Broadside Bash 2012

The Broadside Bash is a 2-day GW-style Grand Tournament, featuring the Warhammer Fantasy Battle and Warhammer 40k.

The Guiding Principals of the Broadside Bash
* To have a fun and unusual gaming event, using awesome themed terrain tables.
* To host a gaming event where the hobby side (painting, composition, sportsmanship) is at least as important as the actual gameplay.
* To host a gaming event where you can have 1, or even 2, losses and still be in the running for the top spots.
* To showcase amazing painted armies on the table.
* To providing a great weekend of gaming for old and new friends.
* To foster goodwill and cooperation among the gaming community, between both hobbiests and tournament players.
* To have a straight forward transparent scoring and matchup system.
* To increase the awareness of the tournament circuit

2012 Broadside Bash GT

The Broadside Bash 5th annual event will be held in February 2012 at the Radisson Hotel in Los Angles, CA and is part of Stratigicon OrcCon 2012. For more information about Strategicon please visit their website.

2500 point Warhammer Fantasy armies
2000 point Warhammer 40k armies.

For more information join us:

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Broadside-Bash/198017996934759
The web: http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com

We hope that you can all come out and join us!

So you use comp for the 40k event still?

Boo Comp. Yay Beer.

Indeed we do. We know its not terribly necessary, or even very popular, but its a necessary part of the solution.

Hey Kurt.

Do you think it would be a bad idea to drop 40k down to 1750?

It's nice to be able to have people finish games under 2.25 hours and it makes for a less stressful environment.

The blogspot link isn't working.

Also in the spirit of being well rounded and have the hobby aspect worth as much as gameplay I would recommend doing awards for the top 5 renaissance men.

renaissance man = 33%battle points 33%Sportsmanship 33% painting or 50%battle points 25%Sportsmanship 25%painting

The web link takes me to google, is that just me?

Sorry, I threw an extra "S" into those links, they should work now.

I'd love to do 1750 or 1850 on 40k....I got out voted

The top 2 spots...the Admiral and Captain are in fact those kind of "renaissance man" scores. Battle 49%, Comp 16%, Sports 16%, Appearance 16%.

captkurt wrote:Sorry, I threw an extra "S" into those links, they should work now.

I'd love to do 1750 or 1850 on 40k....I got out voted

The top 2 spots...the Admiral and Captain are in fact those kind of "renaissance man" scores. Battle 49%, Comp 16%, Sports 16%, Appearance 16%.

Is that appearance of the army or are you grading our personal appearance and hygiene. I vote for the second one...

OverwatchCNC wrote:

captkurt wrote:Sorry, I threw an extra "S" into those links, they should work now.

I'd love to do 1750 or 1850 on 40k....I got out voted

The top 2 spots...the Admiral and Captain are in fact those kind of "renaissance man" scores. Battle 49%, Comp 16%, Sports 16%, Appearance 16%.

Is that appearance of the army or are you grading our personal appearance and hygiene. I vote for the second one...

Hey, not fair, not all of us can go to the CNC school for gamers who want to game good, and do other things good too.

sharkticon wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

captkurt wrote:Sorry, I threw an extra "S" into those links, they should work now.

I'd love to do 1750 or 1850 on 40k....I got out voted

The top 2 spots...the Admiral and Captain are in fact those kind of "renaissance man" scores. Battle 49%, Comp 16%, Sports 16%, Appearance 16%.

Is that appearance of the army or are you grading our personal appearance and hygiene. I vote for the second one...

Hey, not fair, not all of us can go to the CNC school for gamers who want to game good, and do other things good too.

If that school is run by me you may be better off not going

Can't wait!!!

Sounds interesting. I might have to do a bit more painting then...

OverwatchCNC wrote:

sharkticon wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:

captkurt wrote:Sorry, I threw an extra "S" into those links, they should work now.
I'd love to do 1750 or 1850 on 40k....I got out voted
The top 2 spots...the Admiral and Captain are in fact those kind of "renaissance man" scores. Battle 49%, Comp 16%, Sports 16%, Appearance 16%.

Is that appearance of the army or are you grading our personal appearance and hygiene. I vote for the second one...

Hey, not fair, not all of us can go to the CNC school for gamers who want to game good, and do other things good too.

If that school is run by me you may be better off not going

Um, maybe hygiene could get the weightier percentage over appearance. Skinny guys don't have the sweat-stink issue after 3 games.

Deodorant and Altoids

I'm on the fence about this one. Forge World is allowed, but on a case-by-case basis - what about Lucius pattern drop pods? Did any of those pop up last year?

Hokkaido23 wrote:I'm on the fence about this one. Forge World is allowed, but on a case-by-case basis - what about Lucius pattern drop pods? Did any of those pop up last year?

They did, but it wasn't a huge game changer.

In round 5 I played a blood angels player who had one with a bloodtalon dread.

I just reserved and watch it come on with nothing to charge and threw some melta at it in subsequent turns.

It's a great event and below is a video review.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH7neyS_MmE&feature=player_embedded

I am not a fan of the forgeworld thing, but theres really only about 5 things you need to ban from forgeworld to keep things balanced. The only real negative for me was the space issues, which hopefully the con can help out with. I will be playing in the fantasy event, per my usual.

The coring system looks a lot better than last year. Those Hardcore Points were no fun.

I got Lucius Patter Drop Pod'd last year, too. Those things are annoying.

Plan on seeing a Hades Breaching Drill or Achilles Land Raider, Muhahahahahaha!!!

But really, I think I will take one of the Badab War space Marine Characters, those guys are cool, and I think they are really balanced, too from reading their stats.

I am glad they are defining this as a hobby event this year. I know it is semantics, but it really does set expectations appropriately.

The Zero Comp team will most likely be in attendance, as ironically enough, Frankie won last year.

We have been winning all the Comp tournaments we have gone to this year which is really funny to me! Just goes to show you can be nice and play competitively.

Looking forward to seeing all of our buddies at another BSB. Hopefully this year we can avoid a lot of the silly drama from last year and have a good time.

If I lose a game like last time, you can be sure I will come with some more Sammy A's for everyone like last year! And we want Wonderwoman to come again!

Loving the whole 'hobby side' thing.

I'm going to see if I can schedule some vacation around the weekend of this thing so I don't get screwed into working.

We are going to do something about the space. Unfortunately it means that we are going to have to have some games in the smaller adjoining rooms, but we'll definitely be more spread out.

- Kurt

AS an aside, IA Apoc 2nd ed has altered the lucius rules, so make sure people use those rules. Therye still annoying, but there's now a 1/6th chance fo the vehicle not making the assault. "balance"

How do we get tickets for the event? do we just buy a ticket to the Con n then pre reg here? or something else?

Deathwing88 wrote:How do we get tickets for the event? do we just buy a ticket to the Con n then pre reg here? or something else?

Goto the Broadside Bash Sign Up page at http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/p/signup-test.html

The ORCCON admission is included with the Broadside Bash signup fee.

I'll probably be in attendance, though more then likely, my "infamous" Khorne Daemons will make another showing on the Fantasy side of things.

What forgeworld models are allowed so far?

As a few of my friends and I are contemplating attending, I have some suggestions:

If your going to use such an exploitable/subjective system as player-scored comp, I would suggest that any score given below average (on comp or sports for that matter) require an explanation be given on behalf of the player. And any score of zero, require a meeting of both players and a judge.

Several events are using this system to try and counter act someone "tanking" anothers scores just because they lost, or lost "too-quickly". Or for that matter trying to prevent someone linking sports and comp together into one twisted subjective view. For example: He beat me too fast so his army was cheesy, low comp score for him. Oh, and since he took such an "un-fun" army he is totally a jerk despite our game running smoothly so, low sports score too.

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

Also, I'm confused, looking at your website you have the following scoring system:

Battle Points (Max per game = 20, Min = 4)

Win: 17 points
Draw: 10 points
Loss: 4 points

Bonus/Penalty Battle Points: per scenario, max of +3

No bonus Battle Points are awarded over 20, no negative Battle Points can lower your score to less than 4.

Which is a Win/Loss/Draw System. Yet the 40k scenario packet on the site lists the games on a massacre/major/minor/tie system.

Which is it? And how is the Massacre system being scored if that is the one being used? Since the tournament is a month and some away, I would clarify this ASAP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And one more point, the Massacre thresholds for the last 3 scenarios are pretty harsh. Using a margin of 5 kill points for a Massacre in scenarios #1 and #2 is fine, since ard boyz at 2500 uses 7. However, you literally must control every objective on the board in scenarios #3 and #4, since there are only (up to) 5 objectives. Also, to get a Massacre in #5 you would have to wipe out 65% of the opponents army while losing literally 0% of yours. Your asking for ard boyz level massacres for these three scenarios with 500 less points.

It's especially ridiculous in scenario #3 since you may only have 3 objectives. Making the highest possible victory a minor one! A single dice roll at the beginning of this game could ruin someones tournament... Please fix this if nothing else. My suggestion would be to drop the objective games threshold to: 3 MORE objectives than opponent = massacre, 2 MORE objectives than opponent = major, 1 MORE objectives than opponent = minor. I would also lower the VP difference in #5 by 200pts or so.

Please see previous years threads regarding broad side bash. It is not a true competitive system and does not try to be. It is a hobby compitition and they don't try to make it anything else. they will not change anything but if you are looking for a day with painted armys, fun games, and some random prizes you found it.

Yeah, what Grimgob said.

These guys are all cool guys, and big time hobbyists. They have no desire to be a competitive event.

The BSB is what it is, yo don't go for the competition, you go to see awesome armies, beautiful terrain and to have a fun weekend of dice tossing.

Trust us, this argument has been had many times before, and often to very ugly outcome (last year one of their crew got booted from Dakka for life in under 10 posts, a new record!).

This is honestly a fun event though, and our team goes every year to see friends and have fun. Just bring a fluff army and don't expect the system to make a whole lot of sense from a competitive stand point.

Although, and this always amuses me, Team Zero Comp, ironically, won the event last year!

I can understand the desire to be a hobby event.

I wasn't saying they should drop comp, but make it less exploitable. What's wrong with having to state a reason why you tanked someones score?

Also, my suggestions for the scenarios are valid. It's not to make it more competitive, but if they aren't adjusted your going to see a ton of people with the same score since it's almost impossible to max out.

Thirdly, scenario #3 should be adjusted at the very least. If you roll a 1 or 2 for the number of objectives then the highest possible score for either player is a piddly minor victory. Thus at least making your game less enjoyable than the table next to you, and at most causing you to lose the tournament over a single dice roll. This has nothing to do with "competitiveness" it just makes sense.

Lastly, we still need an answer as to how the rounds are scored... since 2 different scoring systems are listed. So hopefully that will come through.

Take it from me. Even constructive criticism isn't really going to be listened to.

Best thing by far to do is to take it as a chance to get 5 games played in two days against painted armies. Go with that mindset and you'll be fine. Make the scoring incidental to just getting games in and don't sweat the scoring. They run a pretty decent event. I'd go if I was still in Cali if only to see friends and hang out. I just would count it as more of a hobby event than a tournament.

@Budzerker
That wasn't meant to be criticism towards you at all, in fact, we all agree with you!

It's just that we have had these conversations with the BSB guys every year, and every year it is the same thing.

We feel you, trust me.

And hey, you may have better luck stating your case than we have had, so by all means, go for it.

We're just sharing with you our experiences.

Sorry if it came across as as being short with you as that isn't how it was meant at all.

Like Hulk said, this is a fun event, but you may be less frustrated if you just take it at face value.

Budzerker, you need to lower your expectations.

This is a hobby weekend and it is just so you can play 5 fun games.

The people who have been to this event in the past know what it is about, and know that everything you say does not matter.

And here is a reason why the win/loss/tie format or the battle point format doesn’t matter: You are assuming that winners will be playing winners, or people with the same battle points will be playing each other and that way you have a clear winner (at least as far as the best general award goes). Last year that did not happen so the players who were undefeated did not pay each other, so in the last round all of the people who were 4-0 were playing people who were 2-2, 1-3, etc.

So any assumptions about how a normal tournament should be ran should be set aside.

Reecius wrote:Although, and this always amuses me, Team Zero Comp, ironically, won the event last year!

I don't find this ironic at all! Excepting the name of your club, of course . In this area, the Inner Circle gaming club regularly goes to mikhaila's comped events, and regularly does really, really well at them.

Good tournament players are still good tournament players, comp or no comp! Those guys certainly beat me to a pulp, usually... Although, I like to think the games have been closer at the more recent events... could be wishful thinking

I've also noticed that guys who are serious about tournaments tend to have really well painted armies, hence them having an even better chance of doing well at this format. Finally, this kind of format tends to encourage some semi-casual players to come out for the hobby aspects... resulting in (at times) the possibility of easier match-ups. Those players also tend to not have vetted the system as thoroughly and figured out what is the most effective builds to take in the comped environment, whereas the regular tourney goers will have.

All in all, I'd be surprised if it was the other way around!

Reecius wrote:Although, and this always amuses me, Team Zero Comp, ironically, won the event last year!

I have yet to see Team Zero Comp show up with anything less than a comp friendly army. Don't let them fool you...in the right environment, they'll beat your face in...but they always do it with class, good composition and sportsmanship!

+++

Scoring:

We simplified to a win/loss/draw system this year and those are hold overs from the past, more complicated scoring.

In the case of the 40k scenarios, anything more than a minor is just a Win. We'll get those scenarios adjusted to reflect that.

It is a hobby centric event...lots of you have heard this before...we want to run a different type of event. There are lots of great events that are more competitive. We also attract lots of non-tournament players, many who come out only for this event.

The Guiding Principals of the Broadside Bash
* To have a fun and unusual gaming event, using awesome themed terrain tables.
* To host a gaming event where the hobby side (painting, composition, sportsmanship) is at least as important as the actual gameplay.
* To host a gaming event where you can have 1, or even 2, losses and still be in the running for the top spots.
* To showcase amazing painted armies on the table.
* To providing a great weekend of gaming for old and new friends.
* To foster goodwill and cooperation among the gaming community, between both hobbyists and tournament players.
* To have a straight forward transparent scoring and matchup system.
* To increase the awareness of the tournament circuit

captkurt wrote:I have yet to see Team Zero Comp show up with anything less than a comp friendly army. Don't let them fool you...in the right environment, they'll beat your face in...but they always do it with class, good composition and sportsmanship!

Hear, hear!

Those are my favorite kinds of gamers to face in a tournament

@RiTides and Kurt
Thanks! We actually win comped events more frequently than no comp events, which amuses me to no end!

Like I said, this is a fun event. It celebrates a different aspect of the hobby, and it's cool for a change of pace. We criticize the system here, but they do put it up for all to see way in advance.

Every year I have gone, I have had a good time and said I would come back. I anticipate this year will be no different.

Looking forward to it! Frankie will be back to defend his title!

RiTides wrote:Those players also tend to not have vetted the system as thoroughly and figured out what is the most effective builds to take in the comped environment, whereas the regular tourney goers will have.

Except there is no stated standard. It's not like the Da Boyz GT where you have a criteria for comp. It's player judged, and thus 100% exploitable/subjective.

Ah well. Have fun all those that are going.

captkurt wrote:I have yet to see Team Zero Comp show up with anything less than a comp friendly army. Don't let them fool you...in the right environment, they'll beat your face in...but they always do it with class, good composition and sportsmanship!

I would not exactly say that. Good sportsmanship sure, but good comp?

Reece brought a brutal razorspam Space Wolf list to the Broadside Bash last year, and you think his list is comp friendly?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/348755.page

Christian A will show up with one of the hardest lists at the tournament comp or no comp.

Maybe they do well because they are beating the people who do show up with a comp friendly armies?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Budzerker wrote:

RiTides wrote:Those players also tend to not have vetted the system as thoroughly and figured out what is the most effective builds to take in the comped environment, whereas the regular tourney goers will have.

Except there is no stated standard. It's not like the Da Boyz GT where you have a criteria for comp. It's player judged, and thus 100% exploitable/subjective.

Ah well. Have fun all those that are going.

I was looking up the comp scores for the Team Zero Comp at the Grand Waagh which has a player judged comped score. I looked at Reese's comp score and he had a perfect 50. I thought that it was strange since Razorspam Space Wolves are one of the top builds. Then I looked at some of the other comp scores and there were a couple of Tau players who had some of the worst comp scores with a 44 and a 39 (2 points worse then Christian A's brutal mech IG), a Demon player in the post Grey knight era with a 45, and Eldar players with a 40, 42 and a 45. . I have no idea why these tournaments even have comp scores because whatever they are trying to do with it, they are failing,

You are not punishing the hardest builds, just the ones who are not playing Space Marines. .

I agree with Blackmoor pretty much regarding comp. I think people think of comp along the lines of sportsmanship sometimes and if the guy is great they give them max comp as well as sports and prob feel bad dinging the guy on comp.

I've been guilty of this sometimes (just giving max points and not worry about things) though sometimes I will genuinely love the game, the guy and so on but ding the army because that is the honest thing to do.

I'd love to go, but I'm pretty sure myself and a few other San Diego crew folks are waiting to hear that the "'ard core" bonus points from last year are gone from the army appearance judging. The stories about how arbitrary and random those points were lasted months in our local store.

There is no "Ard Core bonus, and the goofy matchup system on the 40k side is not being used. Its back to the normal point based matchups.

First two games are pre-set based upon judged comp (which is then thrown out as always), the following games are all based on battle points. Please note that this is NOT a Swiss or Win/Loss system. Its pure battle points, which can lead to matchups that do not always correspond to the Win/Loss ration. This is how we have always done it, aside from that experiment in 40k last year.

It is too bad that you are putting people's scores up to the whim of their opponents beyond the Sportmanship score (which is also unnecessary but that is for a different time)..

5th Edition 40k is very well balanced these days. Sure you have the top books (IG, SW and GK) but all of the other books can compete with them.

So I will ask you the question again, what is the purpose or goal of having comp in your tournaments? Why is there a player judged comp score?

Is there any reason you can't just use the WHFB missions as they are? Or use them all? Cause I see a bunch of battlelines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blackmoor wrote:It is too bad that you are putting people's scores up to the whim of their opponents beyond the Sportmanship score (which is also unnecessary but that is for a different time)..

5th Edition 40k is very well balanced these days. Sure you have the top books (IG, SW and GK) but all of the other books can compete with them.

So I will ask you the question again, what is the purpose or goal of having comp in your tournaments? Why is there a player judged comp score?

I agree comp scores are basicly did he beat me (yes) low score! Did he correct my lack of rules knowledge and I lost(yes) low score! The only way to get high comp scores is have the devils luck let the other player re do damn near everything he did wrong and hope he never rolls anything over a 1.

Also 5th is not balanced. I am not even going to get into that one. Let's leave it at 10 grots (40pts) is worth the same tactically as 10 paladins(700+Pts)

Whats wrong wit me little grotz being worth az much az sum puny uman paladinz? you got a problem wit dat?

Blackmoor wrote:Maybe they do well because they are beating the people who do show up with a comp friendly armies?

