chances, you don't need to feel bad about giving a couple of your opponents lower ranks if all of them were good. The system of players having tickets or tokens to give to opponents for a separate prize drawing is also a great approach for this.

If you want to encourage SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS, then the Objective checklist is pretty cool, because it lays out to the community, particularly new players, what behaviors are expected of them by the community.

If you want to PREVENT JERKS FROM WINNING WHILE BEING JERKS, then I strongly suggest Pass/Fail. Although Objective Checklist can do okay in this department, usually a jerk can get most of the points on this list and only lose one or two points per game due to being a nasty, unpleasant SOB.

In most of the tournaments I've run in the past I've used objective checklist questions, but more recently, inspired by clubs like The Warmongers and TFG in NY/NJ, as well as collaborative discussions with The Lost Legion and guys from other clubs, I've devised the following system, which I recently made an article on Dakka. IMO it is the best system I've yet seen for achieving the best balance of the above goals- rewarding good sports, reducing the chance of an donkey-cave winning, and minimizing the impact of guys trying to cheat and manipulate the system, while being quick and easy to use.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/349269.page

Saldiven wrote:Just as an aside, years ago when soft-score events were the most common, I was on the side of those who wanted more non-soft score tournaments. I believe there is room in the community for both types, and I really cannot understand the mindset of those people who try to force others to accept that their personal view is the way every tournament should be.

agreed. all that browbeating just seems so unsportmanlike for a debate.

Saldiven wrote:Seriously, the answer is simple. If you don't like comp and sportsmanship, don't choose to play in tournaments that have them. There are plenty of tournaments out there that do not have these scores; in fact, the majority of tournaments today do not have them. Please leave be those people that want them without trying to browbeat them into your personal view of how the game should be played.

Honestly, I really don't see what the big deal is. I, personally, have a good time playing in tournaments both with and without soft scores of any type. In the Atlanta area, there are a decent number of both types of tournament, so there are options available for all different preferences. I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over this.

Just as an aside, years ago when soft-score events were the most common, I was on the side of those who wanted more non-soft score tournaments. I believe there is room in the community for both types, and I really cannot understand the mindset of those people who try to force others to accept that their personal view is the way every tournament should be.

Well just make sure that you tell everyone that your comp and sportsmanship scores are not balanced and you should just be peachy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:
if you're a total jerk and continually get marked off on sportmanship for the first half of a tourney, you're likely to be in the bullseye of any competent TO who will either watch you carefully (thereby affecting your level of doucheness for the rest of the time) or simply get ejected before the next round.

Then why in the world do you need a sportsmanship scoring system?

If the TO is going to adjudicate these things anyways, why have a system that does as lttle as possible to 'enforce' sportsmanship?

@ IMweasel Sportsmanship scores are there in part because of Drum roll please.... Pg 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE (Capitolised because its actually written like that in the book) winning is less important than having fun.
some people try to make this game all about winning and since it isnt about crushing your foe face first into the mat and then having a good laugh about how bad you crushed them... sportsmanship is included. Making the game all about winning when the codex are obviously not all fair and balanced (necron, spacewolves ??? Balanced) makes it kindof hard to have a fair match. Yes 40k is so complex and so many different armies can be built that a realistic Comp system is really hard to make. that does not mean that it should not be included in a tourni where all armies are supposed to play and have a fair match. If that is the way that things are going to be played then some armies will never be played in tournis resulting in a decrease in the diversity of both players and armies that support the tournaments. Not at all a good thing for the hobby in my opinion. if you dont like comped events then only play in ARD boys tournis.

sennacherib wrote:@ IMweasel Sportsmanship scores are there in part because of Drum roll please.... Pg 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE (Capitolised because its actually written like that in the book) winning is less important than having fun.
some people try to make this game all about winning and since it isnt about crushing your foe face first into the mat and then having a good laugh about how bad you crushed them... sportsmanship is included. Making the game all about winning when the codex are obviously not all fair and balanced (necron, spacewolves ??? Balanced) makes it kindof hard to have a fair match. Yes 40k is so complex and so many different armies can be built that a realistic Comp system is really hard to make. that does not mean that it should not be included in a tourni where all armies are supposed to play and have a fair match. If that is the way that things are going to be played then some armies will never be played in tournis resulting in a decrease in the diversity of both players and armies that support the tournaments. Not at all a good thing for the hobby in my opinion. if you dont like comped events then only play in ARD boys tournis.

You're missing the point, senncherib. No one has yet made a comp system that can't be broken way worse than the rules already allow. It actually puts those looking for fun at a further disadvantage.

I acknowledge that 40k is so complex and so many different armies can be built that a realistic Comp system is really hard to make.

Thats why having a judge who looks at the army and either gives it a 1-3-5 score with 5 being cheesey netbuild, and 1 being a army Handcapped by fluff seems like the best way to go.

Its not that hard to look at a 3 battlewagon ork list or SW ML and Razor spam and recognize the difference between that and a Kroot incursion force.

sourclams wrote:And I agree that any comp system, no matter how rigorous, unless it literally boils down to taking preselected armies specifically designed for general balance against each other, good list builders can break it wide open. This is actually one of the reasons I'm staunchly opposed to comp; comp systems simply create another aspect of rules to be gamed. Good gamers will game the rules and get max points or limit the handicapping factor; 'casual' gamers will not do so and often get dinged for having poor comp or an older, more limited codex.

I disagree. IME casual gamers will build a casual army, which will score well on Comp, OR they will build a stronger army, get dinged on Comp, but stand a better chance of winning their games against more serious gamers who are "gaming the system" and have thus toned-down their armies to maximize their comp score. Win-win.

The fact that a comp system creates a metagame for people to play is a feature, not a bug, to my mind. It adds to the depth of the tournament game for the guys who are serious about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fearspect wrote:Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

At least two (possibly three) have been listed in the thread, and you've ignored them.

Why should people keep explaining things to you when you just ignore it and stick your fingers in your ears going "la la la I can't hear you comp is bad"?

Okay then, why are battlewagon orks 5 points where the Kroot will be a 1? Why not give the Orks 4, or 6 or 10, or 100? How have you defined this scale, and what is the mathematical impact on their overall score?

What is the definition of a cheesy netbuild? How much exactly must one deviate to get a 3 instead of a 5? You start having to mathematically boil down every single list's exact value to an exact amount. 1-3-5 doesn't cut it. It is just not possible to do it correctly.

imweasel wrote:

warboss wrote:prove you wrong? what's the point. simply look at the other thread and the explanations given for sportmanship; someone did post an effective sportmanship system and you just kept trolling along ignoring the valid points raised and addressed by it. as for every comp system having holes it in... sure... but they're meant to plug even bigger holes caused by a lack of tourney rules in the core 40k set. as for comp proponents "changing" the rules, there are no official tourney rules from GW and comp systems have been a part of GW tourneys (even the official ones) for over 10 years. by advocating that they all be thrown out, you're actually the one advocating change (a change which is unfortunately slowly occuring regardless but nontheless).

Except that 'effective' sportsmanship system doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Enforce sportsmanship.

Are there penalties? Sure. Insignificant ones. If someone decided to be a total jerk to (on average) half of their opponents, the penalty is miniscule. With zero long standing repurcussions. The paint scores used in the example of the system could have a GREATER effect on the outcome of the tournament than the sportsmanship scoring.

Thanks conceding the argument by failing to respond when I took this argument apart last time. What do you think "enforce sportsmanship" means? Physical force? Throwing people out? Read the thread again and do us the courtesy of making SOME effort to actually read what has been said by the people you're disagreeing with. Or stop trolling. It just makes you look bad.

My system works absolutely fine. The size of the penalties is significant and are going to be sufficient in most cases to prevent a jerk from winning the event. That's the purpose, and it succeeds.

Here's the thread I mentioned before, since you were evidently unable or unwilling to put in the effort to understand the math, here some of it has been done for you in relation to last year's Adepticon Championships:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/287345.page

Okay, Mannahnin, let's walk through a quick summary of this thread:

1) Beardy posted the first, a checklist which was quickly shown to allow known, successful build styles (Deathwing, razorspam) in while potentially injuring those it is trying to protect.

2) You posted the second one, the 1-3-5 system. There is a short reply above. At the end of the day, it is held to the whim of biases rather than to any hard rules and holds a large potential to simply allow someone to be docked by anyone else. What incentive would someone wanting to win have to give someone a high score? Let the score of the result of the battle stand on its own.

3) Nazdreg began talking about how limiting what units could be played would in fact increase the number of lists you would see. MVBrant went into excellent detail explaining how this isn't true.

4) Beardy then suggested a, 'FOC? Yes/No' comp system. I stand corrected, one comp suggestion exists in this thread that I cannot find any problems with.

5) You then starting talking about raising the points values (which are determined through extensive testing) an arbitrary amount based on repetition in a list. Just like the 1-3-5, how did you pick this amount? How do you know it has resulted in a fair distribution of points?

6) Sourclams listed a 1-1-1-1 FOC comp system, while admitting that it has some large holes in it (namely that some have great options in certainly slots that could completely overpower an army without a response).

7) You went through this thread just like I just did, realized that every comp system (which you strongly support including) listed did not stand up to any analysis, and resorted to just calling me a troll.

Did I miss anything?

You missed where I described the Comp Council system.

Which was in the same post where I posted the 1/3/5 system, and criticized the 1/3/5 system.

You also, apparently, missed each of the FOUR other posts I made referencing it.

Since I've mentioned the Comp Council system in five posts (and other folks have commented on it as well), and you still are acting like you're unaware of it, that gives the appearance that you're not actually doing the opposing side in this discussion the courtesy of reading their posts.

Let's go into the rest of your list:
1. Sure.
2. As I said, it's not perfect. But it's reasonably clear. What incentive? The incentive not to be a douchbag. MOST players are honest and decent human beings. And in any normal scoring system, even if you're a douche, it doesn't actually HELP you to mark your opponent down unless the two of you got a Draw. Your reasoning is flawed.
3. Sourclams and I both explained how MVBrandt was mistaken.
5. Lack of attention to detail on your part. Actually Sourclams raised the concept of reducing the points costs of bad units, and I responded with a brief mention of a similar concept that I had heard of an event doing. We didn't go into detail. It's obviously a system which would require a lot of work and tinkering.
7. See the first section, above.

If i understand the argument put forth by the non comp players its something to the nature of this.

players should only be scored by how well their particular army does in each individual game. that way nothing other than poor luck, a poorly designed list, or bad tactical planning will influence the scoring in the tourni.

The only real problem with this view is the fact that not all codex are created equal. can we all agree that some codex are way better than others. This IMHO gives some players (espcially those who rush out and buy the components necessary to build very tough to beat lists) a substantial advantage. That is why most serious tourni players stick to a limited number of codex and some other codex like necrons, GK(for now) and a handful of other codex never really stand a chance at playing on the same level as the newer and certainly much tougher codex.

The only way that the tourni scene will be fair to all parties under the non comp tourni system is if all players are playing new codex. THis leads to less diversity of play. Also younger players and poor players who cannot afford to have whatever the new winning codex happen to be are left in the position of not playing at all or to pay to play in a tournament that will amount to ten hours of having thir butts kicked.

Is their ANY solution besides comp to avoid this outcome. Can any NON comp players suggest a means to make game play better for players who dont have the access to the newer codex.? Any suggestions besides just complaining about the current system which is not fair to everyone else.

BTW. maybe since the number one rule in 40k is largly being ignored by the non comp gamers, they must have missed the part where it actually says that WAAC is of less importance than EVERYONE haveing a good time. So it sounds like they are advocating some sort of system where everyone has a good time. sort of sounds reminicent to comp. scoring.

