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.

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 10:09 AM
Yeah you said it. Ok you can take what you want but get bonus points. That might make a difference to winning or losing. So in essence you are not free to choose unless you are fine with losing points over it

Weren’t you the one just saying people shouldn’t whine and should just compete as best they can?  This is just a larger and more complex competition.  Are you complaining that it’s too hard for you?  Should we dumb it down to one scoring category (battles) to make it easier for the guys who are no good at the other elements of the hobby (painting, sportsmanship, making an interesting army) to win? You see how the same argument works in reverse? 

 

With comp it’s a balancing act.  You build an army, and you choose how much you want to compromise on making it as strong as it can possibly get in order to serve your comp scores.  Maybe you’ll make up the difference just by getting bigger wins.  But if your brother does have a weaker army, and he gets an equal or better Battles score than yours, it would seem to indicate that he’s a better player.

 

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006

The problem is the majority of people would love a tournie without comp. However most cant organise it. the one who can think comps a good thing such as your self Mannahnin. Its a lose lose situation for people who dont want to be penealised for taking wehatever they feel like.

 

Bullpucky.  Why can’t they organize tournaments?  What’s necessary to run a tournament?  A venue, and a little time and effort to write the rules, publicize it, and actually run it on the day.  It doesn’t take that much work.  Obviously there are some incompetent TOs out there, but it’s not rocket science.  If it were true that only people who like comp have what it takes to run a tournament, then what does that say about people who don’t like comp?  Nothing good.

 

Anyway, we know it’s not true because there ARE non-comp events.  The Gladiator at Adepticon in <st1:city w:st="on">Chicago</st1:city> is the biggest one in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region>.  The GW GTs are the biggest in the UK.  But there are certainly smaller events in both countries.  The Dakka Dakka store (RIP) generally held at least one Gladiator per year, in addition to events with comp scoring.  Events with comp were more popular, but the non-comp game was a nice change of pace. 

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/29/2006 8:45 AM

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 12/28/2006 5:44 PM

Some armies have really good troop choices (like marines) while others need their Elites/FA/HS to pick up the slack (like eldar).  And restricting people from taking the same configuration in multiple units would simply benefit armies that have a variety of effective options and penalize those with few.  I shudder to think of what would happen to Thousand Sons if they were required to take horrors/possessed/chosen for the sake of comp.  And what about those armies that have very little variation in their options?  What would necrons do?

Just write a better system, and use some organizer discretion for armies with unusual restrictions.  Here's an example:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/13/postid/113472/view/topic/Default.aspx

The only lists I see that system really penalizing are Godzilla nid lists, and mech Tau/Eldar.

I don't see it penalizing the IW SAFH...(Just take two units of oblits...not a big change).

Marine SAFH doesn't take a big hit either.  My marine list only loses 3 points on it...Hardly game breaking.  If I took one less troop choice, then it'd only lose a point for taking no elites, and that's it.

Some codexes only have one good, or alot better unit in each slot...Others have multiple. 

Oh, so you say that in the comp system I designed your marine list only scores 3 points (might actualy be 6) less than the maximum? In an event with 150 possible tournament points? What conclusions can you draw from that?

Note that there is some more variation- each player can accumulate up to 2 extra points from each of their opponents, and there are a few judge?s discretion points in case the organizer sees something extra cool, or an army that suffers due to unusual restrictions.

What part of my post did you not under stand Mannahin, Ok i sometime am not clear, granted. Once again

1) my brother is better than me, 2) have seperate trophies for painting, sportsmanship and theme. 3) comp is not fair as there is no official way to regulate it.

Obviously you being in support of comp wont see it any other way but I hope atleast I clarified 3 points that I was trying to. fingers crossed

If only there was some way to know what an individual army can take and in what quantities... Oh wait...

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 12:27 PM
What part of my post did you not under stand Mannahin, Ok i sometime am not clear, granted. Once again

1) my brother is better than me, 2) have seperate trophies for painting, sportsmanship and theme. 3) comp is not fair as there is no official way to regulate it.

