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 was responding to the comments about Necrons getting boned becuase someone posted on a Florida Yahoo! Group how my comp system totally shafted his army... then he took it over to YTTH. So in this case I am being particular. But in general I dont ever remember Necrons ever winning any GW GT... well except maybe for Tulio. But anyways some are now saying that Necrons deserve a little help... that is not a good thing IMO. You tell people you are helping one army then other people are going to start wanting some help for GKs. Basically there is a reason you dont see many short people in the NBA but that is not to say they are bad people.

G

G

I think it would be a good idea for people to run non tournament events(like an Apocalypse or Mega Battle game, or narrative tournament/campaign like BoLS is does at their convention) where painting, sportsmanship, and theme are what prizes are given for. For example in Apocalypse it doesn't matter which side wins or loses because the winning team doesn't get prizes. The glory and honor of victory is their only prize(or maybe something like a standard or trophy in the store, etc). This would be completely in the spirit of the game because the losers aren't losing anything and the chance they lose their enjoyment of the game itself is much lower. Then key players get picked out for prizes like best painted, best theme, and best sportsmanship. Now if someone brings an overpowered/cheesy/boring army they aren't penalized and it doesn't help them win much of anything at all.

What aspects of 40K are we trying to accentuate at an event? That is the question the Event Organizer should ask himself. Then plan an event for those elements of the hobby.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was responding to the comments about Necrons getting boned becuase someone posted on a Florida Yahoo! Group how my comp system totally shafted his army... then he took it over to YTTH. So in this case I am being particular. But in general I dont ever remember Necrons ever winning any GW GT... well except maybe for Tulio. But anyways some are now saying that Necrons deserve a little help... that is not a good thing IMO. You tell people you are helping one army then other people are going to start wanting some help for GKs. Basically there is a reason you dont see many short people in the NBA but that is not to say they are bad people.

G

G

I agree 100%-- and that's what's so jolting about seeing the Comp systems some TOs put forth.

Given the impossibility of redressing the problems inherent in 40k (i.e., Necrons and GKs not being competitive), why would a TO shift the blame from GW to themselves by implementing a flawed Comp system?

People who come to play in a competitive environment are already accepting of the imbalances inherent in 40k. If they're still okay with playing competitively, then so be it.


I do like WC_B's idea of running a non-competitive event at tourneys/cons. I love participating in/running narrative campaigns/scenarios.

Lets talk about where comp came from. I did not play in 2nd edition but apparently it was a mess. I've heard of horror stories of armies like all Grey Knight Lvl 4 Psychers casting a power that lets them take another turn repeatedly until your army is destoryed, all IG tanks coming on at the bottom of the last turn from reserves and then shooting you right before the game ends, all jetbike armies that you need 6s to hit in shooting and cannot even hit in HtH, all Warp Spider armies that basically kill anything they point their web spinners at. These kind of things and crazy wargear and psychic powers affected the design of 3rd edition and the current editions followed the same trend. So the need for comp is gone. And yet it remains. I think part of this is due to Fantasy players because there game system has 3 busted books where as in 40k I can not think of a single super overpowered book except for maybe the previous Chaos book and Tyranids from the rulebook before they got their codex in 3rd edition. Comp is a relic of the past, it is no longer needed in 40k.

Comp is also really big in fantasy and there can be cross overs.

I really wish Necrons were better, it would help shift the meta away from mech a bit. That is true and not shifting blame, it is what it is.

G

Comp is big in Fantasy because your army build is like a 2nd Edition 40k build. Tons of points spent on Characters, Special and Rare just like in 2nd edition you barely needed any normal stuff. Also Fantasy has multiple books that are very overpowered where as 40k has one at most, most of the junky books in 40k are only underpowered because they were written before the 5th edition rules set and even then they have advantages from old equipment like old smoke launchers and DH force weapons.

I think the biggest thing TOs can do to balance lists in 5e 40k, without the need for comp scoring, is to take full advantage of Objective missions.

It forces players to construct lists with sufficient Troops to hold at least 2 objectives.