I didn't see any extensive or effective explanation of my arguments being mistaken. There's a lot of overbearing elitism in this thread. It's divisive, as usually occurs in comp discussions. It's also worth noting that seeing different lists is not the same as seeing a greater variety of lists, especially when those different list have less total units to choose from. Even with comp council, you aren't playing "better" 40k, you're just playing 40k according to the council. Little more of that "we're so smart and proper" attitude. It can turn people off, in the same way that power gamers turn some people off.

Lengthy arguments over it tend to be a waste of time, because you have too much entrenched haughtiness on both sides. We have a couple of ideas in brew to address the comp loving crowd, but there's a shortage of the kind of positive attitude in this thread that you'd want to engage on the subject. I frankly don't get it.

Mike, you've participated in good faith and I'll be happy to go into detail for you this evening. I'm just on my way out the door to my local league's final. I'll get back to you.

sennacherib wrote:
BTW. maybe since the number one rule in 40k is largly being ignored by the non comp gamers, they must have missed the part where it actually says that WAAC is of less importance than EVERYONE haveing a good time. So it sounds like they are advocating some sort of system where everyone has a good time. sort of sounds reminicent to comp. scoring.

You're making a big goof here. Non-comp does not equate to WAAC. I've only ever seen soft scores reduce the overall level of fun in a tournament, via chipmunking. Truly WAAC guys can use soft scores to dick over their opponents.

Comp scoring often punishes those it's designed to protect, like when a Pedro Kantor Sternguard list gets 2/20 because of too many special characters, max elites, too few troops, etc.

Slapping a comp system on 40k does not suddenly make it more or less fun. It simply adds another system on top of "regular" 40k.

And that's all well and good for normal play, but what is the true goal of a tournament? Is it to provide an event where everyone can mingle and laugh and have a good time? That's a normal day at my game store. A tournament is when you want to ratchet up the level of competition to compete for prizes. On those days, everybody brings their A-game and expects the best man to win.

True goal of a tournament is another of those topics that can be debated forever, with many people adamant that what they want is best. It's part of the comp minefield.)

@ SOurclams. Everyone wants to bring their A game to a tournament. The fact is that no matter how good your A game is it can never be good enough if you have an older codex and your opponent is running one of the net lists Like razor spam.

Comp is there to address this desparity.

The simpler comp systems while subjective are the best way to go in a game as comlex as 40k. Since we pay to play for a monetary reward, and everyone should be able to play with a realistic and fair chance of winning to encourage larger numbers of people to participate in events, creating more diversity of armies and players and play styles. Comp should be included.

Having read through all the suggestions, I have to say what I think about all attempts at putting a system towards soft-scoring. Sportsmanship "rules" are just as hopelessly pointless.

To base it on FOC is a dumb idea, because some armies lean heavily towards non-troop slots for their A-game (Eldar?) and others lean heavily towards troops (SW?). Likewise some (like my SM for instance) are better off with the minimum HQ I have to take, whereas others (Njal, Eldrad, Mephie for instances) are glad to take an HQ. So this is not a fair assessment of army composition.

Next, minmaxing: Every player knows about 2 wound models with variety wargear upgrades, and having just enough Storm Shields to count for the whole squad.

Everybody knows about long fang missile spam. These are overused to the point of cookie cutter armies because they are good. They exploit a rules loop (in the first case) and exploit a badly thought out Codex (in the second).

This puts any SW player at a loss for composition points, because NOT taking advantage of the ability to make shenanagins out of wound allocation makes you an IDIOT, and taking advantage of it makes you CHEESE. No win situation! This is unfair to SW (who some could argue's very existance is unfair to other armies but that's not the point). I don't see any nob bikers without varied equipment either, because it's a no-brainer. Does that mean all TWC and nob biker players should be deliberately moronic in order to score composition points? Again, fail.

Any attempt to make soft scores into hard scores by assigning an objective scoring system is just a hopeless failure attempt as it is subjective to what the judge's particular bias happens to be.

I have said it in the thread about sportsmanship scores and it applies here too:

If you need a concise system of points to determine whether or not you are being an ass, you are being an ass.

yeenoghu wrote:

I have said it in the thread about sportsmanship scores and it applies here too:

If you need a concise system of points to determine whether or not you are being an ass, you are being an ass.

I think that sums it up best, well said!

i can agree with the sportsman ship needing a concise system of rules akin to a rubric that you score your opponent on.
something like...
1pt. showed up on time and set up and pregame was completed in a timely manner and completed each round quickly without unnecessary delay
1pt. had all necessary gaming supplies like dice, templates and tape measure and copy of rules and codex.
1 pts resolved rules disputes fairly
1pt was willing to explain codex specific rules and made no effort to concean afformentioned rules to their advantage
2pts remained in good humor throught the match
2pts Did not engage in poor sportsmanship behaviores i.e. Cheering when you rolled poorly, calling your dice, making derogatory comments about your army or other players armies.
2 pts. This was someone that win or loose you would like to play against again.

COMP it has been well agreed apon is to complex for a simple rubric to be used for. COmp should be judeged by the judge seperating armies into armies Handicapped by fluff, Normal tournament army, Abusive cheese army.
In order that players could see examples of these lists i think it would be best to provide them ahead of time with copius examples culled from here on dakka. Players could also email their list to the TO and get a ruling prior to the match so that they would be able to alter their list to a less cheesy makeup. Failure to do so would just lie on the players shoulders.

@sennacherib: First off, you need to stop dismissing every good army as being abusive and cheesy. They aren't. No one is using terms of that nature to describe armies that weren't built with a balanced gameplan in mind.

Let's take another example, Magic:the Gathering (M:tG) tournaments. There is no system in place for comp because though stronger (hint: synergistic) lists exist, you are are making a conscious choice to not bring them and thus expected to do less well. If more people let the money talk and did not invest in the older codexes that only support a single truly competitive build, GW would get the message to update on a schedule more akin to M:tG or Privateer Press with Warmachine/Hordes (each army book is rewritten every year or two).

The list of items you listed are definitely excellent items and could just as easily be placed in the tournament packet as player expectations. If someone is breaking it, they are called on it and dealt with by a judge or TO as opposed to leaving my overall ranking further at the hands of an opponent than what resulted on the table. All that being said, it has nothing to do with this thread.

Further to your clear-cut comp divisions (fluff, normal, abusive/cheesy), I ask again: Give me a list that is abusive and cheesy, now tell me the exact changes I would have to make to put it into the normal division. After that, rank every single list an individual can bring and assign it a mathematical value to add to it's points that accurately awards it for the points it gave up in tournament placing to be scored in such a manner.

I've been following this thread for a while now and i can honestly say i cannot think of any way COMP scoring can be put into place efficiently, effectivly and fairly.
With all the different armies and all the different list options within those armies it would be hard to determine what constitutes a cheese list.

I've had players complain about my own armies' "cheesiness" while others have called them original, interesting, or just plain odd. What constitutes cheese is different from person to person which is why player scoring comp would not work at all. For example 2 players competing for the top spot, and one of them misses out simply because their opponents were slightly harsher with their opinion on COMP scoring.

A comittee would solve some issues, but is still subject to human bias. How many drop-pods does it take to make a themed army? How many drop-pods does it take to make a spam army?

As for a checklist, a few adjustments to most net-lists can get them through with max points.

IMO if you need a "cheesy" net-list to win, then you arn't a good player and will, most of the time, be out-played.

Okay, back to address Mike's questions and points. Mike, I responded specifically to several of your points on the previous page; if you disagree with my responses, it'd be cool of you'd acknowledge and address them directly. Thanks! I've quoted a couple of those below.

At any rate, answering points from your most recent post:

MVBrandt wrote:I didn't see any extensive or effective explanation of my arguments being mistaken. ...It's also worth noting that seeing different lists is not the same as seeing a greater variety of lists, especially when those different list have less total units to choose from.

I really can't see where you're getting this business about "less total units to choose from". Where is that coming from? You seem to have the concept backwards.

As Sourclams and I both pointed out, one product of the non-Comped tournament environment is that some units simply never get used, because there are more efficient choices for the points. One of the primary purposes of a Comp system is to remedy this; by providing a material incentive (points) for players to go outside the "top 5" or "top 8" best-of-codex units in any given army. If a player is able to innovate an unusual combination which makes a generally-regarded-as-weak unit work better, he can compete on even ground or at a slight disadvantage to standard top lists, while starting at a slight advantage in the tournament points overall due to his Comp handicap. In a non-Comped event, OTOH, the pool of usable units is functionally smaller, as there is never any incentive to using a less-efficient unit or army build except pure surprise value.

A big part of the point of Comp is to specifically facilitate and encourage people to bring different combinations and maybe a sub-par unit or two, increasing the variety of the play experience and possibly innovating new tactics and combinations. I broke it down succinctly on page two of this thread, here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/349456.page#2500288

Mannahnin wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:... a win-button army becomes more purchaseable in comp systems where the game's fairly strong CODEX balance is broken by screwing with core list options in any given codex that help it be balanced.

I don't think this argument of yours makes much sense. As you know, as as competitive-afficionado Sourclams already pointed out, there are still significant issues with internal codex balance; some units which are notably inferior to others in every codex. IG Vets vs. Storm Troopers, for most purposes, as an example. Comp is a way of handicapping/giving a material incentive for players to go exploring outside the "top 5" or whatever best units in any given codex and bringing some more variety to the competitive scene.

MVBrandt wrote:If you just want to encourage variety, I guess it makes some sense, but you need to either do a natural bracketing comp system, or a hell of a qualified comp council (and even that is "wrong," b/c you CAN end up with gasbags who think they are god's gift to wisdom in 40k).

A good council who knows what they're talking about is key. It worked pretty darn well for the year or so it was going in the NE Independent WH GT circuit. The only reason it's not still going right now is that 8th was such a major change that the Comp Council didn't feel they could fairly score, and voluntarily recused themselves. But 8th ed is broken enough that new restrictions are starting to come in; witness last month's Onslaught GT adopting ETC restrictions.

MVBrandt wrote:Even with comp council, you aren't playing "better" 40k, you're just playing 40k according to the council.

"Better" is a subjective judgment. For me, the best 40k requires hard, competitive gaming, with a wide variety of painted and attractive armies, on attractive and adequate terrain, with interesting and balanced missions, against sportsmanlike and skilled opponents. That's the ideal. For my money, Comp (when handled well, and gods know it's been done badly many times) adds to the "variety" aspect of the game. Non-Comped events don't address that at all.

I have to object to the "just playing 40k according to the council" canard. I don't think that's a useful, constructive, or accurate sentiment. Since you compose your own missions (notably excluding KPs last year, though I applaud and appreciate their return this year) and write your own Q&A for the NOVA Open, someone could just as easily dismiss NOVA as "just playing 40k according to MVBrandt."

Do you think that would be a fair and accurate comment, if they did? I don't.

MVBrandt wrote: There's a lot of overbearing elitism in this thread. It's divisive, as usually occurs in comp discussions. Little more of that "we're so smart and proper" attitude. It can turn people off, in the same way that power gamers turn some people off.

I apologize for my tone. I trust you can see what I was responding to.

Part of the reason I'm advocating so firmly is because among a significant sub-set of the competitive 40k player base, the (IMO false) idea that "comp is always bad" or "comp can never work" has become a truism. You even get nice, smart guys like Reecius popping in with a one-liner like "comp sucks" and thinking that's okay; not even taking the time to engage the opposing position at all, or think about his assumptions.

