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 would frown on judging the tourney based on the money aspect. I for one did not expect to recoup the money spent on the tourney by winning--I think most players of this rather expensive hobby dont serious expect to make profit from playing in GTs. Its about playing fun games versus good opponents from all over the country.

Heres the thing sidstyler. People pay to play for the enjoyment, the challenge, and some cool swag if you win. The swag will never exceed the time painting and money invested in the hobby. So what does adding comp do to change the challenge of the indivual games and the enjoyment you get from those games? Comp may influence your army lists, but your still signing up to play 5 games of 40k at the end of the day.

And for the record, I am against comp. I dont like it; I would rather play the strongest, hardest list you can think of and try to beat it with better tactics and my own hard list I devised. One reason I love 'ard boyz. BUT, I would not turn down a well run tourney like Mike's, where I can expect 5 games with new players and nice terrain, because of comp--instead I would bring a toned down list if I wanted comp points, or bring ubercheese to max my battlepoints.

Heres the thing sidstyler. People pay to play for the enjoyment, the challenge, and some cool swag if you win.

Not giving all players a fair shake at the challenge can harm a player's sense of enjoyment, as evidence by this thread and the last one. People aren't mad that they didn't win, but because they were seemingly arbitrarily denied that fairness.

Danny Internets wrote:

Heres the thing sidstyler. People pay to play for the enjoyment, the challenge, and some cool swag if you win.

Not giving all players a fair shake at the challenge can harm a player's sense of enjoyment, as evidence by this thread and the last one. People aren't mad that they didn't win, but because they were seemingly arbitrarily denied that fairness.

But Danny,

Shouldn't one expect that to be at least some of the results when a subjective, biased and arbitrary system is used?

As I stated, ~13% of the players didnt get a fair 'shake' at the comp aspect, maybe 15% max. But 100% of the players got the same 'shake' for painting and missions--the missions were posted in advance, and player critisim was not only invited, but actually CHANGED the missions to make sure people had more fun!

My gripe with comp is mainly with tyranids getting tanked. However, if you talk to Mike Clark (not Justin or Ludwig) I am pretty confident that Mike would have been upfront in saying his belief that 'nids are one of the worst comp armies. If Mikhala sees this, he can chime in with a more accurate recollection, but I remember calling him at the store and asking what to expect for comp for this event. The example of what a low comp army is, by his defination, was the nidzilla nids. It was no secret if you asked him, and he took some real time on the phone to talk to me about why he uses comp, and what he feels it brings to the table.

I dont know... I think that you cant institute a comp system that people will be 100% happy with, as no matter what someone always feels their army should get a better comp. However, if those players choose to play in the event anyway, because the bias of comp is outweighed by the high standards of the rest of the event, why should they let the comp score ruin their love for the 5 games they signed up to play?

Really, if the event had no comp, and the people complaining that their comp was too low instead had to play against hard as nails armies that tabled them without remorse, would they have had more fun that way? I know I could have brought a much scarier army with my IG, counts as space wolves, or my own dual lash build; these armies are designed to punish the enemy for showing up to play... do we want every tourney game we play to be about punishing our opponents for not bringing tier 1 netlists?

As I stated, ~13% of the players didnt get a fair 'shake' at the comp aspect, maybe 15% max

The fact is that not everyone got a fair shake, it doesn't matter exactly how many people were screwed over, just the idea that some people had been screwed over and had no chance of winning, for pretty much no reason whatsoever, is bad enough!

You make it sound like it's "okay" since it was only 13%. That's bs, simply put.

Really, if the event had no comp, and the people complaining that their comp was too low instead had to play against hard as nails armies that tabled them without remorse, would they have had more fun that way?

Then why the hell are they at a tournament?!

And lolz at double Lash being considered not only a competitive build, but a build designed to "punish" people for showing up to play.

People with a 0 comp did not have 'no chance of winning.' Ironicly, to win the people with a 0 comp would have to win their games just like the people with a 14 comp; sadly for them they did not go undefeated. I am certian that 2nd place overall would not have been second place without some exceptional luck versus the 2 comp dual lash Alex was running in round 5. I know I just narrowly squeeked first with 4 wins and one 11 out of 22--were I 4 wins and 1 loss I would not be first, my comp of 14 or not.

