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.

No, his primary fail was slandering tournament organizers as fixing events to favor their friends/locals. IME such morons are rare, and are sufficiently stupid and offensive that they screw up a lot of other stuff, have generally bad customer relations, and drive off players in other ways.

Any reputable and competent tournament organizer, especially a store owner, is going to do his best to make the event honest and on the up and up. It's shooting themselves in the foot to do otherwise, because rigging things sabotages all their future events, and for a store owner, hurts their business.

Now, you may disagree with the way someone runs a tournament, or their priorities in scoring, or give critical feedback if you see problems. But you can do all of those while remaining courteous and constructive.

The fact that CT Gamer chose to crap his smear on organizers in this particular thread, when Mikhaila (pretty much the model store owner/event organizer for the United States) had already made this point, is what made it an Epic Fail.

I attended Sooiepalooza this year and I saw the good and bad of the Comp judging. I've always believed that there is a place for Composition Scoring, but I think that it needs to be based on very minimal guidelines (50% in characters you get docked, only minimum sized required Core choices you get docked, etc...) and it should not affect more than 10% of the final points. Having completely subjective Comp judging led to guys like Mark Burr only scoring 17/25 with a Brettonian army that had 3 big blocks of Men-At-Arms and half the number of knight units he usually runs. Of course Daemon players got docked and the lone Dual-Stank & War-Alter list got lowest comp, but it feels like if there were minimal guidelines then the scores would have been different.

I think that in an Indy-GT/GT enviroment that soft-scores should be a part of it and expected by all involved. 50-70% of the final points should be battle points, but that other 50-30% (or whatever you want to do) should be up to the TO. Our local store is going to have a good old fashioned Fantasy RTT next month. After having so many Ard Boyz style tournaments it's going to be interesting to see what kind of crowd shows up.

I agree completely that if you're going to have a group of people handling any score, they need to have consistent and clearly-explained guidelines for doing it.

Mannahnin wrote:No, his primary fail was slandering tournament organizers as fixing events to favor their friends/locals. IME such morons are rare, and are sufficiently stupid and offensive that they screw up a lot of other stuff, have generally bad customer relations, and drive off players in other ways.

Ok, think about it this way. Your friends are going to influence your opinion of certain armies the most. If the people you play with constantly complain about Nidzilla, Jetseer councils and Double Lash. What do you think this TO is going to think is OP?

Most of the time Comp is completely subjective to what the locals think is OP. Them knowing this gives them a better chance of bringing something under the radar and winning because they get full comp marks with a army anyone else would say is OTT.

I am not saying that it is intentional, but it does happen.

RiTides wrote:I am very interested in playing in tournament with my wood elves... but not in playing in tournaments with no comp at all.

I like a system I saw mikhaila mention somewhere about a panel reviewing the lists and matching up similarly "powered" ones for the first few rounds. It gives people who didn't max out a puncher's chance of having an exciting game, imho!

There's definitely a place for no-comp style tournies, and 'Ard Boyz has definitely shown that. But it's definitely not how every tournament should be run! There's a reason why comp scores have been around for so long, and will continue to do so- to cut down on people taking what are perceived as unfair or unbalanced armies that take advantage of loopholes in the rules, and the like.

That's also a good point about the TOs, mikhaila- I guess people don't think about that before posting in a knee-jerk reaction to comp discussions. If an event is run well by a TO, comp should somewhat fade into the background imho. I think you have a good system set up for it for your events, from what I've read about them (and hoping to attend one soon, since you're so close by).

Cheers,
Steve / RiTides

I agree here.

Painting and comp should always be judged equally, by a panel of judges (or a single judge) - its the only way to insure fairness. Players should definitely *not* be involved. I like how Mike has set up the SVDM for scoring, mostly because I know I'm being scored fairly, and on comparison with other armies, not subjective round by round to opponents. If you ask me to score a Tyranid army, or a space marine army, and I don't know much about either one, how can I possibly give a fair score?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JOHIRA wrote:People who don't play with their toy soldiers the way I play with my toy soldiers are not playing with their toy soldiers correctly, and are therefore bad people.



If you don't like comp score tournaments, don't go to those. If you don't like non-comp score tournaments, don't go to those. The fact that both are popular should tell everyone something about how clear this issue is.

That's a terrible solution.