Some of this springs from seeing it done badly (as it often is; witness the recent reports from The Broadside Bash). Some of it springs from inexperience; players who've only started playing in the last couple of years, since Comp has largely fallen out of fashion. Some of it springs from 5th edition and its codices not requiring Comp nearly so much (although it's still a handy tool for balancing them against older books).

Go back, say, four years on Dakka and find a Comp thread, and you'd find the balance of opinion much more balanced, with the majority in favor. Go back six or eight, and the guys arguing against Comp are a tiny minority, mostly guys bitter because their local TO sucked and did Comp badly.

As I've said repeatedly throughout the thread, since 5th edition has come out I'm much more open to non-Comped events, and frequently enjoy them. Of course, I don't use my Eldar in them, which is a bit of a bummer, but at least I can enjoy them with my more-recently-updated armies. I think most of us who cut our teeth in the GT circuit back when Comp was a standard thing are now less inclined to argue about it; because it's less needed than it once was. Maybe not needed at all. Still, I DO think it has value. And that Comp-scored and non Comp-scored events are both worth having. I'm mostly speaking up because I'd rather not see it go the way of the dodo, or just let that overly-simplistic falsehood "comp sucks" go unchallenged.

I know a lot of excellent, top players who still let the concepts of army design they learned within Comp systems shape their army builds, and thanks to that, those guys field more interesting armies. Again, excellent GT players and winners like Allen Hernandez, Jay Woodcock, Shaun Kemp, Ben Mohlie, Greg Sparks, Bill Kim, Dave Fay, Marc Parker, and Christian Flores, to name a few. Troy E. (Grimwulfe), who's playing Dash in a challenge game at NOVAcon, is part of Da Boyz, along with Jay and Shaun, and the list he fielded in the tournament a couple of weeks ago where he and I played was a good example. A strong SW list, but with a Vindicator instead of a third unit of LFs, and the LFs weren't each 5xML. Troy mixes it up, and his list is still strong, but it's more interesting and has more variety. I feel comfortable attributing that, at least in part, to him being part of Da Boyz, a club full of guys who've been playing in GTs more than 10 years, and who still use Comp in the events they run.

Anyway, I hope the above makes a bit more sense, and the tone more friendly.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Everybody knows about long fang missile spam. These are overused to the point of cookie cutter armies because they are good. They exploit a rules loop (in the first case) and exploit a badly thought out Codex (in the second).

This puts any SW player at a loss for composition points, because NOT taking advantage of the ability to make shenanagins out of wound allocation makes you an IDIOT, and taking advantage of it makes you CHEESE. No win situation! This is unfair to SW (who some could argue's very existance is unfair to other armies but that's not the point). I don't see any nob bikers without varied equipment either, because it's a no-brainer. Does that mean all TWC and nob biker players should be deliberately moronic in order to score composition points? Again, fail.

From my perspective, you are making some valid observations (like LF spam is underpriced, and wound abuse units exploit a rules loophole) but coming to invalid conclusions using them. "Moronic" is used purely for hyperbole and adds nothing to the discussion- to quote you, as a term to use in this discussion, it is "fail".

There is no "no win situation" when it comes to wound abuse units.

In a NON-Comped event, "cheese" is totally irrelevant. Anyone participating should know that. So if you are fielding an army with that option, you use it. Simple as that.

In a COMPED event, making use of Wound allocation is likely to get your army regarded as stronger. So you can either decline to use it, and get bonus points on your Comp score, or use it, and miss out on the Comp handicap, but have an advantage in each of your games. That's win-win, not no win. Either choice has a material advantage associated with it. You get to pick which one you want. Win.

In a COMPED event, making use of Wound allocation is likely to get your army regarded as stronger.

So you would reduce comp on wound allocation? So I would take AV12 spam and avoid the problem while stil having a strong army. Or LF spam or razorspam or TMC spam.

There are always loopholes in comp scores.

Comp scores just force you to play different armies.

It will not optimize balance and it will not increase the chances of having more fluff oriented armies.
It just alters the metagame. It doesnt kill it.

For your information, I played comped tournaments and non comp tournaments.
And tbh on non comped tournaments I had more freedom.
And I support the statement that comp does not penalize WAAC in any way.

And comp is always subjective. If you play an IG themed aircav why do you have to reduce your vendettas? So a "not more than 1 vendetta"-comp will kill your concept totally. A WAAC will take armoured sentinels instead...

-Nazdreg- wrote:

In a COMPED event, making use of Wound allocation is likely to get your army regarded as stronger.

So you would reduce comp on wound allocation? So I would take AV12 spam and avoid the problem while stil having a strong army. Or LF spam or razorspam or TMC spam.

There are always loopholes in comp scores.

If you make it a checklist, sure. But that's not what I'm advocating. There are no loopholes in the Comp Council system.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Comp scores just force you to play different armies.

This is an absolute load of baloney. It doesn't "force" you to do anything. It gives a POINTS BONUS for folks who make a weaker army. Everyone can still field the army they want to. The guys who just want the best chance to win their individual games are free to take the strongest list they can think of; whether it be Longfang/Razorspam, or IG AV12 spam, or whatever. The really competitive guys who want to win their games AND get more points in Comp than the netlisters have a material incentive to innovate and try to come up with lists that appear weaker and utilize inferior units, but with which they can still win games.

No force involved. Pure free choice.

-Nazdreg- wrote:It just alters the metagame. It doesnt kill it.

Absolutely. And as I said, this is a BENEFIT, a "feature", not a "bug" (flaw). It alters the metagame in the direction of greater variety.

-Nazdreg- wrote:For your information, I played comped tournaments and non comp tournaments.
And tbh on non comped tournaments I had more freedom.

I feel the opposite. So the anecdotal evidence from each of our perspectives is opposite. Null. Do you want to count how many years, tournaments, or games we've each played, or shall we just agree that anecdotal evidence isn't very helpful here?

I am coming to the party a little late but there are a few things I'd like to say on the issue of comp.

1. It is highly dependent upon your local scene when you're not talking about a GT or major Con.
2. Comp has varying degrees and therefore again is more dependent upon your local scene than not.
3. The varying degrees of comp at tournaments can create various opinions on comp simply based upon the system used.
4. As was pointed out the 5th ed codices are more balanced and so Comp has declined in popularity.
5. Comp was absolutely required for 4th ed tournaments not so for 5th.
6. There is no perfect comp system and so will always be a source of contention.

For the record I have played in comp heavy, comp average, and comp light events and all were pleasant experiences. The comp light events were the most competitive but the comp heavy events were competitive in a different way. With comp heavy events you can run into the problem of the comp just being another system of rules to be lawyered, broken, and argued over. If you are organizing an event and want to have comp the simpler you keep it the less likely it will be that you'll run into major problems with people abusing your system.

Flame away dakka.

Why not just give players points based on how many months their Codex has been around then.

I apologize for a succinct response but I'm writing from bed illness via Droid.

The variety you seek occurs with or withoit comp. Five of the top space wolf lists at the open looked nothing alike, one was Troy's; and only one had 3 long fang units.

Cookie cutter builds and top five units ... crap (no offense). Are their great, staple units? Sure. Does everyone run them and little else? No, not even remotely. I hear reference to this netdecking clone listing boring phenomenon, but never see it in action. Some people run 1 meltavet and some run 6. Some people successfully use ogryns while others use outflanking storm troopers. I'm as much a relic of the older game as any, 3rd aside, and I can understand the bias and influence of that history, but you're arguing using a reality as baseline that isn't real. Furthermore, when players are already using plenty of variety, trying to cut out the meat units only screws with it. If I can't take some reliable cheap meltavets, I can't make ogryns work. You want more variety, play at 2k, don't just try to shake up the variety.

Either way, I don't have a position I'm locked to. When people do in online discussions, it fast becomes trying to sound right, not discussing better ways (and there are a few).

With regard to comp council, it IS homebrew, and it is not replicable across 40k. "Good" comp council, that near mythical enlightened oligarchy, is only as replicable as the number of other enlightened, incorruptible comp council oligarchies out there. They don't exist. You can't teach fairness, and every group sees the game differently.

Finally, I hope comp isn't what taught your random bunch of name drops how to not play boring cookie cutters. It surely isn't what taught me. I hope it's not what you required.

Comp tournaments are fine, but haughty tones on both sides spliced with the occasional condescending platitudes = the kind of thing that turns me off this. Just run whatever tournament you want, and perhaps consider being less gakky toward people who don't run it the way you want or think. So what if someone wants to run a comp tournament? So what if "you" generic don't want to play in it?

There's no facts to support either side here, either to "prove" comp = variety OR to "prove" comp = bad. I don't get the point.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Why not just give players points based on how many months their Codex has been around then.

Because contrary to claim (and to be fair, not counting Necron), a good GT player can still take WH or CSM or Tau or Eldar or Ork or whatever and still rock another good GT player running SW, or IG, or BA, or whatever.

This is readily proven every weekend globally, when @ varying points levels@ varying tourneys in varying rounds that's exactly what happens. If the variety or old codex = fail position were true, events like the NOVA 2010 would have had a single IG in the finals, all the SW would have been trips fangs and/or loganwing, and there certainly wouldn't have been an ork there. Bad players bring variety often due to not knowing any better. Good players bring it because they often do know better. What are we trying to affect? The tiny sliver of averages that seek to learn with training wheels and reliable units? Heaven forbid.

Sometimes Comp (At least heavy comp) reduces variety.

I've been to a tournament where all I played were Marines and all the lists were so similar, every battle just blurs together in my mind.

I'm in favor of comp at tournaments and I feel it can be done successfully. The minor differences in SW armies at the Nova final mean little when they are all SW armies. Where were the T3 armies in the finals? Maybe that's a broader brush comp can help mitigate.

On the other hand SW and BA are the easy button of 40k. As such they will be among the first armies newer players will gravitate to. People who hate to to paint or will just own 1 army will also gravitate towards those types of armies. There are few models to paint and there are few models to buy. There is a lot of experimenting and spending money on different units in order to get a non basic army to function well. If you have lots of SW and BA in the field, then they will be overly represented in the field.

DarthDiggler wrote:I'm in favor of comp at tournaments and I feel it can be done successfully. The minor differences in SW armies at the Nova final mean little when they are all SW armies. Where were the T3 armies in the finals? Maybe that's a broader brush comp can help mitigate.

On the other hand SW and BA are the easy button of 40k. As such they will be among the first armies newer players will gravitate to. People who hate to to paint or will just own 1 army will also gravitate towards those types of armies. There are few models to paint and there are few models to buy. There is a lot of experimenting and spending money on different units in order to get a non basic army to function well. If you have lots of SW and BA in the field, then they will be overly represented in the field.

Sw were not the only armies in the finals, nor were the differences minor. Tony, sam, troy, andy, and jeremy all had widely divergent builds. I include troy b/c andy had to get through him in the fourth.

The finals included daemons, orks, ba (2 very different builds),and not even any IG. Where is the point to be made? You also take a risk saying thing like "minor differences" when that isn't true. It spanks of caring more for position than facts or resolution; to tie things back - that is precisely my problem with this sort of "discussion."

Really. I'm willing to bet the following was not in those armies.

Vindicator
Land raider
Whirlwind
Swiftclaw bikers
Skyclaw assault pack
Blood claws
Venerbale Dreads
Iron Priest
wolf priest

Did any of them have that? That means your diversified SW lists had combos of these.

Long Fangs
Predators
TWC
Grey Hunters
Lone Wolf
Scouts
Wolf Guard

Was that it? Your finals had 4 SW, 2 BA, Ork and Daemon is that right? Not very diversified at all. No T3 based lists. None.

I didn't bring up the Nova as an example of a diversified Non-comp event, you did. I'm saying I doubt it.

