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.

I don't think this idea will ever fly really. There is too much variability in the armies in any given codex. Also, a lot of the most stringent cries for comp come from people who don't want a 'checklist' because it might be broken, but rather want completely subjective ratings. I think they just want to really passive-agressively control what other people are bringing and making sure the 'right' kind of armies win.

I'm against any generic score that is just tagged on at the end of the tournament. Comp scores should just be used for matchup purposes and/or a way to measure strength of opposition.

There was a local tournament that tried something like this with WHFB, only they added points to the points limit for armies that they thought needed a boost.

An Orcs & Goblins player came in with a huge army and stomped everyone. I heard about another where Ogres completely dominated with an extra 25% points or something ridiculous like that.

Now, I know this is not the same situation you are proposing, but it is similar enough to bring a couple points you must keep in mind if you want to do this:

1) A lot of the armies are a lot closer in power than most think or give them credit for. Anyone ever stop to think that the guy that just scratch built an army for a tournament (Space Wolves, because they just came out) keeping the new rules in mind may sometimes have an advantage over that Eldar player that hasn't changed a lot of units since he built that army a few years back? Just an example, obviously.

2) You have to be really careful about what sorts of bonuses you give to armies, as you may just end up over-buffing them.

yea why are SM & DE tier 2? Have you seen some of the SM armies, and for that matter you can't go with "Well DE are getting a new codex" currently they ar ebad & we don't know what they will be doing with their new dex.

DE are nasty in the right hands. But so is any army in my opinion. Why comp in 40k just isn't needed anymore.

Hulk you have it completely right. I was assuming that this system was meant to help the general masses of players. Also the "good" DE can go very bad very quickly if your opponent knows how to counter it.

Ah, then screw this idea. Sounds like it would suck. I'd rather have a no comp tournament anyways.

I was just trying to come up with a system that would encourage more people to come. It was worth exploring it a bit. Maybe I'll still give it a whirl as an experiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And yeah, DE at a tournament are either meaner than a junk yard dog or garbage. I only ever see the mean lists at tournaments which was why they were tier 2, IMO.

Thanks Reecius for the try. Even at the Daboyz GT we have tried several systems and there really no good answer. Last year we tone down composition, but there was huge outcry so we had to make worth more points this year. Comp is either subjective or restrictive. There are negatives with both. I personally do not like restrictive. I feel if it is legal then play what you want. If you want to take two special characters go for it. At our event it is subjective (Yes I understand there is problems with it also). We are pre-judging comp this year so people have a chance to change their list and you at least understand where stand before you walk in the door.
Here is example of restrictive comp event
Events like Astronomi-con have come have restricted comp
http://www.mts.net/~xian/astronomi-con/websiteV2/astro/AstroMiniCon-VAN_rules_list-comp.html

I think the issue is this. There is a lot of beer and pretzels gamers that go to events that bring their army (armies like Necron, Tau, Deamon Hunters and marines) that have been playing and building for years and have to play 5 to 6 games against special characters with unit spam and agaist SW, IG and BA armies.

Sounds like a lot of work for you guys, but that's what makes it function well!

I wish there was an event like that closer to here, but there are some great points in this thread about it not being needed for a lot of events, too...

Jay_Daboyz wrote:Thanks Reecius for the try. Even at the Daboyz GT we have tried several systems and there really no good answer. Last year we tone down composition, but there was huge outcry so we had to make worth more points this year. Comp is either subjective or restrictive. There are negatives with both. I personally do not like restrictive. I feel if it is legal then play what you want. If you want to take two special characters go for it. At our event it is subjective (Yes I understand there is problems with it also). We are pre-judging comp this year so people have a chance to change their list and you at least understand where stand before you walk in the door.
Here is example of restrictive comp event
Events like Astronomi-con have come have restricted comp
http://www.mts.net/~xian/astronomi-con/websiteV2/astro/AstroMiniCon-VAN_rules_list-comp.html

I think the issue is this. There is a lot of beer and pretzels gamers that go to events that bring their army (armies like Necron, Tau, Deamon Hunters and marines) that have been playing and building for years and have to play 5 to 6 games against special characters with unit spam and agaist SW, IG and BA armies.

You penalize people for taking more than 3 troops choices?

WTF!

