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.

I want to throw my hat into the ring:

Comp scores generally are a poor way to level the playing field. I have built and taken my fair share of spam armies in an attempt to "theme" my army. For instance I ran a LR spam list for a while. Not only was this themed with a compliment of Grey Knights, it was overpowering (spam, low sportsmanship scores) against some armies, and really really bad (themed, high sportsmanship scores) against others. Now was the fact that I wanted to think that my Grey Knights were important enough to take Land Raiders a good enough reason to justify the fact that I had 4 land raiders on the field?

Because of the subjectivity of comp scores, it really is a bad thing. You might argue (and many have) that subjectivity does not equal bad. While I would agree that subjectivity is a great thing in some cases, in the cases of judging the intentions of another person (the inherent side effect of scoring someones army) and their thought process is rather bad. For instance, I am currently selling my SM pure biker list. Tell me, is this a themed army or is it spam? Should I get a high comp or a low comp? A nob biker list? A Battlewagon list? any list with spam is inherently themed. As other people have mentioned, spam only works some of the time. Trick armies only work some of the time. I dare anyone to put a list on dakka and declare it unbeatable, someone will place a list that would beat the crap out of it. inherently in a tournament, armies should fix themselves. What i mean by this is that the one trick ponies are going to get tabled and beaten, and the balanced armies are going to get beaten by the spam.

But saying that my army is overpowered, when i only wanted to provide a good theme to my army is wrong. who are you to tell me that when I built the army I thought optimization over theme? You don't/can't. That is why a subjective system to level the playing field fails. That is why Composition Scoring in War Gaming is not a usable system the way the game is currently played.

You touch on this a bit in your post, but I think what you're really getting at is:

Bad lists can spam just as much as good lists, but just do it badly.

"Spam" as a derogatory term seems to be used most commonly with people who want to play battleforce-style lists and be competitive. In which case, your list-building ability is not competitive and you should stop being a hypocrite.

No.

I mean a beats b and b beats c and c beats a. That is not overpowered. Getting lucky by rolling well is not overpowered. Themeing an army is not overpowered.

Every army has inherent weaknesses and strengths. Themeing an army (by spam or whatever) will allow you to roll some enemies (because you ARE overpowered) and get tabled by others (because you ARE NOT overpowered). This doesnt mean you have a bad list. It just means that some things beat some armies easier. Should you the player get docked points because it inherently is stronger than some other ones? No. Should you get more points because you are inherently weaker? No. Should you get docked because you are not "themeing" your army to someone elses specifications? no.

Alternately, it could be said that players who don't have the skill to play with flexible lists call those lists "battleforce-style lists"...

What would you call DevianID's list in this thread?

Nurglitch wrote:Alternately, it could be said that players who don't have the skill to play with flexible lists call those lists "battleforce-style lists"...

Or maybe they do, but they are smart enough to bring a good army.

Nurglitch wrote:What would you call DevianID's list in this thread?

Bad

(Ooo he won some comped tournament that people brought terrible lists too, his list must be good. Oh and before it starts, no I didn't fly to philly to play in this, but that doesn't make me wrong)



Oh btw, for you people who think the last 2 codices are the only 2 that can field multiple strong and different builds, here are the ones that can do multiple.

Sisters,
Space Marines
Space Wolves
Dark Angels
Tyranids
Eldar
Orks
Blood angels (soon)

Here are the ones that can field 1 really strong build or 2+ decent ones:

Chaos space marines
Tau
Dark Eldar
Daemonhunters (depending on points level)

And the uncompetitive ones:

Daemons
Necrons


So the majority of codices can build a very competitive army in a variety of ways.

I would have liked to reply with this sooner, but unfortunately Dakka is blocked at work. Interesting thread though and I'm glad the dialogue is continuing despite some posters' attempts to stimy it. Anyways--

AH-HA! I figured it out. We aren't talking about the same thing! It's amazing in the days of RAW that no one bothered to define what "tournament" means. (Then again, no ones ever given me a good definition of RAW, that all the people arguing will stick to, either.) If you don't 'define' a word first, you can't use terms like 'by definition'. Hmmm, actually, I guess you can, since you did. Let's change it to, "Shouldn't use them, if trying to use them correctly".

