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.

Another reason swimming is a horrible example... the super suits.

The last few months' worth of posts in the Tactics forum would say that the average forumite has no clue what is and isn't competitive.

On the other hand, I appreciate what the vocal majority are doing for my personal benefit. When somebody asks 'Is X Any Good?' and all the bandwagoners pile on with their banalities surrounding synergy and tactics and dynamic ueber player skill and convince somebody that 'X' is actually good, I only stand to profit when I'm in a tournament fighting a bunch of lists with Possessed, Ogryn, and Striking Scorpions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:Another reason swimming is a horrible example... the super suits.

Every sports analogy is going to fall horribly short because they're all standardized to such a great extent. A better real-world/40k comparison would be small-business startup in highly competitve markets where success is based not only on personal ability, but also startup capital, business model, and ability to harness volatility.

Danny Internets & Sidstyler:

Alternately you can go to our own Army List forum or Battle Report forum, or Tactics forum and read the advice and army lists of actual tournament winners. Take Chaos Space Marines, for example. The general consensus seems to be that the only competitive build is Dual-Lash, and only dissenters like me suggest otherwise. But it's not a secret that it's popularly considered the only competitive build, and it's not a secret. Any idiot can copy-paste it off the forums, paint it up, and apparently win with ease.

Fearspect:

No, that's not what I'm saying, although I do advocate symmetrical armies for people learning the game. Two identical Imperial Guard armies are the best learning tool for new players, in my opinion. If you think that's Chess, then there's this game you should try (it's called Warhammer 40k!).

What I am saying is that real competition requires a level playing field.

I brought up the 200m Freestyle for a reason: it's the swimming equivalent to a comp-less tournament. All that matters is that the race course is the same. How you cover those 200m is your own business. However, if you want to compete in the 200m Freestyle the fact of the matter is that you'll default to front-crawl as your stroke of choice.

This is just like what happens in a tournament with no composition scores, wherein players choose to homogenize their armies for the most competitive builds.

Nurglitch wrote:

Alternately you can go to our own Army List forum or Battle Report forum, or Tactics forum and read the advice and army lists of actual tournament winners. Take Chaos Space Marines, for example. The general consensus seems to be that the only competitive build is Dual-Lash, and only dissenters like me suggest otherwise. But it's not a secret that it's popularly considered the only competitive build, and it's not a secret. Any idiot can copy-paste it off the forums, paint it up, and apparently win with ease.

No, many suggest that Chaos Space Marines actually aren't competitive relative to the 'new' codices, but largely agree that the old Lash/PM/Oblit/Termicide list is certainly on the upper edge of competitiveness that the Chaos dex is capable of. It's hard as hell to win with Lash-Oblits if you're playing against a modern mech list.

"Dissenters like you" actually seem to advise people to take weird amalgamations including some of the worst units in the codex by far (possessed, 1k Sons) and suggest that it's easily as/more competitive than Lash+Oblits+Rhino Rush. That's where all the eye-rolling appears.

I agree that new players should focus on a very comp style of list building (heavy troops) in order to better develop their skills. I also happen to believe that a new player has no business entering a tournament and certainly should not be rewarded for lack of preparation/knowledge/skill.

Having the three standard missions combined with the FOC is all the comp that's needed.

Alternately you can go to our own Army List forum or Battle Report forum, or Tactics forum and read the advice and army lists of actual tournament winners. Take Chaos Space Marines, for example. The general consensus seems to be that the only competitive build is Dual-Lash, and only dissenters like me suggest otherwise. But it's not a secret that it's popularly considered the only competitive build, and it's not a secret. Any idiot can copy-paste it off the forums, paint it up, and apparently win with ease.

First of all, if you're referring to GT's then you're not talking about tournaments but hobby competitions. I don't really care what the guy who scored 5th but won overall took in his list. I also don't care about the guy who scored 1st but massacred nothing but Necrons, Dark Angels, and Thousand Suns to get there.

If anyone can copy paste an army list from the forums and win then why aren't people doing this? I see lots of people who take crap because they think it's good, not because they choose to dissent. Furthermoe, being able to differentiate between crap and non-crap on the internet is not a skill everyone has.

