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.

It's sad... the only comment/question I have is "Was the event in Fayetteville, Arkansas (AR) or Fayetteville, Alaska (AK)?"

Personally, I'm not a fan of comp as it is way too subjective and can be prone to abuse. Same with sportsmanship. However, I think painting is a great softscore and adds a great component to an event.

don_mondo wrote:

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!!

That would be exceedingly frustrating. Especially that the guy had the balls to actuallly say that. Glad he got canned. That's not a good person to have running a store. Hmm, or bagging groceries for that matter. And you do need to come up at some point. Beer is just as good at little events as at big ones. And I'm down all weekend again for Games Day. We'll be coming in Friday afternoon to set up our tables, then doing our best to earn a hangover for the next day, and hitting it hard on Saturday night. Whatever the Warf Rat is calling itself this year, we'll be there.

Beer beer beer said the Sergeant.............. (and yes, I is a Sgt, SFC, US Army, Retired)

Not sure what's happening as far as Games Day. But if I'm there, we'll get a group together and take over the patio at whatever-it's-new-name-is (formerly Wharf Rat). Who are the UK guests this year? We'll have to see if they'd like to join us, they like beer jsut as much as the rest of us


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dashofpepper wrote:
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.

Heh, that means my 10-year old granddaughter would get docked points against me..................

Hi all.
Shouldnt the thread title be 'composition scoring in WH and 40k.'?

Because ,( apart from GWs core games), most gamers use games written for competative play in tournaments.(So comp scores are not needed, or used.)

As pointed out earlier, a rule set that has been developed to '... inspire people to have fun with Citadel Minatures...' (cynical view to sell Citadel Minatures, )is probably NOT the best choice to use for competative play.

Why do people feel they have to try to make an unsuitable game ,fit thier ideal.
Rather than use a rule set that is closer to thier requirments?

I suppose the wide range of rule sets available to non GW gamers, means they CAN just pick the rule set thats most appropiate for them.
SOME WH and 40k gamers seem to be 'stuck' using rules that are far thier ideal gameplay reqirements.

If any one is generous enough to organise an event , I belive the people attending should respect the effort put in on thier behalf.

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Shouldnt the thread title be 'composition scoring in WH and 40k.'?

Because ,( apart from GWs core games), most gamers use games written for competative play in tournaments.(So comp scores are not needed, or used.)

As pointed out earlier, a rule set that has been developed to '... inspire people to have fun with Citadel Minatures...' (cynical view to sell Citadel Minatures, )is probably NOT the best choice to use for competative play.

Why do people feel they have to try to make an unsuitable game ,fit thier ideal.
Rather than use a rule set that is closer to thier requirments?

Which is a line of thought which makes the recent addition of "tiered" theme lists to Warmachine particularly interesting. Anyone who plays WM knows that some units even in that more-tightly designed game are unbalanced. PP has been very reluctant to straight-up "fix" units, but has done it a few times (Sorscha, Bile Thralls), and has come up with alternate ways of fixing stuff, like releasing Unit Attachments to make them better, or the revision in Mk2 to let Jacks stand up for free by spending a focus. Now PP is going father, and actually allowing less-attractive units to be purchased for a discount withint the context of a themed list. So even this game, designed from the ground up to be competitive, and written using the aid of technical writing and good editing, is seeing the need to correct imbalances by giving bonus point.

Dashofpepper wrote:

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.

And the problem with that is...?

I don't have a tournament in my area that plays exactly the way I want them to. Should I criticise everyone who plays differently from me?
If you want more tournaments without comp scores, organize your own!

Well, I don't think it's criticizing; he's just lamenting a little, and hoping someone will start something closer to him.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, I don't think it's criticizing; he's just lamenting a little, and hoping someone will start something closer to him.

Yep. The man just drove 7 hours through not great weather, brought me presents, and is here to play tomorrow. He may not like comp, but it sure isn't stopping him playing. ) We're going to compare Ork stories over beer tomorrow night.)

Presents eh?? Justin had better bring some grits wif him when he comes down here!

j/k !

G

I became opposed to comp score in the days of Codex Kraftworlds. It became immediately obvious to me that comp is insane as a balancer when you have armies which flat out break the rules. Even to this day I remain opposed to the use of comp scoring.

