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.

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

Your second sentence indicates that you either haven't read the thread, or think several people in it are lying, including me.

Is it one of those, are are you just engaging in pointless and inflammatory hyperbole? Let me know.

Comp, in theory, can be a way of making winning at tournaments more take into account a player's skill at using their army, and slightly less on the optimization of the list. That's the theory. It's tough to execute.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.

Tournaments are ABOUT playing games, and seeing cool armies, and meeting new gamers. You attempt to win, but actually winning is just a bonus.

This is why tournaments aren't just single-elimination. Because that would suck.

Tournaments are about winning, not making fluffy lists.

Tournaments are ABOUT playing games, and seeing cool armies, and meeting new gamers. You attempt to win, but actually winning is just a bonus.

Mannahnin,

I think this sums it up and highlights the difference in philosophy. We have been over this ground for 10+ years and will be going over the same old ground for the next 10+ years. I personally appreciate your efforts here in this thread as many of the voices of the majority, have long since gone silent with the continually treading over the same old tired ground. I am certainly as competitive a player as anyone at times in my war gaming career. But my journey and focus in war gaming has taken a different path with time and my hobby experience has certainly been better for it.

Now if folks spent half the time they spent figuring out how to "win" on understanding how they "lost" they might find they would win more games.

Amaya wrote: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.

To be fair, I don't think fluffy lists should actually be the polar opposite of a competitive list. I happen to think my current Guard army is extremely fluffy while being the most face-beating army I have owned to date.

Call it what it is: there are people that want to play bad lists (no synergies, purposely ignoring/ignorant of how to make an army effective in an all-comers environment) and there are people that think this attitude should be rewarded in a tournament. Meanwhile, the former individual can always claim the moral high ground no matter the result of a game:

1) They win, it was their skill that caused this, and the fact that they practice with suboptimal units, or;

2) They lose, it only happened because the other list was cheesy. A four-year-old could win with that army.

I think the opinion that comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill ... not really all that true. In fact, it's an assertion at best.

The thing about the game at present is that lists are fairly normalized. Loganwing and razorwolves ... well, they don't just go winning every event, and neither does Leafblower or anything similar. None of these lists are trumps, or even close to it in the remotest ways. Most well-run events are won or lost by strong players ... adding entirely brand new list building mechanics via comp MAY change up what lists you see (though I don't think you can prove it increases variety in the simple definition of the word), but they also create a new mini-metagame to solve ... and that by nature will on AVERAGE put more pressure back on list building over skill.

If we want tournaments to be won by skill, outside of requiring everyone play with the same list, we should let the game continue to develop and let successive codices continue to normalize and balance. The more familiar and established the better lists from each codex are, the more it becomes player skill and not "oh crap I wasn't ready for or expecting that list!"

Manna - I hope it's clear by now, I really don't object to Comp on face value ... I just object to some of the more grandiose or unprovable things stated as its benefits. You didn't go crazy there, so please don't take my objection as one that is emotive or crazypants in return.

"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"

It's funny cause it's true

MikeMcSomething wrote: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?

Pure gold.

I dont like comp primarily because it forces me to rearrange my army list. Theres not really any other reason than that. I spent my money on the models, why cant I play them in your event? Oh, cause you think 3 long fang squads is cheesy and takes no skill, ok, thats fine, I dont want to play in your gakky event anyways then.

See years ago, I used to worry about cheesy armies. I used to complain on the internet about cheesy win button lists, and how my battleforce footdar took more skill. Then I realized Im just making excuses for myself. See, everybody is competitive. But if I ran my battleforce footdar and lost I could just say "well his list is cheesy, anyone could win with that army, so its ok" and if I won than its "well my army is hard to play, so it was all skill." This kind of childish behavior might be expected in a 15 year old, not in grown men though.

I quit worrying about other peoples armies, and just started to play the actual game. Someone brings mech guard? Thats a problem to be solved. And not solved in the "hurrr i think your army is stupid, so im not playing it" way. Thats just childish and annoying. If someone spent $800 on their mech guard leafblower list, let them play it. If someone shows up with a battle force list they painted well, they should be able to use it. Have categories for best general, painted, and best sport, and give prizes for 1st and 2nd in each of these.

I mean, nobody talks about comping paint. "Sorry sir, your marine army has too many highlights and is shaded really well, it makes everyone elses army look bad, so get it out of here." You make your own army, when you build it you make a conscious decision about its content and have to way things. Do you want to kick ass? Do you want a variety of pretty units? Do you want an army that does 1 thing really well? All of these have to be weighted against each other. When I bring my sanguard blood angels to the lgs I dont expect to do very well, so dont get bitchy when I lose. If I bring my loganwing I have brought my A game and am playing to win.

People in general, but especially with wargamers, need to relax and not worry about whos doing better than them in a game of plastic army mans.

Wow, I'll never understand why these threads go on so long with so much vitriol.

Here's the deal: If you like comp, then go to comp-scored events. If you don't like comp, go to events that do not score comp.