Danny Internets:

Yes, Grand Tournaments are currently arranged as hobby competitions. Part of the notion of having pre-set armies is so that the ranking reflect player skill, rather than whether they got lucky with the opposing army lists, board set-up, or missions. Remember I'm also advocating regimenting the board set-up and missions as well. After all, I agree with you: why should we care about someone's 1st place finish if they're not actually any good at the game?

Speaking to copy-pasting army lists from the forums, I hope you are aware that people taking what you consider crap because they think it's good is choosing to dissent from your opinion. That's just it: people have their own opinions about what's good, and some people dissent from the popular opinion of what's good.

Though from the way you phrase it, I take it you're one of the elect whose opinion of what is "crap" and "non-crap" is the also the truth, and result of your incredible list-building skills.

Danny is well known for his adherence to the Truth

Speaking to copy-pasting army lists from the forums, I hope you are aware that people taking what you consider crap because they think it's good is choosing to dissent from your opinion. That's just it: people have their own opinions about what's good, and some people dissent from the popular opinion of what's good.

I was unaware that my personal opinion about every conceivable army list was so widely known that anyone who takes something different is consciously choosing to dissent from it. I promise to use my e-celebrity status for good, not evil.

You can play up the relativist/subjectivity card all you like, but you'll just get laughed out of any real discussion of competitive play. Not every list is good. If you take an army without heavy weapons in the current mech-heavy environment then your army is garbage, competitively speaking. Similarly, if your codex has access to multiple ways of fulfilling the same role and you opt for the less efficient choice then your list is also bad. Again, this is solely from the perpective of competitive play. It may be my opinion, but it's also the reality of the game. The popular opinion of what's good is irrelevant because the average person is a moron (an unfortunate truth that extends well beyond the Warhammer community).

The high and mighty have no need of your novel "internal consistency", sir.

Danny Internets wrote:

Alternately you can go to our own Army List forum or Battle Report forum, or Tactics forum and read the advice and army lists of actual tournament winners. Take Chaos Space Marines, for example. The general consensus seems to be that the only competitive build is Dual-Lash, and only dissenters like me suggest otherwise. But it's not a secret that it's popularly considered the only competitive build, and it's not a secret. Any idiot can copy-paste it off the forums, paint it up, and apparently win with ease.

First of all, if you're referring to GT's then you're not talking about tournaments but hobby competitions. I don't really care what the guy who scored 5th but won overall took in his list. I also don't care about the guy who scored 1st but massacred nothing but Necrons, Dark Angels, and Thousand Suns to get there.

If anyone can copy paste an army list from the forums and win then why aren't people doing this? I see lots of people who take crap because they think it's good, not because they choose to dissent. Furthermoe, being able to differentiate between crap and non-crap on the internet is not a skill everyone has.

And in the UK GT, Dual Lash/Oblit spam armies took first and second place. No comp, no paint, no sports scores. Straight up battle points.

Results here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/284231.page

So, are dual lash lists really crap?

They're still the most competitive that the Chaos codex can manage, especially against 4th ed. style lists. Against well run mech lists, they are indeed much, much harder to win with.

So, are dual lash lists really crap?

They're not crap and they never have been (did I ever say they were?). They just don't match the potential that certain other armies can muster, namely IG and Space Wolves. And, as Sourclams said, they're shoehorned into a single build if they want to compete at all, which is the hallmark of a poorly written codex.

As a side note, I would be very curious to see what missions were run at this tournament. Seeing subpar armies in there like Necrons and absence of IG makes me think there might have been some very non-standard mission goals.

I'm guessing it's just another tournament filled with people running the old 4th ed footslogger lists. Against which lash Chaos truly excels.

All we know is lash spam performed very well & the UK GT finals are extremely competitive. Some top hobbyist competionists from the US have played there in the past but failed to bring back the proverbial gold medal. For all we know maybe IG mech doesn't stack up quite as well at 1500 points. Surely as others have said CSM can field mech armies with lash and Oblits. The Oblits crack open the transports then lash reels them in. It's an easy tactic to execute and Oblits in cover are a hard nut to crack. Maybe IG mech would have placed higher if there had been comp scores. It's hard to say with the limited information at hand.

G

imweasel wrote:I am still waiting for an answer to my question.

How can an arbitrary, subjective system be fair?

and wait you will.. put in such simple terms Comp is nonscence. The defenders of it are too busy stroking the're egos and defending there strawman arguments to actually address this.

Comp is so arbitrary, subjective, and regional based that there no place for it in a competitive tournament environment.

