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.

Centurian99 wrote:A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

GW features armies in batreps for the purposes of selling models, because when it comes down to it, they simply don't care what we play with as long as we're buying models.

Everyone can have an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

Yeah, like I said, it's all opinion.

The Green Git wrote:

skyth wrote:And you clearly missed the point of mine. My fun in the game is not determined by what my opponent brings. I'm not one of the people that plays the whole game in a sulking huff and then starts calling the other person names once the game is over.

So what does sulking and name calling have to do with bringing power lists? My suggestion was merely to be able to have a tournament where bringing the beat down lists wasn't the primary goal of the tournament. If you don't like a given style of play then you shouldn't go to that type of event.

Sulking and name calling is what people who's fun is determined by thier opponent's army list do. They are the ones too focused on winning, and they are the bad sports. Them not having fun is THIER fault because they are too hung up on winning and having the 'one right way to play'. They make the game unfun for the other player, not the person who brings the powerful list.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

GW features armies in batreps for the purposes of selling models, because when it comes down to it, they simply don't care what we play with as long as we're buying models.

Everyone can have an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

Yeah, like I said, it's all opinion.

The proof is that GW actually wrote the codices to allow a wide variety of options and army lists.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, it's crystal clear, from the Fluff, that GW intends for players to field things that approximate Battle Companies in some fashion. Yes, they allow deviance from that. I don't see why GW must be rigid in demanding that players field the Battle Companies that they encourge, nor why GW must restrict all options to only those which support a Battle Company and nothing else. Allowing for some variation from the ideal in no way invalidates the strength of the ideal.

Utter drivel. The GW fluff allows for a vast array of eventualities and the codi (sp?) reflect that. GW battle rep armies are nothing more than a smattering of units, often illegal and always played badly, and repeatedly, until the desired outcome occurs. A crass marketing tool for the kiddies- nothing more (sniff...once they were so much more).

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, Comp should be used to encourage "fluffy" armies, and GW gives ample examples of such armies in their batreps and such. The players choose not to field such armies again, in no way invalidates, that those are the sorts of armies that they use by example. GW could choose to field and feature "hard" armies, but they choose not to do so by default. Given the consistency which GW fields and features "wunza" armies, that is clearly a deliberate choice on GW's part.

Playing competatively requires a high level of generalship and an understanding of the rules- the mythical "GW" clearly doesn't understand competative play, thats why we end up with(spanning a couple of editions)-
Rhino rush
IW
Seer village
Alaitoc
Assault cannons
Holofalcons
Twin lash
Nob bikers

In summary, it is difficult to properly test the extremes. It's unlikely to make GW any money so they don't do it (despite a huge fanbase that could do it for free). This general ethos follows through into battle reports. Or maybe they just play with what the painters have finished...

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think it's bunk if you need to make up a story about how 2 Warbosses agree to work together and have competing Nob Biker mobs. You take 2 biker bosses and 2 nob biker units because they are rock hard and win more than ordinary bikers or nobs on foot, much less Grots of any flavor. If you're going to be a WAAC player, at least have the damn stones to admit it to your opponent and the TO, and take your lumps in theme and comp like a man. Don't pussy out and pretend that your army is well-themed. But hey, if you can get your opponent to agree that you're well-themed, then more power two you.

Here's the JonnyW I expect- vilifying someone for their list choices. I bet dual nobbiker players beat their kids too. This is simply pointing out why theme is such a bad idea. Not the first person in this thread either.

JohnHwangDD wrote:And finally, I think that Comp is a good idea and should be implemented at all tournaments. It's easier to win with max Pie, with dual Lash and so on. So Battle scoring should be adjusted as a handicapping method to account for that.

Why do you even care? You are a self proclaimed ex-tournamenter and maintain apoc as your new god. It isn't easier to win with the big lists as EVERYBODY CAN BRING ONE. This is playing with the big boys. It's quite amusing actually, how caught up a lot of people get with the internet chatter about the big lists. In my experience the net-lists don't win anything. It's generally the more personalised lists that do the business.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Just because my position isn't as simple as you'd like to stereotype it, that's not my problem. You disagree, fine. We disagree. Comp is simply an opinion, and reasonable people can disagree on it.

Ah, the old "everyone is entitled to an opinion answer".

Your position is incredibly simple- "If you don't play with an army I want you to you are a bad person". You have repeated this ad-nausium in many threads, to the extent that I think you are just trolling.

oddjob wrote:Playing competatively requires a high level of generalship and an understanding of the rules- the mythical "GW" clearly doesn't understand competative play, thats why we end up with(spanning a couple of editions)- ...etc

whitedragon wrote:Why is it a sin to play competitive tourney games?

Ok, off topic for a bit, but...

It's not a sin to play competitive games. But it's a misunderstanding on the part of competitive players, which leads to so much GW-bashing on the forums.

To be clear...

Warhammer 40,000 is not a competitive, tournament based game. It is a game designed and intended to be played between two friendly players, for fun. This codices are designed to be flexible, on the understanding that the players won't abuse this flexibility.

If you spend your time trying to figure out the 'hardest' list possible in one codex, you are not playing the game the way it is intended.
If you play WAAC, you are not playing the game the way it is intended.
If you play in tournaments, you are not playing the game the way it is intended.

