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.

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Even given the imbalances in 40K, good experienced players have a tendency to come out on top.

Seriously, where are these imbalances that everyone keeps mentioning?

[...]

You can hardly look at the tournament scene, even as a spectator, or the spin off metagame in non-tournament gaming without being aware of the numerous 'spam' lists over the years such as Drop Pod Spam, Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam, Double Lash Prince Spam, Nob Biker Spam, and so on. Next will probably be Triple Deff Rolla Spam and Tyranid Mawloc Spam.

There was once even someone complaining about Tau SMS Spam though that never got off the ground, I don't know why. Neither has Necron Warrior Spam under 5e, etc.

Spam lists are notorious. They don't last forever because (a) some other spam always comes along, (b) people usually manage to work out a counter and (c) the nature of spam changes depending on the core rules too.

Comparing the Running/Shooting event to 40k is laughable at best. When they shoot you either hit or miss. You don't have ten different people with ten different opinions of wheither or not they hit the target. You also know who crossed the line first.

In 40k you only know who won the game. Paint, even when laid out is determined by the person scoring and you can have ten people score the same army ten different ways. It might be things like "I don't like the color combos compared to this army so I scored it lower". The same is with Comp. One personmight think an army is not powerful and yet they win every game

Danny Internets wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Plus, your arguement falls apart fromt the beginning. Warhammer isn't a sport, and the players are not professional. The existance, or lack of, handicaps in professional sports doesn't mean a thing.

Sadly, you have missed the point entirely.

What is a tournament about? By definition, it is about competition. In order to see if that end is being served by the design of said tournament we turn to professional sports because professional sports are likewise concerned with competition. Warhammer doesn't have to be a sport to benefit from comparisons to competitive events--it benefits from the analogy merely by having a competitive aspect

But Danny you yourself have said many times that while you have never played in a big GT environment there is nothing that meets your high standard of competition... you are a classic armchair quarterback.

G

Fantasy
Besides Daemons being slightly OTT and a couple armies being non competitive, pretty much everything is competitive.

Pretty hilarious. Unrestricted WHFB is totally broken and if you're looking for serious competion totally unplayable. The biggest European events spend the most part of a year trying to figure out how to balance it all. Their goal isn't 'balance' but 'better balance', and they have succeeded. Seriously, it's not even funny how bad WHFB army books are, and anything short of sweeping game changes in the upcoming new edition won't be able to fix the game.

What some people are talking about in this thread seem more about soft scores like sportsmanship, which doesn't necessary have to do anything with army composition and restrictions. Unrestricted tournaments might have sports scores, and restricted tournaments might not, etc.

Therion has it right about unrestricted WHFB. It isn't even remotely balanced. You can choose between Daemons, Anti-Daemons, or Prey.

Since I have red-green colour vision deficit I'm not sure I should be allowed to judge Paint.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Even given the imbalances in 40K, good experienced players have a tendency to come out on top.

Seriously, where are these imbalances that everyone keeps mentioning?

[...]

You can hardly look at the tournament scene, even as a spectator, or the spin off metagame in non-tournament gaming without being aware of the numerous 'spam' lists over the years such as Drop Pod Spam, Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam, Double Lash Prince Spam, Nob Biker Spam, and so on. Next will probably be Triple Deff Rolla Spam and Tyranid Mawloc Spam.

There was once even someone complaining about Tau SMS Spam though that never got off the ground, I don't know why. Neither has Necron Warrior Spam under 5e, etc.

Spam lists are notorious. They don't last forever because (a) some other spam always comes along, (b) people usually manage to work out a counter and (c) the nature of spam changes depending on the core rules too.

One word. Redundancy.

You try and label it spam so it sounds like something bad. But its not. Redundancy is a good thing. The above lists all made it to power because they were redudant. Meaning you couldn't kill off 3 things and wreck the list.

