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.

Sooo... I've seen a bunch of posts on composition, but never any polls.

Straight up, do you want composition in competitive tournaments or Not?

Sadly, I could only vote yes once

- Salvage

Boss_Salvage wrote:Sadly, I could only vote yes once

- Salvage

Sadly I could only vote no once...

So yea : ) voting once is only fair

No composition just brings bitterness and grief when people complain about it and are unhappy with their score. Composition just does not work because we are human. Just let people play what they want to play.

Does magic penalize people for playing Jund or Mythic?

I voted no, we already have a list of units we can take in every codex.

What would be a good reason for including an additional mechanic to unit selection?

Avariel wrote:No composition just brings bitterness and grief when people complain about it and are unhappy with their score. Composition just does not work because we are human. Just let people play what they want to play.

I don't get to play what I want to play when there is 'no comp'.

I am forced to bring specific types of lists based upon the mission objectives and ones that can weather the current internet metalists. The lack of comp almost forces comp because you know you have to face the same razorspam and leafblowing and if you don't bring a similarly calculated Metalist, you might as well not even play. Not to mention most events that claim NO COMP have horrible comp imposed via missions, scoring and other things that force you to build your army a specific way or lose before the game has begun. The total lack of actual freedom is astounding.

Not to mention, so many people perceive list-building as some sort of rocket science that they get very 'down' on people who are not playing by the internet conventional wisdom. I brought flash gitz to a tourney because I just finished painting them and I wanted to use them. I got so many snippy and off-hand comments about 'list building skill' and how I apparently lacked them because I bothered to bring a bottom tier unit to a tourney.

I am tired of playing against the same tired Metalists. It is boring. Like in MtG or Yu-Gi-oh where everyone plays with the same basic cards and decks. There is no uniqueness or personalization or even attempts to think outside the box.

'No Comp' is way more restrictive a gaming environment that Comp ever is. Sometimes it is fun to attend an event with 'whatever theme or fun units you want' and know that everyone else there is going to be bringing all sorts of random and fun things.

Comp penalizes newer players, and those who already have fixed lists and so cannot adjust them to fit around what really is just a new homewbrew game mechanic.

Power gamers with the greatest number of models who take time to "break" comp benefit the most, and ironically are often what comp is used to try and protect against.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/composition-or-how-to-have-not.html

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/perils-of-composition-broken-comp.html


Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

MVBrandt wrote:Comp penalizes newer players, and those who already have fixed lists and so cannot adjust them to fit around what really is just a new homewbrew game mechanic.

these players are going to be hurt just as badly in an unrestricted environment because their unoptimized lists will get them ground into fine powder because they bought and fielded what was cool to model and not necessarily a spammed out min-max list. And when the missions impose a form of comp, they will not have the models to be able to flex thier list into being optimum for the mission/scoring format. Sounds suspiciously like a form of comp doesn't it?

Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

You are right... No one should re-write 40k ever. No one should use custom missions, no one should replace KPs with VPs. No one should promote specific types of builds via custom missions...

But yet, every event does re-write 40k via custom scoring and missions that both directly impact and impose army composition rules upon players as you have to change your list to succeed at the missions. And those players who just 'play what they have' are just as hurt in a COMP system as they are in a 'optimized metagame' system.

Changing 40k is not a bad thing and neither are custom events... but to pretend one format is the 'true' way to run an event and another is an unreasonable arbitrary way to re-write 40k is absurd as both formats are equally as arbitrary. Comp via missions and scoring is still comp. 'ard boys was amazingly comped due to it's missions and it is supposed to be the hardest of the hard.

I think people are blind to comp as I don't see a single event out there that doesn't have some form of COMP. They like arbitrary comp rules that benefits them personally, Or maybe they like COMP which they can fully see and 'game' in their list building which is why mission-based comp seems to get a pass (as long as the missions are fully disclosed before the list-building is done).

No.

Comp is counter-productive.

It also gives a home-field advantage--unless spite comes into play.

Which it allows.

Er....what's comp? And why no, "Not Sure" button?

/facepalm

in re: nkelsch
I'm sensing some angst in your postings lately. Not sure the need.

That said, custom missions are one thing ... explicitly punishing people for taking the list they own and want to take is entirely another.

You are right that the mission influences the strength of the list brought, but you're neither KEEPING people from bringing the lists they wish to bring nor scoring them based upon it.