And comments re: Fantasy's hero-hammer are spot-on.

Missions shouldn't be designed to help any army as that would be clearly biased. Everyone knows you need to take lots of troops in 5th edition.

G

Oh, agreed. But just the presence of Objective heavy mission forces players to incorporate more Troops choices.

In 3 and 4e, people did min troops and loaded up on the killy in their E/FA/H/HQ. That seems to happen much less often on 5e.

Yup. Mission-based objectives are the best way to make rounded lists necessary. 40k 5th has gone a long way toward making comp / army handicapping less necessary.

As noted, WH does not have this going for it, and presently has greater army book imbalances, so it's tough to have a good event for WH without comp.

The Green Git wrote:Appearance: I don't think people should get credit towards prizes for armies they don't build and paint. I guess it's fine to buy your way over the entrance requirement of painted and based, but something just sticks in my craw about events where the "Best Overall" brought an army someone else painted and assembled. They aren't the Best Overall... they're the Best General that spent the most money on outsourced painting. If I can pay someone to paint for me, why can't I pay someone to coach me through the game? Or hire a Hooters waitress to bring us beers and load Best Sportsman?

Danny Internets wrote:Worse still, cheating is rampant in this scoring category (painting) because people know they can have their armies professionally painted (or simply have a friend do it) to get max points.

don_mondo wrote:Pro-painted armies. IMO, you didn't paint it, then the points you receive for someone else's work don't get counted towards your overall score. Can't win Overall, can't win Best Painted.

I have a big problem with this line of thought. Many tournaments (at least in the Southeast, where I go to the majority of my tournaments) have done away with best General altogether. I play the game for the sake of the game, not the hobby aspect. I think the models look very cool, but I hate assembling them. I love great-looking armies, but I'm a terrible painter and don't have the time or patience for all the practice to get better. So my purpose for going to a tournament is to get in games against people and armies outside of my typical local gaming group, and maybe try to win. Best General is totally a win in my book, and I'm happy to concede Best Overall to an army that is better than mine overall, even if I were to end up with more battle points.

HOWEVER, if there is no option for Best General, as is the case at a good many tournaments I've attended in the last year or two, the ideas that you guys are proposing pretty much takes away my goal for a tournament. Either my army is poorly painted (meaning I'm not likely to win Best Overall because of low appearance scores) or my army is painted by someone else (meaning I'm ineligible to even be considered for Best Overall if the people above run the tournaments). I'm certainly out of the running for Best Painted or Best Appearance. And I'm not likely to win Best Sportsman either. Not because I'm an a-hole, but because I'm competitive. Therefore I bring strong armies, try to win by the biggest possible margin (i.e. massacre), I'm a stickler on rules points and don't let things slide. That means that even if I'm nice about everything, I'm not winning Best Sport. Which leaves me completely ineligible to win any recognition in a tournament after paying to enter, play all day, mostly likely driving a considerable distance there and back, plus all the work that went into building and testing and learning the army. Defeats the point of going for me.

Some people (here and elsewhere) don't use things like Best General, possibly because of the notion that it'll bring a bunch of WAAC/TFG types out, and make the tournament less fun to the masses. That's perfectly fine by me, unless the proposals above are in place...if having someone else paint my army negates everything I did playing the game at the tournament, there's no point. There should either be a Best General award that has equal standing with Best Painted and Best Sportsman, OR the appearance part of the score for Best Overall should not take into account whether the player actually painted the army. But as the former seems to be disappearing from a lot of places, so I absolutely can't get behind the "no Overall for a commissioned paint job army" idea. It makes perfect sense to exclude those armies for Best Appearance, but to exclude them from Best Overall handicaps some players just as much as a comp system would handicap others.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

kartofelkopf wrote:I think the biggest thing TOs can do to balance lists in 5e 40k, without the need for comp scoring, is to take full advantage of Objective missions.

It forces players to construct lists with sufficient Troops to hold at least 2 objectives.

And comments re: Fantasy's hero-hammer are spot-on.

