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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Why should every game be a no-comp tournament game when it doesn't have to be?

Ask instead.."why make something comp if it doesn't have to be" - non-comp is the explicit default, straight out of the box, -comp- is add on, and an ill-defined one at that, (lets see, there have been 3-4 different systems mention here, all pushing towards "take 4 troops choices and you -might- get a good score, unless you take an AFV instead of an APC) so unless you're a little more explicit with what your advocating for, expect folks to take you with a grain of salt...

Unless you -like- having judges randomly score your army based on their own biases...

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

I'm introducing a type of tourney where folks are scored on their Froz... From an argument that more diversity of gaming, is a good thing, it seems that Froz tourney are the next best thing since sliced bread, because before we had only Non-Froz games, now we have Froz -and- Non-Froz games, once however it's revealed that your Froz score is based on how much you've spent at the FLGS in the last month you'll find that it's negativly impacted the actuall diversity in gaming, since it's effectivly limited the pool of players to the more well heeled folks in a particular county.

Given that comp as you've said "penalizes" folks for taking particular lists, it explicitly -reduces- the variety of the lists at a given tourney, pushing toward a vanilla middle, rather then letting folks explore extremes, and since you can take those exact same vanilla lists at a non-comp tourney, it seems to me that it detracts from the variety of play rather than enhancing it

An additional option does not allways increase diversity, so perhaps you should set out what you feel a good comp system does, and how it actually -does- increase diversity, other than in the Froz/Non-Froz way..

.

No comp in tournaments.

Yes this is a hobby, but a tournament is a competition to determine who the best player of the game is.

If you want painting and nice guy points to be more important than who wins the most games (and believe it or not, someone said that is the way a tournament should be run at my old gaming group in SoCal) then call it a game event, or something. Don't call it a tournament.

For those of us who like the competitive aspect of 40K, who enjoy a tense game where you use every ounce of your experience, tactics, tricks and brainpower to win against a skilled opponent doing the same, it is a slap in the face to lose based on the fact that someone edged you out due to a factor you had no control over, such as a stupid judge's unfounded opinion of the "fluffiness" (I even hate how sissyfied that word sounds) of your army.

Tournaments should be legal/illegal. That is it. Let the non competitive players gather to admire one another's paint jobs (which is fine) in another venue.

IMHO

Ardboyz: For killing stuff . Battle points only

RTs: Battle, painting, comp, sportsmanship. Leave it up to a combo of TO and participants. TO breaks ties. Prep for GTs and/or IndyGTs

GTs and/or IndyGTs: Award for top three, no overall

Something for everybody right?

Comp is there to make power lists weaker... which means that other power lists will pop up to fit the comp and now they are the strongest...

DUDE just play the game! If its legal, it's Legal! Deal! You can't stop people from doing their best to win if they think winning is fun. As long as they don't cheat and play completely by the rules!

Example of comp ruining my experience at a tourny.
tourny event organizer said no comp except in pairings... OK I can deal with that. seemingly the night before... he changes his mind and does comp in scores and pairings... SO i spent 6 weeks working on an army and then the rules change... I still took best general because I know the rules and how to play... but if comp was dropped I would have won best over all. Instead best overall went to the guy with the best comp... wtf?

My paint job was better (scored by judges 19/20)
My battle points were better(49/57)
My opponents were tougher.(Vulkan terrmi list/Dual Lash oblit spam/Drop wolves)
His comp was higher (I had like a 2 for comp, he had 17 this was out of 20)

Seriously? Does that sound like best over all? Or just best comp?

I still had fun, and the organizer was a cool guy... but comp made the tourny less fun then it could have been for me.

frgsinwntr wrote:Comp is there to make power lists weaker... which means that other power lists will pop up to fit the comp and now they are the strongest...

DUDE just play the game! If its legal, it's Legal! Deal!

QFT again.

If you dont like the way 40k is written then dont go to a 40k tournament, FAQ and clarificatiions are one thing, randomly deciding that your idea of what is legal is better than the game designers is a universal fail.