Since I don't see any GTs without comp scoring, that pretty much leaves me playing in just 'Ard Boyz, or getting in one big event a year. Yeah...that's a good answer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Mikhaila (pretty much the model store owner/event organizer for the United States)

You know, that's a recurring theme that I keep hearing everywhere. Apparently someone is doing it right. =p

Comp scores are a double edged sword. The idea is sound, but the practice is subjective. Not to mention those who like them vs. those who loath them will never see eye to eye.

Mannahnin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

natedawgg wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.

I agree, however, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about the necessesity of it at all

It is very "necessary" so as to ensure that the organizers friends advance or that those they wish not to advance don't...

Right after Mikhaila just got done explaining about ignorant people insulting tournament organizers whom they've never met...

Last i checked I don't need Mikhalia's permission to post my opinion. Thanks anyways.

+1 to mikhalia's comments. i usually don't post in these threads because the anti-comp people simply attack those who express an opposing opinion. comp scores exist in tournies because people think they need to, regardless of how loud an opinion (and that's all it is folks no matter how loud it is) on dakka is. there will always be people out there that take a broken unit or GW-brainfart broken rules interaction to the max simply because they can and because it will help them win. comp scores exist to give those types of people some small reprecussion. are they perfect? no. can they be abused by a group of players carpooling to the same tourney to advance their group? sure. do they achieve their original purpose? yes. i do however think that they should be scored by judges OR by players you are not competing against in a tourney... at a bare minimum, it should be open and done before a game if your opponent is the one doing it.

warboss wrote:+1 to mikhalia's comments. i usually don't post in these threads because the anti-comp people simply attack those who express an opposing opinion. comp scores exist in tournies because people think they need to, regardless of how loud an opinion (and that's all it is folks no matter how loud it is) on dakka is. there will always be people out there that take a broken unit or GW-brainfart broken rules interaction to the max simply because they can and because it will help them win. comp scores exist to give those types of people some small reprecussion. are they perfect? no. can they be abused by a group of players carpooling to the same tourney to advance their group? sure. do they achieve their original purpose? yes. i do however think that they should be scored by judges OR by players you are not competing against in a tourney... at a bare minimum, it should be open and done before a game if your opponent is the one doing it.

Which continues to ignore/band-aid the larger issue: 40K as a game should not be played in an ultra-competitive format because it has a documented and regular history on the part of it's creators (GW) of being imbalanced, open to abuse, and ambiguous. How can you even pretend to have a balanced/fair competition when the system itself is broken from he get-go?

People want to continue to try to make 40k "serious business". Problem is it isn't a sport no matter how many patches people want to try to put onto it. You can try to hide the bleeding with lots of fancy comp rules and so forth, but the fact is it isn't designed from the ground up by the parent to be played fairly that way.

Yet people persist in wanting to fit a square peg into a round hole, and so we get comp rules and so forth that are open to bias, and further unbalancing/favoritism (intentional or otherwise).

IF a game is going to be considered "balanced for competitive play" it needs to be made so by the creators fromt he ground up and designed to be played that way. 40K isn't nor will it ever most likely achieve that status. I as a player should be able to buy a rulebook and an army book and using those alone be able to field any list they allow without random strangers playing thought police and deeming my list "unfair/broken/cheesy.unfluffy/etc. ,etc. and docking my score. This is the stuff of madness and the furthest from the objectivity and balance that anyone with half a an ounce of common sense would expect in a competitive endeavor...

I would just like to point out that so-called "pro comp" people calling so-called "anti-comp" people simply attackers, blah blah blah, is an incorrect generalisation. And the reverse is also true.

There is a spectrum of opinion from totally pro to totally anti.

Whether comp is worthwhile is a moot point. Some countries use it, other countries don't. Players at the non-comp tournaments seem to enjoy themselves as much as the players at the comp tournaments.

Seriously, please tell me what 40k army is completely overpowered at the moment.

Oh right, you can't do it because the game system is actually pretty well balanced. So why would you ever need comp in a balanced game system?

Oh right, cause someone wants to play their Ogryns, swooping hawks ect and thinks everyone should be brought down to their level.

...comp should always be judged equally, by a panel of judges (or a single judge) - its the only way to insure fairness. Players should definitely *not* be involved.

This is very idealistic. If the TO judges comp then it lends itself to favoritism and helping the home team crowd.

G

CT GAMER wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

natedawgg wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.

I agree, however, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about the necessesity of it at all

It is very "necessary" so as to ensure that the organizers friends advance or that those they wish not to advance don't...

Right after Mikhaila just got done explaining about ignorant people insulting tournament organizers whom they've never met...

