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.

Not to poke, but perhaps it is actually intended to minimize the importance of the comp score, while making it superficially appear to be a real factor, thus increasing the "curb appeal" of the event to more casual gamers.

Oh noes!!!

G

But you will have to explain that before the tournament starts and there is going to be a lot of explaining at the tables that no these guys are different cause that sergeant has melta bombs

Mannahnin wrote:Not to poke, but perhaps it is actually intended to minimize the importance of the comp score, while making it superficially appear to be a real factor, thus increasing the "curb appeal" of the event to more casual gamers.

I guess that's what's so confusing-- if the comp has no actual affect on lists, why include it at all?

The vast majority of posters in related threads have said comp negatively impacts their view of a tournament-- so where's the increase in 'curb appeal?' You might get a couple of casual gamers in-- but I haven't seen anyone post who says comp makes them more likely to come to a tourney.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
GBF:

Does the score list you posted supersede the ones on the website?

http://www.bolterbeach.com/?page_id=43

The website is still under construction. The rules here are correct Eric.

G

kartofelkopf wrote:I guess that's what's so confusing-- if the comp has no actual affect on lists, why include it at all?

I can see that. If the intent is to make comp a non-factor, or have a very small impact, then it’s probably best to be open about that, and have a relatively quick and simple system if any.

kartofelkopf wrote:The vast majority of posters in related threads have said comp negatively impacts their view of a tournament-- so where's the increase in 'curb appeal?' You might get a couple of casual gamers in-- but I haven't seen anyone post who says comp makes them more likely to come to a tourney.

How many people have you seen post, again?

Many folks DO like comp. From what I’ve seen it’s mostly desired as a means of (to a limited extent) handicapping the most extreme lists by comparison to more run-of-the-mill armies. Thus trying to favor somewhat more-rounded armies, and potentially give an edge to people who do well in battles with a less-impressive army, as opposed to someone who brings the most powerful army list they can. Of course, there is always debate about whether those are the exact objectives, and how best to serve them, if at all. IMO Comp in general is less-needed in 5th edition, given the focus on objective missions and Troops to take objectives. I don’t think I would have enjoyed the GW ‘Ard Boyz nearly as much under 4th edition rules, and I never played in the Gladiator at Adepticon prior to 5th either.

I do think that it’s probably best for any given tournament to either say that they want comp to matter, and design a system carefully considering what they want to reward or restrict, or to say openly that comp is not a priority for them, and not waste too much time or effort on it.

Will you be posting mission before the tournament? If not the exact missions, possibly examples?

Definitely!

G

Mannahnin wrote:
How many people have you seen post, again?

I know it's not exhaustive of the 40k player base, but the two threads GBF started here, the two posts on Stelek's <s>cesspool>/s> website, the discussion of Broadside Bash, complaints about Necro's comp scoring, etc, etc.

But, I agree with the rest of your post-- if a comp system is laid out, objective, and has a PURPOSE, it'll still be an (as GBF pointed out) inherently unfair points hit on some armies. Older codexes get boned with objective comp scoring, and newer codexes get womped with subjective "zomg codex creep!" scoring.

There are multiple functional (though there will never be a perfect) ways to handle comp scoring.

Within the context of GBF’s threads, or Stelek’s blog, you’re already operating within the land of people who don’t like comp, so it’s natural that you’ll see a preponderance of posters who are against it.

I've never really though of dakka as home to the ultra-competitive crowd... stelek's acolytes, on the other hand, are quite the... ahem.

But, really... what other method do we have to sample? Comparing posts online? Looking at tourney attendance? The biggest event in 40k has no comp scoring (Adepticon). I know it's the event's raison d'etre, but 'ard boyz has a large number of attendees (taking into account all 3 rounds)-- to be fair, it's a free tourney, but still.

Hey taterhead

I created this thread to discuss stuff like comp at tourmies:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/280263.page

Could you refrain from going OT in this thread?

Thanks!
G

Was just responding to others' posts...
...but will move discussion elsewhere.

Thanks bro!

: )

G

Here is a news flash.

Yuri and I have decided to give one golden ticket to Vegas for the person who wins best overall and the other golden ticket to the player who wins best general. Here are the awards for the 40k GT and how they are scored:

Best Overall - Battle + Comp + Appearance + Sports
Best General - Battle
Best Appearance - Judged by panel
Player's Choice - voted on by players
Sportsmanship - Sports

G