Lists like the ones you mentioned above is a good thing for competitive 40k. It builds archtypes. When building your army you need to take into account these archtypes. Rock armies (nob bikers, TH termies), Deepstriking armies (pods, daemons ect) Mobile Mech (eldar, DE, ect) Gunline (tau, guard)

Being optimized is not a bad thing. Being optimized and redundant is a good thing. Its a good idea not to bring 1 of each anti tank weapon. Why? Because you don't want your opponent killing off your 1-2 lascannons and you being totally unable to deal with his army.

None of the armies you mentioned are overpowered. They all could be dealt with, using a balanced force.


@therion
I ask you, how did Brets get 2nd at Ard boyz despite all the daemon armies, and them being 2nd rate? Maybe daemons aren't as OTT as the internets portray them.

Redundancy is a good thing but what you are really getting at is taking the best units from the codex as much as possible so in fact your list building skills are quite poor. Sad but true.

G

^^What he said.

I am quite familiar with the concept of redundancy, however it does not explain why those particular lists as opposed to the all Grot List or the All Daemon Host List or All Guardian List did not achieve equal prominence with an equal amount of redundancy.

Some lists are better than others because some units in every codex are better than others.

Then you have the imbalance between codexes.

If you think of army lists as balancing redundancy, flexibility, and synergy then it's easy to explain how spam lists like Nob Biker Spam and whatever other two-dimensional list is more successful than one-dimensional lists like Grot Spam or Guardian Spam.

Redundancy is simply one dimension. That means not all spam is equal. Demolisher Cannons are more flexible than Lasguns, for example, and have better synergy with the Lash of Submission than Lascannons.

The particular spam lists that people worry about pick a unit that has good flexibility and synergy, and then spam that to maximize redundancy. The problem of course is that in 40k there's no free lunch, so that there's no super-flexible unit, so even if you pick a unit with good flexibility and synergy it'll have some vast glaring weakness that some other unit was necessary to cover.

Take Nob Bikers for example: they can shoot well, they can fight well, they have anti-tank power, anti-infantry power, they're fast, they absorb damage well but... They have Ld7, Ld10 if the unit is maxed out, and while they're resistant to quality, they're not resistant to quantity.

Take Dual Lash/Plague Marines/Obliterators, for example. They're anti-tank bait. If you're playing a horde of riflemen on foot, you're dead. If you're playing with mechanized troops with plenty of anti-tank weapons, they're dead.

Take the Imperial Guard Parking Lot. They're cute until a Mawloc starts eating them, or a detachment of Dreadnoughts lands amongst them, or what have you.

The nice thing about tournaments is that you'll face a variety of opponents, and while a Spam List may do well against some, it will get tabled by others, so simply by having to face an unknown element of foes the player is forced to take a balanced force (unless people are clueless idiots who haven't adapted to the changing game rules, as was the case for the first couple of years of 5th edition).

I mean, go look at what people took to the tournaments down in the Battle Report Forum. Look at DevianID's army in particular, but also look at the opponents that tabled DashofPepper (IG Infantry horde and Salamanders SM).

Green Blow Fly wrote:Redundancy is a good thing but what you are really getting at is taking the best units from the codex as much as possible so in fact your list building skills are quite poor. Sad but true.

G

Wrong.

Especially with the new codices, there are multiple good choices from each spot. It takes a quality list builder to decide the correct one depending on the rest of their army.

For example in the space wolf codex:

Dakka Pred or 3x Longfangs w/2x ML and a rhino

Both are about the same cost. Both do very well for their points cost and considered good choices. However, which is optimal? They both do similar yet different tasks and depending on the army you are fielding, one will perform much better then the other.

So Timmah its very interesting to see you flip flop on the subject of spam.



G

How so?

I never said there was only 1 way to make a redundant list out of each army book...

(unless you meant something else)

/continues to fail to understand what GBF is getting at

Moz wrote:I'd like to see a GT someday that doesn't do best general or battle points at all. Instead make it a campaign style event where people make teams (based on their fluffy allegiances) and try to accomplish objectives in one on one games. Team that accomplishes their objectives gets rewarded, guy who is most fun to play against gets rewarded, best painted army gets rewarded. That's an event that is in line with what 40k tries to accomplish.

