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.

Grot 6:

There is a contingent on Dakka that believes that if it's a legal army by a codex, it's by definition a-ok. The end. there are no loopholes, there is no cheese, there is just hard lists. You're not going to convince them otherwise.

This argument, then, comes up every once in a while here - when someone defines army list X as cheesy, then people ask about other lists, or jump in and say nothing is cheesy, etc.

Then you'll have people change gears - instead of saying an army is inherently cheesy, they'll go with comp arguments - it's not fluffy! it makes no sense! We're there now. Soft scores in general just lead to abuse. I can make up good fluff for pretty much any army, it's all personal preference. Just because you don't like my fluff for my also super-strong army doesn't make it bad fluff...

Personally, I think it's a losing argument for the "It's cheesy, it shouldn't be allowed! crowd". If you don't like the lists, don't play in the tournament, or organize your own tourney with your own (hopefully well-publicized ahead of time) rules.

I will admit that I don't like how condescending the "play better" crowd can be. It'd be great if the codexes and armies were even vaguely balanced, but oh well, they're not. I don't know what GW does to make these things but I've always suspected that it was The writer of the codex playing games with Jervis's son using studio armies to determine if something was overpowered, and then, well it worked fine for them, publish! They don't make this game for tournaments. it's not designed to be fair. Some people don't like that, but well it's true, they do the best they can with their methods and time and level of interest in anything other than selling models. In the end...just play what you own/have modeled, or go buy a hard army and try to win. Sometimes that overlaps, other times you go to the store and take a picture of yourself with your 12 new Bloodcrushers. Both methods are fine, but this game is not fair, so don't try to pretend it is or that some armies are especially unfair or abusive. I hate some of those armies, and I can choose not to play against them outside of tournaments...but why in the world would someone NOT try to maximize their chances of winning/winning prizes if they could? I don't get it.

If you are really into fluffy(fun) games you shouldn't go to tournaments. They are a place for people who like to compete. If you want to compete about your fluff... well I think they have short story contests somewhere for that sort of thing. I hope if you win you can feel good enough about yourself that you won't project your values onto others any longer.

People who like fluff should read the BL novels more... they typically feature some beardy armies.

G

I remember the old days when mauleed had many similar comments, both from him and directed at him. This arguement will never end.

The only requirement needs to be 'bring a legal army list'. Theme and comp and fluff is too much in the eye of the beholder and is also too subject to change.

However, if you know that you're going to a tourney with a lot of points in sportsmanship, comp, and/or theme, you have no ability to complain after the fact that your 'power build' won a lot of games but you didn't win overall because you received low marks on the soft scores. (Note, I'm not saying if this is fair or not, just what is likely to happen).

That's the key, to me. Knowing the tourney scenarios and scoring beforehand. And personally, I think it's best to stay away from the 'grading' soft scores (the 1-10 variety), because some people will give a '10' as the default and some will give a '5'.

Docking a guy's soft scores at the tourney, to me, is very poor form by the TO.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Now we are at fault for not shutting down this other discussion?

To a degree, when the WC backup train comes roaring into the station (right on time, just like in the 'Ard Boyz thread) and the GBF/Brian gloat/excuse fest starts, yes, you are.

...to a degree.


Edit: It is, however, a double edged sword for the mods. Either they lock all the threads and make Dakka look like some sort of police state, or they leave them open and have to deal with butthurt users who don't like what is being said.

Bunker wrote:To a degree, when the WC backup train comes roaring into the station (right on time, just like in the 'Ard Boyz thread) and the GBF/Brian gloat/excuse fest starts, yes, you are.
...to a degree.

Don't forget the 'condescending comment' fest that accompanies it. And the 'then don't play in any tournies if you don't like it' attitude.

I wonder if someday, only the WC will be left to play in touries. What will they do then? Start kicking people out, since, as I understand it, you need to be a tourney winnah to be in the Club anyway.