There are plenty of both types of events out there for you to pick and chose from. Please, will both sides of the argument stop trying to tell the other side how to play the game?

There was a lengthy period of time where comp was widely believed to be REQUIRED to balance the game. The game, however, started to balance itself out better BEFORE comp went into disfavor as being a heavy-handed resolution to a perceived but no longer super relevant problem.

So, people who started the game later or figured out comp wasn't required anymore were excoriated by the entrenched "old crowd" that still saw it as necessary. That transition period developed the "animosity" between those who fell in love with comp when it was a requirement, and those who are in love with the more balanced nature of the game at present. It still carries on today. *shrug*

I agree with Mike. We have some newer gamers in our club that the entire notion of comp is bizarre to them. They literally don't see the point.

It is a relic from times gone by when the game was so out of balance that it was needed to keep things remotely fair.

Comp is not needed currently in 40K, and it would be best dead and buried at this point.

MVBrandt wrote: Manna - I hope it's clear by now, I really don't object to Comp on face value ... I just object to some of the more grandiose or unprovable things stated as its benefits. You didn't go crazy there, so please don't take my objection as one that is emotive or crazypants in return.

I think you're a good dude, and I'll do my best to respond to your arguments on their own merits. I don't think you've entirely done me the same favor, but I'll keep my response friendly.

MVBrandt wrote:I think the opinion that comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill ... not really all that true. In fact, it's an assertion at best.

"...at best"? I think you may be slightly confused in your word choice, if you are ranking "opinion" and "assertion" as if they are points on a scale. Unless you think the opinion is insincere or false? Is this intended to imply that someone’s being dishonest?

For the record, no one (that I can think of) has asserted firmly in this thread that Comp causes tournaments to require "more player skill and less list skill". I explained that the idea that it can shift the focus of a tournament to be slightly more on skill of wielding at the table and slightly less on building the list is part of the theory behind why some people support Comp. And yet folks overreact as if there is some Comp Inquisition in here making strident claims and taking away people's Leafblowers. Even if there are jackasses out there misapplying the concept, and insulting people's armies, that's not representative of the discussion here, and I will be grateful if you would respond to the discussion here.

MVBrandt wrote: Most well-run events are won or lost by strong players ... adding entirely brand new list building mechanics via comp MAY change up what lists you see (though I don't think you can prove it increases variety in the simple definition of the word)...

Agreed on the first part. I'll even go further- most events of any kind are won by strong players, and it's almost impossible for a non-strong player to win a well-run event, unless that event ranks other scoring categories much more highly than is usual. Mechanicon, for example, could be won by a mediocre player, if they were an outstanding painter and good sport. But at most good events the scoring system makes the chance of a non-strong player winning very remote.

As for variety... if army lists, or even just Codex listings, were still readily available for the top 10 or 20 GT finishers for the UK and US GTs as of the period when GWUS was running GTs with Comp, I could prove it. It was an easily observable trend when you contrasted the two, and it went on for years. The UK GT, without Comp, degenerated into usually two, maybe three top Codexes or Army Books which were overwhelmingly seen in the top spots, with a couple of outliers spiking in. A top ten GT Final listing for 40k in 4th edition might be something like 4 Eldar, 4 CSM, 1 SM, 1 Tyranid, or something like that. Warhammer for a bit would look like 5 Daemons, 3 Vampire Counts, 2 Dark Elves. It was pretty sad, IMO, though YMMV.

The fact that the situation is different and has improved now with 5th edition and with greater codex balance is the main reason I no longer fight hard for Comp, and willingly attend non-Comped events. I wrote off 'Ard Boyz, for example, as a waste of time until 5th edition came out.

MVBrandt wrote: ...but they also create a new mini-metagame to solve ... and that by nature will on AVERAGE put more pressure back on list building over skill.

Good argument. It's the best counterargument to the theory I described before. Which is part of why I don't endorse a checklist system, and prefer straight handicapping for power by a council of experienced players. Which basically negates that issue.

MVBrandt wrote: If we want tournaments to be won by skill, outside of requiring everyone play with the same list, we should let the game continue to develop and let successive codices continue to normalize and balance. The more familiar and established the better lists from each codex are, the more it becomes player skill and not "oh crap I wasn't ready for or expecting that list!"

I think you're showing some personal preferences and assumptions here which I disagree with a bit. If you think "crap I wasn't ready for or expecting that list!" is NOT reflective of player skill, your opinion of what constitutes player skill is very different from mine. And for my money (though this is personal taste) if the better lists from each codex become too standardized, the game loses some of its interest and savor. Ideally there should always be some variation and some personal stamp.

Eidolon wrote:I dont like comp primarily because it forces me to rearrange my army list. Theres not really any other reason than that. I spent my money on the models, why cant I play them in your event? Oh, cause you think 3 long fang squads is cheesy and takes no skill, ok, thats fine, I dont want to play in your gakky event anyways then.

This is a strawman argument. Events which actually prevent you from bringing a given unit or combination of units are very rare, and not representative of Composition scoring.