Just from glancing at that link, Reece had a Brutal game 1 last year facing BW orks. I don't know if they paired things differently last year, but if it's armies with similar comp scores facing in the first 2 rounds (as stated above) I would think the hardest lists would be facing each other.

Then the actual comp score would come from the player votes... but that's a different issue.

I didn't realize the criteria wasn't posted, that changes my thoughts about it a bit... but it still looks like a fantastic time and I would be attending if it were an east coast event!

cgage00 wrote:Also 5th is not balanced. I am not even going to get into that one. Let's leave it at 10 grots (40pts) is worth the same tactically as 10 paladins(700+Pts)

Don't drink the space marine kool-aid. No matter how noble and pure and invincible a space marine gets, he's still gonna be about as good at "standing around near a thing" as anything else in the universe with feet.

The BSB is a good time to hang out with friends and play some good games. The scoring and pairing system on the 40k side of things was a little goofy last year (which ironically caused me to switch and focus on playing Fantasy for this year) but that has been removed.

With the wife and family I don't get a lot of free weekends to attend tournaments anymore, but this is one that I always try to make it to. Hope to see you guys all there. (I'll be the guy doing wolf howls while playing a Dwarf army.)

-Patrick

@Kurt

I know you are set on using player-scored metrics. However, I would suggest that you make it mandatory to explain why you gave your opponent a given comp/sports score. If you are embarrassed to vocalize a score your opponent, then you probably shouldn't give him that score. I'd hope everyone is mature enough to be able to articulate any issues they had in a constructive manner. It helps combat spiteful scoring, while, more importantly, providing a **positive feedback system** (e.g. how can you fix your overmeasuring if people quietly ding you and never tell you??) and while keeping the BSB's goal of player-scored elements.

A relatively costless adjustment to help counter-act the negatives of the player-scored system.

Leenus wrote:However, I would suggest that you make it mandatory to explain why you gave your opponent a given comp/sports score. If you are embarrassed to vocalize a score your opponent, then you probably shouldn't give him that score. I'd hope everyone is mature enough to be able to articulate any issues they had in a constructive manner.

How would you enforce this? Keep an eye on every table and call them back over to redo their form if they don't spend enough time chatting about what they write down?

Personally, I think a mandatory explanation field on the form would make sense, but what you suggest is not at all enforceable. And what's the point? You could certainly give the guidelines of "If you're marking your opponent down for low comp, please explain why" but that's about all you can do... and I doubt most people would alter their normal behavior either way due to such a statement.

Are the forgeworld IA2 units going to be used this time around?

@RiTides

How about... "If your opponent asks, you must show them the sports/comp scores you gave them and explain why you gave them those marks." Hardly a stretch. Obviously, if people don't care, you don't have to sit them down and tell them. However, I don't really see a cost more then a moment's chat with the potential of keeping people more honest.

If you don't think people are going to change their behavior based on direct feedback, then why would they change their behavior based on unclear numerical feedback? If you don't believe people change their behavior based on these player-scored metrics, why have them? Obviously, the organizers believe that player-scored metrics affect behavior, or there's no reason to have them in the first place.

EDIT: I realize I've restated some of the earlier thoughts in this thread. My bad. But ultimately, if one of the stated goals is transparent scoring, then things should be transparent!

Leenus wrote:If you don't think people are going to change their behavior based on direct feedback, then why would they change their behavior based on unclear numerical feedback?

I meant that people wouldn't change their behavior about either: 1) Arbitrarily giving full comp points regardless of list composition, hoping it will be reciprocated, or 2) Giving a low comp score unfairly based on factors not related to the person's list, or 3) Giving a fair score.

I.e., I think most people would give the same score they would have anyway, whether or not the guidelines are to "reveal and explain your comp score if your opponent asks". It's pretty easy to explain a score one way or the other, I'd think.

Not to derail, I just don't think telling people to explain the score they give is going to result in people having a constructive discourse about list-building... ideally yes, but in reality I just don't see it happening!

Alright, I bought my ticket.

I am going for 2 reasons.

#1. So I can have a tournament to report on for 40k UK.

#2. So I can crush Team 0 Comp's dreams one game at a time.

A worthy goal sir!

I will be there playing Fantasy. Hopefully the room is not overly pig packed this time. I am rocking the Ogres in case it is, but I'd rather plop my night gobbos down....

Blackmoor wrote:Alright, I bought my ticket.

I am going for 2 reasons.

#1. So I can have a tournament to report on for 40k UK.

#2. So I can crush Team 0 Comp's dreams one game at a time.

A challenge I see. One that we accept

Phazael wrote:A worthy goal sir!

I will be there playing Fantasy. Hopefully the room is not overly pig packed this time. I am rocking the Ogres in case it is, but I'd rather plop my night gobbos down....

We plan on spreading out into the adjoining rooms, since we have the largest available, closeable room. But that should give everyone a bit more elbow room.

@Captkurt

Will any of the Forgeworld IA2 units be allowed to be used in the tournament? I've asked early in the thread with no answer.

italiaplaya wrote:@Captkurt

Will any of the Forgeworld IA2 units be allowed to be used in the tournament? I've asked early in the thread with no answer.

I am awaiting an answer by the 40k judges, but for now, I would say the answer is Yes.

The MODELs are always allowed, using them as counts as for whatever is appropriate. It'll just be a question of any specific set of IA rules.

In any case, we should have an answer within the next day or two. Watch the website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Leenus wrote:@RiTides

How about... "If your opponent asks, you must show them the sports/comp scores you gave them and explain why you gave them those marks." Hardly a stretch. Obviously, if people don't care, you don't have to sit them down and tell them. However, I don't really see a cost more then a moment's chat with the potential of keeping people more honest./quote]

This is an interesting thought. I would encourage all players to have this discussion with your opponent. We do not REQUIRE that you share your individual scores, and we do not share individual scores.

I can't seem to find the prize support for the tourney listed anywhere. I'm sure I'm just missing it, but can someone direct me to where I could find it?

Dok wrote:I can't seem to find the prize support for the tourney listed anywhere. I'm sure I'm just missing it, but can someone direct me to where I could find it?

We dont usually list what we have for prize support. But you can get an idea from our list of sponsors.

Ok, Can anyone that has been to the past events pm me with an idea of what it is? I'm trying to convince my wallet to let me go, but it's having second thoughts, lol

Dok wrote:Ok, Can anyone that has been to the past events pm me with an idea of what it is? I'm trying to convince my wallet to let me go, but it's having second thoughts, lol

Just to give you a gauge...its around $300ish for the top spots, down to about $100ish for the 5th placing.

Best Overall
2nd Overall
Best General
Best Sportsman
Best Appearance

We have stuff from: Games Workshop; Shogun Miniatures; Reaper Miniatures; Battlefoam; At Ease Games, TableWar...its a pretty good loot pile.

You can see some of the prize tables from our past events on our Facebook page.

They have pretty solid prize support. I wanna say it was around $150 for best general it's first year and closer to $200-$250 for best general it's third year. Not sure what last year looked like but they give out solid prize support for the top spots.

Ok, thanks guys.

Just a suggestion on one of the scenarios:
The board the ship scenario probably needs two minor alterations, if its not too late in the game for it:

1) Set the boarding zone to the center-
Letting people define the zone means everyone pretty much castles to one side every time, which is kind of boring.

2) Limit the bonus points to the actual value of the model, not double-
This is the bigger one. Right now, if I take a Brett lance with one or two characters and just steamroll past one unit and off the table, I pretty much automatically win the game. Same deal with an Empire Steam Tank, Doombull, Kadai Destroyer, or any other hard to stop model worth 300+ points. I like the idea of the scenario, but for some armies they basically have to try to lose this one.

Phazael wrote:Just a suggestion on one of the scenarios:
The board the ship scenario probably needs two minor alterations, if its not too late in the game for it:

1) Set the boarding zone to the center-
Letting people define the zone means everyone pretty much castles to one side every time, which is kind of boring.

2) Limit the bonus points to the actual value of the model, not double-
This is the bigger one. Right now, if I take a Brett lance with one or two characters and just steamroll past one unit and off the table, I pretty much automatically win the game. Same deal with an Empire Steam Tank, Doombull, Kadai Destroyer, or any other hard to stop model worth 300+ points. I like the idea of the scenario, but for some armies they basically have to try to lose this one.

If I'm thinking of the same secnario as Phazael, I also like the scenario but have a problem from a different perspective since I play Dwarfs. Basically, outside of Miners and Rangers I can't get anything across the table in 6 turns... I've practiced playing that scenario twice now with my BSB list and basically just played defense.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:

If I'm thinking of the same secnario as Phazael, I also like the scenario but have a problem from a different perspective since I play Dwarfs. Basically, outside of Miners and Rangers I can't get anything across the table in 6 turns... I've practiced playing that scenario twice now with my BSB list and basically just played defense.

Dwarves can charge up to 15" now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We'll take a look at that scenario and see if we can make a few tweaks to it.

For the boarding scenario, you should also probably exclude units that have special deployment. I'm not sure it makes sense a big unit of miners can come on from the back board edge and walk off next turn for double VP.

Maybe just cap the limit at 500 points or 1 unit. That way it can have an influence on the game, but won't be an auto win in the case of the bret lance overruning off the board.

They already have an exception for flyers or units with alternate deployment methods. Dwarves are more or less hosed on this scenario, no matter what you do, outside of defending their own end zone, which they are actually pretty good at if they are not pure gunline.

The issue really arises with, say, a Kadai that costs 325 bowling past some minor unit and then limping across the end zone line with a wound or two after turn 3, giving the player a 650 point lead and taking a potential 325 point kill away from the opponent. All you have to do is gum up the enemy enough to keep any big point unit from crossing the line (easily done against an infantry army) and avoid being outscored by more than 700 points. Its fair if both armies are roughly the same, but if one army is mass infantry or low unit count and the other has expensive units that move fast, it turns into a blowout. Our group noticed this in our practice games this past weekend.

Again, I like the scenario, since it emphasizes mobility, but there are some matchups with it (say Bretts vs Empire, or VC vs Dwarves/Empire) where one side can just limp a bunch of points across the line and leave enough stuff on the table just to cockblock the other guy from doing the same and there is literally nothing the opponent can do to stop it.

captkurt wrote:
Dwarves can charge up to 15" now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
We'll take a look at that scenario and see if we can make a few tweaks to it.

LoL, they sure can if I roll . However, last time I checked you can't charge a board edge.... (Even if you do call it a ship).

Dwarves marching with zero interferance can just make it across the line if they start the full 15" up. If they spend even one turn stuck in combat or wheel at all, they don't. Of course Dwarves that have actual combat infantry blocks can hold someone off the end zone forever themselves, so there is the whole turtle and grind thing.

Standard infantry (ie the kind that is M4 or M5) takes four uninterupted turns to do the same thing, so its not really hard to keep those out, either, especially if you immediately take the fight to the enemy board half or spam chaffe (solo Sabers, fiends, Harpies, insert fast cav unit here) that you plan on dying anyhow.

I like the scenario a lot, but I think its too lopsided towards any army with one or two high point mobile units. The army I am bringing, for example, would vastly bennefit from this scenario as it is currently written.

Updates...40k is full..

http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/2012/02/40k-is-full.html

Also, we are holding a logo design contest...

http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/2012/02/bsb-logo-design-contest.html

Congratz on selling out! I hope you guys have a great event this year, wish I could make it.

captkurt wrote:Updates...40k is full..

http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/2012/02/40k-is-full.html

Also, we are holding a logo design contest...

http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/2012/02/bsb-logo-design-contest.html

Any chance of seeing the player/army breakdown?

Cortez667 wrote:Any chance of seeing the player/army breakdown?

We'll get that posted up soon.

Reecius wrote:Congratz on selling out! I hope you guys have a great event this year, wish I could make it.

But, Reece, if you're not there, will Wonder Woman still show?

Hi all:

My name is Ron Kent, and I am the owner of At Ease Games, one of the sponsors of the Broadside Bash. As part of our support for this event, the overall winner of the 40k tournament and the overall winner of the Fantasy tournament will each receive an army centerpiece painted by eight time Golden Demon winner Aaron Lovejoy. Check out Aaron's Facebook page to see the models as he works on them.

Ron

Army Breakdowns:


Army Breakdowns for 40k:

Imperial Guard: 8
Space Marines: 7
Grey Knights: 7
Blood Angels: 5
Space Wolves: 5
Dark Eldar: 5
Orcs: 3
Tyranids: 3
Chaos Space Marines: 3
Dark Angels: 1
Black Templar: 1
Necrons: 1
Chaos Demons: 1
Eldar: 0
Tau: 0
Sisters of Battle: 0


Army Breakdowns for WFB

Ogre Kingdoms: 8
Warriors of Chaos: 4
Empire: 4
Tomb Kings: 4
Demons of Chaos: 4
Orcs & Goblins: 4
Skaven: 3
Beastmen: 3
Lizardman: 2
Dwarves: 1
High Elves: 1
Dark Elf : 1
Vampire Counts: 1
Wood Elf : 0
Bretonnian : 0
Chaos Dwarf: 0

The list breakdown is just about what you see these days.

It might be a little light in Grey Knights, but the only thing that stands out is only 1 necron player.

That's probably because half their model range hasn't been released yet.

What's more telling is that there is zero Eldar, Tau, and SOB...LOL.

Brothererekose wrote:

Reecius wrote:Congratz on selling out! I hope you guys have a great event this year, wish I could make it.

But, Reece, if you're not there, will Wonder Woman still show?

Hahaha, I hope so for your guys' sake! She was hot

It's weird but it seems like no one is really bringing necrons to the tournaments. Maybe all the old school necron players gave up before the newer codex came out? I know there were Grey knights and DE at the tourneys almost directly after the codexes came out. At least in SoCal.

Dok wrote:It's weird but it seems like no one is really bringing necrons to the tournaments. Maybe all the old school necron players gave up before the newer codex came out? I know there were Grey knights and DE at the tourneys almost directly after the codexes came out. At least in SoCal.

I know. You would think that with everyone not knowing how to fight 'em, players would be bringing them in. A lot.

And so far, as we've seen at the FLGS & Reecius's batreps, the book can produce at least 4 strong builds. If not 6.

I for one, am glad the undead robots are off scene. An Imo+C'Tan (WrithingW) Orikan combo has me, well *had* me worried.

It's the 8 parking lots that I'll actually sweat now.

With painting and Comp counting so high in this event people may not have had time to put together AND paint 2K points worth of new Crons beyond tabletop. Thats a pretty big point hit that can keep a 4-1 player out of the money. Eldar and Tau...yeah, older Dexes that have some issues, but interesting considering the Eldar ability to shut down Psychic abilities by forcing rolls on 3 dice. Imagine every time you rolled Hammerhand you took a Perils instead...not to mention the amount of times GKs roll Fortitude in an average game. They are probably the one army that can reliably mess up an average GK player (who relies on his Psy-tricks to keep his vehicles shooting and mass killing in CC).
Sisters? Well kind of hard to build an Army that has no models for sale. Once allies went away that pretty much wiped out 25%-50% of most SoB points total, dropping probably 90% of the SoB players armies too low to field much more beyong 1500 points.
I know the DA and BT players. These are some top notch players and they are bringing some interesting pain.

dkellyj wrote:With painting and Comp counting so high in this event people may not have had time to put together AND paint 2K points worth of new Crons beyond tabletop. Thats a pretty big point hit that can keep a 4-1 player out of the money.

I dunno. Prime 'em black, Dark Angels green, Scorpion Green. Boltgun and Devlan Mud, as one good painter said. Not enough to nail a high Paint Score, but enough for average. The two guys with new Necron armies at GE Pasadena are pretty much done.

dkellyj wrote:I know the DA and BT players. These are some top notch players and they are bringing some interesting pain.

Dave_Faye and ?

I have a list thats been really good in testing, especially MEQs, but it has matchup issues with Space Wolves who run massed Long Fangs and Missle Spam, so like nearly all of them. I don't have enough games against GKs to assess it there, but I just don't see my Melecron list having a solid shot there, either, with the more common builds, especially those with mobile incinerators and spammed Psyflemen. The Shooty Crons have it even worse.

What you are really seeing there is a couple power armies (Vulcanators, SW, and GK) with Guard being the best counter, since the armies that are strong against guard get trashed by most of the rest of what they are likely to face.

Can't make it. Son's birthday.

The BT player is someone else.

Dave_Fay wrote:Can't make it. Son's birthday.

The BT player is someone else.

That's right. You did post that earlier.

Well, now. The mystery deepens ....

dkellyj wrote:With painting and Comp counting so high in this event people may not have had time to put together AND paint 2K points worth of new Crons beyond tabletop. Thats a pretty big point hit that can keep a 4-1 player out of the money. Eldar and Tau...yeah, older Dexes that have some issues, but interesting considering the Eldar ability to shut down Psychic abilities by forcing rolls on 3 dice. Imagine every time you rolled Hammerhand you took a Perils instead...not to mention the amount of times GKs roll Fortitude in an average game. They are probably the one army that can reliably mess up an average GK player (who relies on his Psy-tricks to keep his vehicles shooting and mass killing in CC).
Sisters? Well kind of hard to build an Army that has no models for sale. Once allies went away that pretty much wiped out 25%-50% of most SoB points total, dropping probably 90% of the SoB players armies too low to field much more beyong 1500 points.
I know the DA and BT players. These are some top notch players and they are bringing some interesting pain.

I suppose that could be true, but most of the stuff that is competitive now already had models from the previous list. The command barges, annihilation barges, and characters would be the majority of the heavy lifting in the paint area. So, I guess most of the older necron players either aren't confidant in their lists or they have hung them up.
Eldar can be pretty brutal against GK. Especially against the lists that rely on the powers more heavily. Any Librarian list will have a hard time getting that shrouding off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@captkurt: Do you have a waiting list if tickets become available? I would like to go, but waited too long to buy my ticket

Do you want to buy my ticket?

Dok wrote:
@captkurt: Do you have a waiting list if tickets become available? I would like to go, but waited too long to buy my ticket

Contact John Macomber (see the site for contact information). He can put your name on a waiting list. We are going to be making spaces available this week from anyone who has not yet paid the admission.

I'm really looking forward to this. To bad Reecius isnt showing up. Figured he would want a First round rematch.

Question on the Event schedule:

Last year we did registration friday night, and the BSB TOs had our Con-Badges. But the schedule for this year says we check-in on saturday morning.

I assume then, that we can get our Con-Badges (or whatever they are called) friday night from the Con check-in desk...???

Correction: Con Registration will have the badges this year, so we will NOT have them. Please pickup your badge from registration, let them know you are with the Broadside Bash.

Awesome, thanks much for clarifying. See you all in a week!

Anyone from the LA area wanna split gas money =D Will be needing to find a ride now as my truck was wrecked in accident =(

Day One done. Impressions, anyone?

I actuallly know the one necron player at the tournament, I expect him to place very high.

CaptKaruthors wrote:That's probably because half their model range hasn't been released yet.