If the codices seem 'unfair' or unbalanced in these situations, then the problem is with the players and the way they are playing the game, not with the rules designers or the codices or the company or the policy or the mission system or whatever else.

Of course, you're completely within your rights to play competitively, or WAAC, if that's what rocks your boat, and that's what your gaming group likes to do. No problems at all. Just don't complain when the game seems broken.

Which leads us back on topic - essentially, if you want to make a WAAC/competitive play tournament actually work, you're going to have to change the rules of the game (not because THEY'RE wrong, but because YOU'RE playing it wrong). This involves changing what people are 'allowed' to bring. And this is why we have a comp score. Either that, or just expect everyone to turn up with whatever the flavour of the month super-list is....

(EDIT - Sorry, whitedragon & oddjob, this isn't a personal attack on you, it just seems this thread is going the same way as all the other comp/fluff threads...)

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

GW features armies in batreps for the purposes of selling models, because when it comes down to it, they simply don't care what we play with as long as we're buying models.

Everyone can have an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

And naturally, you have "proof" and "evidence" for you assertions above, right?

Because you're not some kind of hypocrite who's holding others to a higher standard of correctness than yourself, right?

Yeah, like I said, it's all opinion.

Well, you could look through WD Batreps, and the writeups - specifically the part where the featured players explain why they took why they took. Count the number of "Happened to have this painted up" or "wanted to show off this new unit" rationales comes up more often than some variant of "an army from this codex should have this unit". In fact, the only time I can recall ever seen the second involves troop units, which I think we can safely discount now.

I'm now waiting for you to retract the hypocrisy statement.

It seems reasonable for tournament players to expect GW to provide tournament capable rules for GW's official tournaments, which GW promote and take money for entering.

GW have no trouble making rules like, "No non-GW models to be used".

ArbitorIan wrote:

oddjob wrote:Playing competatively requires a high level of generalship and an understanding of the rules- the mythical "GW" clearly doesn't understand competative play, thats why we end up with(spanning a couple of editions)- ...etc

whitedragon wrote:Why is it a sin to play competitive tourney games?

Ok, off topic for a bit, but...

It's not a sin to play competitive games. But it's a misunderstanding on the part of competitive players, which leads to so much GW-bashing on the forums.

To be clear...

Warhammer 40,000 is not a competitive, tournament based game. It is a game designed and intended to be played between two friendly players, for fun. This codices are designed to be flexible, on the understanding that the players won't abuse this flexibility.

If you spend your time trying to figure out the 'hardest' list possible in one codex, you are not playing the game the way it is intended.
If you play WAAC, you are not playing the game the way it is intended.
If you play in tournaments, you are not playing the game the way it is intended.

If the codices seem 'unfair' or unbalanced in these situations, then the problem is with the players and the way they are playing the game, not with the rules designers or the codices or the company or the policy or the mission system or whatever else.

Of course, you're completely within your rights to play competitively, or WAAC, if that's what rocks your boat, and that's what your gaming group likes to do. No problems at all. Just don't complain when the game seems broken.

Which leads us back on topic - essentially, if you want to make a WAAC/competitive play tournament actually work, you're going to have to change the rules of the game (not because THEY'RE wrong, but because YOU'RE playing it wrong). This involves changing what people are 'allowed' to bring. And this is why we have a comp score. Either that, or just expect everyone to turn up with whatever the flavour of the month super-list is....

(EDIT - Sorry, whitedragon & oddjob, this isn't a personal attack on you, it just seems this thread is going the same way as all the other comp/fluff threads...)

Is that so? You know how to play this game and everyone else is wrong? Come on.

The rules are made to be played within and yes, some of them are falling short badly. Still, its the way the game is made so maybe thats how it should be played? If GW wanted no tournaments, why do they run them? Or why did they remove the softscores from their own tournaments?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

carmachu wrote:Ork nob biker armyis fluffy as a speed freak army.

Is it?

Or would a "proper" Speed Freekz army have Biker Boyz and Trukk Boyz and so on, rather than *just* Nob Bikers?

'Proper' is pretty damned subjective. If you want 'proper' I suggest you continue to play 3rd ed and use the armageddon codex, because thats not what we have anymore.

Samething for deathwing. People say that a 'proper' deathwing list is termies, dreads and LR's. It was in third ed, but not anymore.

Can it still be played like that? Yes of course, but the previous restrictions are lifted and the rules say you can play it as long as it fits within the boundaries of those rules.

Thats the point people are trying to make to you. Its the codex, and not the players.

John, are you seriously trying to argue that Theme == Comp?

I've got a Dark Elf Monster army that begs to differ:

Lord on Dragon, Hero on Manticore, 3x Units of Fast Cav, 3x Units of Harpies, 2x Cold One Knights, 2x Cold One Chariots, 2x Hydras.

The army is 100% themed as a monster list. If anything it would represent a Beast lords force from the fluff. The army gets REAMED on comp. Just like dual Nob Bikers + Trukk Boyz would get reamed on Comp but still be "fluffy" and Themed.

Empire Nuln Gunlines, Mech Eldar, Shooty Horde/Badmoonz Orks, pick your poison. They're all themed, some of them are extremely fluffy, all of them should get near zero comp.