Watch what happens when i bring a Salamanders painted army with Vulkan. i get gigged no matter what....even if i bring nothing but plasma and Missle Launchers. lol

If Comp is being used as a power handicap, and a Vulkan list is genuinely that much better, then marking it down is appropriate. Of course, as you note, if you take all missiles instead of meltas, and all plasma instead of flamers, then you should be getting a higher comp score than a Vulkan list which takes full advantage of his abilities.

My mind just gets blown when intentionally deviating from well-established background material somehow results in a higher Composition score.

40k is the only competitive hobby I've seen where people expect you to do everything you can to handicap yourself before an event. May as well just start handing out the 'Everyone Is a Winner' ribbons at this point.

Mannahnin wrote:If Comp is being used as a power handicap, and a Vulkan list is genuinely that much better, then marking it down is appropriate. Of course, as you note, if you take all missiles instead of meltas, and all plasma instead of flamers, then you should be getting a higher comp score than a Vulkan list which takes full advantage of his abilities.

So I take a list that is outside the story fluff and my army composition score takes a hit?

Really?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you genuinely not remember any of the previous comments I’ve made on the subject?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280929.page#1360931
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282604.page#1386364


This thread is pretty informative too. I refer you to Kilkrazy and Ageofegos’ posts in particular.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/282790.page



Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:My mind just gets blown when intentionally deviating from well-established background material somehow results in a higher Composition score.

imweasel wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:If Comp is being used as a power handicap, and a Vulkan list is genuinely that much better, then marking it down is appropriate. Of course, as you note, if you take all missiles instead of meltas, and all plasma instead of flamers, then you should be getting a higher comp score than a Vulkan list which takes full advantage of his abilities.

So I take a list that is outside the story fluff and my army composition score takes a hit?

Really?

sourclams wrote:40k is the only competitive hobby I've seen where people expect you to do everything you can to handicap yourself before an event. May as well just start handing out the 'Everyone Is a Winner' ribbons at this point .

Hyperbole. If you don’t like the way events are now, you’re always free to support non-comp, non-soft score-using events in your area, or run them yourself. I think there are significant flaws in most of the comp and sports scoring systems out there, so have put a good bit of thought into how to improve them, and have run events using my own versions, and posted the rules on here. If you want to do something constructive, do something. If you want to whine on the internet, at least come up with some new ones. These are getting old.

Mannahnin wrote:Hyperbole. If you don’t like the way events are now, you’re always free to support non-comp, non-soft score-using events in your area, or run them yourself.

We do. I only remember a single medium-warm issue with a single player in all of the non-soft events, as opposed to a huge dicking via Painting scores in the last soft event I was part of.

If you want to do something constructive, do something. If you want to whine on the internet, at least come up with some new ones. These are getting old.

You just got mad when I expressed disbelief with intentionally deviating from established background to somehow garner a higher Army Composition score. How does that make me some sort of bad guy?

Modquisition on. Lets all take a chillpill and mellow out, embracing the common courtesy that is Dakka Rule #1.

sourclams wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Hyperbole. If you don’t like the way events are now, you’re always free to support non-comp, non-soft score-using events in your area, or run them yourself.

We do.

Good man.

sourclams wrote:I only remember a single medium-warm issue with a single player in all of the non-soft events, as opposed to a huge dicking via Painting scores in the last soft event I was part of.

Our experiences differ, but that's not unexpected.

sourclams wrote:You just got mad when I expressed disbelief with intentionally deviating from established background to somehow garner a higher Army Composition score. How does that make me some sort of bad guy?

You seem to be an intelligent person. Given that multiple different types of Comp scoring or definitions of Comp have recently been discussed, and you've been very active posting in those discussions, I kind of expect that you'd be at least broadly familiar with them. One of the most common types, and in fact the one at least theoretically in use at the recently much-discussed SVDM is "comp as handicapping for power", with theme not a consideration. Your expression of surprise therefore seemed insincere.

In addition, that business about “people expect you to do everything you can to handicap yourself” is pure antagonism. It's not the kind of comment which encourages constructive dialogue.

Mannahnin wrote:
In addition, that business about “people expect you to do everything you can to handicap yourself” is pure antagonism. It's not the kind of comment which encourages constructive dialogue.