To wit, freedom of choice remains with the player when the only "comp" (if you want to call it that) is inherent to variations in mission format from the book. This freedom is removed when a player's list choices are physically removed, and/or when they are explicitly scored based upon them.

The "every different mission = comp" argument is an oft-used but never strong one; it also doesn't really address the fact that the more you vary the situation from the "standards" of 40k, the more a less-well-internet-read (which you seem to dislike) and less-interested-in-game-breaking player is punished.

I fail to see how that's especially good for anyone.

As far as formats ... I don't know how they entered the discussion, or that anyone here said there was one "true" way to run an event. If you've got an axe to grind that's carried over from other threads, maybe keep it there so that things stay topical and make more sense? Not saying this aggressively.

The goal of composition is supposedly to promote diversity in the lists used in a tournament by limiting the choices available to the participants.

If someone could explain how limiting choices will increase the diversity of lists, I am all ears.

Elmodiddly wrote:Er....what's comp? And why no, "Not Sure" button?

Composition. Rating armies based upon notions of what SHOULD be in someone else's list.

Blech, no. Soft scoring gtfo.

I'm perfectly happy to have separate prizes for painting and sportsmanship. Hell, I win enough painting contests that I'll tend to favor tournaments with painting prizes over ones that don't. However, rolling sportsmanship (which is what comp essentially boils down to) and painting into the Best General prize is just stupid.

nkelsch, if you don't like it, don't play in tournaments. Stick to playing like-minded people.

For example, I don't play in Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour qualifiers since I don't like getting utterly destroyed in 2 turns without being able to do anything about it. I'm not good enough at the game, I don't have the best cards, and I don't really care enough to play in tournaments, so if I ever do play Magic I play casually with gakky decks. I'm not throwing a fit and sending e-mails to Wizards demanding that they cater to me and enforce strict composition scoring so I have a better chance at winning, because obviously those events were designed for a completely different kind of player.

@Elmodidly
If you don't know what comp is then this poll probably doesn't apply to you which is why there isn't a not sure button. A not sure vote wouldn't add any value to the discussion.

What comp is, is a system for controlling what units people bring to a tournament by penalizing people for bringing powerful combos. The intent is to level the playing field between fluff players and competitive players and between powerful codecies and less powerful.

What ends up happening in reality though, is that more often than not, people get very upset about the way comp is applied. It works on the honor system but in the heat of the moment people will intentionally lower someone's score and hurt their chances of winning. Also, it can create situations where people have no hope of winning due to low comp scores, or where someone "wins" a tournament when they didn't win that many games because of high soft scores.

I personally think comp is an inherently bad idea. The codecies have lists of what you can and can't take. They are official rules set forth by professional game designers.

Comp is a noble idea that fails in practice.

I don't get to play what I want to play when there is 'no comp'.

No one gets to play what they want with comp. The nature of comp scoring is to force people to take the units the TO likes. I hate to seem rude, because I am not trying to be, but no, you should not be able to come to a tournament with a weak army and expect to win. That is silly. You are expecting the entire field to adjust to accommodate you and your desires. That is inherently selfish. In a competitive environment you must bring a competitive army if you expect to win. If that does not appeal to you, no problem. Perhaps tournaments aren't your thing. You can't honestly expect everyone else to play differently to make you happy. That's like making everyone in a foot race run backwards because you want to run backwards.

I am forced to bring specific types of lists based upon the mission objectives and ones that can weather the current internet metalists. The lack of comp almost forces comp

You must see the hypocrisy in this. No comp kind of forces comp so therefore we should have comp? You are saying it is good and bad in the same sentence.

What people should do, IMO, instead of simply being angry about the perceived "over powered" internet meta game (which, is not representative of actual tournament armies, believe it or not, most people bring what they have) is to find a way to beat them.

The currently number one ranked player int he country by a large margin is a friend of mine and he plays a completely themed, fluff Nurgle CSM list. I am currently ranked number 4 in the country and of my three top tournament performances which influence my rank, two of them were earned with lists that are not considered super net lists.

You can win by being creative. You won't win bringing a crappy army though, and you shouldn't. That would totally undermine what a tournament is.

Organize a hobby event if you would like to see nothing but themed armies which are not powerful. That would probably be more enjoyable for people of the comp mindset. The rule books provide a built in comp system which I feel is all we need to run a successful, fun tournament.