Does the WC hold it's own tourney to see who is the "The best of the best of the best. Sir. With honors." ?

lambadomy wrote:Grot 6:

There is a contingent on Dakka that believes that if it's a legal army by a codex, it's by definition a-ok. The end. there are no loopholes, there is no cheese, there is just hard lists. You're not going to convince them otherwise.

This argument, then, comes up every once in a while here - when someone defines army list X as cheesy, then people ask about other lists, or jump in and say nothing is cheesy, etc.

Then you'll have people change gears - instead of saying an army is inherently cheesy, they'll go with comp arguments - it's not fluffy! it makes no sense! We're there now. Soft scores in general just lead to abuse. I can make up good fluff for pretty much any army, it's all personal preference. Just because you don't like my fluff for my also super-strong army doesn't make it bad fluff...

Personally, I think it's a losing argument for the "It's cheesy, it shouldn't be allowed! crowd". If you don't like the lists, don't play in the tournament, or organize your own tourney with your own (hopefully well-publicized ahead of time) rules.

I will admit that I don't like how condescending the "play better" crowd can be. It'd be great if the codexes and armies were even vaguely balanced, but oh well, they're not. I don't know what GW does to make these things but I've always suspected that it was The writer of the codex playing games with Jervis's son using studio armies to determine if something was overpowered, and then, well it worked fine for them, publish! They don't make this game for tournaments. it's not designed to be fair. Some people don't like that, but well it's true, they do the best they can with their methods and time and level of interest in anything other than selling models. In the end...just play what you own/have modeled, or go buy a hard army and try to win. Sometimes that overlaps, other times you go to the store and take a picture of yourself with your 12 new Bloodcrushers. Both methods are fine, but this game is not fair, so don't try to pretend it is or that some armies are especially unfair or abusive. I hate some of those armies, and I can choose not to play against them outside of tournaments...but why in the world would someone NOT try to maximize their chances of winning/winning prizes if they could? I don't get it.

It's not even a point on making a list to win with. It's making a list that’s so obviously over the top.

Then to plead ignorance after getting called on it, and then acting like your feelings are hurt. It isn't then on the merit of "Playing better" when you come with an obvious solidly overachieving list.

MOST tourneys even, heaven forbid, give you guidelines on what they will allow. The idea is about the competition, not on how many Fire Prisms I can get away with this week, or how many NOBS I can pull out and add within the confines of the tourney.

As for going to said tourneys,
Competition is one thing, being blatantly CHAV about it is quite a different. You know well and well that you make an army list for the win. BUT, and the emphasis on BUT, You know well and good that people are going to give you gak about it and you know that you are going to be taken to task if it is obvious.
It’s a competition, expect it.

If you were told before hand, and you do it anyway? Such as what seems in this case, then you get what you get. It isn’t about how good you are, or how solid your list is, or who you hang out with.

Then on top of that, to come and blow your horn that you were dealt with wrongly? No. You got what was expected.

WC_Brian wrote: If you are really into fluffy(fun) games you shouldn't go to tournaments. They are a place for people who like to compete. If you want to compete about your fluff... well I think they have short story contests somewhere for that sort of thing. I hope if you win you can feel good enough about yourself that you won't project your values onto others any longer.

Then I think the reverse needs to be said. If you are going to something billed as a comp friendly tournament and you are a WAAC, then don't show up. Don't project your values onto others (note I am not referring to anyone that went to Genghis as a WAAC, this is for general discussion only).

Kilkrazy wrote:Isn't the behaviour of people at tournaments the business of the wargame community generally? It was when the complaints were against WC members because of Ard Boyz.

Us mods have been accused of bias for shutting down that discussion despite the fact that pages and pages of stuff was written. Now we are at fault for not shutting down this other discussion?

You have missed the point that I warned people about running a witch-hunt against the TO, and shut down the thread because it continued.

The topic was re-opened in a much more civilised way and more facts emerged which cast a completely different light on the matter, as a result of which the persecution of the TO ceased.

