Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think that the "identical non-troop unit" portion is baloney. It is unfairly biased towards armies that have good, efficient troop choices. In the end all it's going to do is make people spend a few extra points on their spam units to diversify them. This also is unfairly biased towards armies that have multiple cheap upgrade options.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a player scores someone incorrectly then we will correct it. It's just that simple. Olympia are you thinking of coming over to play across the proverbial pond?

G

Maybe Comp should be judged by the judges, and not the players?

Okay you are entitled to your opinion Mosg.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:If a player scores someone incorrectly then we will correct it. It's just that simple. Olympia are you thinking of coming over to play across the proverbial pond?

G

Maybe Comp should be judged by the judges, and not the players?

I always review the scores and look for a bias. For example last at my NC GT I reviewed all the comp scores and they seemed fair to me. So in effect there is a review by the judges. We can also implement the Olympic filter if necessary.

G

So you don't think that that's going to happen, or you don't care? Do you not think it is biased towards troop-efficient armies, or do you not care if it does?

I'm not trying to be confrontational--I'm curious. I'd love to attend but it seems that the decision about this is somewhat arbitrary.

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Dakka-equese!

Not "Dakka-esque" at all.
Just someone who was planning on attending telling you why you lost his attendance.

Good to see how the organizer reacts to criticism and complaints. Would saying "So Wrecking Crew-esque" be an inappropriate response?

Good luck with the tournament. I have a feeling you're going to need it.

Eric

We have people from as far away as New York and California signed up and registered.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mosg wrote:
So you don't think that that's going to happen, or you don't care? Do you not think it is biased towards troop-efficient armies, or do you not care if it does?

I'm not trying to be confrontational--I'm curious. I'd love to attend but it seems that the decision about this is somewhat arbitrary.

No matter how you come up with the rules some armies will score better than others. For the rare case such as Necrons we the TOs can make an adjustment to help them out. Someone told me that the TOs should simply handle all soft scores but then you run into the situ where other people will accuse you of showing favoritism for your friends. Both Yuri and I think that the soft scores are very important, we are not going to drop them or greatly alter what you have seen here. I have had a lot of people tell me overall they like the scoring system and I expected it to not be as popular here as some other sites.

G

From what I'm reading here, If I decided to take all Crisis suits in my Elites, I'm dinged on comp. What exactly are Tau supposed to take in their elite slots? A unit of stealth and a unit of crisis and suck up the losses?

MagickalMemories wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Dakka-equese!

Not "Dakka-esque" at all.
Just someone who was planning on attending telling you why you lost his attendance.

Good to see how the organizer reacts to criticism and complaints. Would saying "So Wrecking Crew-esque" be an inappropriate response?

Good luck with the tournament. I have a feeling you're going to need it.

Eric

Um, but the problem is that you voiced neither a criticism nor a complaint.

You merely quoted a section that you apparently didn't like and stated that you wouldn't be coming to the tournament. A true complaint would specify what you didn't like and why you didn't like it. A criticism would give suggestions as to what could be improved. Your post did neither.

That is why the post was dakka-esque.

I reiterate a previous post, is it REALLY that difficult to modify a list so that you don't have identical units?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaplaingrabthar wrote:From what I'm reading here, If I decided to take all Crisis suits in my Elites, I'm dinged on comp. What exactly are Tau supposed to take in their elite slots? A unit of stealth and a unit of crisis and suck up the losses?

Only if you take three IDENTICAL units of crisis suits as your elites choices.

Once again...is it REALLY that hard to throw on a couple of different wargear or weapon options to prevent the units from being identical?

Saldiven wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:So Dakka-equese!

Not "Dakka-esque" at all.
Just someone who was planning on attending telling you why you lost his attendance.

Good to see how the organizer reacts to criticism and complaints. Would saying "So Wrecking Crew-esque" be an inappropriate response?

Good luck with the tournament. I have a feeling you're going to need it.

Eric

Um, but the problem is that you voiced neither a criticism nor a complaint.

You merely quoted a section that you apparently didn't like and stated that you wouldn't be coming to the tournament. A true complaint would specify what you didn't like and why you didn't like it. A criticism would give suggestions as to what could be improved. Your post did neither.

That is why the post was dakka-esque.

I reiterate a previous post, is it REALLY that difficult to modify a list so that you don't have identical units?

You're going to have to check up on your definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complaint

Pointing out that you will not be attending and showing your reason why VERY MUCH counts as an expression of dissatisfaction (Second entry, first definition).