I would love to see a tournament with missions straight out of the book too as I think they are very balanced. However, in a large tournament you need degrees of victory in order to stratify the players in reasonable number of games. So, you have to add in victory conditions, it is simply unavoidable.

Gods forbid also you take the one good option in your codex and it just so happens to combo well with the rest of your list.

Yeah, because then you are obviously a big jerk who doesn't appreciate the spirit of the game! That attitude is annoying. (and just to be clear, I was agreeing with you Kurgash).

The game is different things for different people. Tournaments, while trying to be as inclusive as possible, are competitive by their nature.

I once saw, and this is no joke, a guy in a fluff oriented club here in SD say he would love to see a tournament where a guy who lost all his games could still win by having a nicely painted, themed army and being a good sport.

That to me is like speaking in a foreign language. What kind of tournament is that? And what would be the point? Sounds more like a giant circle-jerk where everyone hugs each other and cries about their feelings than a competition.

Not to come across as Mr. Macho or anything, but come on. Let's have an intense, friendly competition where you bring your A game and your best army and give it your best effort.

If you want a painting competition, have a painting competition. Don't railroad a tournament with things that have nothing to do with the skill of playing the game.

Ok, rant off.

I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys, I am just simply not opposed to it the way some people are. I am confused why some people think you can't possibly enjoy soft scores as well as hard-nosed formats. Some people are capable of enjoying multiple, different types of events.

I am capable of playing a hard list in a competitive meta-list friendly tourney and having fun as well as playing a soft or theme-based list in a COMPed event and playing with a varied army instead of 3x every unit meta list.

I just see people who are screaming 'NO COMP! GTFO' when they in reality are waste-deep in an event format that is very much full of COMP. The only reason why they accept it is because they feel like they can game that system and use it to their advantage.

Mission/scoring based comp is still comp, even if it is less restrictive than judged comp. I am not demanding 'judged' comp (which seems to be the comp people are really uspet against), I just defy the notion that there is actually a format out there that is void of comp and that 5th edition 40k is actually balanced enough that the need for comp in *ALL* gaming circles is gone.

I don't think 40k has come as far as some people have in being a balanced, fair game system, and many of the 'new' people who didn't exist in the 3rd edition tourney realm have no idea how or why COMP *WAS* needed, and believe me, it WAS needed. Arguably the drastic degree of comp may not be needed to the extent of 3rd edition, but we are by no means fully at the state where this gaming system is "legal=fair". The simple fact we speak about 'tiers' of units and codexes speaks volumes about that. Because of all the history with the game and the hobby aspect, I am simply not blindly opposed to comp and support hose who still do it because I can tell you being ground into paste and boardwiped in 2 turns by a spammy metalist is not 'fun' for some players. If games can be won or lost before a dice is rolled simply by the quality of the army lists or low-tier codexes, then people have valid reasons to use comp if they choose for thier event.

And I will bring my flashy models who probably are not wise in an optimized event and have fun regardless instead of giving myself an anurisim about soft scores or attending the event and pissing in everyones cheerios about how 'comp hurts the little guy! The peasants don't know what is best for them!'

Reecius wrote:If you want a painting competition, have a painting competition. Don't railroad a tournament with things that have nothing to do with the skill of playing the game.

Ok, rant off.

lol... Skill. Balance the gaming system and then we can have a true discussion about a skill-based game that can be played competitively. I am still not sold on the idea that a dice game heavily impacted by randomness and bogged down in rule problems and codex imbalance can ever be a true test of skill. Sure you can play it in a format that there is a winner and a loser, but with all the different formats, custom missions and constant codex creep... the idea that you can accurately measure true skill of this game is a little bit over the top to me. Which is why this system will always have a soft-side to it because someone will always 'do more with less' simply because they like to paint a specific model so they play at a disadvantage from other opponents which will hide true skill from ever being recognized.

I do like that a majority of people in the competitive 40k environment are humble and do realize that players can be excellent and place well, and often the best player may not always be the first place. Due to the randomness of the game, you would have to have players play dozens or hundreds of games using the same list and missions to truly get a good representation of 'skill' and the best player to eliminate the statistical anomalies. Which is why people can recognize how making the top tables is a feat unto it self and you don't see anyone with the arrogant expectation to 'win it all' every event because even the best player is going to be incapable of going undefeated in 40k where in a tighter system like chess, they very well could continuously and constantly defeat people they are better than.