What's more telling is that there is zero Eldar, Tau, and SOB...LOL.

Hey, if I had the time and extra money to go (sorry, lawschool makes me very picky with what I spend my money on and where I go these days) I would have been the only Eldar there! Eldar are still able to compete =P.

So how did it go guys? Eager to hear the news

I'm with Hulk.

When I saw this thread at the top of the feed I was hoping for juicy details.

We have 2 wait for the zero comp guys to get home .

Blackmoor wrote:We have 2 wait for the zero comp guys to get home .

Nah, I'll spoil.
So for Dok, Monster Rain, & Hulk,

40k
Doug Johnson - orks, 1st place "Admiral"
Second place ... memory fail. Someone I didn't know.
There was a third place because it was that close in points ... Benjamin something ... green, old school, Dark Eldar, a faint accent, Aussie perhaps? I chatted with him a bit earlier. Nice guy.

Best General - Frank G , yes, Team Zero Comp.

And another cat I didn't know & can't remember for Best Sportsman.

And I left my brain and ears off during the Fantasy Announcements.

---------------------------------
Yours Truly finished in the bottom 20% (prolly bottom 10%). Even though I had 24 lances in my list, which got me knee-capped early by my first round opponent for my "Comp" score. Yet, I only managed a WLD of 1-3-1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Allan, I heard you split after round 2 (correct?) & am I bummed I didn't get to meet you again. What happened?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All -n- all, great event, well run. John M. & Kurt were cool and on the spot with the rule clarifications, final round announcements and such. Great terrain.

Minor gripe: Some tables were 55 inches instead of 48, causing a restart of my game 3 because I assumed in was 48". Simply folding the table cloths under perhaps? Or hit me in the head with my tape measure so that I'll remember to check my table every time?

Lastly, I'm even more firmly of the opinion, that Composition Scoring ought to be abolished ... but that's another thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, yeah, juicy detail;

Before the Awards Announcements, a guy named ... Jermain ... man, my memory is awful, anyway, he was called for, "If anyone knows his number ... "

After round 4, he and Doug were 1 and 2, but when the TOs were calling for him after Round 5 was over, it was muttered, "He didn't turn something in, it could [matter in scoring]. "

And I don't think he showed, because he definitely wasn't # 2 or #3. *That* I remember. I parked myself on the front row for the Awards Announcements ... if only I didn't have a sieve for a memory.

I am in the middle of a move to LA and I should have canceled and sold my ticket.

I was able to move some stuff out here, but I really did not have time to play and I had to leave on Sat and see my mom in the hospital.

Awesome event! Played some awesome guys and had some great games. Tables were friggin badass too! Loved the city and necron ones the most. I went 3 wins 2 losses with the Bully Boyz, and pulled out best painted =D Trophies were really cool too! Can't wait for the next one! WAAAGH!

mortetvie wrote:

CaptKaruthors wrote:That's probably because half their model range hasn't been released yet.

What's more telling is that there is zero Eldar, Tau, and SOB...LOL.

Hey, if I had the time and extra money to go (sorry, lawschool makes me very picky with what I spend my money on and where I go these days) I would have been the only Eldar there! Eldar are still able to compete =P.

Toby from GMI games and I took foot Eldar 2 years ago and got hammered on comp scores.

I'll make all the announcements tomorrow.

The fella we were looking for, it was very close, but turned out not to matter after all.

My only gripe with the tables was the hotel white table cloths caused wierd folds and creases when the scenic cloth (with its own creases and folds from being stored for ages folded up) was put over them. This caused dice to pitch and roll in weird ways.
More than once I saw a "six" hit a crease and roll backwards to settle on a "one" and vice-versa. Models also had a hard time staying upright or being placed in proper/desired locations in these areas.
Ditch the hotel table cloths and either store the scenic cloth toppers rolled up or iron them flat for use.
I played a sub-optimal Guard list (no Vendettas or spammed Manticore/Leman Russ/max-vets).
Finished 2-1-2 for about 17th or so.
EDIT: Wow, looks like I managed to eek out an 8th place. Should have spammed a pair of Vendettas and a Collosus instead of the Executioner and Banewolf.
round 1: Table Quarters; Spearhead vs Space Wolf: Draw.
Round 2: KP (+ messenger); Pitched Battle vs Tyranids: Minor Loss.
Round 3: Objectives (that can be carried away on foot); DoW vs Dark Eldar: Massacre.
Round 4: 5 fixed objectives; Spearhead vs Blood Angels: Massacre.
Round 5: Victory Points (HQ worth double); DoW vs Grey Knights: Draw.
A fun event with some extraordinary models and paint schemes. Already looking forward to next year.

Congrats to my brothers in Team Zero Comp for taking best General and Best Painted. Also congrats to Dugg for taking the top spot (you still owe me a rematch). I will see you all at the BAO in two weeks.

Yeah, I got to check out some of the tables and the armies. There were some ridiculously awesome painted armies hanging around. I saw one of the zero comp guys playing against a tyranid player and that was an epic painting matchup if I ever saw one. Calling daemons and bugs beautiful is kinda weird, but that's the only word for them.

blasto0341 wrote:Awesome event! Played some awesome guys and had some great games. Tables were friggin badass too! Loved the city and necron ones the most. I went 3 wins 2 losses with the Bully Boyz, and pulled out best painted =D Trophies were really cool too! Can't wait for the next one! WAAAGH!

Ah, sorry that I forgot your name (but Kurt will announce it anyway), but I felt your ork army won deservedly. You ought to post a picture.

And yes, royally cool tables.


Since it seems to be the thing to do, a brief summary:

Game 1 - vs. a 'soft' Gk list. He made the mistake of Reserving and Deep Striking his SRG fulla a non-Psyfileman dread and a pack of termies. I pulled a Draw.
Game 2 - vs. Pedro Cantor list. We both got the messengers across, but being my Dark Eldar, I simply gave up one more KP than he did. Minor Vic for him.
Game 3 - vs. IG, two executioners. Hard fought game. He missed the bull-horn announcement on 'last turn' and fired guns with a scoring unit instead of using a Run move get to an objective. I get a minor win.
Game 4 - IG again. 3 Manticores which I just didn't get to (despite being table quarters ) . Nice open desert table for him. I got Massacred.
Game 5 - Really fun, as hey, last game, outta *any* kind of running. Versus one of the Zero Comp guys, Matt D. using SW (actually Reecius's). I lost due to too many 'Shaken" results on his vehicles. Minor Vic for Matt.

Blackmoor wrote:

mortetvie wrote:

CaptKaruthors wrote:That's probably because half their model range hasn't been released yet.

What's more telling is that there is zero Eldar, Tau, and SOB...LOL.

Hey, if I had the time and extra money to go (sorry, lawschool makes me very picky with what I spend my money on and where I go these days) I would have been the only Eldar there! Eldar are still able to compete =P.

Toby from GMI games and I took foot Eldar 2 years ago and got hammered on comp scores.

Really? That makes me sad, player scored comp can be dumb sometimes. When footdar score lower on comp than, IG or SW? pisha...

Yeah, Team Zero Comp and Dugg kicking booty!

Wish I could have been there.

Sounds like a great event, well done Kurt and Co.

If it makes you feel any better I beat your space wolf army round 1. It was just like you were there!

Overall this was a good event. That said, next year the organizers need to make sure there is a ringer prepped both days. Enough people dropped at the end of day 1 that there was an odd number for 40k, and I was the odd man out. I was understanding about it, but like most of the players there, I would rather play and loose than take the bye. Especially at a small con where there is not much to do for that 2.5 hours other than hit the bar.

I really did enjoy the four games I did play, and I saw some great armies on display. The terrain was a great deal better than you find at most tournaments. I will definitely be back next year, but make sure there is a ringer just in case.

First off, a big thank you to the BSB guys for a great Event.

I had a great time, gaming and hanging with a good group of guys.

The Trophies are really cool!

The top spots went to:

Best Overall - Doug Johnson (Orks)
2nd Overall - Franklin Giampapa (DE)
Best General - Russell Jacobsen (SW)
3rd Overall - John Hermann (Necrons)
Best Appearance - Joshua Harris (Orks)
Best Sportsman - Cooper Waddell

Congratulation to everyone!

@Reecius - Thanks man and you should have been there.

@Grimgob - Thanks and anytime Ork brother

One suggestion for next year. I would love to get a BSB patch to put on my TableWar Case. like the Adepticon coin or the Throne of Skullz Patch.

Wow, congrats, Doug!! I thought you just had your first GT game last year, I must've been mistaken

Edit, just "dug" up the quote (harhar ) that made me think this:

Reecius wrote:Doug, my first opponent (who is a good buddy of mine) said he was going to make a shirt that said "I tabled Reecius at my first GT!"

From last year's broadside bash... is that you?? If so, really impressive!

Yeah, that's me haha

Wow, that's really great! I wish I had a similar upward track of success

(although judging by your sig, it looks like you did well towards the end of last year, too)

@blackmoor
Yeah, but had it been me, I would have won! Haha

@cooper
Yeah coopnasty, way to go on best sports! I hope you were wearing a robe!

Here are the placings from the BSB website:

40k Award Placings:
Admiral - Best Overall - Doug Johnson
Captain - 2nd Overall - Frankie Giampapa
First Mate - 3rd Overall - Ben Nichols
Sergeant-At-Arms - Best General/Army - Russell Jacobsen
Bosun - Best Sportsman - Cooper Waddell
Quartermaster - Best Appearance - Joshua Harris

WFB Award Placings:
Admiral - Best Overall - Quentin Bohn
Captain - 2nd Overall - Fred Whitney
Sergeant-At-Arms - Best General/Army - Brad Feliz
Bosun - Best Sportsman - Bill Curry
Quartermaster - Best Appearance - Alan Pyle

Dugg wrote:First off, a big thank you to the BSB guys for a great Event.
Best Overall - Doug Johnson (Orks)
2nd Overall - Franklin Giampapa (DE)
Best General - Russell Jacobsen (SW)
3rd Overall - John Hermann (Necrons)
Best Appearance - Joshua Harris (Orks)
Best Sportsman - Cooper Waddell

Ben Nichols was 3rd Overall. John Herman lost a tie breaker to Russell Jacobsen for Best General.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Results have been posted to the website...

http://broadside-bash.blogspot.com/2012/02/broadside-bash-results.html

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to give my feedback on the event for the Fantasy side only. Happy to discuss any of the points in more detail if need be. This is a long post, because I tried to support my positions thoroughly.



The Good:

Trophies were fantastic! They looked excellent and were definitely something cool to have. The prizes also seemed very good for a 40 person event with an excellent variety of sponsors / swag.

The terrain was awesome. It all looked good and gave the games a fun feel.

The event ran on time with no surprise scheduling changes. There was enough time in the rounds with a good amount of time for lunch. The hotel was great and the convention downstairs was fun to walk around.


Areas of Improvement:

Scoring Snafu - At the end of the tournament there was a scoring snafu with excel that caused the battle point formulas to add up incorrectly which caused the wrong people to get the 1st/2nd place awards. I work with excel every day and I certainly understand that excel errors do happen (I make them all the time), but the organizers really need to take extra time at the end of the event to ensure the scores are right. People pay money to attend these events and give up an entire weekend. It takes away a lot from the enjoyment when you can't trust the scores are right and leaves people with a sour taste at the last possible moment. However, the organizers did fix the problem quickly and have apparently handled the prize issues in a favorable manner which is commendable, so that is a plus.

Suggestions to improve: - I am a strong believer that all scores should be posted after every round, so that players can double check that their scores are right. It is a very low cost way to significantly improve the accuracy of scoring. People make errors with inputs, especially when there are a lot of numbers to check in a short period of time. There is little reason that you shouldn't be able to monitor your scores as the tournament progresses. People can pretty much figure out their individual scores anyway, so I'm not sure there's downside.

While this won't stop round 5 errors (until after prizes are announced), it would allow the TOs to spend extra time spot checking the round 5 results before announcing and have confidence 80% of the results are absolutely correct.


Opponent Scored Sports/Comp -

I will preface this section by saying that it is no way meant to take anything away from the people that won (those that won deserved it). My only goal is to push for a system that limits the influence of opponent emotion and subjective opinion. At the end of the day, I want to go home and say "Wow that was a great tournament." Not the all too typical "I had fun, got to play some fun games, but the scores really didn't make sense."

In a nutshell my issue with opponent scored sports/comp is that there are other systems that achieve the same goals without creating an opportunity for opponent bias. To give you an example on the comp angle... Here is my list from BSB:

Lvl 4 Maw, fencer's blades, greedy fist, dispell scroll
Lvl 2, Firebelly, hellheart, GW
BSB, 4+ ward, warrior's bane, HA, IF, look out gnob
6 IG, FC, Banner of discipline,
10 Bulls, FC, look out gnob, IF
4 MF, S/M, Dragonhide, IF/HA
4 Maneaters, S/M, poison/sniper, dual pistols, flaming banner
3 sabertusks
2 cannons

I received a "15" which is 4 "high normals" and 1 "low normal". For reference a 5 was "soft/themey" and 6 was "a thematic army to the extreme (particularly at the cost of performance), note: "winning" is not a theme". Now to be clear, I believe my comp score was correctly. My list was certainly strong, but very beatable. It definitely was not soft/themey. However, my issue is that my list was scored the lowest comp in the room. Do we honestly believe that my list was THE HARDEST list in the room? Do we honestly believe that the scoring is accurately reflecting the strength of the army? Or is it a reflection of the fact that I tabled the opponents that gave the lowest comp? Is it reflecting emotion (I admit I play an intense game) rather than true comp?


By way of reference, here was a daemon list that got a 16, though I may have some small unit numbers off:

(please note that I only use this list as an example, because I best remember the lists I played against. Q very much deserved to win and even with lower comp, still would have won, so it is in NO WAY trying to undercut his victory. Congrats to him and I will get my revenge!)

Keeper with Siren song
masque
2 heralds with siren song
TZ herald with lore of heavens, scroll, -2 LD banner
26 horrors with changeling
24 daemonettes
24 daemonettes
5 furies
6 flamers
fiend
fiend

Is the system working correctly when that list scores higher than my ogres?


Here is another example of a 16:

Khalida
lvl 4 nek
lvl 2 nek
52 poisoned archers
6 chariots
4 necro knights
2 sphinxes
2 catapluts
casket

My list is harder than that? Again, my list was scored accurately. It is a normal tournament list. But the rest of the room got 16+... That means the majority of lists were, by definition, SOFT. I saw plenty of mean lizard man lists, mean ogre lists that also had 2 cannons that all got some "soft" checks. Is the system really working properly? It's pretty clear that emotion or lack of familiarity with the meta is effecting the scores. I'll be the first to admit, I'm an aggressive, hard ass player that feels no qualms about tabling an opponent during a tournament game, so it doesn't surprise me that people are less likely to inflate my score with a 5 or 6 here and there. However, the system shouldn't be open to that emotional variable.

Suggested improvement - I am totally for the concept of comp, I just do not believe it should be open to the whims of someone you just played that has a conflict of interest. Why let the opponent have the potential to impact your scores when there are other viable alternatives. A better approach would be to have judge scored comp. This mechanism removes the post-game emotional component and, hopefully, allows someone well-versed in the meta game to score consistently and relative to the other armies in the field. While I notice this system takes a bit more work, I think it's a marginal addition given the total time it takes to run a tournament. It's not perfect since the judge scorer has his own biases, but at least they are consistent. However, if you want a quick solution, do hard comp. With hard comp, everything is known beforehand. There are no surprises, no one can feel cheated after the fact. Neither of these two systems are perfect, but they are FAR better than letting the opponent's biases effect tournaments.

Opponent scored sports

The argument here is similar to the comp debate. It is a metric scored by someone who has a conflict of interest and emotion. Again, I am not upset with my particular score. I am just frustrated with how the current system makes the tournament about a beauty pageant, hiding how you feel, and letting rules slide, because you're afraid of a ding. To use myself as an example, I play this same guy every tournament. For whatever reason, we don't get along and have a tense game. We can both have fun games against other people, but our personalities simply clash. Whenever get matched up, we're going to be at a handicap. Neither of us will get a "6" from the other (it's just not a fun game), but why should we be penalized for our overall standings simply because we don't get along? Sure, the lowest score is dropped, but similar things happen to a lesser degree in more than 1 game. I have played people that get very, very upset about being tabled. I can't change that fact. He tells me "I can't give you full sports, because I simply didn't have fun being tabled." I totally understand that being tabled can sometimes not be fun, but it shouldn't be my job to make them laugh while I'm playing or to not push my advantage in hopes it will make them feel better about their loss (which on occasion has caused me to lose the game).


Suggested improvement

Switch to checklist sports ("Did your opponent display good sportsmanship?" Yes/no). For every bad check, the player gets a -1,-2,-4,-8,-16 point penalty. HOWEVER, the "no" check must be approved by a judge and the judge must (in circumstances where appropriate) have been called over to try to address the problem in the game. E.g. if you have a problem with overmeasuring, tell the opponent, call a judge and try to resolve it. Don't wait till the end to ding your opponent secretly. I bet you'd probably see less than 2 "nos" per round in this system.

You can still include "favorite opponent" voting which is ultimately what determines "best sports" anyway. The opponent scored sports just ignores basic human nature. Some people don't get along, some people just will not have a fun game together. Personalities clash, opinions differ. It's all possible without anyone being wrong, bad or unsporting. People should not be getting an advantage in tournament scoring, just because their personality is different than someone else's. The system above still calls out douchebags and cheaters, but recognizes that people are different and shouldn't be penalized for that fact. It also eliminates emotion and conflict of interest. It is more consistent and can be validated by a judge. There are few cons to this system and MANY to the other system. It seems like a no brainer to me.



In summation, I appreciate the TOs running the event and had fun, because I like playing warhammer. I write this long post, because I believe meaningful improvements can be made to help make the event even better. I want to see the Broadside Bash thrive and grow its player-base. I want it to be the best event possible for the LA area. I tried to suggest solutions that would not put a significantly greater burden on the TOs, while creating an event that is still hobby focused, but not affected by opponent emotion or subjective opinion. The same goals can be achieved at a much lower cost.

Leenus wrote:
Suggestions to improve: - I am a strong believer that all scores should be posted after every round, so that players can double check that their scores are right.

Opponent Scored Sports/Comp -
Lvl 4 Maw, fencer's blades, greedy fist, dispell scroll
Lvl 2, Firebelly, hellheart, GW
BSB, 4+ ward, warrior's bane, HA, IF, look out gnob
6 IG, FC, Banner of discipline,
10 Bulls, FC, look out gnob, IF
4 MF, S/M, Dragonhide, IF/HA
4 Maneaters, S/M, poison/sniper, dual pistols, flaming banner
3 sabertusks
2 cannons

I received a "15" which is 4 "high normals" and 1 "low normal". For reference a 5 was "soft/themey" and 6 was "a thematic army to the extreme (particularly at the cost of performance), note: "winning" is not a theme". Now to be clear, I believe my comp score was correctly.