I prefer to let the dictionary handle definitions of words. It facilitates communication. Your mileage may vary.

And sarcasm aside, I think it's important for all TO's running any type of gaming event, to define what the event is about, and how they are setting it up to meet those expectations.

The mere act of billing an event as "tournament" creates (defines) a large set of expectations based on what the word "tournament" means and its obvious sporting event connotation.

You think 'tournament' means some type of competition where we only care about figuring out who the best player of the day is.
'Ardboys style, crappy scenery ok, crappy tables ok, doesn't matter how the guy across the table acts, and screw prizes. We only care about about who the winner is. Design things to go that way. (I'm obviously guessing, btw, since I don't have telepathy, and can only go on the assumption that you care about Competition, and don't care about anything else).

Lots of assumptions. Unfortunately, most of them are wrong. I give you a C+ or effort. Since you've taken such a keen interest in dissecting what you think my personal version of an ideal tournament is feel free to check my Dakka post history and my blog (baldandscreaming.com). You'll find them present in both, and in great detail.

I think of a 'tournament' as a gathering of like minded individuals, that wish to compete with each other while having a good time, talk, tell stories, drink beer, and enjoy other parts of the hobby, such as painting and modeling. To that end I have some rules and scoring that tries to make reality match design.

I think of a tournament as "a series of contests in which a number of contestants compete and the one that prevails through the final round or that finishes with the best record is declared the winner" (American Heritage Dictionary). The word "series" is vital here, because in the context of a Warhammer "tournament" this refers to the 3-5 serially played rounds. A tournament doesn't preclude having a good time, talking, telling stories, drinking beer, painting, or modeling--but it doesn't include them either. If that's your bag then there's nothing stopping you from enjoying these parts of the hobby at a tournament. However, when you make any of these mandatory then you've ventured outside of tournament territory and into something else entirely, which I refer to as a hobby competition.

These are pretty obvious at many tournaments. They aren't done for competition, but to run a good event. There's probably a hundred other things a TO could do, or screw up. Do as much as you can right, and people have a good time.

They're obvious at hobby contests. Just because you call it a tournament doesn't make it so. However, people have a good time at tournaments too, you know. Many claim that things like comp scores are needed to run a good or even enjoyable event, but this is misguided as best, and delusional at worst. The local tournaments here don't run them (or paint scoring, or even sportsmanship scoring) and they see turn-outs in excess of 40 people on a bi-monthly basis. We all manage to have a great time.

In the end, that's my goal: Players get together for gaming, and have a good time. All of them, or as many as I can keep happy. Not just the ones that came for a competition.

Textbook example of the Warhammer community's favorite false dichotomy as described here. Playing competitively is not distinct from having a good time (playing for fun). In fact, for any genuinely competitive player they are one in the same, and with complete disregard for who wins or loses.

Thought i'd give my opinion on all this. To start off i'll say i'm new to the game and have never been in an actual GW tournament, but i like the idea of comp scores.
It seems that they're supposed to reward those who paint well and play nicely in both an army build and sportsman wise, but i don't think that comp score should be anything more than i tie breaker.
I want there to be incentive for player to be actually nice to each other and not build full cheese lists because they want to win because i feel that without that the game would be less fun.
On the other hand a jerk giving me crap comp scores ruining my chances to place tops is why they shouldn't be worth much in tournaments.
I say if 2 people are tied for first in a tournament, the nice guy, who didn't bring a beardy list and painted his models nicely should win.

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.

Those comp systems didn't work all that well though IMO (especially the ubiquitous 40% troops, % this and that style comp systems). My most hated tournament experiences used that comp system and gave certain armies advantages and took the tools that other armies had to deal with hard as nails troop heavy armies out of the equation. Just one mans opinion though.

Clearly the GT event Comp system worked very well, evidenced by the existence of Comp in GT events that also exist... oh wait....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:Alternately, it could be said that players who don't have the skill to play with flexible lists call those lists "battleforce-style lists"...

What would you call DevianID's list in this thread?

It's a bad list that won a tournament against a bunch of other bad lists.

Shrike + Vanguard

1k Sons squads

Chaos Bikes

Definitely not the cream of the competitive crop.