Mannahnin wrote:which makes the recent addition of "tiered" theme lists to Warmachine particularly interesting. Anyone who plays WM knows that some units even in that more-tightly designed game are unbalanced. PP has been very reluctant to straight-up "fix" units, but has done it a few times (Sorscha, Bile Thralls), and has come up with alternate ways of fixing stuff, like releasing Unit Attachments to make them better, or the revision in Mk2 to let Jacks stand up for free by spending a focus. Now PP is going father, and actually allowing less-attractive units to be purchased for a discount withint the context of a themed list. So even this game, designed from the ground up to be competitive, and written using the aid of technical writing and good editing, is seeing the need to correct imbalances by giving bonus point.

Tier lists in WM are officially part of the game rules and are presented in the army books in black and white or all to see, prepare for and utilize. Nor are they optional or only usable by opponent consent.

How do these official parts of an armies list design rules compare to a comp system implemented outside of official rules by organizers to control what gets fielded and to punish those who play a list that while perfectly legal they fell is "inappropriate"?

Comp systems are still external to official rules/army list options and allow a To to pass judgement on what are fully legal lists and dock points on a participants score based upon factors outside of the game/army list.

Apples and oranges isn't it?

Let's look at two CSM armies and compare them based on their composition as an example. One army is designed to be fluffy while the other takes advantage of fielding multiple identical units known to be effective.

1st List - Fluffy
•Chaos sorceror - Mark of Slaanesh, Lash, terminator armor
•6x Chaos terminator, Mark of Slaanesh, reaper autocannon, 2x combi plasma, 2x chainfist
•6x Noise Marine (incl. champion), doom siren, power weapon, 4x sonic blaster, blast master - rhino, extra armor
•6x Possessed, Mark of Slaanesh - rhino, extra armor
•6x Noise Marine - same as above
•6x Noise Marine - same as above
•Vindicator, possessed
•Predator, all las

2nd List, Competitive
•Daemon Prince, Mark of Slaanesh, lash, wings
•Daemon Prince - same as above
•5x Plague Marine (incl. champion), combi melta, power fist, 2x meltagun - rhino, extra armor
•5x Plague Marine - same as above
•5x Plague Marine - same as above
•Defiler
•3x Oblit
•3x Oblit
•3x Oblit


The first army is designed to resemble an Emperor's Children army while the second army is the well known lash spam. Is the first army uncompetive, could it beat the second army consistently? There are some players that would inherently like the theme of the first army. There are some players that would look at the second army and mumble "Gheeze, just what we need... Another lash spam army!"

I go to lots of events and I always enjoy playing against armies that took some imagination. What if GW decided to make 6th edition such that you could only play fixed army lists? I know you laugh and say that's just crazy but think about how so many people are completely fixated on the metagame. To me it can be boring playing against only mech IG, Vulkan Marines, lash spam, double seer councils and Loganwing. I am okay with any army that is legal but to me people that can design an effective army that is outside the meta should be rewarded for their efforts. On the other hand as a competitive player I love knowing I'll face the same meta lists every time. My daemon army for example perfectly counters lash spam and SM in general. So what I see people saying is that they want to play a meta list because they feel secure it's competitive and they don't want to see people with imaginative lists be rewarded for doing something different.

G

That second list is illegal. That really undermines the credibilty of your statements. You have been playing BA too long. You don't even understand the FoC for this underpowered behind the times list. I know you hate Lash Spam so you mention it when in reality it is not very good at all these days with all the Mech, IG, and Psycher defense. Basically having a comp score that is variable and judged by your opponent is like letting people chipmunk other people for playing "cheesy Lash Spam". I hope these kind of 40k players can at least grow up if they can't play the game competitively(which would be fine if they didn't hate to lose like everyone else).

I have always given high marks for comp myself and never used it to chipmunk opponents. If I did I would be in the same boat.

If you look at the popular meta lists that span the Internet you'll find many of them don't win big events. some of The best lists are the ones you rarely hear about that are developed over time and through lots of playtesting. You yerself said lash spam is not competitive. I was simply using it as example as one of the more popular Internet spam lists. A lot of people say it is CSM only competitive build. If there is an error in the list it as unintentional and I have not played the new CSM... Not once.

Peoples opinions about what is competitive is very fickle... Used to be nob bikers were auto win now people say they are auto loss. Really it's somewhere in the middle. I've only lost to lash spam once. That doesn't mean I think they suck or aren't competitive, in fact I think you have to play a very good game to beat them because their tricks can hurt you really fast in a big way. The thing is whenever a new book is released it changes the metagame.

Don't get caught up on this is good, this is bad. Remember people first laughed at dark eldar, feral orks and speed freaks? That's what I'm talking about. Coming up with something no one could have imagined and doing really good. It's not gonna happen if you just simply play Internet lists that are touted as top tier. Take comp and twist it inside out. You don't have to spam to win big.

