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.

Anyone remember 3rd Edition tournaments. Who remembers playing 5-6 games at a GT against SM's or CSM's? There was no variation back then because comp favored the marine lists more than anything. The lists were normally slightly different but the fact remains everyone was MEQ with few exceptions.

The fact remains that almost all comp is going to favor certain armies. IF you make a comp list that is meant to limit certain builds I see the return of 3rd edition tournements where there was only 1-2 codexs being used by 90% of the attendees.

As for missions i think this is the direction to go. You wanna limit Nidzilla? Make it so that to massacre you need to hold 3 objectives (very hard with most Nidzilla). Wanna hurt nob bikers? Slightly modify the KP system (i.e. 750pts=7 KPs). Wanna hurt Lash/Oblits either of the above can hurt them. Now this will lead to other powerbuilds (Ork Hordes, Most Mechanized Forces) but it'll help spread the field a little better.

Crazy Idea Two (the first being standardized lists (one per army book or codex)): Last round of the tourney, you and your opponent swap armies.

Buh, buh, buh, he's fielding a ton of Nob bikers!
Don't worry, those are your models. Good luck.

Another thing to consider is that there are different reasons for comp scoring...

Some people want variety

Some people want to balance things out

Some people want to hurt people who play differently than they do.

The last category is what gives comp scoring a bad name...In that case, it's just another form of bullying, along with name-calling, etc...

fatal_GRACE wrote:What it really comes down to, for me, is that the powerbuild lists really detract from the dynamic aspect of the game. If most ork players play nob bikers, and most chaos play dual lash armies, the game quickly grows static and repetitive. It really bothers me that if I play any list that can really be competitive in a tournament filled with identical power-builds, I would have to have something similar. After a very short amount of time, it would just be a circle-jerk, with everybody just trying to play the same list.

I can't imagine that the same dual lash army, for example, would be very fun to play anymore after playing it the same way over and over again, against the same army lists, over and over again.

Like I said before, it's not about the 'unfair' aspects of a hrd build vs a soft build, but about the lack of innovation present in its overuse.

The problem here is that as more people realize the value of these lists, everybody will utilize the same few cores. And then the game loses variation, and it's predictability is unsatisfying.

I like power builds. I like my opponent to play power builds. I like opening up a Codex and finding the hardest list that can be made out of it, for me thats part of the fun. I like my opponents to do the same.

I get variety by varying missions, points, terrain. The dice themselves ensure no two games are the same.

This is how I like to play, is it the wrong way to play?

I think that ideally, a tournament should be about 20% battlepoints, 10% army composition, 5% painting, and 65% fluff trivia quiz.

There are problems with every comp system.

In the check list there are armies that are perfectly fine that end up getting penalized for the way they have to build their armies to be competitive. Tau are usually a prime example of an army that gets caught up in a lot of check list comp scoring because they have a few crappy troops, and they have a lot of elites and heavy support that get repeated like crisis suits and hammerheads. At the same time Space Marines and Orks can take a lot of good troops, and their armies do not have to depend on Elite or Heavy Support choices.

As far as check lists goes, I think the WPS had a comp system where they did it by each codex and restricted and penalized each army individually, and not as a blanket score, which to me seems like a better way to go, but rather labor intensive.


Having an “impartial” judge do the scoring, seems like it is better, but then you are open to the judges own prejudices. Hulksmash took this army to the Broadside Bash and got a bad score for it:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/229531.page

When I first saw his list I did not think much of it. No genestealers, one dakkafex, etc. And then he took Warriors... Warriors! He ended up scoring poorly in comp. Why? The TOs were from San Diego and they hate Nids (especially Godzilla) down there. They have a good player who plays them any he rarely loses. Because of this they score Tyranids poorly in comp. I took my well painted nids down there one day and went 3-0 and lost to someone who when 2-1 because my comp scores where in the toilet.

So there is no good, easy or simple solution to balance out GWs crappy rule writing. Of course I think they do it on purpose to make some units better just to sell models because the bean counters tell them that they have to move the latest product, and they have no real interest in balancing the game.

Hulksmash wrote:Anyone remember 3rd Edition tournaments. Who remembers playing 5-6 games at a GT against SM's or CSM's? There was no variation back then because comp favored the marine lists more than anything. The lists were normally slightly different but the fact remains everyone was MEQ with few exceptions.

