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.

Okay, back to address Mike's questions and points. Mike, I responded specifically to several of your points on the previous page; if you disagree with my responses, it'd be cool of you'd acknowledge and address them directly. Thanks! I've quoted a couple of those below.

At any rate, answering points from your most recent post:

MVBrandt wrote:I didn't see any extensive or effective explanation of my arguments being mistaken. ...It's also worth noting that seeing different lists is not the same as seeing a greater variety of lists, especially when those different list have less total units to choose from.

I really can't see where you're getting this business about "less total units to choose from". Where is that coming from? You seem to have the concept backwards.

As Sourclams and I both pointed out, one product of the non-Comped tournament environment is that some units simply never get used, because there are more efficient choices for the points. One of the primary purposes of a Comp system is to remedy this; by providing a material incentive (points) for players to go outside the "top 5" or "top 8" best-of-codex units in any given army. If a player is able to innovate an unusual combination which makes a generally-regarded-as-weak unit work better, he can compete on even ground or at a slight disadvantage to standard top lists, while starting at a slight advantage in the tournament points overall due to his Comp handicap. In a non-Comped event, OTOH, the pool of usable units is functionally smaller, as there is never any incentive to using a less-efficient unit or army build except pure surprise value.

A big part of the point of Comp is to specifically facilitate and encourage people to bring different combinations and maybe a sub-par unit or two, increasing the variety of the play experience and possibly innovating new tactics and combinations. I broke it down succinctly on page two of this thread, here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/349456.page#2500288

Mannahnin wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:... a win-button army becomes more purchaseable in comp systems where the game's fairly strong CODEX balance is broken by screwing with core list options in any given codex that help it be balanced.

I don't think this argument of yours makes much sense. As you know, as as competitive-afficionado Sourclams already pointed out, there are still significant issues with internal codex balance; some units which are notably inferior to others in every codex. IG Vets vs. Storm Troopers, for most purposes, as an example. Comp is a way of handicapping/giving a material incentive for players to go exploring outside the "top 5" or whatever best units in any given codex and bringing some more variety to the competitive scene.

MVBrandt wrote:If you just want to encourage variety, I guess it makes some sense, but you need to either do a natural bracketing comp system, or a hell of a qualified comp council (and even that is "wrong," b/c you CAN end up with gasbags who think they are god's gift to wisdom in 40k).

A good council who knows what they're talking about is key. It worked pretty darn well for the year or so it was going in the NE Independent WH GT circuit. The only reason it's not still going right now is that 8th was such a major change that the Comp Council didn't feel they could fairly score, and voluntarily recused themselves. But 8th ed is broken enough that new restrictions are starting to come in; witness last month's Onslaught GT adopting ETC restrictions.

MVBrandt wrote:Even with comp council, you aren't playing "better" 40k, you're just playing 40k according to the council.

"Better" is a subjective judgment. For me, the best 40k requires hard, competitive gaming, with a wide variety of painted and attractive armies, on attractive and adequate terrain, with interesting and balanced missions, against sportsmanlike and skilled opponents. That's the ideal. For my money, Comp (when handled well, and gods know it's been done badly many times) adds to the "variety" aspect of the game. Non-Comped events don't address that at all.

I have to object to the "just playing 40k according to the council" canard. I don't think that's a useful, constructive, or accurate sentiment. Since you compose your own missions (notably excluding KPs last year, though I applaud and appreciate their return this year) and write your own Q&A for the NOVA Open, someone could just as easily dismiss NOVA as "just playing 40k according to MVBrandt."

Do you think that would be a fair and accurate comment, if they did? I don't.

MVBrandt wrote: There's a lot of overbearing elitism in this thread. It's divisive, as usually occurs in comp discussions. Little more of that "we're so smart and proper" attitude. It can turn people off, in the same way that power gamers turn some people off.

I apologize for my tone. I trust you can see what I was responding to.

Part of the reason I'm advocating so firmly is because among a significant sub-set of the competitive 40k player base, the (IMO false) idea that "comp is always bad" or "comp can never work" has become a truism. You even get nice, smart guys like Reecius popping in with a one-liner like "comp sucks" and thinking that's okay; not even taking the time to engage the opposing position at all, or think about his assumptions.

Some of this springs from seeing it done badly (as it often is; witness the recent reports from The Broadside Bash). Some of it springs from inexperience; players who've only started playing in the last couple of years, since Comp has largely fallen out of fashion. Some of it springs from 5th edition and its codices not requiring Comp nearly so much (although it's still a handy tool for balancing them against older books).

Go back, say, four years on Dakka and find a Comp thread, and you'd find the balance of opinion much more balanced, with the majority in favor. Go back six or eight, and the guys arguing against Comp are a tiny minority, mostly guys bitter because their local TO sucked and did Comp badly.