JohnHwangDD wrote: I think that Comp should be objectively scored via checklist, and Theme should be subjectively scored by your opponent. As I believe I stated earlier, Comp is *what* you take, and Theme is *why* you take it or *how* it looks. Something like that. The point is that they are different but related.

I think it's bunk if you need to make up a story about how 2 Warbosses agree to work together and have competing Nob Biker mobs. You take 2 biker bosses and 2 nob biker units because they are rock hard and win more than ordinary bikers or nobs on foot, much less Grots of any flavor.

Your example of what YOU consider a bad theme is the exact example why having your opponent subjectively score you on it is a VERY bad idea. One person's idea of a good them is another's bad.

Example? I've been marked down in 3rd/4th for having a more shooting tyranid army. In my opponents ignornant opinion, tyranid armies shouldnt shoot. My theory with my hive fleet was they learned the lessons of the imperium well, and used ranged weapons like their opponents....(much like the early fluff on biovores....)

skyth wrote:Sulking and name calling is what people who's fun is determined by thier opponent's army list do. They are the ones too focused on winning, and they are the bad sports. Them not having fun is THIER fault because they are too hung up on winning and having the 'one right way to play'. They make the game unfun for the other player, not the person who brings the powerful list.

So what I'm hearing you say is:

"I bring power lists because I want to win, and anyone who doesn't play my way is too focused on winning."

"People that don't want to play the way I want to play are bad sports and they call others names and sulk" (i.e. they are selfish).

The only thing I have suggested here is there is room for Ard Boyz style tournaments and there is room for fluff and modeling type tournaments where gaming is an evenly balanced slice of the score and not the most heavily weighted. You appear to be bent on asserting that anyone who does not want to play your way is a bad sport, ill tempered and abusive.

I've played some power gamers that sulk, call names and are generally pricks because they realize they are not going to get a Overwhelming victory and got knocked out of the "Top Tier". And I've been present where many of these Top Tier list toting tournament players twist their opponents arms or try to cut deals to get themselves into the finals even going to the length of threatening to ding the opponents soft scores if they don't let them steamroller them and get the crushing win. Is that good sportsmanship? I don't think so. You can't deny that list comp can clearly be separated from sportsmanship.

Skyth's self illuminating posts aside, this really just illustrates the idea that there needs to be clear expectations on the part of tournament attendees and that TOs put defining rules right up front. If you don't like the style of play at a given event and the rules are plainly laid out for you before you attend, you have no reason to moan, whine or complain about anything but your own dice rolling.

Doesn't GW regularly state that they are a minatures company, and not a game company? And we wonder why their rules aren't air-tight. Or even water-tight sometimes.

Didn't mauleed propose several years ago (like 5) that everyone bring the same ork list to a GT and then compare soft scores? Did that ever happen? I didn't always agree with him, but I miss mauleed.

I'd rather see tournies develop good, challenging scenarios than try to figure out the best comp/theme scoring system.

dietrich wrote:Doesn't GW regularly state that they are a minatures company, and not a game company? And we wonder why their rules aren't air-tight. Or even water-tight sometimes.

Didn't mauleed propose several years ago (like 5) that everyone bring the same ork list to a GT and then compare soft scores? Did that ever happen? I didn't always agree with him, but I miss mauleed.

I'd rather see tournies develop good, challenging scenarios than try to figure out the best comp/theme scoring system.

You do have a good point. If you guys who delude yourselves into thinking you are a brilliant tactician because you hit on (or copy) a power gamer list *REALLY* want to see who is the "Best General" just have everyone bring the same list and duke it out.

Personally I'd rather see lots of different armies AND different builds of the same army, but the narrow mindset of "I must win" precludes that. Thus we see the same lists, over and over...

I really don't understand everyone's problem with check-list style comp. (ie non-subjective, stated in the rules pack so everyone knows prior to the event)

Let's brake it down into three groups:

From a Tournament Organiser's point of view, they have put in innumerable hours and lost sleep over trying to create the very best event they can. They are stressing about the venue, catering, whether enough people will turn up, providing kick ass terrain and boards etc, and hoping they have prepared their scoring system so everything will run smoothly. At the end of the day, they want everyone to be smiling and give them a pat on the back, saying what a brilliant time was had by all.
Fine.
But surely you can understand that icy shiver down their spine as they look at the final standings (lets take as example UK ToS 2009: Daemons, Daemons, VC, Daemons, Daemons). The organiser doesn't care who wins, but having invested so much effort, they want their tournament to reward the player, not the army. They want to see a nice spread of different warhammer races vie for the top prize.
So they add in Comp scoring, to try and push those same people who would have taken Daemons to take something else but still win because they are the best generals in the tournament.

So TOs are likely to be in favour of some form of Comp.

What about 'fluff' players? Well this is preaching to the masses. They tend to be taking 'weaker' lists anyway, because they have been painting and modeling the same all-night-goblin-with-squigs-pulling-the-chariots army for years and don't tend to change it much. What they tend to want is not so much to win all their games, but to play varied opponents with varied armies and have 6 great games. So when they pay their money and play 3 Daemons, 3 Dark Elves, they feel slightly depressed. If Comp pushes some people to enter with other races, or more varied lists, then the fluff player gets more varied opponents and will be happier.

So 'fluff' players are likely to be in favour of some form of Comp.