The fact remains that almost all comp is going to favor certain armies. IF you make a comp list that is meant to limit certain builds I see the return of 3rd edition tournements where there was only 1-2 codexs being used by 90% of the attendees.

Speaking as someone who played non-Marines in just every competitive event during 3E, the 3E metagame was pretty easy to counterprogram. I played anti-MEQ Biel-Tan Eldar and cleaned house big time. I got to be exceptionally good at beating Marines, to the point where seeing Marines across the board was pretty close to an auto-win for me. When you out-shoot shooty Marines with more AP guns, and out-fight fighty Marines with higher-quality HtH, it's not a hard game. Of course, my Comp was *terrible* by modern standards, but that wasn't the point.

Comp merely favors a *different* set of armies than "no comp". Nothing wrong with that.

Blackmoor wrote:As far as check lists goes, I think the WPS had a comp system where they did it by each codex and restricted and penalized each army individually, and not as a blanket score, which to me seems like a better way to go, but rather labor intensive.

I know WPS did this for WFB for a few years, and ultimately, they abandoned this process because it was a lot of work, and the balancing was a lot harder than it seemed, trying to find a "fair" set of rewards and penalties. It was very complex and the biggest problem was that the WPS then mandated a certain Comp floor for participation.

I'm against mandating a Comp requirement. If the army is legal, you should be able to play it. However, if it is badly-Comped, then it should have penalties that more-or-less take itself out of the running unless all other factors are exceptional. to compensate.

The Green Git wrote:in Golf they have handicaps. In drag racing you have dial ins and bracket racing. It's not unprecedented that competitors of differing skill levels or equipment capabilities compete in the same event with some sort of leveling mechanism.

QFT.

And that's really the crux of the matter:

What is a Tournament trying to reward?

- WAAC wants to reward pure win-loss record and victory margin based almost entirely on Battle
- Comp wants to reward the overall play experience that one brings to the event

These are two totally different, and largely incompatible objectives.

I do not understand the sheer vehemence by the WAAC crowd against Comp. Nobody is planning to take away your WAAC events, so why should you protest Comp?

It's not like there's only one form of golf scoring or drag racing, so why must WAAC be the only way?

But "Comp" can just as easily hurt none WAAC lists. That is what most people's problem with comp is in my opinion.

And as for the example of handicaps thats all well and good but those events are annouced or the system is set up that way to allow for the weaker competitors to have a shot.

If you don't announce, with the rules the comp will follow, before an event then you have no right to cry when someone brings a harder list. You didn't tell them there was a handicap so why should they have to accept it? And if you do announce it that way then expect people to game that comp system. It's still a WAAC list, just under a different one that works with the comp system. WAAC isn't the only way to play but you have to accept that people that *gasp* pay for the chance to compete are going to *gasp again* try to win.

Oh, and for years I was a comp/fluff nazi when it came to army building but it's just not the accepted style of play anymore in a tournement setting. I don't mind it, in fact it's actually a lot nicer not having to write up a story to explain why I like playing my army the way I do.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What is a Tournament trying to reward?

- WAAC wants to reward pure win-loss record and victory margin based almost entirely on Battle
- Comp wants to reward the overall play experience that one brings to the event

These are two totally different, and largely incompatible objectives.

I do not understand the sheer vehemence by the WAAC crowd against Comp. Nobody is planning to take away your WAAC events, so why should you protest Comp?

It's not like there's only one form of golf scoring or drag racing, so why must WAAC be the only way?

I love how you phrase it as WAAC, so that you can make it sound like the people who are fielding stronger armies are somehow morally deficient.

Of course, you've never acknowledged the counter-argument, which people have made...that if winning isn't important, then why both putting a comp score together in the first place?

In my mind "WAAC" play is a whole lot more about how the player treats his opponent, and a lot less about lists. Everyone has access to the same models to purchase, and the same books to buy, so everyone pretty much starts on a level playing field. It's the players' choice whether or not to bring an army that is a "power build" or to bring something else (that IMO can be just as effective). So lists are not inherently "WAAC" because another player can bring another list just as hard as your own.