As I've said repeatedly throughout the thread, since 5th edition has come out I'm much more open to non-Comped events, and frequently enjoy them. Of course, I don't use my Eldar in them, which is a bit of a bummer, but at least I can enjoy them with my more-recently-updated armies. I think most of us who cut our teeth in the GT circuit back when Comp was a standard thing are now less inclined to argue about it; because it's less needed than it once was. Maybe not needed at all. Still, I DO think it has value. And that Comp-scored and non Comp-scored events are both worth having. I'm mostly speaking up because I'd rather not see it go the way of the dodo, or just let that overly-simplistic falsehood "comp sucks" go unchallenged.

I know a lot of excellent, top players who still let the concepts of army design they learned within Comp systems shape their army builds, and thanks to that, those guys field more interesting armies. Again, excellent GT players and winners like Allen Hernandez, Jay Woodcock, Shaun Kemp, Ben Mohlie, Greg Sparks, Bill Kim, Dave Fay, Marc Parker, and Christian Flores, to name a few. Troy E. (Grimwulfe), who's playing Dash in a challenge game at NOVAcon, is part of Da Boyz, along with Jay and Shaun, and the list he fielded in the tournament a couple of weeks ago where he and I played was a good example. A strong SW list, but with a Vindicator instead of a third unit of LFs, and the LFs weren't each 5xML. Troy mixes it up, and his list is still strong, but it's more interesting and has more variety. I feel comfortable attributing that, at least in part, to him being part of Da Boyz, a club full of guys who've been playing in GTs more than 10 years, and who still use Comp in the events they run.

Anyway, I hope the above makes a bit more sense, and the tone more friendly.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Everybody knows about long fang missile spam. These are overused to the point of cookie cutter armies because they are good. They exploit a rules loop (in the first case) and exploit a badly thought out Codex (in the second).

This puts any SW player at a loss for composition points, because NOT taking advantage of the ability to make shenanagins out of wound allocation makes you an IDIOT, and taking advantage of it makes you CHEESE. No win situation! This is unfair to SW (who some could argue's very existance is unfair to other armies but that's not the point). I don't see any nob bikers without varied equipment either, because it's a no-brainer. Does that mean all TWC and nob biker players should be deliberately moronic in order to score composition points? Again, fail.

From my perspective, you are making some valid observations (like LF spam is underpriced, and wound abuse units exploit a rules loophole) but coming to invalid conclusions using them. "Moronic" is used purely for hyperbole and adds nothing to the discussion- to quote you, as a term to use in this discussion, it is "fail".

There is no "no win situation" when it comes to wound abuse units.

In a NON-Comped event, "cheese" is totally irrelevant. Anyone participating should know that. So if you are fielding an army with that option, you use it. Simple as that.

In a COMPED event, making use of Wound allocation is likely to get your army regarded as stronger. So you can either decline to use it, and get bonus points on your Comp score, or use it, and miss out on the Comp handicap, but have an advantage in each of your games. That's win-win, not no win. Either choice has a material advantage associated with it. You get to pick which one you want. Win.

In a COMPED event, making use of Wound allocation is likely to get your army regarded as stronger.

So you would reduce comp on wound allocation? So I would take AV12 spam and avoid the problem while stil having a strong army. Or LF spam or razorspam or TMC spam.

There are always loopholes in comp scores.

Comp scores just force you to play different armies.

It will not optimize balance and it will not increase the chances of having more fluff oriented armies.
It just alters the metagame. It doesnt kill it.

For your information, I played comped tournaments and non comp tournaments.
And tbh on non comped tournaments I had more freedom.
And I support the statement that comp does not penalize WAAC in any way.

And comp is always subjective. If you play an IG themed aircav why do you have to reduce your vendettas? So a "not more than 1 vendetta"-comp will kill your concept totally. A WAAC will take armoured sentinels instead...

-Nazdreg- wrote:

In a COMPED event, making use of Wound allocation is likely to get your army regarded as stronger.

So you would reduce comp on wound allocation? So I would take AV12 spam and avoid the problem while stil having a strong army. Or LF spam or razorspam or TMC spam.

There are always loopholes in comp scores.

If you make it a checklist, sure. But that's not what I'm advocating. There are no loopholes in the Comp Council system.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Comp scores just force you to play different armies.

This is an absolute load of baloney. It doesn't "force" you to do anything. It gives a POINTS BONUS for folks who make a weaker army. Everyone can still field the army they want to. The guys who just want the best chance to win their individual games are free to take the strongest list they can think of; whether it be Longfang/Razorspam, or IG AV12 spam, or whatever. The really competitive guys who want to win their games AND get more points in Comp than the netlisters have a material incentive to innovate and try to come up with lists that appear weaker and utilize inferior units, but with which they can still win games.

No force involved. Pure free choice.

-Nazdreg- wrote:It just alters the metagame. It doesnt kill it.