@KK: I completely sympathize that being a good mod is a difficult job, and that you're often caught in the middle without good options. That said:

Behavior in general? Sure. Behavior specifically? Not particularly. Remember that tournament play, while more prevalent than normal on Dakka, is still a minority of play overall. As a casual / ex-tournament ("retired" gamer I don't see tournament-related drama as beneficial to Dakka.

In the case of Ard Boyz, this was a high-profile national GW tournament, *and* the WC player admitted to cheating his opponent (i.e. not playing by the rules as written or intended).

Very different from some small local tournament, where the TO admitted to making an error and trying to make things right, but then getting vilified by the WC.

Again, I fail to see why a large, visible site like Dakka should be allowed to be used as a forum to air grudges by a small group comprising <1%.

What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

Grot 6:

Yes, I understand and agree with you. In the situation presented, without the TOs side, the only thing I can say is the TO should have made the rules ahead of time. If you're running a tournament, you should know what armies you consider over the top beforehand, and you should explicitly ban them. Or you should just live with them being in your tournament. As far as I know we have no evidence that the player was told before driving to the tournament that his army list was not ok. Obviously if the rules said "hey no Nob Bikers" and you bring it...well it's not the TOs fault. But if he doesn't say anything until (as reported) the middle of game one, after taking the players money and letting him drive 3 hours thinking his army was fine...that is bad.

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

I freely admit my bias and hate all you wussy tournament winners...real men lose gloriously to small children and legally blind opponents...

dietrich wrote:The only requirement needs to be 'bring a legal army list'.

However, if you know that you're going to a tourney with a lot of points in sportsmanship, comp, and/or theme, you have no ability to complain after the fact

Docking a guy's soft scores at the tourney, to me, is very poor form by the TO.

Actually, it *is* the TO's perogative, because not all comp systems are complete. If you have an army that is so egregiously badly-designed, it is prefectly reasonable for the TO to exercise his discretion and judgement and make corrections.

Remember, GW doesn't design their armies for Tournaments, so of course they won't automatically score properly in a tournament system.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

Thank christ I play Necrons then.

Everyone enjoys playing them, because generally everyone beats them.

Great comp scores, here I come!!

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

Tie a bullseye to the back of a dog. Let it go. What do you have? A moving target, same as good comp.

Personally, for me, it comes down to whether or not I think a player took an army list just because it's the current power build. For example, it's apparent that someone is trying to 'game' the rules by taking Nob w/ Powerklaw, Nob w/ Powerklaw and Ammo Runt, etc. just to make them all unique. It's legal. But I wouldn't think twice about giving it low marks on comp or theme.

Grot 6 wrote:
It's not even a point on making a list to win with. It's making a list that’s so obviously over the top.

Then to plead ignorance after getting called on it, and then acting like your feelings are hurt. It isn't then on the merit of "Playing better" when you come with an obvious solidly overachieving list.

MOST tourneys even, heaven forbid, give you guidelines on what they will allow. The idea is about the competition, not on how many Fire Prisms I can get away with this week, or how many NOBS I can pull out and add within the confines of the tourney.

As for going to said tourneys,
Competition is one thing, being blatantly CHAV about it is quite a different. You know well and well that you make an army list for the win. BUT, and the emphasis on BUT, You know well and good that people are going to give you gak about it and you know that you are going to be taken to task if it is obvious.
It’s a competition, expect it.

If you were told before hand, and you do it anyway? Such as what seems in this case, then you get what you get. It isn’t about how good you are, or how solid your list is, or who you hang out with.

Then on top of that, to come and blow your horn that you were dealt with wrongly? No. You got what was expected.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I love you, have my children.

Warmaster wrote:

WC_Brian wrote: If you are really into fluffy(fun) games you shouldn't go to tournaments. They are a place for people who like to compete. If you want to compete about your fluff... well I think they have short story contests somewhere for that sort of thing. I hope if you win you can feel good enough about yourself that you won't project your values onto others any longer.

Then I think the reverse needs to be said. If you are going to something billed as a comp friendly tournament and you are a WAAC, then don't show up. Don't project your values onto others (note I am not referring to anyone that went to Genghis as a WAAC, this is for general discussion only).

