Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have read with interest the reports of the first two rounds of the 'Ard Boyz tournament. It appears to have been a great success in terms of play as well as revenue generation for GW. Reading the sundry 40k fora it is also clear that this event generates more buzz and enthusiasm than any other annual event. Why, therefore, is the no-comp, no soft-scoring format of the 'Ard Boyz not more widespread in the U.S.? I'm amused that this format is marketed in the U.S. as an event that is " 'Ard ". The format the 'Ard Boyz is the standard format for most European tournaments. For example, at the Irish GT the scoring was a possible 150, with 15 points of that for painting (5 for three color, 5 for based, 5 for detail). Finally, I'll note that the absence of sports scoring does not appear to have affected gameplay in any significant manner. Indeed, I've seen much more drama involving tournaments with heavy soft scoring. I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

olympia wrote:I have read with interest the reports of the first two rounds of the 'Ard Boyz tournament. It appears to have been a great success in terms of play as well as revenue generation for GW. Reading the sundry 40k fora it is also clear that this event generates more buzz and enthusiasm than any other annual event. Why, therefore, is the no-comp, no soft-scoring format of the 'Ard Boyz not more widespread in the U.S.? I'm amused that this format is marketed in the U.S. as an event that is " 'Ard ". The format the 'Ard Boyz is the standard format for most European tournaments. For example, at the Irish GT the scoring was a possible 150, with 15 points of that for painting (5 for three color, 5 for based, 5 for detail). Finally, I'll note that the absence of sports scoring does not appear to have affected gameplay in any significant manner. Indeed, I've seen much more drama involving tournaments with heavy soft scoring. I hope the success of the 'Ard Boyz in the U.S. is a sign that competitive 40k has a chance to return to the tournament scene over there.

We can only hope. "Soft scoring" is a plague here that has spread all the way down to the local tournament level.

That’s funny.

I took a quick peek through the event listings for 40k events on warhammer.org.uk, and of eight tournaments listed in the below “upcoming events” thread which provided rules packs or links to them, four had soft scores included in the scoring, two did not, and two had partial (refs could deduct tournament points for poor Sportsmanship on a yellow/red card system).

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=66596

Soft included
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Brighton_Warlords/index.php?showtopic=1332
http://flameon.co.uk/files/BOTC2010/BotC_40k_Rules_2010.pdf
http://www.warpcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/40-Rulespack-Warpcon-2010_v1.4.pdf
http://www.leeds-nightowls.co.uk/downloads/tournament_pack.pdf


ref yellow/red
http://middangeard.co.uk/images/NWUK40k_Rulespack.pdf
http://flameon.co.uk/files/york/Vapnartak%202010%2040K%20Rules.pdf

No soft
http://www.bhgs.co.uk/Nationals/rules/40K_Rules_2009.htm
http://forum.northernwasters.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=450


Based on that evidence, it seems obvious that on the other side of the pond events with soft scores are common just as they are over here.

As for the success of Ard Boyz; it's GW-approved & publicized, it's free to enter, and it has substantial prizes. I think those factors are more than enough to account for its success & popularity, regardless of the scoring system employed. I'm sure it would do at least as well if it required painting and included that in the scoring.

I think that people will shift eventually. The first GT level event in the United States to do away with Sportsmanship and Comp and focus solely on wins/losses to determine your tournament winner is the Nova Open. While they *do* have soft scores for painting, player judged comp, and sportsmanship - those scores are for a separate category that doesn't affect who wins the tournament -- the tournament winner will be the only person who goes 6-0 after two days of fighting.

Two months before the event, attendance is sold out at 64 entries with a waiting list approaching 30+ people; the TO is considering expanding the tournament to 94 people. The only event in the U.S. larger is Adepticon, and the Nova Open is in its first year. The TO is keeping track of attendance, I don't know the exact specs, but I think he has attendees coming from 30 states? SVDM got around 50, SoCal had mid 30s, Bolter Beach had low 20s, broadside bash had high 40s....

And the first "win/loss single elimination for tournament winner" event hit its event maximum and is looking to be the largest single GT event ever held. o.O Hopefully there's a lesson in there somewhere for other people hosting events in the future who want to drive attendance.