Absolutely. And as I said, this is a BENEFIT, a "feature", not a "bug" (flaw). It alters the metagame in the direction of greater variety.

-Nazdreg- wrote:For your information, I played comped tournaments and non comp tournaments.
And tbh on non comped tournaments I had more freedom.

I feel the opposite. So the anecdotal evidence from each of our perspectives is opposite. Null. Do you want to count how many years, tournaments, or games we've each played, or shall we just agree that anecdotal evidence isn't very helpful here?

I am coming to the party a little late but there are a few things I'd like to say on the issue of comp.

1. It is highly dependent upon your local scene when you're not talking about a GT or major Con.
2. Comp has varying degrees and therefore again is more dependent upon your local scene than not.
3. The varying degrees of comp at tournaments can create various opinions on comp simply based upon the system used.
4. As was pointed out the 5th ed codices are more balanced and so Comp has declined in popularity.
5. Comp was absolutely required for 4th ed tournaments not so for 5th.
6. There is no perfect comp system and so will always be a source of contention.

For the record I have played in comp heavy, comp average, and comp light events and all were pleasant experiences. The comp light events were the most competitive but the comp heavy events were competitive in a different way. With comp heavy events you can run into the problem of the comp just being another system of rules to be lawyered, broken, and argued over. If you are organizing an event and want to have comp the simpler you keep it the less likely it will be that you'll run into major problems with people abusing your system.

Flame away dakka.

Why not just give players points based on how many months their Codex has been around then.

I apologize for a succinct response but I'm writing from bed illness via Droid.

The variety you seek occurs with or withoit comp. Five of the top space wolf lists at the open looked nothing alike, one was Troy's; and only one had 3 long fang units.

Cookie cutter builds and top five units ... crap (no offense). Are their great, staple units? Sure. Does everyone run them and little else? No, not even remotely. I hear reference to this netdecking clone listing boring phenomenon, but never see it in action. Some people run 1 meltavet and some run 6. Some people successfully use ogryns while others use outflanking storm troopers. I'm as much a relic of the older game as any, 3rd aside, and I can understand the bias and influence of that history, but you're arguing using a reality as baseline that isn't real. Furthermore, when players are already using plenty of variety, trying to cut out the meat units only screws with it. If I can't take some reliable cheap meltavets, I can't make ogryns work. You want more variety, play at 2k, don't just try to shake up the variety.

Either way, I don't have a position I'm locked to. When people do in online discussions, it fast becomes trying to sound right, not discussing better ways (and there are a few).

With regard to comp council, it IS homebrew, and it is not replicable across 40k. "Good" comp council, that near mythical enlightened oligarchy, is only as replicable as the number of other enlightened, incorruptible comp council oligarchies out there. They don't exist. You can't teach fairness, and every group sees the game differently.

Finally, I hope comp isn't what taught your random bunch of name drops how to not play boring cookie cutters. It surely isn't what taught me. I hope it's not what you required.

Comp tournaments are fine, but haughty tones on both sides spliced with the occasional condescending platitudes = the kind of thing that turns me off this. Just run whatever tournament you want, and perhaps consider being less gakky toward people who don't run it the way you want or think. So what if someone wants to run a comp tournament? So what if "you" generic don't want to play in it?

There's no facts to support either side here, either to "prove" comp = variety OR to "prove" comp = bad. I don't get the point.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

yeenoghu wrote:Why not just give players points based on how many months their Codex has been around then.

Because contrary to claim (and to be fair, not counting Necron), a good GT player can still take WH or CSM or Tau or Eldar or Ork or whatever and still rock another good GT player running SW, or IG, or BA, or whatever.

This is readily proven every weekend globally, when @ varying points levels@ varying tourneys in varying rounds that's exactly what happens. If the variety or old codex = fail position were true, events like the NOVA 2010 would have had a single IG in the finals, all the SW would have been trips fangs and/or loganwing, and there certainly wouldn't have been an ork there. Bad players bring variety often due to not knowing any better. Good players bring it because they often do know better. What are we trying to affect? The tiny sliver of averages that seek to learn with training wheels and reliable units? Heaven forbid.

Sometimes Comp (At least heavy comp) reduces variety.

I've been to a tournament where all I played were Marines and all the lists were so similar, every battle just blurs together in my mind.

I'm in favor of comp at tournaments and I feel it can be done successfully. The minor differences in SW armies at the Nova final mean little when they are all SW armies. Where were the T3 armies in the finals? Maybe that's a broader brush comp can help mitigate.

On the other hand SW and BA are the easy button of 40k. As such they will be among the first armies newer players will gravitate to. People who hate to to paint or will just own 1 army will also gravitate towards those types of armies. There are few models to paint and there are few models to buy. There is a lot of experimenting and spending money on different units in order to get a non basic army to function well. If you have lots of SW and BA in the field, then they will be overly represented in the field.

