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.

Reecius wrote:

minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird

And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.

What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.

I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).

So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.

Corum wrote:

Reecius wrote:

minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird

And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.

What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.

I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).

So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.

Seriously... it's not a loophole at all. Razobacks and Combat Squads go hand-in-hand. You made a bad ruling.

I don't get the point of comp at all.
If the point is to create uniformly balanced lists then it's stupid. Why would you ever limit players that much? You're just handicapping creative list builders. Enforcing certain balances between elites, troops, fast attack and heavy support is incredibly stupid. Some players want to build an army around a theme that doesn't use up every section of the FOC. If I want to play fluffy Night Lords, why should I be penalized for taking tons of Fast Attack and little Heavy Support. Every system that has been proposed is exceptionally lame. All they do is limit choices and try to homogenize armies.
Sure, a battle between two identical armies would be a great test of gameplaying ability, but that completely eliminates the aspect of army list building, which is essential to the hobby.

willydstyle wrote:

Corum wrote:

Reecius wrote:

minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird

And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.

What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.

I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).

So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.

Seriously... it's not a loophole at all. Razobacks and Combat Squads go hand-in-hand. You made a bad ruling.

The ability to take over-sized squads, 1) makes no sense (what does the other half of the squad do for battlefield mobility? Run along side?); 2) was shoehorned into the game in the Dark Angels FAQ - so it WAS an oversight. When the SM codex came out, they had apparently abandoned all pretense at making a coherent doctrine out of mechanized infantry and let folks buy dedicated transports for whatever reason they wanted.

The ability to even purchase the Razorback in that squad is never mentioned in the Combat Squads rule, nor is it actually mentioned affirmatively in the codex. By lack of negation (It doesn't say a 10 man squad can't buy a Razorback - so you can), the purchase is legal. It just makes no sense, except from a points/firepower standpoint.

And yes, Reecius, if the 5% point difference from the perfect score I could have given this army, and the 95/100 (or whatever the scoring system is) I actually gave it keeps someone out of the finals, I would still sleep soundly at night - even if the 4 other judges I mentioned agreed with me - which they might not. When comp systems were used, they were used as tiebreakers. People lose tourneys just as much on sportsmanship score (because they wore the wrong cologne, like to say 'dude' too much, or voted for Bush...) as they used to on comp scores. I, for one, feel much more comfortable being arbitrarily scored by a 3rd party than the guy whom I just pummeled on Battle Points.

The DA FAQ did not "shoe-horn" the rule into the game, it simply answered a question that a lot of players had, because they were used to seeing that limitation. The Chaos Codex doesn't have the limitation either: you can buy a squad of 20 CSMs a rhino, and they don't even have the option to combat-squad to fit inside of it.

Where you see a loop-hole, I see a paradigm shift.

And this is one of the biggest problems with comp systems with any amount of subjective comp scoring: judges are people too, and may make unfair rulings based on their own prejudices.

Just think of it as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that is attached for mobile fire support rather than
as a transport assault option.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, Comp is most like the synsuits / bicycle disc brakes / full-carbon bikes, because not every competitor has access to them...

Questionable anology at best, since given what they're taking, the folks who get bad comp scores -have access- to the same stuff as the folks who get good ones, they're just -choosing- not to take em. mind you they might be choosing them because they don't want to take the time to paint up 60+ infantry models, but it's still a matter of choice.

But again, that kind of handicapping is hypothetically -taken care off with points/FOC/Missions -allready- and if that's broken, comp seems to be making it -worse- on ocassion..

Green Blow Fly wrote:Well after reading through this entire thread I have come to the conclusion that comp does indeed suck hard. It's fairly obvious that those who advocate comp want to use it to force other players to build lists that fit into their view of how an army should be played. That is just wrong.

What really irks me is people who hate special characters. GW has dropped the restriction so you no longer need permission to field them. They are a big part of the game now and to me are intended as such. SM special characters are there to build armies to represent a specific chapter such as Imperial Fists or Crimson Fists.

G

I detest comp. I cant stand being subjected to someone elses evaluation of my play and my list when there is no telling before hand WHAT requirements I might be subjected to, since it is sompletely up to the opponents opinion/judgement and there is no ETLLING what direction that can come from. It's not like there is some guideline that is universally followed or adhered to that you could use to guide your builds if you so desired. Guidelines may be there in a general or individual tourney sense, to be sure; however if you think that all opponents are applying the required guidelines evenly and impartially (effectively attempting to make every player a judge in the impartial sense) then you are living on laughing gas. Oh, GBF; the above really just used your quote as a springboard; I read it and it struck a chord I decided to add my voice to. Not trying to poke holes in your verbage or nothin.

