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.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:
I don't mean to call anyone a liar, cheater, or fixer of scores here. I just have to ask: in what universe is this list as good as one with 6 Ironclads?

This list (no personal offense intended, toxic_wisdom, if you feel that this is offensive, I'll take it down and apologise) reads like a "Worst of CSM" list and is heavily themed. Assuming that a 10 for comp means that an army's better than 50% of the field, I'd give this a 17 or 18 (prob 18).

At some point TOs will have to realize that by including comp (and sports to an extent) scoring they are begging for trouble. Obviously anyone involved in scoring comp. should not have played in the tournament. This is what people call "a conflict of interest." Why bother with comp. at all?

olympia wrote:At some point TOs will have to realize that by including comp (and sports to an extent) scoring they are begging for trouble. Obviously anyone involved in scoring comp. should not have played in the tournament. This is what people call "a conflict of interest." Why bother with comp. at all?

And avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest is important...for important things, like a country's judicial system. But this is a game of toy soldiers. Sounds like none of the parties involved in judging comp won anything, so why is it such a big deal? Merely for idealistic reasons?

So comp was used to pair the first two match ups?

And someone who played in the tournament helped judge comp?

So that person who is playing got access to see every list before the first game AND could help seed the field?

Therefore, if he did not want to play against some builds he could match them up with certain comp scores so they'd have to play each other first round.

Also, what list does a 6 dreadnought list fear most? Maybe one with a bunch of MC's and Zoans that can punch through armor pretty easily?

If you have access to information that other players DO NOT have access to you should NOT play in the tournament as anything except the ringer.

You had access to every players list.
You had the ability to see what type of armies you'd be paired up against in the first two round.
You knew what the comp score for armies would be before the tournament.

These are all unfair advantages that other players did not have access to.

I don't know the system being used, but there IS a way to do this without hitting the conflict of interest. Any/everyone involved in comp scoring AND who is playing the event has to submit their lists before everyone else, and before seeing any of the submitted lists. Then one person, who is NOT playing in the event, strips all the identifiers off the lists/anonymizes them. For comp scoring, each list is given only a number, which is reassociated with the player's name after scoring is complete.

Then once all the lists are submitted and the serial numbers filed off, all the lists are collected together and scored by the comp council.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't know the system being used, but there IS a way to do this without hitting the conflict of interest. Any/everyone involved in comp scoring AND who is playing the event has to submit their lists before everyone else, and before seeing any of the submitted lists. Then one person, who is NOT playing in the event, strips all the identifiers off the lists/anonymizes them. For comp scoring, each list is given only a number, which is reassociated with the player's name after scoring is complete.

Then once all the lists are submitted and the serial numbers filed off, all the lists are collected together and scored by the comp council.

This would be better, but a judge could still group armies he would not like to face and give them comp scores so they'd have to play in the first two rounds.

Mannahnin wrote:I don't know the system being used, but there IS a way to do this without hitting the conflict of interest. Any/everyone involved in comp scoring AND who is playing the event has to submit their lists before everyone else, and before seeing any of the submitted lists. Then one person, who is NOT playing in the event, strips all the identifiers off the lists/anonymizes them. For comp scoring, each list is given only a number, which is reassociated with the player's name after scoring is complete.

Then once all the lists are submitted and the serial numbers filed off, all the lists are collected together and scored by the comp council.

Like the geocentric model of the solar system, with enough effort it is possible to develop a convoluted system that is clunky but more or less workable. Of course if you eliminate comp the problems go away as well.

olympia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I don't know the system being used, but there IS a way to do this without hitting the conflict of interest. Any/everyone involved in comp scoring AND who is playing the event has to submit their lists before everyone else, and before seeing any of the submitted lists. Then one person, who is NOT playing in the event, strips all the identifiers off the lists/anonymizes them. For comp scoring, each list is given only a number, which is reassociated with the player's name after scoring is complete.

Then once all the lists are submitted and the serial numbers filed off, all the lists are collected together and scored by the comp council.