And as for dual lash not being a punishing build, where have you been? Honestly, mech wolves and mech IG may be all the rage right now, but it turns out there are more than just wolves and ig going to tournies. Fully mech marines still fear lash with a 44% hood, chaos daemons and orks have nothing, eldar have a 56% chance to stop it.

Ironicly, to win the people with a 0 comp would have to win their games just like the people with a 14 comp; sadly for them they did not go undefeated.

...wh...whaaaaat?! You mean the Tyranid players, who just got an apparently INVINCIBLE new codex, whose army lists were SO GOD-DAMNED SCARY they scored the lowest on comp out of 50 attendees, didn't go undefeated and utterly dominate the opposition as expected?

Get out!

But 100% of the players got the same 'shake' for painting

Not according to the other thread. Painting scores, like comp, were all over the map. Go look at Ted's Space Wolves and tell me (with a straight face) that they're not painted as well as the Orks that scored above him.

Yeah, I saw that, too...really mind-boggling. I mean there's subjective, and then there's...well, what the hell are you thinking?

Well, for painting, ted has awesome stuff--I have played against his wolves in the past and the quality is fantastic. However, did you see the painting rubric they used? I suppose it should have been called appearance, or whatever. BUT, there were something like 5 different categories you got points in, that add up to a max of 20. One of these categories is display, worth up to 2 points IIRC. One is basing. One is conversions, etc.

Do you concede the possibility that Ted's army, while having a higher skill put into painting, maybe lost some potential points for not having an elaborate display, having regular bases, and having mild conversions?

And Sid, at this point your not even listening about comp. You keep make sarcastic remarks about the nids, but just ask Nick/yermom if the 2 matches he didnt win big he could have won with a rematch. If things went Nick's way and he won his matches, he would have been best overall instead of 'only' winning 3 best general. Comp didnt take Nick out of first... 20 possible points out of 150? Look at the rest of the scores.

the problem a lot of people have about the event and what happened is that the comp was all over the place with an entire group of players (nids) being scored not on the basis of what was in their lists but simply based on what codex they chose to use. this was in addition to the fact that someone with an army alot of people would score quite low on comp (a 6 ironclad dread list) got one of the highest scores and coincidently was a comp judge. you don't see a problem with that? i'm actually for comp at tournies but this is an example of what NOT to do. you should have a prepublished checklist for comp to make things somewhat impartial and at a bare minimum NOT have players judge other armies. i'm not saying that the ironclad player judged the nid armies but it certainly is noticable that the armies he would fear most (high in strike-at-initiative-monstrous-creatures who can eat dreads) scored quite low while his (as a judge and arguably more cheesy) scored quite high. comp is by it's nature subjective but i think the majority of players wouldn't be so opposed to it if the results weren't random and/or skewed (like these were). the above is true REGARDLESS of how someone actually does at a tournament. the point is to avoid the impression of impropriety when using a subjective scoring method.

Sidstyler wrote:Pfft, play in a comped tournament? Especially one like this with obvious shenanigans? Waste of time and money.

No, I didn't play, but I read that thread and all the drama surrounding it. Maybe a local didn't win the thing, but the fact that locals were made comp judges, still allowed to play, and then apparently scored higher than most (because they alone knew what would score well on comp)...well I think that speaks for itself. They obviously had an advantage.

Room for improvement? Of course.

Damn straight, a lot of improvement. Like dropping comp for one. And not screwing over players who just happened to get a new codex (without actually telling them they'd be getting screwed) for another.

Seriously, to pay that much money to enter into a tournament with crap like that going on? I'd better be getting my money back and an apology. If not, then screw burning down the internets, I'd burn down the store, lmao.

What surprises me even more is that it was apparently at mikhaila's store. I thought the place looked pretty good in the pics I've seen and would have otherwise loved to play there, but...not in a comped tournament.

So you didn't play but are commenting on a particular tournament. So you're just blowing smoke out yer butt then...

