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.

bigtmac68 wrote:In sports do you tell each team, " you cant bring your three best players. " or " you can only have one good player at each position, any more than that and they have to stay home. "

That depends entirely on the sport, and its goals, but in general, the answer is YES to every one of your questions above.

If you look at US professional sports, they have salary caps that teams need to stay under. You can't just buy an team consisting of the very best players at any price. You have to trade off against the salary cap. The NFL and NBA Drafts rewards poor teams by giving them better draft positions, to improve parity. And they have revenue sharing in the NFL and NHL so that smaller-market teams can continue to compete with larger-market teams. Even the NCAA Collegiates have revenue sharing, which similarly pushes things toward parity.

If you look at many forms of racing sports, they apply a handicapping system to penalize winners. Horses and race cars may carry extra weight to handicap them. If you've ever done any bracket racing, the slower car gets a time advantage. If you look at Le Mans, they race different classes of cars under different rules, with different handicaps, to provide a better race. If you look at F1, WRC, and NASCAR, they're all based on templates and specs to promote parity.

Most fighting sports are organized by weight class, because it's not good competition to have a big guy fight a small guy. And of course, most sports are also gender-segregated, so men don't compete against women.

And that's the common denominator, parity to improve competition, rather than a pure winner take all.

So based on most sporting, I'd say that Comp is alive and well.

Yea it's not like wargames have any sort of system in place to keep armies at even strength....

John, your example has little merit. Once a team has its players, it uses them to best effect. I can't trade my crappy swooping hawks for sternguard. Also, that only applies to the pros, all other sports bring the best they can get their hands on all the time.

Sports teams are ruthless in the exploitation of any advantage, and that is why they are so much fun! I don't want to watch or play a sport with a bunch of gentlemen that play at half speed so that they don't hurt anyone's feelings.

To which I respond, why? Whay does it need to be adressed at all, everyone knows what the strongest lists are and how to beat them. I dont need or want a handicap to compete against a strong build. I want the challenge of either figuring it out and doing it myself. If I cant do it and loose, then I loose and I deserve to.

Spoken like an adult. I applaud you.

@Reece:

That's the same as with Comp - once you have your list, you play it to its best effect. If you spent the points on Scouts, you can't swap them for Tacticals.

Right, but in relation to your sports analogy, teams try to get the best player for every position.

That doesn't hold up in wargaming as we all have a set codex we can not deviate from. We can't "draft" the best unit from every codex.

My point was that it was a comparison that didn't hold water. That in fact, sports teams are ruthlessly competitive and do not encourage fair play beyond the small child level. You do what it takes to win within the confines of the rules and no one faults you for it, but in fact applauds it.

However in wargaming here in the states, a lot of people feel that the rules need to be further modified. That is saying that the TO can makes a better game than GW can, which is stupid and arrogant.

Play the game according to the rules given, nice and easy.

@Reece:

True, aside for things like the salary cap. It's not possible to get the best player for every position, because the salary cap just doesn't allow it.

And as Comp adherence is voluntary, you can still play, whether you have good comp or bad comp.

Nor does Comp scoring affect any of the rules by which the game is played. Armies with good Comp don't get to move farther, extra shooting, or anything like that. Comp has no impact on any of the rules.

Comp simply encourages players to play by a voluntary "gentleman's agreement" so that both players have an enjoyable game, following The Most Important Rule.

Now if TMIR weren't in place, then you are absolutely correct that Comp wouldn't be necessary.

But with a requirement that players work together to have an enjoyable game, then you move over to more of a cooperative endeavor, in which the play is more important than the result.

Okay, but the TO changing rules is different to the TO scoring comp. In my experience cometitors score comp either pre-tournament or post-game beside sportsmanship (I prefer pre).
I'd still be happy with no comp score, it just doesn't affect me in the personal way that a lone dick judge might.

I think the judge originally in question had lost a few games to Lysander. If TOs are going to make special characters legal there should be a clear subset of rules on their use and treatment, so everyone is on the same level.

Kubla Con Comp Scoring:
5 Questions you can control (2 points each)
1) More Troop Choices then any other single catagory?
2) Troops 40%+ of army total?
3) Fast Attack, Elite & Heavy less then 25% each?
4) Units and Characters have Names or Designations?
5) 15% or less on wargear?