Mannahnin wrote:

This is an absolute load of baloney. It doesn't "force" you to do anything. It gives a POINTS BONUS for folks who make a weaker army. Everyone can still field the army they want to.

Noone is stopping them from taking whatever army they want, but you shouldnt expect to win if you purposefully choose to take an army that is bad ...

You're killing yourself with these assumptions, man.

Vindicator, land raider, wolf priest, swiftclaw bikers, all yes. Most of the others yes from among all 3-1 or betters.

I'm not familiar with the term T3, you keep using it. 4 divergent wolf lists including rarely taken characters and models, two divergent ba lists, battlewagon orks and daemons. Yes. Lists to barely miss the cut sharing 3-1 included CSM, SM, etc. You want to keep giving me ammo? Diversity of list and use of less common unit selections was present at all records and levels of the field. Why are you so attached to your desired outcome that you would challenge me so blindly on facts you know I. As the organizer can prove? Why do you think I used the NOVA as an example but for the fact that I havwe copies of every army list present? Come on, man.

kill dem stunties wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

This is an absolute load of baloney. It doesn't "force" you to do anything. It gives a POINTS BONUS for folks who make a weaker army. Everyone can still field the army they want to.

Noone is stopping them from taking whatever army they want, but you shouldn't expect to win if you purposefully choose to take an army that is bad ...

Personally, I would rather every unit be worth its points and players win because of their skill, not because of the models they buy. If I want to take Flash Gitz, I shouldn't be laughed at or be told I am making a joke of a competitive event by using a dumpster unit with no value. They should be correctly valued for thier usefulness opposed to underpowered and overpriced. Just because every codex has a few top tier lists doesn't mean internal codex balance isn't something that should be strived for eventually. I would also like all pointvalues to be balanced but games at 500 pints, 1500 points and 2500 points are totally different metagames and codexes are not fair or balanced for all levels. Maybe if GW chose a default pointvalue for competitive play and balanced for it... but they don't. Simply shifting a few hundred points can drastically impact the metagame and how people compose lists... that is COMP is its purist form right there.

If some people want to go with the current level of imbalance as 'competitive play' then good for them. If others wish to make rules to address the current imbalance, also, good for them. The total intolerance of many is astounding.

I see zero difference in changing arbitrary rules to modify force org or use custom missions and scoring or even using custom point values for scoring. Killing KPs as a scoring component or having a mission like 'ardboyz mission 3 which gave large advantages to footsloggers are custom rules a TO put in on how the game should be played and it changes the way people compose armies and accomplishes the exact same thing as most arbitrary comp and sometimes it does it better as it is pretty easy to make a mission designed to screw the top metalist at the time (much how they targeted the leafblower and punished it via custom missions all last summer)

If we're going to amend the game to encourage use of other units, why not retool those units? In all seriousness, if we progressed further with rebalancing a selection of codices both internally and externally to each other, and held an evening series of games overf the weekend as a novel trial comp tourney, who would participate?

MVBrandt wrote:

Vindicator, land raider, wolf priest, swiftclaw bikers, all yes. Most of the others yes from among all 3-1 or betters.

I'm not familiar with the term T3, you keep using it.

Did 3-1 make your final 8? That is what we are talking about. How many of the final 8 had those units? NONE. You can't find them so you shift the discussion from final lists to 3-1 lists. T3 means toughness 3. Any codex that uses a primary toughness 3 model. You had none, zero, in the finals. The Nova open finals show that diversity does not exist in the current format. Not to the point that is acceptable to the comp proponents. 8 final army lists and 4 of which came from one codex. You are proving our point with each post. Those 4 SW lists in the finals had similar units. They did not choose from Vindicator, Land raider (any varient), bikes, jump packs, dreads (were any kind in them?), etc... They all had different combinations of the same subset of units.

I bet if you take the units from all 4 SW final lists you would not get to helf the units in the SW codex. That's what a comp system is designed to do, get the other half of the SW codex on the table and in the finals of the Nova Open.

Dude, yes, 3-1 did make final 8 and that's what I was talking about. Stop now, you aren't even reading clearly, so attached are you to your position.

There are also other ways to encourage list diversity and daring other than comp, I.e. only having to win each game by the slimmest of margins (the primary reason for variability and use of suboptimal units in nova style events).

MVBrandt wrote:If we're going to amend the game to encourage use of other units, why not retool those units? In all seriousness, if we progressed further with rebalancing a selection of codices both internally and externally to each other, and held an evening series of games overf the weekend as a novel trial comp tourney, who would participate?

I agree. I think 6th edition should be Living Rule Books. I would totally support a independent rules council that repointed units or changed rules. That is how Bloodbowl became as great as it did. Bloodbowl is quite possibly one of the best games for competitive play out there at this time.

But something like this would really need to be a labor of love and have widespread support the way bloodbowl did. It took years to really fix the issues. I think it would take a shift from GW to acknowledge the competitive side of the hobby as valid and look to actually support it with a goal of true balance. That doesn't seem to be on GW's radar right now, and unlike bloodbowl, I am not sure they would even support the community doing it.

GW actually may eventually get it right through playtesting and not need to rebalance codex. Can you imagine if they let the community playtest every codex for 3 months before they released it in order to see the path of least resistance and what units get ignored? It would also allow us RAW lawyers hunt out the smelly rule issues. I think it would go a long way to making things more competitive if they actually rebalanced a codex after it was battle tested in the tourney circuit. I play an older codex and the imbalance in my units are drastic, I think newer codex are having less drastic imbalances but some units are just unusable it seems.

Right now, all we can do is let TOs do what they do until 2-3 more years of codex redesign eventually tries to make codexes better and maybe 6th edition will come out and sweep up the last holes in 5th edition. Until then, prepare for lots of people screaming on forums

Interdstingly, we've been pursuing this type of approach internally / locally, check out the internal codex rebalance series on whiskey40k. I don't really disagree that there are a lot of suboptimal or improperly costed units in most dexes. I only take umbrage to arguments that state only a few codexes can really compete without comp, or that comp is required to achieve variety.

If the goal is getting every individual unit to be competitively fieldable, well, that requires changing the units (which is also the simplest and most streamlined approach).

mikhaila wrote:The 'Battle Points are why 40k is unbalanced' is a Red Herring. Players still want to win all their games, battle points or other format. They aren't going to take worse lists because a tournament doesn't use battle points. Sure, they don't need to club a seal as hard in round one, but no way in hell will they take less than what they consider their best build in case they run into someone tough in round 5.

This is true but the requirement to massacre regularly as opposed to simply winning does discourage diversity.

It can't be ignored that any attempt to impose guidelines for scoring composition will become an exploitable system itself.

I feel the same way about the painting checklist and the sportsmanship checklist. As already discussed, the sportsmanship one is so vague it just begs for subjectivity and favoritism. For painting;I could paint a figure with the most godawful color scheme, ridiculous can-can-dance pose (but hey it's "dynamic"), smurf-villiage under its feet for a base (but it has 2 elements added on it!) that would get all the points on the painting checklist except the one for "does the miniature look good". Still just by going down the checklist I can paint an almost perfect score joke just by staying within the proverbial lines, and milking the system. Not that I'm saying that people do this, but they could do this.

The point is, any standardised scoring to prevent abusive aggressive play will just be turned around and used as another facet of abusive aggressive play. The only solution is to dump soft scores as they will just become exploitable hard scores anyway the moment the checklist is drawn up.

MVBrandt wrote:I don't really disagree that there are a lot of suboptimal or improperly costed units in most dexes. I only take umbrage to arguments that state only a few codexes can really compete without comp, or that comp is required to achieve variety.

I think you're misunderstanding my posts, then. Because you seem to have taken umbrage with them, and I didn't say either of those things.

I apologize for my at-times strident tone, and my failure to communicate my points and my opinions to you effectively.

IMO you appear to have an emotional stake and investment in your beliefs as well; at least that's the impression given by statements like:

MVBrandt wrote:Finally, I hope comp isn't what taught your random bunch of name drops how to not play boring cookie cutters. It surely isn't what taught me. I hope it's not what you required.

I certainly started playing by taking the best units and lists I could make and get my hands on. I think most people start that way. Comp gave me a material incentive to experiment more and change up my lists, for tournaments.

Right now I see a larger tournament metagame in which Comp is dropping by the wayside, and a lot of newer players see no particular incentive to innovate and experiment with their lists. And IMO that's a less-desirable circumstance. Let me be clear! I am not saying the current tournament environment, with its lack of Comp, is a bad thing! I am saying it could be better, IMO. I am saying that carefully-executed Comp can be a tool to make tournaments better. I never once said that it was the only way to go, or that all events should use it.

My "random bunch of name drops" may or may not have had Comp as a factor in why they don't build cookie-cutter armies. In most of their cases, I know they came up and were successful in Comped events, that they're successful in non-Comped events too (so no one should doubt their abilities as players) and I know that they don't use cookie-cutter armies. They can speak for themselves as to whether Comp was a factor in that, though I suspect strongly that Blackmoor and the guys from Da Boyz, at least, would say so. If they did, I don't see how that's a bad thing. and I'm a little confused as to why you would think it's a bad thing.

yeenoghu wrote:It can't be ignored that any attempt to impose guidelines for scoring composition will become an exploitable system itself.

1. From one perspective, this is a feature, not a bug. If people enjoy "gaming" the system by watering down their lists to get better Comp scores, the system is serving its purpose.
2. A checklist/guidelines doesn't have to be part of a comp council system.

You express your opinions very strongly. MVBrandt has pointed out that the stridency with which I have been expressing mine has compromised their persuasiveness. But next to you I look like a beacon of beatific patience.

yeenoghu wrote: As already discusse, the sportsmanship one is so vague it just begs for subjectivity and favoritism.

Take it to the other thread. I still think you're wrong, but we can argue it out over there.

yeenoghu wrote:For painting;I could paint a figure with the most godawful color scheme, ridiculous can-can-dance pose (but hey it's "dynamic"), smurf-villiage under its feet for a base (but it has 2 elements added on it!) that would get all the points on the painting checklist except the one for "does the miniature look good". Still just by going down the checklist I can paint an almost perfect score joke just by staying within the proverbial lines, and milking the system. Not that I'm saying that people do this, but they could do this.

Off topic, but I'll indulge you.

No, not with a well-written checklist judged by people who know how to paint and are familiar with basic techniques. Here's a common checklist:

Well 38/40 isn't bad is it? TWO whopping points for the hot pink and swamp green space wolf models with rainbow colored mohawks and converted ork arms and tyranid heads dancing the can-can over smurf villiage with neatly picked out eyes and so on. Making sure to throw some uniformly unlikely body parts on them for 'entire army is extremely converted' bit.

This would take a lot of work just to look atrocious, and is really just a mockery of the points system that nobody in their right mind would do. Perhaps it is a less than ideal example, but the point is that it can be done, that any cut-and-dry checklist can be used against its intended purpose.

The 'overall appearance is pleasing' is worth as many points as gluing a plastic skull to every base. I'm not trying to argue that this is a good idea, but I wonder how many people have squeezed in those skulls (whatever) just because they could get an extra couple of points for it.

This isn't about painting or sportsmanship though, the larger issue I have with all of these attempts to categorize and apply a mathematical system to soft scores is that it just gets exploitable.

Not 38/40. The kind of crap army you're talking about (which we see online, but almost never at an actual tournament) inevitably also has terrible technical execution, and misses almost all the 2pt questions about quality of technique.

I think you're exaggerating the issue, and that the problems you are screaming about are not much more substantial than the imaginary "hot pink and swamp green space wolf" army trend which has been sweeping across the tournament scene and making a mockery of all our carefully-designed painting scores (oh noes!).