Obviously you being in support of comp wont see it any other way but I hope atleast I clarified 3 points that I was trying to. fingers crossed

What part of my post(s) did you not understand, Beef?

1. Okay. 

2. I give separate awards for Painting, Sportsmanship (see below), and Overall.  Your painting, sportsmanship, compositon, and battles all figure into Overall.  The idea behind not having a separate Best General prize is to discourage jerks from just shooting for that and disregarding everything else.

3. You are talking nonsense again, as there are many ways to regulate it, all as official as the tournament itself.

I understand exactly what you're saying, I just think it's a bad idea.  In the US GTs, prior to comp and sportsmanship being introduced, we had lots of jerks and boring, min-maxed armies.  In the UK GTs, with no comp, you have lots of boring, min-maxed armies. 

Like you said there are many ways to regulate comp. I bet they vary from place to place, tournie to tournie.

ATleast here in the UK GT's we dont have to suffer ego's/power trips from organisers adding non official rules such as comp. Is it Something GW does in its UK tournies? I dont think so?
wELL YOUR TOUrnie so your rules. Obviously enough people will turn up to play. Its the same as people who complain about GW price or whatever who still buy and play 40K.

Even if you said only troops allowed you would still get people who would come and play simply as they may have nowhere else to play.

Lastly the sportsmanship award is for people who were fun to play, humourous, generally nice guys. there army .list has nothing to do with it. Even if they had a min/max armies they can win sportsmanship as there list does not factor into why they win it.

To play devils advocate: a good number have OTHER awards for those catagories: BEST painted, BEST sportsmanship....

If your going to advocate that being best general requires a balancing act at the other elements of the game, should we not then Demand that if your taking best spotsmanship, you should show some other elements of the game, such as Comp, or if you are going for best painted show some degree of playing such as battle points?

Whats good for the goose.....

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/29/2006 11:59 AM
Oh, so you say that in the comp system I designed your marine list only scores 3 points (might actualy be 6) less than the maximum? In an event with 150 possible tournament points? What conclusions can you draw from that?

Note that there is some more variation- each player can accumulate up to 2 extra points from each of their opponents, and there are a few judge’s discretion points in case the organizer sees something extra cool, or an army that suffers due to unusual restrictions.

What I'm saying is that it's worthless because of that.  My list is fairly nasty and would get killed for comp.

My daemonhunters army that I scored dead last in comp in a tournament would get full points. (Okay, it's slightly changed now, but if I took the modified version, it would have scored just as low)

IW SAFH would get close to full points under your system.

Only a couple armies get thier best lists really hammered because they don't have alot of equally good/close to equally good options (Mech Eldar and Tau, Godzilla 'nids).

When the only true differentiation in comp scores is OPPONENT SCORED...With all thier biases, cheating, etc...It's a worthless system.  If a comp system tells me that the most effective lists with the best comp will be loyalist Marines, then it's worthless as a comp system.

Posted By beef on 12/29/2006 3:50 PM
Like you said there are many ways to regulate comp. I bet they vary from place to place, tournie to tournie.

ATleast here in the UK GT's we dont have to suffer ego's/power trips from organisers adding non official rules such as comp. Is it Something GW does in its UK tournies? I dont think so?
wELL YOUR TOUrnie so your rules. Obviously enough people will turn up to play. Its the same as people who complain about GW price or whatever who still buy and play 40K.

Even if you said only troops allowed you would still get people who would come and play simply as they may have nowhere else to play.

This is your argument?  That taking the time to run an event for your gaming community, and attempting to make it more fun and interesting is an ego/power trip?  And that wargamers are so pathetic and starved for ways to spend their time that they will come to a cruddy event because they have nothing better to do?  What an awful way to look at our hobby. 