4 question you should be able to control (2 points each)
1) Do Troop chooices Not fall into Min/Max?
2) Is the list the same one being played?
3) Was army list turned in on time and in correct format?
4) Is the math correct?

1 question you have little control over (2 points)
1) In the Judges opinion does the list capturethe spirit of the army being played.

Also, each player votes for there favorite army they faced that day for 1 point each. For a max of 23 of which you directly or indirectly control 18 points.

The two female Tyranid players scored 19 & 17 for comp. The average for the day was 16.2

As for the original post about the Imperial Fist army got a 18 comp. (at lest that's the only IF army listed in the final score sheet.)

Also, I don't think comp should be used in Tournaments, but I don't really care one way or the other as I'll play any way.

Here's a quote I saw on another forum, about a different game, but a similiar situation:

LOL. That's as absurd as telling White they can't open with the Ruy Lopez.

Here was my army...

What the hell?

I'm sure it's been said, but that's a fine list. Based on tactical marines... completely different heavy support choices... I don't know what those judges were thinking, truthfully.

Linkdead wrote:Yea it's not like wargames have any sort of system in place to keep armies at even strength....

Yup. To me, comp is a pretty open admission that GW does this poorly, so a secondary system is needed.

Balance wrote:

Linkdead wrote:Yea it's not like wargames have any sort of system in place to keep armies at even strength....

Yup. To me, comp is a pretty open admission that GW does this poorly, so a secondary system is needed.

Are you aware of any such systems by any chance?

Not trying to put you on the spot, but do you think that Heavy Gear Blitz!'s dual systems
would work in 40k?

the sports analogy does not work because we already have a salary cap,

points cost. We already have an even playing field.

No one tells the Patriots that they cant play their starting quarterback in the same game as they start their staring running back. You play the best of what you have, anything else is not even trying.

No one tells the coach that he can only use one of his best plays or has to bench half his starting d line because, they are too good and it would not be fair.


everyone has equal points, and everyone has the same FOC choices available.

If the purpose of comp is to improve the experience or the players the OP is just another of an endless stream of examples of how it fails miserably. That is why comp has been dissapearing from more and more major tournaments because it does nothing but ad an additional layer or complication and restriction without in any way effecting the competitive environment.

If you feel there are certain builds that are too over the top, then just man up and ban them don't hide behind a comp system that is designed to do that but in a cowardly way.

We all know GW makes gakky rules, and we still choose to play in tournaments with them. if you want a game that fair play chess.

I just talked to another buddy that went to Kubla Con and he hated the comp system too! He went 2 and 1 and placed higher than a guy who went 3 and 0 despite the fact that according to the my friend who has a very well painted army, the other guy had a gorgeous Chaos Army built around Slanesh I think he said, who got tanked on Comp. According to my friend, it was a themed army too, not a cut throat tournament list.

How the hell does someone who goes 3-0 with a great looking army place lower overall than the guy who goes 2-1 with an admittedly less nicely painted army? That is absurd.

A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.

Kublacon's 40K tournament is usually pretty cool. New people took over this year and I dont agree with their interpretation of theme/appearance; the judges explanation of my paint score was partially based on old fluff of certain gods not liking each other. Thats no longer current and I feel it should be disregarded especially in an appearance score. I got dinged pretty badly on my Slaanesh army that usually gets really good paint scores for having a squad of Plague Marines and a squad of Berzerkers to go with 4 squads of Noise Marines and a Slaanesh daemon prince. I figure in the future ill have to either add Thousand Sons and call it Black Legion and hope thats acceptable or just go all Slaanesh.

@willydstyle: I dont agree with all the decisions that have been made regarding comp at the CoC, so youre not the only one. I also dont want you guys to feel like outcasts so Ill be sure to give you and Casey a big Slaaneshy (or Blood Angels - your choice) hug at the next tournament.

Sirus

edit: I forgot to say thanks to Donnie Orr, we had a great game in the 3rd round. Remember to promote the sergeant that held up the daemon prince for 4 turns!

