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 know I couldn't play in a tourney that uses the painting checklist that is pictured above. I would only score 18 of 40 points. I'm not a good enough painter/modeller to be able to score any more than that and I'm not a good enough player to overcome that handicap so adios to that tourney.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I know I couldn't play in a tourney that uses the painting checklist that is pictured above. I would only score 18 of 40 points. I'm not a good enough painter/modeller to be able to score any more than that and I'm not a good enough player to overcome that handicap so adios to that tourney.

Most tourneys have a 'best general' which is raw battlepoints. So while you may not be able to do best overall everywhere, I am not sure it makes all tourneys a waste of your time as you can still win. Besides... you might actually have 'fun' playing games with others with no expectation of financial reward. The simple act of playing somewhere with nice terrain and someone else organizing 3-4 back to back games that make the best use of my time is usually reward enough.

nkelsch wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I know I couldn't play in a tourney that uses the painting checklist that is pictured above. I would only score 18 of 40 points. I'm not a good enough painter/modeller to be able to score any more than that and I'm not a good enough player to overcome that handicap so adios to that tourney.

Most tourneys have a 'best general' which is raw battlepoints. So while you may not be able to do best overall everywhere, I am not sure it makes all tourneys a waste of your time as you can still win. Besides... you might actually have 'fun' playing games with others with no expectation of financial reward. The simple act of playing somewhere with nice terrain and someone else organizing 3-4 back to back games that make the best use of my time is usually reward enough.

+1 to this.

A) All those goals are achievable by virtually anyone with some practice and work. I think I got ~ a 25 or 26? I wasn't in contention to win Best Painted, but neither are the vast majority of players in a given tournament. And the best painters aren't always the best players, either.

B) The tournament I took that from didn't actually add painting into the Overall; the main winner was purely battle points. Painting was a purely separate category.

C) If your only reason to attend a tournament is to win, you are going into it with the wrong mindset, honestly. The main point is to get 3 or more games in, against fun (and hopefully some new) opponents, and see a bunch of nice-looking, fully-painted armies. Your average Saturday at the local hobby shop, for most people, is not a time you can expect to get three games, not a time you can expect to see people from out of town and meet new gamers, and not a time you can expect to see all painted armies.

I always shoot to win, but I know that only one person's going to, so if I make my happiness contingent on winning, I am setting myself up for a binary choice- victory or disappointment. And that's a fool's game. Better to be happy about the above things you are guaranteed to get, and take winning something as a nice bonus when you achieve it.

I guess my position is that I can, and do, play for fun but why should I pay for it? I already play at my LFGS and I don't see the need to incur extra costs to have fun else-where.
However, my main point is that things that, to one person, make the tourney more interesting can make it seem more restrictive to someone else. Let's be honest, people play to win at tournements and if you already start at what you feel is a disadvantage then you're not likely to attend. The disadvantage could be your paint score or it could be you feel handicapped by a comp rule in either case it just makes some people not want to attend the event. If you're one of those people who feel that they just want to play the game to "play the game" then it doesn't matter what rules are involved with the event. You're going to attend regardless.

As long as the check list is not tiered, so that you have to score 100% of the checks from one tier to earn any checks in another tier.
I do much better at modeling than I do painting, and in one GT, the organizers use the tier, and in another one, they don't.
The GT with the tier also uses the arbitrary Comp score too, leaving it entirly up to the opponents to score and sportsmanship.
Check boxes make it fair, so at least you know everyone is being held to the same standard.

People act like comp, painting and sportsmanship prevent them from winning. It does nothing of the kind. All it means is that you win via a different system.

One of the biggest jerks on the gaming table locally suddenly decided one day that he was going to try and win via something other than brute force. He became the funnest gamer you ever played with. He subsequently won sportsmanship at local tournis all over the place. DO i think he suddenly became the greatest person to play with. No. i just think he was acting but he made the games more fun.

Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

And yes. there should always be different prize for best overall, best general and best painted, best sport and grot award for the biggest looser. It make the tourni more fun IMHO

sennacherib wrote:Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Or the 'foes' could actually take a good list to a tournament so they don't get 'rolled over'.

It's very sad that folks want to bring down playing levels rather than try to elevate others playing levels to bring some equality to the competitive scene.