Players on the other hand, can definitely be playing in a manner that bends or breaks rules, not caring about whether or not they are cheating their opponents, and deliberately trying to create a non-level playing field. This is a WAAC attitude, and it's something that players have, not lists.

kadun wrote:

fatal_GRACE wrote:What it really comes down to, for me, is that the powerbuild lists really detract from the dynamic aspect of the game. If most ork players play nob bikers, and most chaos play dual lash armies, the game quickly grows static and repetitive. It really bothers me that if I play any list that can really be competitive in a tournament filled with identical power-builds, I would have to have something similar. After a very short amount of time, it would just be a circle-jerk, with everybody just trying to play the same list.

I can't imagine that the same dual lash army, for example, would be very fun to play anymore after playing it the same way over and over again, against the same army lists, over and over again.

Like I said before, it's not about the 'unfair' aspects of a hrd build vs a soft build, but about the lack of innovation present in its overuse.

The problem here is that as more people realize the value of these lists, everybody will utilize the same few cores. And then the game loses variation, and it's predictability is unsatisfying.

I like power builds. I like my opponent to play power builds. I like opening up a Codex and finding the hardest list that can be made out of it, for me thats part of the fun. I like my opponents to do the same.

I get variety by varying missions, points, terrain. The dice themselves ensure no two games are the same.

This is how I like to play, is it the wrong way to play?

Power builds would be OK if every codex contained several different varieties. As things stand, maybe three or four codexes contain one major power build each, and several codexes have nothing.

Perhaps it would be easier simply to ban Twin Lash, Twin Nob Bikers, Drop Pod Spam or whatever are the current major power lists.

*Lurk Mode - Off*

Centurian99 wrote:I love how you phrase it as WAAC, so that you can make it sound like the people who are fielding stronger armies are somehow morally deficient.

C'mon Cent. We've been over this. This is John's MO. He has to make the other side the 'bad guy' so that he can jump up on his Soapbox of Moral Self-Righteousness +1 and begin spouting his usual incoherent nonsense. The guy wouldn't know a well constructed and logical argument if it came up and bit him in the face.

That said, I look forward to watching another argument between you two, right up until the point where one of the Mods forgets that 'rebuttal/criticism' isn't the same as 'being impolite' and locks the thread.

That's all.

*Lurk Mode - On*

Mannahnin wrote:And you can do a pretty good job with it if you work hard enough:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/113472.page

Its an interesting checklist to be sure and a lot better than most I have seen, if not all.

But I do have a question regarding clarification of #'s 7, 9 and 11 if you do not mind.

(Army list included as the attachment for comparative purposes of this checklist)

If I am not mistaken, my army would have 12 comp points going by the rubric you linked to.

1. Does the army have no more than one of any given HQ unit? Check
2. Does the army have more than two Troops units? Check
3. Does the army have no more than three of the SAME Troops unit?
4. Does the army have no more than two Troops units with the same unit upgrades?
5. Does the army have no more than two of the same unit with the same upgrades in any other category? Check
6. Does the army have EITHER no Elite units or one Elite unit? Check
7. Does the army have at least two Elite units but no more than two of the same Elite unit?
8. Does the army have EITHER no Fast Attack units or one Fast Attack unit? Check
9. Does the army have at least two Fast Attack units but no more than two of the same Fast Attack unit?
10. Does the army have EITHER no Heavy Support units or one Heavy Support unit? Check
11. Does the army have at least two Heavy Support units but no more than two of the same Heavy Support unit?
12. Judge’s discretion (2-4pts)- Is this army particularly well themed and interesting in a way that doesn’t already earn it the maximum 22 points? I would hope that I would receive at least two points here as it follows what GW dictates as their fluff for a deathwing/ravenwing styled list pretty closely. But of course, this being the subjective score I wouldn't count on it.

Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that by bringing one or none of Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices, that I would receive 2 bonus points in each of those categories and if I bring at least two Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices that are not identical, that I would receive 4 points for each pf those categories?

It seems odd to me that there is a greater reward for bringing two non identical choices than it is to bring one or none of those choices if it is indeed true that my reading comprehension has not failed me. Its almost as if points for 6, 8 and 10 are reversed for 7, 9 and 11. That's merely my opinion of course, but I am curious as to what situation incited that decision and why it was implemented that way.