As someone who has suffered from an incorrect battle score before, I agree with you that Battle Scores should be posted every round. Anything that helps the already busy TO's is good, and players double checking their own scores is a definitely help. I also like how they handed out the painting checklist, so players could see where they needed to improve, or at least in one instance point out conversions that went unnoticed.

Now, I'm a little unclear as there seems to have been a little typing error, but you believe you were comp scored correctly? Meaning if you had to give your own army a comp score in that system, a 3.5, middle of average, is correct? If you got what you think you deserved then the system seems to be working. You seem to feel that other people should have been scored more harshly.

And yes I do think the system is working correctly because:
Your army is a straight-off-the-internet OK power list. Which means people have seen it a million times and are achingly familiar with it. It's uninspired and would never earn a favorite army vote from me (favorite army is factored into your comp score)

The Khalida list left half of her archers at home.

The Daemon list is different, it brings some of the same old units, but does something different with Heavens and even restrains itself by only bringing one unit of Flamers.

It looks to me like at least one of the TK and DoC's players opponents gave them a one point comp break or voted them for favorite army. Honestly, if I'd played Q's Daemons I might have voted them my favorite army, I like some of the decisions he made in that list.

And TK deserve some comp mercy for pete's sake.

So it looks to me like the system worked.

Judge scored comp NEVER works. You can't expect 2-4 judges to soft through 80 army lists (40K and Fantasy), and stay sane. After the first 10 scoring starts to get too flexible, and combos slip through the cracks far too easily if a judge doesn't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules system and how all special rules interact.

Lee-
I agree with several of your scoring ideas and in fact several of those are in our group event. I'm not trying to diminish my list but it was a demon list that have no khorne units, no level 4s, no lore of shadow, no large units, and the vast bulk of it was t3 s3 models. I did have about half of the components of the leadership bomb. With how optimized your list was I think our comp scores should have been compareable, though I do believe a couple of people might have low balled you based on past reputation which is unfortunate because I know that you've been making an effort especially in sportsmanship to improve the play experience of your tournament opponents. Also I don't think it's possible to make a broken tomb king list and consider craigs army weaker than either of ours.

If anyone gave me a pass on comp it's probably for those reasons and how easy it is to get points off of my army. In comparison most of the ogre lists were very point denile heavy, which is very strong in a strict win loss environment. Obviously I am going to be biased here but I felt the cop was about where it should have been. Assuming you played everyone like you did me you should have gotten good sportsmanship all day and if you didn't that's unfortunate. Not trying to make any excuses but they were running two large tournament at the same time with what appeared to be about 4 people. I did see wade periodically checking games to make sure people were on their best behavior, which is all you can ask in that situation. And actually compared to prior years the emphasis of soft scores is a great deal less than it has been in the past


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yeah any other day of the week you would have and should have crushed me. I think being behind on battle points may have altered your normal play style and my army matches up against yours very poorly in general. I just got lucky that you did something a little out of character.

Leenus wrote:
Opponent scored sports

The argument here is similar to the comp debate. It is a metric scored by someone who has a conflict of interest and emotion. Again, I am not upset with my particular score. I am just frustrated with how the current system makes the tournament about a beauty pageant, hiding how you feel, and letting rules slide, because you're afraid of a ding. To use myself as an example, I play this same guy every tournament. For whatever reason, we don't get along and have a tense game. We can both have fun games against other people, but our personalities simply clash. Whenever get matched up, we're going to be at a handicap. Neither of us will get a "6" from the other (it's just not a fun game), but why should we be penalized for our overall standings simply because we don't get along? Sure, the lowest score is dropped, but similar things happen to a lesser degree in more than 1 game. I have played people that get very, very upset about being tabled. I can't change that fact. He tells me "I can't give you full sports, because I simply didn't have fun being tabled." I totally understand that being tabled can sometimes not be fun, but it shouldn't be my job to make them laugh while I'm playing or to not push my advantage in hopes it will make them feel better about their loss (which on occasion has caused me to lose the game).

In my opinion,as someone who has played against you before Lee,and believe me it was one of the worst games I've EVER played,you have no right giving advice on how to run sportsmanship at a GT. You're only there to win at ALL costs and your lists reflect it,I seem to remember an absolutely broken Dark elf list that was modeled for advantage. In addition Ghoulking is right,that list or a version of it is played by every power gaming Ogre player that I have come across.

Reecius wrote:@blackmoor
Yeah, but had it been me, I would have won! Haha

@cooper
Yeah coopnasty, way to go on best sports! I hope you were wearing a robe!

"Coopnasty" checking in.

Was unfortunately unable to snag a robe as I was not staying at the sheraton... going to have to invest in a more permanent one to take with me on trips to tournaments.

However... larping did happen.. and you, christian and stave stiff missed it.

The event was awesome. Did not have a single bad game of 40k. Was able to laugh and have a poop ton of fun, especially against Joshua Harris.

hiredgun99 wrote:

Leenus wrote:
Opponent scored sports

The argument here is similar to the comp debate. It is a metric scored by someone who has a conflict of interest and emotion. Again, I am not upset with my particular score. I am just frustrated with how the current system makes the tournament about a beauty pageant, hiding how you feel, and letting rules slide, because you're afraid of a ding. To use myself as an example, I play this same guy every tournament. For whatever reason, we don't get along and have a tense game. We can both have fun games against other people, but our personalities simply clash. Whenever get matched up, we're going to be at a handicap. Neither of us will get a "6" from the other (it's just not a fun game), but why should we be penalized for our overall standings simply because we don't get along? Sure, the lowest score is dropped, but similar things happen to a lesser degree in more than 1 game. I have played people that get very, very upset about being tabled. I can't change that fact. He tells me "I can't give you full sports, because I simply didn't have fun being tabled." I totally understand that being tabled can sometimes not be fun, but it shouldn't be my job to make them laugh while I'm playing or to not push my advantage in hopes it will make them feel better about their loss (which on occasion has caused me to lose the game).

In my opinion,as someone who has played against you before Lee,and believe me it was one of the worst games I've EVER played,you have no right giving advice on how to run sportsmanship at a GT. You're only there to win at ALL costs and your lists reflect it,I seem to remember an absolutely broken Dark elf list that was modeled for advantage. In addition Ghoulking is right,that list or a version of it is played by every power gaming Ogre player that I have come across.

I don't get this, Lee has a right to his opinion. I have played Lee many times in several different game systems. We are friends on Dakka but our friendship doesn't go beyond gaming. The only complaint I can have is that Lee knows the rules and plays by them. He knows the rules, the FAQs, and he knows them for his army and yours. Can that get annoying? Sure, no one enjoys the sensation of being proved wrong and then losing because of it, that certainly doesn't mean Lee has no right giving advice on Sports. Not allowing your opponent to do whatever they want, rules be damned, does not make a person a poor sport. Having played against Lee on multiple occasions means I know him a bit better than you (your post implies you played him once), he is just good. Not unbeatable, not a WAAC jerk, he is good, and he is playing a game. The objective of that game is to win and to play within the parameters of the rules. He wins and plays within the parameters that the rules set out, I fail to see how that invalidates his right to an opinion on an event he invested time, and substantial, amounts of money (cost of the army included of course) in. I didn't play at the Broadside Bash despite having that weekend entirely free because I find the way they score sports unpalatable. I like sports, I don't like secretive, player scored sports. All scoring should be transparent, if the BSB did that I would be there every year. Anyone who attends has the right to voice their opinion on the event, whether you enjoyed a game you played with them or not.

OverwatchCNC wrote: I didn't play at the Broadside Bash despite having that weekend entirely free because I find the way they score sports unpalatable. I like sports, I don't like secretive, player scored sports. All scoring should be transparent, if the BSB did that I would be there every year. Anyone who attends has the right to voice their opinion on the event, whether you enjoyed a game you played with them or not.

This. Thats why I dont attend this event even though many of my friends attend. I don't even mind that its a hobbycentric event, its the sports situation and I votes with my $$$'s. I wish others who share the same view would too and then mabey things would change.

Grimgob wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote: I didn't play at the Broadside Bash despite having that weekend entirely free because I find the way they score sports unpalatable. I like sports, I don't like secretive, player scored sports. All scoring should be transparent, if the BSB did that I would be there every year. Anyone who attends has the right to voice their opinion on the event, whether you enjoyed a game you played with them or not.

This. Thats why I dont attend this event even though many of my friends attend. I don't even mind that its a hobbycentric event, its the sports situation and I votes with my $$$'s. I wish others who share the same view would too and then mabey things would change.

I voted with my feet last year and stayed home. I hate comp scoring because in 40k everything is almost balanced at this point and does not need it.

I only signed up because I do some reporting on some podcasts, so I try to go to as many events as possible. When I paid for my ticket it was at an ok time for me, It just happened to have turned into a horrible time for me to play in a tournament so I had to drop out early.

Yeah, no need to hammer Lee. He came to the LA area with his prior experience being on the East Coast, where its no holds barred full frontal male nudity cheesehammer most of the time. He has been making an effort to temper things and as he has gotten to know more of the local community, he has become more personable to play against. Not every guy in the room can be Bill Curry or Reece Robbins, after all.

Our game was perfectly fine and after the error he made that cost him the game, he just stepped out to let out some steam. Understandable when you are in that situation and I chatted with his wife (nice woman, btw) until he returned. He actually got my favorite opponent vote, because our game was the most interesting one of the weekend by a long shot. His army was cookie cutter in a lot of ways, but I would put it middle of the road comp. It certainly does not compare to Chosenstar, double Stank, or Life Slaan Steg rush lists that are out there, but it is probably pretty close to what most would consider a perfect Ogre list. Its a fair statement to make that he had a hand in creating that list because he (along with myself and others at the BSB) have been doing lots ot discussion and playtesting of Ogres on the Stronghold, so its not like he just downloaded someone elses list. His list was tough but fair and I think its worth pointing out that five other people with nearly the exact same list did not do nearly as well as he did against the same field of opposition.

I am honestly most impressed with Josh Rosenstien and my teammate Fred Whitney, who both rocked people with really crappy lists. Josh is a deathstar player, and his list certainly had that, but it was a friggin rat ogre/rat swarm army with two L2s. Fred was dominating people with Beastmen and if I had not luckily Irresistable Bolt of Changed his Doombull off the table on turn one, the tournament would likely have had a much different outcome.

All in all, it was a really good tournament and outside the scoring glitches, there was nothing to complain about on the fantasy side. They solved the space issues and the trophies were great. The level of competition was amazing, as well, with some of the best players in the area in attendance. The only real issue was the noise in the main room and someone wandering around in there really needed to do a better job wiping their pooper. Nothing two cans of Glade and some flash cards cannot solve next year!

Next year, we are going to post all win-loss and battle points after each round so that players can verify their scores.

This would not stop the scoring snafu, which was an issue with the sheet that was used to print out the scores and not with any of the scores themselves.

We did have one game, which due to player error, was reported incorrectly, and has now been corrected. Actually we had several, but the others were noticed and corrected by the players at the event.

We are glad everyone had a great time. We like the feedback and know that lots of people do not like player-scored comp or sports. For us it is here to stay. Plenty of other events out there, do not use it.

The problem that we see every year, is not people getting chipmunked...its that everyone seems to score way too high. The more honest and realistic that people are with the scoring, the better the results are for everyone.

On the other-hand, we found a lot less issues in the games this year and a lot more even comp in the armies. People seemed to have a lot more fun and played a bunch of great games. Hmm, its almost like that is our goal

captkurt wrote:
We did have one game, which due to player error, was reported incorrectly, and has now been corrected. Actually we had several, but the others were noticed and corrected by the players at the event.

Considering all the scoring errors, I'm not sure I agree with you saying that both Josh and I filled out our sheets incorrectly, but at this point it makes little difference... Posting the scores after the round will do a lot to eliminate this problem going forward.

Going home with a record of 4-0-1 and a 4th place finish with my Dwarves is something I couldn't be happier with. I had a great time and played 5 great games. Congratz to everyone!

Phazael wrote: The only real issue was the noise in the main room and someone wandering around in there really needed to do a better job wiping their pooper. Nothing two cans of Glade and some flash cards cannot solve next year!

This.

I know there's nothing they can do for this at the TO level, but good lord it smelled like an asses armpit up there.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:

captkurt wrote:
We did have one game, which due to player error, was reported incorrectly, and has now been corrected. Actually we had several, but the others were noticed and corrected by the players at the event.

Considering all the scoring errors, I'm not sure I agree with you saying that both Josh and I filled out our sheets incorrectly, but at this point it makes little difference... Posting the scores after the round will do a lot to eliminate this problem going forward.

I should clarify, the other errors were all player errors. Like the item with you and Josh, the scores were reported opposite. The players however figured out the error and reported the correct scoring to me later in the day.

There are usually two types of player errors....one where the players write down the results as if the win-loss was reversed, the other where they each report a different winner and loser. We double check each set of score sheets as they come in and do not record any scores until both sheets are turned in. The 2nd error is easy to spot....they both reported having won, or both reported having lost....we find the players and get the correct winner & loser. The first error is not possible for us to spot, as both sheets are reported correctly, though the game results were reversed.

Pat, I reviewed your scores and all was reported correctly and recorded in our spreadsheet as reported. For some reason, you both had simply reported Josh as winning. It happens, we got it corrected, and it had no effect on the results, though it did change the rankings for both Pat and Josh. We will have a better system for player verification in place for next year.

Still less than 5 player reporting errors out of 500 or so, thats pretty good.

Only the issue at the end was TO error. We had no errors (player error aside) found in the data entry. The error at the end was due to some tabulation error in the final totals sheet. I say this not to duck our responsibility, we take this very seriously, but to make sure that everyone is clear on what happened.

- Kurt

Yeah, if you guys keep doing both GTs the same weekend, you might need to add some more staff. Scoring alone with that many people is practically a two person job. I think sports scores were generally high for the right reason, ie people were genuinely behaving themselves, so I would not worry too much about that. The soft score system you had in place worked really well, at least on the Fantasy side. True, I won overall with 5-0, but I also had the best possible player sports score, and maxed my painting. I had average comp, at least based on the scale, which I felt was accurate, and the 5-0 guy is never getting anyone's favorite votes.

No worries Kurt. I'm glad it was corrected and all is right in the gaming world.

Q also makes a good point that you guys have a lot to deal with in running the tourney and all things considered you guys held an awesome tourney.... I haven't had the time to sit and write my review yet, but I appreciate all that you and the guys do.

Kurt, I was even happy when you came over and asked about how I was playing the template on my gyrocopter to ensure that I was following the BSB rules correctly. Likewise, Wade was walking around and checking on games and ensuring that all was well.

@Kurt

[Note: please do not interpret my tone as harsh, angry or accusatory, it is simply inquisitive] If the TO himself admits that people are being scored way too high, a function of people not being "honest and realistic" enough with their scoring, and yet still believes the system is working properly, then I am not sure what more I can say to sway you. People being scored higher than they should be is the same core problem as a chipmunk (outside factors like emotion/conflicts of interest driving the decision). However, I wanted to voice my suggestions as clearly and thoroughly as possible. It's obviously your decision what to do at the end of the day. I believe tournaments help keep Warhammer strong, so I will always try to help them grown. Maybe I come from too much of a business background, but I am not sure why you would use a system you admit lots of people do not like, when you could use another system that achieves the same goals with fewer negatives and has the benefit of increasing attendance and revenue. A simple switch to the checklist sports I suggested would likely net you two happy attendees just from this thread (overwatchCNC and Blackmoore) and probably many others, at the loss of no one other than people who liked to use sports scores as a way to further their own agenda (and I bet they'd still come). Seems like a no brainer to me.

I bet if you went and did an analysis of sports scoring among club mates or friends compared to two random players playing, you'd see a higher average score amongst the club mates / friends. It is only logical and makes sense as to why it happens, but that just tells me a system should be used to eliminate that anomaly.

At the end of the day all I can do is give my opinion, and I know it is ultimately your choice on how to run the tournament. I would love to hear why you think something like checklist sports (as I described earlier) is not a better system than what you currently have just for the sake of better understanding the tournament goals.



@Everyone

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the comp was "even," when my list (just one example) was comped as the hardest list in the room by a meaningful margin. Do you honestly believe my list was meaningfully harder than 95%% of the other lists in the room? I'm willing to bet if you saw just the ogre lists, mine was scored at significant discount to the other lists.

I also know, for a fact, that my lowest comp scores came from the people that I got the lowest sports scores from. Coincidence? I think not. I'm not saying I am a victim more than anyone else. I am just using myself as a data point, since I have excellent data on my own games (duh).

Furthermore, it's not even about my list. Completely ignore my list and my score. Almost every other list in the room (all the 17+'s) was comp'd at "soft" status at some point. Do you honestly believe this was the first tournament in the history of warhammer where 84% of the lists were truly soft? If they posted the 36ish lists, you'd see in a matter of minutes that it's simply not the case.

Nothing in that system worked right other than a bunch of arbitrary scores getting put on paper. Maybe I am arguing for the obvious and people just don't care. I hope not :/


@hiredgun99

First, I kept names out of my post, because I didn't want to let our game color anyone's opinion of you. However, if you're going to attack me directly, at least let me know who you are. I have a pretty good guess, but I don't want to assume. However, if you're who I think you are, I find it absolutely hilarious that you actually got lower sports than me at the GT (and I gave you a 4!). I wonder what that says!

However, your response gives me a perfect example of why player scored sports is simply a broken system. We clearly had a bad game in the past... it happens. That is clearly going to sway your opinion in the future. I would have to work abnormally hard just to get you to have a fun game, given you clearly hate my "win at all costs" attitude, my lists and my modeling. Why should my tournament chances be hurt, because we had a bad game in the past and it would be near impossible for me to please you, given your existing prejudice. I could give specifics, but I do not want to do so without being sure of who you are. I will point out that I'm not sure my ogre list or my dark elves have anything to do with my sportsmanship.

As an aside, I will also point out you are the only person to ever accuse me of modeling for advantage. If you're referring to my dragon hydra, I can see how, if you're already raging about me, you could interpret it that way. If you have a problem, get a judge. Don't stew in your own rage. I use the model, because it is cool and lots of people like it. If someone thought I was modeling for an advantage, I would simply draw all LoS/breath weapons as if it was a regular hydra, but no player or judge has voiced an problem to my face.


@Ghoulking

If my list scored the "proper" score and many other lists were inflated that does not prove the system worked. I don't know about you, but when the vast minority of lists are scored correctly, I don't call that a working system. It's less about the three lists I highlighted and more about *how* the system works.

You are a perfect example of why opponent scored comp doesn't work. You give value to taking something "different" regardless of overall power. You obviously have a bias against popular lists. Other people don't have these same views. Why should my score vary depending on whom I play? Why should it change depending on their experience with the local meta, their knowledge of net lists or what they think is "fun." That is the very core of the argument. My score should not be at the whim of my opponent? Why should I be subject to a set of biases I have no way of knowing or understanding.

I will disagree that judge scored comp does not work. On the east coast we had a panel of at least 7 judges score 70+ lists for a number of tournaments. People were a lot more happy with that system than player comp. I have the data that proves the system works. You have baseless conjecture to counter.