People act like comp, painting and sportsmanship prevent them from winning. It does nothing of the kind. All it means is that you win via a different system.

This is absolutely correct.

One of the biggest jerks on the gaming table locally suddenly decided one day that he was going to try and win via something other than brute force. He became the funnest gamer you ever played with. He subsequently won sportsmanship at local tournis all over the place. DO i think he suddenly became the greatest person to play with. No. i just think he was acting but he made the games more fun.

Really? I dont want to play an opponent who ACTS in order to be nice. I would rather take the jerk.

Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Speaking from my perspective: I have just models for the army I play. This army has some heart and theme in it and the combinations are optimized through many battles. So this army has a history and some thought behind it.
In a malificious system there comes a random comp. where I have to suffer probably more from than some randomly chosen heap of units, which isnt better themed, just less thoughts behind it.

In a benefition system, you have those guys optimizing between bonus and strength in order to reach the best possible result. (winnig massacre with as many bonus points as possible)
Their mentality will not be changed at all. As you said, you win via a different system.
So I say that jerks "jerk" via a different system too. This doesnt stop them being jerks. (If ambitious generals are jerks and not funny in your opinion, I personally experienced to the contrary)

We have even ETC guys here, who downgrade their army by themselves in order to have a challenge (or try different tactics and approaches), because the lamer armies are dull to play.

So comp imho is not a problem, its also not necessary. It is just a variant of a regular tournament.

imweasel wrote:

sennacherib wrote:Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Or the 'foes' could actually take a good list to a tournament so they don't get 'rolled over'.

It's very sad that folks want to bring down playing levels rather than try to elevate others playing levels to bring some equality to the competitive scene.

When GW balances all the codexes and all the units within the codexes I will agree with you. Until then, everyone basically would have to take one of a handful cookie-cutter armies they may or may not like collecting in order to bring 'good' lists. If I take even one sub-optimal unit then I have to deal with snobs going "pffft, lern to bring a good list noob. Go smash your suboptimal units in the parking lot with a hammer."

And supposedly if comp is so easily gamed for an advantage, then what's the problem? People who like to play hard can game the comp for a larger advantage and win even more? Sounds like gamers with skill can simply game whatever system prevented and still win right?

nkelsch wrote:And supposedly if comp is so easily gamed for an advantage, then what's the problem? People who like to play hard can game the comp for a larger advantage and win even more? Sounds like gamers with skill can simply game whatever system prevented and still win right?

Then what's the point of comp?

imweasel wrote:

nkelsch wrote:And supposedly if comp is so easily gamed for an advantage, then what's the problem? People who like to play hard can game the comp for a larger advantage and win even more? Sounds like gamers with skill can simply game whatever system prevented and still win right?

Then what's the point of comp?

What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

nkelsch wrote: What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

It raises the $ expense of being competitive. Without comp, I can be competitive on a budget. People love to rain hate on so called "Internet lists" for being boring, but the other side of the coin is that they are known to be competitive. Thus, someone on a budget can buy only the models they need to make a good army. To fully game a comp system, one needs to have the ability to use units that in any other context would be weak, and that costs money.

I'm sure this won't disappoint anyone out there who dislikes people who play mainly or solely to win, but it isn't clear to me why your viewpoint should take precedence in a tournament setting.

MrEconomics wrote:

nkelsch wrote: What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

It raises the $ expense of being competitive. Without comp, I can be competitive on a budget. People love to rain hate on so called "Internet lists" for being boring, but the other side of the coin is that they are known to be competitive. Thus, someone on a budget can buy only the models they need to make a good army. To fully game a comp system, one needs to have the ability to use units that in any other context would be weak, and that costs money.

I'm sure this won't disappoint anyone out there who dislikes people who play mainly or solely to win, but it isn't clear to me why your viewpoint should take precedence in a tournament setting.

Uh... the competitiveness of an army is in no way connected to how much you spend... If it was... an all metal blood crusher list would be more expensive than an all plastic one... and my sisters of battle would be unbeatable!

I realize it is pretty much apocryphal, but the top 7 places (out of 12) in our non comp rtt last weekend was 7 different books.
Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Eldar, Orks, Eldar, Blood Angels.

Yeah people will say "look at all the marines" but really, each list was completely different from the others.

