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.

Don't play in the Rochester area then.

skyth wrote:Don't play in the Rochester area then.

Is it bad there?

It's a very comp heavy area..

Voodoo, come back to 40K!

Comp stinks. It makes the game less fun, IMO.

Can everyone who's in favor of composition go over to the thread on Tyranid comp and tell that guy how to construct a Tyranid army that will always score high composition points? I think that if there's any validity to having composition scores, the people in favor of it should be able to tell someone how to make a properly composed army. Oh, and because this is a game, the army has to be something that can function reasonably well on the table, since an army that is just plain bad isn't any fun to play. For painting, you can make a checklist of artistic qualities (details, multiple colors, shading, neatness, etc). For battle, you just win your fights. But for comp you... start off as a friend of the judges? That's the only way I can see to consistently get high comp scores. And while a well-painted army will do well anywhere, from what I've seen the exact same army can score anywhere from zero to max in comp.

It's easy to say that composition encourages some kind of 'good' or 'fun to play against' army, but it's a lot harder to actually show how. If it's not possible to tell someone how to make a functional, high-comp-score army, and how to make an army that will score high comp in a variety of tournaments, I think it's pretty clear that composition does nothing legitimate but lets judges give points based on their whim.

Reecius wrote:@ArbitorIan

Your response to my comments was right on the money. I agree with everything you said.

Wow. Thanks, Reecius. I've been yelling that on these forums when this sort of thread crops up, but it usually gets ignored as it's hidden somewhere in between the masses of flame posts...!

It's an impractical solution for a lot of smaller tournaments (as it centres around finding four equal prizes big enough that people still want to enter a competition to win) but I think it should be the idea the bigger tourneys go for.

TheRhino wrote:Just curious, but do you folks think the awarding of a "Best Overall" as the top prize is what causes the comp angst?

This is exactly right - just what we were discussing. It's the elusive title of 'Tournament Winner' that causes the divisions.

RisingPhoenix wrote:My problem essentially is that poor sports can do more damage with that score than anything else. There's someone who published in a different location (indignantly) how DashofPepper once insisted that his Boarding Planks allowed him to make attacks on walkers and insisted on asking a judge rather than giving in when his opponent insisted it worked differently. Apparently this was bad sportsmanship and terrible rules lawyering and earned him a goose egg on sportsmanship (I'm not making this up).

There's always a possibility that people might get dinged for sportsmanship, but I think the idea with Separate Scoring is that there's MUCH less incentive to do so, since your Battle Points aren't going to be affected, and there's no Overall score anyway...

TheRhino wrote:Just curious, but do you folks think the awarding of a "Best Overall" as the top prize is what causes the comp angst?

I think a lot of the comp angst is the result of the 'one right way to play' casual players that demonize people who play mid to hard lists. It's kind of stuck in the player psyche that if you get a low comp score, you are a bad person. Kind of the result of a lie being told enough times that people start to believe it's the truth.

ArbitorIan wrote:

RisingPhoenix wrote:My problem essentially is that poor sports can do more damage with that score than anything else. There's someone who published in a different location (indignantly) how DashofPepper once insisted that his Boarding Planks allowed him to make attacks on walkers and insisted on asking a judge rather than giving in when his opponent insisted it worked differently. Apparently this was bad sportsmanship and terrible rules lawyering and earned him a goose egg on sportsmanship (I'm not making this up).

There's always a possibility that people might get dinged for sportsmanship, but I think the idea with Separate Scoring is that there's MUCH less incentive to do so, since your Battle Points aren't going to be affected, and there's no Overall score anyway...

The problem is not that it effects Dash's tournament record. It's not that it would be reflected in his overall tournament score. It's that the procedure is inherently unfair. Goose egged, for... showing a guy the rule in his codex, then calling a judge when he still didn't believe it worked as written?

Remember, this was PROUDLY recounted by someone to show what a 'rules lawyer' Dash was, and how he tried to get 'every advantage possible by gaming the rules.' Not making this up at all, PM me for the link. It's one of the sickest things I've read in my life.