Like the geocentric model of the solar system, with enough effort it is possible to develop a convoluted system that is clunky but more or less workable. Of course if you eliminate comp the problems go away as well.

Depends on your definition of the "problem." Some of us consider it a problem that a no-comp event pretty much eliminates Tau, Necron, Grey Knight, and Dark Angel armies. Everyone knows they are weaker, and people just don't bring them.

Reduced to the minimum, you start seeing 3 army lists at tournaments, with very minor variations. Might as well play Rock-Paper-Scissors; it's faster.

Hello, my name is Jay Powell, I was the Howling Griffons Player at the SVDM and I scored an 8 comp. Here was my list.

Kar'Sarro Khan (on Foot)
Librarian w/ Terminator Armor and Storm Shield (Null Zone and Avenger)

(10) Tactical Squad with Pfist, Flamer, Missile Launcher in Rhino w/ Extra Armor
(10) Tactical Squad with Power Weapon, Flamer, Missile Launcher in Rhino w/ Extra Armor
(10) Tactical Squad with Pfist, Melta, Multimelta in Rhino w/ Extra Armor
(5) Tactical Squad with Pfist & Combi-Meltagun in Razorback (Tw-Heavy Bolter) w/ Extra Armor

(5) Terminators w/ Thunder Hammers and Storm Shields
Dedicated Landraider w/ Mulitmelta

(2) Landspeeder Typhoons w/ Cyclone Missile Launcher and Heavy Flamer (in 1 squadron of 2 speeders)

First round I faced Tim Arling's Orks with Gazgul, KFF Mech, 2 Battle Wagons, 2 units of Kans, buggies, big mobs of boyz, some lootaz, and some small units of Nobz. Oh and he had a squad of Tank Bustas and some grots too. I had fun vs Tim, great opponent but his army was clearly a lot nastier then mine but because he was scored at a 7 I got trounced with little shot of winning. Now this pairing could have happened in a normal tournament so I am not that peeved, but just looking at the table early on you could see the mismatch. Tim trounced me.

Second round I played the Necron Player with 3 Monoliths and the Deceiver, 3 squads of 13 Warriors, and a lord with orb. He also score a 7 in comp, and had been up against a close assault army in round 1 and been trounced too so we were paired up. I have only 2 weapons that could pen a Monolith, the 2 Lascannons on my Raider. Nothing else could really hurt them. Then we find out that the football scenario that was supposed to be round 3 according the missions published was actually round 2, so I had to face the monoliths and the deceiver going for an objective out in the middle of open ground. Once again, a pretty clear mismatch in my army to his, and I got trounced again.

Third thru fifth round I played against nids, and did quite a bit better, though not as good as the records show in the posted results. The 21 given to me round 3 should have been a 10. I got at least a solid draw in games 3-5, after comp scoring was abandoned.

Now what does that say about the system used? When I asked about my low comp score I was given the run around by both Mike and I am guessing Ludwig (not sure if it was him though). Eventually I was told I got the low score because my army was setup to have high Maneuverability (which I was later to find out meant that it included Khan) and its weapon options were setup to be able to take on a wide variety of threats.

So that said, because I took an under played character who while yes, gives most of the army outflank (though it would be stupid and tactically unsounds to Outflank everything as I have discover because your army tends to come in piece meal and is picked off easily, especially with a 30pts IG Astropath on the table) and because I took weapon load outs that would work vs a number of different armies I was dinged for planning ahead? Why? When chaos lists with special characters, winged Daemon princes, multiple squads of plague marines in rhinos and berserkers, some in raiders, all with oblites were getting 14s and 15s?

Please post your comp system or drop it. Or if you won't do either, have it only effect game 1, after that it should come down to win/loss and points earned. I'd also like to see some sort of Sports score, for when these mismatches happen. I was lucky, and had 4 good opponents (Played the same guy in both games 4 and 5, but this was do to a lack of staff to fix the problem and reassign us in round 5 and not related to the topic at hand) and enjoyed all my games even though I got trounced in games 1 & 2. I think with some small tweaks this could have been a great tournament and I look forward to seeing what Mike and the Biggunz learn from the problems with this event.