Didn't the Tempus Fugitives club in the UK organize the Sabbat Crusade event that operated kind of like that? I always thought that would make for a very interesting and fun event. I'll have to bring that up with my club prez. Might be something to think about for future Mechanicons.

Why is that not surprising?

* shrugs *

I really think you misinterpreted something I said or you believe I said something that I didn't.

Otherwise, why don't you just tell me?

Why should I even care?

G

Timmah wrote:

Oh, good one. You realize you have no argument so you tell me I'm not worth your time.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Redundancy is a good thing but what you are really getting at is taking the best units from the codex as much as possible so in fact your list building skills are quite poor. Sad but true.

G

As a competitive WH40k player I'm willing to take this statement to task. Armies that can quite clearly take "the best unit" in the codex often come from either a poor codex or are not nearly the auto-win army that internet tough guy hype depicts them as.

Let's look at some of the 'spam' examples thrown out earlier:

You can hardly look at the tournament scene, even as a spectator, or the spin off metagame in non-tournament gaming without being aware of the numerous 'spam' lists over the years such as Drop Pod Spam, Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam, Double Lash Prince Spam, Nob Biker Spam, and so on. Next will probably be Triple Deff Rolla Spam and Tyranid Mawloc Spam.

Of these, which is active in competitive 40k, or regarded as a 'top tier uberlist'?

Drop Pod spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since the advent of voluntary reserves. Some drop pod builds are competitive but this is a one-trick pony and if your opponent can out-trick you you're boned.

Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since holo falcons are fething expensive and burn Eldar heavy slots that could be used on the very effective and very killy Prisms and Walkers. New LOS and cover rules mean they simply get shot too many times to be nearly as resilient as they were in 4th ed. The loss of effectiveness of th Harlequins in 5th ed rending rules makes the Flying Circus decidedly sub-par compared to what the codex can put out.

Double Lash Prince Spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since the advent of mech and the newly-found ability of armies to pack in enough heavy weapons to kill 8 T5 wounds outright with relative ease. This list certainly stomps on 4th ed footslogging armies without psychic protection, which nobody competitive plays anymore, but has significantly faded to the background.

Nob Biker Spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since people began to finally stop taking 4th edition lists, and are now packing in as much S8 as possible in the form of melta or melta-equivalents. The better Ork lists may feature a Nob Biker unit as an aspect of the overall list, but spending 1500 points on 22 models that die horribly to melta, battlecannons, dreadnoughts, TH/SS terminators, the Psyker Battle Squad, and Thunderwulf Wolf Lords is a great way to lose a tournament. These guys had their day in the sun, it lasted for about 4 months, and then the IG codex nailed the coffin shut.

Predicted Triple Deffrolla: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead. Actually, triple Rollawagon lists may well be very effective, but in the context of this thread, it's not going to be 3 Deffrolla BWs, it'll be 5+ at 2k. But seriously, these things do actually cost points, have enormous side profiles, are open-topped, and don't do much of anything versus skimmers. Mobile armies will get side armor shots, even through the KFF, and DoG melta shots are going to be surprisingly reliable at wrecking the wagons. MEQ armies don't really care about taking 2d6S10 hits because they'll save the majority of the wounds. The Deffrolla makes certain Ork builds slightly more viable. It is not an instant-win button.

Predicted Triple Mawloc OMNOMNOM: Competitive Uberstatus -- Dead on arrival. The Mawloc + Spod + immovable terrain death from below strike Land Raider instagib is a total gimmick, and competitive lists aren't worried because they don't sink 1/3 of their list points into one Land Raider. It's a Paper list that counters certain Rock lists... and not even that well. A Marine player can safely leave his Big Rock in reserve because what's the downfall? 600 points worth of MCs with 9 attacks in total will run around... and get punched down by meltaguns and power fists? Nobody is scared of this, except for bad or inexperienced generals.

I find it HUGELY amusing that the people are throwing out spam lists as examples of how the hobby is ruined by ultracompetitiveness. The spam lists aren't even that competitive!!!