What about the more 'competitive' players? In this group I will include WAAC, players that enjoy creating and playing with hard lists, and also players who like the competitive environment of tournaments, and see 'hard' lists as just one more skill, like being able to guess ranges, that a player needs to win the day.
For these players, they don't mind if they play 6 Daemon players back to back - they are more interested in having 6 great games verses opponents who challenge their generalship skills to the fullest. But like the Tournament Organiser, they too want the best player rewarded, not the best army.
Quite correctly, competitive players see writing army lists as a skill, and a big part of their hobby. There are too many posts on the Dakka Army Lists board to deny that people don't have fun trying to come up with killer lists. It has been argued that Comp just "moves the goalposts" and people can still powerbuild lists. This is ok! If the same people are winning tournaments, because they have found alternate "powerlists" based on that event's Comp, then far from failing, the Comp system has worked perfectly. It has simply ment that the best generals have won, but the event has seen a much wider variety of lists.
Also, think about how much time you spend dreaming up army lists. You can't tell me you don't enjoy that aspect. So if a tournament has a Comp system, then yes, the goalposts have moved. Are you suddenly not having fun designing lists with these new restrictions? Why?

So 'competitive' players should either be in favour of some form of Comp, or not care either way.



In conclusion, either 3 thumbs up for Comp, or 2 thumbs up and a 'Meh, don't care'. I don't see where all the hate comes from.

Darth Fugly wrote:I don't see where all the hate comes from.

It comes from a group of people being tools and making a pact to score everyone but their own group low so that they have better chances of 'winning'.

Or just people having sourgrapes on the inside, but display a jovial aspect on the exterior, and thinking "If I cant win, then you cant either" by scoring them low.

Both of which I have had personally happen and have seen be inflicted on others in the past.

[edit]

Like I said at the beginning of this thread, comp is an irrelevant tool used by chipmunks for evil.

ArbitorIan wrote:i think comp should stay. I haven't played tournaments for a couple of years, and prefer to play friendlies, but a SUBJECTIVE comp score seems the only way to fill certain cracks in game design.

First, and foremost, 40k is NOT a balanced game for competitive play. It's not designed to be a tournament game, it's not intended to be a tournament game, and if you play it as a tournament game you're going to come up with problems. One of these is the ability to 'game' the system, and come up with incredibly powerful, but un-fluffy lists which exploit rules loopholes etc. Hell, you don't need me to explain, you know what 'gaming' the system is....

A comp score is intended to be a way of judging both the list building AND the fluffiness of an army, and reduce the incidence of broken or beardy or exploitative lists.

The problem is that as soon as you introduce a comp 'structure' or checklist, then it becomes possible for people to game THAT. Also, it doesn't allow certain army variants, as above, where the restriction on Fast Attack units meant that a Night Lords army got low comp scores despite being characterful and fluffy.

The only way to do a comp score is to have a small group of impartial people judge the armies. One person is too likely to be biased, but taking the mean score of (say) three judges might make things fairer.

Of course, this is easier in the bigger tournaments, where judges are less likely to know the players personally, and there are plenty spare, but a bit difficult in your FLGS....

Have ya played fantasy these days? I stuck my toe in that pool and never looked at 40k comp the same way. 40k is very balanced as a whole compared to that other game. Of course you cant bring your fluffy marine or guard army that you spent time naming each model in. The best lists and best players are going to rise to the top, that is hte whole point of a tourney. You make a list, you playtest it over and over and over until you know it is the best you can make it and you are the best at it.

Comp was made so casual players could walk in with their usual homebrew chapter marine army and have some chance of winning.

I dont see that as fair myself.

Darth Fugly wrote:
I really don't understand everyone's problem with check-list style comp. (ie non-subjective, stated in the rules pack so everyone knows prior to the event)

Let's brake it down into three groups:

From a Tournament Organiser's point of view, they have put in innumerable hours and lost sleep over trying to create the very best event they can. They are stressing about the venue, catering, whether enough people will turn up, providing kick ass terrain and boards etc, and hoping they have prepared their scoring system so everything will run smoothly. At the end of the day, they want everyone to be smiling and give them a pat on the back, saying what a brilliant time was had by all.
Fine.
But surely you can understand that icy shiver down their spine as they look at the final standings (lets take as example UK ToS 2009: Daemons, Daemons, VC, Daemons, Daemons). The organiser doesn't care who wins, but having invested so much effort, they want their tournament to reward the player, not the army. They want to see a nice spread of different warhammer races vie for the top prize.
So they add in Comp scoring, to try and push those same people who would have taken Daemons to take something else but still win because they are the best generals in the tournament.

So TOs are likely to be in favour of some form of Comp.

What about 'fluff' players? Well this is preaching to the masses. They tend to be taking 'weaker' lists anyway, because they have been painting and modeling the same all-night-goblin-with-squigs-pulling-the-chariots army for years and don't tend to change it much. What they tend to want is not so much to win all their games, but to play varied opponents with varied armies and have 6 great games. So when they pay their money and play 3 Daemons, 3 Dark Elves, they feel slightly depressed. If Comp pushes some people to enter with other races, or more varied lists, then the fluff player gets more varied opponents and will be happier.

So 'fluff' players are likely to be in favour of some form of Comp.