Last i checked I don't need Mikhalia's permission to post my opinion. Thanks anyways.

And I would hate to ever be have it that way, or to be responsible. It's your opinion, your welcome to it.

All I tried to point out was that people can have a discussion on comp, without throwing garbage at either TO's or events, accuse them of cheating, or other ethical failings. You proved pretty immediately, that you can't actually do that.

It's probably easiest if I just put you on ignore at this point, as I have no interest in reading what you have to say about anything.

Have a wonderful life, and look into some anger managemant classes.

mikhaila wrote:
Have a wonderful life, and look into some anger managemant classes.

Ah, taking a parting shot. Maybe its not him who needs anger management classes.

Since his post wasn't all that angry. (unlike yours)

Oh and TO's usually get blamed the most because they are the ones implementing the comp system...

The only thing I complain about the TO's who use Comp is when they let the opponents grade it. I have been at Tournaments where your opponent after the match scored your Paint, Comp, and Sportsmanship. All together 30 points, with a possible 25 points for battle.

Notice that I never mentioned Mikhalia nor attacked him.

Last i checked It is well within my rights to voice my own opinion regardless of if it pleases sensitive types like Mikhalia and his fanboys or not.

Good riddance...


Now back OT: I stand beside my points about applying comp to a game that is inherently flawed being a waste of time. Some things are not meant nor designed to be "sport" and 40K is definitely one of those things.

Pretending otherwise is a recipe for heartache...

Timmah wrote:

mikhaila wrote:
Have a wonderful life, and look into some anger managemant classes.

Ah, taking a parting shot. Maybe its not him who needs anger management classes.

Since his post wasn't all that angry. (unlike yours)

Oh and TO's usually get blamed the most because they are the ones implementing the comp system...

Yes, it was a parting shot. Absolutely.

And I think you miss the point. Blame a TO if you like, it is their system. (Or might be the system used by a large group of people putting on the event, but sure, he's in charge.) But really, do we need to keep inplying that TO's are adding a composition score to a tournament just so they can cheat and favor their friends? Really?! CT Gamer is the second person I've had say that. Possibly he read the earlier post and decided to throw it out because I mentioned it. You don't think that's going to make someone angry a bit, to be accused of blatantly cheating a tournament full of people so you can give prizes to friends? There are a lot of easier ways to give stuff to your friends, than putting in a huge amount of work, and cheating people, and then taking well deserved crap about it forever.

I don't like my friends that much. Not worth going through it. Rather just had them boxes off the wall.

Kilkrazy wrote:Whether comp is worthwhile is a moot point. Some countries use it, other countries don't.

And some countries, like the US and UK, have both kinds of events.

@mikhaila

Maybe I misread/misinterpreted what CT Gamer said.

My stance is while the TO may not do it intentionally, most of the time if he implements a comp system its going to favor his friends. (see my earlier post where I talked about the TO's friends being a big influence on how he thinks the game should be played and what is OP)

Sorry if I came across as implying TO's just hold tournaments to get their friends prizes.

CT GAMER wrote:Which continues to ignore/band-aid the larger issue: 40K as a game should not be played in an ultra-competitive format because it has a documented and regular history on the part of it's creators (GW) of being imbalanced, open to abuse, and ambiguous. How can you even pretend to have a balanced/fair competition when the system itself is broken from he get-go?

I don't want to play it in an "ultra-competitive format", just a competitive one. Perfect balance is impossible, regardless. Even Chess is unbalanced in favor of white.

CT GAMER wrote:Notice that I never mentioned Mikhalia nor attacked him....

Of course not; you just said that comp is necessary so that organizers can cheat and favor their friends. Not at all the same thing.

CT GAMER wrote:Last i checked It is well within my rights to voice my own opinion regardless of if it pleases sensitive types like Mikhalia and his fanboys or not.

It is your perfect right to insert your foot into your mouth whenever you want. However when you make comments questioning the integrity of and insulting to valued members of the community, I hope you can expect to be called on it.

Timmah wrote:@mikhaila

Maybe I misread/misinterpreted what CT Gamer said.

My stance is while the TO may not do it intentionally, most of the time if he implements a comp system its going to favor his friends. (see my earlier post where I talked about the TO's friends being a big influence on how he thinks the game should be played and what is OP)

Sorry if I came across as implying TO's just hold tournaments to get their friends prizes.

Can I offer you a suggestion?