Good point for both sides of the argument there Warmaster.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

Somehow, I think you and I would have very different ideas about what army would be fun to play against.

dietrich wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

Tie a bullseye to the back of a dog. Let it go. What do you have? A moving target, same as good comp.

Personally, for me, it comes down to whether or not I think a player took an army list just because it's the current power build. For example, it's apparent that someone is trying to 'game' the rules by taking Nob w/ Powerklaw, Nob w/ Powerklaw and Ammo Runt, etc. just to make them all unique. It's legal. But I wouldn't think twice about giving it low marks on comp or theme.

Bingo. And the current, so called rational of the WC begs the question that they knew it was, and did it anyway.

Being as self proclamed Torney champs as these doesn't give the" Babe in the Woods" argument much room.

THEN they come over here to basicly villify the TO in question, that was already stated to have been the guy behind BOTH of Colorado's Tourney scene.

Inquiring minds want to know...

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, it *is* the TO's perogative, because not all comp systems are complete. If you have an army that is so egregiously badly-designed, it is prefectly reasonable for the TO to exercise his discretion and judgement and make corrections.

It's not fair to players to change scoring systems mid-tourney. If the TO made it clear that certain lists/builds would get an auto zero on comp, or not even be legal, that is a different matter. I haven't read the tourney pack. But, it's clearly not fair to change a scoring system in the middle of a tourney. The scoring system should be posted well in advance, along with the scenarios (or something close to the final scenarios).

If the TO wants to just 'disbar' certain lists because he thinks they're too powerful, he might as well just randomly give out the award. And start rewriting the 40k rules, which as we've seen with the INIT FAQ, sets you for even more scorn (which isn't even a rewrite).

To JohnHwangDD:

The tournament scene is a very small percentage of players. It is a larger percentage of Dakka posters, at least the vocal ones, and it is news interesting to us (heh, I say "us", but haven't ever played in a large tournament). Much of it has to do with the nature of the posts discussing a topic. Here on Dakka people tend to brandish the torches and wierd square rake-things from old Frankenstein movies, which gets threads locked (and gets us mods yelled at). A calm, rational discussion will keep a topic open, even if you're accusing someone of wrongdoing (there are some older threads from a year or three back that were left open even though they mentioned specific incidents of cheating).

To everyone:
I guess it all boils down to the fact that people keep breaking Rule #1. There's been a lot more of that going on lately, and I usually only get an hour, maybe two, per day to visit Dakka, and most of that time involves "Being a Mod", which is much less fun than being a poster. This means that when I run across a nasty thread, I don't have many options other than a general warning of "keep it polite and respectful" (which, to steal a phrase, has all the impact of a kitten parachuting into a bowl of flowers) or just locking the thread. I try to deal with posters individually when I can, but untangling the mess of who provoked who and people feeling unfairly targeted is time consuming and a broad-spectrum approach is usually more practical.

So I'm saying this to both sides of each argument (and not just this thread): Keep it polite and respectful. Even if the other side mouths off, or says something you hate hate hate, don't fire back. I know that there are quite a few of you who are good at skirting the line of being polite while still throwing needling remarks (I've done it myself), so double-check what you write. Yakface is one of the nicest, most tolerant people I've met on the internet, and this is his forum. Don't abuse his hospitality and hard work.

-=Edit=- Damn! Eleven new posts since I started writing this.

This tournament shows the whole problem with comp. This dude's OPPPONENTS for whatever reason seemed to score his army fine for comp. Maybe they're lazy, maybe they don't understand the intricacies of comp the way that JohnHwangDD does, maybe they actually didn't mind the army. I have no idea. But as the story is told, they were giving full comp scores, and the TO wanted to take them away.

Why in the world is it ok to make a comp system in which the players rate each other, and then get mad and change the scores the players give? I don't get it. Assuming it happened that way of course. At this point the thread is really not about the original player/TO and more hypothetical.

Two aspects to that.

