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.

Fearspect wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further to this, it seems like the argument that in a sport like basketball, it would be better if one team was known to be really slow and weak, but were still let into the Olympics anyway with a starting score of 50-0.

You really can't compare that to 40k.

Being an Olympic basketball player takes drive and years of intense physical training in most cases, not simply buying a win-button army.

There aren't win-button armies in 5e. The same veterans who are defending comp know this fairly well. While not a reason to avoid comp in and of itself, "win button armies" don't exist, especially in non-comp systems.

To fearspect's point, a win-button army becomes more purchaseable in comp systems where the game's fairly strong CODEX balance is broken by screwing with core list options in any given codex that help it be balanced.

The problem is, almost every codex can bring at least one list to a non-comp tournament and compete with the big boyz in every way using it. As long as that is the case, comp'ing the system is problematic if you're trying to achieve balance or fairness.

If you just want to encourage variety, I guess it makes some sense, but you need to either do a natural bracketing comp system, or a hell of a qualified comp council (and even that is "wrong," b/c you CAN end up with gasbags who think they are god's gift to wisdom in 40k).


I think the problem here is that you don't take slow handicapped basketball players to the NCAA tournament out of some charitable notion. You don't bring NBA pros into casual adult leagues, either. A tournament is a tournament; feeling a need to comp it to let people who shouldn't be in it participate is a little backwards.

That said, it's also a little backwards to hate on a comp tournament just b/c it is one - just don't go. They are rapidly waning in popularity anyway, as GW stumbles into a fairly good semblance of balance and most dexes are competing at the higher levels regardless.

I tend to think it becomes a non-issue, live and let live as it were. The ONLY thing that really gets to me is the "I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR YEARS YOU JUST DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER" mentality, or similarly, the "YOU JUST MUST PLAY WITH CRAPPY PLAYERS EVERYTHING IS FINE COMP IS FOR RETARDS" mentality.


I'll again reiterate what the NOVA is doing this year - using the first of two x 4-round days to seed everyone according to skill and list level, and then splitting into 16 "mini" tournaments on the 2nd day in terms of players only competing with their seeded levels, and every bracket guaranteeing one of its subsequent participants will go 4-0 and get some sort of a prize. Let the combination of player skill and list establish where their list belongs FOR THEM. Not every tournament has the time or attendees to do this, but, it's not exactly awful, and avoids a lot of unnecessary criticism.

The term "win-button" may have been hyperbole, but I think you understand the point I was making.

Personally, if just make my lists based on the event that I'm going to based on their comp or lack thereof. It seems to be working out okay.

Dashofpepper wrote:There's only ONE single right answer to this:

Talk to the organizer. If the tournament that you're going to unfortunately has composition scoring, talk to the organizer about what criteria they're looking for. If it isn't spelled out in a rules packet, ask questions. There is no standard, no right answer, no correct list - only the whim of the organizer and the judges.

The last time I took a fluffy list to a comp scored tournament, missing all the normal face beating stuff, I got 7.5/20 points. I decided that I would never again pay attention to composition scoring, and take what I wanted anyway. I'd actually encourage you to do the same, but that's my opinion. Short of that, see item #1.

I agree with your first point more than your second.

I, personally, don't have a problem playing in a tournament that has comp scoring. However, if that tournament doesn't have a well thought out system for the comp scoring that is made available to the attendees far enough in advance for them to adjust their list, I won't attend that tournament.

I'm not going to risk Dash's second point. If I put together what I think is a "fluffy" list based upon no guidelines from the TO, and my opponents/TO don't agree, I'm stuck with a list I will have more trouble winning with and I get docked for comp. That's a no-win situation.

However, if I know how the comp will be scored ahead of time, I can adjust my list building to account for the comp scoring and playtest that list to adjust my play style. Some might call that "gamesmanship" or "working the system," but I don't really care. I like to think that being able to win with multiple different armies from a given codex makes me a better player than someone who only ever plays with his/her "perfected" and "highly tuned" list.

Saldiven wrote:I like to think that being able to win with multiple different armies from a given codex makes me a better player than someone who only ever plays with his/her "perfected" and "highly tuned" list.

You can like to think that all you want, but it is wrong. You winning a game with odd selections in the codex that are arbitrarily mandated against another list that is made in the same fashion means nothing because there is no telling how much/little they were actually affected compared to yourself.

