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.

sennacherib wrote:I like comp scores. I didnt used to because i didnt see any problem with fielding a LIST that allowed me to win tournis despite bad luck and sometimes a lack of skill. One list i took on a regular basis worked great. It was hard to loose with. my freinds saw me play it a few times, told me it wasnt fun to play with and talked me into playing different lists. Just my humble opinion.

nice feel, felt, found sales pitch! But I'm not about to drink your coolaid

list with no skill? Bad luck not a problem? I'm calling bs on that...

It's fine you and your friends play with "nice" things but those ideas of what are nice have no place in a competitive setting.

Reecius wrote:@Rising Phoenix

I still see Vanilla Marines winning tournaments or placing well frequently. And not just with Vulkan or Pedro (although Vulkan lists seem to do the best). Khan lists perform well as do some true vanilla lists. I have seen Nids winning events as well, just not as frequently. I think a lot of that has to do with Nids being underrepresented as well.

Those armies are both 5th edition, and have multiple strong choices in all slots. It's really hard to point at one slot and say 'this should be X' (although Hive Guard are close to auto-includes, just because of how weak the rest of the army is to mech).

Do the Tau really have multiple strong units in every slot? The Orks? The Necrons? No. Comp will cost them in a way that it doesn't cost the stronger codices.

Tau have 1 strong HQ, 1 strong elites, 2 strong fast, and 2 strong heavies.

Necrons have 1 (maybe 2) strong HQs, 1 strong elites, 1 strong and 2 very decent fast, and 2-3 strong heavies.

Orks, on the other hand, have two rock solid HQs, 5 strong elites, 2 naturally strong troops (plus the option for more), 2 strong fast, and 3 strong heavies.

The difference isn't that the orks have a deeper bench (even though they do). It's that Tau and Necron troops choices are support units, not fighting units. Winning books have fighting troops. Everything else is gravy.

Nearly any comp system will hurt necrons and tau more than help them.

Just curious, but do you folks think the awarding of a "Best Overall" as the top prize is what causes the comp angst?

Is it the crossing over of aspects of the game, which often do not get along, the root of problems?
Is it really necessary to crown a Grand Supreme Little Darling at an event, or can folks be happy with a First, Second, and Third in various categories like battlepoints, painting, sportmanship, etc?

If it's in my codex, why should I be punished for bring them to a tournament? Who the hell are you to decide that I get -10 points because you're scared of lash lists.

feth you.

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

MVBrandt wrote:Comp penalizes newer players, and those who already have fixed lists and so cannot adjust them to fit around what really is just a new homewbrew game mechanic.

Power gamers with the greatest number of models who take time to "break" comp benefit the most, and ironically are often what comp is used to try and protect against.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/composition-or-how-to-have-not.html

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/04/perils-of-composition-broken-comp.html


Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

I agree, it also penalises you if you dont have wads of cash and time to paint up stuff. In addition I agree with not turning wargaming into magic the gathering. Seriously MtG a standard deck rotates once a year and will cost you £300+ to build. Wargaming is supposed to be beyond 'builds'. A list should help but a player's skill (tempered by luck!) should be the deciding factor, not who can spend £400 on the 'haxxor list from bols/the interwebs/wherever'
If warhammer was meant to be magic it would have tighter rules. Magic rules are tighter than a ducks bum in water.. 40k... well according to some a chaos Daemon prince isn't a daemon.. next of all you'll be telling me an Orc Warboss is not an Ork...

@rising phoenix

I agree that comp ends up hurting the weaker dexes more, who it is meant to help.

But were does all this Ork hate come from? I just don't get it. The Ork dex is savage. Some of the best armies I have ever played have been Orks. It is beyond my comprehension that some people think they are weak. Ah well, to each their own, I suppose.

I just played in a no comp RTT and everyone had a great time. No complaints about comp scores, everyone had fun. Comp just adds another thing to upset people to the mix.