The Internet is partially part of the WAAC mentality cause you can go online and look up army lists rather than playtesting. Sure that's okay! But I dont think it's the best approach and most especially so for competitive players. Sorry but the Internet is no substitute for real experience. We all know what is popular and that we have to be able to beat it but we don't have to copy it either.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shinkaze wrote:
You have been playing BA too long. You don't even understand the FoC for this underpowered behind the times list.

About BA...

FYI the last time I played BA was last August. What are you talking about? I've been playing daemons prior to last August and since then plus have started playtesting the new Nidz. I am taking a break from power armor until April rolls around.

Anyways my point was another way to view comp it it can reward players who field unconventional armies... Which you glossed over and started right back up with how comp punishes 'competitive' players. Are you saying it's necessary to spam in order to be competitive? Sure a lot of top tier armies have lots of spam and while it might definitely be a general trend it is by no means absolute.

G

CT GAMER wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:which makes the recent addition of "tiered" theme lists to Warmachine particularly interesting. Anyone who plays WM knows that some units even in that more-tightly designed game are unbalanced. PP has been very reluctant to straight-up "fix" units, but has done it a few times (Sorscha, Bile Thralls), and has come up with alternate ways of fixing stuff, like releasing Unit Attachments to make them better, or the revision in Mk2 to let Jacks stand up for free by spending a focus. Now PP is going father, and actually allowing less-attractive units to be purchased for a discount withint the context of a themed list. So even this game, designed from the ground up to be competitive, and written using the aid of technical writing and good editing, is seeing the need to correct imbalances by giving bonus point.

Tier lists in WM are officially part of the game rules and are presented in the army books in black and white or all to see, prepare for and utilize. Nor are they optional or only usable by opponent consent.

How do these official parts of an armies list design rules compare to a comp system implemented outside of official rules by organizers to control what gets fielded and to punish those who play a list that while perfectly legal they fell is "inappropriate"?

Comp systems are still external to official rules/army list options and allow a To to pass judgement on what are fully legal lists and dock points on a participants score based upon factors outside of the game/army list.

Apples and oranges isn't it?

You made an argument about how 40k is not suitable for competive play, because it hasn't been designed from the ground up to be used so. I made the counter point that even games which are designed to be as balanced as possible (chess, Warmachine), turn out not to be truly balanced, despite the designers' best efforts.

I maintain that Comp is basically (when done right, IMO) a handicapping system, giving bonus points to less-efficient, less-effective armies to give them a leg up in the overall standings at a tournament, compensating somewhat for their being harder to use to score high battle points. And I noted that Privateer Press has now incorporated into their core rules a way of giving bonus army list points to armies which fit certain themes/weaker combinations of units. It's bonus points either way. Yes, there is a difference between the bonus points being given by the company publishing the rules, vs. an independent person running an event, but in the effect is not so different, nor is the need prompting it.

Anyways my point was another way to view comp it it can reward players who field unconventional armies... Which you glossed over and started right back up with how comp punishes 'competitive' players. Are you saying it's necessary to spam in order to be competitive? Sure a lot of top tier armies have lots of spam and while it might definitely be a general trend it is by no means absolute.

In a competition where having the most points wins any time you reward some players and not others it is the equivalent of punishing those who don't.

It's not necessary to spam to be competitive, but why should players be coerced into playing the game in one particular way? Some people *like* spamming units and having the most optimized lists of which they can conceive. By enforcing comp scores you're saying that if they want to compete for the top spots in the tournament they must conform to the TO's playstyle rather than their own, even if their own is more fun for them. It's just as arbitrarily and ridiculous as rewarding people for spamming units and conversely penalizing those who do not.

See what Ragnar (Mannahimn) said above. I think he summed it up well.

G

Danny Internets wrote:

Anyways my point was another way to view comp it it can reward players who field unconventional armies... Which you glossed over and started right back up with how comp punishes 'competitive' players. Are you saying it's necessary to spam in order to be competitive? Sure a lot of top tier armies have lots of spam and while it might definitely be a general trend it is by no means absolute.

In a competition where having the most points wins any time you reward some players and not others it is the equivalent of punishing those who don't.

You can keep on repeating this claim, but that doesn't make it true. How about responding to my Biathalon example? Biathalon requires the competitors to BOTH shoot well and ski quickly. If you don't shoot as well, you don't earn as many points, simple as that. If you don't paint as well in most GTs, you don't earn as many points for that as does someone who paints their army like a Golden Daemon winner. You're not being penalized for not painting as well. He is being rewarded more, for displaying more skill. If you, using a "GW battlebox army" can beat me, using one of (e.g) Shep's optimized IG shooting galleries, than you have probably displayed more skill in the game at the table.