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.

I think your definition of what constitutes the competition is flawed within the context of any Warhammer event specifically billed as a "tournament." A tournament, by definition, is determined by the outcome of a series of events. The series is clearly the games which are played back-to-back, each of which directly influenced by the outcome of the games previous. The painting and comp scoring parts of the event exist totally outside of that series of competitions, which is why I find it inappropriate that they are used in determining who wins the series as a whole.

Note, this is not to say that I'm against hobby events. I played in many Rogue Trader tournaments back when GW still supported them and they were scored more or less the same as GT's at the time. I've also attended a couple of GW Games Day events in Baltimore and they're fun. They're just different is all, and they're not for everyone.

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.

This is an assumption that is incorrect. Whether or not my opponent brings a painted army to the table has absolutely no bearing on my enjoyment of the game. Perhaps it improves the experiences of hobbyist players, but I'm not one of them. Conversely, an opponent who bring a competitive army always makes my game more enjoyable. I recognize that this is because I'm a competitive player, and this won't necessarily hold true for a hobbyist. Why discourage one way of enjoying the game and not the other?

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.

As stated before, this is a straw man example that doesn't tend to happen in real life. The unfortunate reality is that there is no way to accurately handicap armies, which makes it even less tolerable. What happens when two players have the same battle points but differ only by 1 point in comp? I'd hardly call it fair to award the less handicapped player with first place by using an admittedly inaccurate scoring system when they both performed equally well and scored well within any perceived margin of error.

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.

...which is all the more reason not to use the sample as the basis for rationalizing comp scoring.

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.

I admit, I phrased that poorly. You and the other poster are indeed correct that handicapping does exist in the NFL, horse racing, etc. I was more referring to events like the Olympics, which is a much "purer" competitive venue. Football and baseball are more entertainment than real sporting competitions, especially considering the competitive nature of the events is compromised simply to make the games more exciting for viewers.

There were some good and different lists there. It is easy to not play in a GT then say everyone there sucked... I have to call BS on that poor attitude. There was a good number of vets there with proven records. DevianID is definitely a very good player as is yermom.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:There were some good and different lists there. It is easy to not play in a GT then say everyone there sucked... I have to call BS on that poor attitude. There was a good number of vets there with proven records. DevianID is definitely a very good player as is yermom.

G

There may have been good players there (I know several who attended), but the lists that the winner played against were indeed trash. Maybe the generals were spectacular, but the lists certainly weren't. I mean, it's kind of hard not to massacre a Necron or Tzeentch list.

Danny Internets wrote:I mean, it's kind of hard not to massacre a Necron or Tzeentch list.

I must disagree some people do play necrons quite well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl5kFzg2gS0&feature=related
Check it out its blogger "Fritz" playing 2k pts of Necrons at the November 21, 2009 Battle For Salvation Tournament. He did quiet well in the end as recall

Case in point.

Joetaco wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:I mean, it's kind of hard not to massacre a Necron or Tzeentch list.

I must disagree some people do play necrons quite well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl5kFzg2gS0&feature=related
Check it out its blogger "Fritz" playing 2k pts of Necrons at the November 21, 2009 Battle For Salvation Tournament. He did quiet well in the end as recall

Fritz and I play in the same club. I was one point out of first place in that tournament with my IG.

Danny Internets wrote:

Joetaco wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:I mean, it's kind of hard not to massacre a Necron or Tzeentch list.

I must disagree some people do play necrons quite well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl5kFzg2gS0&feature=related
Check it out its blogger "Fritz" playing 2k pts of Necrons at the November 21, 2009 Battle For Salvation Tournament. He did quiet well in the end as recall

Fritz and I play in the same club. I was one point out of first place in that tournament with my IG.

just goes to show, small world after all, but as a whole i'd have to agree with your orginal "kind of hard not to massacre a necron or Tzeentch list"
PS: thank Fritz for me I love his tactics and his videos were one of the reasons i originally got into 40k.

He's a good gamer with valuable insights and I always recommend his site to new players. If you ever find yourself in the NY area feel free to stop by!