Frazzled wrote:
So you didn't play but are commenting on a particular tournament. So you're just blowing smoke out yer butt then...

um... isn't that the point of dakka and other 40k internet forums? to comment on games you didn't play in, minis you didn't paint, books you didn't write, etc... just because someone didn't play in a tourny doesn't mean they can't have an opinion about it. are we going to only allow people that directly participate in an event or game or in painting a mini to comment on them? if so, then what is the point of making a tournament discussion forum. these reports have convinced me that i wouldn't want to attend a tourney run at that store and/or by that group that included a comp component until i hear some reports about positive changes regarding those aspects. *wow, never thought i'd be defending sid considering he's on my ignore list of two people*

yea but I get a burr in my bonnet when someone so vocifierously attacks and wasn't actually there.

YOU know what this is just sad as somone actually posted they liked the event and some of you TROLLS come in here and switch it to how it sucked and you weren't there. Yes you can comment on things that you weren't there for but their is a limit, and when you come across as an expert really like you are trying to portray yourself as warboss it is just sad and pathetic. You weren't at the event, SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT COMP ITS OVER AND DONE WITH. The OP was actually trying to talk about the fun he had and people like you turned it into another flame thread. You sir are a sad example of a human being and I don't care if I get reprimanded for saying that.

Empchild wrote:YOU know what this is just sad as somone actually posted they liked the event and some of you TROLLS come in here and switch it to how it sucked and you weren't there. Yes you can comment on things that you weren't there for but their is a limit, and when you come across as an expert really like you are trying to portray yourself as warboss it is just sad and pathetic. You weren't at the event, SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT COMP ITS OVER AND DONE WITH. The OP was actually trying to talk about the fun he had and people like you turned it into another flame thread. You sir are a sad example of a human being and I don't care if I get reprimanded for saying that.

well... you must win the discussion as you resorted to shouting, namecalling, and hyperbole. that's how the internet works, right? the angriest person wins? make that 3 on the ol' ignore list.

Truth hurts huh, not so fun when you are the one being attacked by multiple people.

Empchild wrote:Truth hurts huh, not so fun when you are the one being attacked by multiple people.

you're the only one attacking me. also, there is no truth in your post, only childish ranting.

Actually he has a point, if a bit "excited."

warboss wrote:

you're the only one attacking me. also, there is no truth in your post, only childish ranting.

you do realize ignore only works when you don't click on the message right? I am annoyed here because in now "THREE" yes "THREE" seperate threads people who were not at the event are attacking the organizor and the event for comp, and one of the threads somone created to talk about praise and some of you switched it from good to bad. That to me is the childish and if I have to be the one to step up and say "SHUT UP ALREADY" then fine I will, but not even conquest got this negative a rap and they had a blatant cheater. So anything further then praise about this event to me shows that you and any of the likes are just trolls and thats all.

wow... is the title of this thread misleading!

so fraz, it's ok to call people sad, pathetic, trolls, and losers as long as they're on your dakka friend's list? is that how modding works on dakka now?

Usually threads get to page 4 before they turn to crap. But I did post earlier so thats usually an indicator that the mouth breathers have found the thread, and I am their leader!


We are wienies We are Legion!

ooooo frazz now that is a cute pic, and warboss I am definding the person you are attacking, you instead took this away from what the title of the thread was for...any question?

warboss wrote:so fraz, it's ok to call people sad, pathetic, trolls, and losers as long as they're on your dakka friend's list? is that how modding works on dakka now?

Wait I have friends? Who started that obviously false rumor?

Sigh, but you're right.
Modquisition on. Lets get back to topic and away from personal attacks, that includes everyone, even myself.


Like the pic, usernames.

DevianID wrote:As I stated, ~13% of the players didnt get a fair 'shake' at the comp aspect, maybe 15% max.

The problem is by using comp to set the match ups in the first 2 rounds around 13% of the players DID get cheated out of TWO potential matchups against players who they should of had to face. By having BAD comp scoring result in BAD match ups you unfairly rewarded players who's armies scored too high in comp (mechdar) and unfairly penalize low comp armies (such as Nids or sisters).

