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.

You may want to double check what he's saying because there wasn't a Grey Knights player that scored 0&80.

In the past there was a comp council in the NE WFB tournments they did comp in a reasonible matter for many events with "comp brackets." Where generally you score in hard, soft, fluffy bunnies, and you basically fell into a bracket. It worked. For the most parts guys knew where they fell starting off.

You brought Demons in 7th? Yep Hard, you may score upper tier in hard for example on a 0-7, you may get a 7, but your initial match ups yep their against those hard tier lists, where you fall down as you run further into the tournment, Middle tier? you play each other first then tier out later. It worked. Every now and then a guy argued they should have a 5 vs a 4, but in the end they knew where they were at. It really helped.

Using that system as an example.. would anyone not argue it could work for 40k? Yes your have competitive Tyranid lists, but again, there would be a 0-20 scale, and you would know where you fall walking in. Of course, it would take some leg work to apply to 40k.

In the events they helped that I attended I ran:
Demons: Blood Letter blocks, Horrors, Crushers. I think i got a 4/20, and knew it was what I deserved. All tournment I played upper tier lists with zero complaints.
Skaven: I ran a blocked skaven, with a doomwheel, focusing on units attachments and heavy magic. It typically scored a 11-12. That's where it landed. Occassion based on field I floated into the heavy tiers. Again zero complaints, because they had to adjust for the filed. My initial matchups were typically Warmachine heavy empire, balanced demons, dark elves, etc. It was fair games.

They worked really hard to make it work, perhaps 40k could use something similiar.

nkelsch wrote:
Players know what they are getting themselves in to. If you don't like it... don't attend. People who take themselves and their skills of always placing top tables where COMP score actually matters are usually disillusioned and don't actually have the skills of placing top tables where the difference in comp will actually matter.

No they don't know what they are getting into if the TO doesn't communicate it. Don't assume all people think the same.

"If you don't like it... don't attend." This is how it affects attendence. The TO may not care but it does affect people attending.

nkelsch wrote:
This is the same thing when events have secret missions. People like to be able to 'game' the system and feel in ultimate control. They get all red-faced when they build a list and a mission screws them. They want to know the missions so they can make lists designed to exploit the missions. Almost all the old GW RTTs were secret missions and you could have the best list ever and lose because your MIN/MAXing got nuked by missions.

Personally, I don't have a problem with hidden missions which force people to make a more well-rounded force 'just in case'. I think it can be fun. At least Judged comp you have a rough idea what is usually expected. Random missions, you have no idea what to expect. If it really annoys you to not have full disclosure of every aspect of the event, go elsewhere.

True, players do hate when they get screwed by a mission. Its the same feeling when you get screwed by someone judging your comp from their Ivory Tower. However, adding additional dissatisfaction from missions doesn't reduce dissatisfaction from comp.

Also, this (secret missions) can also reduce potential attendees. That is not to say that an event cannot be successful while descriminating; it can be. It also doesn't mean that the attendees were satisfied either.

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

Also, this (secret missions) can also reduce potential attendees. That is not to say that an event cannot be successful while descriminating; it can be. It also doesn't mean that the attendees were satisfied either.

You seem to act like there is a single correct way to have 100% satisfaction and 100% attendance and that any change from that correct way reduces attendance.

Please let us know this format that has complete satisfaction and attendance so we can all be aware of it. I have yet to see it.

For some groups, hidden missions, varied army lists and comp is a draw due to being something different hence why these events who do them are successful as the TO knows the people who attend their events and what keeps them coming back. TOs know what their attending base want more than anyone. No format will appeal to everyone which is why if you don't like it... don't attend. If there is enough people who like a specific format, an event will fill the need.

I enjoy hidden missions, so it can also increase potential attendees. Many TOs here have long warned against listening to the wails of non-attending haters as when you accommodate them... they still don't attend.

nkelsch wrote:

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:

Also, this (secret missions) can also reduce potential attendees. That is not to say that an event cannot be successful while descriminating; it can be. It also doesn't mean that the attendees were satisfied either.