To be fair, the 'you must handicap yourself as much as possible' is the attitude that a vocal portion of the pro-comp crowd advocates and creates the antagonism. I've had people flame me that my army is only designed to make my opponent die a las/plas death by turn 3. Funny when the list being talked about only had 3 lascannons(One twin linked) and 2 plasma guns.

Comp was designed by GW to make their less good items seem more attractive in a gaming environment. It is purely a marketing strategy on their part and is also the main reason that they do not write tactics articles (except for said 'bad' units) and that all of their sample armies are battleforces (which is also the only sale items they offer in store).

The problem is that they no longer hold the same monopoly over the gaming community, with many others offering competition in the form of better vetted rules and like-quality sculpting. As such, it is appropriate for the community to push back against this house of cards system that GW has pushed for so many years and demand a competitive and balanced game.

Somewhere along the line, a large portion of the community came to terms with the comp system as it was the only way to participate in large social gaming events (which were only run by GW). This led to many LGSs taking on this same model (it is easier to copy a system that sort of works rather than sit down and figure out a new one).

That is what is going on now, and we are already seeing GW backpeddle on their previous strategy because they have seen the push-back from the wargames community.

As an aside to all this, I think it is really important that when someone sees all of their points refuted that they not fall on the standard, "If you don't like it, make your own event and do it comp/not comp/whatever was the opposite of what I like." Entire unhelpful and a waste of the time it took to type; have some self-respect.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine what is the best way to run things. Use that to focus our collective nerd rage, imo.

skyth wrote:To be fair, the 'you must handicap yourself as much as possible' is the attitude that a vocal portion of the pro-comp crowd advocates and creates the antagonism.

Please quote one person expressing that sentiment on this forum, and please link to the post.

Fearspect wrote:Comp was designed by GW to make their less good items seem more attractive in a gaming environment. It is purely a marketing strategy on their part and is also the main reason that they do not write tactics articles (except for said 'bad' units) and that all of their sample armies are battleforces (which is also the only sale items they offer in store).

Interesting theory, except that non-comped events actually would seem to drive sales of new stuff more. GW's codices already see-saw what units are good over time, thus encouraging people to buy new stuff every time a codex comes out and changes what's desireable from a pure power standpoint. The idea that non-comped events encourage more buying is supported by the fact that 'Ard Boys is an event created by their US Trade Sales department. If anything, comped events would seem to help guys with outmoded units or armies keep from updating as often, since the comp score could be used to help handicap their weaker list in a competitive event.

All of their events are created by their sales department, I don't see what your point is there.

GW's strategy has always been to focus on new gamers over veterans (just take a look at their red book). Show the new player junk units to buy and tell him they are good, what will happen? Either:

a) He buys the ones they can't sell to vets, he loses a lot then quits; or,

b) He buys the ones they can't sell to vets, eventually becomes a vet and buys useful units.

Either way they managed to sell their Ogryns/Vespids/Stealth suits/Tactical Terminators/Any Necrons/On and on.

I just generally hate the idea of everyone being forced to drop to the lowest common denominator of skill.

Some of the best armies ever consisted of units everyone said were garbage. I am thinking dark eldar, speed freaks, 13th Company and others. To me nothing kills the hobby more than lots and lots of people playing hte net lists but it's okay and I only mention it here as an aside.

G

Fearspect wrote:

Either way they managed to sell their Ogryns/Vespids/Stealth suits/Tactical Terminators/Any Necrons/On and on.

I would actually disagree with this. I think there's a reason comp got dropped at GTs and the same boxes of Ogryns/Vespids/Stealth Suits/Tactical Terminators have been sitting on the shelf in my LGS for the last year or more.

I think one of the reasons GW is shifting to better internal balance within the new codices and more dynamic force org charts and deployment/play styles is precisely because they were finding their business stagnating/losing market share. I'm certainly not blaming Comp for all the evils of the world, but their whole business line has been shifting to cater more to dynamic play that is on the whole more balanced and "competitive".

Mannahnin wrote:

skyth wrote:To be fair, the 'you must handicap yourself as much as possible' is the attitude that a vocal portion of the pro-comp crowd advocates and creates the antagonism.

Please quote one person expressing that sentiment on this forum, and please link to the post.

So an attitude only exists if I can find a specific example on Dakka? I provided an example of it happening to me. That should be good enough (If I felt like it, I could link to the thread, but it's on another board)