I will agree that the system is not perfect and I will agree it does take a lot of time. So in that case, I offered another solution. Use Hard Comp. Everyone knows the biases beforehand, so cannot feel cheated after the fact or at the whim of emotion. Everyone is under the same set of biases and restrictions. Doesn't that sound a lot more fair than hoping your 5 opponents don't arbitrarily dislike what you take?


Closing -

To be clear, I do not feel like I was a victim or am crying because the scoring hurt my chances. I would have won the tournament had I beat Q, so I am not trying to change the rules to allow me to win. I only lost, because of my own poor play mistakes. However, I am just trying to give my opinion on how to make the tournament more enjoyable. There is nothing fun about worrying about arbitrary dings or raging opponents. That only takes away from the experience without adding any benefit. Why not make the experience the best it can be?

Thanks for the feedback Lee. Even if we don't implement it, we do take it into account.

I see that there are two main camps of players out there...

1.) its a TOURNAMENT, battle points only, soft scores be damned. Some players have varying opinions of sports or comp systems that work.

2.) its an OVERALL EVENT where all score matter and should be included. Again there are varying opinions of how things should be scored.

Players in camp 1, will never agree fully with the systems in place at a camp 2 event and visa versa.

We have tried judged comp, and nearly had a player mutiny when it was included in the scoring. I just don't find that judged comp work, unless it is a pre-set system where X army get Y comp. But there is no consensus on that either.

As far as Sports systems go, we have tried checklist ideas....the problem with them is that some people will still give max scores no matter what. Some will score honestly, and some will ding you any way they can. The different system, just changes the method by which they can manipulate this. Actually its my feeling that a checklist system will encourage more max scores than anything else.

All that we can truly fall back on and all agree (even if we agree to disagree) is player honesty.

I am all for an overall event where all scores matter. However, I am not for an event where those other scores are at the arbitrary whim of biased opponents.

My system is notable different in what you reference, because you cannot manipulate the system to "ding" the opponent. It is pass/fail with fail calling for judge approval of the ding, so a neutral 3rd party can make the final decision. Given that the lowest sports score in the room was a 19, you wouldn't even had close to 1 "fail" the entire tournament. Exceptional players are still rewarded through favorite player votes, while differing personalities are not penalized and club mates / friends are not unfairly rewarded. Again, seems like a very logical choice to me.

But I appreciate the response. I guess we have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to kill sports scoring at your tournament, only improve the system. You can still recognize the best performers while not penalizing people for human nature.

Interesting that the current "broken hard @ss cheese Army of the month" (also known as Grey Knights) managed a top finish of 16th place with a pretty fluffy non-spammed list built more for all-comers.
My "every list that has a Chimera is a Leaf Blower IG" finished in 8th; also with an unoptimised list (yeah, it was tough, but not 6 melta-vets, 3 valks, 3 Manticores rediculous).
Also nice to see the Nets favorite whipping boy, Orks, place 3 in the top 10 with Chaos marines making a nice showing. SWs continue to show that Long Fangs are still a rock hard unit (oh how i wished for that Colossus) along with stuffing as many Lances on paper airplanes as possible.
In the end , alot of it has to do with mission vs Army matchups. Why does Draigo-wing always end up playing Tervigon gaunt spawn in Objective missions?

It was a great event, alot of fun, and nice to catch up with freinds not seen in too long a time. Really outstanding terrain (well, except for that weird dice thing with the cloth creases) and a great mixup of armies and lists.
Definately plan to be back next year.

Well our own event does soft scores too, using mostly checklisted things. Its pretty similar to the BSB in its current layout of points, though we only use votes as tie breakers. I really did not think my army was any more or less compy than yours or how we were both scored. I mean, yeah I had two elements of LD bomb in there, but as was stated nothing outside my two god theme, no lore of shadow, no double flamers, no L4 wizard, and no hordes at all.

What I do think is the conern is people double dipping on Comp and Sports, ie dinging someone for sports when its really their comp that they had the issue with, which I think happens to you sometimes Lee. I know at our last Slaughter I went and spoke with people who double dinged you and got them to admit that there really was not a sports issue and it was reversed, but we had the manpower to follow up on things like that because we split our events to two days.

Phazael wrote:Well our own event does soft scores too, using mostly checklisted things. Its pretty similar to the BSB in its current layout of points, though we only use votes as tie breakers. I really did not think my army was any more or less compy than yours or how we were both scored. I mean, yeah I had two elements of LD bomb in there, but as was stated nothing outside my two god theme, no lore of shadow, no double flamers, no L4 wizard, and no hordes at all.

What I do think is the conern is people double dipping on Comp and Sports, ie dinging someone for sports when its really their comp that they had the issue with, which I think happens to you sometimes Lee. I know at our last Slaughter I went and spoke with people who double dinged you and got them to admit that there really was not a sports issue and it was reversed, but we had the manpower to follow up on things like that because we split our events to two days.

I agree that the main problem with soft scores isn't their existence. I also must say I disagree that there are only two camps of tournament players. I play in lots of different style events, I prefer events without comp for 40k but I would not want sports to disappear entirely.

The problem is the double ding. A hard list isn't poor sportsmanship, and poor sportsmanship is not poor army comp. They are often treated the same and that isn't fair. The honor system doesn't work, working off the assumption that players will be open and honest is just asking for trouble. Guidelines should be strictly enforced, I would say implementing a system where you can't give more than 1 6 for sportsmanship a day. Honestly how many games in 1 day at a tournament can fall into the category of "best game of my life, I want this guy to move in downstairs so we can game all day, everyday"?

A few tweaks could go a long way.

@Leenus

I wouldn't push to hard man. Kurt is going to run the event how he wants and isn't really interested in changing things up.

@Kurt

I'd heartily disagree on the two types of players only. I attend a ton of events including soft score events. Heck, I just best overall at one in which 90/175 pts was soft scores (So more than 50%). I don't avoid events based on their scoring 99% of the time.

The two things that will keep me from attending an event are poor scenarios and non-transparency. Softscores have nothing to do with it so I'd be careful of painting with a huge brush.

@Sportsmanship

I'm a big fan of the rating 1-number of games you play. Either thru the weekend or per day. But that does mean you have to say who your worst game is against so some people aren't fans. I'm not a huge fan of the 1-10 system, especially alongside comp since your likely to see a double ding as mentioned earlier.

@ Hulk, did you check out our scenarios from this year. Seems like they were petty well received.

@Hulk

That sports system is horribly flawed. You play 5 great games. Why do the players that MUST go on the bottom of that list deserve a significant overall ding to their points? They gave a fantastic game, after all. Why do they deserve the same ding as someone who was a complete douche? How does that even remotely sound like a good system? (That's ignoring all the same conflicts of interest/biases/friend or club inflation that occurs in that system)

Leenus wrote:@Hulk

That sports system is horribly flawed. You play 5 great games. Why do the players that MUST go on the bottom of that list deserve a significant overall ding to their points? They gave a fantastic game, after all. Why do they deserve the same ding as someone who was a complete douche? How does that even remotely sound like a good system? (That's ignoring all the same conflicts of interest/biases/friend or club inflation that occurs in that system)

Thats a really good point Lee and one that I worried about as well. On the other hand, this is going to happen to EVERYONE. So the "dings" will even out over the course of the 5 games.

Well, just chiming in here some...

I'm against the proposed new Sports scoring system I received an email about earlier.

Over the years of playing in a lot of tournaments (both Fantasy and 40K) i'd have to say that the average for me is 4 great/good games and 1 that is a bit...undesired. Now that isn't every time, but a majority of the time.

How can I consciously hammer a few of the 4 guys I played with unfair rating?

I personally prefer the 1-5 system. Most of the time I give my opponents a "4" out of 5 because most games are pleasurable and regardless of the outcome someone i'd enjoy playing again. Once in a while I'll give a "5", and that (to me) means that this is a player I wish I gamed with regularly and preferably lived close by!


HOWEVER, i've been on the receiving end of "chipmunking" at a few Indy GTs, and I hold the Tournament Organizers responsible for the outcome. I still hold all Tournament Organizers accountable for keeping track of scoring, and they should have the courage to question ANY score, but especially low ones. Aren't they paying attention to the games as they go on? Don't ya'll walk around and take notice of players having a blast, and games that are dead silent and worse yet the games that are having heated debates? I feel the T.O.'s are accountable for recording the info and questioning the legitimacy of it.


Nothing's worse then playing 5 hard fought battles, having what you "thought" was 4 really fun games and 1 maybe "could've been better", winning all 5 and expecting at least a Top 10 placement...then to find out later you were zeroed out by two of your opponents...(both of whom were brothers)...and the system punished you for getting low scores, actually giving you negative points! SO my 2 games that I was zeroed out, canceled out 2 of my games that I received high scores...and thus just one game's sports score counted...

Why didn't the Tournament Organizers question either (or both) players that hammered me on the Sports (and comp) scoring? Why didn't they at least question me, and ask "hey, are you being a douche bag? if so we can eject you from the tournament!"...????


In the end, as Quentin has already alluded to, no system is going to be perfect, but those running the show can make sure it runs as smoothly as possible, as close to accurate as possible.

I was at the tournament, had one hell of a good time and aside from scoring snafus overall thought it was an class A event (other than we need more Fantasy players!).

Every single player I played deserved good sports scores thus in all fairness I could not rank 1-5 knowingly screwing one poor chap over.

I think 3 of my 5 opponents also queried (albeit with some pressure) about what sports scores I gave them so I dont want to be in a position to either 1.) lie to them or 2.) tell them I ranked them low and deal with the hate.

I would not probably attend an event where I was forced to engage in pseudo-Sophie's choice shenanigans. Im there to have fun and having to ding people in either comp or sports is a very much unwanted responsibility.

That aside, the trophies given were very cool.

PS- How the heck could anyone zero comp the Dark General?! He is the coolest Warhammer tournament cat I know.

I used the rank your opponents sportsmanship system earlier this year at Golden Snotling and it worked very well. The thing everyone has to remember is that you are not saying that the person who got 1 point was a douche what you are saying is that you had even more of a great time with the other players. If someone is being abusive it should be brought to the judges attention. As the judge I made sure to tell everyone again at the tournament that all the score/rank means it that someone felt that of games played in the event one was their favorite and every other one was still good just not as great. The only way someone should get worried about a ranked system like this is when all of their opponents give them the lowest rank, this might mean that you need to do some internal searching to figure out what you might improve on.

I get how people want sports and comp to be part of the event and how some people don't. If the focus of the tournament is to find who is best at 40k, forget anything other than battlepoints/win ratio.

Otherwise, if you ARE going to have sports or comp, make it as UNAMBIGUOUS as possible so that players have a good idea of what to look for in grading someone. Basically, a teacher without a good answer key can't hope to give accurate or appropriate grades...This common sense should apply here.

I think that, for example, on a 1-5 scale, anything that is like 4-5 should be standard, anything less should be investigated in an appropriate way. For example, a 3 should be looked at in light of his other games and if it is inconsistent, ask the player why he gave a 3, otherwise if he got like all 3s, maybe the player just needs to shape up. A 1 or 2 needs an explanation and argument for supporting the score, this should be OBJECTIVE, not SUBJECTIVE.

I think the big gripe with LEE is the subjectivity of the scores, objectivity and transparency is the ideal as players vary in many degrees, it simply isn't fair that someone gets punished because they played "that guy".

@Captkurt

I was referencing previous years. I didn't check out the scenarios this year as I wouldn't be able to attend either way. I haven't heard a thing negative about this years event other than the point mishap which does happen so no worries. And I give you props for properly billing your event as a hobby event. If I lived in CA I'd be giving it a go as I enjoyed the 3 years I did attend

@vhwolf

Exactly. I think the reason people are so opposed is the idea that you'd be harming others. This actually gives you a solid spread and people can't claim every game is the best game ever. But it was just a suggestion. And it was one coming from someone who got an "average" score when it was used

I didn't show up for various reasons, but I was told the Fantasy side of things was full, so I saw no point in making the long trip to sit around.


Californiagamer: Thank you so much for the vote of confidence! But there are definitely much more desirable players out there like Fred Whitney, John McAchren, and "Wild" Willie Malone! No one should ever ask what you scored them Sportsmanship wise, as that's a bit more "personal", and I've never asked such a thing, nor would I. There's no reason to pressure a player into revealing there score of you. I have asked about my Army Comp score, but I'm rarely upset with their answer weather it's high or low or whatever.


I agree with mortetvie in that anything less then a "4" should be looked into. Unfortunately it is often quite hard to discern from truly unhappy game play because you played "that guy" with "that list"...it can quickly make for an un-fun game for many players, resulting in a frustrating game and thus a sense of unsportsmanlike conduct. I suppose it's one thing to bring a power list, but it's entirely another thing to play that list to the best of it's capabilities strictly to win games. Even I look down upon this and would definitely not give the player of such an Army a top Sports score.

In the same breath, a player can bring a soft bunny list and be a complete rules lawyer and berate you for your style of play, taunt and verbally abuse your army, etc. Do they get a less of a hit on Sportsmanship for playing a "soft" list?

Are these Tournaments about finding out who's the Best at 40K or Fantasy? Are Leagues designed for that? It's a good question, and I like to think "NO". I feel these kind of Tournaments aren't designed to find out who can bring the optimal list, play it with best proficiency and crush all those who oppose him. If that's the case, why bother with painting scores? You can simply have a painting contest. Hell most players don't even paint their own Armies anymore...

'Ard Boyz tournaments already exist.

I like to think and believe that each Tournament is a separate view of how those Event Organizers view the hobby, and the top placers are reflections of all aspects of the hobby rolled into one. Perhaps some have more focus on "soft scores" then others.

I agree with Touradj. The ranking people thing assumes that people can cleanly recall games after two days and god knows how many beers. Also, let's say I am the douchebag daemon player playing other douchebags and Touradj is fluffy guy playing other fluffy guys, because I am winning games and he is losing his. One of those fluff guys is going to get a one from him and one of the hobby lenders is going to get a five from me, because the system requires it. Also consider the logistics of trying to cruch all these numbers at the end of the weekend when people are waiting for the awards so they can go home.

Leenus wrote:
@Everyone

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the comp was "even," when my list (just one example) was comped as the hardest list in the room by a meaningful margin. Do you honestly believe my list was meaningfully harder than 95%% of the other lists in the room? I'm willing to bet if you saw just the ogre lists, mine was scored at significant discount to the other lists.

Seven Ogre lists made it through all 5 games. Of those seven none scored higher than a 20. Yours was the lowest at 15. I've seen 4 of the 7 Ogre lists (you posted yours), and saw the laid out army of a couple others (though not the list). Yours was definitely the most optimized of the lists and should have scored lowest. No list was a perfect match for yours, most left one or two of the tricks at home.

Now, here's where you might have a point:
I'm very familiar with the three lists that scored 20 (the average comp score was 20.4). Two of those were definitely sub-optimal. One of them was fairly close to yours. Similar Maneaters, Hellheart, double cannon. However he had a smaller unit of Mournfangs and they didn't have the banner among other things. He probably deserved a 17 or 18. But 5 points higher?

So what happened? Well, he got his ass kicked is what happened. Because this is a closed list tournament, unless the player takes the opponent's list the comp score will be based off of what the player experienced. Which probably explains why the list that was similar to yours (though still softer) scored so significantly higher than yours. The players judging his comp never actually experienced most of what his list was capable of because of how badly he played.

So... if you're interested in a fair and balanced comp score, that takes into account your list before you've pummeled your opponent with it and wish to avoid a double ding... What if they do an open list format? Show your opponent the list before the game, he scores the list, it gets turned in, then you both play. Sportsmanship is scored afterwards. That way no personality gets in the way of the comp score, and win/loss doesn't either.

Panel-Judged Comp
I'm not sure what data you have that proves your judge system works. What exactly is this hard data you have that counters my wild conjecture?


And I agree with Touradj and Q and Lee. Ranked scoring for Sports or Comp sucks. If I have 5 great games I want to give out 5 great scores.

@Ghoulking...

It's less about my actual list. I've said it several times. Roughly 85% of the lists at the tournament were given SOFT ratings. That is simply not true if you walked around the room. Please tell me. Do you think 85% of the lists were SOFT? You can take sub-optimal choices, not fully optimize and still have a list that is nowhere near soft.

I'm glad you bring up the "experience" influence on score. That is just another reason opponent scored simply does not work properly.

Open list / scoring before the game is certainly better, I agree with you, but it doesn't actually fix the core problems. It is still prone to conflicts of interest, preconceived notions about the player, personal biases about the list/army/metagame. It also assumes the opponent knows a lot about warhammer. There were a lot of first time tournament players at the tournament. You really think they can accurately comp a list in a few minutes? Absolutely not!


As for panel judged. Here is what you originally said...

"Judge scored comp NEVER works. You can't expect 2-4 judges to soft through 80 army lists (40K and Fantasy), and stay sane. After the first 10 scoring starts to get too flexible, and combos slip through the cracks far too easily if a judge doesn't have encyclopedic knowledge of the rules system and how all special rules interact."


I told you that the system was used at several major tournaments on the east coast for over a year and the panel had over 7 judges. The system has been proven to work. I don't believe it's the best system, but it certainly works better than opponent scored for the reasons I mentioned. However, I am certainly not tied to this system. I think Hard Comp is the best solution. No surprises, everyone knows the deal beforehand. Yes... it readjusts what is good, but that is all comp ever does. You can still reward exceptionally interesting lists with "best army votes." When you finally agree opponent scored comp is silly at best, then we can move on to crafting a superior system, but one step at a time!

Moreover, I find your last comment very curious. You say that if a judge doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules system and how all the special rules interact, the scoring gets too flexible. If you support opponent scored comp, you must, therefore, believe that every player in a tournament has an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, lest the scoring get too flexible and not work. Given there were admittedly tournament first timers at BSB, I highly, highly doubt that to be the case.

If we can agree that all opponents don't have sufficient knowledge of the game, then we can agree that using a system where they are responsible for scoring their opponent's comp is pretty foolish, no?

Lee, I gotta go with the Ghoulking on this one as I've never been a fan of judges scoring comp. Most judges scoring comp aren't familiar with all the combos and will use a generic type of checklist for everyone. For the most part this helps newer armies or armies that have great Core choices, but hurts armies that are using older army books that are just trying to stay competitive.

In fact, part of the reason I switched from 40k last year to Fantasy this year at the Broadside Bash was due to the "Bonus fluff" points that I missed out on last year, because they were awarded based on what that judge felt was more comp friendly... Trust me, it was 100-times better this year.

No matter how you look at it, Comp will always be subjective. We can sit here and talk till we are blue in the face, and I think we'll all agree to that.

Lee, you did make a valid point earlier in the thread where you said that some people scoring their friends with perfect scores in tournament games can be just as bad as chipmunking and that is true. However, I don't think that the system in place today needs to be completely scrapped for something different. I think that a few small tweaks is really all this needs and I said as much on the email train.