You seem to act like there is a single correct way to have 100% satisfaction and 100% attendance and that any change from that correct way reduces attendance.

Please let us know this format that has complete satisfaction and attendance so we can all be aware of it. I have yet to see it.

For some groups, hidden missions, varied army lists and comp is a draw due to being something different hence why these events who do them are successful as the TO knows the people who attend their events and what keeps them coming back. TOs know what their attending base want more than anyone. No format will appeal to everyone which is why if you don't like it... don't attend. If there is enough people who like a specific format, an event will fill the need.

I enjoy hidden missions, so it can also increase potential attendees. Many TOs here have long warned against listening to the wails of non-attending haters as when you accommodate them... they still don't attend.

He didn't do anything of the sort. He stated a fact. Secret missions can reduce potential attendees.

He also stated another fact, having your event at capacity doesn't mean all attendees are satisfied with the event as is.

I also had people requesting missons for Templecon this year, but did not reveal them. That doesn't mean everyone who came was happy that Missions were secret. I don't take that as an assault on my event or any other event that has secret missions. Calm down. Not everything said in a warhammer forum is an attack on your way of life.

nkelsch wrote:

Doctor33 wrote:

In closing, if you develop good missions that are achievable to all armies it will encourage people to play more varied armies. Comping lists is lazy and penalizes the player by limited their choices, put the extra time and effort in as a TO and run a superior event. In the end you will have a more successful event and players will more liekly want to be a part of your future events.

The poorly constructed missions are usually the events who don't use comp.

Missions can't solve the gross imbalance of underpointed units. I would love to see a mission that nerfs GK and SW shooty spam armies, but don't harm an eldar shooty or ork shooty list and makes them equal in strength through a mission. Underpointed units do things better than overpointed units. no amount of missions can rebalance points whcih is the true solution to 40k balance, Living rulebooks and constant repointing.

But that is not going to happen.

Some can argue an uncomped event limits their choices as you are punished by the natural use of the rules if you do not bring the optimal undercosted units.

Calling comp lazy and then putting forth an immpossible solution of making missions that magically balance the meta shows a lack of understanding of how the game works and what it takes for TOs to run an event. Not all comp solutions work, but it is certiantly not lazy and I have played in events with well thought out and playtested comp. And if the goal is to promote alternatives to netlists, that is usually accomplished very well by comp.

If you don't like it and you want to bring your netlist and smash faces (or get your face smashed because you choose to play a xenos army) then go to those events. I will say I have been to COMP events which were more balanced and fair than 'ard boyz which is the most COMPed event I have ever been in since the 3rd edition GWGTs in baltimore.

You are free to have your opinion much as I have stated mine, if you don't like it too bad I'm not here to stroke everyone's ego and it wasn't a personal attack. I do know for a fact that it is possible to generate missions that are achievable to all armies if not necessarily all army builds because I have done it in the past, never had issues with whiners, WAACs, or casual players. Like I stated earlier, it isn't easy. But more importantly comping doesn't solve the problem with poor GW balancing, solving that problem is really what the issue is. If you choose to run comp as your solution fine, myself and many others like me will just look elsewhere. It doesn't hurt my feelings and my opinion shouldn't hurt yours.

keithb wrote:

He didn't do anything of the sort. He stated a fact. Secret missions can reduce potential attendees.

Not sure that is fact or how you can claim it to be fact.... pissing off non-attendees on the internet isn't a factual representation of reduced potential attendees as you never know how many people are attracted to the concept of hidden missions. There is no one right way to play 40k, and hidden missions and random missions are playstyles some people enjoy.

He also stated another fact, having your event at capacity doesn't mean all attendees are satisfied with the event as is.

And I seriously doubt anyone anywhere can actually throw an event that has 100% satisfaction due to the natures of humans in general. Some people will never be pleased with any compromise to format. A TO should take the feedback and do what he feel is best to do what he feels is best for the most participants. And if that means having format requirements which make some people angry and not attend, sometimes that is acceptable as many times the changes are for the better and others will attend in their place. There is no single right answer to all the format types relating with a tourney and every change will attract some and alienate others.