If you thought that you had to change anything about this comp score sheet to integrate it into 5th edition, what would it be?

[edited to correct hasty syntax errors]

@KillKrazy

Actually I think every codex does have a power build and most have several varieties of power build. The only ones I can think of that are well and truly underpowered are DA (Questionable), DH (which have stood me in good stead so far since I restarted them just last month), and Necrons.

Even on Necrons i'm iffy since I don't play them enough to be comfortable stating they don't have a power build.

Chaos has several power lists, only one of which is twin lash. Orks have loota spam lists, heavy horde lists, battlewagon lists, and nob biker lists, or a combination of all of them. Drop Pod spam isn't a power list but Marines can build some nasty ones like 30 Fleeting TH/SS Termies or 30 Scoring Sternguard or even all bike armies. Guard have their list that I just think most people don't play right but they don't really count as in less than 2 months now they will be in a new edition. DE have the raider/ravager spam. Eldar have the biker seer council of doom among others. WH have Immolator/Sister Spam lists. Tyrannids have 'Nidzilla and it's million variants. Have I missed any armies?

All codexes have "power builds". But my personal opinion and observations show that it's the personalized lists built specially to meld with each other that actually do very well in tournements. They might start with a power template but very seldom do they field a pure "power build".

SmoovKriminal wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Darth Fugly wrote:
Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

I can't agree with this at all.

Any monkey can look at a codex and see what the best combos/ powerlists are. Also with the internet, any monkey can find out what the powerlists are.

Yes, any monkey could, but tournaments are used to see who the better tactician/player is, not who is the best list builder. Surely a monkey with a power-build would lose to an intelligent player with the same power-build.

Yes, this is true. Are you then advocating a system where every single player turns up with a Dual Lash list (for example) and we'd really see who'd the better general? If they don't turn up to the tournament with a powerlist they deserve to lose? Well, that may be so, but the point of the comp score debate is to try and find a way of 'levelling' the playing field so that more armies become competitive. That way people you're not discriminating against players who can't afford to go and buy 20 biker nobs!!

SmoovKriminal wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:Sort of. Writing a good, balanced list is part of being a good general. But writing most of the power builds around at the minute doesn't exactly take list-building genius. You can either look on the interweb, or just followed the age old formula of figuring out the most powerful unit and taking three of them!! I could never agree that someone fielding a dual-lash/oblit or nob biker army is some sort of list-building wizard, compared to, say, someone who fields a balanced and representative list which STILL manages to win loads of games...

Perhaps, but should people that take "effective" lists for winning be denied winning just because they made a powerful build? Perhaps composition scores should be reserved for composition based competitions, such as golden daemon or other painting/modeling tournaments. Sports teams don't get marked up or down in world tournaments for having a team representing the ethnic backgrounds of their nation/state or for having the the most colorful jerseys. Why should 40k tournaments attempting to determine the best tacticians be any different? Comp wouldn't even be necessary if GW made better codexes with options available for each force organization chart that were comparable in ability. Orks have biker nobs, while burna boys, tankbustas, mega armoed nobs and kommandos are comparably much crappier in competitive setting. Killpoints doesn't help either, as that even further push players to make armies that abuse powerful units that give away the same amount of KP or less than more basic, cheaper unit.

National sports teams DO get limited by their nationality. The England cricket team, for example, can only take players born in England, or of English parentage. But that's off topic.

What's more interesting is that, while league/local teams are not limited in such a way, you quickly see the effect of money. The richest teams buy the best players and win the most games (with exceptions, but i think that's a fair statement). We want to avoid this situation. We've also discussed that many many sports impose handicaps to compensate for 'equipment' difficulties. Why is this any different from giving a comp 'handicap' to armies that have more powerful equipment (power builds)?

It would be nice if the Codexes were better balanced. But firstly, thats a very difficult thing to achieve with a complex game and a ton of different codices. Secondly, they don't have to balance them for tournament play, as they repeatedly state that the game isn't intended for tournament play. And lastly, they only write the codices to sell models anyway, so they're never actually going to spend time balancing them properly. Oh well. No point returning to this.

If you want a 'fair' tournament, give everyone exactly the same army. If you still want to allow a large variety of lists AND keep the game 'fair' for all players (whatever army they own) you're going to have to introduce some sort of handicapping system...

skyth wrote:Another thing to consider is that there are different reasons for comp scoring...