As far as spechars, I detest them as well. I use them, simply because GW has driven their rules down the direction GBF describes above. Me? I see it as limiting. If you want to play a certain TYPE of build, you have to take that character. Y'know, I used ot be able to run that build WITHOUT spechars at all; now I have to take Special Captain Humptysquat with his Neato Phoar rule to be able to do it? Yeah, additional restrictions in a game are ALWAYS fun.
I use them, and I use them a lot in certain armies. But I think it would be more fun if I could make that build without having to dump so many points into one model.

$0.02


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:I don't get the point of comp at all.

The point of comp is to attempt to make a competitive framework for the game that does not exist in the game itself. 40k was originally designed to give a gaming framework to boost model sales for a line of models that already existed. The rules of 40k are merely an add-on to the model line designed to get people to buy more models. Rick Priestley wrote out the rules at the behest of his boss strictly to that end. To boost model sales. This boosting of model sales is a far cry from creating a fair and balanced ruleset that a group of people can all use without questions or need of interpretations to play competitively; it's much more along the lines of a cocktail napkin sketch than the AutoCAD drawing we as players would like to see. Now, on the one hand, I think that 40k rules have come far since that time. Indeed, I htink we have never seen a tightening up of the language and closing of the loopholes as we have between 4th and 5th (when Alessio the Power Gamer took the reigns, and I do not say that insultingly). Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it tighter? Hell yeah. Could I do a better job? No because I would be judged by such a widespread and disparate group of people. Aint no WAY you gonna please them all.

This game is still looked upon by the designers as a beer and pretzels game to be played amongst a bunch of folks where everyone is friends and we all sing kum-by-yah m'lord around the campfire. Which is fine, but it is not where some of the fans (ie: us) have taken the game in our own desires and minds. We want a competitive version. A game where you can honestly conquer and play to the edge of your wit, not to the standards of someone elses pacific mindset. Most of all we want a game system whos clarity priduces the portability that enables a true comp-less tourney system of epic scale because epic scale ALWAYS attract people like us like blood in the water to sharks. Really, I think that, with the advent of players in the design studio such as Alessio Cavatore, the gamers are getting more of a voice in things than before. Alessio is widely regarded as a power gamer and overly competitive. Maybe the gamers are narrowing hte gap in models sales comepared to the modelers that GW constantly claims are the true staple; their bread and butter. Maybe we are getting a second generational voice in the rules of the game. Maybe Jervis, with his first gen design concepts that marry up right along with Rick Priestly's origianl design purpose, is really the last gasp of the non-competitive crowd in the design studio.

Maybe when the pendulum swings the full other way, we still will not have what we want. But MAYBE we will be a little cliser to it.

And in case you haven't noticed by now, I'm drunk as a fething monkey. As a shameless plug, I encourage all of you of legal age to go buy Peg Leg Imperial Stout by Heavy Seas Brewery, because real good beer blocks sunlight completely.

Is there a rule on Dakka that once you realize you are poasting and toasting at the same time (ref: earlier monkey comment), you have to stop?

malfred wrote:Just think of it as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that is attached for mobile fire support rather than
as a transport assault option.

The simplest explaination I have ever heard for this. Is it just me, Malf, or are you posting a lot more lately. I am profoundly impressed. Must be the fault of summertime.

Lanceradvanced wrote:
But again, that kind of handicapping is hypothetically -taken care off with points/FOC/Missions -allready- and if that's broken, comp seems to be making it -worse- on ocassion..

I have yet to see comp make anything better. At its best, it's 'My Fun is Funner than Your Fun'. This is when the requirements are known beforehand, and players can tailor to the event (although less gamey gamers, and gamers with a smaller budget or model pool who can't take a unit of chaos raptors just to satisfy weird categorical requirements, are often penalized). At its worse, it's just whether or not the judge likes your army, you as a person, or some combination of the two.

I see John is back on his moral high horse here, trying to spread the word of the glories of comp.

And once again, its epic failure. Any comp system that's objective epic fails, because any system can be gamed. Any comp system that's subjective is intrinsically unfair, and has no place in a competitive environment.

Perhaps you should learn to read a bit more carefully.

I'm not saying Comp is better or moral or glorious.

I'm saying that Comp is different, and not a problem.

Or at least no worse than non-Comp.

So please stop making stuff up.

I think a lot of posters have done a pretty good job of showing why they think that comp is worse than no-comp. If you don't honestly think that comp is better, why do you continue to advocate for it?