After a good deal of great feedback, I think that we are going to keep the same scoring system. With the 0-6 scale, dropping the lowest score, for both Sportsmanship and Theme. We will also keep the Favorite Opponent and Army bonus points.

Other systems offer as many pros and cons as this one does, and some have even worse cons.

I am going to address something to Lee specifically. While his was one of the lowest scores in the event this should not be read as a BAD score. He was not one of the softest/fluffiest armies, but far from a bad theme score. His score was actually at the top of the Average Tournament Army scoring area (the 3s - 4s on the sheet). Lee ended up only 4 points off of max Sportsmanship.

12-16 is average on our scoring system….0-6 dropping the lowest score for a 0-24 possible score.

Worst - 15 Theme - 1 below the max of average
Worst - 19 Sports - 3 above the max of average

So the worst Sportsman and Theme was actually at the high spot of average, and above average. These represented the worst scoring players, based purely on in game scores and does not count the favorite votes.

This indicates to me that we are achieving exactly what we set out to do with the Broadside Bash. A 5 game GT-style event, where everyone got to play 5 great games vs great opponents and well balanced armies. I think that what we are seeing is exactly that happening. It is elevating everyone to a higher standard of tournament conduct and army balance.

Next year, we'll endeavor to make the scoring more clear, and also be posting battle points and rankings after each game for player verification.

Hello All;

For fun I thought I'd put together a little bit of actual data analysis. When doing a series of simple linear multivariate regressions what we, or I, see is that both comp and sportsmanship is slightly negatively correlated with battle performance but more importantly highly correlated with either other (.82 to be exact). Another way of thinking about it is to look at the rankings:

Sports Comp: Ranks
3 1
6 2
15 3
1 3
2 3

What you're seeing is self selection bias. Sportsmanship and Army Comp when voted on by the players after a game is in actuality nearly the same thing. People with high sportsmanship scores get high comp, I think, regardless of what their armies actually are. So when you're asking players what they think of the player and what they think of the army they're voting both nearly as the same. Notice that two people tied for 3rd in total comp are also 1st and 2nd in total sportsmanship with the number 1 in comp the number 3. Some other examples:

Sports Comp: Ranks
6 31
6 31
32 31
31 35
35 35

Remember high levels of correlation doesn't mean total. So in this case the bottom 5 people in Army Comp rankings are nearly the same bottom in Sportsmanship. A better example is the middle:

Sports Comp: Ranks
15 16
15 16
15 16
15 16
32 16

Four people ranked tied for 15th in Sportsmanship are tied for 16th in Comp. I think the previous poster mentioned that he's "intense" when playing the game and needs to go outside to cool off? That's a method to get lower sportsmanship scores. Play style, in this voting system, will directly influence what people think of your army. If anything that could be a problem as you're essentially double counting what people are thinking of you. I think many of these arguments about the types of armies misses the point. Comp isn't being evaluated. The people are.

Also interestedly appearance and general are highly correlated (.79). I think it's because people who care enough to want to know how to win the game also know they need the appearance at these tournaments to win. Veteran tournament players become better painters, or buy it. If they have a reason too.

When reading the graph. It's a matrix scatterplot. Read it as Rows. So Total is total points and just to the right is the interaction with Battle (notice the high levels of expected positive correlation) then you have Sportsmanship (with a slight negative correlation with Total pts) then Comp (notice how similar it is with sports also in relation to Total) then lastly App or Appearance. It's a matrix so you get ranges and the distributions (notice Appearance is slewed to the right meaning high with the others being close to median). The other rows are interesting but more complex.

While there is often a correlation between sports and comp, its not absolute. I, for example, got 6s in sportsmanship from everyone I played and 3s and 4s in comp (which I am in agreement with). Army design does play a role, for sure. I never deathstar and I generally play in a manner that results in units getting lost on both sides, which goes over with people a lot better than leveling someone without losing anything. The one exception all weekend was against Brad, where he immediately started 6 dice cupped hands dwellersing with his no 6 slaan and pretty much forced my hand to go for the quick win, especially since he crammed all of his points into that one unit. Generally speaking though, the perfect game for me is 6 of my models left and nothing else on the table, which people don't seem to mind as much.

And actually, looking around the room, the armies were not that bad, with Brads list probably being the roughest thing in the room, so I actually felt the scores were spot on for the most part.

@Kurt

Thanks for the consideration and being open to outside opinions. I look forward to the adjustments and the BSB next year.


@Wolflord Patrick

I'm not sure you read my response to Ghoulkin. How can you be against Judge-scored, because you don't believe the judges cam have a strong enough knowledge of the game to know all of the combos, yet support opponent scored comp which must assume every player in the tournament knows all of the combos, lest it also not work for the same exact reason as judge-scored.

Isn't it more likely that 1 judge will have a strong knowledge of the metagame/combos than 40+ tournament players (some of which admit it's their FIRST tournament)?

Both systems are subject to bias. Judge scored equalizes that bias across the tournament player base, whereas opponent scored has 40+ individual biases IN ADDITION TO emotion/favoritism. However, even if you still hate judge scored, I also suggested hard comp as an alternative solution. That is the best solution of the three. There are no surprises, no conflicts, no after the fact punishments. Everyone gets to make decisions on the same information. People will gripe about restrictions in any system. However, it's far, far better to openly know the restrictions beforehand, than to make a number of concessions in your list and STILL get a poor comp score, simply because your opponent hates XYZ army or doesn't have a mastery of the game to understand why they are concessions.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:No matter how you look at it, Comp will always be subjective. We can sit here and talk till we are blue in the face, and I think we'll all agree to that.

QTF.

I'll bring up the point here, and I am still inclined to begin another thread away from this thread's BSB scoring and to Comp Scoring in general, but WolfPat has hit my main point here.

*aside*
Can anyone point out, remember, or have the link to, a posted comp system, that is like this (there's a bunch)? Only also addressing specific units per codex?

Like, you know, Eldrad or FateWeaver as being automatics for chipmunking? This is for Research.

*aside done*
I'd like to get a little input before I set out with another thread.

PMing input is okay.

WPS had a system. It was mostly Fantasy, but there were versions for 40k as well.

Heh...Just noticed that that was WPS as well. The version I saw for 40k was different though.

This was my first tourney ever. Comp scoring was new to me, I honestly played against 2 army types before the tourney where I faced two brand new armies (Deamons and Beastmen) I have never fought before ( which was awesome).

At the end, I often comp'd what they comp'd me since I had no clue what was strong and what wasn't. Masque and three siren songs with a banner of despair (-2 leadership one) (two games outta the three) , and a greater demon seemed like oh crap that's cool, but not until I got home and read up on those did I realize I comp'd two players far higher than more frequent players would have.

I ended up playing both the #1 and #2 finishers the first day, (and actually thought I stood a decent chance at beating Fred's beastmen!), and learned a lot (don't attack doombulls!), but my feeling is comp scores are hard in general for new players, especially those without an idea of the numerous other armies strengths.

Glad to hear on posting scores after each game, not sure why that isn't done normally, I still don't know what my opponents scored my sportsmanship / comp on the three games for saturday, nor do I have an idea of painting scores (which also happened saturday) as to an emergency I had to leave sat night and didn't participate Sunday, and still don't have any indication of my performance, mainly because they weren't provided.

I wasn't the only drop on sunday other people too had to leave, but we all paid, and would still love to see our performance from Saturday.

Phazael wrote:He came to the LA area with his prior experience being on the East Coast, where its no holds barred full frontal male nudity cheesehammer most of the time.

Being on the east coast, I got a pretty big kick out of this . It is so in my local area, although not necessarily the whole coastline

Could be something to it, though- I'm always wanting to see More comp, because I never see it, whereas maybe you guys have more events with it. Would probably be good to keep general "comp vs not" talk from this thread, though, and focus on just the event itself.

Ruk-
Your army had some of the power elements of a tournament DE list but with a lot of caveats, so I think I gave it a 4 or maybe 5. Unkillable Lord, but on a dragon and no crown. Shadow wizard with Sac Dagger, but only level two. Double Hydra and Cauldron, but moderate shooting and actual cold one units. If I beat you decisively it was mainly due to a lack of experience against Slaanesh Daemons, as I generally lose to DE all things being equal. You probably won't have nearly as hard a time against Daemons next year if you stick with that army.

@RTides-
I am basing my statements on experience at Baltimore area events, primarily, which are all fun, but you need to know that the pain is comming before you walk in the door. Inner Circle, in particular, runs a hard as nails but enjoyable event.

Phazael wrote:Ruk-

@RTides-
I am basing my statements on experience at Baltimore area events, primarily, which are all fun, but you need to know that the pain is comming before you walk in the door. Inner Circle, in particular, runs a hard as nails but enjoyable event.

I think you guys were about 50 feet from each other for two days at Blob's Park)

Leenus wrote:I'm not sure you read my response to Ghoulkin. How can you be against Judge-scored, because you don't believe the judges cam have a strong enough knowledge of the game to know all of the combos, yet support opponent scored comp which must assume every player in the tournament knows all of the combos, lest it also not work for the same exact reason as judge-scored.

Isn't it more likely that 1 judge will have a strong knowledge of the metagame/combos than 40+ tournament players (some of which admit it's their FIRST tournament)?

I don't assume that every player in the tournament knows the combos. In fact, unless the player is a hard-core tournament veteran, chances are they probably don't. However, they are the ones playing against that list that will experience just how it works first hand.... They may not know the combo before the game, but they'll sure get to see how it works during the game. I would by far rather that guy judge me, than a judge that took 20 seconds to look at my list and scored it from a face-glance.

A tournament player will play an average of 5 games in a tournament and get to know each list and player and spend a couple of hours getting to see how it all goes. A tournament organizer has 100 different things to worry about in running the tournament, and the least of which is my comp score.

Another point for player judged comp- I had guys comp my Dwarf list at a 3 and I had guys comp me at a 6. At least in the system of player judged comp, those scores are averaged out and truth be told my list probably deserved to be somewhere in the middle which is where it ended up.... If one judge looks at my list and just scores me with a 3, (Because we all agree that Comp is subjective) then I have to live with his score and that's the way it goes.

My point is that it is that no matter if you have a judge look at it or a player, the score is still subjective and I'd rather take my chances with 5 random guys spending 2+ hrs with me and my army then one or two guys giving it a quick score and then moving on to the 50 other lists they have to score.

Leenus wrote:
I told you that the system was used at several major tournaments on the east coast for over a year and the panel had over 7 judges. The system has been proven to work. I don't believe it's the best system, but it certainly works better than opponent scored for the reasons I mentioned.

Okay, I see, so your hard data was actually your own experience and feedback you've heard. Got it. My 'conjecture' about judge-based comp was actually based off of the same thing. My experiences in events where judges based comp prior to the event and the feedback of players at the event. Since we both seem to have conflicting 'hard' data regarding judge based comp, I'll modify my statement: Judge Based comp only works on the East Coast... when you are involved.

Leenus wrote:
However, I am certainly not tied to this system. I think Hard Comp is the best solution. No surprises, everyone knows the deal beforehand. Yes... it readjusts what is good, but that is all comp ever does. You can still reward exceptionally interesting lists with "best army votes." When you finally agree opponent scored comp is silly at best, then we can move on to crafting a superior system, but one step at a time!

Hard Comp is certainly the system least likely to be influenced by bias... But you're right, it just shifts what's good. And my experience has been that in hard comp events something gets overlooked or a loophole is found and one army is left with the superior build. The Tides of War 7th edition tournament was a good example. Two Beastmen armies took the top two spots because the hard comp overlooked them. Phazael knows, he was one of the Beastmen!

@Patrick

Sorry, I can't get on-board with your belief that playing against a list for 2 hours suddenly allows an inexperienced player to understand the entire warhammer meta game. You need look no further than this thread to see a concrete example of a new tournament goer that admits he did not know how to comp a list and, only after a thorough review of the units at home, did he even begin to understand how to comp the list.

You can manipulate the scenario to fit your argument all you want. If the judge is spending 20 seconds per list and doesn't understand the meta game, then you're right, the system will suck. However, if a judge is going to implement a judge-scored system, I'd hope he (or his panel) intends to spend sufficient time with each list and has a strong enough knowledge about the game. I also doubt the guy playing you for 2+ hours is actually spending 2+ hours thinking about your list in the context of the meta game. He more likely spends a few moments at the end of the game thinking about how your list should be comped, heavily influenced by the game as it was just played and the outcome.

Nevertheless, both systems are subjective. However, one system has substantial additional negatives (emotion/conflict of interest/post-game rage/club mate inflation) with few, if any, true additional benefits.

At the end of the day, I'm fine if you don't like judge comped. It was an alternative. Hard comp is still the best solution by far. Still subjective, but known beforehand and the same to everyone.


@Ghoulking

Firstly, I was never a judge on the panel. Secondly, I think a more logical takeaway from our respective experiences is that Judge-scored does not work if you have crappy judges, not that the system as a whole does not work. However, as you know I am not championing judge-comped. I just believe it is FAR better than opponent scored, though hard comp is FAR better than judge-scored

As for your comments about hard comp. Absolutely, certain things get overlooked. The better the organizer the better the set of restrictions. However, things also get overlooked when your opponent scores the lists (I think we've agreed all opponents do not have an encyclopedic knowledge, yes?). So that is not really a "con" unique to hard comp, but rather to comp as a whole.

To your point about Tides of War. Without knowing the exact restrictions, it's a bit hard to make a response. Nevertheless, it looks like that tournament could actually be a great example of effective hard comp. It gave a very sub-par army a chance to compete. Isn't that the goal of comp? If the system works correctly, shouldn't the crappy books have a chance?

The goal of comp has always been to give the lesser armies a better chance and to see different builds. It sounds like that happened at Tides of War. I'd have to see the restrictions and the exact system, but I'm willing to bet daemons (since this was 7th) still could make a plenty nasty and competitive build.

So I'm not sure exactly what your point with Tides of War really is.

There will always be a best army to take. That is just a result of points values, stat lines and differing rules. I just believe it is a lot fairer when everyone has the opportunity to discover those builds on equal footing, rather than to be at the whim of emotion/conflict of interest/etc. I'd also say that hard comp has the added advantage of generally bringing the field closer together in terms of power level (it certainly is not making it worse!). How much depends on the restrictions of course. However, opponent scored has the added DISADVANTAGE of causing huge mismatches. People can still take ultra nasty lists that will completely stomp lists that were designed with the comp system in mind. No one has fun in a game where the power levels are wildly off. Those mismatches are still possible in hard comp, but, if the system is done right, happen less often and to a lesser degree. Yet another bonus for hard comp!



Really in all this, to show me that opponent scored comp or sports is worth using you have to prove the following:

There is 1.) some benefit of the opponent scored system that outweighs the inherent conflict of interest/club mate inflation/post-game rage/lack of player knowledge and that 2.) somehow an alternative system (like hard comp) that does not have these major negatives, has some other unique huge negative which makes it inferior. No one has done so yet, so I remain unswayed.

Phazael wrote:Ruk-
Your army had some of the power elements of a tournament DE list but with a lot of caveats, so I think I gave it a 4 or maybe 5. Unkillable Lord, but on a dragon and no crown. Shadow wizard with Sac Dagger, but only level two. Double Hydra and Cauldron, but moderate shooting and actual cold one units. If I beat you decisively it was mainly due to a lack of experience against Slaanesh Daemons, as I generally lose to DE all things being equal. You probably won't have nearly as hard a time against Daemons next year if you stick with that army.

Yea just a lack of playing in general, you trounced me pretty good, but you were the most fun to play against as well. Thanks for going outta your way to help me on my first tourney game =)

Leenus wrote:@Patrick

Sorry, I can't get on-board with your belief that playing against a list for 2 hours suddenly allows an inexperienced player to understand the entire warhammer meta game. You need look no further than this thread to see a concrete example of a new tournament goer that admits he did not know how to comp a list and, only after a thorough review of the units at home, did he even begin to understand how to comp the list.

You can manipulate the scenario to fit your argument all you want. If the judge is spending 20 seconds per list and doesn't understand the meta game, then you're right, the system will suck. However, if a judge is going to implement a judge-scored system, I'd hope he (or his panel) intends to spend sufficient time with each list and has a strong enough knowledge about the game. I also doubt the guy playing you for 2+ hours is actually spending 2+ hours thinking about your list in the context of the meta game. He more likely spends a few moments at the end of the game thinking about how your list should be comped, heavily influenced by the game as it was just played and the outcome.

Nevertheless, both systems are subjective. However, one system has substantial additional negatives (emotion/conflict of interest/post-game rage/club mate inflation) with few, if any, true additional benefits.

At the end of the day, I'm fine if you don't like judge comped. It was an alternative. Hard comp is still the best solution by far. Still subjective, but known beforehand and the same to everyone.

Yeah, at this point I think we're going to agree to disagree... It may be that I've never seen what you call a "Hard Comp" system actually work unless the comp points themselves meant so little to the overall score, that what you received as your comp score never really played a part in the outcome of the tournament.

I think your example of needing every tournament player to know the entire meta-game of the warhammer game to give you a comp rating just isn't a reality, which is why there are multiple scores and they are averaged. However, the same scenario applies to a tournament judge who may also not be familiar with the entire meta-game. You're whole argument really comes down to an opinion that 1 tournament judge will give you a more honest comp score than the average of 5 of your opponents. Again, with as much as the tournament judges have to do to run these things I just don't think that my comp score is the biggest thing on their mind to worry about.

The factor I think you're really missing is how much comp really means in some tournaments over others. In the Broadside Bash, there were 30 points possible for Comp. (5 games with a highest possible score of a 6 for each game.) With 100 points possible for battle score, 30 points possible for sportsmanship, 30 for comp, and 24 for painting means a max possible score of 184. (Not counting the 2 points for turning in your army list on time.) So, in the Broadside Bash 16% of your total score was based on comp. With that in mind, I like the idea of multiple players spending time playing against my army to judge and come up with a score rather than having a single judge (Or pannel) influence up to 16% of my score even before I roll a die and tell me that is a better system....

Again, that's just me.

That's not to say that a "Hard Comp" system couldn't work or be a fun tournament to play in as I have played in many myself. It just seems harder for me to swallow the hard comp system is so much better when a large ratio of that score could completely manipulate the outcome of the tournament without even playing.

mikhaila wrote:

Phazael wrote:Ruk-

@RTides-
I am basing my statements on experience at Baltimore area events, primarily, which are all fun, but you need to know that the pain is comming before you walk in the door. Inner Circle, in particular, runs a hard as nails but enjoyable event.

I think you guys were about 50 feet from each other for two days at Blob's Park)

Yeah, exactly, that's why I thought it was funny! (Because I've played the IC guys and know what you mean . Good, hard play and events)

Do you live in the Baltimore area, and flew out to CA for this tourney, or vice versa?