Some people want variety

Some people want to balance things out

Some people want to hurt people who play differently than they do.

The last category is what gives comp scoring a bad name...In that case, it's just another form of bullying, along with name-calling, etc...

Nail. On. The. Head.

I personally view an attempt at additional balance as imprecise and essentially unachievable. Everyone will have an opinion on balance, meaning that some people will inevitably be unhappy. If you state from the outset that the goal of comp is to encourage variety then it’s pretty easy to achieve and any debate is easily brushed aside by the TO.

Modquisition on:
There have been several reports of this thread due to interpersonal attacks. Please remember you can argue the points without insulting the person. If these attacks continue disciplinary action will be taken.

Hulksmash wrote:@KillKrazy

Actually I think every codex does have a power build and most have several varieties of power build. The only ones I can think of that are well and truly underpowered are DA (Questionable), DH (which have stood me in good stead so far since I restarted them just last month), and Necrons.

Even on Necrons i'm iffy since I don't play them enough to be comfortable stating they don't have a power build.

Chaos has several power lists, only one of which is twin lash. Orks have loota spam lists, heavy horde lists, battlewagon lists, and nob biker lists, or a combination of all of them. Drop Pod spam isn't a power list but Marines can build some nasty ones like 30 Fleeting TH/SS Termies or 30 Scoring Sternguard or even all bike armies. Guard have their list that I just think most people don't play right but they don't really count as in less than 2 months now they will be in a new edition. DE have the raider/ravager spam. Eldar have the biker seer council of doom among others. WH have Immolator/Sister Spam lists. Tyrannids have 'Nidzilla and it's million variants. Have I missed any armies?

All codexes have "power builds". But my personal opinion and observations show that it's the personalized lists built specially to meld with each other that actually do very well in tournements. They might start with a power template but very seldom do they field a pure "power build".

I am assuming that by 'power build' you mean a best possible build out of the codex. My interpretation of 'power build' is a list which is much more powerful than its points value, thanks to some combination of rules and special abilities. The classic current examples being Twin Lash and Nob Bikers.

I would argue that the Tau codex has no power builds under the second definition, nor does the IG codex. These codexes haven't been updated to 5e, of course, but that is no reason for making them worse by a comp system which is supposed to suppress the Twin Lashes.

For example, systems being discussed here may penalise Tau for not having two choices in their elites slot, troops slot, or HQ slot. Tau only have two elites choices, two troops choices, and two HQ choices, in their codex.

Not getting into detail of an argument but it is obvious that Tau are more disadvantaged under these conditions than SM with their numerous HQ and Elites options.

I'm not arguing against balancing the tournament scene, I am pointing out that even a well-designed comp system may have pernicious side effects on weak armies while perhaps not suppressing the power builds that people are mostly against.

And I agree with you totally KillKrazy. Like I said a few pages back I believe that most comp systems actually wind up hurting non-marine (SM or CSM) armies more than anything simply because those armies, along with orks now, have so many options and such good troops that they can much more easily game a comp system.

Tau vehicles counting as obscured and skimmers now blocking LOS means you have a very good moving cover now that allows you to use the jump-shoot-jump still. Mechanized Tau is a very tough list if done correctly. Personal opinion but I've yet to run into a "power build" that really was OTT, in a tournament or pick-up game.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- A fair tourney system wants to reward pure win-loss record and victory margin based almost entirely on Battle because if you are the best you have also brought a great list.
- Comp wants to reward the people who put no effort into trying to win other than showing up.

Fixed.

Comp is socialist welfare of wargaming. It rewards those that dont try, and hinders those that are the best. It allows people with no skill to walk in and have a shot at winning.

Also dont say WAAC. I feel you are just saying it to draw ire but if not, then you dont realize the negative picture it paints of tourney players.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp merely favors a *different* set of armies than "no comp". Nothing wrong with that.

Also, pretty much no point to that.

kadun wrote:

fatal_GRACE wrote:What it really comes down to, for me, is that the powerbuild lists really detract from the dynamic aspect of the game. If most ork players play nob bikers, and most chaos play dual lash armies, the game quickly grows static and repetitive. It really bothers me that if I play any list that can really be competitive in a tournament filled with identical power-builds, I would have to have something similar. After a very short amount of time, it would just be a circle-jerk, with everybody just trying to play the same list.