It's a parallel, I'm not saying horrible army exists.

Consider the COMP score made into a definative rule of what does and does not qualify you for losing a point off of your score: just as some hypothetical forinstances, all identicle armed squads is a sign of spamming, therefore dock a point off of the score, therefore 1 long fang takes a lascannon instead to save the point. Giving all large ork mobs a hidden powerclaw is a sign of maximising utility so dock a point, so some genius takes just less than the number required to be considered a 'large' mob. Wound allocation tailoring dock a point, therefore 2 guys get armed the same and one dies quicker than everyone else to save that point.

Any way of trying to balance out what all come down to imbalanced rules can be sidestepped one way or another with just a small tweak intended solely for that purpose (like gluing a skull to every base). If 25 is the cutoff for the ork mob, everyone will use 24, or whichever hypothetical standard is made to determine what is good and bad army composition.
Along those lines, you may as well introduce another soft score for how little you tailored your list to the now hardened composition score too. I'm not "screaming" I just can't understand any way of avoiding that kind of player in an environment so amped up with understandably competative attitudes.

I think if you have to force players to innovate with points rather than their own determination to win then it's a problem with the player base. If a player isn't willing to work on their list, tweak it and find new ways to win then no amount of bonus points will fix that.

However, some units are simply ineffective in competitive play and using them does not create variety, it's just poor list building. I've seen far more innovative and competitive lists come out of YTTH than I've ever seen at any of the comp events I've attended.

A few general thoughts on this topic, some based on economic theory:

1. A lot of the argument over comp scores comes down to the following question: Does every army have the right to have competitive builds at any one time? A lot of the arguments for comp scores boil down to "Necrons and Tau suck compared to Space Wolves and IG, so we need to help Necron and Tau players out". This is a hard question to answer. Comparing to M:TG suggests no. It's been a decade since I was a competitive M:TG player, but I can definetly remember times when certain colors were totally absent from the tournament scene. A more useful comparison might be Legend of the Five Rings, though, where people take clan loyalty seriously. A good solution might be GW giving FAQs to old armies every couple of years. That really could be a good idea for them, it would help them sell their back catalog of models to get more out of their investments.

2. The other major argument for comp scores is basically: "Spamming units is boring". This is basically impossible to prevent, and I can prove it using economics. In economics, it is generally assumed that people like to consume a mix of goods, the idea being that most people want to consume some food, some shelter, some clothes, some entertainment, etc. This is basically guaranteed if the following two things are true: Prices act linearly (That is, prices don't change based on how much you buy, milk costs $3 a carton no matter how many cartons you buy) and you get increasingly less satisfaction from a unit of something as you consume more of it (The first TV set is much more useful to you than the 25th). But, what if this second property, which we call "diminishing marginal utility", is false. Suppose that the 25th TV brings more happiness than the first. What will consumption patterns look like then?

The answer is that people will tend to consume only 1 thing. This is very uncommon in real life, but let's try to fit this problem into a 40k context. Here, prices are points values. Note that in 40k, prices are linear, as we require. The first Predator costs the same as the third. Now, ask yourself: Does the third Predator add more value to a hypothetical list than the first? The answer, at least sometimes, is yes. It is a well known fact that lots of things are better taken in mulitples, due to target saturation and synergy. This isn't true for everything (Sanguinary Priests), but it is true often enough. The simple fact is that linear point values basically guarantee that spamming is the most effective way to build a list.

Now, what do comp scores do? To an extent they discourage spamming, as they act to make prices increase as you buy more by punishing taking multiples. However, it seems like they more strongly act to simply raise the price of certain units and lower the price of others. This does not discourage spamming, it simply encourages spamming something different than would be spammed at a non-comp tournament.

This is why doing comp well enough to satisfy even a majority is going to be really difficult. Ultimately, you have a conflict between those for whom winning is the top priority, and those who have other goals. Reconciling these two groups is pretty difficult. One way to at least shake up the armies being played in tournaments would be to do something like a sealed deck or booster draft for collectible card game tournaments. Maybe the organizer could require everyone to bring a 1000 point list, and then have a variety of 500 point or so packages of additional units that can be drafted to add to your existing army? I would think that official GW tournaments could make that happen at least. It is a well known fact that "limited" environment tournaments are the truest test of a Magic player's skill.

If there is interest, I could write an article fleshing out my arguments in point #2 above.

Well, there's a third consideration, we can call it Constraint 1, which is generally that the community at large wishes to see #1 and #2 achieved without violating Constraint 1: "Change the rules as little as possible, with optimally 0 impact on the underlying rules themselves".

Thus changing point costs is generally 'out', because that's one of the most drastic rules changes one could make. Unfortunately, this is probably the "best" option out of the lot, if done correctly, because anything can be a valid, competitive choice as long as it is priced cheaply enough relative to other options.

MrEconomics wrote:A few general thoughts on this topic, some based on economic theory:

1. A lot of the argument over comp scores comes down to the following question: Does every army have the right to have competitive builds at any one time? A lot of the arguments for comp scores boil down to "Necrons and Tau suck compared to Space Wolves and IG, so we need to help Necron and Tau players out". This is a hard question to answer. Comparing to M:TG suggests no. It's been a decade since I was a competitive M:TG player, but I can definetly remember times when certain colors were totally absent from the tournament scene. A more useful comparison might be Legend of the Five Rings, though, where people take clan loyalty seriously. A good solution might be GW giving FAQs to old armies every couple of years. That really could be a good idea for them, it would help them sell their back catalog of models to get more out of their investments.

Yeah the FAQ updates can really help out old armies or at least give them a nice shot in the arm to remain somewhat viable until a new codex comes around. The recent FAQ's for Black Templars and Dark Angels really helped those codices. They still aren't tier 1 but they are definitely playable in a competitive environment where they weren't before. In regards to those hapless codices in need of an update. I would argue that we can just leave well enough alone and wait for a new version. We can complain until we're blue in the face that Necrons are basically terrible but really aren't most codices playable these days? In fact the vast majority or codices can create at least 1 solid quality list if not 2. Maybe that Tau player doesn't have the flexibility that a Space Wolf player has in list construction, but really I see this as a non-problem. Yes not all codices are created equal, but most codices can create a competitive army. I just don't see handicapping based on codex as a necessity right now. Maybe it helps a Necron player, but at the expense of every other codex. Sorry but that's just not worth the trouble.

2. The other major argument for comp scores is basically: "Spamming units is boring". This is basically impossible to prevent, and I can prove it using economics. In economics, it is generally assumed that people like to consume a mix of goods, the idea being that most people want to consume some food, some shelter, some clothes, some entertainment, etc. This is basically guaranteed if the following two things are true: Prices act linearly (That is, prices don't change based on how much you buy, milk costs $3 a carton no matter how many cartons you buy) and you get increasingly less satisfaction from a unit of something as you consume more of it (The first TV set is much more useful to you than the 25th). But, what if this second property, which we call "diminishing marginal utility", is false. Suppose that the 25th TV brings more happiness than the first. What will consumption patterns look like then?

The answer is that people will tend to consume only 1 thing. This is very uncommon in real life, but let's try to fit this problem into a 40k context. Here, prices are points values. Note that in 40k, prices are linear, as we require. The first Predator costs the same as the third. Now, ask yourself: Does the third Predator add more value to a hypothetical list than the first? The answer, at least sometimes, is yes. It is a well known fact that lots of things are better taken in mulitples, due to target saturation and synergy. This isn't true for everything (Sanguinary Priests), but it is true often enough. The simple fact is that linear point values basically guarantee that spamming is the most effective way to build a list.

Now, what do comp scores do? To an extent they discourage spamming, as they act to make prices increase as you buy more by punishing taking multiples. However, it seems like they more strongly act to simply raise the price of certain units and lower the price of others. This does not discourage spamming, it simply encourages spamming something different than would be spammed at a non-comp tournament.
This is why doing comp well enough to satisfy even a majority is going to be really difficult. Ultimately, you have a conflict between those for whom winning is the top priority, and those who have other goals. Reconciling these two groups is pretty difficult. One way to at least shake up the armies being played in tournaments would be to do something like a sealed deck or booster draft for collectible card game tournaments. Maybe the organizer could require everyone to bring a 1000 point list, and then have a variety of 500 point or so packages of additional units that can be drafted to add to your existing army? I would think that official GW tournaments could make that happen at least. It is a well known fact that "limited" environment tournaments are the truest test of a Magic player's skill.

If there is interest, I could write an article fleshing out my arguments in point #2 above.

If people deem spamming a serious problem then you can use more objective forms of comp to solve that problem. For the record I don't see spamming as a problem, and frankly taking 3 of what is perceived as a great unit isn't actually always the best thing to do. Spam can create mono dimensional list construction. If often isn't optimal anyway. Even so if for whatever reason we feel that players should mix up their model selection you can always enforce singleton rules (one of any model only) or something to that effect. If you don't like Eldrad in a non Ulthwe craftworld then create those rules as well. That's fine for any given tournament. I see it as addressing a "problem" that I don't really feel exists, but if that's what a TO wants to do then so be it. Far better than some closed door Comp council IMO.

sourclams wrote:Well, there's a third consideration, we can call it Constraint 1, which is generally that the community at large wishes to see #1 and #2 achieved without violating Constraint 1: "Change the rules as little as possible, with optimally 0 impact on the underlying rules themselves".

Thus changing point costs is generally 'out', because that's one of the most drastic rules changes one could make. Unfortunately, this is probably the "best" option out of the lot, if done correctly, because anything can be a valid, competitive choice as long as it is priced cheaply enough relative to other options.

Totally agree. My point is that it is basically impossible to avoid spamming being optimal, because the changes required to discourage it are too drastic. I also acknowledge that spamming isn't always optimal, I just think it will be often enough to happen a lot when players are trying hard to win.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, guys.

I agree with most of the last few posts. To a large extent Comp is much less necessary in 5th, and with the current codex mix. And it is very difficult to do well and effectively. Trying to make an objective checklist is almost always doomed to failure; it's theoretically possible with a great deal of work, but would need to be updated every time a codex comes out, and many of the judgments get subjective and finicky.

I do think Comp can be useful and provide beneficial effects, when used with care. It's very difficult, and often historically has been done badly. I just don't like seeing the entire concept disdained and defamed, when I've seen beneficial effects in action. We're best off with more options and possibilities for tournaments; I don't like seeing a tool for a TO discarded, even if it is hard to use.

I know I couldn't play in a tourney that uses the painting checklist that is pictured above. I would only score 18 of 40 points. I'm not a good enough painter/modeller to be able to score any more than that and I'm not a good enough player to overcome that handicap so adios to that tourney.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I know I couldn't play in a tourney that uses the painting checklist that is pictured above. I would only score 18 of 40 points. I'm not a good enough painter/modeller to be able to score any more than that and I'm not a good enough player to overcome that handicap so adios to that tourney.

Most tourneys have a 'best general' which is raw battlepoints. So while you may not be able to do best overall everywhere, I am not sure it makes all tourneys a waste of your time as you can still win. Besides... you might actually have 'fun' playing games with others with no expectation of financial reward. The simple act of playing somewhere with nice terrain and someone else organizing 3-4 back to back games that make the best use of my time is usually reward enough.

nkelsch wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I know I couldn't play in a tourney that uses the painting checklist that is pictured above. I would only score 18 of 40 points. I'm not a good enough painter/modeller to be able to score any more than that and I'm not a good enough player to overcome that handicap so adios to that tourney.