Danny Internets wrote:It's not necessary to spam to be competitive, but why should players be coerced into playing the game in one particular way? Some people *like* spamming units and having the most optimized lists of which they can conceive. By enforcing comp scores you're saying that if they want to compete for the top spots in the tournament they must conform to the TO's playstyle rather than their own, even if their own is more fun for them.

This is a straw man argument, and if you had more GT experience, you'd know it. Events where the comp score "coerces" folks into playing one particular way are rare. And I've almost never seen one where the comp scoring kept a strong list with a strong player from competing for a top spot.

Danny Internets wrote:It's just as arbitrarily and ridiculous as rewarding people for spamming units and conversely penalizing those who do not.

Again, you're not reading or responding to my points. If a spam list (like mech IG chimera goodness) is stronger than a non-spam list, then handicapping the strong list (whether or not it uses spam) is neither arbitrary nor ridiculous.

Well said Ragnar. Sadly I think Danny will keep repeating his strawman arguments as that's all he's got to run with it.

G

I'm with CT Gamer on this one. If you want competitive events, do yourself a favor and pick a game that is intentionally suited to that kind of thing. 40k shouldn't really be played competitively; it's a narrative game and good at what it intends to do.

I'd like to see a GT someday that doesn't do best general or battle points at all. Instead make it a campaign style event where people make teams (based on their fluffy allegiances) and try to accomplish objectives in one on one games. Team that accomplishes their objectives gets rewarded, guy who is most fun to play against gets rewarded, best painted army gets rewarded. That's an event that is in line with what 40k tries to accomplish.

If you want to reward players for just winning games, then don't get soft scores mixed into that for anything but tie breakers.

I know it will sound odd, but I always looked at comp scoring as the Geneva Conventions Rules of War of GW tournament gaming. Alot of whats in the geneva articles makes perfect sense to those with even a shred of a human soul, but they are still required to be there to deter atrocities by TFG.

I'm fairly new to tournament play, but I can say I've never seen comp scoring be abused. I believe most folks just read about a comp score horror story and base their assumptions on that, or just make it up completely, as I never see specific details. If I were one to be vindictive, I'd blast that TO on as many forums as I could, but I'm not that kind of person. If I did see comp abuse, I'd chalk it up to human nature and move on, every system in every facet of life gets abused. Its not worth getting heated over, nor does it impede my hobby fun. Its toy soldiers.

But what good does composition scoring do if an average player with a "hard" list is able to crush an above average player with a "soft" list?

That's a totally subjective question. For example a lot of people think BA are mid tiered but I have beaten a lot of players with harder lists that have less experience.

G

If you want to avoid composition scoring, then hand out army lists before the competition: Everyone with a Space Marine army plays the same list. It also makes painting easier to score as everyone with the same army brings the same models. It also makes the missions easier to design and easier to make more interesting. By all means keep the "freestyle" army-list sort of event, but if you want to compete and show you're the better player, then bring a standardized army list.

That would be popular.

G

I think the biggest problem most people have with comp is that it is used (Or seen) as a penalty for people who don't 'play right'. With the groupthink that is sometimes encouraged that if someone 'plays wrong' they are a bad person and should get all thier soft scores tanked, this is understandable.

I've been at or around a couple GT's where the intention of the comp score was to keep people who play powerful lists (accompanied with the denigration of the moral character of the people who play those lists) from winning anything at all.

If comp was approached as only a balancing agent without all the excess baggage attached to it, I believe it would be recieved better.

That's the problem with composition scores alright, that either you assume that all armies are on a level playing, you put all armies on a level playing field. Anywhere in between invites too much whining about "subjectivity" and other bullshiat.

My local club is having an 'all day event' next month, which is basically a mini tournament/campaign with a twist. The guy hosting it has pretty much said that any 'deathstar' units are going to suffer an unfortunate meteor strike.

Mind you, I think the last battle of the day is going to be something like Warhammer Fantasy and 40k on the same battlefield....

I remember playing a league where you could field one elite, fast attack or heavy support for each troop choice up to a total of two. I learned a lot about building effective army list using those guidelines/restrictions and to this day it has stayed with me in my own personal approach to building solid armies. To me spamming non troop units has always been a sign of weakness.