I can't imagine that the same dual lash army, for example, would be very fun to play anymore after playing it the same way over and over again, against the same army lists, over and over again.

Like I said before, it's not about the 'unfair' aspects of a hrd build vs a soft build, but about the lack of innovation present in its overuse.

The problem here is that as more people realize the value of these lists, everybody will utilize the same few cores. And then the game loses variation, and it's predictability is unsatisfying.

I like power builds. I like my opponent to play power builds. I like opening up a Codex and finding the hardest list that can be made out of it, for me thats part of the fun. I like my opponents to do the same.

I get variety by varying missions, points, terrain. The dice themselves ensure no two games are the same.

This is how I like to play, is it the wrong way to play?

While there is no problem with the fact that you might choose to play this way, that doesn't mean every player wants to see the same armies over and over again, regardless of other variations. Even if you are satisfied with the repetition of a few army lists, it isn't fair to expect every player to feel the same way.

Hulksmash wrote:Chaos has several power lists, only one of which is twin lash. Orks have loota spam lists, heavy horde lists, battlewagon lists, and nob biker lists, or a combination of all of them. Drop Pod spam isn't a power list but Marines can build some nasty ones like 30 Fleeting TH/SS Termies or 30 Scoring Sternguard or even all bike armies. Guard have their list that I just think most people don't play right but they don't really count as in less than 2 months now they will be in a new edition. DE have the raider/ravager spam. Eldar have the biker seer council of doom among others. WH have Immolator/Sister Spam lists. Tyrannids have 'Nidzilla and it's million variants. Have I missed any armies?

Just saying...

Everyone keeps saying that comp scoring prevents seeing the same army list over and over. Does that really happen? Do people go to tourneys and see 50% of them being double warboss, 20 nob biker armies? Granted, I don't play in as many (or as big) of events as others, but I don't see this happening.

Now, I'm not usually playing at the top tables of any big event (can usually get there in a local event). But, I'm not seeing it. And frankly, the top 10 tables at Adepticon are not representative of the other 90, let alone the rest of the hobby. They're not, and no one should think they are.

If people aren't all bringing 'the same' 'borken' list, then comp scoring doesn't accomplish the goal of 'encouraging diversity in armies' since there is not a homogenous pile of 1 or 2 army lists at every event.

Somewhere along the way, we're losing sight of why we're in this hobby, because we all enjoy it. If someone's only joy is in winning all their games, I feel sorry for them, because they're most likely going to be disappointed at the end of the event. OTOH, if you're playing an army and a list that you had fun assembling, painting, and playing against your buddies - you're not going to go home disappointed. At the end of the day, this is a hobby. It's fun to go to tournies and play different people and see cool armies, but it's still a hobby. If I lose all 4 games, I don't lose my job, have my wife leave me, or the kids hate me. It just doesn't matter.

And people forget how much match-ups matter in a tourney. Kevin Kirby even told me, about winning 2007 Ard Boyz, "hey, I was lucky, I didn't play any Mech Tau." There's always some rock-paper-scissors with armies, if you're list is the rock, and 90% of armies are the scissors, you're in trouble if you play the 1 paper army in the first round - but it can happen. And not even because someone took paper to beat rock, just because some kid likes paper best and got some lucky rolls.

People need to make a decision about a tourney. If all they want to do is win, they'll probably be disappointed. If they want to assemble and paint 24 bloodcrushers, that's their choice. I could do the same thing. I'd rather assemble and paint an army that I want to. And if I don't win Adepticon - well, even if I had a 24 crusher army, I probably wouldn't anyway - that's okay with me. I go home, and the kids hug me and tell me that they love me.

edit: One of the problems with playing a power build, is that people are going to metagame against it. Dual Lash? OK, everyone's in a vehicle. Nob bikers? OK, markerlights and railguns (or TH/SS termies, etc.).

Blackmoor wrote:So there is no good, easy or simple solution to balance out GWs crappy rule writing. Of course I think they do it on purpose to make some units better just to sell models because the bean counters tell them that they have to move the latest product, and they have no real interest in balancing the game.