Is it difficult to modify units so that they're not identical?
If you play a well balanced CSM army it is. Heaven forbid you want two units of Oblits. Neither 1 nor 3 Oblits are well balanced. Two is the optimum number (IMO). So, you've gotta hamstring a unit or blow 75 points to qualify.
Tweaking a piece of wargear so that you can squeak by a limitation such as this is a simple (and some would say WAAC) way around this rule.
"No. They're not the same units. This one model in the second unit of Nob Bikers has an ammo runt. It's an entirely different unit."
Gaming the system (shenanigism) is rewarded, but playing a straightforward list is penalized.

Just because it isn't difficult doesn't mean it should have to be done.

Eric

I always found your communication unclear and it sounded like you were whining TBH.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I always found your communication unclear and it sounded like you were whining TBH.

G

My communication was pretty direct, actually. I quoted your words and said that was the reason you lost attendees. Nothing unclear there. hard to misunderstand.
Regarding whining... I think it's funny that you have the ability to hear the typed word when nobody else does.

There's a school of though that says we always presume others to behave as we would. So, if you read a generic post by me and thought there was whining involved, it's because that is how you would react.
...That, or you were just trying to act in a degrading manner.


It's okay.
I understand.
You have a history of being that way with those who have something to say unfavorable about you or things you are defensive/protective about.

It's your tourney. You're running it the way you want.
I don't have to like it and, if I don't, nobody's forcing me to attend.
It's fine.
My point was only to show you that not everyone would be happy about that particular decision.
I don't see any reason to continue this conversation.

Eric

Well if you do decide to come you might be surprised. We might have a band one night and if you can put a team together that event has absolutely no comp or sportsmanship. : )

G

While the South definitely needs well run tourneys, comp seems to rear its ugly head more than it helps (in regards to 40K). In every fashion, it seems to really alter the real outcome of a tourney.

Also, adding in, 'judges can alter scores' with an already subjective scoring system just can not end well. If scores aren't transparent, it casts doubt on tourney results. Additionally, judges can alter a score on an already subjective criteria while having the benefit of viewing every other players' scores.....bad for business.

I guess, in the end, I have personal issues where someone gets to dictate what a person buys, builds, paints and chooses to game with. If it is legal in the codex, who am I to tell someone how they should build their army?

Good luck with the tourney. I hope it turns out well and helps to foster/grow organized play in the South.

The rules for comp are quite clear Charlie. If someone doesn't score them correctly it's easy to see by reviewing the army lists.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

No matter how you come up with the rules some armies will score better than others.

So, why introduce a system that is inherently unfair to some armies?

Necrons have been listed as an army that suffers. For example what if a player wants to field three units of 10 Immortals? Said player could instead field one unit of eight, one unit of nine and another unit of ten... They would then be fine and have some points left over.

I think TOs have a responsibility to check all scoring to make sure everything is correct, obviously the scores shouldn't be altered to help a friend or make them be what you (e.g., some bias). It's a lot of work but it will help to ensure fairness. For example suppose you see that someone did not add up all their battlepoints correctly. I would find the two players from that round and go over the battlepoints with them to make sure they are correctly entered and recorded. Changing a comp score to a higher value because you feel that Grey Knights need a break (as an example) would be wrong and I dont want my previous statement to be interpreted as such. Cooking the scores is flatout wrong.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I always found your communication unclear and it sounded like you were whining TBH.

G

I agree wholeheartedly with this impression, as it is exactly the impression I got.

The posting that precipitated this series of subsequent posts contributed nothing to the thread, which is why it got my goat.

People are so absolutely hide-bound. Going to a tournament that forces you to modify the list that you ALWAYS play with competitively forces you to stretch your abilities as a list writer and a player.

If you're uncomfortable with that sort of a test of your abilities, then, by all means, stay away....

Or maybe someone doesn't like being told that they "have" play a different way other than what the designers made. That is most peoples problem with comp in tournaments. Our comp is our codex. If it's legal to play it's compy. The idea of random restrictions is silly as all it does is shift the power to other armies. For instance Space Wolves will have a grand ol' time at this tourney since they have one of the best, most efficient troop choices in the game. Same with Mech Guard.

Also in a system where counts as is touted as the rule of thumb people will get dinged because they are playing "eldar w/eldrad" but didn't paint their army uthwe colors.

I didn't get whining from Magikal Memories. I saw that he informed you that based on your comp rules he would not be attending. It is better to let you know if someone doesn't come because of your rules so that when all is finished and you look back and see how you could have increased participants you have solid information as to what kept people from attending your event.

