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.

What are the total points available?

At this point, I would like to make a statement, based on what I have read in this thread. Now, please note this is not necessarily my own opinion, but a sort of loose summing up which I feel is worthy of discussion. Ready peoples?

'Comp Scoring is fundamentally flawed, as it simply introduces another level of metagame to be exploited, further reducing the emphasis on how one plays in favour of what one takes'

So, comments and criticism please. And remember, this is just a statement, not strictly my own opinion, so no personal attacks.

Edited for sake of making it as dispassionate as possible!

That is my opinion.

@Killkrazy

I updated it but it's a total of 60 points out of 200 possible. So it's worth 30% (combined comp/sportsmanship) while painting is worth 20% and battle points are worth 50%.

@Mad Doc

It doesn't change the way I play. It doesn't put a huge emphasis on what you take as you'll still need to play well under whatever new system they put up. And it's possible to make it hard to keep your style in the more extreme comp systems. And i'll add that I feel it isn't a bad thing for people to want to win a tournement they pay for. Tournements are competative and people who come to win shouldn't be penalized for it. @sshats should be penalized but that's a different story all together

Well, indeed.

I mean, a Tournament is a cut above 'social' gaming in terms of levels of competitiveness amongst the participants. Ergo should one intend to win, you need to either have a very powerful list, or one so unique your opponents won't know what to do to combat it (Savage Orcs are a particularly good example, which I will come onto). But even so, you need to know *Exactly* what makes your force strong. Just taking Nidzilla will not give you a victory. It might be easier to win with it, but without any level of competence, you aren't going to stand a chance.

Now, back to my Savage Orcs. One of our local players is exceedingly good at Fantasy. And thus far, my Savage Orcs are the only army to best his Dark Elves. It's not so much that Savage Orcs are horrifically powerful, more that he approached the game with standard anti-Orc tactics. Tactics which really don't work against Savages. We don't run until we've been thrashed in combat. And pansy elves do not want to get stuck into Savage Orcs. I tend to chuck out more attacks at a higher strength than they can manage. One of my units, thanks to shooting and magic, was 7 strong when it made combat with his hitherto untouched Spearmen. I carved them up good and proper. One of Shamans lost his entire bodyguard of Boarboyz by the time his charge hit home against his massive regiment of Crossbows. And he still took out the Hag with the Banner of Nagarythe, bagging me a crapload of VPs. Of course, I lost the combat, but being mounted, I easily outran him.

So, I may not have necessarily have outplayed him. It's a very unusual army, and I will not claim the inherent benefits of running such a force as any kind of tactical genius. A definite little perk, sure. Now, in a Tournament situation, despite his very high level of play (he is a Tourny regular and knows his stuff) with my theme, I would have pretty much scuppered his chances of winning simply by using the unknown!

But most people want composition to limit the "power builds" which means that it would actually be that Dark Elf player that got scalped on comp in most situations while your list would never be seen as a "tough" list (especially in TO judge comp).

And if they introduce a checklist system your list isn't over the top so should you be hammered simply because you build a fun, solid list that you enjoy playing? Should you be taken out of the running for winning a tournement because of your list?

Just my two cents again, probably up to about a half dollar by now

Hulksmash wrote:@Killkrazy

I updated it but it's a total of 60 points out of 200 possible. So it's worth 30% (combined comp/sportsmanship) while painting is worth 20% and battle points are worth 50%.

...

I wonder how many WAAC players would be happy to forgo the maximum 10 points on comp in order to have the most powerful list available for garnering the possible 100 points in battle.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:John, are you seriously trying to argue that Theme == Comp?

Cripes, for the third(?) / fourth(?!?) time, NO.

- Comp is what you take.
- Theme is why you take it.

There is a difference.

THing is, the Dark Elf player wasn't using that beardy a list. He just knew how to get the utmost out of it.

From memory, he had 2 Bolt Throwers, One Hydra, lots of Crossbowmen, a unit of Shades (what got duffed up nice and quick) 30 Spearblock, couple of level 2 Sorceress, and the Hag with the banner. Oh, and a single Assassin that the Wyvern sat on.

Considering the Magic is a strength of the Dark Elf book, he didn't take that much really. I had 3 Shamans myself, so neither of us could really lock the other out the magic phase, and indeed, it was Gorks Warpath that saved me!

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

'Comp Scoring is fundamentally flawed, as it simply introduces another level of metagame to be exploited, further reducing the emphasis on how one plays in favour of what one takes'

Cant agree. It may be fundamentally flawed, but there is no reason to assume it further reduces the emphasis on how one plays in favor of what one takes. The playing is the same. The armies change - but the rules of the game already emphasize what one takes. Comp just changes the rules for that, it doesn't change the emphasis. Comp exists because people think there is too much emphasis on what one takes vs how one plays. It may fail to change it, but it doesn't do the opposite of what it intends.