I also had people requesting missons for Templecon this year, but did not reveal them. That doesn't mean everyone who came was happy that Missions were secret. I don't take that as an assault on my event or any other event that has secret missions. Calm down. Not everything said in a warhammer forum is an attack on your way of life.

TO's shouldn't feel that every time they make a decision that people are vocal about disliking that it necessarily means that it is a wrong decision or that they should quickly do whatever the mob says. When people make statements that doing things 'this way' will decrease attendance, that is not necessarily true... It is someone wanting their opinion and voice to be heard for louder than it is. Saying 'I do not like this format and won't attend' isn't good enough so they say 'no one will like this format and nobody will attend.'

I don't agree that secret/random missions, wacky missions, Comp in general are always going to be pure 'deterrents'. The same way non-painters will say a painting requirement is a 'deterrent' because they want events to be in a format that accommodates their personal playstyle. I will say I won't attend tourneys without appearance requirements... but I am not going to pretend that my personal position is always a deterrent as some groups it may make sense and be a draw for them while in other areas it may be a deterrent. Stating something is always a PRO or CON is wrong.

nkelsch wrote: I can look at a list and tell if someone has built that around exploiting a broken rule or around spamming a specific undercosted unit. It isn't hard and doesn't take a genius... and when they get called on it they look all surprised-face when they knew exactly what they were doing.

The problem is the definition of 'exploit' and 'undercosted' is very subjective. Back in 4th, I've had people basically scream at me that coming in the sides in an escalation mission was an exploit. However, areas played that way and it was in the INAT FAQ to play that way. I've been surprised by a bad comp score in the past when I thought I was taking an average list with some fun elements.

This is the same thing when events have secret missions. People like to be able to 'game' the system and feel in ultimate control. They get all red-faced when they build a list and a mission screws them. They want to know the missions so they can make lists designed to exploit the missions. Almost all the old GW RTTs were secret missions and you could have the best list ever and lose because your MIN/MAXing got nuked by missions.

Really seems like you're taking pleasure in someone else's pain here. It isn't fun to lose a game because of a mission (or win a game because the mission made it increadibly lopsided) or have the mission cause your army to not play the way you expect it to. Just because you don't agree with a playstyle doesn't mean that ruining their fun is a good thing. Also, some people are big into planning and enjoy that. Random hidden missions don't work for those people regardless of what strength of army they are playing. Not to mention the effect on themed armies.

skyth wrote:
Really seems like you're taking pleasure in someone else's pain here. It isn't fun to lose a game because of a mission (or win a game because the mission made it increadibly lopsided) or have the mission cause your army to not play the way you expect it to. Just because you don't agree with a playstyle doesn't mean that ruining their fun is a good thing. Also, some people are big into planning and enjoy that. Random hidden missions don't work for those people regardless of what strength of army they are playing. Not to mention the effect on themed armies.

You were forced to take a list which could take on all situations. You couldn't skimp on one type of force org slot out of risk of seeing a mission that focuses on it. You can't focus on only MECH or only foot because you risked seeing a mission that required the opposite of what you took. You couldn't focus on Minimizing kill points or maximizing MSU in order to insta-win the scoring of the mission. People were expected to take as balanced, varied and middle-of-the-road list to handle all possible situations. If you played an extreme, that was the risk you took that the missions that came up could possibly just whallop you or hand you a massacre on a silver platter.

I see value in a format where you are expected to bring a balanced list and play to win as an alternative to knowing the 3 missions and basically ending up with a KP starving build (which is the solution to most 5th edition missions) I don't see how basically rewarding shooty armies with low KPs who are handed free wins have the time are any better at 'not ruining other people's fun'. Same can be said to 50 Cotez running around.

nkelsch wrote:basically ending up with a KP starving build (which is the solution to most 5th edition missions) I don't see how basically rewarding shooty armies with low KPs who are handed free wins have the time are any better at 'not ruining other people's fun'. Same can be said to 50 Cotez running around.