Competitive lists, real competitive lists, are probably going to incorporate a degree of "spam", likely due to transports like Razorbacks and Chimeras and Dark Elf Raiders because they're hugely efficient options. But where the 'Composition! Good!!!' player base goes wrong is in labeling one dimensional gimmick lists as spam lists and then extending that umbrella to encompass purely competitive lists. My IG list has 7 chimeras, but only two of them carry duplicate units (line IG squads and melta Vet squads). My Space Wolf List has 3 squads of Long Fangs, and also two Rune Priests and two Thunderwulf Cav squads and Grey Hunters in rhinos and Inquisitional Stormtroopers. My Ork list does have nine Killa Kans. It also has battlewagon Nobz, Lootas, Big Meks, Shoota Boyz, and a Deff Dread. If I had enough points I'd have Koptas in there as well.

Seriously, competitive lists are quite diverse because the main goal is to cover all of your weaknesses, which often isn't possible taking the 'spam' lists.

sourclams wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Redundancy is a good thing but what you are really getting at is taking the best units from the codex as much as possible so in fact your list building skills are quite poor. Sad but true.

G

As a competitive WH40k player I'm willing to take this statement to task. Armies that can quite clearly take "the best unit" in the codex often come from either a poor codex or are not nearly the auto-win army that internet tough guy hype depicts them as.

Let's look at some of the 'spam' examples thrown out earlier:

You can hardly look at the tournament scene, even as a spectator, or the spin off metagame in non-tournament gaming without being aware of the numerous 'spam' lists over the years such as Drop Pod Spam, Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam, Double Lash Prince Spam, Nob Biker Spam, and so on. Next will probably be Triple Deff Rolla Spam and Tyranid Mawloc Spam.

Of these, which is active in competitive 40k, or regarded as a 'top tier uberlist'?

Drop Pod spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since the advent of voluntary reserves. Some drop pod builds are competitive but this is a one-trick pony and if your opponent can out-trick you you're boned.

Eldar Holofield Falcon Spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since holo falcons are fething expensive and burn Eldar heavy slots that could be used on the very effective and very killy Prisms and Walkers. New LOS and cover rules mean they simply get shot too many times to be nearly as resilient as they were in 4th ed. The loss of effectiveness of th Harlequins in 5th ed rending rules makes the Flying Circus decidedly sub-par compared to what the codex can put out.

Double Lash Prince Spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since the advent of mech and the newly-found ability of armies to pack in enough heavy weapons to kill 8 T5 wounds outright with relative ease. This list certainly stomps on 4th ed footslogging armies without psychic protection, which nobody competitive plays anymore, but has significantly faded to the background.

Nob Biker Spam: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead since people began to finally stop taking 4th edition lists, and are now packing in as much S8 as possible in the form of melta or melta-equivalents. The better Ork lists may feature a Nob Biker unit as an aspect of the overall list, but spending 1500 points on 22 models that die horribly to melta, battlecannons, dreadnoughts, TH/SS terminators, the Psyker Battle Squad, and Thunderwulf Wolf Lords is a great way to lose a tournament. These guys had their day in the sun, it lasted for about 4 months, and then the IG codex nailed the coffin shut.

Predicted Triple Deffrolla: Competitive UBERSTATUS -- Dead. Actually, triple Rollawagon lists may well be very effective, but in the context of this thread, it's not going to be 3 Deffrolla BWs, it'll be 5+ at 2k. But seriously, these things do actually cost points, have enormous side profiles, are open-topped, and don't do much of anything versus skimmers. Mobile armies will get side armor shots, even through the KFF, and DoG melta shots are going to be surprisingly reliable at wrecking the wagons. MEQ armies don't really care about taking 2d6S10 hits because they'll save the majority of the wounds. The Deffrolla makes certain Ork builds slightly more viable. It is not an instant-win button.