Wow, someone's actually doing a single-elimination style tournament?? I've been lobbying for that forever.

I still think that a pool play round for seeding followed by a single elimination bracket would be better, though.

While Ard Boyz is not personally my cup of tea (due to opponent attitude, not ruleset), I quite like that idea that painting, comp, and sportsmanship are included, but as separate categories that don't affect the overall winner for battle points. I like to show up to tournaments, regardless of how competitive they are, with my crap lists that are fun to play and then hope to win a best painted or whatnot to recoup my entry fee. I would be disappointed if the hobby aspect of tournaments were eliminated altogether.

Well, Ard Boyz doesn't do that, Oaka. The NOVA Open, that Dash has so eloquently praised, does.

We're not "true" single elmination in that everyone is competing for the Best Overall regardless of w/l, and plays the first day entirely. The catch is the Best General equivalent is determined purely by w/l, and not by ... 10 people went undefeated and I'm going to arbitrarily give it to the guy who beat on baby seals the hardest while getting there, instead of letting them all play off to a single dude.

Mannahnin wrote:That’s funny.

I took a quick peek through the event listings for 40k events on warhammer.org.uk, and of eight tournaments listed in the below “upcoming events” thread which provided rules packs or links to them, four had soft scores included in the scoring, two did not, and two had partial (refs could deduct tournament points for poor Sportsmanship on a yellow/red card system).

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=66596

Soft included
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Brighton_Warlords/index.php?showtopic=1332
http://flameon.co.uk/files/BOTC2010/BotC_40k_Rules_2010.pdf
http://www.warpcon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/40-Rulespack-Warpcon-2010_v1.4.pdf
http://www.leeds-nightowls.co.uk/downloads/tournament_pack.pdf

You should have had a closer look at the examples above.

Here are the soft scores for your first tournament:

Soft score points will be broken down as follows

Army Roster = 7 points (must add up to 1500 points or less, if not you get no points for roster)

Painted = 10 points (every single model must have a basic of 3 colours on the model, if not you get no points for painted)

Detailed = 10 points (every single model must have some sort of effort on them more than the measley 3 colours & in addition you must have 5 objectives. These must be army specific & look like objectives. Things in the past have been dice glued to a base..........not accepted. They need to look the part, if not you get no points for detailed)

Based = 7 points (every model that has a base needs to be textured in some manner, yes even those flying clear bases must have texture on them, if not you get no points for based)
WYSWIG = 6 points

You'll note that unlike many U.S. tournaments the above are 1) fully transparent 2) easily achievable 3) do not include sports 4) do not include comp.

Now let's look at your second example

The player who receives the highest number of “Most Sporting” votes, will gain 5 Tournament
points to their total score for the tournament.

and

The player with the most “First Choice” votes will gain 5 Tournament points to their total score for
the tournament and win “Best Army”.

So 10 points of soft-scores in a six round tournament where a win is worth 30 points! In other words, soft scores make up 0.5% of the score!

Now for your third example:
A massacre win in this 5 game tournament is worth 20 points.

Sportsmanship points
All games are noted as +2 unless we are informed of any issues.

So 10 points possible for sports scores. You also received 10 points for submitting a correct army roster!
Painting, I will grant, was worth 20 points as follows:

Zero points - Not 3 colours and based
10 points - 3 colours and based
5 points - detail broken down as follows
One for detailed painting (shading and highlighting).
One for banners and squad markings,
One for conversions.
Two for Wow.
5 points - Being nominated for the Players Choice Army.

And there was a quiz for 10 points. Composition scoring was, of course, completely absent.

Let's look at your fourth example.

Three games with 20 points for a massacre. Players rate the "cheese" of their opponent, and the one (1) player voted the cheesiest is docked 12 points. That is significant, but only affects one player. The bonus for best sports, fluff, and painting give an extra five points--less than 10% of the possible points.

In short, of the four examples you provided sports scoring is either absent or minimal; composition is absent from 3/4 and the fourth only hits one player.

Of course the marquee tournaments such at the European Team Championship and the Five Nations Team Challenge have no soft scoring at all.