And you are still trying to talk past me rather than discuss the issues I brought up. You still appear to be in the 'those bad people deserve to be punished and I will enjoy it' camp. That is what a lot of comp systems try to do and that is the problem with comp scores and 'random missions designed to screw over army types'. It's a form of passive-agressively trying to exclude people.

If we can all stay calm and polite t'would be appreciated.

If it seems you've come to an impasse then it's time to move on, don't get dragged down into a slanging match.

Thanks

nkelsch wrote:

keithb wrote:

He didn't do anything of the sort. He stated a fact. Secret missions can reduce potential attendees.

Not sure that is fact or how you can claim it to be fact.... pissing off non-attendees on the internet isn't a factual representation of reduced potential attendees as you never know how many people are attracted to the concept of hidden missions. There is no one right way to play 40k, and hidden missions and random missions are playstyles some people enjoy.

Maybe you don't know what a fact is. Are you seriously denying that running your event in fashion X cannot possibly reduce potential attendees, whatever fashion X is. Sure, a bunch of people will like secret missions, a bunch won't. Some will come because of it, some will come in spite of it, some won't care, some might not make the effort because of it. Are you denying this?

nkelsch wrote:

He also stated another fact, having your event at capacity doesn't mean all attendees are satisfied with the event as is.

And I seriously doubt anyone anywhere can actually throw an event that has 100% satisfaction due to the natures of humans in general. Some people will never be pleased with any compromise to format. A TO should take the feedback and do what he feel is best to do what he feels is best for the most participants. And if that means having format requirements which make some people angry and not attend, sometimes that is acceptable as many times the changes are for the better and others will attend in their place. There is no single right answer to all the format types relating with a tourney and every change will attract some and alienate others.

No... I never said there was one right answer. You just seem to be unwilling to consider that an event could improve even if it sold out, even if that means heading in a direction you might not want. Your tone has been pretty hostile to someone simply stating facts and then his opinion.

nkelsch wrote:

I also had people requesting missons for Templecon this year, but did not reveal them. That doesn't mean everyone who came was happy that Missions were secret. I don't take that as an assault on my event or any other event that has secret missions. Calm down. Not everything said in a warhammer forum is an attack on your way of life.

TO's shouldn't feel that every time they make a decision that people are vocal about disliking that it necessarily means that it is a wrong decision or that they should quickly do whatever the mob says. When people make statements that doing things 'this way' will decrease attendance, that is not necessarily true... It is someone wanting their opinion and voice to be heard for louder than it is. Saying 'I do not like this format and won't attend' isn't good enough so they say 'no one will like this format and nobody will attend.'

Except he never said that, he said "potential attendees" might be reduced if you do X. This is what I am talking about. you are taking everything as an attack, when it is really just a discussion. That is why I told you to calm down, it helps with reading comprehension.

nkelsch wrote:
I don't agree that secret/random missions, wacky missions, Comp in general are always going to be pure 'deterrents'. The same way non-painters will say a painting requirement is a 'deterrent' because they want events to be in a format that accommodates their personal playstyle. I will say I won't attend tourneys without appearance requirements... but I am not going to pretend that my personal position is always a deterrent as some groups it may make sense and be a draw for them while in other areas it may be a deterrent. Stating something is always a PRO or CON is wrong.

Again, no one said they were. Stop putting up strawmen to shout at. You'll go hoarse and we don't like the noise.

Warmaster Primus wrote:You may want to double check what he's saying because there wasn't a Grey Knights player that scored 0&80.

0/30, 0/80 is impossible in Da Boyz GT because your list is considered illegal if its under 30/80

Ravenous D wrote:

Warmaster Primus wrote:
What was his list?

IIRC correctly it was 80/80 for the first part and was totally brutal, Grandmaster, walking dreadknight, interceptors, elite purifiers, strike squads, 1 rhino, and some termies. No duplicates what so ever and got 0/30 from the judges. He got stomped hard from what he was telling me. I remember him saying "Meh I guess its cause its Grey Knights".

