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.

Comp scores nullify the legitimacy of any competition's results. Do players or teams receive handicaps in professional sporting events? No? Why do you think that is?

Horse Racing, Car Racing, Wrestling. Boxing. Salary caps. (Not 'Professional Wrestling', which is defined as entertainment, not sport, since they script it).

Plus, your arguement falls apart fromt the beginning. Warhammer isn't a sport, and the players are not professional. The existance, or lack of, handicaps in professional sports doesn't mean a thing.

I'm not totally against the idea, if it can be made to work objectively instead of subjectively. But it can't. For example, I play Daemons, both 40K and Fantasy. Now if in a fantasy tourney using comp, I bring a all Tzeentch list, fateweaver, bluescribes, a couple other heralds, a unit of flamers, and as many horrors as I can fit in, do you call that themed and therefor good comp, or cheesy, as I've now got 3-4 4th level mages, a smattering of 2nd level mages, a ton of dice to use in the magic phase (and can generate more), cause fear, immune to morale effects of any sort, and have good ward saves across the board? Which is it?

Yep, Mike, all those you mention have objective 'handicaps' or rules. Weight classes in wrestling and boxing, strictly defined. Weight allowances in horse racing, defined. Salary caps, defined. Car racing, huge lists of allowed, non-allowed, stock, this taht and the other. But all objectively defined. Notive the trend. Objectively defined, a set standard that is known in advance.

I have less of an objection to a known objective standard laid out in advance............ May still not like it, but I don't object to it (as much).

dancingcricket wrote:I'm not totally against the idea, if it can be made to work objectively instead of subjectively. But it can't. For example, I play Daemons, both 40K and Fantasy. Now if in a fantasy tourney using comp, I bring a all Tzeentch list, fateweaver, bluescribes, a couple other heralds, a unit of flamers, and as many horrors as I can fit in, do you call that themed and therefor good comp, or cheesy, as I've now got 3-4 4th level mages, a smattering of 2nd level mages, a ton of dice to use in the magic phase (and can generate more), cause fear, immune to morale effects of any sort, and have good ward saves across the board? Which is it?

As it stands now in many of the large WFB tournaments in the northeast US, theme isn't considered as part of comp. Demons of Chaos are generally accepted as one of the 3 best army books in the game, if not the best. The build you have would be seen in any tournament that judges comp as a lower comp army, mainly for the reasons you quoted. 40k has different rules, and that build isn't anywhere near as powerful in 40k as in wfb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

don_mondo wrote:Yep, Mike, all those you mention have objective 'handicaps' or rules. Weight classes in wrestling and boxing, strictly defined. Weight allowances in horse racing, defined. Salary caps, defined. Car racing, huge lists of allowed, non-allowed, stock, this taht and the other. But all objectively defined. Notive the trend. Objectively defined, a set standard that is known in advance.

I have less of an objection to a known objective standard laid out in advance............ May still not like it, but I don't object to it (as much).

Was just anwering the man's question Don. He asked if sports had handicaps. Some do. And doesn't matter, I just don't think professional sports have anything to do with Warhammer.

I agree, they don't BTW, what's your next event? I'm looking at some free weekends coming up in April and later...................

don_mondo wrote:I agree, they don't BTW, what's your next event? I'm looking at some free weekends coming up in April and later...................

Here's what's currently on the calendar. I also may slot in an event on April 17th, probably either no comp 1850 40k, or another WFB ETC tournament. The one we have coming up this weekend is just silly.) Ed and I wanted to run it, thought we'd get 12 people. Slotted it in and it's sold out at 24 spots. Opened it up to 36, sold out in less than a 3 days. Might add more spaces, if we don't have many WOTR players for regionals. Snow wreaked havoc on the first round of WOTR in this area.

Let me know if your coming up, I'll keep the beer cold.

March 6th War of the Ring Forging of Fates Round 2 (semi-finals)
March 5th "Blame Ed Maul" ETC style WFB tournament.
March 20th Big Gunz 40k Tournament (Gladiator style using Adepticon rules. 2250 40k, 1 superheavy.)
March 26th-28th Nothing! go to ADEPTICON!

and check July 24/25. We are going to probably add 40k to the The Big Show, and just rent more space in the mall. If so, we'll run it different than the SVDM. 75-80% battle, the rest in paint. No comp.