Not because I love the choices of the designers, but because that is the default standard everyone knows, changing it just adds another random element that gives someone else an unfair advantage. We all know what the power builds are, its no secret, so consider it a challenge to your list building and playing skills to beat it.

Patton did not ask someone to make Tiger Tanks illegal during the invasion of Normandy. He knew that Shermans sucked, and he adjusted his tactics and forces to compensate. I loved his mindset because he loved it when he faced a tough determined and skilled enemy. It made him feel that he had a challenge worthy of his massive ego,,, err.,,, skills.

O'l Blood and Guts would break out the slapping glove the moment someone tried to mention Comp based handicap systems.

This is war EmperorDamn it, no ones gonna hold your hand!

The only Comp scores I've seen that ever work are the ones that are deliniated beforehand. Things like 40% troop, <20% HQ, etc. Otherwise it's far to much at risk of becoming a 'does the judge like your army' score.

I understand the point of them - does the army fit the 'fluff' of how these armies are constructed (due to avaliablity, etc), but it really is a secondary thing. It should be used as more of a Tiebraker then a major component.

Your Patten example is kind of off though, your example would be more equivilent to a Turny orginizer saying landraiders are illegal, not reqireing composition scores (which, by deffinition, a IRL army can't fail)

Bigtmac68, I am drafting you onto my team!

OddJob. wrote:I personally really like the UKGT system:

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

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

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

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

I agree with this guy. Although we don't have them any more, American GTs are basically meaningless because they're simply made up of gamers who can afford to go; they serve as no true test of who the best gamers are. The Heat system means that you know the guys who win the last heat are the best gamers with the best armies.

Mars.Techpriest wrote:The only Comp scores I've seen that ever work are the ones that are deliniated beforehand. Things like 40% troop, <20% HQ, etc. Otherwise it's far to much at risk of becoming a 'does the judge like your army' score.

I understand the point of them - does the army fit the 'fluff' of how these armies are constructed (due to avaliablity, etc), but it really is a secondary thing. It should be used as more of a Tiebraker then a major component.

Your Patten example is kind of off though, your example would be more equivilent to a Turny orginizer saying landraiders are illegal, not reqireing composition scores (which, by deffinition, a IRL army can't fail)

Actually, in his Patton example, land raiders are perfectly legal, but the space marine player knows that his opponents will have tons of rail guns so chooses not to bring them.

Sounds like a classic case of comp-cheating, the thing thats been going around since comp came into the picture and the reason why GW europe at least removed it.

Somethimes a cheating organizer/judge just borked people over and some other times the rumorus about it was just as damaging to the store/organiser making them loose craploads of players(potential customers). But this case just sound like blatant cheating, I would never visit that place again and recommend anyone I know to stay the hell out of there.

We've had people around here whine about power-gamers and such, but it's funy how the worst whiner gives good comp to a dual monolith list played by his son...

Ozymandias wrote:

Bahkara wrote:

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

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

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

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

lol, no, it was run at someone's home. We had maybe 16 players. It's been a few years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tournament - a contest of many persons in some sport or game in which the competitors play a series of games.

Although there are other factors in a GT/RTT I believe they can still be called tournaments as a series of games are played.

willydstyle wrote:

OddJob. wrote:I personally really like the UKGT system:

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

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

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

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

I agree with this guy. Although we don't have them any more, American GTs are basically meaningless because they're simply made up of gamers who can afford to go; they serve as no true test of who the best gamers are. The Heat system means that you know the guys who win the last heat are the best gamers with the best armies.

Money is certainly a factor for the UKGTs as well- £55 ticket + Travel + Accommodation mounts up quickly. In my experience however, it is generally the gaming head honchos that are prepared to put in the time, effort and cash to attend. The Yankie GTs (if they were still around) are just as valid as the heats.

To put it another way- if you don't go to the big tournaments you can't be a top player. You are only as good as your opponents, and the best opponents are at the top tables of the big tournaments.