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

I'm now waiting for you to retract the hypocrisy statement.

If you're doing that, then I strongly suggest that you hold your breath whilst doing so.

It's not like your "proof" is any better than mine.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:@Killkrazy

I updated it but it's a total of 60 points out of 200 possible. So it's worth 30% (combined comp/sportsmanship) while painting is worth 20% and battle points are worth 50%.

...

I wonder how many WAAC players would be happy to forgo the maximum 10 points on comp in order to have the most powerful list available for garnering the possible 100 points in battle.

Ahh another fun aspect of "Comp".

You know what happens when someone brings a complete WAAC army to a tournament with Comp, knows that they're getting a Zero and intend to make up the difference via Battle & Painting scores; and then actually wins the event?

What happens is that people BITCH about comp scores even more, because somehow "comp has failed" in that situation.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder how many WAAC players would be happy to forgo the maximum 10 points on comp in order to have the most powerful list available for garnering the possible 100 points in battle.

I agree. I also wonder how many WAAC players would sit and think about their 4 OTT armies that they own and figure out which list is most likely to still get those 10 comp points. Or they'll try to figure out what kind of minor tweaks they can make to keep the effectiveness but get the comp.

And then I wonder how many not OTT lists will get dinged on comp because someone feels like Unit X is just too strong period so they don't like the fact that it's in their opponents army.

That being said...I do like the SoCal Slaughters system and I'm bummed that I can't go this weekend. But unless the judges are making sure people are being truthful in their comp checking it's still room to chipmunk or just complain without justification.

I think what Lambadomy is saying relates to MDG's point earlier:

All comp does is change the system so that only "stealth cheese" gets through.

The problem is that certain lists (especially in WHFB) have such inherant advantages based on the way the army interacts with the core rules of the game (Vampires, Daemons) that they're just going to get "auto-dinged" in comp.

This leads to the problem where you can realize that "well if I'm going to get auto-dinged in comp X number of points already, I may as well just bring the hardest WAAC list I can make then, since the loss to me is negligible anyway."

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder how many WAAC players would be happy to forgo the maximum 10 points on comp in order to have the most powerful list available for garnering the possible 100 points in battle.

When I originally analyzed the early 40k GT and RTT scoring results, it was clear that winning out was worth more than trying to make things up via "soft" scores. As I was a WAAC player, I took *very* hard lists to RTTs hoping to win out with mediocre soft scores. In those days, that would have been enough for a good finish, and got me a consolation prize as "Best General".

Based on the current weighting and results, there is less emphasis on battle and more variation in soft scores but winning out will still guarantee a high finish.

I assume most WAAC players will still go for the full Battle points, as there's no significant penalty for doing so.
____

See? I'm OK to admit that I was a WAAC player and brought hard lists. It's not a sin. The only sin is fooling yourself and thinking that you're fooling others...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

I'm now waiting for you to retract the hypocrisy statement.

If you're doing that, then I strongly suggest that you hold your breath whilst doing so.

It's not like your "proof" is any better than mine.

The "proof" is what GW puts in it's codicies. If it's in the book, that's what they wanted.

@Lab

But at least they can only chipmunk a total of 9 points a game instead of around 14 . And if your chipmunking on most of them it's going to be pretty obvious.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

I'm now waiting for you to retract the hypocrisy statement.

If you're doing that, then I strongly suggest that you hold your breath whilst doing so.

It's not like your "proof" is any better than mine.

Wow...totally edit out my response so that yours looks justified, then claim that a reference to GW's printed materials isn't as valid (or has equal validity to your own unsupported opinions.

As I wrote:

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

Yeah, like I said, it's all opinion.

Well, you could look through WD Batreps, and the writeups - specifically the part where the featured players explain why they took why they took. Count the number of "Happened to have this painted up" or "wanted to show off this new unit" rationales comes up more often than some variant of "an army from this codex should have this unit". In fact, the only time I can recall ever seen the second involves troop units, which I think we can safely discount now.

I'm now waiting for you to retract the hypocrisy statement.

Your arguments remind me a lot of Stelek's style.

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder how many WAAC players would be happy to forgo the maximum 10 points on comp in order to have the most powerful list available for garnering the possible 100 points in battle.

All of them.

I have overheard or been told this directly in more conversations than I can count: "I knew my army was going to get dinged for comp so I cheesed it up to make sure I made up for it in battle points".

So what is Comp scoring for?

whitedragon wrote:The "proof" is what GW puts in it's codicies. If it's in the book, that's what they wanted.

It's what they *allow*, not what they *encourage*. There's a difference.

If it's what they encourage, why aren't GW batreps and features filled with hard-as-nails armies?

Kilkrazy wrote:So what is Comp scoring for?

To try and discourage power builds.

Which leads to the reasons why its an Epic Failure:
#1) Any objective universal comp list can be abused.
#2) Any subjective comp scoring is fundamentally unfair.