April 4th Easter-Closed
April 10th East Coast War of the Ring Forging of Fates, East Coast Finals
April 24th and 25th Philly Phrakus Blood Bowl Tournament. Two one day tourneys.

May 1st and 2nd Flames of War 1750 Late War, National Qualifier, First event in the US ranking system. Run by Battlefront Miniatures.
May 15th 40k 'Ardboyz Round 1
May 22nd Maryland-Jerseyvania WFB Challenge Cup

mikhaila wrote:
Let me know if your coming up, I'll keep the beer cold.

March 20th Big Gunz 40k Tournament (Gladiator style using Adepticon rules. 2250 40k, 1 superheavy.)
March 26th-28th Nothing! go to ADEPTICON!

and check July 24/25. We are going to probably add 40k to the The Big Show, and just rent more space in the mall. If so, we'll run it different than the SVDM. 75-80% battle, the rest in paint. No comp.

Hmmm, looks like July then. March 20, Save The Ta-Tas tournamanet aka Charity tourney benefitting Race For The Cure.

But I'll see you at Adepticon, looks like. I'm in the 40K Team tourney and then the Necromunda event on Sunday.

mikhaila wrote:Plus, your arguement falls apart fromt the beginning. Warhammer isn't a sport, and the players are not professional. The existance, or lack of, handicaps in professional sports doesn't mean a thing.

Sadly, you have missed the point entirely.

What is a tournament about? By definition, it is about competition. In order to see if that end is being served by the design of said tournament we turn to professional sports because professional sports are likewise concerned with competition. Warhammer doesn't have to be a sport to benefit from comparisons to competitive events--it benefits from the analogy merely by having a competitive aspect

Wow someone really struck a nerve; majorly delayed response.

G

Danny Internets wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Plus, your arguement falls apart fromt the beginning. Warhammer isn't a sport, and the players are not professional. The existance, or lack of, handicaps in professional sports doesn't mean a thing.

Sadly, you have missed the point entirely.

What is a tournament about? By definition, it is about competition. In order to see if that end is being served by the design of said tournament we turn to professional sports because professional sports are likewise concerned with competition. Warhammer doesn't have to be a sport to benefit from comparisons to competitive events--it benefits from the analogy merely by having a competitive aspect

Wow, really? You don't understand that professional sports are all about selling tickets, advertising space, promotional fees, and getting to live a movie star lifestyle? Competitions are just what's held to see who gets how much of each. Without money as a driving force, you don't have professional sports. The Olympics is closer to true competition, but still driven to a large extent by money, since no one just trains by themselves and walks on to the Olympics. National pride is on the line, along with huge promotional bonuses for the new superstars. Still lots of competition in sports, but that's not what it's about.)

AH-HA! I figured it out. We aren't talking about the same thing! It's amazing in the days of RAW that no one bothered to define what "tournament" means. (Then again, no ones ever given me a good definition of RAW, that all the people arguing will stick to, either.) If you don't 'define' a word first, you can't use terms like 'by definition'. Hmmm, actually, I guess you can, since you did. Let's change it to, "Shouldn't use them, if trying to use them correctly".

And sarcasm aside, I think it's important for all TO's running any type of gaming event, to define what the event is about, and how they are setting it up to meet those expectations.


You think 'tournament' means some type of competition where we only care about figuring out who the best player of the day is.
'Ardboys style, crappy scenery ok, crappy tables ok, doesn't matter how the guy across the table acts, and screw prizes. We only care about about who the winner is. Design things to go that way. (I'm obviously guessing, btw, since I don't have telepathy, and can only go on the assumption that you care about Competition, and don't care about anything else).

I think of a 'tournament' as a gathering of like minded individuals, that wish to compete with each other while having a good time, talk, tell stories, drink beer, and enjoy other parts of the hobby, such as painting and modeling. To that end I have some rules and scoring that tries to make reality match design.

-I require painted and based models and have a painting component to scoring. The painting criteria include conversions, and a couple points for a nice display board. Some people will paint no matter what, some need a bit of encouragement.
-We require WYSIWYG, since it's a pain to play the game if you don't know what the other guy has.
-We ask that you bring copies of your list for your opponent, as many players like to see the other guys list, and many like to collect them for battle reports later.
-I try to limit arguements, since that's generally though of as a bad thing.
-I try to give out as many prizes as I can.