Just my 2 cents

There are no restrictions or penalties for 'counts as' at BB.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The rules for comp are quite clear Charlie. If someone doesn't score them correctly it's easy to see by reviewing the army lists.

G

A person can lose 40-60 points on soft scores alone b/c of subjective scoring of somebody's army. I'm not talking about the easy things to observe such as 'is there 3 or more troop choices in the army?'. I'm more referring to perfectly fluffy armies that are also competitive armies as they are not mutually exclusive. Folks can build an army that fits the fluff very well, yet still get penalized by their opponents. Some examples just off of the top of my head:

-Ulthwe Craftworld Eldar which inherently may field Eldrad and Seer Councils (I have to include it as 2 Eldar armies have actually placed in the last two Indy GT's which used army comp)
-Horde Orks with lots of Killa Kanz (many will whine that Orks aren't competitive, but they seemed to do well at comp Indy GT's last year as well as Ard Boyz)
-Mechanized IG (many variations of fluffy, yet beatstick armies)
-Most Space Marine armies (Vulcan lists, a few Blood Angel builds and various Space Wolves included)

What's considered a nasty combo? For my Orks, running up a Land Raider Crusader with Assault Terminators and Chaplain is a very nasty combo to face; other armies may not find it all that difficult (such as Space Marines w/ Null Zone or some Tyranid combos)

As an old time player, I still can't wrap my mind around Chaos armies that have mixed marks (Khorne and Slaanesh/ Tzeentch and Nurgle), so should I dock the army b/c of how I view a themed army?

If a guy gets tanked on his theme by multiple players, do judges have the right to adjust the score b/c they think the comp is clear? I believe it's one subjective opinion trumping another subjective opinion.

Then, there are some folks who will math hammer everything out, build the nastiest beatstick they can and hope to go up against non optimized lists b/c of the comp restrictions that were put in place. They can make up the loss of 60 points in other areas. I'm sure you've seen this approach at some point at a tourney.

I applaud your efforts and hard work to bring a quality tourney to the South. I just think some gamers will game the comp and, at the end of the day, only those who played the 'spirit' of the comp are the ones who ultimately lose out.

Charlie

I understand the whole 'if its legal then it is should be allowed' argument but probably what you have failed to see since you have not actually run an event (feel free to correct me if I am wrong) is that the soft scores are there for a system of check and balance. To me a GT level event should be about a lot more than simply running an Ard Boyz event, which is what you would have if you drop comp, sportsmanship and appearance. The game is still a hobby to many of us and there is more to it than simply bringing your most tooled beat stick army. Our scoring for comp is well defined by a set of simple questions so there is less opportunity for rampant chipmunking as I have seen quite often. Charlie you have sighted many examples of comp chipmunking that are not possible within the BB scoring system such as mixed marks in a CSM army. I'm not saying you are intentionally spouting misinformation, just putting it out there so others skimming this thread will be aware. I know this will fall on many a deaf ear but that is what it is and why it is there for BB.

I have used comp at my last GTs in NC and I received not one complaint from anyone that attended either event. I reviewed all the comp scores versus the actual army lists and they all looked quite reasonable to me.

And by the way we are modifying overall scoring as follows:

Total max points = 1000
Battlepoints - 55% (550)
Comp - 15% (150)
Sportsmanship - 15% (150)
Appearance - 15% (150)

The problem is, winning your GT is a qualifier to get to Vegas. Based on your previous scores, if I brought my list I would be out 300 points over the event, so it would be a slim chance to win over all. Paying 5-10 points a model to make them different just seems cheap and skirting the rules.

Fabius can you post your list here or send me a PM so I can review it to see how it would actually stack up... if you dont mind that is.

You do realize that in fact many of these Indy events have comp?

G

I'm still confused about the purpose of the comp score-- what kinds of lists is it designed to punish?

Someone above mentioned the Kan Wall list for orks- if someone tanked the score on that list, would you correct it?

If I ran my Black Templar with 4 Land Raider Crusaders, and my 'theme' score got tanked, would that be corrected?


I'm 100% behind paint and sportsmanship scoring so long as an objective rubric is used. Comp on the other hand-- you said so yourself:

No matter how you come up with the rules some armies will score better than others.

So, why introduce an inherently unbalanced comp score? Sportsmanship and Painting I have some control over-- I have no control over what my opponent thinks is 'in theme' for my force. Further, I've never played Tau-- if I play a Tau player, how am I in any position to judge his force's theme?