Posted By Carmachu 12/29/2006 6:52 PM

To play devils advocate: a good number have OTHER awards for those catagories: BEST painted, BEST sportsmanship....

If your going to advocate that being best general requires a balancing act at the other elements of the game, should we not then Demand that if your taking best spotsmanship, you should show some other elements of the game, such as Comp, or if you are going for best painted show some degree of playing such as battle points?

Events can give out awards for whatever they want to.  And you can demand whatever makes sense to you.   If you think the best painted award should be influenced by the battles score, go for it.  Let me know what the event attendees think.  Many events I've been to have used other categories to break ties, like Sportsmanship to break ties in Battles score.

Do you disagree with the statement that army composition and the ability to play the game are more closely related than playing the game and painting?  Do you disagree that a superior player can perform better or equally with a mixed or weaker list than will a lesser player with a "power build"? 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

What I'm saying is that it's worthless because of that. My list is fairly nasty and would get killed for comp.

It would get killed for comp, you say?  But last post you said that it only lost out on a few points in my comp system.  Which is it?  And if it doesn't get killed under my comp system, what does that tell you?  You might try thinking about it for a little while.  You're clearly not analyzing it now.  I didn't write it without putting any thought into it.

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

When the only true differentiation in comp scores is OPPONENT SCORED...With all thier biases, cheating, etc...It's a worthless system.

How much havoc do you think these biased, cheating players are going to wreak with their one compulsory vote for the army they liked the best, out of the three they played against? You really only have jerks and idiots around to play with, don't you?  It's amazing that you're still in the hobby. 

You do also realize that something can be flawed and still have worth, right?  Like 40k?  Or Dakkadakka.com?  Or life?

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

 If a comp system tells me that the most effective lists with the best comp will be loyalist Marines, then it's worthless as a comp system.

You really haven't put any thought into it, have you?  You can't see the handicaps in there for marines?  Seriously?

It is an ego trip. And I did not say gamers are starved its just that it hard sometimes to find events/stores/opponents. Its a realistic look at the hobby. dont just see it your way.

"f you think the best painted award should be influenced by the battles score, go for it. Let me know what the event attendees think" Carmachu was not saying that? Did you not understand his point? hopefully he will explain it again for you as I dont want to make his very valid point seem less valid with my basic explanitory skills.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/29/2006 6:56 PM

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

What I'm saying is that it's worthless because of that. My list is fairly nasty and would get killed for comp.

It would get killed for comp, you say?  But last post you said that it only lost out on a few points in my comp system.  Which is it?  And if it doesn't get killed under my comp system, what does that tell you?  You might try thinking about it for a little while.  You're clearly not analyzing it now.  I didn't write it without putting any thought into it.

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

When the only true differentiation in comp scores is OPPONENT SCORED...With all thier biases, cheating, etc...It's a worthless system.

How much havoc do you think these biased, cheating players are going to wreak with their one compulsory vote for the army they liked the best, out of the three they played against? You really only have jerks and idiots around to play with, don't you?  It's amazing that you're still in the hobby. 

You do also realize that something can be flawed and still have worth, right?  Like 40k?  Or Dakkadakka.com?  Or life?

 

Posted By Skyth 12/29/2006 8:59 PM

 If a comp system tells me that the most effective lists with the best comp will be loyalist Marines, then it's worthless as a comp system.

You really haven't put any thought into it, have you?  You can't see the handicaps in there for marines?  Seriously?

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

If a comp system is biased towards certain codexes, then it isn't a good system.  I have yet to see a comp system that isn't biased towards certain codexes. 

Is it just me or is godzilla and mech tau/eldar actually more powerful than marines (that do well at comp, remember, we're not talking about marines that do as bad in comp as mech tau); thus deserve to be penalised? Thus the comp system works?

No, it's not just me. My friend agrees.

If a comp system is biased towards certain codexes, then it isn't a good system.  I have yet to see a comp system that isn't biased towards certain codexes. 