Host a GT. I'd prefer not to play with comp scores (among other things). I have serious reservations about some of the GTs being held around the country this year. If there was a comp-less GT anywhere on the east coast, I'd attend. As it is, there are already very few GTs on the east coast, and I'm attending pretty much all of them - because there are no GTs that don't invest heavily in comp scores.

If the GT and major tournament scene were saturated enough that I could pick and choose among them based on my preferences, I would prefer to go to events that don't artificially gimp people. I'm not a great painter - not a talent I have. I don't think its fair that I go to a tournament and get fewer points for the TOURNAMENT because someone else paints better than I do. Let them go to a painting tournament, or a painting contest, or golden demon. Yet, I don't have a choice. Having a painting requirement (3 color + basing completed, or you don't get to play) can be a barrier to entry and people who don't meet those requirements don't get to play, but I don't think painting skill should factor into who wins a farking gaming competition.

But the only GTs use systems that I don't find ideal. And yet they are the only GTs, so my choices are such:
1. Suck it up and go because I want to get in some 40k action.
2. Don't go because I don't agree with the scoring.
3. Host my own GT and provide an example of how to do it right.

I'm not pro or anti comp score camp - I'm just a realist. I will deal with them because other people are running events and I'd like to participate. Instead of arguing with TOs or people about why comp is good or bad, or how people are playing favorites...give us an example! Host a GT. I will be there, and I have no doubt that many others will too.

Dash: Be sure to check out Mechanicon in November. Good hotel, great scenery, bar in the gaming room. No comp. Run by a good bunch of guys. Indy GT event. It's held in Westchester Pa. Tony Spino (Tironum on these boards) and his guys put on a good show.

Outside chance we attatch a 30 person, 40k GT to The Big Show, in July. If so, this will be a no comp event.

So two more times this year you can drive up to PA and visit.)

Timma: NP, understood.

Mannahnin wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Which continues to ignore/band-aid the larger issue: 40K as a game should not be played in an ultra-competitive format because it has a documented and regular history on the part of it's creators (GW) of being imbalanced, open to abuse, and ambiguous. How can you even pretend to have a balanced/fair competition when the system itself is broken from he get-go?

I don't want to play it in an "ultra-competitive format", just a competitive one. Perfect balance is impossible, regardless. Even Chess is unbalanced in favor of white.

CT GAMER wrote:Notice that I never mentioned Mikhalia nor attacked him....

Of course not; you just said that comp is necessary so that organizers can cheat and favor their friends. Not at all the same thing.

The point being made was that comp as an institution is flawed because it both requires players to trust that such things are not happening and allows for it to happen if a TO or comp judge was so inclined.

Those two flaws alone make such a system totally unacceptable to use in what is supposed to be an unbiased competitive endeavor. A "game" should be judged based upon who won and lost using armies legally defined by the official rules/army lists and all relevant scores based solely on those facts. A system in which a TO/Judge has a mechanism to in effect "fix" the results of what is supposed to be a heads up competitive challenge seems odd int he extreme to me.

This fact combined with 40k/GW's inherint and historical track record of being unable to balance said game and the constant rotation of army lists and releases that constantly push and pull said balance are likewise evidence that 40K is not designed nor in any shape to be played in a competetive format that can be considered fair and balanced.

The fact that people feel the need to have and enforce a comp system at all speaks volumes about the shortcomings of 40k as a competitive activity.

Mikhaila may be a fair/unbiased TO, to be honest I don't really care. Even if we accept as fact that he never abuses his power as TO/judge, the fact that others are given the mechanism and power to potentially do so and that people report it happening is proof enough to question the validity of such a system.

This discussion isn't about him. It is about a far larger issue, so his fanboys need to dial back the drama and have some perspective...

CT GAMER wrote:
This discussion isn't about him. It is about a far larger issue, so his fanboys need to dial back the drama and have some perspective...

I consider myself outside this discussion in terms of sides because I don't care about the issue. =p

So with that in mind, why don't you host a GT? There's few enough of them as it is; give us a comp-less Vegas qualifier. If someone would give us decent action remotely close to me in the southeast, I'd break my back to see it succeed.

Dashofpepper wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:
This discussion isn't about him. It is about a far larger issue, so his fanboys need to dial back the drama and have some perspective...

I consider myself outside this discussion in terms of sides because I don't care about the issue. =p

So with that in mind, why don't you host a GT? There's few enough of them as it is; give us a comp-less Vegas qualifier. If someone would give us decent action remotely close to me in the southeast, I'd break my back to see it succeed.