TBH, I think DevianID's list is pretty interesting. However, as he mentioned, the comp did have an effect on the metagame there. Whether people like his list or not, he realized the implications of the comp environment and used his skills in both playing and list building given those constraints to his advantage. List building still remains a skill in a comped environment... you just have additional constraints applied.

My problem with comp is both in its goals and implementation. Is the goal of comp to "even the playing field", "discourage spam", or "encourage themed armies? Each of those has to be setup and scored a different way. If you want to even the playing field you have to penalize certain codicies or builds. If you want to discourage spam, you place restraints on replicating units. Theme is a mess because what one person considers a theme, another person might consider abusive.

Implementation-wise, how do you do it consistently and in such a way that everyone can have an idea of how their army will be scored beforehand and so "locals" (or prior attenders) won't have a better idea of how it works. If you're going to do a comp system, I really think it should be as objective and open as possible.

.I personally prefer no-comp because the less subjectivity the better. (The small number of games in most tournaments means there is already a large amount of luck such as terrain, matchups, and scenarios already inherent in the system.) I also think that a legal army list is a legal army list, so people shouldn't be penalized for running something the codex says is okay. However, it's one of those things where if I know about it going in and don't get blindsided, it's not a big deal. I have to understand that tournaments with high percentage of soft scores are more about the "hobby" aspect and set my expectations accordingly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny Internets wrote:He's a good gamer with valuable insights and I always recommend his site to new players. If you ever find yourself in the NY area feel free to stop by!

What part of NY? I'm relocating up to Rome, NY this month, and I'm trying to find some sort of 40k group up there.

Gornall, NY is really short on hobby stores, except in NYC. The closest place to me is The Dragons Den, which is several hours away. Does anyone know of a closer gaming club in the Ulster county area?

What part of NY? I'm relocating up to Rome, NY this month, and I'm trying to find some sort of 40k group up there.

It's about 15 miles or so north of NYC (White Plains, to be specific). I remember that there used to be a ton of Rogue Trader tournaments in Syracuse, might still be a scene there.

Gornall, NY is really short on hobby stores, except in NYC. The closest place to me is The Dragons Den, which is several hours away. Does anyone know of a closer gaming club in the Ulster county area?

Wow, I didn't know any of the Dragons Den stores still existed. I bought my first 40k mini from the one that was in Greenwich, CT like 20 years ago. Thought they all closed up shop!

Your baseball agrument is dead on. The yankees do try to pad their roster full of all the best players that money can buy. But is it right?? Is that what you want your team, ie army, to be?? Anybody can buy all the great expensive models, players, they want but is that in the spirit of the game? I'd rather play real gamers then "power" gamers tourny or no tourny

Gornall wrote:Implementation-wise, how do you do it consistently and in such a way that everyone can have an idea of how their army will be scored beforehand and so "locals" (or prior attenders) won't have a better idea of how it works. If you're going to do a comp system, I really think it should be as objective and open as possible.

And that is the $50,000 question. To which I don't think there is an answer.

Earlier in the thread, the definition of "tournament" was debated. Games Workshop was the one who 'defined' their Grand Tournaments (originally) as 'Hobby Tournaments' and included battle points, comp, sports, and painting. So when someone says '40k tournament', that is the first thing that pops into my mind (my first GT being around 1998 or so, the last of the 2nd ed tournies). The nature of GT's has clearly changed (from hobby events, to Ard Boyz, to the current circuit, to the UK comp-less system) over the years.

How comp was done went through several iterations, from 'judge based' comp scores, to percentages, to rubrics. And every one of them could be 'gamed' to gain some kind of advantage either through the list, or for a particular army. Once the structure is out there, people will work within the structure for greatest advantage. That's the nature of the competitive event. And since we're now playing for Vegas tickets, or huge amounts of stuff, it has become competitive (the old GTs gave you a statue and bragging rights).

I used to love Comp in tournies, and wouldn't play if it wasn't there. I've now changed my tune, and prefer non-comp tournies. It allows me to bring what I want, and I don't have to sweat it. I'm a decent enough player, but I'm not deluding myself to think I'm winning a GT, so I play, do okay, and end up on the middle tables, with like powered (or like generaled) armies. And when I go in with the 'I'll play games to play, and if I do well, that's great' kind of attitude, I have more fun.