Predicted Triple Mawloc OMNOMNOM: Competitive Uberstatus -- Dead on arrival. The Mawloc + Spod + immovable terrain death from below strike Land Raider instagib is a total gimmick, and competitive lists aren't worried because they don't sink 1/3 of their list points into one Land Raider. It's a Paper list that counters certain Rock lists... and not even that well. A Marine player can safely leave his Big Rock in reserve because what's the downfall? 600 points worth of MCs with 9 attacks in total will run around... and get punched down by meltaguns and power fists? Nobody is scared of this, except for bad or inexperienced generals.

I find it HUGELY amusing that the people are throwing out spam lists as examples of how the hobby is ruined by ultracompetitiveness. The spam lists aren't even that competitive!!!

Competitive lists, real competitive lists, are probably going to incorporate a degree of "spam", likely due to transports like Razorbacks and Chimeras and Dark Elf Raiders because they're hugely efficient options. But where the 'Composition! Good!!!' player base goes wrong is in labeling one dimensional gimmick lists as spam lists and then extending that umbrella to encompass purely competitive lists. My IG list has 7 chimeras, but only two of them carry duplicate units (line IG squads and melta Vet squads). My Space Wolf List has 3 squads of Long Fangs, and also two Rune Priests and two Thunderwulf Cav squads and Grey Hunters in rhinos and Inquisitional Stormtroopers. My Ork list does have nine Killa Kans. It also has battlewagon Nobz, Lootas, Big Meks, Shoota Boyz, and a Deff Dread. If I had enough points I'd have Koptas in there as well.

Seriously, competitive lists are quite diverse because the main goal is to cover all of your weaknesses, which often isn't possible taking the 'spam' lists.

It bears repeating. You need flexibility and synergy as well as redundancy.

First off, thanks to Danny for making a much better and more detailed argument overall this time. I appreciate the dialogue, and I feel more like you’re engaging in a constructive manner now. Cheers for that.

Danny Internets wrote:

You can keep on repeating this claim, but that doesn't make it true. How about responding to my Biathalon example?...You're not being penalized for not painting as well. He is being rewarded more, for displaying more skill. If you, using a "GW battlebox army" can beat me, using one of (e.g) Shep's optimized IG shooting galleries, than you have probably displayed more skill in the game at the table.

A Biathalon doesn't allow you to buy one half of the competition's points. A painting score does.

Separate argument. We could debate pro-painting in another thread if you want, but we’ve gone around and around it on Dakka already. Basically, it comes down to the fact that it’s nice to have nice-looking painted armies at tournaments. It makes everyone’s experience better. And you can’t stop it. Some people will just lie if you penalize scores for it. The more workable compromise I’ve seen is to just disallow people from winning Overall or Best Painted if they didn’t paint their own army. There’s no perfect solution, but this at least reduces the number of people likely to lie, and incentivizes the really competitive people to learn to paint well themselves. It’s sure helped me.

Danny Internets wrote:List-building is a very important part of competitive play. To borrow your own phrasing, a game of warhammer requires competitors to BOTH bring a good army and to play it well. Green Blow Fly made a very important comment to this effect, noting that internet lists may perform well, but it's rare to see a cookie-cutter actually win a major competitive tournament (hobby events not included).

IMO, the reason the cookie-cutter lists don’t seem to win that often at big tournaments is that many of the experienced competitive players don’t use them, or tweak them significantly. I suspect that there are multiple reasons for this- pride, prior experience in Comped environments, getting practice games at local stores where opponents get sick of facing cookie-cutter lists, and the desire to bring something unexpected are all likely factors.

Danny Internets wrote:If anything, bringing a powerful list should be rewarded because it is best suited to the event, which is a competition. However, this would result in the same problem with paint scores where participants will take credit for others' work, and therefore it has no place in scoring at all.

You’re making a circular argument, building your conclusions into your premises. Please note that not all of us agree with your definition of “competition” or “competitive” as being strictly based on battles scores. IME the competition for most events (or at least most of the best big ones) is a competition of hobbyists, factoring game playing as the most important component, but also including army appearance, sportsmanship, and composition. Seeking to reward (with recognition and prizes) players who excel in multiple areas, and grant the Overall victory to someone who excels in all. Maybe my perspective is shaped a bit by having started in 1999, when Comp was a big deal at GW's US GTs and in RTs, and having a lot of my formative tournament experiences then and in the following few years, when I was probably most passionate in the hobby, and this was the dominant definition of a GW tournament within the US. But I still think it’s one of the best, and it’s part of why (IME) Indy Warhammer events are so much fun despite the terrible imbalances in Warhammer army books.