And that's frequently how the community rolls. People get angry if you call a judge. ANGRY! For calling a judge! I've NEVER seen anything like it in ANY other competitive setting. The ONLY time I ever got annoyed at someone calling a judge was when a spectator called a judge on me for using a shortcut me and my opponent had established without even saying anything in magic (long story short - there's a spell that allows you to reveal cards until a certain condition was met (treasure hunt), and another that caused you to duplicate all spells (so you did it twice). We were simply flipping until the condition happened two times. I was also in the middle of a long train of thought, and I think my opponent was angrier than me at this). I've NEVER been annoyed that my opponent called a judge, but I've seen people suggest that it's tantamount to just launching into a barrage of insults at your opponent, or maybe a psycho killing spree.

Really, sportsmanship needs to just be a soft thingy that doesn't matter for anything besides maybe a small plaque and kudos. Especially until certain members of this community sort themselves out.

No Comp!

Why? It does not do anything in favour of players, who want to support personal aspects of their lists. And it does not prevent list lamers to write lame lists.

Composition simply limits the possibilities of army concepts. If you do not want certain units or combinations, then it is fine. But you wont have a better balancing, because the lamers will surely find a way where your comp failed to balance properly.
At the moment we have a fairly balanced system. We should use that for freedom.

The ETC restricted SC, because some work especially against certain enemies and that would be highly imbalanced due to the pairing process. But if you noticed: in the single player mode SC were allowed.

I dont know about 40k, but fantasy really benefits from the comp system.

I used to be a hater of composition then i started playing in WAAC tournies and they are not as fun as comped tournies...

The biggest problem comes with characters more then actualy composition. Some characters are extremely cheap for what they do, or are still pretty expensive but incredibly powerful. Most tournies have these characters banned, or you take a nasty comp hit taking them.

All in all they are there to make the tourny more fun for players, and to encourage everyone to bring what they want to bring.

Comp is a horrible idea what good to you I could view as weak and what strong to me you could view as broken.

ETC on the other hand was amazing they give you a list of rules and restrictions and that made it allot of fun. People’s opinion on list they can go away.

ShivanAngel wrote:I dont know about 40k, but fantasy really benefits from the comp system.

I used to be a hater of composition then i started playing in WAAC tournies and they are not as fun as comped tournies...

The biggest problem comes with characters more then actualy composition. Some characters are extremely cheap for what they do, or are still pretty expensive but incredibly powerful. Most tournies have these characters banned, or you take a nasty comp hit taking them.

All in all they are there to make the tourny more fun for players, and to encourage everyone to bring what they want to bring.

The thing is, none of those really exist in 40k. Sure, Mephiston is a ton of bricks to anything he is hitting, but he's also playing in Land Raider categories for points. Logan Grimnar is absurd, but you can also get a full squad of Tac Marines, in a rhino, with heavy weapons, a sarge, a combi melta, and a power fist. And throw in a Land Speeder with multimelta and flamer. No one likes getting smacked in the face with Ghazgull, but Ghazzy also pays for that. Sure, with his waaugh he can solo a squad of terminators... but he costs more than that squad of terminators by a fair cry, and if he doesn't blow his extra special, 1 turn waaaugh, he gets roflstomped by them.

The closest is god-Archon with Captain Blade Man and escort, and they're pricy as hell, and despite the 2+ invul, the Archon tends to evaporate (something about the 2+ invul going away after the first unsaved wound...)

skyth wrote:I think a lot of the comp angst is the result of the 'one right way to play' casual players that demonize people who play mid to hard lists.

Well, the argument that seems to be developing is that, yes, you're right that half the problem IS people like this, but the other half is the 'one right way to play' competitive players that demonize any other scoring category as 'soft' and so less important.

Comp is a flawed system of dealing with both, but doesn't work. However, comp is based around the premise that battlepoints should be balanced with other things so that someone can 'win' overall.

RisingPhoenix wrote:Really, sportsmanship needs to just be a soft thingy that doesn't matter for anything besides maybe a small plaque and kudos. Especially until certain members of this community sort themselves out.

I agree that, in your example, it IS possible to be unfair in your marking. I don't see this as a reason to completely remove comp. I'm aware that there's a possibilty that someone might win a painting award for a commission painted piece without declaring it, but I don't think that's justification for calling a stop to all painting competitions.

