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.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:The stated intent?

Games Workshop wrote:'Ard Boyz Tournaments and Schedule

'Ard Boyz Tournaments are a three-part, competitive series of events hosted by Independant Retailers across North America. For the last two years we've hosted 'Ard Boyz Tournaments for both Warhammer 40K and for Warhammer Fantasy. We plan to add War of The Ring to the mix starting in 2010 to make an 'Ard Boyz event for all three of our core systems!

Unlike the traditional tournament format you may be familiar with, that takes into consideration your painting and sportsmanship, the 'Ard Boyz Tournaments focus on one thing and one thing only; how well you play the game! These tournaments are the place to field that nasty list you felt guilty about playing, or that massive horde army you couldn't hope to paint it in time.

They don't say anything about only "winning battles" or "hardest armies" - they say "massive horde that you couldn't hope to paint in time".

Reading comprehension fail.

Funny how you FAIL at calling "fail".

And you still ignore the point that your so-called 'facts' don't prove that non-comp is all about winning any more than comp is.

My major gripe with Comp isn't so much that people necessarily want it in tournaments but rather that it's so subjective and arbitrary.

You have no idea what is considered good comp or bad comp heading into a tournament.

Is spamming units comp? What if the army contains logical fluff elements? Is it ok then? What does "fun to play against" even mean? Does that mean if you lose it wasn't fun?

If you want to prevent spamming I've got a simple solution: Don't allow it at list construction. Simply tell people they can't take more than 2 of a certain unit type. If you think a certain unit type is overpowered then just ban it outright from the tournament. Or only allow people to take 1 squad of it.

Not that I condone those ideas either mind you, but that's basically what comp is doing and if you're going to do that at least leave no room for misunderstanding. Make it clear and concise about what is ok to take and what isn't. That way there are no arbitrary or subjective rulings that impact who wins the tournament the day of.

@skyth:

First, that doesn't change the fact that you FAIL harder at reading comprehension.

Second, my so-called facts are more grounded in reality than your single anecdote.

That is all I have to say to you.

JohnHwangDD wrote: my so-called facts are more grounded in reality than your single anecdote.

Your 'facts' are just as much a single anecdote as mine are...Less, because I was talking about several tournaments in a couple different places.

And they still have nothing to do with non-comp being all about winning any more than comped events do. I believe this is called a red herring.

IME Ogres and O&G can do well with competitive builds. Overall WH is still my favorite game, though the Daemons book is certainly out of hand.

AgeofEgos has hit the nail on the head, for me, though lots of other valid points have been raised or reiterated in the thread.

There are two main purposes to comp.

One is simply to encourage variety. Nearly every comp system succeeds in this regard, as it gives a material bonus to armies which aren’t (typically) cookie-cutter / spam / standard “see it every tournament” lists. IMO this is a manifest good. It makes the play experience more varied, which makes tournaments more interesting. Whether or not the comp system is well-designed, throwing some sort of bone to the guys who want to do something different, or just don’t want to update their armies, or are using less-optimal lists for whatever reason, tends to encourage their participation, thus catering to a larger segment of players, and increasing variety for all players.

Another is to handicap the nastiest armies. This opens up the competitive field more, and gives a larger chance for second-tier armies/lists to compete and potentially win. Again, IMO this is a good thing, and makes tournaments more interesting. IME just about every comp system I’ve ever seen gives a small enough points bonus/range that you’re usually better off fielding a nasty army anyway, because battle points are such a larger share of the available points. Usually comp points don’t add up to more than around a half game’s worth of difference, which in the scope of a 5 game tournament really isn’t much. Strong lists still win. But someone who manages to score high battle points while using a weaker list gets a leg up in the scoring, which is only fair. That said, the big worry with most comp scales is whether the person/people doing the scoring really knows what they’re doing. IME the system that has proved the best in this regard is using a panel of experienced competitive players as judges, and having them anonymously (as in, the lists are stripped of names and identifying details, so favoritism is minimized) judge lists in advance of the event.

When I ran a few tournaments (in 4th edition), I used a checklist system, published in advance, to make things as fair and objective as possible. Over a three game tournament the maximum possible points on the comp scale was ~22, IIRC, which is theoretically about the same as one win. Sounds like a lot, ‘eh? Of course, the actual range of points scored under it gave more like a 6-8 point differential at the most extreme ends.

As Polonius noted, there is frequently a question with subjectivity and validity (how well systems actually reward what they’re trying to reward). There is no easy route to making a comp system work, and there are always going to be some differences of opinion. But IME it’s still usually worth it.

One thing I like about 5th edition 40k is that comp does seem less necessary. The shift in focus to largely objective-based games and the need for Troops already makes the game a bit more fun and troops-focused. This was the first year I participated in ‘Ard Boys, and I’m actually considering entering the Gladiator at this coming Adepticon, something which previously held no interest for me.