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys, I am just simply not opposed to it the way some people are. I am confused why some people think you can't possibly enjoy soft scores as well as hard-nosed formats. Some people are capable of enjoying multiple, different types of events

Because some of us can't afford multiple different armies or 10k points of one army.

So when people buy models from GW, and then get told they can't use them in a GW tournament, well you can see why people might be upset.

Reecius wrote:What kind of tournament is that? And what would be the point?

I hate to bring up pro sports when talking about 40k again, but imagine if pro football was like that. We have the Superbowl, both teams play, and then they give the trophy to the losing team because they played with heart or something.

People would die. lol

nkelsch wrote:and many of the 'new' people who didn't exist in the 3rd edition tourney realm have no idea how or why COMP *WAS* needed, and believe me, it WAS needed.

This isn't 3rd edition.

CptZach wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys, I am just simply not opposed to it the way some people are. I am confused why some people think you can't possibly enjoy soft scores as well as hard-nosed formats. Some people are capable of enjoying multiple, different types of events

Because some of us can't afford multiple different armies or 10k points of one army.

So when people buy models from GW, and then get told they can't use them in a GW tournament, well you can see why people might be upset.

I have never seen a system that bans models. I have seen systems that make it harder to win with specific models and armylists, but those are in both 'judged' comp as well as mission/scoring comp.

Every event is going to have models that someone could possibly by that may not do well in that particular format. If you build a specific static list, you may attend a ZERO judged comp system and still be the victim of being put at a arbitrary disadvantage because of the models you bring. It may not be called COMP but the result will be the same.

Then you haven't ever heard of a tournament that bans special characters.

you may attend a ZERO judged comp system and still be the victim of being put at a arbitrary disadvantage because of the models you bring. It may not be called COMP but the result will be the same.

Well the only real way to fix that is to make every unit in the game exactly the same. That way everyone can finally take whatever random bs they want and expect to do reasonably well.

@Neklsh

Actually there is a local group out of Santa Monica here in Cali that uses straight rule book missions. So no comp. just a heads up.

Sidstyler wrote:Then you haven't ever heard of a tournament that bans special characters.

Not since 5th edition I haven't. I mean we have *just* crested 40k in 5th edition being 2 years old, and it didn't even really pick up full swing in the tourney circuit until august-september of 2008.

So we are talking about barley a 2 year period.

The only time I have seen models 'banned' is usually when the event is having very very small battles like a 500pt tourney and they are restricting the force-org more than anything.

Ever since Special characters were the only way to modify force-org for some units, I have not seen events where SCs were banned. Besides, Comp doesn't ban units... Judged comp just puts them at a disadvantage for 'best overall'.

Hulksmash wrote:@Neklsh

Actually there is a local group out of Santa Monica here in Cali that uses straight rule book missions. So no comp. just a heads up.

I like straight rulebook missions with no comp. I think that is ultimately fair to 'casual' players who don't have the heads up to listbuild for a series of custom missions/scoring. Virtually everyone who shows up is familiar with the format regardless of gaming experience.

I think there is plenty of room for custom missions as well, but if we are going to throw in to the discussion of 'what is best for the new person/non-internet savvy gamer' then I would agree 'rulebook is it'.

So the ETC isn't something you noticed? That's a pretty big tournament to not notice the absence of SC's. Honestly Nkelsch I don't think you actually know as much as you think you do about the current tournament environment. You do seem to like making grand sweeping generalizations though

Comp as a judged system is fail. Missions will obviously affect the building of armies in larger events but that doesn't mean they are in and of themselves a system of comp. Comp is universally in 40k meant as a judged system either player or TO based. Sometimes both. Less strawman arguements and more thoughts on the actual state of comp in 5th edition 40k.

@nklesh

Hey brother, no need to get defensive. No one is trying to gang up on you here. I hope I didn't come across that way. I was just disagreeing with you.

Yeah, 2nd ed and 3rd ed both did need comp because the rules were looser than a $2 dollar....well, they were loose.

5th ed is much tighter and while no, it is not perfect, not even chess is perfectly balanced--the player going first is slightly more likely to win, it isn't wildly imbalanced either.

I had major trouble with Crons in round two of Ard Boyz with my missile spam wolves.