Danny Internets wrote:Furthermore, penalizing someone for building a competitive list is the same as penalizing the paint score of someone who brings a beautiful army because they have professional art training or because they used high quality brushes and paints. Should participants without professional training get comp points? How would that be any different from penalizing those who actually do have the training and means to best satisfy the conditions for winning the contest?

I disagree entirely. The two are not similar. For one thing, because well-painted armies improve everyone ELSE’S experience. They make the GT as a whole more impressive, fun, and satisfying, and make their opponents’ games more enjoyable even if/when they get crushed. For another, as I said before, the idea of a comp score is to handicap inherently stronger lists. If you can at-all accurately handicap armies, then doing so is actually a way of rewarding superior generalship. If two players both get all massacres at an event, and have identical Battles scores, but one did so with a weaker army, then it is likely that he is the superior player. Now handicapping armies is FAR from a science, and match-ups and unique table setups can help an inferior list do better than it should expect to as well, but that’s the idea. And matchups and lucky table draws are always a factor, whether you have comp or not.

Danny Internets wrote:Regarding language, you can call it "rewarding" some rather than "penalizing" others, but the end result is the same.

And no matter whether an arsonist burns your house down, or you do it for the insurance money, you get a burned down house, so the two are the same thing? Sorry, I’m still not buying it. You’re using “penalize” as a loaded term to try to get additional sympathy for your argument by making yourself out to be a victim. Giving a better painter a better appearance score is not penalizing anyone else. It’s rewarding the guy who is bringing superior skills to the table, which we have chosen to encourage by the nature of the scoring system we set up for our tournament. Other people are of course free to put on tournaments where paint scoring is irrelevant to the outcome, but don’t be surprised if you see fewer painted, and generally worse-looking armies at those events. Like ‘Ard Boyz.

Danny Internets wrote:Just because a "bad" army beats a "good" army in *one game* doesn't mean the "good" army was outplayed and the "bad" army deserves bonus points. Small sample sizes greatly increase the chances that luck is a factor. Given the lack of TO omniscience (or even guarantee of minimal metagame comprehension), it would be just as reasonable to conclude that the "good" army wasn't very good at all, or that the "bad" army was better than previously thought.

This is a valid point, but given the number of rounds in a typical large 40k or WH event when compared to its attendance, you can’t get away from the issues of small sample size and luck in matchups, no matter what your scoring system.

Danny Internets wrote:Granted, if a battleforce army really did go five for five on massacres that would probably be a sign of unparalleled skill, but real tournaments don't play out like this.

Thanks for the concession. Okay, so you can accept the concept in its most extreme expression. As for whether “real tournaments” play out like this, IME when Comp scoring is a factor, you do see some “worse” lists doing well. The winner of the SVDM did not have a BAD army, but he did utilize the contents of Assault on Black Reach boxes for the core of his list, and made some unusual choices- like Pedro without Sternguard, and Venerable Dreads over Ironclads. Well done by him.

Danny Internets wrote:Instead, you typically see various shades of gray amongst the armies with top battlepoints. How can anyone say with confidence that an IG army with a comp score of 3/20 is only 5% more effective than a mechanized Space Wolf army with a score of 4/20? Qualitative comparisons appear simple when you set up a straw man example like mech IG versus a battleforce, but they are much more muddied in real life. Quantitative comparisons are even more problematic. Exactly how much more powerful is the IG list than the battleforce list? Enough to warrant a 5% handicap? What about 10%? 30%? How about 60%? Where you draw the line is completely arbitrary and therefore without meaning. Might as well award players random points via the dice. And even when the handicap is small that extra point often makes the difference between who takes first place and who takes second. Any tournament that uses comp scoring and has a tight finish is evidence of this.