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp isn't about winning - it's about variety & diversity,

And you can say that with a straight face? Sorry, comp encourages less diverse builds in my experience.

As a contrary example, I would like to put forward the top ten army placings at the 2009 Crossroads, Colonial, and Conflict GTs, vs. the top ten army placings at the three 2009 UK GT heats. I do remember a bit of the problem you described (with same-y SM lists, etc.) back in 2000-2001, when GW used a single checklist for Rogue Trader tournament comp. But I don’t think that’s currently representative.

Well, I stopped playing when 5th edition hit. Every comped event I went to prior to that had a lot of the 'sameness' problems.

If a comp system rewards 'variety' then it is rewarding a 'one of everything' list which will make all the good comp armies identical or near to it. (See Horst's examples of a good comp list...)

For Fantasy, I don't think even a panel of judges doing the comp makes things fair. Look at the comp issues that came up with Crossroads. Not to mention the way that Crossroads did the pairing (pairing by comp scores) meant that high-comp armies came out ahead even though they theoretically had just as hard of fights as the lower-comp armies.

The best comp system for Fantasy that I can think of is using the WPS, and for each game give the weaker army a VP bonus equal to the WPS score differential divided by 3 or 4.

Skyth, the comp issues at Crossroads were pretty minor. It works well, IME. Last year a min-comp daemons army nearly took the crown despite it being a comped event. You can compete with low-comp or high comp there.

I was just saying that it's a bit unbalanced as even though they theoretically score even in battle (With equally hard fights), the higher comp armies score higher in the overall category.

@Mannahnin: very well put above, thanks.

I still don't understand why army composition is still an issue. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it's pretty arbitrary and at the mercy of what people feel are "cheesy" armies at the time.

You might as well reverse it and say that people who bring "non-cheesy" armies should be penalized for not bringing their A-Game and making it too easy for other people to win.

Also note that any general worth his salt WILL bring the best he has when he can. Nobody should feel the need to purposefully handicap themselves in a competitive environment, especially when they PAY to play.

Spam does not make your army good. In an ACTUAL competitive tournament environment, the likelihood of someone bringing melta-spam NOT coming across an army that could beat it's 12" face in? C'mon.

If you are playing a pickup game or a fluffy campaign and decide to bring a triple land raider army, knowing full well that everyone else is not bringing competitive lists, than you're just a jerk. This has happened MANY times at my FLGS, where that one guy brings a fully optimized list to a fluffy campaign (which, he was VERY aware of). Also note that lists that bring multiples of the same unit can also be fluffy.

For example, why shouldn't Salamanders take multiple heavy flamers and melta weapons? Because it's not fluffy!oh wait...

But with regard to tournaments, NO. army composition is not a useful criteria to score points. Sportsmanship, YES. Painting, YES. Army Comp... what?

Our experiences differ and Your Mileage May Vary.

The closest I come to Comp in my tournaments is bonus points in the missions that generally revolve around having more Scoring Units and not having suicidal HQs.

By the way... What's YTTH?

First off, I laughed a lot at the metaphor Stelek used for this. Shows that the man takes the game a bit too seriously. Secondly, comp isn't forced on anyone. If you go to a tournament with comp scoring, you're not required to make your list any less "hard" than you normally do. At that point you are making a conscious decision to "handicap" your total points to play your list.

I don't know how it works anywhere else, but from all the tournaments I've seen that used comp, comp was only worth about 10 points (at most) on top of battle points (which are majority), sportsmanship and painting. If added all together at a maximum of 200 points (that's if you were to max everything), comp would be only worth 5% of the maximum score. It's not that much to get in such arms about, especially since it's not forced on anyone (like some would claim).

If you really, really, really hate comp scoring, don't go to an event that has it, that's your right to do so. If you choose to go to a tournament that has it, it's your choice whether or not you "adhere" to it. You can only "lose" so many points by making a "hard" list anyway. If you play well, have a good looking army and aren't a complete jerk, you shouldn't worry about comp scoring. And, if all else fails, don't go to the tournament if you don't like how it's run (or scored).

A blog written by someone who was banned from Dakka.

Oh, duh, Stelek's blog... I was drawing a blank on what the acronym was for. Thanks.

Zomro wrote:First off, I laughed a lot at the metaphor Stelek used for this. Shows that the man takes the game a bit too seriously. Secondly, comp isn't forced on anyone. If you go to a tournament with comp scoring, you're not required to make your list any less "hard" than you normally do. At that point you are making a conscious decision to "handicap" your total points to play your list.

If you're getting handicapped that's essentially enforcing comp. Even worse you don't exactly know what's going to handicap you to begin with. A player in a bad mood who you just tabled with your perfectly reasonable army could decide to tank your comp score, and therefore your chances of winning the tournament, and there is nothing you can do about that.