Again, I'm heartened by the popularity of the 'Ard Boyz tournament in the U.S. and I do hope it signals a move towards transparent, competitive gaming.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that people will shift eventually. The first GT level event in the United States to do away with Sportsmanship and Comp and focus solely on wins/losses to determine your tournament winner is the Nova Open. While they *do* have soft scores for painting, player judged comp, and sportsmanship - those scores are for a separate category that doesn't affect who wins the tournament -- the tournament winner will be the only person who goes 6-0 after two days of fighting.

Two months before the event, attendance is sold out at 64 entries with a waiting list approaching 30+ people; the TO is considering expanding the tournament to 94 people. The only event in the U.S. larger is Adepticon, and the Nova Open is in its first year. The TO is keeping track of attendance, I don't know the exact specs, but I think he has attendees coming from 30 states? SVDM got around 50, SoCal had mid 30s, Bolter Beach had low 20s, broadside bash had high 40s....

And the first "win/loss single elimination for tournament winner" event hit its event maximum and is looking to be the largest single GT event ever held. o.O Hopefully there's a lesson in there somewhere for other people hosting events in the future who want to drive attendance.

I expect that the novelty factor helps drive attendance up.

I suspect that after a few years these new formats will commonplace in both senses of the word.

If all tournaments go to no soft, it will only drive away the people who like soft scores. If there are enough people who don't, the tournaments will still be full but the overall world of fun will be poorer.

I can say that, for the Open at least, we're never going to get rid of rewarding the softer side of the hobby. People with a couple losses but excellent sports/presentation scores will always be eligible for their "vegas" ticket and high qual prizes, as will each of the individual cats for painting, sports, conversion, etc.

I would like to see a bigger shift toward tournaments that accurately identify that weekend's best competitor, while equally identifying and equally rewarding that weekend's best painters, converters, and the people with the biggest hearts and best attitudes. Combining them all together is problematic, b/c it encourages people to "game" things that should not be gamed ... like being a good human being. But that's another discussion.

MVBrandt wrote:I can say that, for the Open at least, we're never going to get rid of rewarding the softer side of the hobby. People with a couple losses but excellent sports/presentation scores will always be eligible for their "vegas" ticket and high qual prizes, as will each of the individual cats for painting, sports, conversion, etc.

Equal prize support is key. Let individual players decide what they value most. I also think trophies are much better than GW schwag.

When you say that EU tournaments are like 'Ard Boyz, do you mean that they include "custom scenarios" that are thinly veiled comp against mech lists, or do you mean actually genuinely comp free? Cause if it's the latter, that'd be awesome.

/bitter

daedalus wrote:When you say that EU tournaments are like 'Ard Boyz, do you mean that they include "custom scenarios" that are thinly veiled comp against mech lists, or do you mean actually genuinely comp free? Cause if it's the latter, that'd be awesome.

/bitter

Many of the small tournaments, unfortunately, do have "wacky, fun" missions. At least they are available ahead of time to playtest. The European Team Championship and the Five Nations Challenge will use standard missions.

You know I was rabidly anti-soft score, strictly from personal preferance, until I realized from KillKrazy's post that yes, even the people who prefer soft scores should have a tourney venue as well. I would prefer to see more tourney's (at least in my area) without soft scores, as I hate 'em, but I am retracting from my initial position of "just get rid of em all".

Doesn't the ETC use some kind of super ridiculous FAQ that bans a bunch of random stuff? Or did I get this wrong?

number9dream wrote:Doesn't the ETC use some kind of super ridiculous FAQ that bans a bunch of random stuff? Or did I get this wrong?

The 2009 ETC banned special characters with army-wide effects. For example, Ghaz was banned but Abaddon was allowed. That was pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure what the 2010 rules are, but I think they are going to contain a universal prohibition against unique characters--not sure.

I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

The soft score events I found in the UK with five minutes' looking do indeed have less impact than some. But they're still soft scores, and those events don't even vaguely resemble 'ard boys, with its seas of unpainted plastic and widespread dubious sportsmanship.

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

The problem here is it hurts older codices with a smaller selection of competitive variety in their dex far more than it hurts the newer ones, which have readier access to "balanced with the present" unit options outside of spam.