Exactly.  Thats the whole crux of my argument.

Posted By onlainari on 12/30/2006 6:18 AM
Is it just me or is godzilla and mech tau/eldar actually more powerful than marines (that do well at comp, remember, we're not talking about marines that do as bad in comp as mech tau); thus deserve to be penalised? Thus the comp system works?

No, it's not just me. My friend agrees.

So if its better than a marine list it must be penalized?  Ah the truth comes out.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 5:42 AM
It is an ego trip. And I did not say gamers are starved its just that it hard sometimes to find events/stores/opponents. Its a realistic look at the hobby. dont just see it your way.

Is this anything like “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach”?

 

Those who can run tournaments (and aren’t too lazy) do; those who can’t be bothered to so so *female dog*, complain, and impugn the motivations of those who do?  Nice.  You should be proud of yourself.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 5:42 AM
"f you think the best painted award should be influenced by the battles score, go for it. Let me know what the event attendees think" Carmachu was not saying that? Did you not understand his point? hopefully he will explain it again for you as I dont want to make his very valid point seem less valid with my basic explanitory skills.

I’m taking him at his word.  He is (as devil’s advocate) trying to cast aspersions on the practice of combining two aspects of the game for scoring purposes.  I am pointing out that there is nothing inherently wrong with doing so, and that what “makes sense” is in the eye of the beholder.  I personally think that army composition interacts more directly with playing games than does painting.  If he wants to equate the two pairings, he should feel free to put it before a larger audience and see if they buy it.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

“Normal” opponent scored comp?  What’s normal?  I thought you said that opponent-scored comp is worthless because it’s subject to bias and cheating.  “Probably should” get killed in comp?  That’s an interesting statement coming from someone who claims not to believe in comp.

 

You’re also confusing reward and punishment.  Claiming that certain lists are “punished” is a semantic trick to try and elicit sympathy for the poor, put-upon power lists.  We weep for them. 

In point of fact, the players have just as much chance as anyone else of getting a good comp score.  One of the nice things about published math comp is that the players go into it with their eyes open, and can see whether or not they would need to alter their lists to get more points, and choose whether they want to do so.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

Again, you didn’t bother to read it or figure out the implications.  The best score is achieved by (among other things) taking no more than three of one specific type of Troop, and by taking any two units in each HS, FA, and Elite (three in a category, but not more than two of the same choice, also gets the points).  If you’re saying there’s a codex out there with NO useful FA, or NO useful Elites, or NO useful HS, please point it out.  If there is, they would probably qualify for discretionary points.

 

Powergamers often deride Scouts, but that’s the only way for a SM army to go if they want maximum points and more than three troops.   Marines are also fairly pricey, and filling out those other force org slots costs some points if they want to do it.  1500 is not all the points in the world.  Feel free to show me an overpowered marine list which maxes out on my comp scale.   I'd like to see it. 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/30/2006 11:23 AM

So if its better than a marine list it must be penalized?  Ah the truth comes out.

Is that an argument by wishful thinking?  That’s not what he wrote.  You even quoted it, but you misread it.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/30/2006 12:18 PM

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

“Normal” opponent scored comp?  What’s normal?  I thought you said that opponent-scored comp is worthless because it’s subject to bias and cheating.  “Probably should” get killed in comp?  That’s an interesting statement coming from someone who claims not to believe in comp.

 

You’re also confusing reward and punishment.  Claiming that certain lists are “punished” is a semantic trick to try and elicit sympathy for the poor, put-upon power lists.  We weep for them. 

In point of fact, the players have just as much chance as anyone else of getting a good comp score.  One of the nice things about published math comp is that the players go into it with their eyes open, and can see whether or not they would need to alter their lists to get more points, and choose whether they want to do so.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

Again, you didn’t bother to read it or figure out the implications.  The best score is achieved by (among other things) taking no more than three of one specific type of Troop, and by taking any two units in each HS, FA, and Elite (three in a category, but not more than two of the same choice, also gets the points).  If you’re saying there’s a codex out there with NO useful FA, or NO useful Elites, or NO useful HS, please point it out.  If there is, they would probably qualify for discretionary points.