With a highly tuned list, it is just that for a reason. I test my list through a gauntlet of solid lists to ensure it is in fact good, and through this I master the abilities of my personal selection of units that most match my personal take on competitiveness. When it comes short, I either have to make a list or a tactics change to account for that situation. This testing cycle makes me better, and you certainly cannot say that just showing up with a cobled together battleforce and winning against another is making you a better player. Me and my list have changed as I realized that there is some part of my game lacking.

I really think that the, "GW doesn't playtest" argument should really be taken out of this discussion. I have found no evidence to support this whatsoever, and there is no army out there that is at a great advantage if you are actual playing a win/loss tournament. Want to know why IG and SW tend to do well in tournaments? Battle points. A TO got greedy and wanted as many people as possible to play with as little rounds as possible invested out of his time. The only way to separate the dozens of players with 3-0 records is to assign battlepoints to each round. Players who can do mass fire are given a large advantage in this environment because they actually have the opportunity to win big (vice an army like Mech Eldar, which can do great in a denial/contesting style of play but will never table an opponent).

Has anyone actually stopped to think that it is not Warhammer 40k that is unbalanced, but it is in fact the most common tournament format that is causing these issues?

Fearspect wrote:I really think that the, "GW doesn't playtest" argument should really be taken out of this discussion. I have found no evidence to support this whatsoever, and there is no army out there that is at a great advantage if you are actual playing a win/loss tournament.

External balance in 40k is overall okay, internal codex imbalance is not. There are, quite clearly, units in every codex, both new and old, that are "garbage" or are not taken in competitive/serious gameplay.

Want to know why IG and SW tend to do well in tournaments? Battle points. A TO got greedy and wanted as many people as possible to play with as little rounds as possible invested out of his time. The only way to separate the dozens of players with 3-0 records is to assign battlepoints to each round. Players who can do mass fire are given a large advantage in this environment because they actually have the opportunity to win big (vice an army like Mech Eldar, which can do great in a denial/contesting style of play but will never table an opponent).

Killing your opponent has intrinsic value. Although 2/3 missions will probably incorporate objectives, 1/3 is almost sure to be oriented towards kill points or obliterating your opponent. An army good at the latter can make the former unnecessary, but the same isn't necessarily true when reversed. Variable game length and an abundance of psychic protection shuts down Eldar late-turn denial gameplay just as hard as battle points.

sourclams wrote:External balance in 40k is overall okay, internal codex imbalance is not. There are, quite clearly, units in every codex, both new and old, that are "garbage" or are not taken in competitive/serious gameplay.

Okay, so don't bring them. I really don't get what the issue is. I certainly do not feel better having an opponent setting up rough riders on his table instead of something more relevant and synergistic to his list. Maybe you have lots of fun goofing around with that unit with your friends, or you painted them super-great, but why is your hobby spilling over into a competitive game. How is someone who happens to really like Vendettas and Chimeras for their combination of looks and power wrong?

Killing your opponent has intrinsic value. Although 2/3 missions will probably incorporate objectives, 1/3 is almost sure to be oriented towards kill points or obliterating your opponent. An army good at the latter can make the former unnecessary, but the same isn't necessarily true when reversed. Variable game length and an abundance of psychic protection shuts down Eldar late-turn denial gameplay just as hard as battle points.

Okay, so you are backpedelling on your first sentence in this post already. Being able to deny killpoints is as equally effective as being able to make killpoints. The issue with this tournament format is that someone can make three minor wins in a row (possible with any army) and would not even make the top ten, and thus not get reported on from a tournament.

Not bringing the crap units is resorting to the "cookie cutter" win build; it's one of the bullet points in the comp proponents' argument.

And I fail to see how I'm backpedaling. Eldar kill point 'denial' is predicated on psychic defense adding to vehicle resilience and objective disruption. 1/3 of games don't have objectives, and the abundance of psychic defense means that fortune fails on the flat-out wave serpent fairly often. Add variable game length to that, and you have to be willing to ping pong your serpents around for 3 turns while getting missile spammed.

Thus 'denial' is not a truly valid tournament tactic in 2/3 of missions, and is pointless in the final 1/3. The eldar list in question would be hard pressed to get even the 3 minor wins you reference.

There is no cookie cutter win build for any army.

That is true in the sense that no single army has an IWIN button that a player just mashes their face into and beats 90% of opponents.