Dogstar34 wrote:Kublacon's 40K tournament is usually pretty cool. New people took over this year and I dont agree with their interpretation of theme/appearance; the judges explanation of my paint score was partially based on old fluff of certain gods not liking each other. Thats no longer current and I feel it should be disregarded especially in an appearance score. I got dinged pretty badly on my Slaanesh army that usually gets really good paint scores for having a squad of Plague Marines and a squad of Berzerkers to go with 4 squads of Noise Marines and a Slaanesh daemon prince. I figure in the future ill have to either add Thousand Sons and call it Black Legion and hope thats acceptable or just go all Slaanesh.

@willydstyle: I dont agree with all the decisions that have been made regarding comp at the CoC, so youre not the only one. I also dont want you guys to feel like outcasts so Ill be sure to give you and Casey a big Slaaneshy (or Blood Angels - your choice) hug at the next tournament.

Sirus

edit: I forgot to say thanks to Donnie Orr, we had a great game in the 3rd round. Remember to promote the sergeant that held up the daemon prince for 4 turns!

I moved to Portland 1 1/2 years ago, so I haven't played in the CoC in a while. I've just been following the exploits of my fellow Ukiahans pretty closely, talking to Casey on the phone a lot, etc.

Well after reading through this entire thread I have come to the conclusion that comp does indeed suck hard. It's fairly obvious that those who advocate comp want to use it to force other players to build lists that fit into their view of how an army should be played. That is just wrong.

What really irks me is people who hate special characters. GW has dropped the restriction so you no longer need permission to field them. They are a big part of the game now and to me are intended as such. SM special characters are there to build armies to represent a specific chapter such as Imperial Fists or Crimson Fists.

G

Dogstar34 wrote:Kublacon's 40K tournament is usually pretty cool. New people took over this year and I dont agree with their interpretation of theme/appearance; the judges explanation of my paint score was partially based on old fluff of certain gods not liking each other. Thats no longer current and I feel it should be disregarded especially in an appearance score. I got dinged pretty badly on my Slaanesh army that usually gets really good paint scores for having a squad of Plague Marines and a squad of Berzerkers to go with 4 squads of Noise Marines and a Slaanesh daemon prince. I figure in the future ill have to either add Thousand Sons and call it Black Legion and hope thats acceptable or just go all Slaanesh.

I have to say I don't agree with GW changing their fluff that the Chaos gods don't have a problem at all working together, that being said, they changed it. You should not be penalized for mixing the groups in any type of theme issue.

@willydstyle: I dont agree with all the decisions that have been made regarding comp at the CoC, so youre not the only one. I also dont want you guys to feel like outcasts so Ill be sure to give you and Casey a big Slaaneshy (or Blood Angels - your choice) hug at the next tournament.

I do have to say that the comp score at the Sacramento CoC is designed so that every codex can get a maximum comp score. That being said, you can make a more effective list with some codex vs others, especially at higher points:

Power models. Divide the tournament army point limit by 10 (125 in a 1250 point tournament). Any model that costs more than this number or that has three or more wounds in its profile is considered a power model (except for swarms and named characters).

Zero or one power models in the army – 3 points
Two power models in army – 2 points
More than two power models – 0 points

Extreme example: in November, at the 2500 point game, Space Marines can take 3 stock Land Raiders and keep a 20 comp score, while a Nid player still looses comp scores if they take 1 Hive Tyrant or Broodlord as their HQ choice and 1 Carnifex as a HS choice (which by the way, would be the same at any point level for the Nids, while other groups can keep adding tanks and keep a higher comp score as points go up. The Nids cannot add their tanks/anti-tank and keep their comp score up with their current codex).

Thus another issue with comp scores in general, you cannot compensate for every codex even though you attempt to.

The FOC is really your only comp you should worry about, 1 HQ and 2 Troop choices. If you follow the Missions in the 40k book, you have to have redundant troops choices anyway for 2 of 3 missions. Running 4-5 troop choices seems ideal (Ignoring that some special characters can change scoring unit types).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
What really irks me is people who hate special characters. GW has dropped the restriction so you no longer need permission to field them. They are a big part of the game now and to me are intended as such. SM special characters are there to build armies to represent a specific chapter such as Imperial Fists or Crimson Fists.