What about the more 'competitive' players? In this group I will include WAAC, players that enjoy creating and playing with hard lists, and also players who like the competitive environment of tournaments, and see 'hard' lists as just one more skill, like being able to guess ranges, that a player needs to win the day.
For these players, they don't mind if they play 6 Daemon players back to back - they are more interested in having 6 great games verses opponents who challenge their generalship skills to the fullest. But like the Tournament Organiser, they too want the best player rewarded, not the best army.
Quite correctly, competitive players see writing army lists as a skill, and a big part of their hobby. There are too many posts on the Dakka Army Lists board to deny that people don't have fun trying to come up with killer lists. It has been argued that Comp just "moves the goalposts" and people can still powerbuild lists. This is ok! If the same people are winning tournaments, because they have found alternate "powerlists" based on that event's Comp, then far from failing, the Comp system has worked perfectly. It has simply ment that the best generals have won, but the event has seen a much wider variety of lists.
Also, think about how much time you spend dreaming up army lists. You can't tell me you don't enjoy that aspect. So if a tournament has a Comp system, then yes, the goalposts have moved. Are you suddenly not having fun designing lists with these new restrictions? Why?

So 'competitive' players should either be in favour of some form of Comp, or not care either way.



In conclusion, either 3 thumbs up for Comp, or 2 thumbs up and a 'Meh, don't care'. I don't see where all the hate comes from.

Or you could make up more of your own rules, boost guards to t4 or armour 3+ and it would have the same effect(and you wouldnt be playing real 40k/warhammer but rather some milked out sissy version) . The point is that the game is made in a ceratin way and pepole like playing the game as it is. If people wanted another game they would probably play that. Comp tournament isnt very much unlike special olympics, where people just cant handle the real deal but have to fight with one hand tied to their back.

If your a lousy general you wont win with nob bikers or demons or whatver anyway, but you have to be a good general and have a good army to win.

The only way to do a comp score is to have a small group of impartial people judge the armies. One person is too likely to be biased, but taking the mean score of (say) three judges might make things fairer.

Of course, this is easier in the bigger tournaments, where judges are less likely to know the players personally, and there are plenty spare, but a bit difficult in your FLGS....

It is indeed difficult at a FLGS. Finding 3 people that a) know the armies enough to judge b) will be at each tournament and c) don't want to actually play in the tournament, can be near impossible.

The system at my stores uses one very partial, totally biased, and non-apologetic veiwpoint. It means I spend about 1.5 hours to judge comp, then another hour to do painting. But it seems to mostly work, and takes away the problems of people gaming a checklist comp system. Theme doesn't really come into my system, it's based on hardness of the army, and how enjoyable it is to play against. Army theme works into the score for painting and appearance.

ArbitorIan wrote:Of course, you're completely within your rights to play competitively, or WAAC, if that's what rocks your boat, and that's what your gaming group likes to do. No problems at all. Just don't complain when the game seems broken.

Which leads us back on topic - essentially, if you want to make a WAAC/competitive play tournament actually work, you're going to have to change the rules of the game (not because THEY'RE wrong, but because YOU'RE playing it wrong). This involves changing what people are 'allowed' to bring. And this is why we have a comp score. Either that, or just expect everyone to turn up with whatever the flavour of the month super-list is....

(EDIT - Sorry, whitedragon & oddjob, this isn't a personal attack on you, it just seems this thread is going the same way as all the other comp/fluff threads...)

The competative players don't complain when the game seems broken, they adapt, and generally find new (and often unexpected) solutions to the supposed brokenness. It's those without the acumen or desire to "play better" ( oh dear ) that generally favour comp. I see any form of comp as just another set of arbitary restrictions to be gamed. Not better or worse, just different.

Even if we accept that 40k wasn't built with tournamenting in mind, it doesn't follow that this is a "wrong" way to play. Indeed the huge support for (and rapid selling out of) the UKGTs shows that many people view it as a right way to play. To the best of my knowledge there isn't a large foreign contingent present at any of the warhammer world campaign weekends (fluffhammer ahoy), but this is definately the case at the GTs (In the previous seasons final I played against an Englishman, a Scotsman, two Spaniards, an Italian and a German fella....and I'm Irish). I'm rambling...but my point is this- Who are you(the royal you- not specifically at AIan) to tell the competative tournament types that they are doing it wrong?


p.s. @ArbitorIan- your post didn't feel like an attack at all, meerly someone clearly putting across a point succintly. I applaud the manner in which you made your post, just not the contents of it

mikhaila wrote:The only way to do a comp score is to have a small group of impartial people judge the armies. One person is too likely to be biased, but taking the mean score of (say) three judges might make things fairer.

Of course, this is easier in the bigger tournaments, where judges are less likely to know the players personally, and there are plenty spare, but a bit difficult in your FLGS....

It is indeed difficult at a FLGS. Finding 3 people that a) know the armies enough to judge b) will be at each tournament and c) don't want to actually play in the tournament, can be near impossible.

The system at my stores uses one very partial, totally biased, and non-apologetic veiwpoint. It means I spend about 1.5 hours to judge comp, then another hour to do painting. But it seems to mostly work, and takes away the problems of people gaming a checklist comp system. Theme doesn't really come into my system, it's based on hardness of the army, and how enjoyable it is to play against. Army theme works into the score for painting and appearance.