It is not true in the sense that there are options, in many codices, that you simply see taken over and over and replicate in many lists, especially the 'netdeck' lists.

Long Fangs
IG Vets
Deathwing TH/SS Terms with CML
Las/Plas Razorbacks

In the past, individualized Nob Bikers, the horribly cookie cutter Dual Lash/PM Rhinos/Oblits/Termicide.

Comp proponents seek to avoid the generic spamming of the same units over and over.

How many is 'many lists' that these fall in? I noticed that you forgot to add, "...in my personal opinion." at the end of that in an attempt to disguise your own casual observation as a fact, by the way.

On to your little list:
-Long Fangs: One unit in Heavy Support is not a great example of a cookie cutter build. On top of that, I see varying sizes and weapon loadouts in top finishing lists.
-IG Vets: I have never run more than one unit of vets in the past and been quite successful. If you want 3x Meltagun on a BS4 troop choice, then you take vets. If you instead want more of a gunline, for example, platoons are far more effective. Clearly you have not played a vast array of lists and it has clouded your judgement.
-Deathwing: This is an old codex that has to be used one way to overcome the overpricing of units in relation to the new edition. We know this army (along with Tau, Necrons, etc. that can only function one way) needs a rewrite/update. Non-deathwing Dark Angels are just much better played using the new Space Marines Codex.
-Las/Plas Razorbacks: All 4-6 of them? What about the rest of the army? What about Blood Angels which are far more effective with twin-linked razorbacks as opposed to a mix?

The only one you have listed that is actually 'cookie cutter' is the Dual Lash/PM Rhinos/Oblits/Termicide which is a dinosaur that won't place you in the top half against a mech game. Nob Bikers are another example of something that got everyone excited for about a month before everyone learned how to deal with them. Maybe they just stuck around your local tournament scene a little longer than most?

Look, I'm not going to derail the whole thread with you in a pissing match over what constitutes cookie cutter and what doesn't.

What's the cookie cutter loadout for a SW list heavy support slot?

It's not triple dakka preds.

What's the cookie cutter loadout for Mech Guard troops?

It's not platoon blobs, although cheap screens for mechvets aren't uncommon.

Etc. Etc.

Homogeneity is rampant in many 'ard builds. This is 'my opinion', after reading what various forum community constituents have posted for their 'ard builds on dakka and other relevant sites.

Fearspect wrote:A TO got greedy and wanted as many people as possible to play with as little rounds as possible invested out of his time. The only way to separate the dozens of players with 3-0 records is to assign battlepoints to each round. Has anyone actually stopped to think that it is not Warhammer 40k that is unbalanced, but it is in fact the most common tournament format that is causing these issues?

The 'Battle Points are why 40k is unbalanced' is a Red Herring. Players still want to win all their games, battle points or other format. They aren't going to take worse lists because a tournament doesn't use battle points. Sure, they don't need to club a seal as hard in round one, but no way in hell will they take less than what they consider their best build in case they run into someone tough in round 5.

And please, debate tourney format all you want, but don't throw garbage at TO's.

Greedy? When Tournaments are a lot of work and it's rare that one doesn't lose money? And profits get thrown right back into the budget for the next tournament?

And how much time does it take a TO to run 4 rounds vs 3? Negligible. The work is in the preparation and cleanup, not an extra two hours of watching people roll dice, complain about their dice, and move toy soldiers around a board.

MVBrandt wrote:There aren't win-button armies in 5e. The same veterans who are defending comp know this fairly well. While not a reason to avoid comp in and of itself, "win button armies" don't exist, especially in non-comp systems.

Agreed. 5th ed and its codices is substantially more balanced than prior editions, which is why I actually play in Ard Boyz and other non-comped events since the release of 5th. Prior to 5th, events with no soft scores were almost always total crap.

MVBrandt wrote:To fearspect's point, a win-button army becomes more purchaseable in comp systems where the game's fairly strong CODEX balance is broken by screwing with core list options in any given codex that help it be balanced.

You really want to buy into something Fearspect posted? He's been trolling the heck out of this thread and the Sportsmanship one.

I don't think this argument of yours makes much sense. As you know, as as competitive-afficionado Sourclams already pointed out, there are still significant issues with internal codex balance; some units which are notably inferior to others in every codex. IG Vets vs. Storm Troopers, for most purposes, as an example. Comp is a way of handicapping/giving a material incentive for players to go exploring outside the "top 5" or whatever best units in any given codex and bringing some more variety to the competitive scene.