Or, he paid no attention to what they stated they were looking for in the rules in terms of "making a list that showed depth in the codex" and instead gamed the matrix to get 80/80 but bring the most cost effective over fire power list.

I brought a Grandmaster, Librarian, 8 Purifiers, 2 10 man Strike Squads in Rhinos, 6 Terminators, a Storm Raven and a Dreadnought and I and got a 12.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Rogue_Engineer wrote:
Jay/All,

I am by no means a comp fan. Its due the subjective nature of it. I believe that DaBoyz made great improvements in their tournament over the past 2 years by introducing the Rubric. The Rubric changed the Meta and made for some really new builds and, thus, interesting games. This wasn't a standard tournament because of the intrigue the Rubric introduced. Because of this I recommend DaBoyz GT highly.

However, the 30 subjective points are terrrible. There is no amount of planning you can do to keep them and that sucks for people who travel a large distance. If you dont like GK/SW (I played SW at their GT) then just publish a penatly for playing that army.

In my experience, the more subjective comp is, the more you should try and avoid the tournie. The more the clear (lists/Rubric with penaltiesbonuses shown) comp is, such as at DaBoyz, the more you should try and seek out the event. My advice to the OP is to ignore comp and play what you what for if care what your score is at that tournament, then you will be dissapointed.

-Mike Mutscheller

I think the rubric was well thought out and it made for interesting lists the more you approached the 80/80 set. I also recommend the DaBoyz GT because the atmosphere was great.

I played against Mike in the 4th round. I made bad judgement calls, he capitalized on them, wiped the floor with me, and then we spent an hour talking about his children. I was disappointed that I was unable to make it to Adepticon this year due to work.

I also agree with Mike, in that you should play what you want to play; play the army you know, the playstyle that suits you, and win or lose, you will never be disappointed.

Unless you played Eldar in 2nd Edition. Man, that was a mistake.

Doom,Guide, Mindwar, repeat?

Mannahnin wrote:Doom,Guide, Mindwar, repeat?

Pretty much.

The best comp scores I've seen detail the reasons why you score what you scored. For the most part it comes out to 25% of your total score and there is a formula involved. The TO at his discretion is able to modify the end result of the comp score prior to the tournament starting based on a specific reason. Most tournies that I attend with a Comp Score require you to submit your list about a week in advance and the TO will give you your score prior to the start and if you want you have the ability to rectify it within reason. Most of these tournaments require you to come up with some fluff about your forces. The comp scoring maxes out at 25% but the formula adds up to 30% so it gives you a little wiggle room based on the type of force you play.

Comp points can make the game interesting - sportsmenship was what I saw people abuse because they would go - we had one rules argument which I lost the ruling and you massacred me. You're getting 0 points from me - worst game I played and its your fault not mine.

Comp scores are one of the dumbest things in the hobby. Alot of armies only have a few builds that do well, and those builds would score low on comp. Some armies tho can bring "good comp" armies that are still competitive. It breaks the game, and its obligatory and based on opinion.


I say screw it, bring a nasty list and table everyone.

Smitty0305 wrote:Comp scores are one of the dumbest things in the hobby. Alot of armies only have a few builds that do well, and those builds would score low on comp. Some armies tho can bring "good comp" armies that are still competitive. It breaks the game, and its obligatory and based on opinion.


I say screw it, bring a nasty list and table everyone.

Probably what I will do

Just play what I want

Comp is useful for two purposes, but difficult to execute well.

In an unbalanced environment, it can be used to handicap, functionally giving bonus points to people who choose to bring a weaker list.

In an environment with no-brainer choices, it creates an incentive to take a more varied and interesting army selection, increasing player enjoyment and the variety of play experience.

5th edition, particularly with its dumping of victory points as the means of determining winning, and instead focusing primarily on objectives which can be won via superior position and maneuvering even while your army sustains massive damage, generally doesn't need comp. In 3rd and 4th editions it was much more useful and important. I never bothered playing 'ard boyz until 5th, as it was just too stupid.