DarthDiggler wrote:I'm in favor of comp at tournaments and I feel it can be done successfully. The minor differences in SW armies at the Nova final mean little when they are all SW armies. Where were the T3 armies in the finals? Maybe that's a broader brush comp can help mitigate.

On the other hand SW and BA are the easy button of 40k. As such they will be among the first armies newer players will gravitate to. People who hate to to paint or will just own 1 army will also gravitate towards those types of armies. There are few models to paint and there are few models to buy. There is a lot of experimenting and spending money on different units in order to get a non basic army to function well. If you have lots of SW and BA in the field, then they will be overly represented in the field.

Sw were not the only armies in the finals, nor were the differences minor. Tony, sam, troy, andy, and jeremy all had widely divergent builds. I include troy b/c andy had to get through him in the fourth.

The finals included daemons, orks, ba (2 very different builds),and not even any IG. Where is the point to be made? You also take a risk saying thing like "minor differences" when that isn't true. It spanks of caring more for position than facts or resolution; to tie things back - that is precisely my problem with this sort of "discussion."

Really. I'm willing to bet the following was not in those armies.

Vindicator
Land raider
Whirlwind
Swiftclaw bikers
Skyclaw assault pack
Blood claws
Venerbale Dreads
Iron Priest
wolf priest

Did any of them have that? That means your diversified SW lists had combos of these.

Long Fangs
Predators
TWC
Grey Hunters
Lone Wolf
Scouts
Wolf Guard

Was that it? Your finals had 4 SW, 2 BA, Ork and Daemon is that right? Not very diversified at all. No T3 based lists. None.

I didn't bring up the Nova as an example of a diversified Non-comp event, you did. I'm saying I doubt it.

Mannahnin wrote:

This is an absolute load of baloney. It doesn't "force" you to do anything. It gives a POINTS BONUS for folks who make a weaker army. Everyone can still field the army they want to.

Noone is stopping them from taking whatever army they want, but you shouldnt expect to win if you purposefully choose to take an army that is bad ...

You're killing yourself with these assumptions, man.

Vindicator, land raider, wolf priest, swiftclaw bikers, all yes. Most of the others yes from among all 3-1 or betters.

I'm not familiar with the term T3, you keep using it. 4 divergent wolf lists including rarely taken characters and models, two divergent ba lists, battlewagon orks and daemons. Yes. Lists to barely miss the cut sharing 3-1 included CSM, SM, etc. You want to keep giving me ammo? Diversity of list and use of less common unit selections was present at all records and levels of the field. Why are you so attached to your desired outcome that you would challenge me so blindly on facts you know I. As the organizer can prove? Why do you think I used the NOVA as an example but for the fact that I havwe copies of every army list present? Come on, man.

kill dem stunties wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

This is an absolute load of baloney. It doesn't "force" you to do anything. It gives a POINTS BONUS for folks who make a weaker army. Everyone can still field the army they want to.

Noone is stopping them from taking whatever army they want, but you shouldn't expect to win if you purposefully choose to take an army that is bad ...

Personally, I would rather every unit be worth its points and players win because of their skill, not because of the models they buy. If I want to take Flash Gitz, I shouldn't be laughed at or be told I am making a joke of a competitive event by using a dumpster unit with no value. They should be correctly valued for thier usefulness opposed to underpowered and overpriced. Just because every codex has a few top tier lists doesn't mean internal codex balance isn't something that should be strived for eventually. I would also like all pointvalues to be balanced but games at 500 pints, 1500 points and 2500 points are totally different metagames and codexes are not fair or balanced for all levels. Maybe if GW chose a default pointvalue for competitive play and balanced for it... but they don't. Simply shifting a few hundred points can drastically impact the metagame and how people compose lists... that is COMP is its purist form right there.

If some people want to go with the current level of imbalance as 'competitive play' then good for them. If others wish to make rules to address the current imbalance, also, good for them. The total intolerance of many is astounding.

I see zero difference in changing arbitrary rules to modify force org or use custom missions and scoring or even using custom point values for scoring. Killing KPs as a scoring component or having a mission like 'ardboyz mission 3 which gave large advantages to footsloggers are custom rules a TO put in on how the game should be played and it changes the way people compose armies and accomplishes the exact same thing as most arbitrary comp and sometimes it does it better as it is pretty easy to make a mission designed to screw the top metalist at the time (much how they targeted the leafblower and punished it via custom missions all last summer)

If we're going to amend the game to encourage use of other units, why not retool those units? In all seriousness, if we progressed further with rebalancing a selection of codices both internally and externally to each other, and held an evening series of games overf the weekend as a novel trial comp tourney, who would participate?

MVBrandt wrote:

Vindicator, land raider, wolf priest, swiftclaw bikers, all yes. Most of the others yes from among all 3-1 or betters.

I'm not familiar with the term T3, you keep using it.