As I said in the other thread, the best way to discourage so-called power builds (that still, BTW, fail in the hands of a weaker player) is through better missions.

Why were Guard considered a contender in this year's 'Ard Boyz?

Centurian99 wrote:As I said in the other thread, the best way to discourage so-called power builds (that still, BTW, fail in the hands of a weaker player) is through better missions.

QFT. How many times are we going to play table quarters OVER and OVER and OVER...???

The Green Git wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:As I said in the other thread, the best way to discourage so-called power builds (that still, BTW, fail in the hands of a weaker player) is through better missions.

QFT. How many times are we going to play table quarters OVER and OVER and OVER...???

I'm guessing it'll be the same number of times we played Cleanse...

As many times as this thread can re-hash the same arguments OVER and OVER and OVER

Phazael wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:I have never chipmunked anyone in my life.

The rest of your reply is mostly your opinion versus mine, but we both know that particular statement to be untrue. I can recall with great clarity at one tournament I ran, which had ten point scales for both sportsmanship and composition, where your opponents recieved a combined total of about 9 points (out of a possible 60) and because of that particular incident Kyle Kinghorn started posting soft scores out in the open for a while (because this was not a unique occurance). If you feel the reindeer games and score trading that happened around there merrited it, then so be it.

I do not know of the exact tournament you are speaking of, but if I scored someone low, they should have deserved it. If given a 1-10 scale I do tend to grade on the lower side, but I try to be consistent. Everyone marks 10s all of the time when it states that it was “Your best game ever!”. I tend to mark a lot in the 5-6 range because it states that is was “average game of 40k”.

There was only one time where I regretted giving someone a bad score and that was against Todd E. (Cypher on this board). We had never met before and we were playing at a tournament at the Bunker and we had a big rules argument. We ended up with no resolution after quickly scanning the rulebook, so I conceded the point, and we went with his ruling. Well, that ended up costing me the game, and afterwards I found the rule and I was right. So I ended giving him a very bad sports score for rules arguing/disagreeing because we went with his wrong interpretation of the rules. If he was right, I would have given him full points. In hindsight I might not have handled that as well as I could have, and I do make mistakes. The funny thing is that Todd and I became friends years later.

The other problem at the Bunker (all my problems happen there) I was playing against Adam G. (Mortetvie here) and he kicked my butt in a game. It was one of my worse losses ever. I was not angry at him, but more amazed. Well, at the end of the game we had paint judging and it was on a 1-10 scale and I gave him either a 2 of a 3. Half of his army was well painted, 25% was partially painted, and 25% was unpainted. His friends jumped all over me on a thread in Warseer (I can get the link if anyone wants to see it) because I chipmunked him because I was beat, and that I cost him the tournament. Well, I gave him the score I thought he deserved, and I thought I was being generous at the time.

In hindsight I think that might be where my reputation for chipmunking came from. I rarely come down to the Bunker, and that was only for RTTs, so I can see how all of the regulars there get a good laugh over how I tank someones scores. I do not care. As you can see by my avatar I wear it with pride because I know that I don’t chipmunk.

Blackmoor wrote:[If given a 1-10 scale I do tend to grade on the lower side, but I try to be consistent. Everyone marks 10s all of the time when it states that it was “Your best game ever!”. I tend to mark a lot in the 5-6 range because it states that is was “average game of 40k”.

This is my least favorite thing about soft scores of any kind. People decide to use a different convention than what is written on the pages. You're doing it right as written, but no one else was doing it that way (they're reading it as 'give them a 10 unless something went wrong'.) I had an opponent I actually would never want to play again in my third game at a gamesday tournament, but I still gave them a 10 because they weren't actually offensive (not saying this is right, just using an example) The fact that people are personally interpreting soft score rules causes all sorts of problems, and is really difficult to fix. Following the rules as written will often be considered chipmunking if everyone else has just decided to give 10s to anyone but TFG. Personally I think the idea of just giving 10s unless there was a problem came from the fact that otherwise chipmunking was harder to detect. But if that is the case well, it'd be nice if the sports rules got rewritten to reflect that

The Green Git wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder how many WAAC players would be happy to forgo the maximum 10 points on comp in order to have the most powerful list available for garnering the possible 100 points in battle.

All of them.

I have overheard or been told this directly in more conversations than I can count: "I knew my army was going to get dinged for comp so I cheesed it up to make sure I made up for it in battle points".

And I wonder how many of those same folks planned on taking a power-list anyway, but then use the "I knew I'd get dinged on comp so I took a cheesier list" excuse?

We'll probably never really know.

I once got called cheesy for playing my Ravenwing...

That kinda killed comp for me.

Ozymandias wrote:I once got called cheesy for playing my Ravenwing...

That kinda killed comp for me.

Yep. I've gotten called cheesy for taking maxed FA choices (with Night Lords), Ravenwing, Deathwing, and even Guard.