You won the tournament not having to play any of the Nids or IG lists, if half the Nids players hadn't had to play each other the first TWO games they might of had enough battle points to be paired with you. Winning is a little easiser when bad judging stacks the odds in your favor by eliminating the chance of one army type (nids) to compete.

Talk about immaturity, even from a mod.

I went to the event, I had the highest nid comp of a 7/20, mainly due to the fact my list was underpointed, but I still should have recieved lower for Tervigon/Trygon spam and Zoans in Pods but I didn't. I don't really care about the Comp score, the battle points, the missions, and the tournament problems. All events have some forum of drama and disagreement.

I had a fun time at the event, got a flat tire on the way home (Drove an hour and a half each way, both days), was worth the time. Got to see some fun guys, played against people I regularly play (For some odd reason) but in all, still had a fun time. Yes the Comp was a bit weird, whatever favoritism and subjective scores are bound to have tweaks and problems. Didn't effect me so I was fine. My painting was what I thought it was going to be, as was my comp. Had a problem with other paint scores, but w/e.


Overall, this topic is turning into the past topic. The drama is out, we know what happened. I think old people say something like "stop kicking a dead horse"






Automatically Appended Next Post:

asugradinwa wrote:

DevianID wrote:As I stated, ~13% of the players didnt get a fair 'shake' at the comp aspect, maybe 15% max.

The problem is by using comp to set the match ups in the first 2 rounds around 13% of the players DID get cheated out of TWO potential matchups against players who they should of had to face. By having BAD comp scoring result in BAD match ups you unfairly rewarded players who's armies scored too high in comp (mechdar) and unfairly penalize low comp armies (such as Nids or sisters).

You won the tournament not having to play any of the Nids or IG lists, if half the Nids players hadn't had to play each other the first TWO games they might of had enough battle points to be paired with you. Winning is a little easiser when bad judging stacks the odds in your favor by eliminating the chance of one army type (nids) to compete.

I managed to play a 1/20 comp army for my first game (7/20 for my army)

But whatever, I paid that morning (I did register) so they threw me against whoever else that morning for my first round

To all of the Dakka Dakka crowd on this subject matter.

I am Sgt-At-Arms for the BigGunZ-NorthEast.

Our tournaments which are held at the Battle Bunker that Showcase Comics was nice enough to work with the BigGunZ-NE in procuring has it seems to have stirred the hornets’ nest on several fronts.

Here is our process if you like it fine, if you do not, fine. If you want to comment, fine. Does this mean that we will automatically change our event?
To do so to suit every participant, would be a colossal waste of time and effort. This is not to say that we always welcome constructive criticism, not ranting and trolling. We will always have our ears, phones and emails open to those that ATTENDED the event. You will be guaranteed that your points will be listened too.

We will continue to holistically look at our formats, we will always try to bring something different to the table. Some will like it, some will not, some will complain, some will compliment. We have to look at our overall approach and we have been running successful events since the start of this year.
In three months, we have had three very large 50+ participants! Obviously we are doing something right.

Comp well that's a beat horse......but our comp system works, our data supports that comp works. Obviously, some people will complain about comp; no matter what. I am not going to debate that issue, what I will do is defend our process of deciding comp. Yes, club players that participate in the tournament must turn in over a week earlier than the rest of the field their respective army list. That is also BEFORE scenarios are passed out to the public. Those that do turn in lists can sit in on our discussion about comp.

No names are on the lists so you don’t know who it is. Similar lists are compared to one another. Tyranid to Tyranid list is judged and graded. CSM to CSM, when we have multiple lists like Vulkan we compare them to each other. So we try. We also have ranked players sitting in on Judging Comp…we have a nationally ranked member of our club assisting in grading Tyranid lists.

As for pairing in early rounds, when you sign up at the www.biggunz-ne.com site you are asked for a club name …if someone traveled with someone or a similar club please put it in your registration if you do not, then we import it all registrants into our tournament scoring program we have no way of know that you play so and so…..this comes back to you the participants. You need to be honest and straight forward on your registration. The last thing that any of us want to do is play someone that you play regularly, we are gamers too.