I'm a bit curious about what everyone in this thread thinks of my FLGS's comp system currently in place. At the end of the last tournament last year we had a big round table discussion on how to make comp more fair to armies. At the discussion I personally was firmly in the anti-comp camp, but we eased the rules a fair bit and they're significantly better than last year. Can they be circumvented? In large part yes, but it does change the dynamics a bit at the top tables.

An armies beginning score is 30. Deduct points as explained (round all percentages up).

Item 1) At least 35% of the army must be composed of units taken as troops. For every 2% less than 35%, deduct 1 point.

Item 2) No more than 25% in any single category other than troops. For every 1% more than 25%, deduct 1 point.

Item 3) No single model more than 12%, no units more than 23%. For every unit in violation, deduct 3 points. Tyranids recieve 1 exemption.

Item 4) No more than 2 of any single choice in HQ, Elite, Fast, or Heavy. No more than 3 of any single choice in Troops. Necrons and Black Templar ignore this rule with their current codex. For each violation, deduct 3 points.

Item 5) Army List. Army list must list each units war gear/upgrades along with costs (seperated from total unit cost), number of units per selection, total number of models, and a breakdown of points and choices by selection as well as choices and points spent per catagory. Five copies of the army list are needed for the tournament – 1 for the judges, 3 for your opponents, and one for yourself (the first tournament will have four games so a sixth copy will be needed. Players that ask for copies to be printed at the store prior to the tournament will be charged 25 cents per page. -5 if all conditions are not met (lists built using Army Builder will not lose points).

Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

MrDrumMachine wrote:
Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

I don't understand this one... I would have problems fielding an ork army under this rule. Did you guys get raped by 180 spinegaunts or 180 chaos cultists in a past edition? I guess it is one way to get rid of horde and possible time issues

The rest seem straight out of 3rd edition comp rules.

@MrDrumMachine: I think its a decent idea, except that its a lot of math that a TO will have to do,especialy if it is a Larger number Tourny.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@nkelsch: How many models do you put on the table for a 1850 game? At 1850 this works out to 123.3 (or 124 if they round up). Seems like a reasonable limit since you are only lossing points buy each +5 models.
On the other hand a ork or Nid army could get screwed over a bit in a 1000 to 1500 point tourny.

My 1500 point Nid "Claw of Doom" army would lose 2 points using this comp system.
Tyrind Prime
3xGenesteelers
3xHomagaunts
2xGargoyles
1x Tygon Prime
2xZoeys.
Comes out to 78 models.

What this system dosent take into account is that My over numbered army (for this comp system) is more than likely going to get wiped off the board fairly quicky. So no real effect on game length.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:I guess my position is that I can, and do, play for fun but why should I pay for it? I already play at my LFGS and I don't see the need to incur extra costs to have fun else-where.

If getting a guaranteed three games in one day (more, at a four-rounder or a two-day GT), against some new opponents, and seeing 12-40 (local level) or 50-100+ (Adepticon or GT) fully painted armies on display, and getting to meet and face new opponents from out of town are all of no value to you, then maybe you're right. Maybe tournaments aren't worth your time.

Leo_the_Rat wrote: Let's be honest, people play to win at tournements and if you already start at what you feel is a disadvantage then you're not likely to attend. The disadvantage could be your paint score or it could be you feel handicapped by a comp rule in either case it just makes some people not want to attend the event.

Well, if you have no desire to work or improve your skills, if you expect to be able to win events and be better than other people at painting or at playing without additional effort, then I think your expectations might be out of whack. If people whose only goal is to win are dissuaded from attending an event because they lack the skills to compete under that event's rules, that's sad for them. They're still creating that problem for themselves by a) Giving themselves the binary choice of victory or disappointment, and b) falsely assuming that they cannot improve.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

imweasel wrote:

sennacherib wrote:Comp can be played the same way. Just tone your list down some. Instead of spamming units that everyone knows are the best units math hammer wise, and in the combinations most seen on the web and in local tournis. Try taking something else. Add a twist to your list. Take your list down a notch. It will be more challenging to play and likely you will enjoy winning at tournis more than just rolling over your foes by sheer force of codex and list.

Or the 'foes' could actually take a good list to a tournament so they don't get 'rolled over'.

It's very sad that folks want to bring down playing levels rather than try to elevate others playing levels to bring some equality to the competitive scene.