At a local tournament I went to recently, two rounds were objective-based missions, and in both cases the number of battle points earned depended on how many objectives were controlled. In each case it was necessary to control 4 out of 5 objectives to get max battle points for the round. In one of those rounds a scoring unit could only control one objective. In the other, a unit could control more than one, but they were fixed and were very far apart, so you almost certainly needed one scoring unit per objective. These were known ahead of time to people attending the tournament, and it essentially acted as a little in-game comp system. A buddy of mine who went runs a Terminator spam list with almost min Troops (10-man scout and 5-man scout) with all the rest in TH/SS, LR's, Shrike and Lysander. He had a list that most comp scores (and certainly most opponent-scored comp) would have penalized. But thanks to the missions, there was no need for that...the missions themselves penalized his list. He had to weigh the pros and cons of altering his list to take more scoring units, or just taking the battle points hit. He took the 2nd choice. Come to think of it, the 3rd round in Adepticon did its objectives like that last year...5 battle points per objective controlled. Little bit of a comp requirement right there.

Please forgive me for not reading the entire thread. I've never been in a tournament, but I hope to try one this summer when I finish my guard. Two questions for experienced tourney folks and organizers.

1)Why don't the scoring systems for sportsmanship simply require that you write down a reason for every point after the first point you dock someone. I figure one point is subjective, but beyond that you should at least have a reason. It wouldn't cure all folks from docking sportsmanship soft scores out of spite, but it might help.

2) For painting, couldn't there just be a painting standard that everyone can get full points on if they meet that standard. Then there could be additional points that are only applied toward the "best painted" award, and only available to those who paint the models themselves. This way, someone who paid to have thier models painted, and someone who painted them to good standard both have the same shot at best overall, but only those who paint themselves and achieve a very high standard can get best painted.

1. Probably just because it slows things down (especially if you have to track people down/decipher their handwriting), and it's difficult to enforce. That said, some events do require an explanation/specific complaint to a judge for the lowest scores. TIME is the biggest logistical crunch during a tournament.

2. This is exactly how many events do it.

Comp should be used to put armiess in 3-4 differnet "power" brackets and the armies in these brackets should only fight armies within its own bracket throughout the entire turny.
This will make it so there will be no easy winns because your WAAC amry gewts matched to an average army,the fighting will on equal terms and be more about the players skill since you are more or less fighting
on an equal power basis.

Comp should be done in a giving units/warger +/- to comp, giving a bigger - for the first vehicle in a vehicle squadron and the second in the same squadron gets a lesser - to comp, giving a - to comp if you take more than
one of the same type depending on vehicles, giving a larg - to comp if you take more than for example a predetermined number of dedicated transports of the same type.
That and have have limmits were an army will be illegal if It drops/rises above a certain level comp.
The effect of this is that it takes a little more thought process into creating an army were a smart player cancreat powerfull armies but still be in the "average" bracket by using the comp system effectively in army creation.

A comprehending list of what gives -/+ to comp should be readily available a month or so before amy lists has to be ready, and preferably be openly discussed on an open forum to let players get involved and help spot
and discuss things that seems wrong.

And KP missions should be removed entierly and only mission based objectiv should be used
as even a sight impaired lobotomised baboon could play a kill point mission well with the right army.

I have heard Sweden has a very strict comp scoring system that is applied nationally.

G

Bubbalicious wrote:Comp should be used to put armiess in 3-4 differnet "power" brackets and the armies in these brackets should only fight armies within its own bracket throughout the entire turny.
This will make it so there will be no easy winns because your WAAC amry gewts matched to an average army,the fighting will on equal terms and be more about the players skill since you are more or less fighting
on an equal power basis.

Comp should be done in a giving units/warger +/- to comp, giving a bigger - for the first vehicle in a vehicle squadron and the second in the same squadron gets a lesser - to comp, giving a - to comp if you take more than
one of the same type depending on vehicles, giving a larg - to comp if you take more than for example a predetermined number of dedicated transports of the same type.
That and have have limmits were an army will be illegal if It drops/rises above a certain level comp.
The effect of this is that it takes a little more thought process into creating an army were a smart player cancreat powerfull armies but still be in the "average" bracket by using the comp system effectively in army creation.