Actually, that isn't a restrictive system either, it's a checklist system, and not a very accurate one as it doesn't take different armies into account. Still, it keeps out the tripple spam lists, which is the generally the 'worst' type of armies.

A restrictive system (also known as 'hard comp') actually changes the army composition rules instead of giving a score. An example of that would be a tournament that limited armies to one special character (Or didn't allow special characters), limits the number of melta guns that can be taken, and things along those lines.

Checklist is the 2nd best comp system (With Hard comp being the best, Subjective judged the 2nd worst, and opponent judged the worst).

Jay - I think it's unavoidable, even in a comp-heavy environment, to have hardcore armies that are recently built crushing fluff-bunny armies that are gorgeous and were built years ago.

Comp takes care of itself, IMO, by having people with lesser armies rapidly tanked down into the lower brackets, if you bracket properly.

That said ... perception becomes the play. If the softer players perceive it's a softer tournament, often times they'll forgive the crushing defeat they suffer and mentally focus on the softer games later on.

Something else to consider...A lot of the loudest voices for comp actually want an exclusionary comp system. One that will keep the 'wrong' people from winning anything at all. The anti-comp crowd doesn't want comp at all (Partially as a reaction to the exclusionary comp systems). This system won't accomplish either of those goals, especially as both camps have decided that thier way is the only 'right' way to play (Though I personally find the loudmouth pro-comp crowd to be more offensive).

I would rather have a system that trys to make every battle in the tournament as evenly matched as possible.

skyth wrote:I don't think this idea will ever fly really. There is too much variability in the armies in any given codex. Also, a lot of the most stringent cries for comp come from people who don't want a 'checklist' because it might be broken, but rather want completely subjective ratings. I think they just want to really passive-agressively control what other people are bringing and making sure the 'right' kind of armies win.

I'm against any generic score that is just tagged on at the end of the tournament. Comp scores should just be used for matchup purposes and/or a way to measure strength of opposition.

If you had a newsletter I'd subscribe to it!

Still, I don't like situations where comp is used to do matchups - because if there isn't an even spread you're always going to have advantages/disadvantages based on the edges of the matchup bands.

If comp is to be had at all, it should be a hard/restrictive comp system, with restrictions gone down for each army - ala what was done for the ETC WHFB stuff in 7th Ed.

That said, it seems like 40k doesn't really need comp; at least it's no where near what WHFB has ATM.

As a side note, I relish the time when eventually in 8th ed WHFB you're going to hear complaints on how massive core units of infantry is broken and unfair.

@Jay

Hey, you guys have a tournament with 85 people showing up. You're doing something right!

I am on Dakka team 2, we played you guys at Adepticon, You guys had a mean army! So I know you guys know how to put together competitive lists and still have fun and play well.

@Voodoo

Dude, play 40K again. I miss your awesome posts such as the one about the Orks being the special Olympics kids pre-Phil Kelly. That was classic.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:

If you had a newsletter I'd subscribe to it!

I've thought about doing a blog, but I'm too lazy and not very articulate much of the time.

Still, I don't like situations where comp is used to do matchups - because if there isn't an even spread you're always going to have advantages/disadvantages based on the edges of the matchup bands.

It's still better than a base comp score tacked on the end of the tournament to 'balance' things. (I thought how Crossroads did it isn't the right way either...Doing matchups by comp but still tacking the score on at the end) In my mind, comp has a two-fold purpose. The first (And most important) is to balance the strength of the armies in the tournament. The second is to make the game more 'fun'. Now, by more 'fun', I don't mean the armies themselves are 'fun' (As that is WAY too subjective), but that the matchups aren't lopsided. The enjoyment level of a game is a lot lower (For both players, generally) if the outcome is almost pre-ordained and there is little that can be done (Well, done positively. If you screw up, that's different) by either player to affect the outcome of the tournament.

If comp is to be had at all, it should be a hard/restrictive comp system, with restrictions gone down for each army - ala what was done for the ETC WHFB stuff in 7th Ed.

That said, it seems like 40k doesn't really need comp; at least it's no where near what WHFB has ATM.