@The RHino

I agree, the best overall title I think is the root of the problem. There should just be 3 or 4 prizes. Best general, painter, sportsman and maybe theme. Give them all equal billing and then everyone is happy, or at least less pissy!

Just a Quickie before i vote... whats Comp o.O?!

Reecius wrote:@rising phoenix

I agree that comp ends up hurting the weaker dexes more, who it is meant to help.

But were does all this Ork hate come from? I just don't get it. The Ork dex is savage. Some of the best armies I have ever played have been Orks. It is beyond my comprehension that some people think they are weak. Ah well, to each their own, I suppose.

They're not weak. They're just lacking in one giant way - survivable methods of killing armor at range. Comp really hurts them there, as whatever the 'solution' (Rokkits on buggies, Lootas, or Kanz (everything else is just kinda bad, yes, that means Deffkoptas) it ends up looking sort of spammy. Comp systems where not more than 1 unit of Lootas can be taken, and Kanz are frowned on... good luck ever killing anything that needs to die.

I'd say they're two or three things away from being very good (1: Ork boyz being stubborn in groups of 10 or more, not fearless, 2: units in transports are automatically put into base-to-base with a close combat unit that destroyed their transport (rather than getting a turn of fire/charge) 3: Zzap guns being strength 3d6 (with ammo runts for rerolls) or Mek boyz in burna squads getting a twin linked Melta gun rather than a Kustom Mega Blasta 4: transports that don't accidentally evaporate).

But really, not an ork thread. I'd happily discuss the codex, which I think is excellent with a few major drawbacks that render them just... okay. Start a thread and pm me

I agree, that this shouldn't degenerate into an Ork discussion. I will kindly disagree with you about their power level as three of the best players in the country all pretty much dominate with them, losing only about 1 in 20 or so games.

@Bloodhorror

If you read the thread, comp is explained in detail.

Essentially it is a system where a tournament or event organizer sets arbitrary limits on what you can bring. For example, a system where you can not bring more than two of the same unit, etc.

The intended purpose is to make the game more "fair" but in practice it rarely, if ever, works.

oh right
thanks!


And no comp shouldn't be allowed... i think thats a bit absurd ¬¬...

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

I almost 100% agree with the sentiments put forward Here.

There is room for all formats and all of them are valid and all competitive.

nkelsch wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

So vote Yes?

Or were you reading a "Yes or No" poll as allowing for answers other than "Yes" or "No"?

I think if we found a way to integrate all of these types of formats into one system, that would be the holy grail of tournaments. That way they would draw more people and make everyone happy.

I like the idea of equal billing for:

Best General
Best Painted
Best Theme
Best Sportsman

You can win more than one category but the prize support and prestige is equal for all four categories.

No comp. Judged painting. Simple rubric for sportsmanship.

Reecius wrote:I think if we found a way to integrate all of these types of formats into one system, that would be the holy grail of tournaments. That way they would draw more people and make everyone happy.

I like the idea of equal billing for:

Best General
Best Painted
Best Theme
Best Sportsman

You can win more than one category but the prize support and prestige is equal for all four categories.

No comp. Judged painting. Simple rubric for sportsmanship.

I kinda think sportsmanship shouldn't really enter into it. Maybe small scores, but I think sportsmanship should definitely be a mandatory bottom type of deal. If someone is being enough of a poor sport that it becomes a serious issue, a judge comes over and takes them aside and talks to them, and if it keeps up, they leave.

If they're not at that level, they're probably being fine.

My problem essentially is that poor sports can do more damage with that score than anything else. There's someone who published in a different location (indignantly) how DashofPepper once insisted that his Boarding Planks allowed him to make attacks on walkers and insisted on asking a judge rather than giving in when his opponent insisted it worked differently. Apparently this was bad sportsmanship and terrible rules lawyering and earned him a goose egg on sportsmanship (I'm not making this up).

I kinda can't see my way into having some sort of competition over this score when you can be goose egged for getting an opponent who has an insane set of house rules and wants them to be followed in tournaments.