G

Have to agree, I think people have issues with special characters from past editions, as they used to be extremely disgusting. From the Space Marine and Imperial Guard codex, their special characters seem at least manageable, and you will know how their armies are going to run if they do put a special character down.

Reecius wrote:
A tournament is meant to determine who is the best player of the game that day. If you want to have a circle jerk, painting competition where people just happen to play a few games, then say so, but don't call it a tournament.

Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun. Going into a tourney a player should know what to expect in regards to what it is about. So if painting is part of the equation then you have to deal with it. This isn't a sport but a hobby (hence the inclusion of paint and sport scores. That's not to say you can't run tournies similar to a 'ard Boyz tourney or one in which one category is weighted more than the other. As long as it is known beforehand I have no issues with it.

As a player I don't really care if there is comp or not, I just want to play. As a TO I try my hardest to be as fair and even as possible. I personally try to make it so the there is no questions of shenanigans in a tourney I run. Maybe I take too much pride in running a good tourney. This attitude also carries over into other aspects of my life when I'm officiating or coaching games/tournies

Bahkara wrote:Tourney rules are whatever the TO wants it to be. I once ran a tourney with no MEQ armies allowed (Yakface won with IG BTW). It was different but fun.

Talk about restrictions - you declared more than half of the Codices illegal to play...

BTW, Adam, I had a great time at the event.

Ok, so now i understand comp systems and it seems i disagree with them - if you have an army isn't it nice to battle against whatever opponent, whatever their choices as long as its legal?

Surely this can only improve players skill to deal with whatever battles they face in the future - a loss against an unfamiliar opponent / force choice is surely a learning curve.

In my own personal opinion, scored competitions do suck. Downright. There's no easier way to put it without getting into language that would see me banned

I've seen some scored comps played before at the two Rogue Traders in town and a big one that was held in one of the many arenas here. While I observed some good friendly and easygoing players, the majority were quite stingy on every kill. Every point mattered to death with these players, and they would argue it until the same. While I realize that not all tournaments are like this and players in one city would obviously differ from players in another, I can't help but feel completely turned off by the prospect of a scored tournament. Between the utter restriction, "I'm better than you" attitudes, and the bickering I've seen from local players, I can't agree with Comp systems at all.

I'm more of a casual player. I focus more on painting than playing, for the same reason that most of the local players here are too stingy to forsake even the smallest of rules and hate to lose. Our small gaming group has a ton of fun just playing map campaigns, scoreless games, "Last man standing" or "Majority points standing" matches rather than tallying points killed as it just makes for a less enjoyable and more restricted game. We love our house rules and general casual game styles, so scoring games really don't appeal to us either. So to repeat, I have to agree with the OP. Scored comps suck.

Metal, I don't think you know what a "comp score" is. (I didn't till about a month ago either) Comp scores are a "soft score". Comp scores are supposed to limit power builds and encourage balanced lists. They don't really do that, and they don't take into account different codices limitations and nuances.

Edit- Comp scores can be created in a variety of ways, from Opponent scoring, to check list, to judge scoring. The middle would be the best, since it limits theamount of bias.

One of the things that makes Army Comp an ineffective tool is the same thing that hoses a lot of the rest of tourneys: Lack of Manpower.

If it had been a committee of 5 judges averaging out the comp score instead of just one guy with his preconceived notions of what a SM army 'should be', you probably wouldn't have gotten scored so badly. Personally, I would have given 4 out of 5 stars (minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird).

Same thing with a lot of tournament stories I hear about players getting hosed by rules lawyer opponents. Calling a judge over shouldn't be a rarity or a 'sportsmanship score breaking' event. we have all seen it done - you call a judge over to clarify a point and the sports score goes to Zero. Hell, Tennis has the least judges of any sport, and they have one guy watching the field of play at all times. Even chess has a ref watching - how can you have questions about chess? Really?

As a rule, tourney organizers should have 1 judge for every 4-8 players in the event, and they should rotate around the tables - NOT sit behind the scoring table discussing how hot that other guy's bored girlfriend is. I understand that the '40k experience' calls for an agreement between you and your opponent, but I've seen people with weak personal skills get fast-talked by their opponents (I catch myself doing it sometimes.). Judges should feel free to intervene if they see something fishy going on, and one of them should be holding someone's (Adepticon/Dakka/GWI don't care) FAQ in hand.