A comprehending list of what gives -/+ to comp should be readily available a month or so before amy lists has to be ready, and preferably be openly discussed on an open forum to let players get involved and help spot
and discuss things that seems wrong.

Who comes up with these brackets and points, though? Opinions can (and do) vary wildly about what is over the top or broken, what is weak, what is average. I know in 4th edition there were 2 players in Atlanta who rocked disgustingly nasty Necron armies, who rarely lost in tournament games and routinely walked away from tournaments with one at Best Overall and the other at Best General. And yet the overwhelming opinion of the armies (from people who didn't play against them anyway) was that they were weak. Wouldn't be in the top power bracket. And that's the problem with any kind of comp scoring. Unless a person has played with and against every army, and has seen and used all the different options in a large number of combinations, they can't make a totally informed decision about comp. Some people have biases for or against certain armies or units, whether conscious or not, some people know certain armies intimately but have much less experience with others. And if put up for any kind of debate or vote, no one will be able to convince others of their viewpoint, because one person's biases make another person seem wrong about the rankings, and vice versa.

A system could certainly be put in place, and all it would do is change which armies are the broken, power armies. The competitive players will game the system, find out what builds of armies are the strongest relative to other armies in the same "power bracket," and will use those. The result will still be the strongest armies preying on the weaker ones, with the exception that some codices may not even be able to answer the strong armies without the comp system kicking them into a different bracket. It may actually do more to decrease the parity than to increase it.

Strict com system yes.
It is usualy between 0 - 20 and gives you bonus point depending on the difference in comp that both players get where the one who has the higher comp gets points and the one with lower comp gets points subtracted from his battle score.

This is an extraction from a turney that takes place in a month were you get half of the points difference between comp
Ex. Player A has a comp score of 8 while player B has a comp score of 12. Player A wins a game by 15-5, the difference in comp is 4 so player A gets 2 point subtracted from his overal score and player B gets 2 bonus points

Stuff that usaly are rather lots of minus to for standard marines are all the Land raider variants and vulkan in lists that take advantage of his special rules.
Fore chaos its stuff like tha Land raiders, Demon prince with wings, and stuff like the Lash gets severly hammerd

Minor minus to comp is usaly from exsecive use of stuff like storm shields, lascannons, powerfists, vehicles and certain units that are good.

Every army has its own list for +/- on comp

Painting score is mostly that the army has to be at least 3 colors and look sensible, the models have the equipement modeld on them WSIWYG (even grenades and small stuff), armies are besed with som kind of texture on it and that every model is based the same way, having two easy to read army list with you.
This usaly gives you 2/3 of your painting score with the rest getting added as extras for nicle shading, highlithing, conversions and details.

All of this is alike for the major turnys.

I don't think I would ever play in a tournament that gave someone points for taking certain units. If you find certain things unbalanced/unfair, fine. Ban them outright, or give suitable guidelines before the tourney begins on what is acceptable and what isn't.

Irdiumstern wrote:I don't think I would ever play in a tournament that gave someone points for taking certain units. If you find certain things unbalanced/unfair, fine. Ban them outright, or give suitable guidelines before the tourney begins on what is acceptable and what isn't.

Or how about the TO's just write up a list for every army and thats what they have to play. Solves the whole problem. I am sure most people will say thats a stupid idea, but that is what you are basicly doing when you have strick Comp rules.

Irdiumstern wrote:I don't think I would ever play in a tournament that gave someone points for taking certain units. If you find certain things unbalanced/unfair, fine. Ban them outright, or give suitable guidelines before the tourney begins on what is acceptable and what isn't.

Hang on, you're against giving bonus points if someone fields a cruddy unit, but you'd FAVOR banning units outright? Personally I'd favor the former over the latter. Everyone gets to field the stuff they want, but the guys fielding less-powerful stuff get a slight benefit from a points handicap.