If we both bring SW to a tournament, mine is a standard LF/GH/Razor list, and yours includes Blood Claws and Vindicators, but you win more games/accumulate more battle points, which of us has displayed more skill?

I give list optimization advice all the time in Tactics, and pretty much every time I post in army lists. Most of the time people want to strengthen their lists, and I help them do that. Your premises are false, and leading you to mistaken conclusions.

nkelsch wrote:

MrDrumMachine wrote:
Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

I don't understand this one... I would have problems fielding an ork army under this rule. Did you guys get raped by 180 spinegaunts or 180 chaos cultists in a past edition? I guess it is one way to get rid of horde and possible time issues

The rest seem straight out of 3rd edition comp rules.

It's more to make sure games finish in time at higher points levels, or so I'm lead to believe.

MrDrumMachine wrote:I'm a bit curious about what everyone in this thread thinks of my FLGS's comp system currently in place. At the end of the last tournament last year we had a big round table discussion on how to make comp more fair to armies. At the discussion I personally was firmly in the anti-comp camp, but we eased the rules a fair bit and they're significantly better than last year. Can they be circumvented? In large part yes, but it does change the dynamics a bit at the top tables.

Items 1-4 favor newer codices, especially SW and BA which have viable options in all slots at economical choices. SW can easily take a couple Tcav, couple LF, couple LW, and max out on GH and have a good list.

All you've really done is deter dual Land Raider/AssTerm lists or their equivalent with big, points intensive units, and hurt codices without as reliable troops like Necrons and Tau.

Item 6) Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 15) exceeds TAS -1 point per every 5 models (round up).

This takes 1-5 to a whole new level, harming Orks, foot IG, and some specific mass sisters builds. "You have troops under 15 ppm? Sorry, you're boned".

Seems totally arbitrary. Space Wolf MSU scores max points, Mech IG takes a minor hit (or no hit), Vulkan Space Marines get hammered, and many other army lists get nicked.

The higher the point total for the list, the more of a beating codices without powerful troops takes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:If we both bring SW to a tournament, mine is a standard LF/GH/Razor list, and yours includes Blood Claws and Vindicators, but you win more games/accumulate more battle points, which of us has displayed more skill?

Impossible to say unless it's actually a true Swiss format. Matchups and missions have just as much impact.

Nicorex wrote:@nkelsch: How many models do you put on the table for a 1850 game? At 1850 this works out to 123.3 (or 124 if they round up). Seems like a reasonable limit since you are only lossing points buy each +5 models.
On the other hand a ork or Nid army could get screwed over a bit in a 1000 to 1500 point tourny.

Let me think... In a dredbash which is what I have been running recently, I usually take 3 troops of 30 boyz and a troop of 30 grots and then 2 deff dreds, 2 Big Meks and 9 KKs. So that is 133 models right there without any elites or fast attack. Sometimes those troops may be down to 20 boyz but that still is pretty close to the 123.3 for an 1850.

I would totally be able to work around it, it just forces me to take variations and do something different. I would 'game the comp' and revise my list accordingly. If a TO felt it worked for his group, I would give it a shot, but it is the first attempt to control armysize via comp I have ever seen.

First time I have ever seen actualy number of models limited myself. Usally its just type of units, IE LongFang spam and what not.

Well looking at your list that does seem a bit to controling of a comp system(well that part anyway).
MrDrum did say he thought it was to help large games finish on time. Mabye they had tons of slow players that were not finishing.
I dont think this would work for say a Adepticon level of event though.

Nicorex wrote:First time I have ever seen actualy number of models limited myself. Usally its just type of units, IE LongFang spam and what not.

Well looking at your list that does seem a bit to controling of a comp system(well that part anyway).
MrDrum did say he thought it was to help large games finish on time. Mabye they had tons of slow players that were not finishing.
I dont think this would work for say a Adepticon level of event though.

I would rather be told upfront to limit my models to speed up play than to have someone holding chess timers over my head and I lose out on things I paid for with points because one phase happened to take a really long time. If someone assaults a wall of 180 boyz on his turn 3, it may take 20 minutes to sort out the scrum, but because it is his assault phase he would be 'punished' for it. I could slow play my response and be "whoops! you are out of time... none of your kills on my boyz happened and half your assault is wasted. My turn!"