Sounds good if your customers like it that way, keep it up if they are happy. They happy = you happy. But you do know that you are actually just picking the winners right, no point in beeing hypocritcal about it.
When some guy from out of town comes to play and have no clue what you think is fair he is gonna get slammered and might not think it that fun.

mikhaila wrote:The system at my stores uses one very partial, totally biased, and non-apologetic veiwpoint. It means I spend about 1.5 hours to judge comp, then another hour to do painting. But it seems to mostly work, and takes away the problems of people gaming a checklist comp system. Theme doesn't really come into my system, it's based on hardness of the army, and how enjoyable it is to play against. Army theme works into the score for painting and appearance.

And this brings another excellent point... IF one is so inclined to attend events that include army comp as a judging criteria, it should be done by a neutral third party i.e. the TO or his agent. Players judging list comp on their own definitely leads to players loading or using the soft scores as a retaliatory mechanism. In a perfect system you would go so far as to have the TO judging sportsmanship as well as army appearance and comp. Players judging their own favorite opponent during a 3 round RTT is bound to lead to ties, especially given the trend to have little to no variance in the reported score i.e. my opponent was fun, was OK, was a jerk. With only three possible values and only three opponents, you don't have a very big statistical pool.

Don't get me wrong... an Ard Boyz style beat down is fun! It's just not the ONLY thing I'm interested in.

What a lot of stress and worry you guys subject yourselves to before a game.

I agree that Comp should just be left up to the players. Unfortunately, the second you enforce Comp Scores, you skew the game.

Leaving it out means everyone has the same choice of fielding a Power List or not. Distasteful as I find the Power Lists, this is still part of the game. It is up to each players conscience whether they want to work for their victory, or cheese it up.

First off, nice discussion! Second, I want to particularly recognize Blackmoor and Darth Fugly for great posts, though there have been others.

Composition scoring is always a sticky subject, and has been for at least the ten years I’ve been playing. I’ve played a lot of local and Grand Tournaments over that time, for both 40k and Warhammer, and it’s always been an interesting subject and the topic of many and often heated discussions.

IMO and IME, Composition Scoring in tournaments is good for GW games, because it helps to even the playing field and present more variety in the armies seen. GW codices are designed to allow a lot of flexibility, and to support the models presented. But their play testing for balance is notoriously insufficient, and well-known to not really be geared towards tournaments.

If you want a tournament format that rewards play skill to a greater degree, and softens the impact of fundamental design flaws and imbalances, Comp (or handicapping, like they use at the Australian WH GTs) can provide it. This is not to say it’s perfect. Of course not. There are always flaws. But IMO it’s still better than not having it at all.

Just for clarity, I’d like to go over the three main types of Comp.

Judge-scored by checklist: In which the organizers design a clear list of negative and positive attributes for armies (either generally or by codex), and award points according to the defined rubric. This has the advantage of transparency; people can plan for it and pretty much choose their own score. It has the downsides of being almost impossible to apply evenly to every army, and sometimes being convoluted and confusing. I came up with a system I was pretty happy with for several 40k tournaments I ran, but it was not the easiest thing for players to learn. It was designed to be as fair as possible and to actually have a fairly low proportional impact on the scores overall.

Player-scored: In which your opponent awards you points based on his opinion of your army, often with some simple guidelines. This has the advantages of being fairly simple and quick, but the disadvantages of being subject to chipmunking or collusion, and the extreme subjectivity of different players’ (particularly inexperienced ones) opinions. You can make this system better by reducing the score range and making very clear criteria. (Example- 0 adjustment: Army is a normal, competitive army. +1: Army hasobviously sacrificed power/effectiveness for theme or some other reason. -1: Army is more powerful than most, and appears to be designed purely to win.).

Judge-scored subjective: In which the tournament organizers, ideally in advance, examine the lists and award points based on a power scale. Often with some public guidelines posted beforehand. This had the advantages of being more objective than player-scored, and more flexible than checklist. It has the downside of being time-consuming and reliant on having multiple experienced judges, and really needing people to submit lists before the event. This is being shown on the Indy WH GT circuit to be pretty much the most successful approach.


To address some points raised in previous posts:

I have no problems with people trying for thematic armies. But to argue that weak armies are more thematic, or that strong armies aren't thematic, is simply the height of silliness.

I agree that Theme and Comp should generally be separated. Comp should generally be related to power.

The whole of Europe (as far as I know) has done without comp forever, and there are no complaints.

You are incorrect, sir. While the official GW GTs in England have no comp, many other events do. Large tournaments in Britain (including the WPS) range from significant comp restrictions/scoring (including the Banding system), to minor ones, to none at all. Da Boss reports that Ireland is the same. Other countries vary widely. Finland and Spain, for example, are known for no Comp. Warhammer events in Sweden (IIRC) frequently have hard restrictions like forbidding duplicate Rare selections.

Comp should go, it is a fundamentally unsound system. if everyone brings tough lists, everyone will have fun and be on equal footing.

As noted, the codices are not very well balanced against one another. If “everyone brings tough lists” means that some codices are completely left out, that reduces the variety of armies seen and the general fun of the event.

Players are going to take the hard lists anyways, and ignore comp completely and count on their painting, sports and battlepoints to win the tourney, and often do just that.