I note that the new Warmachine supplements actually give you more points in your army if you stick to certain strict theme requirements (which often involve using less-powerful units). So Privateer, who are often lauded for designing their games better for a competitive format, have adopted this technique.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jbunny wrote:Or how about the TO's just write up a list for every army and thats what they have to play. Solves the whole problem. I am sure most people will say thats a stupid idea, but that is what you are basicly doing when you have strick Comp rules.

Oh, you mean like The Generals' Challenge?

http://www.oldfartsofwarhammer.com/wfb_files/GenChall.htm

Yeah, that actually does sound like a pretty awesome event. I'd love to try it.

I have very strong feelings about this, but I'll keep my answer short.

• Battlepoints - I think apdepticon does a great job at this, from a scoring perspective. They ahve enough points to truly even out a large field and come out with true winners and losers. That said, I do believe that you need a couple games before true swiss matches up opponents well. I think you could go crazy comping lists in 40k and putting similar strength list up against each other, but really if you know the game you should be able to look at a list and know if it's hard, medium or easy. Break the lists into those groups and have those groups play each other the first two rounds. Sure that means 3rd roudn there will be mismatches, but 4 and 5 will equal out the playing field.

Soft scores:

Appearance - This is something that should really be published ahead of time. Be careful about what you include, and keep the criteria simple. Start with a check list and add scales of 3. Amazing/average/bad. It's really easy to do that way. Are the bases a 1, 2, or 3. Are the conversions a 1, 2, or 3. Is the display board...etc. It's also something that I think is better judged by organizers, and should have a blended score of 3 organizers. Player's choice should factor in but as bonus points.

Sportsmanship - Should be player judged. I think this is very dangerous to create too large of gap in points. Again Amazing/average/bad. Then players favorite opponent at the end should count for a lot. It's kind of a tough category. But really I find the favorite players really jump out at the end.

Theme/Composition - Ok, so I touched up how this should be incorporated in swiss above. That said, are there top builds? Yes. do I think that bringing a strong army should impact you overall score? No. What's the best list in 40K? I promise we can come up with a list to beat it... Every list is beatable. Missions are the ultimate equalizer. It's up to the organizer to level the playing field. That said, I do think it makes sense to try and match hard armies against each other early. Hopefully this means they draw which equalizes out the points. If a top list rolls through the toughest lists in the non comp rounds, then through the swiss rounds, it's likely you are dealing with a damn good general too and he should be in the overall run.

In general, 40k event that have a comp score in the total based on non disclosed criteria often have a winner because of a failed comp score given by the judges... And that sucks more than anything because you lost faith in the event and don't return. It's honestly the only reason I every stop going to a good tourney.

Pete

do they post the adepticon missions and scoring criteria on their website ahead of time?

They post all the rules and scoring system in advance. They don't give you the actual missions, but post sample missions which are very similar, and use the same general structure.

http://www.adepticon.org/10rules/201040Kchamp.pdf

Full breakdown of points for different categories, including scoring guidelines for painting and sportsmanship.

Not sure when/if missions get posted.

So they dock you points if you don't convert any models? Really. that is as lame as it gets, but I have no desire to play in one of their tournaments.

jbunny wrote:So they dock you points if you don't convert any models? Really. that is as lame as it gets, but I have no desire to play in one of their tournaments.

The Adepticon scoring guidelines are both harsh and an ideal. Remember they're trying to pick "best appearance" out of 120 or so armies.

Last year, for the "Championship" (standard RTT format), max appearance was 40 (17% of total available points in the event). There were 148 participants; a single individual got a perfect 40 (he finished 59th overall). Most people fell comfortably in the 18-27 range, provided they brought a tournament-ready army; it mattered far more to your success in the tournament that you were able to pick up the tertiary objectives (10 pts/mission, no draws), than whether your army was full of conversions (4 pts total, if you had extreme conversions).

I like the Adepticon scoring system. They have years of experience.

G

sirisaacnuton wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Pro-painted armies. IMO, you didn't paint it, then the points you receive for someone else's work don't get counted towards your overall score. Can't win Overall, can't win Best Painted.