Most tourneys have a 'best general' which is raw battlepoints. So while you may not be able to do best overall everywhere, I am not sure it makes all tourneys a waste of your time as you can still win. Besides... you might actually have 'fun' playing games with others with no expectation of financial reward. The simple act of playing somewhere with nice terrain and someone else organizing 3-4 back to back games that make the best use of my time is usually reward enough.

+1 to this.

A) All those goals are achievable by virtually anyone with some practice and work. I think I got ~ a 25 or 26? I wasn't in contention to win Best Painted, but neither are the vast majority of players in a given tournament. And the best painters aren't always the best players, either.

B) The tournament I took that from didn't actually add painting into the Overall; the main winner was purely battle points. Painting was a purely separate category.

C) If your only reason to attend a tournament is to win, you are going into it with the wrong mindset, honestly. The main point is to get 3 or more games in, against fun (and hopefully some new) opponents, and see a bunch of nice-looking, fully-painted armies. Your average Saturday at the local hobby shop, for most people, is not a time you can expect to get three games, not a time you can expect to see people from out of town and meet new gamers, and not a time you can expect to see all painted armies.

I always shoot to win, but I know that only one person's going to, so if I make my happiness contingent on winning, I am setting myself up for a binary choice- victory or disappointment. And that's a fool's game. Better to be happy about the above things you are guaranteed to get, and take winning something as a nice bonus when you achieve it.

I guess my position is that I can, and do, play for fun but why should I pay for it? I already play at my LFGS and I don't see the need to incur extra costs to have fun else-where.
However, my main point is that things that, to one person, make the tourney more interesting can make it seem more restrictive to someone else. Let's be honest, people play to win at tournements and if you already start at what you feel is a disadvantage then you're not likely to attend. The disadvantage could be your paint score or it could be you feel handicapped by a comp rule in either case it just makes some people not want to attend the event. If you're one of those people who feel that they just want to play the game to "play the game" then it doesn't matter what rules are involved with the event. You're going to attend regardless.

As long as the check list is not tiered, so that you have to score 100% of the checks from one tier to earn any checks in another tier.
I do much better at modeling than I do painting, and in one GT, the organizers use the tier, and in another one, they don't.
The GT with the tier also uses the arbitrary Comp score too, leaving it entirly up to the opponents to score and sportsmanship.
Check boxes make it fair, so at least you know everyone is being held to the same standard.

People act like comp, painting and sportsmanship prevent them from winning. It does nothing of the kind. All it means is that you win via a different system.

One of the biggest jerks on the gaming table locally suddenly decided one day that he was going to try and win via something other than brute force. He became the funnest gamer you ever played with. He subsequently won sportsmanship at local tournis all over the place. DO i think he suddenly became the greatest person to play with. No. i just think he was acting but he made the games more fun.

Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

And yes. there should always be different prize for best overall, best general and best painted, best sport and grot award for the biggest looser. It make the tourni more fun IMHO

sennacherib wrote:Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Or the 'foes' could actually take a good list to a tournament so they don't get 'rolled over'.

It's very sad that folks want to bring down playing levels rather than try to elevate others playing levels to bring some equality to the competitive scene.

People act like comp, painting and sportsmanship prevent them from winning. It does nothing of the kind. All it means is that you win via a different system.

This is absolutely correct.

One of the biggest jerks on the gaming table locally suddenly decided one day that he was going to try and win via something other than brute force. He became the funnest gamer you ever played with. He subsequently won sportsmanship at local tournis all over the place. DO i think he suddenly became the greatest person to play with. No. i just think he was acting but he made the games more fun.

Really? I dont want to play an opponent who ACTS in order to be nice. I would rather take the jerk.

Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Speaking from my perspective: I have just models for the army I play. This army has some heart and theme in it and the combinations are optimized through many battles. So this army has a history and some thought behind it.
In a malificious system there comes a random comp. where I have to suffer probably more from than some randomly chosen heap of units, which isnt better themed, just less thoughts behind it.

In a benefition system, you have those guys optimizing between bonus and strength in order to reach the best possible result. (winnig massacre with as many bonus points as possible)
Their mentality will not be changed at all. As you said, you win via a different system.
So I say that jerks "jerk" via a different system too. This doesnt stop them being jerks. (If ambitious generals are jerks and not funny in your opinion, I personally experienced to the contrary)

We have even ETC guys here, who downgrade their army by themselves in order to have a challenge (or try different tactics and approaches), because the lamer armies are dull to play.

So comp imho is not a problem, its also not necessary. It is just a variant of a regular tournament.

imweasel wrote:

sennacherib wrote:Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Or the 'foes' could actually take a good list to a tournament so they don't get 'rolled over'.

It's very sad that folks want to bring down playing levels rather than try to elevate others playing levels to bring some equality to the competitive scene.

When GW balances all the codexes and all the units within the codexes I will agree with you. Until then, everyone basically would have to take one of a handful cookie-cutter armies they may or may not like collecting in order to bring 'good' lists. If I take even one sub-optimal unit then I have to deal with snobs going "pffft, lern to bring a good list noob. Go smash your suboptimal units in the parking lot with a hammer."

And supposedly if comp is so easily gamed for an advantage, then what's the problem? People who like to play hard can game the comp for a larger advantage and win even more? Sounds like gamers with skill can simply game whatever system prevented and still win right?

nkelsch wrote:And supposedly if comp is so easily gamed for an advantage, then what's the problem? People who like to play hard can game the comp for a larger advantage and win even more? Sounds like gamers with skill can simply game whatever system prevented and still win right?

Then what's the point of comp?

imweasel wrote:

nkelsch wrote:And supposedly if comp is so easily gamed for an advantage, then what's the problem? People who like to play hard can game the comp for a larger advantage and win even more? Sounds like gamers with skill can simply game whatever system prevented and still win right?

Then what's the point of comp?

What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

nkelsch wrote: What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

It raises the $ expense of being competitive. Without comp, I can be competitive on a budget. People love to rain hate on so called "Internet lists" for being boring, but the other side of the coin is that they are known to be competitive. Thus, someone on a budget can buy only the models they need to make a good army. To fully game a comp system, one needs to have the ability to use units that in any other context would be weak, and that costs money.

I'm sure this won't disappoint anyone out there who dislikes people who play mainly or solely to win, but it isn't clear to me why your viewpoint should take precedence in a tournament setting.

MrEconomics wrote:

nkelsch wrote: What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

It raises the $ expense of being competitive. Without comp, I can be competitive on a budget. People love to rain hate on so called "Internet lists" for being boring, but the other side of the coin is that they are known to be competitive. Thus, someone on a budget can buy only the models they need to make a good army. To fully game a comp system, one needs to have the ability to use units that in any other context would be weak, and that costs money.

I'm sure this won't disappoint anyone out there who dislikes people who play mainly or solely to win, but it isn't clear to me why your viewpoint should take precedence in a tournament setting.

Uh... the competitiveness of an army is in no way connected to how much you spend... If it was... an all metal blood crusher list would be more expensive than an all plastic one... and my sisters of battle would be unbeatable!

I realize it is pretty much apocryphal, but the top 7 places (out of 12) in our non comp rtt last weekend was 7 different books.
Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Orks, Eldar, Blood Angels.

Yeah people will say "look at all the marines" but really, each list was completely different from the others.

I'm a bit curious about what everyone in this thread thinks of my FLGS's comp system currently in place. At the end of the last tournament last year we had a big round table discussion on how to make comp more fair to armies. At the discussion I personally was firmly in the anti-comp camp, but we eased the rules a fair bit and they're significantly better than last year. Can they be circumvented? In large part yes, but it does change the dynamics a bit at the top tables.

An armies beginning score is 30. Deduct points as explained (round all percentages up).

Item 1) At least 35% of the army must be composed of units taken as troops. For every 2% less than 35%, deduct 1 point.

Item 2) No more than 25% in any single category other than troops. For every 1% more than 25%, deduct 1 point.

Item 3) No single model more than 12%, no units more than 23%. For every unit in violation, deduct 3 points. Tyranids recieve 1 exemption.

Item 4) No more than 2 of any single choice in HQ, Elite, Fast, or Heavy. No more than 3 of any single choice in Troops. Necrons and Black Templar ignore this rule with their current codex. For each violation, deduct 3 points.

Item 5) Army List. Army list must list each units war gear/upgrades along with costs (seperated from total unit cost), number of units per selection, total number of models, and a breakdown of points and choices by selection as well as choices and points spent per catagory. Five copies of the army list are needed for the tournament – 1 for the judges, 3 for your opponents, and one for yourself (the first tournament will have four games so a sixth copy will be needed. Players that ask for copies to be printed at the store prior to the tournament will be charged 25 cents per page. -5 if all conditions are not met (lists built using Army Builder will not lose points).

Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

MrDrumMachine wrote:
Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

I don't understand this one... I would have problems fielding an ork army under this rule. Did you guys get raped by 180 spinegaunts or 180 chaos cultists in a past edition? I guess it is one way to get rid of horde and possible time issues

The rest seem straight out of 3rd edition comp rules.

@MrDrumMachine: I think its a decent idea, except that its a lot of math that a TO will have to do,especialy if it is a Larger number Tourny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@nkelsch: How many models do you put on the table for a 1850 game? At 1850 this works out to 123.3 (or 124 if they round up). Seems like a reasonable limit since you are only lossing points buy each +5 models.
On the other hand a ork or Nid army could get screwed over a bit in a 1000 to 1500 point tourny.

My 1500 point Nid "Claw of Doom" army would lose 2 points using this comp system.
Tyrind Prime
3xGenesteelers
3xHomagaunts
2xGargoyles
1x Tygon Prime
2xZoeys.
Comes out to 78 models.

What this system dosent take into account is that My over numbered army (for this comp system) is more than likely going to get wiped off the board fairly quicky. So no real effect on game length.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I guess my position is that I can, and do, play for fun but why should I pay for it? I already play at my LFGS and I don't see the need to incur extra costs to have fun else-where.

If getting a guaranteed three games in one day (more, at a four-rounder or a two-day GT), against some new opponents, and seeing 12-40 (local level) or 50-100+ (Adepticon or GT) fully painted armies on display, and getting to meet and face new opponents from out of town are all of no value to you, then maybe you're right. Maybe tournaments aren't worth your time.

Leo_the_Rat wrote: Let's be honest, people play to win at tournements and if you already start at what you feel is a disadvantage then you're not likely to attend. The disadvantage could be your paint score or it could be you feel handicapped by a comp rule in either case it just makes some people not want to attend the event.

Well, if you have no desire to work or improve your skills, if you expect to be able to win events and be better than other people at painting or at playing without additional effort, then I think your expectations might be out of whack. If people whose only goal is to win are dissuaded from attending an event because they lack the skills to compete under that event's rules, that's sad for them. They're still creating that problem for themselves by a) Giving themselves the binary choice of victory or disappointment, and b) falsely assuming that they cannot improve.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

sennacherib wrote:Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Or the 'foes' could actually take a good list to a tournament so they don't get 'rolled over'.

It's very sad that folks want to bring down playing levels rather than try to elevate others playing levels to bring some equality to the competitive scene.

If we both bring SW to a tournament, mine is a standard LF/GH/Razor list, and yours includes Blood Claws and Vindicators, but you win more games/accumulate more battle points, which of us has displayed more skill?

I give list optimization advice all the time in Tactics, and pretty much every time I post in army lists. Most of the time people want to strengthen their lists, and I help them do that. Your premises are false, and leading you to mistaken conclusions.

nkelsch wrote:

MrDrumMachine wrote:
Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

I don't understand this one... I would have problems fielding an ork army under this rule. Did you guys get raped by 180 spinegaunts or 180 chaos cultists in a past edition? I guess it is one way to get rid of horde and possible time issues

The rest seem straight out of 3rd edition comp rules.