And Composition allows that as a legitimate choice. You can always try to do that. You may just start at a bit of a point deficit vs someone who builds a compier list but also plays and paints very well, and is a good sport. It’s just a handicap. I won a lot of RTTs back in 3rd ed with the old checklist comp scoring system, in part because I did my best to maximize my scores in all categories.

Subjective comp systems fail because the TO is likely biased towards/against certain lists.

This is why you go with trusted and experienced judges, who have play experience with as many armies as possible. And you use a panel of 2-3 such comp judges.

Even if you have a "panel" of comp judges, they'll most likely just lead the judge with the strongest personality. Also, the consensus of what's "unfluffy" or "broken" isn't always right... or as right as an opinion can be anyways.

This is why you need experienced judges, whom you trust. The strongest personality has little impact if each judge independently judges each list (preferably with the player’s name removed) and awards a score, then those scores are totaled or averaged.

In a smaller tournament, who's got a panel of judges that will do nothing but review every army?

Totally a legitmate concern. You generally can’t do panel/judge-scored comp in advance for a one-day tourney. IMO you have to go checklist, which has its own issues.

I think a large part of why comp should go away is because of 5th ed mission structure. It rewards you for taking non min-maxed units (kill points) and for taking plenty of troops.

This is the best argument I’ve seen so far. I’m very interested in seeing the results of this year’s GTs, and what kind of armies do well. You’re right that 5th ed’s rules do encourage two traits in armies which are generally seen as Compy.

In GW Land, this is left to the subjective reasoning of the opposing player, or as Mikhaila has shown, the event organizer. We all know how this can be used for ill by both types, judging by a recent thread regarding a tourney organizer and his completely biased approach to restricting a certain persons army. (not a dig at you either mikhaila, but at the organizer from colorado springs who was much maligned in that thread)

That was an interesting thread. The organizer definitely had a personal issue which resulted in bad judgments and harming someone’s fun. His comp scoring system, OTOH, was a fairly solid approach to player-scored. A simple binary system, awarding a couple of bonus points to people who made fluffy, attractive armies as opposed to competitive tournament armies. He did find that his players didn’t read the cards properly, or his explanations still weren’t clear and simple enough, and got annoyed when the scoring didn’t go as he envisioned.

Sports scoring offers another opportunity for genuine TFGs and their friends to game the system.

For example, persuade your opponent to give you a 10, and you'll give him a 10. Or nail him with a 0 for beating you. Go as a team and collude in your scoring to nail the guys who are ahead of your team-mates.

Better-run tournaments have the players go to opposite ends of the judges’ table to fill in the Sports scores, so there is less pressure. As far as lowballing and team collusion, the judges can keep an eye out for unusual scoring patterns, and observe games involving players who’ve given or been given unusually low scores, so better judge if something funny’s going on. But IME TFGs are not so big a factor as to generally make that necessary.

Comp is a way for bad players to blame other people for their own failings and the failings of the Games Dev studio. Any comp system essentially fails, is fundamentally unfair to some players, and provides a false veneer of fairness.

Comp is a way for players to compensate for the failings of the Games Dev studio, to create a tournament environment which better-supports variety in the armies seen. Comp systems can succeed, when they are carefully designed, clearly explained and communicated in advance, and balance the playing field better than GW has managed.

OddJob. wrote:p.s. @ArbitorIan- your post didn't feel like an attack at all, meerly someone clearly putting across a point succintly. I applaud the manner in which you made your post, just not the contents of it

Basically the same thing I was thinking. ArbitorIan, you state your point well, I just strongly disagree.

Mannahnin wrote:

I think a large part of why comp should go away is because of 5th ed mission structure. It rewards you for taking non min-maxed units (kill points) and for taking plenty of troops.

This is the best argument I’ve seen so far. I’m very interested in seeing the results of this year’s GTs, and what kind of armies do well. You’re right that 5th ed’s rules do encourage two traits in armies which are generally seen as Compy.

Can't say I agree with this. Kill points just changed what is and isn't min/maxed. The current examples of things like 6 squads of 30 boyz with a nob and rokkits or big shootas or maxxed nob bikers are definitely min/maxxed both in terms of Kill points and troops choices. The new rules just changed who the min/max winners were - which codexes could do it best. They added Kill points and troops-as-scoring into the min/max equation - that doesn't eliminate min/maxing, it just changes it.

I hate comp because it is so subjective, and gets abused regularly. I hate comp because in a tourney I feel no responsibility to "ensure" that my opponent has a good time. That's their own responsibility, I'm no baby sitter. I don't try to be an ass, but if someone brings a mismatched army they should be ready to either pull a rabbit out of a hat or get beat. If someone could come up with a comp system that wasn't tremendously flawed in one way or another, maybe I would go with it. But I just wish comp were dead.

lambadomy wrote: Kill points just changed what is and isn't min/maxed. The current examples of things like 6 squads of 30 boyz with a nob and rokkits or big shootas or maxxed nob bikers are definitely min/maxxed both in terms of Kill points and troops choices. The new rules just changed who the min/max winners were - which codexes could do it best. They added Kill points and troops-as-scoring into the min/max equation - that doesn't eliminate min/maxing, it just changes it.