Centurian99 wrote:I see John is back on his moral high horse here, trying to spread the word of the glories of comp.

And once again, its epic failure. Any comp system that's objective epic fails, because any system can be gamed. Any comp system that's subjective is intrinsically unfair, and has no place in a competitive environment.

You know, I think you just pointed out my biggest bitch with comp. It isn't a system, not in it's design and not in it's application. Not when you look at it from the perspective of tourney's in general. Different tourneys can (and do) handle comp differently, and so do different people within a tourney. Some people try very hard to stick to the given criterea, and others just blast out any crap they feel like regardless of comp design for that specific event. If comp systems were a uniform design across tourneys, and were uniformly applied in a consistant manner, then I would have no real complaints with it. It's when every sore loser or otherwise pouting Nancy-boy decides to MIS-apply comp that the system breaks down (yes, yes folks Captain Obvious returns). That's when it becomes a steaming pile of crap. If it were a system that was actually systemic; I would approve.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Perhaps you should learn to read a bit more carefully.

I read fine, I just think that your anologies, don't work very well, because they're closer to something that's in the system -before- comp..

willydstyle wrote:I think a lot of posters have done a pretty good job of showing why they think that comp is worse than no-comp.

If you don't honestly think that comp is better, why do you continue to advocate for it?

A bunch of of no-comp tournament-centric players have done a stifling job of stating that they don't care for it, but that's purely their opinion.

I advocate for diversity and variety in gaming. Why should every game be a no-comp tournament game when it doesn't have to be?

I happen to believe that variety in gaming is good, and that it's nice to mix things up so that it's not always the same thing every time one plays. Comp helps do that to some extent. So I think it's good to have Comp from time to time simply for variety's sake.

Changing the format entirely to things like "No MEQs" or a different FOC is even better, but limiting to those who don't have the models for the alternate format.

But god forbid that we change the rules once in a while...

Changing the rules is good, and I agree about shaking things up a bit. However, since comp is the norm, how does it's presence "shake things up"? Or are there other GW tourneys besides Ardboyszsz hat remove comp?

Yes, presence of comp in my local tourneys is not representative of tourneys in every local, but I think that the majority of tourneys arounf use comp. You are welcome to disagree as I am pretty sure you will (well, you kinda have to given your assertion of shaking things up and changing the rules everyonce and a while), however unless someone digs up stats of tourneys with vs. without then it's just opinion on opinion which is fairly meaningless in any kind of debate. Sigh. That was fun.

JohnHwangDD wrote:So please stop making stuff up.

GAH! My Irony-Detector just exploded! Damnit DD - now I have to get a new one!

Corum wrote:

Reecius wrote:

minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird

And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.

What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.

I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).

So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.

And this is exactly the problem - you don't like 10man squads with Razorbacks so he got marked down for doing something perfectly legal.

In my chapter (which has a reasonably well developed background) all tac squads use razorbacks. Two ten man squads deploy from a T-hawk transporter - two combat squads on foot with heavy weapons, two combat squads in razorbacks.

This isn't an "exploit", it's a perfectly valid option. But he loses points because you don't like it. Were there any guidelines regarding this issue available before the tournament? Or did he get penalised on the day for doing something he thought was fine?

Wow just wow! This is simply amazing! If you field up to six tactical Marines you cannot take a heavy weapon or special weapon. To me it's obvious that the razorback is intended for full squads that split into combat squads. This just shows how subjective is comp and why it has no place in tournaments. I am truly amazed at this.

* shakes head *

G

Corum wrote:

Reecius wrote:

minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird

And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.

What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.

I was trying to be nice. Taking a razorback instead of a rhino so he could get an extra heavy weapon and attaching it to a squad that it couldn't possibly carry is an exploit. It is a loophole in the rules that the designers didn't catch. The proudly displayed (but no longer used) percentage system of points for comp is another good example. Using the Razorbacks to get another mobile heavy weapon in to the Troops category, the army inflated the Troops percentage (even though the weapon is just a Heavy Bolter, and could have been an assault cannon).

So you see, the decision wasn't arbitrary. I had a good basis for it.

Precisely. And I could come up with fluff or real examples to justify it also.

However, the judge thinks it's cheesy and the player gets penalised.

If the TOs want to amend the FOC or alter codex lists then that's fine - everyone knows what's going on. It's when you get some wishy-washy guidelines and then a judge marks you down on the day just because he doesn't like it.

That's why comp doesn't work and it serves only as a source of annoyance for people - it gives the impression of being arbitrary and in many cases it is.

This one is by far the most ridiculous that I have ever heard of yet.