Did 3-1 make your final 8? That is what we are talking about. How many of the final 8 had those units? NONE. You can't find them so you shift the discussion from final lists to 3-1 lists. T3 means toughness 3. Any codex that uses a primary toughness 3 model. You had none, zero, in the finals. The Nova open finals show that diversity does not exist in the current format. Not to the point that is acceptable to the comp proponents. 8 final army lists and 4 of which came from one codex. You are proving our point with each post. Those 4 SW lists in the finals had similar units. They did not choose from Vindicator, Land raider (any varient), bikes, jump packs, dreads (were any kind in them?), etc... They all had different combinations of the same subset of units.

I bet if you take the units from all 4 SW final lists you would not get to helf the units in the SW codex. That's what a comp system is designed to do, get the other half of the SW codex on the table and in the finals of the Nova Open.

Dude, yes, 3-1 did make final 8 and that's what I was talking about. Stop now, you aren't even reading clearly, so attached are you to your position.

There are also other ways to encourage list diversity and daring other than comp, I.e. only having to win each game by the slimmest of margins (the primary reason for variability and use of suboptimal units in nova style events).

MVBrandt wrote:If we're going to amend the game to encourage use of other units, why not retool those units? In all seriousness, if we progressed further with rebalancing a selection of codices both internally and externally to each other, and held an evening series of games overf the weekend as a novel trial comp tourney, who would participate?

I agree. I think 6th edition should be Living Rule Books. I would totally support a independent rules council that repointed units or changed rules. That is how Bloodbowl became as great as it did. Bloodbowl is quite possibly one of the best games for competitive play out there at this time.

But something like this would really need to be a labor of love and have widespread support the way bloodbowl did. It took years to really fix the issues. I think it would take a shift from GW to acknowledge the competitive side of the hobby as valid and look to actually support it with a goal of true balance. That doesn't seem to be on GW's radar right now, and unlike bloodbowl, I am not sure they would even support the community doing it.

GW actually may eventually get it right through playtesting and not need to rebalance codex. Can you imagine if they let the community playtest every codex for 3 months before they released it in order to see the path of least resistance and what units get ignored? It would also allow us RAW lawyers hunt out the smelly rule issues. I think it would go a long way to making things more competitive if they actually rebalanced a codex after it was battle tested in the tourney circuit. I play an older codex and the imbalance in my units are drastic, I think newer codex are having less drastic imbalances but some units are just unusable it seems.

Right now, all we can do is let TOs do what they do until 2-3 more years of codex redesign eventually tries to make codexes better and maybe 6th edition will come out and sweep up the last holes in 5th edition. Until then, prepare for lots of people screaming on forums

Interdstingly, we've been pursuing this type of approach internally / locally, check out the internal codex rebalance series on whiskey40k. I don't really disagree that there are a lot of suboptimal or improperly costed units in most dexes. I only take umbrage to arguments that state only a few codexes can really compete without comp, or that comp is required to achieve variety.

If the goal is getting every individual unit to be competitively fieldable, well, that requires changing the units (which is also the simplest and most streamlined approach).

mikhaila wrote:The 'Battle Points are why 40k is unbalanced' is a Red Herring. Players still want to win all their games, battle points or other format. They aren't going to take worse lists because a tournament doesn't use battle points. Sure, they don't need to club a seal as hard in round one, but no way in hell will they take less than what they consider their best build in case they run into someone tough in round 5.

This is true but the requirement to massacre regularly as opposed to simply winning does discourage diversity.

It can't be ignored that any attempt to impose guidelines for scoring composition will become an exploitable system itself.

I feel the same way about the painting checklist and the sportsmanship checklist. As already discussed, the sportsmanship one is so vague it just begs for subjectivity and favoritism. For painting;I could paint a figure with the most godawful color scheme, ridiculous can-can-dance pose (but hey it's "dynamic"), smurf-villiage under its feet for a base (but it has 2 elements added on it!) that would get all the points on the painting checklist except the one for "does the miniature look good". Still just by going down the checklist I can paint an almost perfect score joke just by staying within the proverbial lines, and milking the system. Not that I'm saying that people do this, but they could do this.

The point is, any standardised scoring to prevent abusive aggressive play will just be turned around and used as another facet of abusive aggressive play. The only solution is to dump soft scores as they will just become exploitable hard scores anyway the moment the checklist is drawn up.

MVBrandt wrote:I don't really disagree that there are a lot of suboptimal or improperly costed units in most dexes. I only take umbrage to arguments that state only a few codexes can really compete without comp, or that comp is required to achieve variety.

I think you're misunderstanding my posts, then. Because you seem to have taken umbrage with them, and I didn't say either of those things.

I apologize for my at-times strident tone, and my failure to communicate my points and my opinions to you effectively.