Well, I think it’s been mitigated somewhat, at least. Kill Points and Objectives generally enforce opposing design priorities in army lists, forcing people to balance their lists or deal with being non-optimized for certain missions. Ork horde lists may do both well, but people are adjusting for that (with more template weapons, etc). I think I generally agree with you, though, that the 5th ed rules don’t make Comp redundant.

grizgrin wrote:I hate comp because it is so subjective, and gets abused regularly.

This is something that’s only fixed by good design and execution. Just like what makes every other part of a tournament fun.

grizgrin wrote: I hate comp because in a tourney I feel no responsibility to "ensure" that my opponent has a good time. That's their own responsibility, I'm no baby sitter. I don't try to be an ass, but if someone brings a mismatched army they should be ready to either pull a rabbit out of a hat or get beat.

Well, as long as (as you said) you’re not an ass, that’s part of what a good Comp system gives you. If the Comp system is done well, there’s no need for you to feel responsible for your opponent. Because the system already gives weaker armies a little bit of a boost in the overall standings. You don’t need to hold back. He recognizes that he’s got a bit of an uphill battle, and deals with it.

grizgrin wrote:If someone could come up with a comp system that wasn't tremendously flawed in one way or another, maybe I would go with it. But I just wish comp were dead.

There are a couple of good ones out there. They’re hard to do well. But they’re certainly out there.

Blackmoor wrote:I have never chipmunked anyone in my life.

The rest of your reply is mostly your opinion versus mine, but we both know that particular statement to be untrue. I can recall with great clarity at one tournament I ran, which had ten point scales for both sportsmanship and composition, where your opponents recieved a combined total of about 9 points (out of a possible 60) and because of that particular incident Kyle Kinghorn started posting soft scores out in the open for a while (because this was not a unique occurance). While you certainly played people who I could undertand dinging (you and Adam Gotti are like oil and water), you also played some pretty nice people who ended up recieving the low marks as well. Maybe calling you out on that is unfair, because the "Darrian Effect" might have already been underway by then, prompting more gaming of the system on your part. If you feel the reindeer games and score trading that happened around there merrited it, then so be it. Maybe my stubborn refusal to engage in that crap is why I never win the major GTs, but overhearing groups talk about how they are going to ding people not in their little circle always bothered me. And to be fair, the comp rape was well under way before Darrian started showing up with 16 AC Terminator lists, so laying this at his feet is not really fair, either.

This wasn't meant as a personal attack and I am certainly no saint, either, when it comes to army comp (I ran Mech Eldar for years before the unwashed masses figured out how good it was), but it is telling that a lot of the people who are pontificating about the comp issues are people who have gamed the system in the past. You are far from unique in this respect. As for me, I pretty much have given up on trying to be friendly in the current 40k environment, though I try for theme when it is an option. The newer codexes, particularly ork horde w Loota spam dominating missions and the new Space Marine codex ignoring cover saves and other core rule mechanics whenever its inconvenient, my Eldar have been sitting on the shelf. I have pretty much been playing CC based Nidzilla when I bother to play 40k and I guess that makes me a part of the problem, too. This is why comp should just be layed to rest, once and for all. Long term, the fix would require major book resets or a rush on 6th edition. Short term, the new Missions book might help, since a lot of the problem centers around the missions in the main book.

I've found the new system to seem to work well that they have developed for US GT's, Indy (Adepticon i think and Socal Slaughter) and GW ran. A simple, easily explained checklist system that combines all soft scores except for painting. Even painting now has a checklist so you can know how your probably going to do before showing up. Ex. is I'll probably pull a 25-30 out of 40 for painting this weekend but I know that going in. In big events chipmunking is easy to spot at the most you can get knocked by someone is just a few points. This means it's harder for a group to collude before on scoring before the tournement and while you can still "game" the system I find it's one of the better ways to go.

Example of SoCal Slaughters slightly modified soft score checklist.

The Pre-Game: These are the items an opponent can reasonably expect you to be prepared with, including being on time, having everything you need, and explaining you army
My opponent was on time (or early). 1 Point
My opponent had all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army 1 Point
list, rules for their army, rules for the game).
My opponent’s army list is easy to understand with conversions explained prior 1 Point
to the game or the list is completely WYSWIG.


Game Play - These items include courses of action your opponent took during the game or in deciding what to field in their army.

1) My opponent played their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in 1 Point
account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)?
2) My opponent conducted measurements clearly and accurately for both model 1 Point
movement and shooting distances?
3) My opponent and I were able to solve all rules and games issues in a 1 Point
reasonable manner and my opponent did not dwell on unfavorable rulings.
4) My opponent built an army based on a theme relevant to the gaming universe. 1 Point
5) My opponent’s brought an army built for solid Tournament play as opposed to an 1 Point
army built with the sole idea of maximum point efficiency and the game winning
abilities of a few units.
6) My opponent’s army was built for a fun and challenging game, as opposed to an 1 Point
army designed to abuse loopholes in the rules.

Behaviors - These items include basic social skills (or lack thereof)
My opponent was of good humor and was not angry/grumbling/complaining/ 1 Point
upset/whining during the game?
My opponent was helpful in explaining correct rules and explaining how their 1 Point
army works?
Win or lose, my opponent played with a pleasant demeanor and if given the 1 Point
opportunity I would play them again.

Total Up to 12 Points which over the 5 games for the weekend makes for 60 points out of 200. So it's worth 30% of your points. More if you don't max out on battle points.

Just my opinion but I like it a lot.