MVBrandt wrote:

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

The problem here is it hurts older codices with a smaller selection of competitive variety in their dex far more than it hurts the newer ones, which have readier access to "balanced with the present" unit options outside of spam.

Yeah...thinking of my DE here. Those rules are an instant, "Well, I can't bring this army."

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

Then when I show up with my 4 landraider army where all of my troops are identical, my elites are identical, and every guy is carrying a storm bolter and each upgrade character has a relic blade, it falls apart, both in comp and, most likely, in actual gameplay.

olympia wrote:

number9dream wrote:Doesn't the ETC use some kind of super ridiculous FAQ that bans a bunch of random stuff? Or did I get this wrong?

The 2009 ETC banned special characters with army-wide effects. For example, Ghaz was banned but Abaddon was allowed. That was pretty ridiculous. I'm not sure what the 2010 rules are, but I think they are going to contain a universal prohibition against unique characters--not sure.

I would argue that this is pants-on-head silly.

No offense to any ETC organizers who might be reading this. Actually yes, offense - what the feth are you thinking? ;[

Honersstodnt wrote:I quite like tournaments that include a heavy comp element. you just need to embrace a few key ideas to make a high scoring comp list at most tournaments near me.

1) No repetition of non-troops
2) Variety of troop types (if possible)
3) No special characters
4) No "spamming" of special weapons in any slot (i.e., no guard lists with 4x chimeras full of 3x melta vets)
5) List will score extra points if it adheres to established fluff in either codex or novels.

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

.... Dumbest restrictions I've ever seen. All comp does is create a new set of "maximum overdrives", only there'll be less variety amongst them cause there are way more stupid restrictions.

Hilariously enough it would kill Ork warbiker armies, but leave Nob bikers working just fine. Oh and Since my Nob bikers are troops I'm not getting comp-docked - awesome, I'm sure you'll have fun fighting dual nob bikers with the rest of your army being nothing but a random hodgepodge of crap.

Also, Dark Eldar would like a word with you - you just killed their only non-terrible build. I don't know what kind of twisted individual would want to force DE players to use Hellions or Scourges.
Tau too.
And so on.

Seriously, you kill a ton of fluffy lists too -_-
Battlewagon brigades = Fluffy, your restrictions kill them completley.
Scoring sternguard? Dead.
Dreadbash or Kanwall? Dead.

There's no way to even theme a list when you can't take more than 1 of each non-troop choice - look at StJohn's Immolator army, if he had to take a random assortment of freakshow units that'd completely kill the list both from a theme and effectiveness standpoint....

In the my experience the biggest arguments and complainers at a tournament has come from the painters. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in the paint scores.

number9dream wrote:

you can build fairly powerful lists within these confines, with most codex. It just discourages most of the boring lists you see online, like "maximum overdrive", "leafblower", "vulkan melta spam" , and thunderwolf spam.

.... Dumbest restrictions I've ever seen. All comp does is create a new set of "maximum overdrives", only there'll be less variety amongst them cause there are way more stupid restrictions.

Hilariously enough it would kill Ork warbiker armies, but leave Nob bikers working just fine. Oh and Since my Nob bikers are troops I'm not getting comp-docked - awesome, I'm sure you'll have fun fighting dual nob bikers with the rest of your army being nothing but a random hodgepodge of crap.

Also, Dark Eldar would like a word with you - you just killed their only non-terrible build. I don't know what kind of twisted individual would want to force DE players to use Hellions or Scourges.
Tau too.....

There are absolutely legitimate concerns about checklist Comp scoring systems handicapping already-handicapped books.

I disagree about your specific example of “maximum overdrives”, but agree with the general concept. Comp CAN indeed “just” change which lists are the best, while still leaving some lists better than others. This is often a reasonable and desirable outcome. It fosters more variety in the tournament scene. It often narrows the range of army power seen. The hardest armies are handicapped or encouraged to dilute their builds, thus reducing the differential in sheer power between them and the weaker lists. If the power differential between armies on the table is reduced, the impact of play skill and other factors on the game and tournament outcome is increased.

DarthDiggler wrote:In the my experience the biggest arguments and complainers at a tournament has come from the painters. Hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in the paint scores.