G

You can keep on repeating this claim, but that doesn't make it true. How about responding to my Biathalon example? Biathalon requires the competitors to BOTH shoot well and ski quickly. If you don't shoot as well, you don't earn as many points, simple as that. If you don't paint as well in most GTs, you don't earn as many points for that as does someone who paints their army like a Golden Daemon winner. You're not being penalized for not painting as well. He is being rewarded more, for displaying more skill. If you, using a "GW battlebox army" can beat me, using one of (e.g) Shep's optimized IG shooting galleries, than you have probably displayed more skill in the game at the table.

A Biathalon doesn't allow you to buy one half of the competition's points. A painting score does.

List-building is a very important part of competitive play. To borrow your own phrasing, a game of warhammer requires competitors to BOTH bring a good army and to play it well. Green Blow Fly made a very important comment to this effect, noting that internet lists may perform well, but it's rare to see a cookie-cutter actually win a major competitive tournament (hobby events not included). If anything, bringing a powerful list should be rewarded because it is best suited to the event, which is a competition. However, this would result in the same problem with paint scores where participants will take credit for others' work, and therefore it has no place in scoring at all.

Furthermore, penalizing someone for building a competitive list is the same as penalizing the paint score of someone who brings a beautiful army because they have professional art training or because they used high quality brushes and paints. Should participants without professional training get comp points? How would that be any different from penalizing those who actually do have the training and means to best satisfy the conditions for winning the contest?

Regarding language, you can call it "rewarding" some rather than "penalizing" others, but the end result is the same. Just because a "bad" army beats a "good" army in *one game* doesn't mean the "good" army was outplayed and the "bad" army deserves bonus points. Small sample sizes greatly increase the chances that luck is a factor. Given the lack of TO omniscience (or even guarantee of minimal metagame comprehension), it would be just as reasonable to conclude that the "good" army wasn't very good at all, or that the "bad" army was better than previously thought. Granted, if a battleforce army really did go five for five on massacres that would probably be a sign of unparalleled skill, but real tournaments don't play out like this.

Instead, you typically see various shades of gray amongst the armies with top battlepoints. How can anyone say with confidence that an IG army with a comp score of 3/20 is only 5% more effective than a mechanized Space Wolf army with a score of 4/20? Qualitative comparisons appear simple when you set up a straw man example like mech IG versus a battleforce, but they are much more muddied in real life. Quantitative comparisons are even more problematic. Exactly how much more powerful is the IG list than the battleforce list? Enough to warrant a 5% handicap? What about 10%? 30%? How about 60%? Where you draw the line is completely arbitrary and therefore without meaning. Might as well award players random points via the dice. And even when the handicap is small that extra point often makes the difference between who takes first place and who takes second. Any tournament that uses comp scoring and has a tight finish is evidence of this.

This is a straw man argument, and if you had more GT experience, you'd know it. Events where the comp score "coerces" folks into playing one particular way are rare. And I've almost never seen one where the comp scoring kept a strong list with a strong player from competing for a top spot.

You're right about not having GT experience. I'm not a self-proclaimed hobbyist and therefore I don't have any desire to attend hobby competitions. I do, however, regularly attend local tournaments that are the same size as many of the indie GTs, including this year's Vegas qualifiers.

Regarding my "straw man argument", you've missed the point. I'm aware that comp requirements are largely ignored and people just suck it up and take the penalities imposed on them (or, if you prefer, the rewards given to others). The point is not that players are actually coerced, but that the tournament organizers are attempting to coerce them into conforming to their view of how 40k should be enjoyed. And as if that wasn't bad enough, the view of 40k that supports having comp scoring is completely at odds with the spirit of what a tournament is, which is a competition. Comp scores don't prevent anyone from competing for a top spot; you could tell many players that they have exactly 0% of winning the tournament and they would come and play anyway. All they do is arbitrarily assign bonus points, reducing the likelihood that the results of the tournament genuinely reflect how well the armies were played.

Comp scores nullify the legitimacy of any competition's results. Do players or teams receive handicaps in professional sporting events? No? Why do you think that is?

Again, you're not reading or responding to my points. If a spam list (like mech IG chimera goodness) is stronger than a non-spam list, then handicapping the strong list (whether or not it uses spam) is neither arbitrary nor ridiculous.

(1) Perhaps that's because I wasn't responding to you at all. I was responding to GBF, hence why I quoted him. However, you did take the time to respond to me directly so I will return the courtesy.

(2) By this logic, if a professional artist is a better painter than the layman, then handicapping the professional artist's army (whether or not it is well-painted) is neither arbitrary nor ridiculous.

Or is it?