But ultimately you as the participants; have a right to free speech to complain, compliment but remember we have large tournaments we are getting larger and in the end we want players to have fun and continue to come back.
If any of you have run a large tournament 50+ you know the work involved so please try to remember that when you provide feedback.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Porter
Sgt-At-Arms
BigGunZ-NE

JimP wrote:
Comp well that's a beat horse......but our comp system works, our data supports that comp works. Obviously, some people will complain about comp; no matter what. I am not going to debate that issue, what I will do is defend our process of deciding comp. Yes, club players that participate in the tournament must turn in over a week earlier than the rest of the field their respective army list. That is also BEFORE scenarios are passed out to the public. Those that do turn in lists can sit in on our discussion about comp.

No names are on the lists so you don’t know who it is. Similar lists are compared to one another. Tyranid to Tyranid list is judged and graded. CSM to CSM, when we have multiple lists like Vulkan we compare them to each other. So we try. We also have ranked players sitting in on Judging Comp…we have a nationally ranked member of our club assisting in grading Tyranid lists.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jim Porter
Sgt-At-Arms
BigGunZ-NE

Hey Jim. Yeah, I'm going to beat that horse some more. Simply put. Doesn't matter if names are on the lists or if club members turn in their lists early. If they're playing in the tourney, they should not be involved in any judging for the tourney other than something like "Favorie Army". Period. Even without knowing whose list it is and even with turning their list in early, they could still jigger the Comp results in their favor. After all, they DO know what's in their own list and they know that the first couple of rounds are going to be based on Comp. And they have a pretty good idea going in what their Comp score will be, so they would know what the lists they want to avoid 'need' to score for that to happen. Not saying anyone did this, but the appearance of partiality is there. And yeah, I've run large 50+ player tournies, so yeah, I've been there.

It works? According to what standard? Who established the parameters that decided whether or not it "works"? What objective measurements have you taken and used to prove it works? I remember once while I the Army that our unit was told we had to perform an ARTEP (Army Training and Evaluation Program, IIRC) exercise. Then we were told that since we were the only unit in the Army that did what we did (Tactical Reconnaissnce with Air Force units flying missions, back in the mid 80s), we had to write our own evaluation standards..... Any surprise that we did exteremely well on the exercise? Point being, you can't impose your own standards and then hold it up and say "it works". How about having a survey, post tourney, for all the player's that attend and ask them if they think it works?

And "ranked players"? Ranked by whom? Doesn't really matter. Just because someone plays well does not mean they are qualified to make a subjective decision regarding Comp, especially if they are also playing in the tourney. Keeps coming back to that. I don't like Comp, but I still play in tournies that have it. Playing in one next weekend where you take a -10 points hit on your Battle Points score if you take vehicles. Any vehicles at all. I play IG......... And if you take no vehicles, you get +10. Yet I'm playing in it and taking tanks. Thing is, the +/- are publicised, known going in, not subjective, and not being scored by players participating in the tourney. And besides, it's a charity event, all proceeds going to Race For the Cure, or as I like to call it, it's the Save the Ta-Tas tourney.

Empchild wrote:You sir are a sad example of a human being and I don't care if I get reprimanded for saying that.

The "child" in your username seems even more appropriate now.

I wasn't at this particular event, so I have no right to say what I think about the composition scoring used, or comment on comp in general? Simply put, I didn't have to be there to know that this was bs, and the only reason I'm even still going on about it is because we have one guy actively defending these shenanigans because "There were only a few 'nid players anyway". Apparently, it didn't hurt more than 13% of the attendees, so it's "okay". I also disagree with the notion that, since it's "over and done with", we shouldn't discuss it.

And my input is still valuable, it doesn't matter how many mods or "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!" types think otherwise. I may not have shown up for this event, but I know for a fact I'll never show up at any future events at this stored based on the crap that was posted on Dakka about the unfair treatment towards people who played a specific army, the nonsensical comp scoring used to judge all the armies, AND the fact that a comp judge was allowed to compete in the event. This is not acceptable to me.