MVBrandt wrote:If you just want to encourage variety, I guess it makes some sense, but you need to either do a natural bracketing comp system, or a hell of a qualified comp council (and even that is "wrong," b/c you CAN end up with gasbags who think they are god's gift to wisdom in 40k).

A good council who knows what they're talking about is key. It worked pretty darn well for the year or so it was going in the NE Independent WH GT circuit. The only reason it's not still going right now is that 8th was such a major change that the Comp Council didn't feel they could fairly score, and voluntarily recused themselves. But 8th ed is broken enough that new restrictions are starting to come in; witness last month's Onslaught GT adopting ETC restrictions.

MVBrandt wrote:I think the problem here is that you don't take slow handicapped basketball players to the NCAA tournament out of some charitable notion. You don't bring NBA pros into casual adult leagues, either. A tournament is a tournament; feeling a need to comp it to let people who shouldn't be in it participate is a little backwards.

This is an absolutely terrible anology, Mike. "people who shouldn't be in it"? Seriously? There are no professional 40k players, even if a couple of guys do now have limited sponsorship deals. Those deals still don't cover all the costs associated with making an army and bringing it to tournaments. This is a hobby, and a labor of love. Not everyone puts the same level of work into the competitive side. Many of those guys who don't have the passion and time to devote to mastering the game still come out to play at tournaments because as busy adults with jobs and families that's the best chance for them to get in some gaming. Even some top players are like this; barely getting in gaming between big events. It's not just about letting people participate, either. It's sometimes about getting some older codices played at all. How many Necron, Tau, or Witchhunters armies do you see at the average event? How common were Orks before their current codex came out?

MVBrandt wrote:I'll again reiterate what the NOVA is doing this year - using the first of two x 4-round days to seed everyone according to skill and list level, and then splitting into 16 "mini" tournaments on the 2nd day in terms of players only competing with their seeded levels, and every bracket guaranteeing one of its subsequent participants will go 4-0 and get some sort of a prize. Let the combination of player skill and list establish where their list belongs FOR THEM. Not every tournament has the time or attendees to do this, but, it's not exactly awful, and avoids a lot of unnecessary criticism.

It's pretty darn cool, Mike. I respect what you're doing a lot. I know how much work and responsibilty is involved in running even a small local tournament, with a few folks coming from neighboring states and me wanting to make sure everyone has a good time. The scale of your event and the effort you're putting in is darn impressive.

Okay, sourclams, we won't pursue that one.

Here is another issue with limiting redundancy within lists (because you were showing how repetition of items is bad):

If I know that I am going to be playing against a more 'battleforce' style of list, the best option for me is to bring something unbalanced. I don't mean unbalanced as in strong, I mean unbalanced as in "Only effective in a single phase of the game". With a list like this, I can focus down my opponent's few elements meant to deal with my type of list and spend the rest of the turns walking through their entire army. I 100% guarantee you that if you design a comp system, with a little time I can break it wide open.

This sort of imbalanced game will not occur in a tournament that simply accepts the entire army list as useable, allowing for balanced, take-all-comers lists. That is why they are strong.

Further, I think there is a lot of confusion about why certain selections are made in a balanced list like I discussed.

Let's take building a SW army as an example. In the case that you are loading up min-sized squads into razorbacks, you will require anti-tank/troop capabilities. Razorbacks of any configuration offer little of either. Now, in a normal SM build Predators would be a great solution to shore that up a little (along with Speeders), but SW have a special option in their longfangs that breaks the single target rule that holds CSM Obliterators back, the ability to split fire. In the transport case, Longfangs are a strong choice.

Another option you could take is drop pods with Logan and MM longfangs that can splitfire the turn they land. A more drop-focused list does not need a backing of longfangs. Neither do successful 'Loganwing' lists because of access to portable, survivable CML.

Was I showing how repetition is bad? That wasn't my goal. Repetition is bad from a 'oh boy, I'm facing the Homogeneous Marines with their nine identical Razorback units', but homogeneity in 'all comer' units is typically quite good from a list building perspective in terms of both redundancy and target saturation.