My $0.02.


-Jay

Janthkin, if you examine the (non-comped) results for the British GT circuit you'll see some diversity. , Obviously, therefore, the absence of comp. does not discourage people with Tau or whatever from participating? Perhaps the British are just better wargamers?

olympia wrote:Janthkin, if you examine the (non-comped) results for the British GT circuit you'll see some diversity. , Obviously, therefore, the absence of comp. does not discourage people with Tau or whatever from participating? Perhaps the British are just better wargamers?

If you talk to the guys who attend the UK GTs, you find out that the few people who bring the weaker armies are doing it to prove a point, or because they genuinely don't care about their chances of qualifying for the final.

The UK GT is famous for the kinds of lists you get. Like the old 3rd and 4th ed Ulthwe Craftworld unlimited size Seer Council armies, where in 1500pts they'd have ten Guardians and a giant seer council for their entire army.

Mannahnin wrote:

olympia wrote:Janthkin, if you examine the (non-comped) results for the British GT circuit you'll see some diversity. , Obviously, therefore, the absence of comp. does not discourage people with Tau or whatever from participating? Perhaps the British are just better wargamers?

If you talk to the guys who attend the UK GTs, you find out that the few people who bring the weaker armies are doing it to prove a point, or because they genuinely don't care about their chances of qualifying for the final.

If the point they are trying to prove is that comp. is unnecessary I concede it.

You don't "concede" that point. You incessantly belabor that point.

And no, that's not the point they're making. They do it to show how good a player they are with a weaker or outdated book, or to get bragging rights as the "highest placing Eldar player", or to remind GW how old and unloved their book is. Google "Waaagh Gotheringham-Willoughby" sometime to read about spikeydavid's adventures with the old Ork codex.

This demonstrates that having judging for comp is a bad idea....

Wait comp overall is just bad. Just play the game as intended 40k it is never going to be perfectly balanced. Nor is it going to be a perfectly competitive game just let people play with the minis they bought and see how the dice land.

Another thing comp seems like a relic of 3rd and 4th edition when the game was really not balanced and a few lists could totally dominate.

On my blog I got a good thread going about general good and bad behavior from the GT.

http://bloodofkittens.com/?p=2817

Mannahnin wrote:

olympia wrote:Janthkin, if you examine the (non-comped) results for the British GT circuit you'll see some diversity. , Obviously, therefore, the absence of comp. does not discourage people with Tau or whatever from participating? Perhaps the British are just better wargamers?

If you talk to the guys who attend the UK GTs, you find out that the few people who bring the weaker armies are doing it to prove a point, or because they genuinely don't care about their chances of qualifying for the final.

The UK GT is famous for the kinds of lists you get. Like the old 3rd and 4th ed Ulthwe Craftworld unlimited size Seer Council armies, where in 1500pts they'd have ten Guardians and a giant seer council for their entire army.

Is there a problem with an army like that in tournament play?

If we tossed out comp altogether do we think we'd only see 3 different lists? I can think of at least 2 marines lists, 2 SW lists, a guard list, a nid list, witch hunters, an eldar list, 1-2 ork lists and probably 1 DH list and 1 Tau list that could all be competitive in a tournament without comp.

Yeah necrons and dark eldar aren't included. Oh well. Update their codex please.

That isn't enough variety?

Hopefully there would be at least one genuinely competitive build in each codex if there was no comp.

Ideally there would be several, just to add variety to games.

Indeed. If the codices were well-designed enough to each support multiple competitive builds, comp would probably be unnecessary.

Kevin Nash wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

olympia wrote:Janthkin, if you examine the (non-comped) results for the British GT circuit you'll see some diversity. , Obviously, therefore, the absence of comp. does not discourage people with Tau or whatever from participating? Perhaps the British are just better wargamers?

If you talk to the guys who attend the UK GTs, you find out that the few people who bring the weaker armies are doing it to prove a point, or because they genuinely don't care about their chances of qualifying for the final.