 

Powergamers often deride Scouts, but that’s the only way for a SM army to go if they want maximum points and more than three troops.   Marines are also fairly pricey, and filling out those other force org slots costs some points if they want to do it.  1500 is not all the points in the world.  Feel free to show me an overpowered marine list which maxes out on my comp scale.   I'd like to see it. 

Why take more than 3 troops choices for marines?

No, alot of armies have ONE choice in each category that are alot better than others.  Loyalist marines have several good in each category...So if Loyalists wanted a heavy-support heavy mech list...That's easy.  Tau want that?  They get dinged.  They only have the hammerhead, whereas Marines have two types of Preds, so can take 3...Fast attack, Alpha legion only has one type that goes with the army...Raptors, and they're overpriced. 

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/30/2006 12:18 PM

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

What I meant is that it would get killed in comp in any normal opponent scored comp, and probably should as it's a power list.  Your system is broken because it allows cerain power lists (especially Marine ones), but penalizes heavily the godzilla list and mech Eldar/Tau.

“Normal” opponent scored comp?  What’s normal?  I thought you said that opponent-scored comp is worthless because it’s subject to bias and cheating.  “Probably should” get killed in comp?  That’s an interesting statement coming from someone who claims not to believe in comp.

 

You’re also confusing reward and punishment.  Claiming that certain lists are “punished” is a semantic trick to try and elicit sympathy for the poor, put-upon power lists.  We weep for them. 

In point of fact, the players have just as much chance as anyone else of getting a good comp score.  One of the nice things about published math comp is that the players go into it with their eyes open, and can see whether or not they would need to alter their lists to get more points, and choose whether they want to do so.

Posted By Skyth on 12/30/2006 9:06 AM

There might be handicaps in there for Loyalist marines, but they are ALOT less than for other armies because your system is based on taking multiples of the same FOC and Marines have all thier stuff being fairly decent, whereas certain codexes have one thing that stands out as the best in any given FOC slot.

Again, you didn’t bother to read it or figure out the implications.  The best score is achieved by (among other things) taking no more than three of one specific type of Troop, and by taking any two units in each HS, FA, and Elite (three in a category, but not more than two of the same choice, also gets the points).  If you’re saying there’s a codex out there with NO useful FA, or NO useful Elites, or NO useful HS, please point it out.  If there is, they would probably qualify for discretionary points.

 

Powergamers often deride Scouts, but that’s the only way for a SM army to go if they want maximum points and more than three troops.   Marines are also fairly pricey, and filling out those other force org slots costs some points if they want to do it.  1500 is not all the points in the world.  Feel free to show me an overpowered marine list which maxes out on my comp scale.   I'd like to see it. 

Why take more than 3 troops choices for marines?

No, alot of armies have ONE choice in each category that are alot better than others.  Loyalist marines have several good in each category...So if Loyalists wanted a heavy-support heavy mech list...That's easy.  Tau want that?  They get dinged.  They only have the hammerhead, whereas Marines have two types of Preds, so can take 3...Fast attack, Alpha legion only has one type that goes with the army...Raptors, and they're overpriced. 

Actually Manahinh those who think they know better than the creators host there own versions of tournies with rules that make it better for themselves.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/30/2006 8:23 AM
So if its better than a marine list it must be penalized?  Ah the truth comes out.

[On one hand comp benefits marines, on the other it penalises marines, depends what you guys feel like. What an argument, well done.]

I'm leaving that in because the poster below responded to it, but it's wrong so ignore it.

Let's not be a moron for a second, and think what the purpose of comp is. Oh that's right, punish powerful armies, reward weak ones.