This is a better argument than most you’ve made. Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly that it’s difficult to make clear distinctions, especially on a 20pt scale. Especially when you get into the luck factor- if that IG list happens to get an objective mission at the right time vs an opponent better at KPs, that lucky mission/opponent draw is very likely to outweigh the one point it gave up to the SW player in Comp. That said, however, the fact that Battles almost always has such a large percentage of the scoring apportioned to it often means that inaccuracies or inequalities of a point or two in Comp are thrown out in the wash, and become irrelevant. I disagree that comp is at all the same as awarding random points by rolling dice, though I can certainly see that it sometimes feels that way if the organizer is not consistent in their judgments, and/or not open about their methodology.

Danny Internets wrote:

This is a straw man argument, and if you had more GT experience, you'd know it. Events where the comp score "coerces" folks into playing one particular way are rare. And I've almost never seen one where the comp scoring kept a strong list with a strong player from competing for a top spot.

You're right about not having GT experience. I'm not a self-proclaimed hobbyist and therefore I don't have any desire to attend hobby competitions. I do, however, regularly attend local tournaments that are the same size as many of the indie GTs, including this year's Vegas qualifiers.

Okay. Thanks for not coming back in a hostile fashion at what (in retrospect) comes off a bit like me trying to make it an e-peen measuring contest based on GT experience. Not my intent. What I’m saying is that I believe your perspective would be different if you had more experience with the thing you advocate so strongly against.

Danny Internets wrote: Comp scores nullify the legitimacy of any competition's results. Do players or teams receive handicaps in professional sporting events? No? Why do you think that is?

As noted, there’s handicapping and artificial limiting of “pure” competition of MANY varieties in LOTS of professional sports. Salary caps are probably the biggest factor in the NFL overtaking MLB as the most popular sports league in the US. Enforcing more parity on the teams has made the league better, and the individual games more exciting. This has remarkable parallels to comp, when you think about it. That said, professional sports (about money) and wargaming (about a fun hobby game between players) have different goals, and are tough to compare directly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Timmah wrote:One major thing that people are forgetting. There is a large amount of skill required in list building. A comp totally takes this aspect out of the game.

Nope. When playing within the comp metagame, MORE army building skill comes into play- sometimes joked about as “stealth cheese”, competitive players within a comped environment are actually encouraged to try to innovate, making competitive armies without relying on the known best combinations of units. Anyone can copy a list from the internet; in a non-comped environment, many will. But in a comped environment, the best players will be self-handicapping their lists and trying to find alternate and new combinations of units which don’t fit the profile of the known and feared army builds.

Timmah wrote:I have noticed most people who believe in comp, think there is no skill to list building and they can throw whatever on the table. Then when they get stomped, it must be because your codex is OP!

I took 8th in last year’s ‘Ardboyz finals. I got a Major against GBF, a Massacre against Centurian99 (though that took some luck), and a Draw against an Ork Battlewagon/trukks/lootas list which Reserved everything. But thanks for playing!

40kenthusiast wrote:My main objections are twofold. . In a perfect world, Comp scores offset list strength, right?

IE: The more likely my list is to win, the lower my comp score is. The less likely my list is to win the higher my comp score is.

1. Getting an accurate list -> score rating seems impossible. 40k is too complicated of a win/lose matrix to get this to work.

Good argument. You’re right; there’s no chance of perfect accuracy. IMO we can get close enough to improve the tournament experience, though.

40kenthusiast wrote:2. If the Comp was perfect, it would still not improve the tourney scene. Currently we are incented to build the best listsr. This would replace that with taking the best lists with comp considered in. What's the advantage?

That’s the way it always was when Comp was part of the GT scene previously, and all through the Rogue Trader tournament years. The competitive players built their lists with an eye to carefully balancing strength on the table against maximizing their Comp score. The advantages are that a) you see fewer cookie-cutter lists, list the “big three” Magic decks someone talked about earlier, and b) that since you’re not just metagaming against two or three “best builds”, you see more depth and variety of armies at the top. Oh, and c) the watered-down good lists don't tend to Massacre weak/average lists/players at much. They tend to have somewhat closer games, which generally makes those games more enjoyable for the guy on the losing end.