I agree that hard comp is the way to go. However, the second best system is based on strength of opposition. For instance, the Austrailian system worked on a 20-nil battle point system and a 0-10 comp score. Each battle, half the difference in comp scores was added/subtracted to the battle points each person got. This makes each game more relevant and keeps people from coasting by on easy matches and winning the tournament that way. That is the biggest problem with a generic comp score tacked on. A person with a low comp score that plays against people with even lower comp score beats everyone finishes lower than a person with a higher comp score that fought all thier battles against people with a higher comp score than him.

I somewhat disagree about the lack of need for comp in 40k. As long as there is significant differences in power levels between possible armies, there is a need for comp. However, if the expected mid-level of army power level is high enough, comp becomes less of an issue.

As a side note, I relish the time when eventually in 8th ed WHFB you're going to hear complaints on how massive core units of infantry is broken and unfair.

You probably won't hear that as a lot of the loudest cries for comp come from the people who are more concerned about other people playing 'right' than power level. If the armies that are 'right' (IE high in troops/core) are the most powerful, they won't be as concerned.

skyth wrote:
You probably won't hear that as a lot of the loudest cries for comp come from the people who are more concerned about other people playing 'right' than power level. If the armies that are 'right' (IE high in troops/core) are the most powerful, they won't be as concerned.

I wouldn't be so sure. The current Demon list I'm playing has 1000+ points in giant blocks of core infantry, and I'm sure if I show up to any of the GT's, I'll get complaints about it.

That's more because it's Demons than because of the large blocks of Core

People complain about Daemons? Really? Who? You have to be pretty dang good to win with that army.

Yeah, my thoughts. To further that, the popular build is centered around Weaver and Elites anyways...core are usually PBs to squat with a few Letters mixed in...

Reecius wrote:People complain about Daemons? Really? Who? You have to be pretty dang good to win with that army.

We were talking about Fantasy

Yes, I have massive trouble with daemons in fantasy still, but that's because they negate my whole army's ward saves with magical attacks, and have lots of flaming things...

They're mortal now in 8th edition, even though still quite a tough nut to crack!

Reecius wrote:People complain about Daemons? Really? Who? You have to be pretty dang good to win with that army.

i think alot of people complain about demons but not necessarily about their power level in essence. i don't enjoy playing against them not because i think they're overpowered but because they simply don't play 40k. their force org is screwy, their rules are screwy, their deployment is screwy, etc... its not that i can't win against them; its that i feel like i'm playing a different game when i signed up to play 40k for the evening. i have seen some people complain about them as being overpowered but in reality when you made them state their case it was because of the reasons listed above. their rules are so different that, unless you play against them often or play them yourself, you'll probably screw up majorly when fighting them because of assumptions about rules/forces that are standard for the rest of the 40k line but are not accurate when facing demons.

@Skyth

Ah, Fantasy! OK, yeha, in Fantasy they're gross. But Fantasy is crazy imbalanced compared to 40K, at least IMO. I have not played 8th yet, so it may be a lot better.

@Warboss

You make some good points. I like playing them in 40K because they are so different and because I played all deep striking armies all 4th (Pod Marines and Drop Troop IG) so to me the way they play is not shocking.

I pretty much memorize, or at least am familiar with the rules for every army, too. But I could see how some people would get confused by them.

skyth wrote:You probably won't hear that as a lot of the loudest cries for comp come from the people who are more concerned about other people playing 'right' than power level. If the armies that are 'right' (IE high in troops/core) are the most powerful, they won't be as concerned.

Sure they will, if the troops ride in transports, take weapon upgrades, have identical squads, have non-themed (ie non-identical) squads, have identical models, have non-identical models, aren't max size, are max size, and so on.

Reecius wrote:@Skyth

Ah, Fantasy! OK, yeha, in Fantasy they're gross. But Fantasy is crazy imbalanced compared to 40K, at least IMO. I have not played 8th yet, so it may be a lot better.

Thought that was obvious Btw, 8th isn't better...It's just...Different. Still as (Or even more so) wildly unbalanced as 7th.

Yeah, I play Woodies, and everyone tells me they aren't too much fun this edition. So I have been reluctant to dive in. I have too many 40K projects on my plate right now, anyway.

I'm having fun with the wood elves in this edition . They struggle against any kind of death star, but then that's always been the case...

I need to just get a rule book and play. I have a painted army, it'd be a shame to just let it gather dust.