The UK GT is famous for the kinds of lists you get. Like the old 3rd and 4th ed Ulthwe Craftworld unlimited size Seer Council armies, where in 1500pts they'd have ten Guardians and a giant seer council for their entire army.

Is there a problem with an army like that in tournament play?

If we tossed out comp altogether do we think we'd only see 3 different lists? I can think of at least 2 marines lists, 2 SW lists, a guard list, a nid list, witch hunters, an eldar list, 1-2 ork lists and probably 1 DH list and 1 Tau list that could all be competitive in a tournament without comp.

Yeah necrons and dark eldar aren't included. Oh well. Update their codex please.

That isn't enough variety?

Actually DE can too, leaving Necrons. Everyone else can do a competitive build.

In all fariness NECRONS can be very competative you just have to bring the hammer/anvil list and go for a 1 in comp. You really have to try to get a 0 but its possible. One individual I played said he would never want to face off against my list again. So far in 5th edition I am at 9-2-1

I'm deleting the last few posts. Plugging your blog is okay. GBF, you do it in your own sig. Plus, changing the quote to an offensive phrase is crude and unnecessary. Please don't do that.

Ludwig wrote:

and it's fine to think that ,but to attack my character is way out of line man, you don't know me, but you feel like you can make accusations like that ?

When did i attack your character? I asked if you judged comp and if you played "x" list.

The only person overly anti STVDM in this thread is Marc, who openly declared shenanigans. I stated the facts, gave my solutions to them, and asked questions.

Littlbitz wrote:Gah!

I've been found out...

How did you get a 15/20 for painting





Your army blows all others out of the water. I got a 16/20 (It was a 17/20.... no idea how that changed) for a "meh" Tyranid army. You regularly win best painted for a reason. I still have yet to see an army that is better painted them yours. But you got a 15. There are a few people above you. I'm very confused as to why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

toxic_wisdom wrote:Went 0W and 5L for the event ( overall 42nd out of 51 ), but had a great time - awesome opponents ! Despite suggestions against bringing a theme army I wanted to play a list I enjoyed taking the time to build and paint... somehow it scored a 12 though on comp ???

1850 Points - Chaos Space Marines

MoT Winged Daemon Prince ( Warptime and Wind of Chaos )
205 pts - HQ Selection

MoT Chaos Sorcerer ( Terminator Armor and Force Weapon - Warptime and Wind of Chaos )
200 pts - HQ Selection

Aspiring Champion ( Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol ) ( Bolter )
Chaos Space Marine ( CCW and Bolt Pistol ) ( Bolter ) ( Icon of Tzeentch )
Chaos Space Marine ( CCW and Bolt Pistol ) ( Meltagun ) 2x
Chaos Space Marine ( CCW and Bolt Pistol ) ( Bolter ) 6x
Chaos Rhino ( Combi Flamer )
285 pts - Troop Selection

Aspiring Champion ( Power Weapon and Bolt Pistol ) ( Bolter )
Chaos Space Marine ( CCW and Bolt Pistol ) ( Bolter ) ( Icon of Tzeentch )
Chaos Space Marine ( CCW and Bolt Pistol ) ( Meltagun ) 2x
Chaos Space Marine ( CCW and Bolt Pistol ) ( Bolter ) 6x
Chaos Rhino ( Combi Flamer )
285 pts - Troop Selection

Chaos Lesser Daemons 10x
130 pts - Troop Selection

Chaos Lesser Daemons 10x
130 pts - Troop Selection

Terminator Champion ( Chainfist - TL Bolter )
Terminator Champion ( Icon of Tzeentch ) ( Paired Claws )
Terminator Champion ( Paired Claws ) 2x
240 pts - Elite Selection

Chaos Land Raider ( Twin Link Heavy Bolter - Paired Twin Link Lascannons )
220 pts - Heavy Support Selection

Chaos Vindicator ( Demolisher Cannon and TL Bolter plus Daemonic Possession - Dirge Caster )
155 pts - Heavy Support Selection

Hey Joe. This is the battle report of the tournament. We need to get a game in. With me using a fun list.