Too many 'unknowns' with turn timers and too much incentive to slow play. At least the model limit probably does speed up games and everyone is on the same page and no motivation to slow play.

If I had to choose between 'turn timer' comp and 'model limit' comp, I would choose model limit as the desired choice. It at least gives me a chance to turn some of my boyz into trukk boyz or single models like deff dreds to speed things up.

I do think it is interesting how some who would be the first to say 'no comp' probably will be the first to demand 'turn timers'. Why? because their style of play benefits from cutting other people's turns short, not because it is fair. Technically if GW is the god of balance, then horde armies are perfectly balanced and if a game takes 4 hours to play then that is the true game as time limits are not part of the rules. If you really believe in 'no comp' then you have to support unlimited time limits and accept horde armies are balanced so they should have every right to take longer to play than mech/shooty armies.

nkelsch wrote:What is the point of not having it if it doesn't prevent 'true gamers' from competing and having an advantage? You supposedly still get to take the hardest list in the room and win games with skill so why complain?

Because if that's the best a comp system can do, it's worthless. So why even bother to have it in the first place?

No comp system I have seen achieves what it's supposed to achieve.

It sounds like you would want to put one in place in a vain attempt to 'penalize' competitive players.

imweasel wrote:
It sounds like you would want to put one in place in a vain attempt to 'penalize' competitive players.

But... if comp only rewards competitive players and penalizes casual players the way people who are anti-comp claim... then why all the backlash? I though the whole reason not to have it was it doesn't actually penalize competitive gamers?

You can't say it penalizes and rewards competitive gamers at the same time.

The only people it supposedly penalizes are people who have inflexible armies who are built for a specific size and can't change at all. Not sure I really have any empathy for those players as no one has a right to have one army list be perpetually effective for the life of their wargaming career. The metagame changes every codex and we are all forced to change an adapt and buy more and different models. You don't think GW plans it this way? (IE: BW sprues going down in cost when the FAQ changed to make them work on vehicles?)

nkelsch wrote:

imweasel wrote:
It sounds like you would want to put one in place in a vain attempt to 'penalize' competitive players.

But... if comp only rewards competitive players and penalizes casual players the way people who are anti-comp claim... then why all the backlash? I though the whole reason not to have it was it doesn't actually penalize competitive gamers?

You can't say it penalizes and rewards competitive gamers at the same time.

The only people it supposedly penalizes are people who have inflexible armies who are built for a specific size and can't change at all. Not sure I really have any empathy for those players as no one has a right to have one army list be perpetually effective for the life of their wargaming career. The metagame changes every codex and we are all forced to change an adapt and buy more and different models. You don't think GW plans it this way? (IE: BW sprues going down in cost when the FAQ changed to make them work on vehicles?)

Why is casual play in a tournament?

I mean... i guess you could comp a league... or campaign... but i'm not sure why you'd reward casual play and penalize competitive play in a competitive environment....

As far as BW sprues going down in cost when the FAQ helped them... that actually sounds like a good thing to me. Did that really happen?

nkelsch wrote:But... if comp only rewards competitive players and penalizes casual players the way people who are anti-comp claim... then why all the backlash?

Part of the reason for the backlash is that the proponents of comp often try to use it to stake out the moral high ground so they can look down on people who play harder or different armies than they like to play.

The only good idea so far has been to buff crappy units.

So far the primary reason that has been posted that it wouldn't work, and I agree with the reasoning, even though the root cause (gamers with a poor grasp of game balance concepts) is irritating, is because changing points values is regarded as a too large of a change, and gamers would have some weird feelings with how changing points costs would interact with their idea of the status quo.

But you're doing the same thing with these bizarre rules systems, by effectively increasing the point costs of good units at best, and at worst just randomly making haphazard adjustments (like most of the suggestions for comp so far)

Seriously, this thread is full of crap like "Divide the army total by an arbitrary number I asspulled, then subtract how many chickens can fit in a rhino, then add the square of a meltagun's range, and then use the resulting information to make random changes aimed at improving the game by reducing good units' ability to perform"

How is something like that, or any of the other comp systems that actually effect a unit's performance, somehow any less invasive than just saying the missile launchers in a longfang unit now cost 10 more points per model or Flash Gitz are now 10% cheaper?

And this is why I avoid tournaments with comp scores. They are ridiculous and exist only to punish competitive players.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.