1. The judge's decision is final.
2. People in positions of power should not abuse their position.

Still, the point of a game is that the players agree in advance to play by the rules. It seems useless to change the rules during the game.

Purely hypothetically speaking.

Some people might think the funniest army to play against is the hardest to beat.

Some might think it is one that seems to really match the fluff of the army as written in novels or codexes.

Others might think it's the ones that they can beat.

I like both of the top 2 and think the third is for wimps.

The key is for the tournament to clearly spell it out ahead of time for people. If a Nobz biker list is "illegal" for a tournament - let people know that before they bring it. That is only common courtesy.

Everything I know and have had interaction with in regards to Kenny is that he's a stand up guy. I say that despite the fact that he beat me out for best sportsmanship in the Atlanta GT a few years back making me settle for second best sportsman. If there was more to it - then the TO should let his thoughts be known here. Or if he made a mistake (due to personal prejudice or whatever) and manned up about it - then it should be put to bed.

I would encourage posters to put themselves in the shoes of having something like this happen to them and see how they would react. Or how they would have responded if it wasn't a member of the WC who was impacted.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah! Get me a passy! SHEESH! If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table - and don't hide behind some lame excuse about how they are all cheaters! That sorry tailed excuse has gotten as much mileage out of it as it can get. Lame excuse, used by lame players, who's ego can't handle getting beaten.....

my two cents....

JD do you know Kenny? If you have anything factual to add great, but please do all of us a favor and zip your lip if you have nothing to add but innuendo and speculation.

as i remember GBF, this was simply a discussion.
look back at what you have said now, and please point out the facts in all of your posts.
pot calling the kettle black?
also, just need to add this, check back on most of your posts on all threads, about 1/4 of them help, 1/4 make no sense atall, and 1/2 is just annoying banter.

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

One would take this to mean that you bring something that your opponent would enjoy playing against.

Not necessarily winning or losing against, but *playing* against.

Somehow, I think you and I would have very different ideas about what army would be fun to play against.

That's entirely possible, especially as it seems you're tournament-focused while I'm Apoc-focused.

Aldonis wrote:I would encourage posters to put themselves in the shoes of having something like this happen to them and see how they would react. Or how they would have responded if it wasn't a member of the WC who was impacted.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah!

If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table -

First off, you presume that the other posters lives revolve around winning tournaments, when many of us prefer casual play. If you're playing for the experience, rather than the win and the prize, then you probably could care less if you didn't win a prize.

If it was a WC guy screwing a non-WC guy out of a prize that he actually earned, then yeah, I suppose there might be more outrage. Kind of like 'Ard Boyz? Yeah, like that. The difference is that the TO was able to publicly man up and take actual steps make things right. The WC has never shown the cojones to do that kind of thing.

Most importantly, I don't have the time for tournament prep and play anymore. But from when I *did* have this kind of time, I was good enough to win my fair share of things. The "Best General" award gathering dust somewhere in my gaming pile says that I shouldn't have any problem beating any of you on the tabletop if I set my mind to it. Of course, if we're ever did play, I'm going to demand that we both use a common set of ruler and dice (and dice tower), along with mutual agreement on results before anything is touched...

But really, the thing starts to become a question of whether Generalship or Army List selection is more important. If we did this, to make it interesting, I think we'd have Dakka create two "balanced" army lists, and then flip a coin to see who played what. After all, if you bring a WAAC list against balanced lists, and win, where's the Generalship in that?

Centurian99 wrote:What exactly does it mean to have good Comp?

If I can beat you then you have good comp.

In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah!

If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table -

now, this may by why you get all the hate comments, fair enough, a member got caught cheating, doesent make the whole WC a bunch of cheaters, just that 1 person.

but, when you try to hype your self up and "look down your nose at people" then yes, people will have a problem with that.

im sure there are alot of better players out there, just because someone wont enter or cant enter a tournament does not mean they are not good.

so, its pretty simple, if you were to ease up on that ego people would be fine, its nice to have tourney winners about on dakka for advice, but its nowhere near nice when such people use dakka as a way to stroke thier ever growing ego.