Comp stinks because it is a SECOND layer of restriction on a game that ALREADY has a layer of restrictions. I have seen such stupid ideas as no more than three of any unit?!?! WTF? That utterly bones some armies while only mildly hampering others. The point being that all comp does is shift power. Gamers will still game the system, it is the way our brains work.

The existing missions and rule books give what the game designers feel are fair and balanced restrictions to, as much as possible, make things even.

Is it perfect? No. Will adding a second layer of restrictions help? No.

You laugh at 40K being a skill game. Why? The top players are the top players year after year after year. That isn't luck.

Luck is a large part of it, often the difference between winning and losing a tournament comes down to pairing and one or two tosses of the dice, but that is a matter of degree. It is rare to see a truly skilled player not finish well in a tournament when he or she played a good game but just had bad luck.

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but I have yet, in my 15 years of playing 40K, see a comp system that does ANYTHING but make the game less enjoyable.

Hulksmash wrote:So the ETC isn't something you noticed? That's a pretty big tournament to not notice the absence of SC's. Honestly Nkelsch I don't think you actually know as much as you think you do about the current tournament environment. You do seem to like making grand sweeping generalizations though

Comp as a judged system is fail. Missions will obviously affect the building of armies in larger events but that doesn't mean they are in and of themselves a system of comp. Comp is universally in 40k meant as a judged system either player or TO based. Sometimes both. Less strawman arguements and more thoughts on the actual state of comp in 5th edition 40k.

Well, since I have never gamed in europe, you are right, I didn't notice ETC. Most of my experience is US east coast based around GWHQ. Which means I was big into the GWGT tourney as it was organized and run directly in my back yard. I got my start with GW-tun RTTs and GTs before the independent tourney system even existed in any form. Up until 5th edition, For the most part, Soft scores did not received nearly the level of disdain people are now voicing, and for some reason, events who still run Judged comp still seem to have active participants who enjoy attending the event and have a good time at the end of the day.

I just don't get how rigid and unaccepting of different tourney formats people tend to be. This forum really is a microsope of a specific part of the wargaming community and I don't think things are as bad as some of the things are said.

I have only attended Adepticon once, and in the past 2 years of 5th edition I have attended some of the 50-man 40k events and a bunch of the smaller 1-day events on the east coast. Many people here still run Comp, softscores and wacky missions and things go fine, but the internet would make you think the world had ended and everyone died a horrible death because comp and soft scores cause cancer.

I just don't see it, and while I enjoy a competitive tourney format, I also like the old formats and events that still use them. I think there is room for all different types of events in this hobby, but some seem to disagree. And I see some pretty sweeping generalizations about anti-comp too ;D There are plenty of sweeping generalizations to go around here.

I can't wait for GW's take on tourneys, as it is their game and I am curious how they are going to decide to run events nearly 7-8 years after thier GT system ended.

@sidstyler
Hahaha, good point! Hey guys, you scored more touchdowns, but you know what, these guys had such cool uniforms. Really color coordinated, and they were such nice guys that we are going to give them the win! But hey, thanks for coming out!

That whole mentality is so weird to me. Why would you even want to "win" if you lost all your games? I would refuse the award, I wouldn't feel like I earned it.

That whole attitude of it being more important to make everyone feel good about themselves instead of competing at your best level is something that only applies to little, little kids. We're grown men, or young men as the case with the winner of the NOVA open, who can handle losing a tough game.

You have to be mature enough to say hey, I took the wrong tools to this game, or luck just want's with me, or I got outplayed. Next time, I will play better, bring a different list or luck will hopefully be with me.

That is what an adult does instead of throwing a temper tantrum and saying, I don't like anyone else bringing that unit or character because I couldn't beat it, so instead of upping my game I am going to tell you you can't use it.

That is just flat out immature. Look to see what you can do to have more fun and be more competitive rather than expecting everyone else to accommodate you.

And as Capt Zach said, if someone builds a legal army out of the dex, comes to a tournament and sees that for some reason the TO decided he knows better than GW and makes the list illegal, then what fun is that?

I can't wait for GW's take on tourneys, as it is their game and I am curious how they are going to decide to run events nearly 7-8 years after thier GT system ended

Wait no longer: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1240205a_ToS_Rules_Pack.pdf

After publishing that the people who take GW seriously when it comes to running tournaments seem few and far between.