I have a big problem with this line of thought. Many tournaments (at least in the Southeast, where I go to the majority of my tournaments) have done away with best General altogether. I play the game for the sake of the game, not the hobby aspect. I think the models look very cool, but I hate assembling them. I love great-looking armies, but I'm a terrible painter and don't have the time or patience for all the practice to get better. So my purpose for going to a tournament is to get in games against people and armies outside of my typical local gaming group, and maybe try to win. Best General is totally a win in my book, and I'm happy to concede Best Overall to an army that is better than mine overall, even if I were to end up with more battle points.

HOWEVER, if there is no option for Best General, as is the case at a good many tournaments I've attended in the last year or two, the ideas that you guys are proposing pretty much takes away my goal for a tournament. <SNIP> Defeats the point of going for me.

Hmmm, you did notice that I include myself in the same category you've put yourself into, a fair-to-middling painter who would rather play than paint, right? Sorry that your local tournies don't have Best General, BUT!! the reason for going to a tourney is not to win a prize. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone to 18+ of the 20+ US/Canadian GTs I've been to. There were a couple times I went in thinking I had a decent chance to win something, but only a couple. Hell, I took an all-Scout Space Marine army once. I attended them knowing I wasn't gonna win anything. Yet, I went. Why? Cause it's FUN!!!! That's the point of going. A day of good gaming, hopefully against people you have never (or at least seldom) played against. And if I can do well also, that's a bonus.

Bubbalicious wrote:Comp should be used to put armiess in 3-4 differnet "power" brackets and the armies in these brackets should only fight armies within its own bracket throughout the entire turny.
This will make it so there will be no easy winns because your WAAC amry gewts matched to an average army,the fighting will on equal terms and be more about the players skill since you are more or less fighting
on an equal power basis.

OR........... it ensures that a "soft" comp army wins because he never had to face a good army or player...........................

Bubbalicious wrote:Strict com system yes.
It is usualy between 0 - 20 and gives you bonus point depending on the difference in comp that both players get where the one who has the higher comp gets points and the one with lower comp gets points subtracted from his battle score.

This is an extraction from a turney that takes place in a month were you get half of the points difference between comp
Ex. Player A has a comp score of 8 while player B has a comp score of 12. Player A wins a game by 15-5, the difference in comp is 4 so player A gets 2 point subtracted from his overal score and player B gets 2 bonus points

Stuff that usaly are rather lots of minus to for standard marines are all the Land raider variants and vulkan in lists that take advantage of his special rules.
Fore chaos its stuff like tha Land raiders, Demon prince with wings, and stuff like the Lash gets severly hammerd

Minor minus to comp is usaly from exsecive use of stuff like storm shields, lascannons, powerfists, vehicles and certain units that are good.

Every army has its own list for +/- on comp

So, another comp system that penalizes a player for taking a legal army........? And what happens if player B wins, does player A get bonus points for losing?

OK, tried twice now to fix the improper quote box, hope y'all can fidure out who said what.

don_mondo wrote:

sirisaacnuton wrote:

don_mondo wrote:Pro-painted armies. IMO, you didn't paint it, then the points you receive for someone else's work don't get counted towards your overall score. Can't win Overall, can't win Best Painted.

I have a big problem with this line of thought. Many tournaments (at least in the Southeast, where I go to the majority of my tournaments) have done away with best General altogether. I play the game for the sake of the game, not the hobby aspect. I think the models look very cool, but I hate assembling them. I love great-looking armies, but I'm a terrible painter and don't have the time or patience for all the practice to get better. So my purpose for going to a tournament is to get in games against people and armies outside of my typical local gaming group, and maybe try to win. Best General is totally a win in my book, and I'm happy to concede Best Overall to an army that is better than mine overall, even if I were to end up with more battle points.

HOWEVER, if there is no option for Best General, as is the case at a good many tournaments I've attended in the last year or two, the ideas that you guys are proposing pretty much takes away my goal for a tournament. <SNIP> Defeats the point of going for me.