Dashofpepper wrote:Sportsmanship - this is *really* touchy, and most stories I hear are about people abusing sportsmanship when they get beaten. This would have to be a very clear checklist, of say....10 questions.

This is how Adepticon does it, how I’ve done it at tournaments I‘ve run, and how some other events I’ve seen do it. It’s pretty good.

sourclams I agree that spam is not really all that it is cracked up to be and that was the intent of the prior statement.

G

Timmah wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Redundancy is a good thing but what you are really getting at is taking the best units from the codex as much as possible so in fact your list building skills are quite poor. Sad but true.

G

Wrong.

Especially with the new codices, there are multiple good choices from each spot. It takes a quality list builder to decide the correct one depending on the rest of their army.

For example in the space wolf codex:

Dakka Pred or 3x Longfangs w/2x ML and a rhino

Both are about the same cost. Both do very well for their points cost and considered good choices. However, which is optimal? They both do similar yet different tasks and depending on the army you are fielding, one will perform much better then the other.

We're not talking about the past codex or two. We're talking about an environment stretching back some years and containing what is it, 11 or 12 codexes most of which aren't new.

Mannahnin wrote:For another, as I said before, the idea of a comp score is to handicap inherently stronger lists.

Depends on who you ask. Quite a few comp systems take into account how the list fits the background, how 'fun' it is to play against, and the amount of duplicate units/upgrades. None of which (really) has any effect on the actual strength of the list.

The competitive players built their lists with an eye to carefully balancing strength on the table against maximizing their Comp score. The advantages are that a) you see fewer cookie-cutter lists

Not in my experience. You see a lot more marine lists that look a lot like one another.

skyth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:For another, as I said before, the idea of a comp score is to handicap inherently stronger lists.

Depends on who you ask. Quite a few comp systems take into account how the list fits the background, how 'fun' it is to play against, and the amount of duplicate units/upgrades. None of which (really) has any effect on the actual strength of the list.

Fair point. I don't think theme should be included. "Fun" factor is very much on the subjective side, though I think it usually means "did I have a chance against it". Duplicate units/upgrades are a shorthand way of preventing people from loading up on a clearly-superior choice in a given category. And just to encourage variety for its own sake.

skyth wrote:

The competitive players built their lists with an eye to carefully balancing strength on the table against maximizing their Comp score. The advantages are that a) you see fewer cookie-cutter lists

Not in my experience. You see a lot more marine lists that look a lot like one another.

I used to do pretty well with my Eldar. But there is certainly a danger in 40k that the judges will not be as familiar with non-SM armies, and thus less able to judge the others well, due to the predominance of MEQ armies.

While MEQ is always popular a lot of players hate them for whatever reason.

G

I think they just get frustrated by lack of variety, and some folks get angry over the lesser product support to other armies. It's one of the virtues Warhammer has, that no one particular type/statline of army/model makes up such a large percentage of what you see on the table, so you get a more varied play experience in that respect. Of course, 40k has it all over WH in terms of missions. In WH playing Pitched Battle over and over gets old after a while.

Mannahnin wrote:

skyth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:For another, as I said before, the idea of a comp score is to handicap inherently stronger lists.

Depends on who you ask. Quite a few comp systems take into account how the list fits the background, how 'fun' it is to play against, and the amount of duplicate units/upgrades. None of which (really) has any effect on the actual strength of the list.

Duplicate units/upgrades are a shorthand way of preventing people from loading up on a clearly-superior choice in a given category. And just to encourage variety for its own sake.

Unless you happen to play Necrons, with their 1 viable troop choice, or Tau, with their 2 viable troop choices, or "pure" Grey Knights, who have a grand total of 2 different model types that are not a Dreadnought or Land Raider.

Unintended consequences. The comp proponents who feel that they "must enforce diversity" or else weaker lists won't have fun actually end up gutting certain codices' comp scores or penalizing already-weak lists.