I don't know how it works anywhere else, but from all the tournaments I've seen that used comp, comp was only worth about 10 points (at most) on top of battle points (which are majority), sportsmanship and painting. If added all together at a maximum of 200 points (that's if you were to max everything), comp would be only worth 5% of the maximum score. It's not that much to get in such arms about, especially since it's not forced on anyone (like some would claim).

It depends on the tourney, some tournaments value comp pretty highly. But yes 5% is negligible. In that case why bother with it at all?

If you really, really, really hate comp scoring, don't go to an event that has it, that's your right to do so. If you choose to go to a tournament that has it, it's your choice whether or not you "adhere" to it. You can only "lose" so many points by making a "hard" list anyway. If you play well, have a good looking army and aren't a complete jerk, you shouldn't worry about comp scoring. And, if all else fails, don't go to the tournament if you don't like how it's run (or scored).

The issue at this point are tournaments offering slots to the invitation only GT tournament (which isn't comp mind you). The slots are limited (only the winner and finalist qualify) and some of these qualifying tournaments are comp tourneys. A player can play well get tanked on comp and fail to get a slot because of it. They can boycott of course, but now the slot is going to someone else, and your chance of qualifying for the GT is now reduced because you missed out on a qualifying opportunity.

YTTH is "Yes, the Truth Hurts".

Stelek's blog.

This is all about one guy's comments on the Aussie Tournament scene. One guy who doesn't play in it (he has said so.), but seems to know the ins and outs of it intimately enough to feel he can comment on how bad it is.

Most Australian tournies are more social events than hard-core WAAC fests. Yes, we do have those as well, and they are equally well patronised, but fewer in number.
Comp is one tool used to ensure some more variation in submitted lists - there are 15 or so armies, and it gets boring playing marines (spiky or otherwise) each game.

As has also been stated. Comp is usually advertised when the tourney is announced. If you don't like it, don't come. If you decide to enter, you are agreeing to follow ALL of the TOs rules and alterations, not just some of them. You were forewarned. You don't have an excuse to whine about it.

BTW, to the earlier poster that said that the Northeast is all comp friendly, I'd just like to say that I've played in Syracuse and there didn't seem to be any comp going on.

chromedog wrote:Comp is one tool used to ensure some more variation in submitted lists - there are 15 or so armies, and it gets boring playing marines (spiky or otherwise) each game.

So playing a popular army (not even necessarily a popular build of that army) is enough to get your comp dinged? I know that's not what you meant, but it's not a far stretch for that kind of stuff to happen either intentionally or subconsiously. I know I hate playing against Eldar armies of all stripes, so either as a judge or a player judging my opponent, it's not hard to see where that could bleed through and affect a poor Eldar player's comp score. I would hope that doesn't happen, but I'll be the first to admit I'm only human... just like every other person playing in a tournament.

My problem is subjective comp points leave too much up to interpretation/abuse while checklists unfairly penalize certain armies more than others.

Checklists are fine as long as you have one for each army.

I actually perfer checklists...They are open and honest about what kind of things get dinged and knowing that, you can decide what you are going to use and/or if you are going to support the tournament.

Horst wrote: Taking eldrad+ yriel is a big no no, they are from different craftworlds. Taking vulkan + tigurius is a problem, they are from different chapters.

Yes, because I can't think of any instance in the entire 40k Universe of two Space marine chapters working together in a theatre of warfare.

Oh wait, except for almost every battle described in the Space Marine codex where they do!

(The whole fluff with with Sicarius has him leading a force made up from lamost 5 different chapters at one point!)

Not to mention it says /IN/ the Space Marine codex you can paint up your own models in whatever colours you want and say, This is Commander Bob, of the Emperor's Super Killer Marines Chapter, he uses the Rules for Marneus Calgar.

For example, Captain Octavian of the Blood Ravens 3rd Company. (Counts as Captain Sicarius)



Would you seriously get angry if I used him with my Relicmaster Ravenous model? (Counts as Vulkann Hestann)





By the same vote, you might use Eldrad's Rules for your homebrewed craft world's Farseer, or you might say Eldrad and Yriel have joined their craftworld's forces together for a battle that is in tbe best interest of both their craftworlds!!!

Given the way you paint, You could put down a marine holding a sign saying "Feth you" and I'd be happy to play you

Kevin Nash wrote:
The issue at this point are tournaments offering slots to the invitation only GT tournament (which isn't comp mind you). The slots are limited (only the winner and finalist qualify) and some of these qualifying tournaments are comp tourneys. A player can play well get tanked on comp and fail to get a slot because of it. They can boycott of course, but now the slot is going to someone else, and your chance of qualifying for the GT is now reduced because you missed out on a qualifying opportunity.