BATTLE REPORT VS CSM st. VAL TOURNAMENT below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_fYpcPCK5A

(btw my comp was a 7/20, thus the highest? nid comp)

i wish i brought my camera to this because I loved so many armies there and would of liked to get better pictures then that of my iphone

hey cheesesteak, I have pictures and video of the majority of the armies. Any army in particular you want pics of?

How did I get a 15 for Painting?

I'm not really sure Auxellion, I was a bit suprised myself. My army wasn't scored till the very end while I was putting my army away. Seems I was a bit of an after thought, and things were already decided.

Mike, I think it was, told me I got a 15. He said most of my conversions were simple weapon swaps, and that while my army was painted consistently throughout, it just didn't "pop" and didn't have much detail.

I try not to get to upset over paint scores, even though its my goal at these Tournaments, over winning games as its the one thing I have full control over (the quality of the miniatures I bring).

It is very subjective however even with a checklist, scores can vary widely from one judge to another.

I will say however that was the lowest I've placed in paint with my Space Wolves in about 5 years. Oh, and no I don't take the same old army everytime. Sure some of the models are the same, but the army is continuously evolving from what started as a full Pod army to the Biker, hybrid mess it is today.

Hi Ted, I asked you for a quarter Sunday morning when we were waiting for the store to open upstairs. I'm Steve. Anyway

Ted, you brought quite a few new models and your "swaps" involved quite a bit of greenstuff and repositioning and customizations. Also your level of highlighting shames "Propainters." I don't know, I saw the 15 and it just "Felt Wrong." Mainly due to the fact that I scored higher then you. And my friend Chris's orks I painted for him managed the same score. Compare:





Zero highlighting, simple layers, minor/medium conversions on the vehicles. Everything else is basic model. Got the same score.

----

I actually greatly boosted my painting score from the last time I played at showcase. I went from a 9 to a 16, which is an improvement IMO for... repainting my entire army.



I managed a 16 on painting (Which I read off as a 17 on Sunday on Ashley's laptop, but that is irrelevant)

Littlbitz wrote:How did I get a 15 for Painting?

I'm not really sure Auxellion, I was a bit suprised myself. My army wasn't scored till the very end while I was putting my army away. Seems I was a bit of an after thought, and things were already decided.

Mike, I think it was, told me I got a 15. He said most of my conversions were simple weapon swaps, and that while my army was painted consistently throughout, it just didn't "pop" and didn't have much detail.

I try not to get to upset over paint scores, even though its my goal at these Tournaments, over winning games as its the one thing I have full control over (the quality of the miniatures I bring).

It is very subjective however even with a checklist, scores can vary widely from one judge to another.

I will say however that was the lowest I've placed in paint with my Space Wolves in about 5 years. Oh, and no I don't take the same old army everytime. Sure some of the models are the same, but the army is continuously evolving from what started as a full Pod army to the Biker, hybrid mess it is today.

Wow, I'm shocked at that score. I played your army back when it still had some pods in it a couple of years ago at the 'Ard Boyz semi-finals and it was the best looking army I've ever seen anyone put down on the table by a country mile.

Wow so those orks got the same score as Teds stuff?

Danny Internets wrote:

Littlbitz wrote:How did I get a 15 for Painting?

I'm not really sure Auxellion, I was a bit suprised myself. My army wasn't scored till the very end while I was putting my army away. Seems I was a bit of an after thought, and things were already decided.

Mike, I think it was, told me I got a 15. He said most of my conversions were simple weapon swaps, and that while my army was painted consistently throughout, it just didn't "pop" and didn't have much detail.

I try not to get to upset over paint scores, even though its my goal at these Tournaments, over winning games as its the one thing I have full control over (the quality of the miniatures I bring).

It is very subjective however even with a checklist, scores can vary widely from one judge to another.