That's a big one, to be sure. A gaming group I'm close with in Pittsburgh did a tournament where the guy with most BPs took best general, because the second most BPs had a truly top notch paint scheme, while the other had a decent table top quality job. I believe the guy who took second proceeded to do his best to bad mouth the club as cheaters to the rest of the store.

And this was with a relatively objective painting checklist, and two armies that virtually any judge would rank the same way.

I don't like how people refer to lists built with comp in mind as a "hodgepodge of crap"... its really an unfair generalization.

Here's a marine list I brought to a local tournament that was highly comp-centered :

HQ: Librarian w/ jump pack (null zone + avenger) - 125 pts
HQ: Chaplain in terminator armor - 130 pts

Elite: 5x assault terminators (3x hammer 2x claw) -200 pts
Dedicated: Land Raider (multimelta + extra armor) - 275 pts

Troops: 10 man tac squad (melta, multimelta, fist) in rhino - 235 pts
Troops: 10 man tac squad (plasma, plasma cannon, p-weapon) in a rhino - 235 pts
Troops: 5 man tac squad in razorback - 130 pts

Fast: 10 man assault squad (2x flamers, sarge w/ hammer + combat shield) - 245 pts
Fast: 2x land speeder typhoons - 280 pts

Heavy: Predator (2x lascannons + autocannon) - 120 pts
Heavy: Vindicator (siege shield) - 125 pts


It worked quite well, despite following my guidelines.

Mannahnin wrote:
There are absolutely legitimate concerns about checklist Comp scoring systems handicapping already-handicapped books.

I disagree about your specific example of “maximum overdrives”, but agree with the general concept. Comp CAN indeed “just” change which lists are the best, while still leaving some lists better than others. This is often a reasonable and desirable outcome. It fosters more variety in the tournament scene. It often narrows the range of army power seen. The hardest armies are handicapped or encouraged to dilute their builds, thus reducing the differential in sheer power between them and the weaker lists. If the power differential between armies on the table is reduced, the impact of play skill and other factors on the game and tournament outcome is increased.

In theory. I'd be interested to see a set of comp restrictions that won't leave IG as one of the strongest armies. It has great troops, including two completely different choices, and could pull non-unique units from every FOC slot to build a really fantastic army at the 1500-1850 level. Ditto Orks (who have a lot of good variety). Now, see if this comp system doesn't completely nerf armies like Eldar, Tau, Chaos, DE (all armies with maybe 6-10 top shelf units). Even Space Wolves and BA really only have one great troop (except for logan wing, natch). BA could absorb the hit by including jump packs and mech assault, and even a tac squad to be polite.

I mean, I'm with you on the idea that comp could be good, in much the same way I feel that cold fusion could be good. Alas, neither is possible in practice as of yet. Maybe some day.

number9dream wrote:

No offense to any ETC organizers who might be reading this. Actually yes, offense - what the feth are you thinking? ;[

Any decision over special characters is voted in the Captains' Council and I understand that this year they will all be banned. Our team voted internally (we voted to ban them), not sure if other teams had an internal vote or not. Given ETC has some of the best players around making that vote, that's quite a lot of poeple you are tarring with that there brush stroke.

Mannahnin wrote: The hardest armies are handicapped or encouraged to dilute their builds, thus reducing the differential in sheer power between them and the weaker lists. If the power differential between armies on the table is reduced, the impact of play skill and other factors on the game and tournament outcome is increased.

You don't need covoluted requirements to make that happen. What are the most powerful lists? Mech IG? Alright:

Rule #1: No army may have more than 9 vehicles. DE will need a bit of readjustment, but kan-walls are fine, and Mech IG has less vehicles.

What else.....SW missile launcher spam / razorback spam?

Rule #2: No army may have more than 5 missile launchers. Easy enough.

Alright....we don't want slow playing?

Rule #3: No army may have more than 120 models.

You don't have to make universal rules that affect everyone negatively. Just find the problem areas and address them.

Why would the absence of comp or other soft-scores make a tournament less fun? Because a fluffy army will get beat down? Perhaps, but it's no fun to lose with your diversified nobz/triple vendetta/whatever either, and the match-ups will pair like with like by round two or three.