MVBrandt wrote:There was a lengthy period of time where comp was widely believed to be REQUIRED to balance the game. The game, however, started to balance itself out better BEFORE comp went into disfavor as being a heavy-handed resolution to a perceived but no longer super relevant problem.

I don’t think that sequence of events is quite accurate. Comp’s been going through a process of being reduced in impact and minimized for most of the last decade. It was very strong and important in 2000-2003 or 2004, say, but each GW scoring system they released (GT or RT) since 2001 tended to reduce its impact a bit further. Mostly because, AFAICT, they didn’t want to be perceived as limiting folks’ choices. Despite those systems allowing a player to take whatever they want, you'll always get guys (thanks Eidolon for providing a handy example) who get angry over a lower score, claim the TO is trying to forbid them from using the units they want, and call his event gakky. Despite the way they communicate their displeasure, GW still wants to serve those guys, and kept adjusting the tournament scoring to try to accomodate them too.

While there is no statistical survey, and you may have seen different locally or at GTs you attended, from the data available on international forums like Dakka and warhammer.org.uk, codex variety at top tables continued to be a significant issue at least until the release of 5th edition. I have been actively engaged in the topic pretty much for the last decade, and have watched the tournament rules, the game rules, and the tides of opinion shift.

MVBrandt wrote:So, people who started the game later or figured out comp wasn't required anymore were excoriated by the entrenched "old crowd" that still saw it as necessary. That transition period developed the "animosity" between those who fell in love with comp when it was a requirement, and those who are in love with the more balanced nature of the game at present. It still carries on today. *shrug*

You so sure all the “excoriation” was one way, Mike? Don’t go too far out of your way to admit error or fault on the non-Comp side. You may not have heard of him, but there's this guy called Stelek whose blog you might want to check out, since you've evidently never read it, or his posts here on Dakka before he started it.

I also have to take (friendly) exception to your drawing a line between “people who fell in love with comp when it was a requirement and those who are in love with the more balanced nature of the game at present.” I would seem to fall into both of those categories. And I don’t think I’m unique.

Again, on a historical note, the animosity between the Comp/Non-Comp crowds dates back a good bit longer than you've described, and is a bit more complicated. Dakka was an early haven for critics of Comp, as we focused a lot on supporting tournaments and competitive play. The tension between guys who wanted to kick ass at tournaments and those who preferred “fluffy” lists goes back before I even started playing in ‘98/’99. The Comp/No-Comp debate is closely connected to that, and goes way back.

Only real quick notes for me are a couple ...

1) The "crap I wasn't expecting that list" is a real issue in the comp council, b/c you don't know for sure what they'll consider good and bad or too powerful, etc. Until you can read minds, it takes away some of the ability a player has to anticipate likely match-ups and bring an appropriate list.

2) If I haven't polished my verbiage off enough, that's my bad, but I consider you deserving of full respect in this / other discussions - if you think I haven't accorded you that full respect, I will at least "assure" you that I have.

3) There certainly is a lot of negativity even still from BOTH "camps," but to avoid any further delving into finger pointing at generalities, I think neither camp SHOULD exist. I think those that fall into both categories (which actually kinda includes me, in some ways) are those that also realize there should not be any "camp" at all.

Okay, cool. Again, I like you, I think you do good stuff, and I'm happy to chat with you here over over a beer. I've disagreed with a few of your expressed opinions, but that doesn't mean any less respect toward you, of course. The only tinge of disrepect I felt was that a couple of places it seemed like you were misrepresenting my position, or not responding to what I had actually said (rather something similar but dumber). I'll put it down to crossed wires or rushed posting. No harm, no foul.

I think we're in a fortunate position that the need for comp has largely (if not fully) been obviated by the improved rules of 5th ed and balance of its books. The main reason I've responded as firmly as I have in this thread is that I'm starting to see "comp is no longer needed" turned into "comp is always a bad idea, always was a bad idea, and only bad people and morons would defend it" in some quarters. Stelek, I expect that from. I don't like seeing that kind of thinking apparently infect guys like you and Reecius, much less turn into an assumption on Dakka.

I always want to emphasize that neither "side" of a debate like this should look down on or think that the other side doesn't love the game as much as they do. There's more than one way of loving something. We all love 40k, and recognize that it's got flaws. Exactly how best or whether to address those flaws is a question we can wrangle over here and elsewhere forever; and should be looked at as an enjoyable adjunct to actually playing the game, not a deadly serious argument to win or die.

On the subject of that "win or die" argument ( ) - the factor of the comp council itself being surprised is part of why you have a council, not just one or two guys. Perhaps I should have said "largely negates", not "basically negates". Sloppy on my part. Good catch.

Mannahnin wrote:Again, on a historical note, the animosity between the Comp/Non-Comp crowds dates back a good bit longer than you've described, and is a bit more complicated.

The animosity goes back further than Warhammer does. I still remember reading arguments in Dragon magazine in the early 80's between role-players and powergamers with all the animosity and name-calling that is present in the comp discussions. Any time there's flexibility in creating something for a game, you'll have people convinced that people who enjoy playing differently are not playing right. It's part of human nature.