And I agree that any comp system, no matter how rigorous, unless it literally boils down to taking preselected armies specifically designed for general balance against each other, good list builders can break it wide open. This is actually one of the reasons I'm staunchly opposed to comp; comp systems simply create another aspect of rules to be gamed. Good gamers will game the rules and get max points or limit the handicapping factor; 'casual' gamers will not do so and often get dinged for having poor comp or an older, more limited codex.

Wow this thread has grown larger than I had expected.

Let me focus the thread once more as it seems to be derailing into a "what makes a good army, because comp is bad" thread.


Assuming that the intent is to play a comp tournament
Assuming that by building a comp list, overall battle-points would be higher given that comp is factored in and the win/loss/tie ratio is the same had the list been a 'win button' list (see I read my thread )

What in your mind makes for a good scoring composition list, one that if you saw it across the table you would go "hey that 's different, even looks challenging, this could be an interesting game, and wait why is my opponent wearing Transformer costume?"

Is it fluff? Unlikely as that is not making it tough
Is it the "win button" list? Unlikely as that is just the same old rinse/repeat army to play against, even if the opponent is new.

I guess that is where I am going, I offered up some scale that the TO used last year to get feedback in that regard, not to hate on tourneys if they use comp or why comp is bad or good.


Please continue...

beardy wrote:I guess that is where I am going, I offered up some scale that the TO used last year to get feedback in that regard, not to hate on tourneys if they use comp or why comp is bad or good.


Please continue...

Alas, on Dakka using the word "comp" or even the letters c, o, m, and p in too close a proximity is going to result in just such a conversation.

@ the OP- use comp and painting. its a good thing. painting should be done via a rubric so that less subjectivity is included into the judging. Comp should be doen akin to what has been suggested. 1 pt fluffy, 3 pts normal hard list, 5 pts for total cheese. easy enough for a judge to pull off. I liked the idea that wins should add 1 to your score and losses should subtract one from your score. When prizes are dolled out the biggest prize should go to best overall. best painted and best general (only Battlepoints) should be next and i am a firm believer in a moderate grot award being given to the biggest looser.
I used to think that comp was BS and loved to play the most cheesy and broken list i could come up with. I had a Hybrid Nids choir that often won tournis based on the fact that my army was simply abusing an aspect of the rules to my advantage. was i a better player. No. It was my list. One of my foes didnt get to move or shoot for three turns because his entire army was either pinned or had fallen back off the table edge. This is an extream example but had i been scored on comp i would have suffered. my list sucked to play against.
Despite what many in dakka would like to believe there are win button lists. Thats why the current meta lists have names like leafblower. That style of list is a win button. it can be beaten but not usually by any non netlist. lets face it, older codex players cannot compete on the same level with the current net spam.
what are older codex player options. NOT PLAY in tournaments (i think someone actually suggested that. Yeah like less support for the gaming scene is a really great idea. Good on ya for thinking this is a great solution). If you dont have the newest and latest then you cant play with the big boys. go out and buy a net spam win button list so that you can compete, great idea. what a way to improve the diversity of the hobby. How about kids who cannot afford the newest net spam. How are they supposed to compete with someone who rushes out and buys whatever the newest and latest net spam list. which i might add is usually fielded without much in the way of a paintjob because it has been hastily thrown together just so that it (the list) can win the next tourni. without a comp score and painting score figured into the most valuable prize, the best overall; pretty soon things boil down to less people playing because loosing to leafblower or razor spam is a sure thing unless you too have a netlist. 40k is not chess where both players have evenly matched sides and a battle of wits ensues. the modern tourni scene as supported by the anti comp legion is one in which he who has the newest dex with the best netlist is most likely to win. Its the main reason why i have stopped playing at my local shop. Attendance of tournis is down by half because those of us who dont want are faces stomped in by the win button got tired of going. what do you think the FLGS owner thinks about his reduced attendance. Is that a good thing. Is it helping keep the sprit alive.?

I dont run any of these win button lists, and have a fairly good record at tournaments. Sure leafblower is scary at first, but once you play it enough you could care less. I cant remember the last time I got nervous or really lost hard to guard/wolves. I used to be one of the guys who cried constantly about netlists and win buttons and whatever. Then I manned up and started to actually play those lists and realized they are a lot of internet hype.

A lot of the complaining I see too, at least in real life, is from people who just dont play well. Guys who put their immolator spam sisters in the open against my rocket spam space wolves. No, your tanks didnt all get shot in the first 2 turns cause im cheesy, its cause you are bad.