It's more to make sure games finish in time at higher points levels, or so I'm lead to believe.

MrDrumMachine wrote:I'm a bit curious about what everyone in this thread thinks of my FLGS's comp system currently in place. At the end of the last tournament last year we had a big round table discussion on how to make comp more fair to armies. At the discussion I personally was firmly in the anti-comp camp, but we eased the rules a fair bit and they're significantly better than last year. Can they be circumvented? In large part yes, but it does change the dynamics a bit at the top tables.

Items 1-4 favor newer codices, especially SW and BA which have viable options in all slots at economical choices. SW can easily take a couple Tcav, couple LF, couple LW, and max out on GH and have a good list.

All you've really done is deter dual Land Raider/AssTerm lists or their equivalent with big, points intensive units, and hurt codices without as reliable troops like Necrons and Tau.

Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

This takes 1-5 to a whole new level, harming Orks, foot IG, and some specific mass sisters builds. "You have troops under 15 ppm? Sorry, you're boned".

Seems totally arbitrary. Space Wolf MSU scores max points, Mech IG takes a minor hit (or no hit), Vulkan Space Marines get hammered, and many other army lists get nicked.

The higher the point total for the list, the more of a beating codices without powerful troops takes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If we both bring SW to a tournament, mine is a standard LF/GH/Razor list, and yours includes Blood Claws and Vindicators, but you win more games/accumulate more battle points, which of us has displayed more skill?

Impossible to say unless it's actually a true Swiss format. Matchups and missions have just as much impact.

Nicorex wrote:@nkelsch: How many models do you put on the table for a 1850 game? At 1850 this works out to 123.3 (or 124 if they round up). Seems like a reasonable limit since you are only lossing points buy each +5 models.
On the other hand a ork or Nid army could get screwed over a bit in a 1000 to 1500 point tourny.

Let me think... In a dredbash which is what I have been running recently, I usually take 3 troops of 30 boyz and a troop of 30 grots and then 2 deff dreds, 2 Big Meks and 9 KKs. So that is 133 models right there without any elites or fast attack. Sometimes those troops may be down to 20 boyz but that still is pretty close to the 123.3 for an 1850.

I would totally be able to work around it, it just forces me to take variations and do something different. I would 'game the comp' and revise my list accordingly. If a TO felt it worked for his group, I would give it a shot, but it is the first attempt to control armysize via comp I have ever seen.

First time I have ever seen actualy number of models limited myself. Usally its just type of units, IE LongFang spam and what not.

Well looking at your list that does seem a bit to controling of a comp system(well that part anyway).
MrDrum did say he thought it was to help large games finish on time. Mabye they had tons of slow players that were not finishing.
I dont think this would work for say a Adepticon level of event though.

Nicorex wrote:First time I have ever seen actualy number of models limited myself. Usally its just type of units, IE LongFang spam and what not.

Well looking at your list that does seem a bit to controling of a comp system(well that part anyway).
MrDrum did say he thought it was to help large games finish on time. Mabye they had tons of slow players that were not finishing.
I dont think this would work for say a Adepticon level of event though.

I would rather be told upfront to limit my models to speed up play than to have someone holding chess timers over my head and I lose out on things I paid for with points because one phase happened to take a really long time. If someone assaults a wall of 180 boyz on his turn 3, it may take 20 minutes to sort out the scrum, but because it is his assault phase he would be 'punished' for it. I could slow play my response and be "whoops! you are out of time... none of your kills on my boyz happened and half your assault is wasted. My turn!"

Too many 'unknowns' with turn timers and too much incentive to slow play. At least the model limit probably does speed up games and everyone is on the same page and no motivation to slow play.

If I had to choose between 'turn timer' comp and 'model limit' comp, I would choose model limit as the desired choice. It at least gives me a chance to turn some of my boyz into trukk boyz or single models like deff dreds to speed things up.

I do think it is interesting how some who would be the first to say 'no comp' probably will be the first to demand 'turn timers'. Why? because their style of play benefits from cutting other people's turns short, not because it is fair. Technically if GW is the god of balance, then horde armies are perfectly balanced and if a game takes 4 hours to play then that is the true game as time limits are not part of the rules. If you really believe in 'no comp' then you have to support unlimited time limits and accept horde armies are balanced so they should have every right to take longer to play than mech/shooty armies.

nkelsch wrote:What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

Because if that's the best a comp system can do, it's worthless. So why even bother to have it in the first place?

No comp system I have seen achieves what it's supposed to achieve.

It sounds like you would want to put one in place in a vain attempt to 'penalize' competitive players.

imweasel wrote:
It sounds like you would want to put one in place in a vain attempt to 'penalize' competitive players.

But... if comp only rewards competitive players and penalizes casual players the way people who are anti-comp claim... then why all the backlash? I though the whole reason not to have it was it doesn't actually penalize competitive gamers?

You can't say it penalizes and rewards competitive gamers at the same time.

The only people it supposedly penalizes are people who have inflexible armies who are built for a specific size and can't change at all. Not sure I really have any empathy for those players as no one has a right to have one army list be perpetually effective for the life of their wargaming career. The metagame changes every codex and we are all forced to change an adapt and buy more and different models. You don't think GW plans it this way? (IE: BW sprues going down in cost when the FAQ changed to make them work on vehicles?)

nkelsch wrote:

imweasel wrote:
It sounds like you would want to put one in place in a vain attempt to 'penalize' competitive players.

But... if comp only rewards competitive players and penalizes casual players the way people who are anti-comp claim... then why all the backlash? I though the whole reason not to have it was it doesn't actually penalize competitive gamers?

You can't say it penalizes and rewards competitive gamers at the same time.

The only people it supposedly penalizes are people who have inflexible armies who are built for a specific size and can't change at all. Not sure I really have any empathy for those players as no one has a right to have one army list be perpetually effective for the life of their wargaming career. The metagame changes every codex and we are all forced to change an adapt and buy more and different models. You don't think GW plans it this way? (IE: BW sprues going down in cost when the FAQ changed to make them work on vehicles?)

Why is casual play in a tournament?

I mean... i guess you could comp a league... or campaign... but i'm not sure why you'd reward casual play and penalize competitive play in a competitive environment....

As far as BW sprues going down in cost when the FAQ helped them... that actually sounds like a good thing to me. Did that really happen?

nkelsch wrote:But... if comp only rewards competitive players and penalizes casual players the way people who are anti-comp claim... then why all the backlash?

Part of the reason for the backlash is that the proponents of comp often try to use it to stake out the moral high ground so they can look down on people who play harder or different armies than they like to play.

The only good idea so far has been to buff crappy units.

So far the primary reason that has been posted that it wouldn't work, and I agree with the reasoning, even though the root cause (gamers with a poor grasp of game balance concepts) is irritating, is because changing points values is regarded as a too large of a change, and gamers would have some weird feelings with how changing points costs would interact with their idea of the status quo.

But you're doing the same thing with these bizarre rules systems, by effectively increasing the point costs of good units at best, and at worst just randomly making haphazard adjustments (like most of the suggestions for comp so far)

Seriously, this thread is full of crap like "Divide the army total by an arbitrary number I asspulled, then subtract how many chickens can fit in a rhino, then add the square of a meltagun's range, and then use the resulting information to make random changes aimed at improving the game by reducing good units' ability to perform"

How is something like that, or any of the other comp systems that actually effect a unit's performance, somehow any less invasive than just saying the missile launchers in a longfang unit now cost 10 more points per model or Flash Gitz are now 10% cheaper?

And this is why I avoid tournaments with comp scores. They are ridiculous and exist only to punish competitive players.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.

Amaya wrote:And this is why I avoid tournaments with comp scores. They are ridiculous and exist only to punish competitive players.

Your second sentence indicates that you either haven't read the thread, or think several people in it are lying, including me.

Is it one of those, are are you just engaging in pointless and inflammatory hyperbole? Let me know.

Comp, in theory, can be a way of making winning at tournaments more take into account a player's skill at using their army, and slightly less on the optimization of the list. That's the theory. It's tough to execute.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.

Tournaments are ABOUT playing games, and seeing cool armies, and meeting new gamers. You attempt to win, but actually winning is just a bonus.

This is why tournaments aren't just single-elimination. Because that would suck.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.

Tournaments are ABOUT playing games, and seeing cool armies, and meeting new gamers. You attempt to win, but actually winning is just a bonus.

Mannahnin,

I think this sums it up and highlights the difference in philosophy. We have been over this ground for 10+ years and will be going over the same old ground for the next 10+ years. I personally appreciate your efforts here in this thread as many of the voices of the majority, have long since gone silent with the continually treading over the same old tired ground. I am certainly as competitive a player as anyone at times in my war gaming career. But my journey and focus in war gaming has taken a different path with time and my hobby experience has certainly been better for it.

Now if folks spent half the time they spent figuring out how to "win" on understanding how they "lost" they might find they would win more games.

Amaya wrote:And this is why I avoid tournaments with comp scores. They are ridiculous and exist only to punish competitive players.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.

To be fair, I don't think fluffy lists should actually be the polar opposite of a competitive list. I happen to think my current Guard army is extremely fluffy while being the most face-beating army I have owned to date.

Call it what it is: there are people that want to play bad lists (no synergies, purposely ignoring/ignorant of how to make an army effective in an all-comers environment) and there are people that think this attitude should be rewarded in a tournament. Meanwhile, the former individual can always claim the moral high ground no matter the result of a game:

1) They win, it was their skill that caused this, and the fact that they practice with suboptimal units, or;

2) They lose, it only happened because the other list was cheesy. A four-year-old could win with that army.

I think the opinion that comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill ... not really all that true. In fact, it's an assertion at best.

The thing about the game at present is that lists are fairly normalized. Loganwing and razorwolves ... well, they don't just go winning every event, and neither does Leafblower or anything similar. None of these lists are trumps, or even close to it in the remotest ways. Most well-run events are won or lost by strong players ... adding entirely brand new list building mechanics via comp MAY change up what lists you see (though I don't think you can prove it increases variety in the simple definition of the word), but they also create a new mini-metagame to solve ... and that by nature will on AVERAGE put more pressure back on list building over skill.

If we want tournaments to be won by skill, outside of requiring everyone play with the same list, we should let the game continue to develop and let successive codices continue to normalize and balance. The more familiar and established the better lists from each codex are, the more it becomes player skill and not "oh crap I wasn't ready for or expecting that list!"

Manna - I hope it's clear by now, I really don't object to Comp on face value ... I just object to some of the more grandiose or unprovable things stated as its benefits. You didn't go crazy there, so please don't take my objection as one that is emotive or crazypants in return.

"Divide the army total by an arbitrary number I asspulled, then subtract how many chickens can fit in a rhino, then add the square of a meltagun's range, and then use the resulting information to make random changes aimed at improving the game by reducing good units' ability to perform"

It's funny cause it's true

MikeMcSomething wrote:Seriously, this thread is full of crap like "Divide the army total by an arbitrary number I asspulled, then subtract how many chickens can fit in a rhino, then add the square of a meltagun's range, and then use the resulting information to make random changes aimed at improving the game by reducing good units' ability to perform"

How is something like that, or any of the other comp systems that actually effect a unit's performance, somehow any less invasive than just saying the missile launchers in a longfang unit now cost 10 more points per model or Flash Gitz are now 10% cheaper?

Pure gold.

I dont like comp primarily because it forces me to rearrange my army list. Theres not really any other reason than that. I spent my money on the models, why cant I play them in your event? Oh, cause you think 3 long fang squads is cheesy and takes no skill, ok, thats fine, I dont want to play in your gakky event anyways then.