These are pretty obvious at many tournaments. They aren't done for competition, but to run a good event. There's probably a hundred other things a TO could do, or screw up. Do as much as you can right, and people have a good time.

In the end, that's my goal: Players get together for gaming, and have a good time. All of them, or as many as I can keep happy. Not just the ones that came for a competition.


Ok, I'm done arguing comp for another 6 months. It worked out about how I thought it would. A little beating, one guy accusing me of cheating to let the locals win, and eventually I get tired and go away and leave you all alone to rant.)

One major thing that people are forgetting. There is a large amount of skill required in list building. A comp totally takes this aspect out of the game.

Because you are suddenly "encouraged" to take stupid units and add incoherency to your list.

I have noticed most people who believe in comp, think there is no skill to list building and they can throw whatever on the table. Then when they get stomped, it must be because your codex is OP!


Also, I still have yet to get an answer, what 40k codex is so broken or so terrible that we need a comp system to balance it out?

That is BS as many gamers copy net lists. Spam lists dont take much skill to build.

so, I still have yet to get an answer, what 40k codex is so broken or so terrible that we need a comp system to balance it out?

Questions such as these are purely an exercise in rhetoric and merit no response.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:That is BS as many gamers copy net lists. Spam lists dont take much skill to build.

Oh, where to these people copy lists from? Its not like there is any "best list" for each army. Heck, where is this magical website where you can get a copy of all the tournament winning lists broken down for you?

Green Blow Fly wrote:

so, I still have yet to get an answer, what 40k codex is so broken or so terrible that we need a comp system to balance it out?

Questions such as these are purely an exercise in rhetoric and merit no response.

G

And I don't understand why its a bad idea to make sure something is broken before people try and fix it

solkan wrote:But what good does composition scoring do if an average player with a "hard" list is able to crush an above average player with a "soft" list?

That is a supposition which would need to be substantiated by research findings before we can rely on it as facts which need to be addressed.

Even given the imbalances in 40K, good experienced players have a tendency to come out on top.

Comp systems can actually work for them by giving them a second way of scoring by optimising 'hardness' against the maximum possible comp score.

Timmah wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:
That is BS as many gamers copy net lists. Spam lists dont take much skill to build.

Oh, where to these people copy lists from? Its not like there is any "best list" for each army. Heck, where is this magical website where you can get a copy of all the tournament winning lists broken down for you?

http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/

You post there everyday so it should not be a mystery to you.

Now in my opinion a lot of the lists posted up there are crap and I havent quite a few of them. That is just my opinion though Timmah.

Green Blow Fly wrote:

so, I still have yet to get an answer, what 40k codex is so broken or so terrible that we need a comp system to balance it out?

Questions such as these are purely an exercise in rhetoric and merit no response.

G

And I don't understand why its a bad idea to make sure something is broken before people try and fix it

Sounds like something from the Reagan years...

Kilkrazy wrote:

Even given the imbalances in 40K, good experienced players have a tendency to come out on top.

Seriously, where are these imbalances that everyone keeps mentioning?



I didn't know YTTH was the end all, be all of list building. I guess I should have known since those are the only lists we ever see at non-comped tournaments... oh wait

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Even given the imbalances in 40K, good experienced players have a tendency to come out on top.

Seriously, where are these imbalances that everyone keeps mentioning?



I didn't know YTTH was the end all, be all of list building. I guess I should have known since those are the only lists we ever see at non-comped tournaments... oh wait

If you haven't figured it out yet your only allowed to have an opinion in this thread if it is in lock-step w/ Mikhaila's...

Best to let it die.

NELS1031 wrote:I'm fairly new to tournament play, but I can say I've never seen comp scoring be abused. I believe most folks just read about a comp score horror story and base their assumptions on that, or just make it up completely, as I never see specific details. If I were one to be vindictive, I'd blast that TO on as many forums as I could, but I'm not that kind of person. If I did see comp abuse, I'd chalk it up to human nature and move on, every system in every facet of life gets abused. Its not worth getting heated over, nor does it impede my hobby fun. Its toy soldiers.

Well, the below list just scored a 4/20, 3 points BELOW triple Monolith/Deceiver.