I'm not asking idly about the tourney-- Sarge, who posted above, and some other people from our local gaming group were looking at traveling down for the weekend. Comp scoring just makes it a hard sell for many of us (myself included).

Saldiven wrote:Going to a tournament that forces you to modify the list that you ALWAYS play with competitively forces you to stretch your abilities as a list writer and a player.

If you're uncomfortable with that sort of a test of your abilities, then, by all means, stay away....

So wait, its a test of my list writing abilities to take my usual three units of 10 Immortals, make one unit 9 models, and the other 8? Really?

And of course if we don't like it, we can stay away, that's just obvious. And if I were a fence-sitter, these types of responses would cause me not to attend, regardless.

To be fair, I don't think Saldiven is associated with the event.

Or, if he is, he should -not- be in charge of PR

I will post the redistributed point distribution tomorrow. No changes for comp.

Carry on.

G

kartofelkopf wrote:I'm still confused about the purpose of the comp score-- what kinds of lists is it designed to punish?

Someone above mentioned the Kan Wall list for orks- if someone tanked the score on that list, would you correct it?

If I ran my Black Templar with 4 Land Raider Crusaders, and my 'theme' score got tanked, would that be corrected?


I'm 100% behind paint and sportsmanship scoring so long as an objective rubric is used. Comp on the other hand-- you said so yourself:

No matter how you come up with the rules some armies will score better than others.

So, why introduce an inherently unbalanced comp score? Sportsmanship and Painting I have some control over-- I have no control over what my opponent thinks is 'in theme' for my force. Further, I've never played Tau-- if I play a Tau player, how am I in any position to judge his force's theme?


I'm not asking idly about the tourney-- Sarge, who posted above, and some other people from our local gaming group were looking at traveling down for the weekend. Comp scoring just makes it a hard sell for many of us (myself included).

Well,I'm not heading to this tourney,because it's too far a drive from where I live,but here's my 2 cents.

Penalizing armies for identical non-troop units just seems a little silly. I don't know what this really accomplishes,honestly. Like people have already said,it's easy for a lot of units to use wargear/vehicle options to skirt around this rule. However,there's also a lot of staple units in armies that can't,and this severely handicaps those units. If somebody is going to spam 3 LRC's,then they're most likely going to take a comp hit,anyways. Then,their option is to either add a multi-melta or HK missle that they don't really want to two of them,handicapping their army on the table,or take an even further comp hit for indentical units. It just seems redundant,and unfair to some armies. Some Necron players like to spam 15 Destroyers,but really can't because of this rule,because there's no options that allow them to skirt the rule. Plus,it just seems silly that somebody that took 2 broods of Biovores would get penalized for something like this.

I don't have an issue with comp,per say,but comp should done by the organizers and judges,not the players. What somebody who's in their first 40k tourney would consider a beat stick army is going to vary greatly from what somebody who's been a tourney player for 10 years thinks is a beat stick army. A lot of players aren't going have enough knowledge to judge the theme of another player's army. An Eldar army that another Eldar player considers extremely fluffy and thematic may be considered a WAAC list by a 'nid player. Your comp scores are literally at the mercy of the knowledge of the players you play against. The comp score should be determined by the organizers/judges,so at least that way,everybody is on an even playing field in that regard.

I have created a thread in the Discussions forum solely for the intent of discussing how large tournaments are scored. I would greatly appreciate if people would use that thread to discuss the merits and drawbacks for scoring. The purpose of this thread is to simply make people aware of Bolter Beach so they have the opportunity to participate. I fully understand and appreciate how people feel about the subject of scoring. There is no system in place I am aware of that satifies everyone. Comp is subjective and will always be a prickly thorn. If you have a concern you'd like to voice I highly encourage you to discuss these issues over on the new thread I have created over in the Discussions forum.

G

The 5 pts for non-identical units is the epitomy of building a list to win. For 1 pt. I can differentiate my meched up squads with a spotlight and score 5 points per game because of this. This is a bad idea. At first I was thinking this is just if you take duplicates of any unit. Having it only count if they are exact duplicates is just pointless. It forces people to make tiny variations that are superficial just so they can say "Hey, I am not a spammer".

Comp? Come on, who does comp anymore? Comp is something that was created because 2nd edition was so unbalanced and it died out in 4th edition because by then people realized it was unnecessary. Please just integrate those points into the other 3 scores. I think 60% battle, 20% paint, 20% sports is a great and happy medium. Why do we have to go back in time to the dark ages of 40k?