You haven't been reading my posts. I have stated multiple times that I think 40K is not an appropriate game to play in a competitive format. It has too many loopholes, vagaries, rules imbalances, etc. ,etc. When you have a rotating schedule of army lists that are designed by different people at different times, sometimes for different editions of the rules you can'y hope to have balance.

A competitive event requires balance to be fair imho. this is impossible w/ 40K as the never ending threads over the years have attested to. Look just on the front page of this section of dakka alone...

That is the first issue (a big one in my book).

the second main problem: the potential for abuse of comp systems to skew results.

Some people insist on playing it this way regardless.

Some people are determined to make 40k serious business and a sport. Given the nature of the game and the improper use of comp to try to fix an unfix-able problem...

I have zero interest.

Personally I think that GW has been getting gradually better over the (closing in on) eleven years I've been playing, and that the rules sets have continued to evolve and improve and better-support competitive play.

It is true that they will never be perfectly balanced, and that even carefully designed systems (like Warmachine, or Chess) still have issues. For me, factoring in elements like comp and painting and sportsmanship keeps the "ultra-competitive" or "over competitive" element in check and in balance, and ensures that the hobby game remains a fun hobby game, while still having a significant competitive aspect.

It's been a pretty great hobby while I've been in it. I really like tournaments and GTs. Clearly GW's at-times unclear and unbalanced rules can be an obstacle, but I do think they've gotten better over time, and IME they're not incompatible with an enjoyable competitive tournament experience.

AHH comp my most favorite subject. Having played competative 40K for years now I can say that I prefer going to comp based tournaments that allow for the TO to promote a fun, fair and balanced gaming environment. Comp scoring used right works. Having said that unfortuantely I have not been to that many tournaments that can actually say that. We also need to take in mind the current Meta game in 5th. I am beginning to re-evalute my position on comp. Mind you I still feel it is necessary for the enjoyment of the game but currently there are too many Luck of the dice wins thanks to 5th edition environment which can allow for comp to actually be problematic.

Comp scoring used right works.

"Comp scoring" and "used right" is an oxymoron. If you need comp scores to enjoy tournaments then perhaps it's time to think about whether or not competitive gaming is for you.

Or perhaps we should extend comp scoring to other parts of the hobby, like sportsmanship or painting:

Have lots of friends in real life? -5 points to you! Less social people deserve a handicap.

Good at painting? Let's dock your painting scores so that those who aren't artistically inclined have a shot at winning.

Be sure to check out Mechanicon in November. Good hotel, great scenery, bar in the gaming room. No comp.

Unfortunately this "tournament" (hobby competition) is a bonanza of soft scores, worse so than any other I've seen, east cost or otherwise. Only 48% battlepoints.

Mannahnin wrote:No, his primary fail was slandering tournament organizers as fixing events to favor their friends/locals. IME such morons are rare, and are sufficiently stupid and offensive that they screw up a lot of other stuff, have generally bad customer relations, and drive off players in other ways.

And yet, it happens. Has happened, to me personally. I had a Games Workshop Store Manager tell me flat out that it didn't matter if I won all my games with max scores, received top sportsmanship marks, etc. He would make sure that I never won anything in any tournament he was scoring. Odd how most of the prizes were won over and over by his fellow GW employees. Especially the ones taht involved judges soft scores. Happened years ago, he's no longer with the company, got canned, from what I heard.

And Mike and I have discussed his comp extensively, (Shoot, how long have we known each other?) and I truly believe that he is trying to be as fair and balanced with it as possible. However, I do believe that it has an inherent flaw, and that has already been mentioned. Players who have attended his tournies in the past know the comp system, and can game thier lists to it, getting that 'soft' score while keeping a 'hard' army. Players from outside the area or first timers do not know the system, so they're just stuck with the score for whatever they bring. No real way for him to fix it tho. So be it, and I will get my A$$ up there to play, one of these days!!

Danny Internets wrote:

Have lots of friends in real life? -5 points to you! Less social people deserve a handicap.

Good at painting? Let's dock your painting scores so that those who aren't artistically inclined have a shot at winning.

Be sure to check out Mechanicon in November. Good hotel, great scenery, bar in the gaming room. No comp.

Unfortunately this "tournament" (hobby competition) is a bonanza of soft scores, worse so than any other I've seen, east cost or otherwise. Only 48% battlepoints.

I hadn't thought about this before, but I have to say that I agree.

If I'm going to get docked points because I can assemble and play a list better than someone else for a tournament, they should get docked painting for being able to paint and sculpt better than me.