Comp is always hard to do well, and was frequently done badly, but it can be better than the alternative.

Well said, and I'm guessing the whole comp scoring system might change again with 6th ed

Mannahnin wrote:In an environment with no-brainer choices, it creates an incentive to take a more varied and interesting army selection, increasing player enjoyment and the variety of play experience.

See, I don't see that happening really. Heavy comp designed to create an incentive to not take no-brainer choices still results in all the armies looking the same. It's just that instead of taking two of the no-brainer, they take one of the no-brainer and one that is the next best at doing the job. i've played in a heavy-comp environment where I couldn't distinguish 3 of the lists I played (Two of the lists was Chaos Marine, the other drop podded the marines. The other 3 were basically the same marine army).

Painting Score doesnt have to be subjective.

We are running a 50 man tournament at the end of July (Shameless plug)

I am using a very fair system.

You get points for all your models having 3 colors, points for an all themed army, points for HQs and Seargents being of higher than table top standard. and voting by the players for best painted.

darefsky wrote:Painting Score doesnt have to be subjective.

We are running a 50 man tournament at the end of July (Shameless plug)

I am using a very fair system.

You get points for all your models having 3 colors, points for an all themed army, points for HQs and Seargents being of higher than table top standard. and voting by the players for best painted.

While I agree that it sounds fair, it's also subjective once you get past the "having 3 colors" part. Determining if an army has a theme (unless every figure is painted EXACTLY the same way) and higher than table top quality are by their very nature subjective.

skyth wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:In an environment with no-brainer choices, it creates an incentive to take a more varied and interesting army selection, increasing player enjoyment and the variety of play experience.

See, I don't see that happening really. Heavy comp designed to create an incentive to not take no-brainer choices still results in all the armies looking the same. It's just that instead of taking two of the no-brainer, they take one of the no-brainer and one that is the next best at doing the job. i've played in a heavy-comp environment where I couldn't distinguish 3 of the lists I played (Two of the lists was Chaos Marine, the other drop podded the marines. The other 3 were basically the same marine army).

If the scoring system (for example) penalizes repeated choices, then it at least forces some more variety. I can understand the problem of a comp system which results in armies looking a different kind of samey, and that's definitely a challenge of comp. But given a choice between no system resulting in (for example) GK armies which consist of: "Crowe, Coteaz, mix of either 2/4 Purifiers/Henchmen or the reverse, plus psybolt razorbacks and 3+ psyflemen", OR a system resulting in GK armies looking like "Coteaz OR Crowe + either Librarian or Grandmaster, half henchies or purifiers and the other half strikes or terminators, mix of support including 1-2 psyflemen", which is more fun and interesting? Even if the latter list gets a bit samey, it still presents a more varied and interesting play experience than the former list.

Anyway, the actual results depend on the system employed, the incentives (how many points) offered or strength of the restrictions (like simply banning triple selections), and the players participating. As I said, it's hard to do.

The other objection some folks raise is that comp or restrictions simply change what's the most powerful list. But I don't think that's a bad thing, in any way, if the new most powerful list has a greater variety of units in it, and (say) a 60% ot 70% base win ratio over an "average" list rather than an 80% or 90% for an unrestricted "best" list. (The numbers are FMA, of course).

Changing the most powerful list isn't an issue with me. Assuming you have a power disparity between 5 and 1 and comp just changes the most powerful list to be a 4, the spread of power is less (3 points rather than 4 points) resulting in less mismatched games.

Less mismatched games=more fun all around.

And it does depend on how it is scored and how heavily comp plays a part. Like I said, the tournament I was talking about was really heavy comp and there was a groupthink about how lists should look. That resulted in lists that were so similar that the games just blurred together. Of course, if you deviated from the groupthink 'how a Marine list should look' then you basically had no chance of winning anything due to the comp scoring. Didn't help that it was partially rubic and partially opponent scored.

So if comp is too heavy it will reduce army lists to sameness especially if it is intended as exclusionary comp.