I think that the emphasis on loot for the tournaments, Vegas tickets, and the "circuit" have almost led to a professionalisation of the tournies, around a system not really designed to support it. Because the system is inherently unbalanced, comp tries to redress it. And I think that all it does it moves the "cheese" target from one army, or build, to another, unseen or unforseen army or build. So its basically a lot of work for no real benefit.

My 3 cents.

Yeah, that's why composition that's wholly objective requires pre-written lists that players can subscribe to, because there's no other practical way of stating that one legal army from the same list is the same as another. Otherwise you just need to realize that composition is subjective, and therefore bunk, and therefore should be left out of competition.

Danny Internets wrote:

What part of NY? I'm relocating up to Rome, NY this month, and I'm trying to find some sort of 40k group up there.

It's about 15 miles or so north of NYC (White Plains, to be specific). I remember that there used to be a ton of Rogue Trader tournaments in Syracuse, might still be a scene there.

Gornall, NY is really short on hobby stores, except in NYC. The closest place to me is The Dragons Den, which is several hours away. Does anyone know of a closer gaming club in the Ulster county area?

Wow, I didn't know any of the Dragons Den stores still existed. I bought my first 40k mini from the one that was in Greenwich, CT like 20 years ago. Thought they all closed up shop!

Nope, still one in Poughkeepsie. Nice place, but has a VERY small GW section.

It's very disrepectful to not play in a tourney and say the lists were trash. Personally I don't think you could consistently beat the top 5 players (battle points). That is why you sound like a punk to many people following this thread. Sure comp can be a pain but top players deal with it rather than crying like a little baby that needs to be burped by momma. If I remember correctly Ard Boyz was pure battlepoints but the armchair quarterbacks dissed it last year... Even when anybody with half a lick of sense can realize and respect that mech IG is a very tough list. Compare mech IG to hte new Nidz. Mech IG is all about moar win while the new Nidz are overly balanced. To me if I read both codices without knowing they were both written by the same developer I would never guess that. I have seen my share of local tournies where half of the armies are mech IG and guess what... They don't cry about comp they cry about kill points. Yeah they want EVERYTHING in their favor with no obstacles. Sometimes I joke around and say mech IG should roll 1d6 on a 3+ they auto win. From my experience I have won my share of games even when I automatically lost some points due to any particular comp system. As long as battlepoints are greater than the sum of the soft scores you can win with a good build otherwise 'soft' tournies would just boil down to who brought the most pretty armies. That's a fact and you can't get around it. If you are that strongly opposed then try to run your own big tourney and set the record straight. Anybody can sit back and say what is wrong with the world today but very few can offer a real solution.

G

Green Blow Fly:

Who are you addressing?

Wow, in the same breath GBF managed to whine about people whining, and then whine about IG being overpowered. Bravo! Either a masterpiece in trolling or disorganized thinking, I cannot tell which.

Pst, GBF, I know I said this in an earlier post. But some people can't go to all these tournaments located all over the country.

You know, some of us would have to drive 8+ hrs to the closest one.


I know you think peoples opinions only matter dependent on there geographic location and how easily they can attend "major" events.


/waits for post saying this thread isn't worth your time...

I was whining about IG whining about KPs. Not the same thing you tried to allude to and gloss over. Not by any means Danny. Go back, read what I said, be honest with yourself about it. You'll be a better person if you can learn to honestly accept criticism... Glossy Boy

G

mikhaila wrote:And I think you miss the point. Blame a TO if you like, it is their system. (Or might be the system used by a large group of people putting on the event, but sure, he's in charge.) But really, do we need to keep inplying that TO's are adding a composition score to a tournament just so they can cheat and favor their friends? Really?! CT Gamer is the second person I've had say that. Possibly he read the earlier post and decided to throw it out because I mentioned it. You don't think that's going to make someone angry a bit, to be accused of blatantly cheating a tournament full of people so you can give prizes to friends? There are a lot of easier ways to give stuff to your friends, than putting in a huge amount of work, and cheating people, and then taking well deserved crap about it forever.

I don't like my friends that much. Not worth going through it. Rather just had them boxes off the wall.

Please tell me why else would someone put in an arbitrary, subjective system in place?

To be fair?