I disagree with the idea that Sportsmanship is somehow 'soft' or 'less important' and thus only deserving of 'maybe a small plaque and kudos'. I think it should be included in tournaments - not so that people are nice to each other (adults should have this as a REQUIREMENT) but because it's the single biggest thing that makes my day of gaming enjoyable. If someone goes out of their way to make me have a really good game, and does this consistently and with infinite patience to all of their opponents, I want them to get an award. It's as important to my tournament experience as painted models, or tactically challenging games.

Sportsmanship does not need to be soft imo.

If you come to a tournament and are a dick to everyone you play, crush them, and talk gak about it, then you dont deserve to win.

ArbitorIan wrote:I agree that, in your example, it IS possible to be unfair in your marking. I don't see this as a reason to completely remove comp. I'm aware that there's a possibilty that someone might win a painting award for a commission painted piece without declaring it, but I don't think that's justification for calling a stop to all painting competitions.

But there's no chance that a guy with an army that scores perfect for painting in one tournament will score low in another. If you paint to a reasonable standard, you'll score on painting. While with comp, when making an army you have no idea at all what to do to get a good comp score, and a 'perfect comp' army in one place can score a zero as a 'WAAC army' at another. After all, not a single one of the 'comp is good' people has managed to hop over into the Tyranid thread to explain to the Tyranid player what he should do to stop scoring badly on comp other than 'play another army' or 'only go to tournaments where he's friends with the judges so they score him high'. I think that speaks volumes about the legitimacy of comp scoring.

I disagree with the idea that Sportsmanship is somehow 'soft' or 'less important' and thus only deserving of 'maybe a small plaque and kudos'. I think it should be included in tournaments - not so that people are nice to each other (adults should have this as a REQUIREMENT) but because it's the single biggest thing that makes my day of gaming enjoyable. If someone goes out of their way to make me have a really good game, and does this consistently and with infinite patience to all of their opponents, I want them to get an award. It's as important to my tournament experience as painted models, or tactically challenging games.

While you are willing to say that you think 'people are nice to each other' is something that 'adults should have this as a REQUIREMENT', your endorsement of comp and sportsmanship scores runs contrary to that. Making someone lose points in the competition because you don't like the army they chose to pay for, or because they beat you is not nice at all in my book, but that's what player-driven comp scores are all about. Making someone lose points for the horrible crime of wanting to play the actual game and not your personal set of house rules, or for wanting the game to be completed within the time limit is also not nice, but that's what you want to use sportsmanship scores for.

Lots of people dislike sportsmanship scoring not because they dislike sportsmanship, but because sportsmanship scores as typically implemented allow poor sportsmen to hurt players unjustly, enable chipmunking, and typically punish players who actually practice good sportsmanship instead of bend-over-and-take-it-manship. A player who allows someone to ignore the rules of the game is practicing very bad sportsmanship, and by artificially inflating the win-loss record of the guy he allows to play by made-up rules he's directly damaging the integrity of the competition as much as a boxer who throws a match, but since he's not practicing 'infinite patience' with your rulebreaking and 'going out of his way to make you have a really good game' by letting you win, he loses points under your system.

Most tournies drop your lowest sports score, that way if someone is being a douche and giving everyone low sports it wont hurt you.

So if oyu get a 5, 4, 5, 5, 1, obviously someone is just being a dick.

But if you get a 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, you are probably a dick.

sportsmanship != composition. Sportsmanship is how well you behave and your actions towards the other player. Im known to bring pretty hard lists to tournies, but what is funny is i usually get really high sports scores, even tho my comp scores might suffer.

skyth wrote:

I think a lot of the comp angst is the result of the 'one right way to play' casual players that demonize people who play mid to hard lists. It's kind of stuck in the player psyche that if you get a low comp score, you are a bad person. Kind of the result of a lie being told enough times that people start to believe it's the truth.

I totally agree with this. It's funny because the most aggressively negative and exclusionary gamers are the "casual" gamers who play for "fun." Competitive gamers appreciate creative and intelligent builds, where as casual gamers, in general, feel that even a slight deviation from the (ever changing) fluff is heresy. It is silly.

Play what you want to play! No one should be forced to play what others want them to play, that is absolutely ass backwards.