Hive Tyrant — Bonesword & Lashwhip, Stranglethorn Cannon, Adrenal Glands, Hive Commander, Old Adversary, Paroxysm, Leech Essence
2 Tyrant Guards — Lashwhips
3 Hive Guards
3 Hive Guards
2 Zoanthropes — Mycetic spore
Tervigon — Adrenal Glands (10), Toxin Sacs (10), Catalyst (15)
17 Termagants
10 Genestealers
18 Hormagaunts — Toxin sacs
18 Hormagaunts — Toxin sacs
Trygon — Adrenal glands
2 Biovores

I'm not claiming comp abuse, just that weirdness does happen when comp guidelines aren't made available. No one likes to feel blindsided, and some guys did.

Timmah wrote:
I didn't know YTTH was the end all, be all of list building. I guess I should have known since those are the only lists we ever see at non-comped tournaments... oh wait

It's not. In fact no one there has won any big comp/non-comped events as far as I know of.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:

Timmah wrote:
I didn't know YTTH was the end all, be all of list building. I guess I should have known since those are the only lists we ever see at non-comped tournaments... oh wait

It's not. In fact no one there has won any big comp/non-comped events as far as I know of.

G

So there is no place we can just copy the best list from? Meaning list building for events is actually a skill?



(also, still waiting on finding out 40k's imbalances.)

My main objections are twofold. . In a perfect world, Comp scores offset list strength, right?

IE: The more likely my list is to win, the lower my comp score is. The less likely my list is to win the higher my comp score is.

1. Getting an accurate list -> score rating seems impossible. 40k is too complicated of a win/lose matrix to get this to work.

2. If the Comp was perfect, it would still not improve the tourney scene. Currently we are incented to build the best listsr. This would replace that with taking the best lists with comp considered in. What's the advantage?

So there are my objections to comp. Not trying to flame anybody, just saying why I, as a tourney player, always sigh in irritation when I see that a major tourney has comp.

Timmah wrote:
So there is no place we can just copy the best list from? Meaning list building for events is actually a skill?

You can copy a list. But you has to know where to look.

Timmah wrote:
(also, still waiting on finding out 40k's imbalances.)

Please stop with the rhetorical questions... its very snarky and make you look like an @ss. If you want to learn about the unbalance then get off your lazy duff and figure it out for yourself. Is that asking too much??

G

They aren't rhetorical. Your the one that said you can just copy a list and there is no skill in list building.

So I am trying to find out where you think everyone is going to copy there lists for non-comped events.



And I am also trying to figure out the imbalances in 40k. I haven't noticed anything significant since 5th ed started, so I am a bit confused by comp.

If you cant figure it out yourself there is no reason to waste time trying to explain it to ya. You have already discredited your rep.

G

Hi all.
Just a thought.
As PV are allocated arbitarily, using totaly subjective methods in 40k and WH.

Then any attempt to 'correct ' percieved inballance can ONLY be arrived at subjectively.

Is this why many are against comp scores?
The original PV and lists in WH and 40k are subjective BUT everyone has acess to these, well in advance.

And no matter how well intensioned no alterations to the original PV and lists can be PROVEN to be more ballanced.
As any decisions can only be based on the original subjective values, therfore can only be subjective!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If you cant figure it out yourself there is no reason to waste time trying to explain it to ya. You have already discredited your rep.

G

Oh, good one. You realize you have no argument so you tell me I'm not worth your time.

You know what I think would be cool for a GT....

Comp score - every list is judged by a comp score determined by a checklist, and it is used to determine initial pairings. Mike used this strategy. However, the comp score that you get has no bearing on tournament points. I'd like that one.

Painting score - painting score is judged by the same judge/panel across the board. The tournament "requirements" still set forth painted, 3 color, based, etc just to be able to play so that no one shows up with primer armies...but the painting scores are for a parallel prize structure. IE, it wouldn't factor into winning the tournament, but winning the painting event running inside the tournament.

Sportsmanship - this is *really* touchy, and most stories I hear are about people abusing sportsmanship when they get beaten. This would have to be a very clear checklist, of say....10 questions.
1. Did your opponent pick up misses when rolling dice and leave the hits for inspection?
2. Did your opponent put their measuring device on the table to ensure precise measurements?
3. Did your opponent exhibit sufficient knowledge of their codex?
4. Did your opponent exhibit sufficient knowledge of the 40k rule system?
5. Did you and your opponent finish the game?