See years ago, I used to worry about cheesy armies. I used to complain on the internet about cheesy win button lists, and how my battleforce footdar took more skill. Then I realized Im just making excuses for myself. See, everybody is competitive. But if I ran my battleforce footdar and lost I could just say "well his list is cheesy, anyone could win with that army, so its ok" and if I won than its "well my army is hard to play, so it was all skill." This kind of childish behavior might be expected in a 15 year old, not in grown men though.

I quit worrying about other peoples armies, and just started to play the actual game. Someone brings mech guard? Thats a problem to be solved. And not solved in the "hurrr i think your army is stupid, so im not playing it" way. Thats just childish and annoying. If someone spent $800 on their mech guard leafblower list, let them play it. If someone shows up with a battle force list they painted well, they should be able to use it. Have categories for best general, painted, and best sport, and give prizes for 1st and 2nd in each of these.

I mean, nobody talks about comping paint. "Sorry sir, your marine army has too many highlights and is shaded really well, it makes everyone elses army look bad, so get it out of here." You make your own army, when you build it you make a conscious decision about its content and have to way things. Do you want to kick ass? Do you want a variety of pretty units? Do you want an army that does 1 thing really well? All of these have to be weighted against each other. When I bring my sanguard blood angels to the lgs I dont expect to do very well, so dont get bitchy when I lose. If I bring my loganwing I have brought my A game and am playing to win.

People in general, but especially with wargamers, need to relax and not worry about whos doing better than them in a game of plastic army mans.

Wow, I'll never understand why these threads go on so long with so much vitriol.

Here's the deal: If you like comp, then go to comp-scored events. If you don't like comp, go to events that do not score comp.

There are plenty of both types of events out there for you to pick and chose from. Please, will both sides of the argument stop trying to tell the other side how to play the game?

There was a lengthy period of time where comp was widely believed to be REQUIRED to balance the game. The game, however, started to balance itself out better BEFORE comp went into disfavor as being a heavy-handed resolution to a perceived but no longer super relevant problem.

So, people who started the game later or figured out comp wasn't required anymore were excoriated by the entrenched "old crowd" that still saw it as necessary. That transition period developed the "animosity" between those who fell in love with comp when it was a requirement, and those who are in love with the more balanced nature of the game at present. It still carries on today. *shrug*

I agree with Mike. We have some newer gamers in our club that the entire notion of comp is bizarre to them. They literally don't see the point.

It is a relic from times gone by when the game was so out of balance that it was needed to keep things remotely fair.

Comp is not needed currently in 40K, and it would be best dead and buried at this point.

MVBrandt wrote: Manna - I hope it's clear by now, I really don't object to Comp on face value ... I just object to some of the more grandiose or unprovable things stated as its benefits. You didn't go crazy there, so please don't take my objection as one that is emotive or crazypants in return.

I think you're a good dude, and I'll do my best to respond to your arguments on their own merits. I don't think you've entirely done me the same favor, but I'll keep my response friendly.

MVBrandt wrote:I think the opinion that comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill ... not really all that true. In fact, it's an assertion at best.

"...at best"? I think you may be slightly confused in your word choice, if you are ranking "opinion" and "assertion" as if they are points on a scale. Unless you think the opinion is insincere or false? Is this intended to imply that someone’s being dishonest?

For the record, no one (that I can think of) has asserted firmly in this thread that Comp causes tournaments to require "more player skill and less list skill". I explained that the idea that it can shift the focus of a tournament to be slightly more on skill of wielding at the table and slightly less on building the list is part of the theory behind why some people support Comp. And yet folks overreact as if there is some Comp Inquisition in here making strident claims and taking away people's Leafblowers. Even if there are jackasses out there misapplying the concept, and insulting people's armies, that's not representative of the discussion here, and I will be grateful if you would respond to the discussion here.

MVBrandt wrote: Most well-run events are won or lost by strong players ... adding entirely brand new list building mechanics via comp MAY change up what lists you see (though I don't think you can prove it increases variety in the simple definition of the word)...

Agreed on the first part. I'll even go further- most events of any kind are won by strong players, and it's almost impossible for a non-strong player to win a well-run event, unless that event ranks other scoring categories much more highly than is usual. Mechanicon, for example, could be won by a mediocre player, if they were an outstanding painter and good sport. But at most good events the scoring system makes the chance of a non-strong player winning very remote.

As for variety... if army lists, or even just Codex listings, were still readily available for the top 10 or 20 GT finishers for the UK and US GTs as of the period when GWUS was running GTs with Comp, I could prove it. It was an easily observable trend when you contrasted the two, and it went on for years. The UK GT, without Comp, degenerated into usually two, maybe three top Codexes or Army Books which were overwhelmingly seen in the top spots, with a couple of outliers spiking in. A top ten GT Final listing for 40k in 4th edition might be something like 4 Eldar, 4 CSM, 1 SM, 1 Tyranid, or something like that. Warhammer for a bit would look like 5 Daemons, 3 Vampire Counts, 2 Dark Elves. It was pretty sad, IMO, though YMMV.

The fact that the situation is different and has improved now with 5th edition and with greater codex balance is the main reason I no longer fight hard for Comp, and willingly attend non-Comped events. I wrote off 'Ard Boyz, for example, as a waste of time until 5th edition came out.

MVBrandt wrote: ...but they also create a new mini-metagame to solve ... and that by nature will on AVERAGE put more pressure back on list building over skill.

Good argument. It's the best counterargument to the theory I described before. Which is part of why I don't endorse a checklist system, and prefer straight handicapping for power by a council of experienced players. Which basically negates that issue.

MVBrandt wrote: If we want tournaments to be won by skill, outside of requiring everyone play with the same list, we should let the game continue to develop and let successive codices continue to normalize and balance. The more familiar and established the better lists from each codex are, the more it becomes player skill and not "oh crap I wasn't ready for or expecting that list!"

I think you're showing some personal preferences and assumptions here which I disagree with a bit. If you think "crap I wasn't ready for or expecting that list!" is NOT reflective of player skill, your opinion of what constitutes player skill is very different from mine. And for my money (though this is personal taste) if the better lists from each codex become too standardized, the game loses some of its interest and savor. Ideally there should always be some variation and some personal stamp.

Eidolon wrote:I dont like comp primarily because it forces me to rearrange my army list. Theres not really any other reason than that. I spent my money on the models, why cant I play them in your event? Oh, cause you think 3 long fang squads is cheesy and takes no skill, ok, thats fine, I dont want to play in your gakky event anyways then.

This is a strawman argument. Events which actually prevent you from bringing a given unit or combination of units are very rare, and not representative of Composition scoring.

MVBrandt wrote:There was a lengthy period of time where comp was widely believed to be REQUIRED to balance the game. The game, however, started to balance itself out better BEFORE comp went into disfavor as being a heavy-handed resolution to a perceived but no longer super relevant problem.

I don’t think that sequence of events is quite accurate. Comp’s been going through a process of being reduced in impact and minimized for most of the last decade. It was very strong and important in 2000-2003 or 2004, say, but each GW scoring system they released (GT or RT) since 2001 tended to reduce its impact a bit further. Mostly because, AFAICT, they didn’t want to be perceived as limiting folks’ choices. Despite those systems allowing a player to take whatever they want, you'll always get guys (thanks Eidolon for providing a handy example) who get angry over a lower score, claim the TO is trying to forbid them from using the units they want, and call his event gakky. Despite the way they communicate their displeasure, GW still wants to serve those guys, and kept adjusting the tournament scoring to try to accomodate them too.

While there is no statistical survey, and you may have seen different locally or at GTs you attended, from the data available on international forums like Dakka and warhammer.org.uk, codex variety at top tables continued to be a significant issue at least until the release of 5th edition. I have been actively engaged in the topic pretty much for the last decade, and have watched the tournament rules, the game rules, and the tides of opinion shift.

MVBrandt wrote:So, people who started the game later or figured out comp wasn't required anymore were excoriated by the entrenched "old crowd" that still saw it as necessary. That transition period developed the "animosity" between those who fell in love with comp when it was a requirement, and those who are in love with the more balanced nature of the game at present. It still carries on today. *shrug*

You so sure all the “excoriation” was one way, Mike? Don’t go too far out of your way to admit error or fault on the non-Comp side. You may not have heard of him, but there's this guy called Stelek whose blog you might want to check out, since you've evidently never read it, or his posts here on Dakka before he started it.

I also have to take (friendly) exception to your drawing a line between “people who fell in love with comp when it was a requirement and those who are in love with the more balanced nature of the game at present.” I would seem to fall into both of those categories. And I don’t think I’m unique.

Again, on a historical note, the animosity between the Comp/Non-Comp crowds dates back a good bit longer than you've described, and is a bit more complicated. Dakka was an early haven for critics of Comp, as we focused a lot on supporting tournaments and competitive play. The tension between guys who wanted to kick ass at tournaments and those who preferred “fluffy” lists goes back before I even started playing in ‘98/’99. The Comp/No-Comp debate is closely connected to that, and goes way back.

Only real quick notes for me are a couple ...

1) The "crap I wasn't expecting that list" is a real issue in the comp council, b/c you don't know for sure what they'll consider good and bad or too powerful, etc. Until you can read minds, it takes away some of the ability a player has to anticipate likely match-ups and bring an appropriate list.

2) If I haven't polished my verbiage off enough, that's my bad, but I consider you deserving of full respect in this / other discussions - if you think I haven't accorded you that full respect, I will at least "assure" you that I have.

3) There certainly is a lot of negativity even still from BOTH "camps," but to avoid any further delving into finger pointing at generalities, I think neither camp SHOULD exist. I think those that fall into both categories (which actually kinda includes me, in some ways) are those that also realize there should not be any "camp" at all.

Okay, cool. Again, I like you, I think you do good stuff, and I'm happy to chat with you here over over a beer. I've disagreed with a few of your expressed opinions, but that doesn't mean any less respect toward you, of course. The only tinge of disrepect I felt was that a couple of places it seemed like you were misrepresenting my position, or not responding to what I had actually said (rather something similar but dumber). I'll put it down to crossed wires or rushed posting. No harm, no foul.

I think we're in a fortunate position that the need for comp has largely (if not fully) been obviated by the improved rules of 5th ed and balance of its books. The main reason I've responded as firmly as I have in this thread is that I'm starting to see "comp is no longer needed" turned into "comp is always a bad idea, always was a bad idea, and only bad people and morons would defend it" in some quarters. Stelek, I expect that from. I don't like seeing that kind of thinking apparently infect guys like you and Reecius, much less turn into an assumption on Dakka.

I always want to emphasize that neither "side" of a debate like this should look down on or think that the other side doesn't love the game as much as they do. There's more than one way of loving something. We all love 40k, and recognize that it's got flaws. Exactly how best or whether to address those flaws is a question we can wrangle over here and elsewhere forever; and should be looked at as an enjoyable adjunct to actually playing the game, not a deadly serious argument to win or die.

On the subject of that "win or die" argument ( ) - the factor of the comp council itself being surprised is part of why you have a council, not just one or two guys. Perhaps I should have said "largely negates", not "basically negates". Sloppy on my part. Good catch.

Mannahnin wrote:Again, on a historical note, the animosity between the Comp/Non-Comp crowds dates back a good bit longer than you've described, and is a bit more complicated.

The animosity goes back further than Warhammer does. I still remember reading arguments in Dragon magazine in the early 80's between role-players and powergamers with all the animosity and name-calling that is present in the comp discussions. Any time there's flexibility in creating something for a game, you'll have people convinced that people who enjoy playing differently are not playing right. It's part of human nature.