Hmmm, you did notice that I include myself in the same category you've put yourself into, a fair-to-middling painter who would rather play than paint, right? Sorry that your local tournies don't have Best General, BUT!! the reason for going to a tourney is not to win a prize. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone to 18+ of the 20+ US/Canadian GTs I've been to. There were a couple times I went in thinking I had a decent chance to win something, but only a couple. Hell, I took an all-Scout Space Marine army once. I attended them knowing I wasn't gonna win anything. Yet, I went. Why? Cause it's FUN!!!! That's the point of going. A day of good gaming, hopefully against people you have never (or at least seldom) played against. And if I can do well also, that's a bonus.

Bubbalicious wrote:Comp should be used to put armiess in 3-4 differnet "power" brackets and the armies in these brackets should only fight armies within its own bracket throughout the entire turny.
This will make it so there will be no easy winns because your WAAC amry gewts matched to an average army,the fighting will on equal terms and be more about the players skill since you are more or less fighting
on an equal power basis.

OR........... it ensures that a "soft" comp army wins because he never had to face a good army or player...........................

Yaaa..... Thats a great way of generelazing a whole group of people saying that "soft" comps armies are played by bad players...

Bubbalicious wrote:Strict com system yes.
It is usualy between 0 - 20 and gives you bonus point depending on the difference in comp that both players get where the one who has the higher comp gets points and the one with lower comp gets points subtracted from his battle score.

This is an extraction from a turney that takes place in a month were you get half of the points difference between comp
Ex. Player A has a comp score of 8 while player B has a comp score of 12. Player A wins a game by 15-5, the difference in comp is 4 so player A gets 2 point subtracted from his overal score and player B gets 2 bonus points

Stuff that usaly are rather lots of minus to for standard marines are all the Land raider variants and vulkan in lists that take advantage of his special rules.
Fore chaos its stuff like tha Land raiders, Demon prince with wings, and stuff like the Lash gets severly hammerd

Minor minus to comp is usaly from exsecive use of stuff like storm shields, lascannons, powerfists, vehicles and certain units that are good.

Every army has its own list for +/- on comp

So, another comp system that penalizes a player for taking a legal army........? And what happens if player B wins, does player A get bonus points for losing?

What happens if player B wins? If you tried not to selectively read you could figure that one out on your own.

OK, tried twice now to fix the improper quote box, hope y'all can fidure out who said what.

Comp or not, both have their drawbacks. If you dont whant to play a game that has comp or not dont go to that turny, its as easy as that.

And winning a turny means absolutely squat, it doesent mean that your the best player, it doesent even mean you have the best army since everything is relative. Table layouts differ from table to table and promotes some armies over others, you might not even face a "good" player during the entire turney, or you face a "good" player but the table layout dosent suit him/her.
All the armies arent even balanced properly to each other.
The only way of geting a true skills test in 40k is if you both play identical armies on a mirrored table, even then it wouldent be a true skills test becaues its a dice game...

Bubbalicious wrote:
And winning a turny means absolutely squat, it doesent mean that your the best player, it doesent even mean you have the best army since everything is relative. Table layouts differ from table to table and promotes some armies over others, you might not even face a "good" player during the entire turney, or you face a "good" player but the table layout dosent suit him/her.
All the armies arent even balanced properly to each other.
The only way of geting a true skills test in 40k is if you both play identical armies on a mirrored table, even then it wouldent be a true skills test becaues its a dice game...

This is a patently false line of reasoning. Your same logic could be applied to Poker. Some rounds you get crappy cards, bad flops, etc... If your argument were true, we would see a random assortment of players at the top tables every year. However, there are players who consistently make it to the top tables.

The same is true of 40k (to a lesser degree-- unfortunately the lack of a national tournament structure makes it difficult to gauge). Good players can overcome cold dice, crap terrain, and playing in an unbalanced setting. Half of winning a tournament is designing a list that is flexible enough to deal with a variety of armies, a variety of scenarios, and a variety of terrain setups.

-------

Oh, and for everyone-- how difficult is it to trim your quote boxes? Really, it makes it easier to read and looks less crappy.