Stuff like that. Whether sportsmanship should be included in the total point allocation for the main event...hard to say. I've only been to one GT, it didn't have a sportsmanship category, and from what I saw...it didn't need it. People were nice, there were only a few things needing judges to intervene, and those were over unclear rules based on how people from different areas interpret the same rule, and neither knowing what INAT FAQ had to say about it.

Battlepoints: This is the meat of everything.


I guess I'm advocating doing away with best overall. At the tournament where we all go to beat on each other, I want to know who was the bestest. 1st, 2nd, 3rd based on the elements of the competition. Then a second tier of prizes for painting.

And at the end of the tournament, everyone knows who won the tournament, and who did the best painting at the tournament.

If reducing prizes by three spots (best overall, etc) is an issue, toss in player's choice, or favorite theme or something.

I was never a fan of comp scoring. The entire competition should be between list building and actual play with nothing else playing a role. I do say this as a former 40k player.

don_mondo wrote: I do believe that it has an inherent flaw, and that has already been mentioned. Players who have attended his tournies in the past know the comp system, and can game thier lists to it, getting that 'soft' score while keeping a 'hard' army. Players from outside the area or first timers do not know the system, so they're just stuck with the score for whatever they bring.

And Timmah said thins on page 2

"Ok, think about it this way. Your friends are going to influence your opinion of certain armies the most. If the people you play with constantly complain about Nidzilla, Jetseer councils and Double Lash. What do you think this TO is going to think is OP?

Most of the time Comp is completely subjective to what the locals think is OP. Them knowing this gives them a better chance of bringing something under the radar and winning because they get full comp marks with a army anyone else would say is OTT.

I am not saying that it is intentional, but it does happen."


Both of these are excellent points which I have not seen a reply to. They both point out the inherent flaws in the non-published comp system. It would make an extremely frustrating experince for new people who were not 'in the know'.

Dashofpepper wrote:You know what I think would be cool for a GT....

Comp score - every list is judged by a comp score determined by a checklist, and it is used to determine initial pairings. Mike used this strategy. However, the comp score that you get has no bearing on tournament points. I'd like that one.

Painting score - painting score is judged by the same judge/panel across the board. The tournament "requirements" still set forth painted, 3 color, based, etc just to be able to play so that no one shows up with primer armies...but the painting scores are for a parallel prize structure. IE, it wouldn't factor into winning the tournament, but winning the painting event running inside the tournament.

Sportsmanship - this is *really* touchy, and most stories I hear are about people abusing sportsmanship when they get beaten. This would have to be a very clear checklist, of say....10 questions.

Stuff like that. Whether sportsmanship should be included in the total point allocation for the main event...hard to say. I've only been to one GT, it didn't have a sportsmanship category, and from what I saw...it didn't need it. People were nice, there were only a few things needing judges to intervene, and those were over unclear rules based on how people from different areas interpret the same rule, and neither knowing what INAT FAQ had to say about it.

Battlepoints: This is the meat of everything.

I guess I'm advocating doing away with best overall. At the tournament where we all go to beat on each other, I want to know who was the bestest. 1st, 2nd, 3rd based on the elements of the competition. Then a second tier of prizes for painting.

And at the end of the tournament, everyone knows who won the tournament, and who did the best painting at the tournament.

If reducing prizes by three spots (best overall, etc) is an issue, toss in player's choice, or favorite theme or something.

Edited a little to take up less space...

Your idea is close to what I would like to see:

Hardest general - this part of the event has no comp, no painting, no sportsmanship.
Best combined - this would be a seperate tournament based on painting, comp, battlepoints.
Best painted - best painted army (overall) in the tournament.
Best sportsman - best sporstmanship scores overall in the tournament, voted for at the end of the tournament.

Basically, split the tournament into two - one designed for the people who want to play the ultracompetitive lists, and one for the people who want to have a good time and play with their fluffier lists. You'd need to have a fairly large crowd to make it work over the course of a weekend, but given some of the numbers of players, I don't think that it would be impossible. Have players sign up ahead of time indicating whether they want to participate in the combined event or the hardest general event. Have the best painted and best sports awarded at the end of the tournament, but not factor into the combined or the hardest general portions of the event. Finally, publish what the comp criteria are ahead of the event to ensure that people playing in the combined scores know what they are getting themselves into and can tailor their lists appropriately.