You mean you assume the invitational in 2011 doesn't have comp. Nothing about it has been posted, and it's nearly two years away. Probably true, but no one knows what the rules, point value, or system for that tournament is yet.

Yes, some people that don't like tournaments with some kind of comp system may indeed find themselves having to play in them, if they want to maximize their chances of going to Las Vegas. Same way some people that only want to play 1850 might have to play 2000 or 1500 pts, and people that like to paint may find themselves trying to win 'ardboyz to get a slot.

Just something people are going to have to deal with. Their isn't gong to be one rules set for all these tournaments. Some will have comp, or sports, or painting, or be a different point level from what you like. The tournaments aren't being set up and run just so two people can win an invite to LV.

Clearly, if you can win No Comp and a zillion flavors of Comp, you're more worthy of playing at Vegas than some shulb with less breadth in his repertoire.

I don't understand having a comp score that is actually part of the overall tournament standings. If everyone can agree that something is especially egregious to the point of ruining the game, simply ban it, don't make someone drop in the tournament standings just because you're upset that your meticulously crafted and lovingly embellished original space marine chapter army just got curb stomped by generic orks.

As for WHFB, I'm a little more sympathetic to be honest, while a good general can beat daemons being played by a bad general with O&G, theres simply too much army book strength stratification to ignore IMHO. Especially daemons. I know that many Indy GTs will look over submitted army lists and disallow anything that is simply too unsporting. I guess one could say this is arbitrary but its necessary because of GW's brilliance in maintaining game balance. They also give out separate awards, comp and painting along with your generalship go into the 1st overall award, but there is also best painted, best general, best sportsman and so on and so forth.

But that applies only to WHFB, nothing is really broken in 40k, people are just whiny. (This doesn't mean I'm saying that some codexes suck hard, just that theres not one army that utterly destroys everything it touches.)

Aren't the point of tournaments to win? Aren't we here to compete? Why are you bringing substandard tools to a competition? If you want to enter a painting competition, more power to you. Who cares about theme, story, fluff or anything like that in a tournament. If you want to make theme and story a big part of the event, I you would find campaigns much more rewarding than tournaments as (good ones) have a greater emphasis on storytelling and 40k background. I'm all for these things in casual play but I mean, come on, if we have all gathered for a stated purpose why should anyone be penalized for trying their best to win?

I don't know much about the Australian scene, since I'm not an Australian and I don't like to comment on things I don't know anything about unlike some people. However, if most people like it and it indeed more a social thing over there then who cares?


On a side note, Stelek was relevant when he wasn't banned only for the fascination that is akin to a train wreck, I can't imagine much has changed...

These are just my opinions though...

chromedog wrote:

Comp is usually advertised when the tourney is announced. If you don't like it, don't come. If you decide to enter, you are agreeing to follow ALL of the TOs rules and alterations, not just some of them. You were forewarned. You don't have an excuse to whine about it.

This was the point that I was trying to make in my previous post bt you have said it much better.

punkisntdeadyet wrote:I still don't understand why army composition is still an issue. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that it's pretty arbitrary and at the mercy of what people feel are "cheesy" armies at the time.

You might as well reverse it and say that people who bring "non-cheesy" armies should be penalized for not bringing their A-Game and making it too easy for other people to win.

This would be a great idea for making sure new players would be as discouraged from entering tournaments as possible. As such, I'd support it wholeheartedly.

meh, I had a cool idea for how to implement comp in a fair way I think.

First off, all users must submit their lists via email 2-3 days before the GT starts.

Second, all lists are scored for comp by the tournament organizers before the game is played, in a manner announced by the TO before the GT starts. Note that in this system, a low comp score is considered better, while a high score would be considered worse.

Third, first round pairings are determined entirely based on the comp score.

Fourth, for 2nd round and on, add the comp score to the player's total battlepoints. This is the figure used to create pairings from this point on.

Fifth, disregard the comp score after the last round, and do not count it for any prizes, save perhaps a "best army composition" prize or similar. do not factor it into best general or best overall. best general should be pure battlepoints, best overall should be battlepoints + painting + sportsmanship.






This would accomplish my goal of making the pairings more fair based on a limited number of games. My main concern is a guy who brings a good, fair, balanced list on the first round gets his face smashed in by a guy with an over the top list, and from then on has to play catch up to guys who get only lucky matches against other fluffy lists. Let the hard lists fight each other and duke it out.

However, this is also a fair compromise for the player who enjoys bringing his hard list, because it means everyone he plays, save for the final round or so when exceptional players with balanced lists near their points totals, will have similarly styled face pound lists.

I'd consider this a fair compromise between both camps.

So you're just pre-ranking the lists?