And for feths sake people, theres nothing wrong with redundancy or spamming. You might think its 'boring to look at', or that it 'takes less skill'. Those are just excuses for being a bad player.

I think another point to note is that when people start talking about the 'win button' lists, the number of them starts to get high pretty quickly. I can think of three or four off the top of my head alone just for Iimperial Guard (lists that have a name describing their choices/playstyle).

Also, (almost) no two are alike, other than the overblown coverage of the leafblower list that actually had bits stores selling the entire army in one package. I actually find this kind of cool personally, where people go off a theme, then add 'tech' based on their own thoughts on the shortcomings (SW: TWC or not, for instance).

Furthermore, Eidolon said something really important in his immolate spam example: a lot of people play poorly and a balanced list will take advantage of something like that very quickly. No comp in the world is going to help those people do better in a competitive setting because they will keep making those mistakes. When you start playing the optimized stuff regularly you quickly learn what works and what doesn't.

is there a good web site where we can go to locate the win loss records for variouse tournaments along with the army that was played. It seems like a broad sample of 2010 tournament wins would either show a trend indicating that some lists like IG, SW Orks and BA win more becuase they are apparently located closer to the win button that everyone keeps talking about, or... that the win loss percentage of all the armies is rather uniformly distributed. I.e 9% of wins are BA, 9% of wins are Necrons, 9% sisters of battle. It would be hard to quantify because we would have to also try to correlate the number of people who actually play the armies. But ... it would be real non opinion driven data.

I can tell you my suspicion. Some of the newer armies have a disproportionat advantage otherwise the major tourni players wouldn not be playing as much orks, SW and Guard as they do.

what is the solution. If some armies have codex written so that they play at an advantage to other codex, and they are used unregulated in tournaments involoving a monetary reward, what is the solution.

As i mentioned befor, the local tournament scene has shrunk to half because lots of players who have older codex that are less likely to be able to even hold their own against the newer codex have stopped competeing because they stand no chance at all against these newer codex. it amounts to a lame way to spend 10 hours, lossing game after game to somewhat cookie cutter lists that you have no chance at all of winning against. AND you paid so that these WAAC gamers can kick you butt.

beardy wrote:Assuming that the intent is to play a comp tournament
Assuming that by building a comp list, overall battle-points would be higher given that comp is factored in and the win/loss/tie ratio is the same had the list been a 'win button' list (see I read my thread )

What in your mind makes for a good scoring composition list, one that if you saw it across the table you would go "hey that 's different, even looks challenging, this could be an interesting game, and wait why is my opponent wearing Transformer costume?"

My first recommendation would be to have 'comp' be a completely separate category, with a completely separate prize pool. This keeps a 'tournament' feel, but also rewards somebody trying to build a 'fluff' army list.

For a true 'comp' tourney, you could also consider something like what Privateer Press calls a '1-1-1' format.

1,000 points

HQ
1 Troops
1 Elite
1 Heavy
1 Fast

That is, of course, going to be a lower number of points but in that sort of structured context it should be a little more fun for everyone involved than the normal BS of trying to enforce no spam and no duplicate units. You're also going to have to adapt objective missions a bit; anything over 3 is probably too much considering that the max number of scoring units would be 1-4 including stuff like combat squadding and non-troop units that can score.

Fearspect wrote:

Saldiven wrote:I like to think that being able to win with multiple different armies from a given codex makes me a better player than someone who only ever plays with his/her "perfected" and "highly tuned" list.

You can like to think that all you want, but it is wrong. You winning a game with odd selections in the codex that are arbitrarily mandated against another list that is made in the same fashion means nothing because there is no telling how much/little they were actually affected compared to yourself.

To quote a late post of yours, you forgot to include the phrase, "...in my opinion."

I do not believe I am wrong. Being able to win regardless of the outside restrictions placed upon a player absolutely shows that player to be superior to someone who can only demonstrate their ability to win with no restrictions. It shows adaptability. It's the exact same reason that I like non-traditional missions; the player that can only win with a single list while only playing book missions is failing to demonstrate the most important skill that any player of any wargame can ever have: the ability to adjust his/her playstyle and tactics to the situation at hand. Few will argue that the ability to win the wide variety of missions played at such events as Adepticon, Necronomicon, Ard Boys, etc. prove a player better than one who only wins in rule-book missions; why is it hard to believe that a player who can win with a wide variety of army lists is a superior player to one who only demonstrates the ability to win with a single list.