As dumb as it sounds not everyone goes to a gt for the same reasons, or even to win. Expecting people to know everything is unrealistic. I sometimes go specifically to learn things and I know I am not alone in that. The experience Lee seems to be after is essentially hard boys, which is ok once a year, but I would not like all gt season to be like that. I think you (Lee) should just take a deep breath here and focus your efforts on ev ents that meet your desired play style. BAO and Blobs park are both good events that are incredibly fun with minimal to no comp you may prefer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

Phazael wrote:Ruk-

@RTides-
I am basing my statements on experience at Baltimore area events, primarily, which are all fun, but you need to know that the pain is comming before you walk in the door. Inner Circle, in particular, runs a hard as nails but enjoyable event.

I think you guys were about 50 feet from each other for two days at Blob's Park)

Yeah, exactly, that's why I thought it was funny! (Because I've played the IC guys and know what you mean . Good, hard play and events)

Do you live in the Baltimore area, and flew out to CA for this tourney, or vice versa?

I have a high school friend in baltimore. Scooter convinced me to come to some of their events. As an organizer I tried to travel to as many different events as I can.

... I give up... You continue to insist it is more likely for 5 people to know the meta game than 1... How does that make sense? If it's sufficiently difficult to find a judge that knows the meta game such that judge-comped doesn't work, then I don't know why you'd think your 5 opponents would understand the game well enough to comp you accurately.

Take that first time tournament goer. You really want him affecting your overall score, when he, himself, admits he doesn't understand how to comp the armies he played? A yes from you to this question would just boggle my mind. He himself admits that "rolling the die" or "playing the game" didn't magically make him know how to comp!!!!!!

For the record, hard comp doesn't necessarily mean there's even a score. Typically, it's a set of restrictions and that's it. Another version could be to have restrictions that cost points (e.g. you start with a 20 and lose a point or points for every restricted item/combo taken). There are a number of variations. Comp points for the sake of having "points" rather than balancing the armies is foolish.

But I think we've reached an impasse. If it's hard to stomach "hard comp" because the score is somehow manipulated without playing (which I disagree with anyway), why would you want a system where a guy who played 5 club mates got all 6's because they are free to manipulate the system after playing.

Wolflord Patrick wrote:
It may be that I've never seen what you call a "Hard Comp" system actually work unless the comp points themselves meant so little to the overall score, that what you received as your comp score never really played a part in the outcome of the tournament.

Then you've never seen 'Hard Comp' but rather checklist comp. Hard Comp is limits to what can be taken in a list.

. You're whole argument really comes down to an opinion that 1 tournament judge will give you a more honest comp score than the average of 5 of your opponents. Again, with as much as the tournament judges have to do to run these things I just don't think that my comp score is the biggest thing on their mind to worry about.

That wasn't his argument. His argument was a panel (I believe he had 7 judges?) do it. In addition, typically lists are pre-submitted so that the panel can have time to sit down and look at all the lists before the day of the tournament. So there is averaging of scores done by people that aren't the one playing against the list that, on average, will have more experience with the game.

Leenus wrote:
Firstly, I was never a judge on the panel. Secondly, I think a more logical takeaway from our respective experiences is that Judge-scored does not work if you have crappy judges, not that the system as a whole does not work. However, as you know I am not championing judge-comped. I just believe it is FAR better than opponent scored, though hard comp is FAR better than judge-scored

My experience with judged comp was that I always felt like I was judged too harshly, especially because I do like to bring non-standard lists. Too often I felt the judges didn't really understand how the lists worked. My experience with player comp, on the other hand, has been very positive. I feel like a player who has experienced my list understands it better than a judge who is only seeing it on paper, sandwiched between 39 others. So I obviously disagree about which of the two is 'far' better.

Leenus wrote:
As for your comments about hard comp. Absolutely, certain things get overlooked. The better the organizer the better the set of restrictions.
To your point about Tides of War. Without knowing the exact restrictions, it's a bit hard to make a response. Nevertheless, it looks like that tournament could actually be a great example of effective hard comp. It gave a very sub-par army a chance to compete. Isn't that the goal of comp? If the system works correctly, shouldn't the crappy books have a chance?
So I'm not sure exactly what your point with Tides of War really is.

My point with ToW was just that any system can be gamed.

I do agree that giving sub-par armies a chance to compete is the goal of comp, and that Hard Comp is the superior theoretical comp system. But making a Hard Comp system that works is difficult. If you know of one that really works I'd be very interested. A good Hard Comp system seems to be rarer than a unicorn.

In the debate over player vs judged comp, though, it would be difficult to 'prove' one was better than the other. Rather, one is more to your taste than the other.

On a side note, I do believe that during one GT you had two players take the same exact list and get radically different comp scores due to player-judged comp.

@ Phazael

My goal is absolutely not to make events like 'ard boys. Why would I suggest judge-scored or hard comp if I wanted unrestricted warhammer? Why would I suggest pass/fail judge-verified sports if I wanted 'ard boys? I feel like you haven't read anything I wrote.

I believe the system is broken. Bias and and conflict of interest is blatantly present in the current system. If people don't know everything meta related, as you admit, why are they responsible for a score?!?!?! What is the point of that? It doesn't do anything good for the event.

A pass/fail (with judge-verified dings on fail, bonus points for "best sports" votes) sports system would accomplish the same goals of encouraging good sportsmanship with far, far, far, far less outside manipulation. I just don't understand why people don't want that? Why do people want to knowingly use a system that can be manipulated, when a viable alternative exists? It goes beyond comprehension and that's what I continue to try to understand.

If BSB (only an example) changed to my sports system, do you think the tournament would suddenly turn into 'ard boys? I bet people would act the same way they act now (a room of 19+ scores), without handicapping people that don't play a room full of clubmates or friends.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Slyth

Thank you for understanding!

@Ghoulking

So ignore judge scored. Let's implement hard comp. That's the better system anyway.

How was ToW gamed? 2 beastmen players won. Again, that sounds successful to me. If there were suddenly 40% beastmen players, then I'd probably agree something was off. However, without more data, all indicators point to a system that worked and that did not have arbitrary opponent influence. A win for the event!

I've always enjoyed Tournament talk about Comp and Sports!

I really wish I could have made it to the BSB this year! I've always done well at them and always had a great time! Some very memorable battles...last year I was FINALLY able to meet that "cheese" "beard" "baby-killer", Bob Felix! (aka ghoulking).

I believe that Cpt. Kurt has already made the statement that they'll continue with their current scoring style system, and I applaud him for that! Keep it up brotha!

As for the constant discussion...well I've seen many sides of this. I held/ran the first SoCal Slaughter (out of GMI Games) some years ago and along with 2 other Judges, we graded all the lists presented to us for first (and partially second) round pairings. I felt that players who brought softer lists (Tom Mays's Empire comes to mind) should be rewarded for doing so and those that want to bring Dark Elves w/Dragon and 2 Hydras can play like lists in the beginning. Bob Felix brought the Lustria campaign Skaven Clan Pestilens list to the event, and it was quite "nasty" to us, with potential for a lot of powerful Magic and tons of Frenzied T(4) Plaguemonks running around! His score was "dinged" and thus he was set against other lists that were thought power builds for Rounds 1 and 2.

Now Bob did approach me about this, very politely i might add, and asked why he got so hammered on pre-judged comp. I told him our views and the potential carnage his list could easily unleash. We talked it over, as he had other thoughts as to his Army's performance ability (and obviously more experience playing with it). After the discussion, I still felt his list was strong, but not to the degree he was grouped with. I mostly blame myself for that as I think my pre-judged scoring system was only 1 thru 3. Not a lot of leniency there.

That same year, I took my old Daemonic Legions Army up to the Quake City Rumble and out of 3 judges giving 1 thru 5's, I gained a total of 11...which placed me waaaaay in the back with many of the softer Armies. I felt they maybe missed something, but then I was also like "well, my list aint as bad as all the rest of the Daemonic Legions on hand"...of course all the boyz (Fred, Jim, Stefan, Clive, etc.) all thought I bribed the judges some how! I ended up sweeping all 5 games, and with great Sports and Comp scoring from THE PLAYERS I faced, won the Overall.

Did my army deserve the 11 out of 15 pre-judged Comp Score? Not realy, maybe an 8! (THE CHOSEN NUMBER!!!)

A few months after that I traveled to Memphis, TN. with Jim and Fred, met up with Jim Z. and Eric G. out at the Hillbilly Indy GT. The new (current) Daemons Book was just a couple months old and I was excited to try out my new list! This is the tournament that i played two brothers back to back (games 3 and 4) and both zeroed me out on Comp and heavily dinged me Sports...I again went 5-0, maxed out the Battle Points for the Hillbilly, and was hoping for a top 10 placement...instead I took 88th overall! I did win Best General, which is what I always aim for anyways), but I was very crushed and very pissed...

But these kind of mistakes are going to happen, not all the time though.


Now what i've learned over the years of playing in a lot of GTs and tons of RTTs and League play and Campaigns and the such is that this game is a hobby, and the hobby has several aspects to it. One of these aspects is the assembling, converting, modeling, etc., of which I have NO fame at! LOL! Another aspect is the that of the tactician that creates a list, plays it well and knows the rules well enough to help secure a majority of victories. Then there's the story line and rich theme and background that many of love! The legends of old and wars of the past! Yet there's still another aspect that is often not touched upon, that only seems to come up in Tournament play...personality!

When your playing a game against another player, especially in a tournament, your personal presentation on how you conduct your game and how you interact with the other player greatly affect the outcome of your potential scores. I've tabled enough guys over the course of several years in the GTs that at first assumption you'd think I get a lot of low Sportsmanship scores for being so ruthless during a game. Also because I tend to field Daemons most of the time you'd assume that my Composition score is going to be very low, especially because i'm winning a lot. But that tends to not be the truth. I try to make sure that as i'm playing, i have running commentary and a lil' storylined talk amongst the dice rolls and laugh plenty! I of course often scream BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!, or the CHOSEN NUMBER!!! quite often but i also high five my opponent when his models are killing mine and make funny commentary about it! It's still just a game, based off of random dice rolls.

When players have a tendency to win a lot, they attract a certain amount of attention, often not the positive kind. If you're bringing "that list", then you're assumed to be "that guy", and you'll have to get used to that, or simply don't play. It's a great effort to bring a "powered list" designed to crush and maim all those before you, and walk away with 3 or 4 or even 5 "Favorite Opponent" votes!


Comp and Sports scores are there to help keep a balance on the game and allow players some measure of control as to the outcome of a particular tournament. It's always been that way. Chipmunking has evolved from it, and hard to T.O.'s to monitor. If you're really serious about trying to win an Overall or just place higher, i have 2 recommendations for those that complain about Comp and Sports...

*bring a more balanced list! Just because your Army book allows you to take it, doesn't mean you need to!
*be a little more helpful and relaxed when playing other players, especially if you know it's a bad match up for them!


I don't always agree with the scores I've been given by my opponents in Tournaments, but I accept them for what they are, and I understand it's the nature of the beast. If the Tournament Organizers are doing their part, then there's no need to dwell on it.

Hands down a great tournament! The Best BSB I have attended.

We all can debate on what the perfect scoring system is, but to my knowledge.... there isn't one.

There is only one clear cut way to receiving high sportmanship and comp scores.... Dont be a Cheney! (I speak as being one of the worst violators of this rule)

The Slann has spoken...... L8r

No doubt!

skyth wrote:

Wolflord Patrick wrote:
It may be that I've never seen what you call a "Hard Comp" system actually work unless the comp points themselves meant so little to the overall score, that what you received as your comp score never really played a part in the outcome of the tournament.

Then you've never seen 'Hard Comp' but rather checklist comp. Hard Comp is limits to what can be taken in a list.

. You're whole argument really comes down to an opinion that 1 tournament judge will give you a more honest comp score than the average of 5 of your opponents. Again, with as much as the tournament judges have to do to run these things I just don't think that my comp score is the biggest thing on their mind to worry about.

That wasn't his argument. His argument was a panel (I believe he had 7 judges?) do it. In addition, typically lists are pre-submitted so that the panel can have time to sit down and look at all the lists before the day of the tournament. So there is averaging of scores done by people that aren't the one playing against the list that, on average, will have more experience with the game.

Ok, I may be a bit confused here then... Are you saying that "Hard Comp" is to tell players that they can only build lists using restrictions of things like 30-man units, 3 war machines, 1 mage, ect? I may be mistaken, but I had believed that Lee was talking about a system of 1 judge (Or a pannel of judges) that would rate your comp and give you a score before you start to play rather than have it judged by your opponents? Not by telling you openly what you're not allowed to bring...

I actually like the idea of doing a restricted event where you limit what can be brought in your army. In the Fantasy league that I play in, they have restrictions just like that when you build your list. It keeps things fresh and fun. I'm not sure if that has the same kind of place in a tournament, but it does make for some interesting games.

I think that the scenario of having a pannel of several (was it 7?), qualified, un-biased, meta-game gurus for tournament judges to grade your comp perfectly without any need for question would be fine and I'd be happy to play in that. However, much like Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the pixie that sticks money under your pillow when you lose a tooth, I have yet to see it... So, until that happens I feel much safer with my opponent doing his best to rate my army after we play and all I ask is that he rate me honestly.

My original post gave two options with respect to comp.

1. Judge scored (1 or several judges scoring everyone)

2. Hard comp (flat restrictions.. either with or without points)

Hard comp > > > > judge scored > > > > > > > (much greater than) opponent scored

Again, please read my posts. A "counsel" of judge scored has worked on the East Coast at a number of events, so it's not like Santa Clause. Even if you believe it won't work, which is fine, the debate then changes to hard comp vs. opponent scored... hard comp achieves similar goals without the biases, while also creating less of an army mismatch problem and allowing everyone to operate under the same information. Seems like an obvious choice.


@DarkGeneral

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you to summarize your post, comp/sports scoring is a crap shoot, but that's the system we use so deal with it.

My whole reason for spending all this time debating is that I don't believe we need to be subject to a crap shoot of arbitrary scoring. We can still keep a hobby, non-ard boys focus without having these arbitrary scoring variables. I bet in each of those situations you would have had more fun if your comp score made sense or if your sports had not been zeroed by a couple of angry brothers, despite your best efforts to entertain them. So why, then, should we not strive to increase your fun through a better system that successfully addresses these issues?


I just don't get why everyone has an anecdote about how their comp/sports was hurt/inflated and, yet, is OK to the status quo. Learned Helplessness, I guess.

I had wanted to attend this event but was unable to due to work and other concerns, however on the topic of comp/sports, for what it's worth, personally I've never found comp to really accomplish what those that advocate it really want to achieve, no matter what the setup or nature of it is, it will be gamed and chipmunked, you just end up with the same magnitude of issues, they just happen to be different issues that took a lot more effort and hair-pulliing to get to.

The best sports/comp setups I've seen are those where players aren't rated every game but rather where players basically choose their favorite opponent and those players which get the most "favorite opponent" votes get prizes and rankings/recognition for it, or simply check a box "was the game fun", rather than trying to somehow work comp/sports into some weird amalgamation of comp/sports/battle to get some sort of "weighted" overall best general type deal and without pitting the "tough" lists against each other artifically to knock them out early (often ending up pitting them against many softer opponents later instead of having the tough lists face each other at the end).

There are other ways to emphasize a hobby/fun oriented event than simply trying to push people away from certain lists, they'll often bring them regardless and you'll get opponents who tried to match the comp get stomped with less enjoyable games than they otherwise would have had. Better instead to simply de-emphasize the importance winning games and battle scores in general, and instead focusing more on the hobby and social aspects of the game in generalist (e.g. favorite opponent/was game fun) rather than specific (does army list conform to X, Y and Z) ways.

Leenus: Not quite, what I was trying to point out that in general I believe that the current Comp and Sports scoring works a majority of the time and only in a few instances have I personally seen it go awry. Why? Mostly it's player initiated, but as i've already stated, I hold the Tournament Organizers in the end responsible for this.

As to your question, no I wouldn't have had more or less fun according to the poor scores I received from the douche bag brothers. Those games were a bit tough going, especially game #4. Regardless of what they scored me, I enjoyed the Hillbilly Indy GT and had 5 hard fought battles, and 5 tough opponents. No one was a "give me" game. True enough that the two brothers were trying to "rules bend" here and there, and I was forced to call them on a few situations, but their score given to me doesn't reflect upon the amount of fun I had at the Tournament or even playing them. The after affect upon me was definitely frustrating, and once I was home and had time to think about it clearly, it was the Tournament Organizers that failed in their job to catch the low scores and SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Now if you're fun factor for you personally is reflected upon the scores you're given by fellow players, then perhaps there are other things you can do to help improve those scores. I'll use myself however as an example so it doesn't seem like i'm pointing fingers at you or attacking you (internet and all)...

*Daemons: I've almost always played them, since 3rd Edition Fantasy, and they've always been my fave. With the bad times (Hordes of Chaos) through the good times (Daemonic Legions) i've stuck with them. Now currently I think there's a lot of flaws in the current book allowing stupidly powerful builds. I've seen and faced many of them ('08 Vegas GT comes to mind). Now because the nature of the army is quite good, and the "general consenus" on both the internet and the tournament scene is they're broken (or used to be) I can assume that when I take my lists to any RTT or GT that i'm automatically getting a lil' ding for simply bringing Daemons. PERIOD. I know this and I accept it. Now if I bring a Daemons list and i start to cherry pick the good stuff, I fully expect to get really dinged in both Comp AND Sportsmanship. Why? Because as Tad has already shown us via numbers and grids, they often go hand in hand. Not all the time, but definitely often.

*Style of Play: It's one thing to bring a good Army. It's fully another level to play that army to it's extreme optimal play and utterly crush another opponent to the point they feel they had no chance of winning from Turn 1. It's great to know the rules and FAQs and the such very well, but it's another thing to try and exploit them to your opponents disfavor. Often good or great players can see what game plan their opponent is formulating just by the way they're looking at the table. Whenever I see my opponent's thoughts may be going in a direction that the rules don't allow or is just questionable, I bring it up. It goes a long way to discuss a possible situation then wait until all the models are moved and dice are starting to roll. I've had my fair share of wiping out my opponents by Turns 5 or 6, but for most of the game they feel they have a chance of winning, and just the right amount of luck can swing that their way (or mine). This I believe has helped me earn higher Sports and Comp scores then most other Daemon players.

*Reason for being there: Now I've been very guilty of this, and that's being an intense competitor. It's my nature, too many years of wrestling and MMA... . I suppose you have to ask yourself "why am i here playing in this tournament?". I show up most of the time to try and win Best General (since I tend to never finish painting my models), and as such I bring a list that is tough, but not unbeatable, and I try to outplay my opponents and achieve victory for the Dark Gods!!! But i've let that in the past get me carried away with the real reason i'm at the tournament and that's to have fun, which should include my opponents. Sometimes I have to remind myself that, and ease up on the intensity I play with.