G

What's wrong with a 10-man Squad split into Combat Squads where the Heavy weapon covers the advance of the Sergeant and Special Weapon in their Razorback?

H.B.M.C. wrote:What's wrong with a 10-man Squad split into Combat Squads where the Heavy weapon covers the advance of the Sergeant and Special Weapon in their Razorback?

[sarcasm]Because it's obvious that GW did not intend this when they wrote the codex that allows you to split your unit into halves that are capable of fitting into the razorback. They also didn't intend for SM players to always purchase 10 man units: those free heavy and special weapons for hitting that 10th man was clearly an oversight.[/sarcasm]

Bahkara wrote:

Reecius wrote:
A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.

Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun. Going into a tourney a player should know what to expect in regards to what it is about. So if painting is part of the equation then you have to deal with it. This isn't a sport but a hobby (hence the inclusion of paint and sport scores. That's not to say you can't run tournies similar to a 'ard Boyz tourney or one in which one category is weighted more than the other. As long as it is known beforehand I have no issues with it.

As a player I don't really care if there is comp or not, I just want to play. As a TO I try my hardest to be as fair and even as possible. I personally try to make it so the there is no questions of shenanigans in a tourney I run. Maybe I take too much pride in running a good tourney. This attitude also carries over into other aspects of my life when I'm officiating or coaching games/tournies

Did this tournament happen to occur at Game Empire in Pasadena? Man, I need to get down there again for another tournament.

My tournament attending colleagues recently ran into a decent Comp System.

You submitted your list before hand, and it was either accepted, or rejected. If rejected, you were told why. And that was it. Comping without the chance of Chipmunking, plus a guaranteed explanation.

If you're going to comp, thats the way I think I'd do it. Of course, sheer scale of Tournament could bugger that!

All soft scores are bad, in my opinion.

Painting should be considered a separate competition (though it should have an award).
Sportsmanship should be a separate award based on opponent given numbers.

Overall Winner should be given to the best general.

EDIT:

Soft scores are way too open to abuse, for instance the multitude of examples for Comp in this thread, or people marking sportsmanship down so they might win easier.

Painting, too, is subjective.

I for instance would vote down say NMM or specific models (such as Kroot), because I think it looks bad or for whatever reason.

I support the existence of a sportsmanship score to penalize opponents who are extremely rude, difficult (purely in terms of adherence to the rules) or insulting to play. However, I agree that the standard soft score is far too open to abuse and can think up no better solution on my own.

ChrisAsmadi wrote:Overall Winner should be given to the best general.

Shouldn't Best General go to the best general, and then Overall Winner go to the best overall?

Scores and awards for scores should be separate other than 'Best Overall', which, by definition, is an award given to the person who did the best overall. So Best General should just be awarded based upon their scores in games, not their scores in games + sports/comp/painting/knitting/cooking prowess. By the same token painting should be judged on how well you paint, not whether you were a nice guy or if you won all your games.

And I think in most places painting is kept separate. So why not Best General?

I personally really like the UKGT system:

Three heats of 150 with the top 40 (in pure gaming points) from each qualifying for the final. The top five painted armies in each heat also qualify along with some wildcards (organisers discression).

In each event there is no 'overall'. 1st, 2nd and 3rd in gaming, 1st, 2nd and 3rd in painting, best sportsman (generally for a specific moment) and a crapton of misc awards for freak occurances/best team.

Why is there a need for an overarching 'best overall'. There is no way to subjectively compare painting skill to gaming ability so why try? I've known people who go to the heats to have a stab at best army without much chance in any games. I personally go to pwnzzor. Pick your event and go for it.

It's worth noting that the tournament is still heavily weighted towards gaming- 40 qualifying spots compared to 5. Rightly so in my opinion. Painting competitions don't involve gaming.

I guess the simplest way to point out the flaws, even with the loosest comps, is the difference between how competitive lists are made.

Let's compare two often-played armies: Orks vs Eldar

Orks have a proven competitive list that spams Troops in transports. This list can take an entire tournament while easily taking full comp points.

Eldar, due to the inherent weakness of their troops, make themselves less competitive with the more troop choices they pick.

Point values mitigate this. If someone chooses to take a special character, or to load up on Land Raiders, for instance, they pay for it by putting all of their eggs into one basket, so to speak. If they face an opponent with the means to deal with their points-sink, they would lose horribly. Meanwhile, if you choose to load up on cheaper troops, you will (usually) lack an effective means to deal more widespread damage. You pay more points for things that have more of an effect on the battlefield, meanwhile, for objectives games you have to have scoring troops survive to the end of the game.