You think I'm biased? I play mech tau for pasta's sake.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 3:10 PM
Actually Manahinh those who think they know better than the creators host there own versions of tournies with rules that make it better for themselves.

In the end though, I assume people went to Mannahnin and congratulated him on a good tournie. His rules are there because the creators have made imbalances in the first place. Thus he is quite right to run tournies with rules that make the tournie better, and result in more gamers and better appreciation of the tournament all round.

you made me log in just to tell you your a moron

are you even reading what their writing? 

and if the purpose of comp is to punish powerful armies and reward weak ones..should we just call it a failure now and leave it for dead?

Especially since you people have been saying that comp rewards better list builders this entire time..now your saying it rewards players for making weak lists..perhaps next it will reward players who dont bring a list!

Posted By IntoTheRain on 12/30/2006 7:00 PM
you made me log in just to tell you your a moron

are you even reading what their writing?

You're right I didn't read it properly. Sorry.

Posted By IntoTheRain on 12/30/2006 7:00 PM

Especially since you people have been saying that comp rewards better list builders this entire time..now your saying it rewards players for making weak lists..perhaps next it will reward players who dont bring a list!

Two generals play in a tournament and score equal battle points. One used a weaker list. I argue that the person with the weaker list is a better general (that's pretty obvious), thus comp is used to give him a few bonus points.

why? The other person was smart enough to dismiss the inferior list infavor of the stronger list, and then optimize it for the metagame. Couldnt you also logically say that he is the better general? (especially in a game involving a luck based dice system)

The other person dismissed the inferior list to win more. This can help your position in a tournament by itself. Reasonable comp systems are 10%, generalship 40-60%. If however he could win with a weaker list (because he was a better general), he could still do well in generalship and get a few bonus points.

In the end, comp is a game players must play, it's a formula more complicated than simple "what is most effective". You now have to add in "what is effective, fluffy, doesn't look nasty, doesn't annoy players, but still wins".

So yes comp does reward good list building, in that you can build a weak list and do well in comp, but you failed because you lost too many of your games. What you need to do is find out which list best suits the formula above.

Comp wouldn't be too bad if it only counted for 10%. Problem is Comp+Sports (Often judged the same way) are 2 times more than battle or 1.5 times battle for final scoring around here. So stuff that is impossible to objectively rate and subject to cheating by the players is worth more than how well you do on the field.

Posted By skyth on 12/30/2006 10:16 PM
Comp wouldn't be too bad if it only counted for 10%. Problem is Comp+Sports (Often judged the same way) are 2 times more than battle or 1.5 times battle for final scoring around here. So stuff that is impossible to objectively rate and subject to cheating by the players is worth more than how well you do on the field.

So since you're dissatisfied with your local situation, you *female dog* and complain about all comp systems, even when you're shown a better one.  Comp is a maximum of what, 26pts on my scale?  That's roughly 15% of the total, but that's a bit misleading, because as you've already noticed, the scoring difference between a strong list and a fluffy list on my scale isn't 0 to 26.  It's more likely 10 or 12 points at worst, or maybe only a couple of "favorite opponent's army" votes difference if you were careful and used the checklist when building your army.  Even if 10pts separate the "power" list from a fluffy list, that's what, 7% of the possible max? 

Posted By IntoTheRain  on 12/30/2006 10:00 PM

Especially since you people have been saying that comp rewards better list builders this entire time..now your saying it rewards players for making weak lists..perhaps next it will reward players who dont bring a list!

Argument by reductio is weak here.  No one is going to be rewarded for not bringing a list. 

Comp rewards a player for bringing a more interesting, varied list.  Usually this will be weaker than one of the top 2 or 3 strongest list designs in the game.  You are not a better list builder if you made another copycate IW, Ulthwe, or Drop Pod army.  You are just another imitator of the dominant paradigm. 