Metal, I don't think you know what a "comp score" is. (I didn't till about a month ago either) Comp scores are a "soft score". Comp scores are supposed to limit power builds and encourage balanced lists. They don't really do that, and they don't take into account different codices limitations and nuances.

Edit- Comp scores can be created in a variety of ways, from Opponent scoring, to check list, to judge scoring. The middle would be the best, since it limits theamount of bias.

Ahhh, I thought "Comp Score" was referring to a player's scored "kill-points" at the end of each battle. Now that you've clarified though, I can still see how this is ineffective and poorly planned. Especially considering most armies are still using 3rd or 4th ed Codices.

I still believe however that the kill-point tally is not really the best system to be using either when deciding a winner. I've seen a lot of heated arguements start over 2 or 3 point losses. In general, I just dislike tourneys for their overcompetative nature (at least around here). Bad experiences and observations led me to see them in such negative light I guess. Which is a shame because I'm sure there're a lot of good tourneys out there that use neither of these formats.

minus one for the squads too big for the Razorbacks - I know it's legal, it just feels weird

And that is a perfect example of why comp systems are flawed. A totally arbitrary deduction to someone's score because it "feels" weird. This is what happens when individuals mess with a system that is fine as it is.

What if this person didn't go to the finals because of that comp score? That would be really, really lame. No offense to you Corum, just using your post to make a point.

Hokkaido23 wrote:The tournament was won by an Ultramarines army consisting of tac squads, Marneus Calgar, and twin dreads. That player, in addition to getting good draws (which is essential to winning a tournament) is a very good player who is also at the top of the local scene, so props to him - he deserved the win, after a math error screwed him out of first place in 2006

There are always allegations of favoritism with the locals almost everywhere. I have played across the country and I can tell you that it is true, but I like to play in new game stores all over against people whom I will never see again for a fun game of 40k. Sometimes I have to remind myself of that after a tournament where I went 3-0 with a well painted army and I lose out someone who is a regular at the shop who went 2-1.

Although after the fact there might have been an accounting error where the Ultramarine player did not receive all of their battle points, I did not receive all of my comp points (back then they had a similar check list, but less objective questions), and I built my army so that I would score near max points that I did not receive and again put in back into the lead.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
The problem with your "cheeseball" Dual Lash army is that you assume to allow far too many points.
2x Lash Prince = 310
3 Termies (tB&PW) = 90
8 Zerks (2 PP) = 183
3x 7 PM (2 PG) = 573
1 Spawn = 40
3x 3 Oblit = 675
1871 pts with minimal upgrades, which is nearly 400 pts over where I'd want to set a Comp event (1500 pts).

You can easily fit all that stuff into 1850, which is where I was headed. You didn't build it exactly as I would, which got you a hair over 1850 (too much plasma, that is what the oblits are for)

If your comp system ONLY applied to 1500 point games, you should have said so. I think it is actually more broken at that points level, and works better for bigger games, because for many elite armies (thousand sons, grey knights, deathwing, etc.) it is very hard to fit 4 troop choices in 1500 points and have enough points left over to spend on an elite and a fast attack.

We could go round and round on this all day...... one thing most of us (pro-comp and anti-comp) can probably agree on is this:
we wouldn't need a composition score system if the codexes were balanced and encouraged fluffy builds.

If you look at many forms of racing sports, they apply a handicapping system to penalize winners. Horses and race cars may carry extra weight to handicap them.

It's not necessarily to "penalize winners" , but more to get to an "all else being equal" state, so that the horses are carrying an equal -load- for example, so an ultralight jockey/tack combo doesn't take away too much from the speed of the -horse- , and the -skill- of the jockey being the important thing, similarlly they're cracking down in the olympics on the hightech body glove swimsuits, and ultralight racing bikes so it get back to being about the athlete again.

In 40k however, this should be taken care of -allready- by the FOC and points cost of various units, and multiple scenrios. Comp is layering another system -on top- of that one, and it's a even more subjective one. In this case, it's like giving a horse 10 extra pounds because he's got a white sock on his left hind hoof..

Actually, Comp is most like the synsuits / bicycle disc brakes / full-carbon bikes, because not every competitor has access to them...