That implies a level of intelligence on their part that I think evidence shows they clearly lack. There is also the issue (and you touched on it) that the San Diego crowd tends to play by their own rules, when it comes to scoring. There were similar oddities in the Fantasy side, both this year and last year, with their comp scoring (all Saurus army w no skink priests or slaan getting low comp, ect) which just serve as a outright case study in why comp does not work. Honestly, this is why I play CC Nidzilla now, because it is easier to simply crush face than it is to appease the fluff nazis and (with my army at least) the other guy gets to roll dice so I don't get docked as much as you might expect.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp merely favors a *different* set of armies than "no comp". Nothing wrong with that.

Also, pretty much no point to that.

As long as it's run along-side no comp tournaments in a season then there is. Variety is always fun, and in theory it takes netlisting out of the equation.

p.s. JonnyW changes his tack/opinion so often -otherwise known as contrdicting himself- that it was inevitable that I would eventually agree with something he's written.

SmoovKriminal wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Darth Fugly wrote:
Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

I can't agree with this at all.

Any monkey can look at a codex and see what the best combos/ powerlists are. Also with the internet, any monkey can find out what the powerlists are.

GG

Yes, any monkey could, but tournaments are used to see who the better tactician/player is, not who is the best list builder. Surely a monkey with a power-build would lose to an intelligent player with the same power-build.

So when did you become Captain Obvious?

Serioiusly.... I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or trying to pick a fight.

GG

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp merely favors a *different* set of armies than "no comp". Nothing wrong with that.

Also, pretty much no point to that.

Variety is the point, as had been repeatedly stated. To increase the number of codices which can compete, and the variety of lists from them which are in contention to win. Increased variety in competing armies makes for a more interesting event for everyone, both from a play experience and a visual standpoint. Which, along with socializing, are the reasons we’re there in the first place.

OddJob wrote:I personally view an attempt at additional balance as imprecise and essentially unachievable. Everyone will have an opinion on balance, meaning that some people will inevitably be unhappy.

Additional balance is certainly achievable, though perfect balance is an impossible dream. An inability to achieve perfection will leave a few people unhappy, but most folks are a little more mature, I hope.

OddJob wrote:If you state from the outset that the goal of comp is to encourage variety then it’s pretty easy to achieve and any debate is easily brushed aside by the TO.

Agreed! I tried to clearly label explain that in my publically-posted tournament packets, when I ran a few.

Hellfury wrote:12. Judge’s discretion (2-4pts)- Is this army particularly well themed and interesting in a way that doesn’t already earn it the maximum 22 points? I would hope that I would receive at least two points here as it follows what GW dictates as their fluff for a deathwing/ravenwing styled list pretty closely. But of course, this being the subjective score I wouldn't count on it.

Yes, Raven/Deathwing would qualify for bonus points. Generally speaking, part of the purpose of that category is also to help armies from codices which have only one Troops option.

Hellfury wrote: Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that by bringing one or none of Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices, that I would receive 2 bonus points in each of those categories and if I bring at least two Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices that are not identical, that I would receive 4 points for each pf those categories?

It seems odd to me that there is a greater reward for bringing two non identical choices than it is to bring one or none of those choices if it is indeed true that my reading comprehension has not failed me. Its almost as if points for 6, 8 and 10 are reversed for 7, 9 and 11. That's merely my opinion of course, but I am curious as to what situation incited that decision and why it was implemented that way.

The idea was that an army having one or no units from a given category hasn’t loaded up on that category to the exclusion of others, which is something I was trying to avoid. The codices vary a lot, and if there are none in one category, the points will be spent somewhere. 7, 9 and 11 are to reward armies which invest in one of these categories (often armies with sub-par Troops) but don’t load up on three identical choices. Again, the focus of this checklist is primarily on variety.

Hellfury wrote:If you thought that you had to change anything about this comp score sheet to integrate it into 5th edition, what would it be?

Hrm. I haven’t given it any serious thought yet. And I’d want to give it serious thought before running another event using a checklist. I might want to award some small bonus to armies that include units from all three optional areas- FA, HS, and Elite choices. I might actually award bonus points to armies which have unusually low numbers of scoring units, or (more likely) unusually high numbers of kill points, since those armies are weaker in the usual mission structure.