As Olainari pointed out, if I can make a more interesting list, even if it is a bit weaker, but I can still win with it, I am probably a better player than the guy who does equally well with a list already proven to be dominant.  If I manage to make a really nasty army that isn't just an imitation of one of the established builds (one with more variety and able to pick up favorite votes from opponents), then I'm demonstrating the skill in army design you were talking about.

 

Posted By Graatz on 12/30/2006 7:03 PM

1.       I am not in favor of comp scores of any kind as I have seen situations at tournaments where a team of guys will show up and collude on their scoring so as to help their guys benefit. Think of it as "blocking for the lead back".
2. Since scoring of some kind is here to stay I offer the following solution: Award three prizes:

The fact that people cheat does not mean that the rules are bad.  It means that people aren't following them.  Some people also buy a painted army online and enter it into painting competitions.  Does this mean we should throw out painting awards?  Obviously not.  We just need to do our best to look out for this kind of cheating, and quash it where it's found.

Collusion on scoring like this is a form of cheating.  What you can do is make a system which minimizes the ability to do it (mine only allows players to vote for a favorite opponent's army, and they MUST vote for one of their opponents), and look out for odd scoring patterns.  Judges can adjust the scores if it looks like something funny's going on, and can throw players out if it's blatant.

Your suggested system of awards is also a viable one.  You should try it out.  I suspect you might see more repetitive, boring armies using it though, since it lacks comp.

Posted By beef on 12/30/2006 6:10 PM

Actually Manahinh those who think they know better than the creators host there own versions of tournies with rules that make it better for themselves.

And who amongst us has not repeatedly thought he knew better than the creators?  You certainly did when you saw what they did to Rhinos in the 4th edition rules.  Are you changing your tune now?  Have you decided that the creators are all-knowing and have created a perfect, and perfectly balanced game?

"Rules that make it better for themselves"? Is that another misguided insult?  I'm not even playing in the bloody thing, so I obviously don't stand to benefit.  My DA also use 4-6 Tac squads, so I'd have to modify my Dark Angels list if someone else ran a tourney using my rules, I got to play in it, and I wanted to max out my comp.

Posted By skyth on 12/30/2006 3:32 PM
Why take more than 3 troops choices for marines?

Because Tac squads are great, maybe?  How long have you been playing this game again?  I could swear you said in this very thread that Marines have great Troops, and that's one reason comp systems favor them.  Were you talking about Scouts, or are you contradicting yourself? 

Posted By skyth on 12/30/2006 3:32 PM

No, alot of armies have ONE choice in each category that are alot better than others.  Loyalist marines have several good in each category...So if Loyalists wanted a heavy-support heavy mech list...That's easy.  Tau want that?  They get dinged.  They only have the hammerhead, whereas Marines have two types of Preds, so can take 3...Fast attack, Alpha legion only has one type that goes with the army...Raptors, and they're overpriced. 

Reading is fundamental.  I've asked you at least three times to actually read it, or commented that you weren't reading it.   But either you're not paying attention or you're too lazy to make an honest effort .  Two Hammerheads get the same points as a Hammerhead and a Broadside.  Look at it again.

Raptors are a solid unit.  You should read Centurian99's Adepticon Batreps.  Even if Raptors weren't, are you suggesting that Alpha Legion couldn't use any handicaps?  They're a very solid list that can make some very powerful armies.  Losing out on 2pts in comp is not an unreasonable burden for them to labor under.

Posted By Mannahnin on 12/31/2006 9:19 AM

Argument by reductio is weak here.  No one is going to be rewarded for not bringing a list.

A strange game.  The only winning move is not to play.  How about a nice game of chess?

I have a solution; Give the Over All award to the guy who lost the most games. He must have brought the most fluffy list. And it fits GW's attitude toward winning.

ok Mannahnin, I agree about the rhino rush but thats gone now and people dont use it any more as its not official. Would you let me rhino rush in your tournie? if so then fine have your comp. If not why not? I am sure more people would want rhino rush then comp. and what Graatz said was totally correct have seperate awards for sep thing.