(BTW, I used "highly tuned" in quotes for a reason; those words are often used by players complaining about composition rules to describe their own lists. I think the term is laughable. We're not talking about a Lamborghini here.)

But seriously, it's a simple matter. If you don't like comp events, don't go. But please do not tell other players that their tournaments shouldn't have comp scoring. Years ago, when comp scoring was the norm, the no-comp players all complained that they just wanted some tournaments that catered to the style of play they preferred; which was a valid argument. Now, the no-comp crowd is often just as guilty of trying to force their views of the game on everyone else as the pro-comp crowd was, say, ten years ago.

No problem, Saldiven, have as many comp tournaments you like. Just don't name them a 40k tournament because you decided to make up your own rules instead. It gets really confusing with everyone making up their own game system and then calling it Warhammer 40k.

Fearspect wrote:No problem, Saldiven, have as many comp tournaments you like. Just don't name them a 40k tournament because you decided to make up your own rules instead. It gets really confusing with everyone making up their own game system and then calling it Warhammer 40k.

If a tournament has a comp component, it's still 40k. Just as are kill teams, gladiator, team tournaments, charity events, and other tournament formats. This is just another fallacy spouted by some people "don't call that a tournament, it's a hobby event" "don't call it 40k, you're changing the rules".

There is no standard set of rules for running a 40k tournament. Be boring as hell if there was. Definitely don't head to Adepticon, they have a lot of different formats, that all have different rules, and yet all seem to be 40k.

Fearspect wrote:No problem, Saldiven, have as many comp tournaments you like. Just don't name them a 40k tournament because you decided to make up your own rules instead. It gets really confusing with everyone making up their own game system and then calling it Warhammer 40k.

Like how the many of the tourneys make up their own mission and scoring rules? Anything that diverges one syllable from the infallible GW rulebook is not a real tourney right?

You do realize that GW has even said their rules cannot be played competitively and the only reason we have competitive tourneys is because people ALTER the core rules to make them more suited for competitive play and more fair for all involved. Sure the alterations today are not as drastic as yesteryear, but it is still being done and still needed. Many of these customizations will be added to the next edition... so these changes you seem to hate now for being unreasonable aberrations of the rules will become your manifesto in the next edition!

Funny how yesterday's COMP is today's BALANCE. 5th edition has all the COMP guidelines of 3rd edition rolled into the core rulebook and codex design.

It sure is easy to dismiss something a 'fallcy spouting' without actually explaining why.

Of course there is no standard set of rules for running a 40k tournament, but you can get some direction from a few areas:

1) GW no longer advocates comp in any of its own official tournaments, why do you still cling to it?

2) When units are comped, you have supplanted your own rules onto the Warhammer 40k ruleset, which quite explicitly outlines the use of the force organization chart. Tournament organization aside, the individual games within it are no longer following the rules provided by your books.

I had to look up what gladiator was, definitely a different game with made-up rules, as it lets you add illegal units to your list. Kill teams is definitely not 40k either. I have no idea why you listed charity events with those others, so we'll just ignore that. Team tournaments are either two FOC or one split FOC, seems reasonable to me.

Composition restrictions and scoring are an ancient tournament mechanic that has been invalidated by newer rules iterations.

All this aside, despite many comp proponents posting within this threat about how great it is, not one example of an actual comp system has been posted here for examination. What exactly are you argueing for if there is nothing that anyone is willing to post that can stand up to any criticism?

Fearspect wrote:All this aside, despite many comp proponents posting within this threat about how great it is, not one example of an actual comp system has been posted here for examination. What exactly are you argueing for if there is nothing that anyone is willing to post that can stand up to any criticism?

I did post the adopted 1-1-1 format (although I'm not an advocate of Comp).

I think it's viable, and no less balanced than current 40k. It does favor armies with better options in all slots, but what else is new?

If anything, it's the point level that needs tweaking moreso than anything else. IG or SW are the only ones with any real chance of filling the requirements at 1.5k; Orks are one of the few that don't struggle at 500.

True sourclams, but that one can be torn apart as easily as you did with some of the earlier posts.

I do agree with the points values issue, 1500 is really wonky for power levels. Again, an example where more restrictions prevent balance, which is always fun to point out.