NOW, this doesn't make the Comp and Sports scoring systems perfect. It's just examples and thoughts (from my personal experience) that i'm sharing with you. Is there a better system? Maybe, but I doubt it. The idea of at least 5 well versed, unbiased judges to do pre-judged Comp for a Tournament and have that either affect your initial seeding and/or your overall score is very hard to come by. I'd like to venture to say that if you took 5 top players (who happened to not being playing in said tournament) and gave them all the Army Lists to pre-judge you'd have more fluctuation then you think. Big Q and I are both Chaos players at heart, but view and see Armies much differently, as does Fred Whitney, Steve Masuta, our old buddy Stefan Viter, Eric Gerber, Clive Henrick, "Daddy" Knudsen, Jim Z., "Big" Jim, etc., etc., etc....

Why? Well simply put we're biased ourselves, as best as we try not to be. I myself HATE Skaven Armies with a passion, and as such I'm sure i'll have a much harder time fairly judging them. I'm also very harsh on other Daemon Armies, and as such I again probably won't judge them fairly. But that doesn't mean Big Q sees them the same.

And I think finally the last and most important part not brought up is Power Levels of Army Books. The tools and tricks of the trade for Wood Elves are probably needed to face the new Tomb Kings and Vampire Counts now. Does this make the Wood Elves list "more powerful?".

I guess what has to really be looked at is the "Top Tier" level of books. Is a tooled out Bretonnians Army as powerful as a tooled out Ogre Kingdoms list? How about Dogs of War against Daemons of Chaos?

"I show up most of the time to try and win Best General (since I tend to never finish painting my models), and as such I bring a list that is tough, but not unbeatable, and I try to outplay my opponents and achieve victory for the Dark Gods!!!"

I can attest to that...until you ran across my TH/SS Terminator squad that couldn't fail a save last year.
Sorry i missed seeing you this year. We'll have to catch up at another event and toast our great wins and losses.

@darkgeneral Ok.. I'm throwing in the towel... You straight up tell me that people are biased and that there are fluctuations on views between players... yet you support a system that is heavily influenced by these biases, even when alternatives exist.

How do you doubt there's a better system? I proposed 2 systems (hard comp and pass/fail sports) that are flat out better. The pass/fail sports completely eliminates the biases and fluctuations that you openly ADMIT occur (which I agree also occur) while still encouraging sporting play. You can still reward and recognize the outstanding performers. The hard comp eliminates the *unknowable* biases and fluctuations, while allowing everyone to be judged by the same set of criteria.

Let's say we both take daemons to a tournament with double flamers. I get -10 points.. You get -2 points. Is that fair? Would that be fun? Does that difference in scoring do anything positive for the event? I don't think so. That's exactly what opponent scored comp does. You get different scores based on different people. With hard comp, we both get the same -X. Better yet, we both know what that "X" will be BEFORE we make the decision to bring flamers, before we attend the tourney. That sounds far superior to me. [Please don't get hung up on the exact examples of flamers, it could be ANY unit]

I've said the same thing too many times. People keep admitting there are biases, but resist systems which eliminate those biases. I just don't get it.

I'm am going to start a new thread, since this conversation has moved beyond the BSB.

I tend to concur with Leenus, though I find that most systems work better than complaints on the internet generally indicate.

The Comp Council in the Northeast worked pretty darn well, as we had a good pool of skilled and conscientious players. Yes, individual judges have some biases too, but if all the guys chosen play multiple armies and know their stuff, those are fairly minor, and even out. No system is perfect, though, and anything which works close to well (Comp Council or hard restrictions) tends to be a lot of work.

Pass/Fail sports with favorite opponent votes isn't perfect either, though it's the best I've been able to come up with.

Not to pee in your cherios here Lee, but just glancing at the lists if we took them to the respective forums on the internet, is there any way your ogre list could be optimized any more than it was? I know that the bulk of the guys on stronghold would say no. Looking at my own list, Ican think of a half a dozen simple changes that would make it way more brutal and I am sure the legions sight would generally agree with that assessment. Even if you flatly assume daemons to be loads stronger than ogres by default (for the record I consider both high middle armies with different match up issues against the top three armies) its not really that outrageous that our comp scores were as close as they were.

I guess I am not sure what your end game is here on this topic. I am trying to understand your goal here? If its to not get drilled on soft score, I think you are already on the right track, you just need to keep at. Changing peoples perceptions is a time consuming process and you have three years of dark elf face rape list reputation to get past.

Lee, you could always just play Warmachine , or 40k with the crowd at GE Pasadena .

It has nothing to do with me personally. My list was an example of the inadequecies of the system, but it seems to be clouding my point so I wish I had not brought it up.


My end game has everything to do with stopping the logic defying use of opponent scored metrics. My goal is to have tournaments see they can still achieve their goals without allowing opponent bias to enter into the scoring... A win for every type of player. Do my posts really not make that clear? I'm beginning to think I'm in the twilight zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ocnc... Love... Fantasy... Must... Not... Give... Up... Hope

Just as a point of reference, in the first Broadside Bash, we did not make it clear that the judges comp was thrown out of the scoring....and they was a very vocal uprising against the scoring.

Maybe times have changed.

The only solution that I can come up with (that has the least flaws) is how they do it at the Austrialian Masters, where all lists are posted in advance and all players judge them and give a comp score. Those scores are then averaged and that is the comp that you receive.

This works for a small tournament in which the players have plenty of time in advance to do this. So I do know how we could implement something like this in a workable fashion.

But in general I believe that for all its flaws our system is creating the desired outcome.

* To have a fun and unusual gaming event, using awesome themed terrain tables.
* To host a gaming event where the hobby side (painting, composition, sportsmanship) is at least as important as the actual gameplay.
* To host a gaming event where you can have 1, or even 2, losses and still be in the running for the top spots.
* To showcase amazing painted armies on the table.
* To providing a great weekend of gaming for old and new friends.
* To foster goodwill and cooperation among the gaming community, between both hobbyists and tournament players.
* To have a straight forward transparent scoring and matchup system.
* To increase the awareness of the tournament circuit

I think ya'll are doing a good job Kurt, keep running the tournament and we'll keep showing up!

Can you articulate why you have or need comp?

captkurt wrote:
But in general I believe that for all its flaws our system is creating the desired outcome.

* To have a fun and unusual gaming event, using awesome themed terrain tables.

Comp has not impact on this.

* To host a gaming event where the hobby side (painting, composition, sportsmanship) is at least as important as the actual gameplay.

See sportsmanship below. And comp has no impact on the hobby side of things.

* To host a gaming event where you can have 1, or even 2, losses and still be in the running for the top spots.

Comp has not impact on this.

* To showcase amazing painted armies on the table.

Comp has no impact on this.

* To providing a great weekend of gaming for old and new friends.

Comp has not impact on this.

* To foster goodwill and cooperation among the gaming community, between both hobbyists and tournament players.

Comp has not impact on this.

* To have a straight forward transparent scoring and matchup system.

Comp seems ti harm this goal.

* To increase the awareness of the tournament circuit

Comp has no timpact on this.

Do you think that removing comp those things would not happen? I have been to many tournaments and some of them have no soft scores at all and they achieve those results.

I realize that the people who are running the event are not tournament players and they think that removing or modifying the soft scores anarchy would then ensue. but that has not been my experience. Armies (at least in 40k) are pretty balanced and there are some codexes that are just a little better then others. The problem with comp was best illustrated by the Broadside Bash 2 years ago when 2 foot eldar armies got crippled by poor comp scores and a razorspam space wolf list (one of the hardest armies in the game at the time) received good comp scores. Since no one can seen the army lists and compare them to the comp scores we have no way of telling if there were any injustices. You might think the system is working, but it might not be because we do not have the transparency.

As far as sportsmanship goes, you really just need a simple scoring for it. I have played in many, many tournaments this past year and I have not played a single jerk in any of them. In all of my games I did not play against anyone that I would not play again. Everyone has a different personality and not everyone is going to be a stand up comedienne and be the life of the party just because you introduce a sportsmanship score. People are the way they are. The only thing you need a sportsmanship score is to weed out the real jerks. In my travels I have heard a tale or two of these guys and all you need to do is punish them, not everyone else who just wants to question a rule of their opponents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also want to call into question my opponents ability to even score comp/theme.

GW removed theme a long time ago in their codexs (think chaos legions and craftworld eldar) and if you are new to the game (think 5th edition player) you have no idea what a theme even is. I want a new player to tell me what a Night Lords army should have in it and an Altioc eldar army. A new player will have no idea what should even be in one, or what they should look like. The Chaos Demon codex never even had a theme since they got rid of them prior to the release of their first codex.

Then lets talk about their ability to score comp.

If you ask people about Tau they will either tell you it is one of the worst codexes in the game, or able to beat the top codexes. Well, which one is it?

Also if you are scoring comp at the end of the game, how do you know if you got whipped by the player or the army?

I played my eldar at an RTT the other day and no one has played against eldar in many years. So I was doing all kinds of crazy stuff that my opponent who is new to the game never saw before. Warp Spiders moving in the assault phase, rolling 2 dice and taking the lowest result for holo-fields, doom, guide, fortune, a toughness 8 model, harlequins and their rules, etc. He thought that it was one of the cheesyest armied he ever saw. But the reason why there were 0 eldar players is because they are one of the weakest codexes with overpriced units. After I beat my opponent and he was asked to score my army he would have given me a poor comp score.

Fantasy needs at least some degree of comp as its not as balanced as 40k due to years of neglect on gw's part. Plus the fantasy crowd is a different animal than the 40k one, where the same army build showing up repeatedly is not really well received. Its not like 40k where ten guys show up with long want missile spam with a side of razorspam and people just shrug. Lee got hurt somewhat because his army was a veritable checklist of what is considered best of the ogre army book, which tnds to make people roll eyes before it even hits the table.

The Bsb was about a good of a system for what the organizers were aiming for as you are going to get. The issue with Lee's judge panel only idea is you run into the QCR's issue of a (real or perceived) "hometown" advantage. As an organizer you do not want even the hint of bias. Letting judge scores structure the early round pairings what we do, as well, both so the fluffy guys don't have to get faceraped early and so if we misjudge things slightly it does not have any direct imipact on player scores. I like that sort of system and in my experience people who complain about it are generally just fishing for an easy early round seal to club. Now looking at the player comp score of who I played, most were in the same neighborhood as mine , other than Fred who played me in round four when we were both 4-0, so I think the system is working as intended. I also think the vast majority of people enjoyed themselves on the fantasy side. In my mind the only person who has a good reason to complain is Craig who brought Tomb kings and got raped in his scores despite being a nice guy and getting killed all weekend.

I can't speak for the 40k side, but looking at the diverse selection of armies and players in the top spots I would think they are achieving their desired results there, too.

Leenus wrote:It has nothing to do with me personally. My list was an example of the inadequecies of the system, but it seems to be clouding my point so I wish I had not brought it up.

It does have to do with you personally and I think you're ignoring the issue of this type of system.

I think thedarkgeneral put it best.

thedarkgeneral wrote:
*Style of Play: It's one thing to bring a good Army. It's fully another level to play that army to it's extreme optimal play and utterly crush another opponent to the point they feel they had no chance of winning from Turn 1. It's great to know the rules and FAQs and the such very well, but it's another thing to try and exploit them to your opponents disfavor. Often good or great players can see what game plan their opponent is formulating just by the way they're looking at the table. Whenever I see my opponent's thoughts may be going in a direction that the rules don't allow or is just questionable, I bring it up. It goes a long way to discuss a possible situation then wait until all the models are moved and dice are starting to roll. I've had my fair share of wiping out my opponents by Turns 5 or 6, but for most of the game they feel they have a chance of winning, and just the right amount of luck can swing that their way (or mine). This I believe has helped me earn higher Sports and Comp scores then most other Daemon players.

*Reason for being there: Now I've been very guilty of this, and that's being an intense competitor. It's my nature, too many years of wrestling and MMA... . I suppose you have to ask yourself "why am i here playing in this tournament?". I show up most of the time to try and win Best General (since I tend to never finish painting my models), and as such I bring a list that is tough, but not unbeatable, and I try to outplay my opponents and achieve victory for the Dark Gods!!! But i've let that in the past get me carried away with the real reason i'm at the tournament and that's to have fun, which should include my opponents. Sometimes I have to remind myself that, and ease up on the intensity I play with.

What he's pointing out, exactly like I also showed in my data analysis, is that this type of system isn't really about comp. It's really scoring annoyance with high levels of correlation between people scoring you as having bad comp + people scoring you as a person they wouldn't want to play.

You throw out words like "bias" as if that's suppose to mean something negative. Of course it's bias. It's suppose to be bias. The basic concept of voting takes into account bias. That's how you come up with an opinion in the first place.

Leenus wrote:
My end game has everything to do with stopping the logic defying use of opponent scored metrics. My goal is to have tournaments see they can still achieve their goals without allowing opponent bias to enter into the scoring... A win for every type of player. Do my posts really not make that clear? I'm beginning to think I'm in the twilight zone.

Because you're missing your own point. This system double hits bad sports. That's what it does. That could be a problem. What you're really talking about isn't comp. It's if you should be dinged twice. So what you're arguing is to create a system that still has a sports ding but then... does something with comp that you've not really pointed out.

To be honest it just sounds like you'd like the ETC. If you want comp to matter in who wins in fantasy use that. If not then you can play Hardboyz Tournies, if not that then you'll get the fun of having people amazingly annoyed at judged based comp. That's why the BSB dropped it originally. Bias is in each system to one degree or another. Just pick the one that has the type you like.

This should have been officious but if you really want to know why you ranked 35 in comp it's because you're 31 in sports. Those things are highly correlated (again). So people didn't like playing you or your army. Could have been "intensity" could have been bad luck....

People did not "dislike" Lee or his army...he scored a high-average on Theme and higher than average on Sports. Sure he was liked among the least at the tournament, but it was not that he was disliked or scored poorly.

I felt like this running of the event had no really bad games and no over the top armies. I felt like the scores pretty accurately represented what I was seeing.

captkurt wrote:
I felt like this running of the event had no really bad games and no over the top armies. I felt like the scores pretty accurately represented what I was seeing.

Kurt, you and the guys ran an awesome tourney.

You, John, Wade, Shawn, Brett, (And anyone else who I may be foregtting) ran a very smooth event that just about everyone was happy with. You're not going to please everybody, but as long as you guys keep doing what you are, I have no doubts that it will continue to sell out.

captkurt wrote:
But in general I believe that for all its flaws our system is creating the desired outcome.

* To have a fun and unusual gaming event, using awesome themed terrain tables.
* To host a gaming event where the hobby side (painting, composition, sportsmanship) is at least as important as the actual gameplay.
* To host a gaming event where you can have 1, or even 2, losses and still be in the running for the top spots.
* To showcase amazing painted armies on the table.
* To providing a great weekend of gaming for old and new friends.
* To foster goodwill and cooperation among the gaming community, between both hobbyists and tournament players.
* To have a straight forward transparent scoring and matchup system.
* To increase the awareness of the tournament circuit

I keep coming back to this. You guys defend your system, because you say it achieves those goals. But the reason I bring up the various debates is that I believe the data shows otherwise.

* To host a gaming event where the hobby side (painting, composition, sportsmanship) is at least as important as the actual gameplay.

Look at the painting scores. 64% of the scores were 24's (capped value). 81% were 22+. For 81% of the room there was a TWO POINT difference in painting. For 64% of the room, there was NO DIFFERENCE in painting score. How does a 2 point difference between 4/5ths of the room make this a hobby event where painting is at least as important as actual gameplay? I don't know how this tournament can be billed as a hobby event when arguably the second biggest (or biggest to some) aspect of the hobby is worth a difference of two total points when battle is worth 70. Is a 2 point difference in painting really "working right?"

* To have a straight forward transparent scoring and matchup system.

How is the scoring transparent? I know a 5 is a "soft/theme" army. But what is "soft" or "theme" varies from player to player. Knowing the possible values you can get doesn't make transparent scoring. Knowing WHY you got a specific value makes it transparent. Furthermore, there's no requirement for an opponent to share his score, so I really have no insight into my actual score. I got a 21 in sports. Did I got 3 6's and 3 best opponent votes and 2 0's? Did I get 3 4's and a 3? That's transparent? Even if I you showed me the values, I'd have no idea as to why I got them. That's transparent?


I am also curious as to why you have judge scored painting and not opponent scored. Why use a check list? Could it be that you want a consistent methodology applied to all the armies? Could it be that you believe the guy who has no skill in painting cannot judge the armies as well as a golden daemon winner? Why then, do you believe that every opponent has sufficient expertise to judge comp and sports? Why do you suddenly believe opponents will be consistent across the board, if you don't believe the same will hold true with painting.


I'm not trying to be difficult. I just see too many inconsistencies that are supported by the data. I realize you're set in your ways, but I just want to better understand the "why."

When all the soft scores are close, it could be that they are there for exclusionary purposes. That is, they are not actually intended to be part of the scoring, but rather make it so that if you don't fit the mold that they are trying to cater to, then you have no chance of winning anything and thus shouldn't even bother attending. In other words, it's really a pass/fail system.

Of course, typically when events do this they get rid of best general or lump battle in with comp (And comp is pretty much pass/fail as well) to determine best general.

Excluding certain sorts of players is not always a bad thing. Also, Best Overall is not the same as best general, nor should it be in any event outside the hard boys. For all the commentary a nd number crunching of the scores, Lee's fate was largely in his own hands. If his army was better at grabbing secondary points, he would have had the edge over Brad for best general. If he settles for a draw against me, same thing. If he beats me he possibly nets overall instead. I have said this to him privately (and Touradj in this thread) , that utterly crushing people is not essential in a win loss event and hurts soft scores.

I think this event was great and so did a lot of others. I think he is trying to change a system most like, when its clear to me that he is very capable of winning within it as it stands. I hope at some point he realizes that its easier to sail with the wind, rather than change it, because the southern California warhammer community benefits by having someone like him around, but he would deffinately help himself by not having the proverbial dial set at eleven al the time.

The only problem with exclusionary soft scores is when the organizers get on a high horse and proclaim their type of event the paragon of how the game should be played and anyone who thinks differently is a bad person. Plus it's kind of a passive-agressive way of doing it.

Not saying that this event is like that. I didn't see any venom in the posts from the organizer(s) unlike some other events I've seen. Plus it didn't wrap comp into best general which is one of the primary ways of hosting an exclusionary event.

And really, if there isn't a spread in the sports scores it isn't much of a problem unless that lack of spread is artificial rather than natural. If everyone was having a good time and enjoying the game, there is no real need to differentiate people. However, there is also the spectre of the idea that an average score is punishing someone.

A pass/fail system would accomplish the same goals (As long as a fail is given a reason for failing). It also avoids the problem of winning convincingly being worse for you than barely eeking a win by.

skyth wrote:The only problem with exclusionary soft scores is when the organizers get on a high horse and proclaim their type of event the paragon of how the game should be played and anyone who thinks differently is a bad person. Plus it's kind of a passive-agressive way of doing it.

Not saying that this event is like that. I didn't see any venom in the posts from the organizer(s) unlike some other events I've seen.

We definitely don't feel that way. We just like this kind of system and wanted an event the reflects this kind of play style. Lots of other events cater to different types of players. Ironically, I get told all the time (by the more extreme hobbiests) that our event is way to competitive...LOL.