IMO you appear to have an emotional stake and investment in your beliefs as well; at least that's the impression given by statements like:

MVBrandt wrote:Finally, I hope comp isn't what taught your random bunch of name drops how to not play boring cookie cutters. It surely isn't what taught me. I hope it's not what you required.

I certainly started playing by taking the best units and lists I could make and get my hands on. I think most people start that way. Comp gave me a material incentive to experiment more and change up my lists, for tournaments.

Right now I see a larger tournament metagame in which Comp is dropping by the wayside, and a lot of newer players see no particular incentive to innovate and experiment with their lists. And IMO that's a less-desirable circumstance. Let me be clear! I am not saying the current tournament environment, with its lack of Comp, is a bad thing! I am saying it could be better, IMO. I am saying that carefully-executed Comp can be a tool to make tournaments better. I never once said that it was the only way to go, or that all events should use it.

My "random bunch of name drops" may or may not have had Comp as a factor in why they don't build cookie-cutter armies. In most of their cases, I know they came up and were successful in Comped events, that they're successful in non-Comped events too (so no one should doubt their abilities as players) and I know that they don't use cookie-cutter armies. They can speak for themselves as to whether Comp was a factor in that, though I suspect strongly that Blackmoor and the guys from Da Boyz, at least, would say so. If they did, I don't see how that's a bad thing. and I'm a little confused as to why you would think it's a bad thing.

yeenoghu wrote:It can't be ignored that any attempt to impose guidelines for scoring composition will become an exploitable system itself.

1. From one perspective, this is a feature, not a bug. If people enjoy "gaming" the system by watering down their lists to get better Comp scores, the system is serving its purpose.
2. A checklist/guidelines doesn't have to be part of a comp council system.

You express your opinions very strongly. MVBrandt has pointed out that the stridency with which I have been expressing mine has compromised their persuasiveness. But next to you I look like a beacon of beatific patience.

yeenoghu wrote: As already discusse, the sportsmanship one is so vague it just begs for subjectivity and favoritism.

Take it to the other thread. I still think you're wrong, but we can argue it out over there.

yeenoghu wrote:For painting;I could paint a figure with the most godawful color scheme, ridiculous can-can-dance pose (but hey it's "dynamic"), smurf-villiage under its feet for a base (but it has 2 elements added on it!) that would get all the points on the painting checklist except the one for "does the miniature look good". Still just by going down the checklist I can paint an almost perfect score joke just by staying within the proverbial lines, and milking the system. Not that I'm saying that people do this, but they could do this.

Off topic, but I'll indulge you.

No, not with a well-written checklist judged by people who know how to paint and are familiar with basic techniques. Here's a common checklist:

Well 38/40 isn't bad is it? TWO whopping points for the hot pink and swamp green space wolf models with rainbow colored mohawks and converted ork arms and tyranid heads dancing the can-can over smurf villiage with neatly picked out eyes and so on. Making sure to throw some uniformly unlikely body parts on them for 'entire army is extremely converted' bit.

This would take a lot of work just to look atrocious, and is really just a mockery of the points system that nobody in their right mind would do. Perhaps it is a less than ideal example, but the point is that it can be done, that any cut-and-dry checklist can be used against its intended purpose.

The 'overall appearance is pleasing' is worth as many points as gluing a plastic skull to every base. I'm not trying to argue that this is a good idea, but I wonder how many people have squeezed in those skulls (whatever) just because they could get an extra couple of points for it.

This isn't about painting or sportsmanship though, the larger issue I have with all of these attempts to categorize and apply a mathematical system to soft scores is that it just gets exploitable.

Not 38/40. The kind of crap army you're talking about (which we see online, but almost never at an actual tournament) inevitably also has terrible technical execution, and misses almost all the 2pt questions about quality of technique.

I think you're exaggerating the issue, and that the problems you are screaming about are not much more substantial than the imaginary "hot pink and swamp green space wolf" army trend which has been sweeping across the tournament scene and making a mockery of all our carefully-designed painting scores (oh noes!).

It's a parallel, I'm not saying horrible army exists.

Consider the COMP score made into a definative rule of what does and does not qualify you for losing a point off of your score: just as some hypothetical forinstances, all identicle armed squads is a sign of spamming, therefore dock a point off of the score, therefore 1 long fang takes a lascannon instead to save the point. Giving all large ork mobs a hidden powerclaw is a sign of maximising utility so dock a point, so some genius takes just less than the number required to be considered a 'large' mob. Wound allocation tailoring dock a point, therefore 2 guys get armed the same and one dies quicker than everyone else to save that point.

Any way of trying to balance out what all come down to imbalanced rules can be sidestepped one way or another with just a small tweak intended solely for that purpose (like gluing a skull to every base). If 25 is the cutoff for the ork mob, everyone will use 24, or whichever hypothetical standard is made to determine what is good and bad army composition.
Along those lines, you may as well introduce another soft score for how little you tailored your list to the now hardened composition score too. I'm not "screaming" I just can't understand any way of avoiding that kind of player in an environment so amped up with understandably competative attitudes.