I will say however that was the lowest I've placed in paint with my Space Wolves in about 5 years. Oh, and no I don't take the same old army everytime. Sure some of the models are the same, but the army is continuously evolving from what started as a full Pod army to the Biker, hybrid mess it is today.

Wow, I'm shocked at that score. I played your army back when it still had some pods in it a couple of years ago at the 'Ard Boyz semi-finals and it was the best looking army I've ever seen anyone put down on the table by a country mile.

Ted's army is downright beautiful

Really?

Hulksmash wrote:Shane had a 5 according to the results posted. That's probably why he played a 5. Though that list didn't deserve close to that score either. A more transparent rating system next time Mikhaila will do you a world of good after the fact. I still appreciate that you put on the event for all the peeps out east but you'll catch less crap if it's all out in the open next time (or you just drop comp completely ).

I was informed at the beginning of the tournament that I scored a 7 in comp.

It's only now that I see the scoring that I'm informed I had a 5.

If I had done better at the tournament (and thus cared about final placement) I would SERIOUSLY suspect shenanigans at this point as the two WC players there (Marc and I) were given comp scores by judges and paired up incorrectly....only now to see the actual scores "fixed" to show in the overall standings that there was no mistake in our pairings.

To me it seems like a 'retro' comp scoring to make it seem like we were paired correctly in the first and second rounds to anyone looking at the final scores. Looking at Marc's army, its obvious to anyone who plays this game that a '1' in comp is an obvious handicap. I have reservations about a 5 for my comp score but wont quibble about that.

If I actually had any possibility of winning any sort of placement, I'd take issue with the comp situation and be pretty much on fire about it. However, I failed to get the job done in battle. So be it. 5 games played over the weekend and I had a good time. I can only hope that this tournament will serve to tournament organisers as an example of how ridiculous the idea of both comp scoring (without transparent guidelines) and said judges participating in the event really is. It's truly amazing to me that someone would actually try to defend themselves in that situation.

Whatever though. A 20 comp wouldnt have saved me this past weekend. However, I'm not sure that I'll be that quick to go to another GT event here that features a comp score that isnt spelled out and/or comp judges participating in the event. I would also prefer to have point totals tallied from round to round....its not like placement between rounds is some sort of ridiculous secret.

I'm sorry if my post sounds like I'm questioning someones integrity, but its the nature of the beast. T.O.'s decided to have a GT level event that featured a comp scoring who's guidelines were hidden from all but the judges...who participated in said event. How could one NOT expect flack from the community. If you think this sort of thing is o.k. you're simply wrong, sorry. There was a lot at stake at this tournament. Complaints at the end are almost a foregone conclusion. The store did everything it could to ensure that there WERE problems at the end with this current format.

Don't want any flack directed toward you in your next event? Then feature a GT with scoring of Battle points and Appearance only. Have it flat out swiss system with posted standings between rounds. Have a panel of judges for painting that are NOT playing or at least have a cap on the points availible for their painting scores.

I dont know if out of town clubs/individuals were 'gamed' against this weekend or not. With the inconsistancies of the comp grading I'm forced to thing, "yes, we were 'gamed' against". I'm forced to feel that there might have been a little favoritism this weekend....maybe a lot. This is what happens when you're less than open with point scores. When your comp guidelines are a mystery to all attending. It's not that hard to run a tournament that this sort of thing isnt a problem. I'll never understand why people continue to "hide" between-round points, and level comp/theme demands against players instead of allowing us to play with the toys we want to play with.

Until T.O. 's begin to recognise the causes of these gripes and online arguements (comp and hidden scoring) we'll continue to have these arguements again and again.

When you have someone complaining about scores and the only scores determining table placement and ultimately the overall winners are battle and appearance, players tend to not be able to blame anyone but themselves for poor placement. What are they going to complain about? That they got massacred in the kill points mission? Or are they going to complain that the White Dwarf featured Space Wolf army pasted them in the appearance catagory when they didnt even base their army?

Run an open tournament guys, you wont have these problems.

Not that I care....I got my tail kicked this weekend anyhoo!