I think if you have to force players to innovate with points rather than their own determination to win then it's a problem with the player base. If a player isn't willing to work on their list, tweak it and find new ways to win then no amount of bonus points will fix that.

However, some units are simply ineffective in competitive play and using them does not create variety, it's just poor list building. I've seen far more innovative and competitive lists come out of YTTH than I've ever seen at any of the comp events I've attended.

A few general thoughts on this topic, some based on economic theory:

1. A lot of the argument over comp scores comes down to the following question: Does every army have the right to have competitive builds at any one time? A lot of the arguments for comp scores boil down to "Necrons and Tau suck compared to Space Wolves and IG, so we need to help Necron and Tau players out". This is a hard question to answer. Comparing to M:TG suggests no. It's been a decade since I was a competitive M:TG player, but I can definetly remember times when certain colors were totally absent from the tournament scene. A more useful comparison might be Legend of the Five Rings, though, where people take clan loyalty seriously. A good solution might be GW giving FAQs to old armies every couple of years. That really could be a good idea for them, it would help them sell their back catalog of models to get more out of their investments.

2. The other major argument for comp scores is basically: "Spamming units is boring". This is basically impossible to prevent, and I can prove it using economics. In economics, it is generally assumed that people like to consume a mix of goods, the idea being that most people want to consume some food, some shelter, some clothes, some entertainment, etc. This is basically guaranteed if the following two things are true: Prices act linearly (That is, prices don't change based on how much you buy, milk costs $3 a carton no matter how many cartons you buy) and you get increasingly less satisfaction from a unit of something as you consume more of it (The first TV set is much more useful to you than the 25th). But, what if this second property, which we call "diminishing marginal utility", is false. Suppose that the 25th TV brings more happiness than the first. What will consumption patterns look like then?

The answer is that people will tend to consume only 1 thing. This is very uncommon in real life, but let's try to fit this problem into a 40k context. Here, prices are points values. Note that in 40k, prices are linear, as we require. The first Predator costs the same as the third. Now, ask yourself: Does the third Predator add more value to a hypothetical list than the first? The answer, at least sometimes, is yes. It is a well known fact that lots of things are better taken in mulitples, due to target saturation and synergy. This isn't true for everything (Sanguinary Priests), but it is true often enough. The simple fact is that linear point values basically guarantee that spamming is the most effective way to build a list.

Now, what do comp scores do? To an extent they discourage spamming, as they act to make prices increase as you buy more by punishing taking multiples. However, it seems like they more strongly act to simply raise the price of certain units and lower the price of others. This does not discourage spamming, it simply encourages spamming something different than would be spammed at a non-comp tournament.

This is why doing comp well enough to satisfy even a majority is going to be really difficult. Ultimately, you have a conflict between those for whom winning is the top priority, and those who have other goals. Reconciling these two groups is pretty difficult. One way to at least shake up the armies being played in tournaments would be to do something like a sealed deck or booster draft for collectible card game tournaments. Maybe the organizer could require everyone to bring a 1000 point list, and then have a variety of 500 point or so packages of additional units that can be drafted to add to your existing army? I would think that official GW tournaments could make that happen at least. It is a well known fact that "limited" environment tournaments are the truest test of a Magic player's skill.

If there is interest, I could write an article fleshing out my arguments in point #2 above.

Well, there's a third consideration, we can call it Constraint 1, which is generally that the community at large wishes to see #1 and #2 achieved without violating Constraint 1: "Change the rules as little as possible, with optimally 0 impact on the underlying rules themselves".

Thus changing point costs is generally 'out', because that's one of the most drastic rules changes one could make. Unfortunately, this is probably the "best" option out of the lot, if done correctly, because anything can be a valid, competitive choice as long as it is priced cheaply enough relative to other options.

MrEconomics wrote:A few general thoughts on this topic, some based on economic theory:

1. A lot of the argument over comp scores comes down to the following question: Does every army have the right to have competitive builds at any one time? A lot of the arguments for comp scores boil down to "Necrons and Tau suck compared to Space Wolves and IG, so we need to help Necron and Tau players out". This is a hard question to answer. Comparing to M:TG suggests no. It's been a decade since I was a competitive M:TG player, but I can definetly remember times when certain colors were totally absent from the tournament scene. A more useful comparison might be Legend of the Five Rings, though, where people take clan loyalty seriously. A good solution might be GW giving FAQs to old armies every couple of years. That really could be a good idea for them, it would help them sell their back catalog of models to get more out of their investments.

Yeah the FAQ updates can really help out old armies or at least give them a nice shot in the arm to remain somewhat viable until a new codex comes around. The recent FAQ's for Black Templars and Dark Angels really helped those codices. They still aren't tier 1 but they are definitely playable in a competitive environment where they weren't before. In regards to those hapless codices in need of an update. I would argue that we can just leave well enough alone and wait for a new version. We can complain until we're blue in the face that Necrons are basically terrible but really aren't most codices playable these days? In fact the vast majority or codices can create at least 1 solid quality list if not 2. Maybe that Tau player doesn't have the flexibility that a Space Wolf player has in list construction, but really I see this as a non-problem. Yes not all codices are created equal, but most codices can create a competitive army. I just don't see handicapping based on codex as a necessity right now. Maybe it helps a Necron player, but at the expense of every other codex. Sorry but that's just not worth the trouble.

2. The other major argument for comp scores is basically: "Spamming units is boring". This is basically impossible to prevent, and I can prove it using economics. In economics, it is generally assumed that people like to consume a mix of goods, the idea being that most people want to consume some food, some shelter, some clothes, some entertainment, etc. This is basically guaranteed if the following two things are true: Prices act linearly (That is, prices don't change based on how much you buy, milk costs $3 a carton no matter how many cartons you buy) and you get increasingly less satisfaction from a unit of something as you consume more of it (The first TV set is much more useful to you than the 25th). But, what if this second property, which we call "diminishing marginal utility", is false. Suppose that the 25th TV brings more happiness than the first. What will consumption patterns look like then?

The answer is that people will tend to consume only 1 thing. This is very uncommon in real life, but let's try to fit this problem into a 40k context. Here, prices are points values. Note that in 40k, prices are linear, as we require. The first Predator costs the same as the third. Now, ask yourself: Does the third Predator add more value to a hypothetical list than the first? The answer, at least sometimes, is yes. It is a well known fact that lots of things are better taken in mulitples, due to target saturation and synergy. This isn't true for everything (Sanguinary Priests), but it is true often enough. The simple fact is that linear point values basically guarantee that spamming is the most effective way to build a list.

Now, what do comp scores do? To an extent they discourage spamming, as they act to make prices increase as you buy more by punishing taking multiples. However, it seems like they more strongly act to simply raise the price of certain units and lower the price of others. This does not discourage spamming, it simply encourages spamming something different than would be spammed at a non-comp tournament.
This is why doing comp well enough to satisfy even a majority is going to be really difficult. Ultimately, you have a conflict between those for whom winning is the top priority, and those who have other goals. Reconciling these two groups is pretty difficult. One way to at least shake up the armies being played in tournaments would be to do something like a sealed deck or booster draft for collectible card game tournaments. Maybe the organizer could require everyone to bring a 1000 point list, and then have a variety of 500 point or so packages of additional units that can be drafted to add to your existing army? I would think that official GW tournaments could make that happen at least. It is a well known fact that "limited" environment tournaments are the truest test of a Magic player's skill.

If there is interest, I could write an article fleshing out my arguments in point #2 above.

If people deem spamming a serious problem then you can use more objective forms of comp to solve that problem. For the record I don't see spamming as a problem, and frankly taking 3 of what is perceived as a great unit isn't actually always the best thing to do. Spam can create mono dimensional list construction. If often isn't optimal anyway. Even so if for whatever reason we feel that players should mix up their model selection you can always enforce singleton rules (one of any model only) or something to that effect. If you don't like Eldrad in a non Ulthwe craftworld then create those rules as well. That's fine for any given tournament. I see it as addressing a "problem" that I don't really feel exists, but if that's what a TO wants to do then so be it. Far better than some closed door Comp council IMO.

sourclams wrote:Well, there's a third consideration, we can call it Constraint 1, which is generally that the community at large wishes to see #1 and #2 achieved without violating Constraint 1: "Change the rules as little as possible, with optimally 0 impact on the underlying rules themselves".

Thus changing point costs is generally 'out', because that's one of the most drastic rules changes one could make. Unfortunately, this is probably the "best" option out of the lot, if done correctly, because anything can be a valid, competitive choice as long as it is priced cheaply enough relative to other options.

Totally agree. My point is that it is basically impossible to avoid spamming being optimal, because the changes required to discourage it are too drastic. I also acknowledge that spamming isn't always optimal, I just think it will be often enough to happen a lot when players are trying hard to win.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments, guys.

I agree with most of the last few posts. To a large extent Comp is much less necessary in 5th, and with the current codex mix. And it is very difficult to do well and effectively. Trying to make an objective checklist is almost always doomed to failure; it's theoretically possible with a great deal of work, but would need to be updated every time a codex comes out, and many of the judgments get subjective and finicky.

I do think Comp can be useful and provide beneficial effects, when used with care. It's very difficult, and often historically has been done badly. I just don't like seeing the entire concept disdained and defamed, when I've seen beneficial effects in action. We're best off with more options and possibilities for tournaments; I don't like seeing a tool for a TO discarded, even if it is hard to use.