At best, maybe make sportsmanship a part of some other score (I did like the Renaissance man approach). If prizes enter into it, people are going to start gaming the system.

You make a good point. I think sportsmanship is pretty much mandatory amongst adults, but a lot of people like to see it at events because it makes them feel better.

Perhaps most spirit or something? Or maybe just the other three categories.

Personally I found sportsmanship scores work best when they are not something you can actually mark someone down on, but that has to be earned instead.

What I mean is something like how many of the events in the PacNW are run, where you give your most sporting opponent a best sportsmanship token or ticket or whatever, and the players that get the most of these get best sportsmanship or whatever. It turns sportsmanship into a competition of how fun you can be, rather than a soft score you can game.

Vaktathi wrote:Personally I found sportsmanship scores work best when they are not something you can actually mark someone down on, but that has to be earned instead.

What I mean is something like how many of the events in the PacNW are run, where you give your most sporting opponent a best sportsmanship token or ticket or whatever, and the players that get the most of these get best sportsmanship or whatever. It turns sportsmanship into a competition of how fun you can be, rather than a soft score you can game.

Sadly Most people who are for comp also see people with stronger lists as poor sports... even when this is the exact opposite of the truth!

And as for the POLL purposes... My intention was to say straight up, no in between answers, which way do you prefer tournaments. Yes there are middle grounds but if you had to choose which way would you go.

Reecius wrote:You make a good point. I think sportsmanship is pretty much mandatory amongst adults, but a lot of people like to see it at events because it makes them feel better.

Perhaps most spirit or something? Or maybe just the other three categories.

One of the things I proposed for my local shop was a "Mister/Miss Popularity" award. This one comes from getting the most "Favorite Opponent" votes at the end of the event. You get one vote, and may only select an opponent you played against.

nkelsch wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

I almost 100% agree with the sentiments put forward Here.

There is room for all formats and all of them are valid and all competitive.

Didn't say there wasn't room for differing formats, etc. I've run and played in 'comp' tournaments. What I said was that THIS POLL has two choices, yes or no. Yes means comp, no means no comp. So a yes answer means yes, you believe comp should be used in tournaments. And there is no maybe or sometimes or anything in-between included as aprt of the poll. Just yes or no. If the person who wrote the poll meant otherwise, there needs to be a third option..................... And as he posted:

frgsinwntr wrote:And as for the POLL purposes... My intention was to say straight up, no in between answers, which way do you prefer tournaments. Yes there are middle grounds but if you had to choose which way would you go.

Sounds like the OPs intent was indeed a yes = mandatory comp.

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I am not saying we 'SHOULD' have comp as a mandatory aspect of tourneys,

Maybe you're not, but that is what the poll asks.............. Should Comp be used in tournaments. Yes or no. Yes would be a vote for mandatory comp, at least, that's the way I read it.

I disagree. Assuming that this pole was for mandatory comp assumes that there is only one valid and correct way to run 100% of tourneys... Which is not true. There are multiple formats and some use comp and some don't both valid.

I almost 100% agree with the sentiments put forward Here.

There is room for all formats and all of them are valid and all competitive.

Didn't say there wasn't room for differing formats, etc. I've run and played in 'comp' tournaments. What I said was that THIS POLL has two choices, yes or no. Yes means comp, no means no comp. So a yes answer means yes, you believe comp should be used in tournaments. And there is no maybe or sometimes or anything in-between included as aprt of the poll. Just yes or no. If the person who wrote the poll meant otherwise, there needs to be a third option..................... And as he posted:

frgsinwntr wrote:And as for the POLL purposes... My intention was to say straight up, no in between answers, which way do you prefer tournaments. Yes there are middle grounds but if you had to choose which way would you go.

Sounds like the OPs intent was indeed a yes = mandatory comp.

Then the OP's poll is based on a flawed premise.

So for people who are not for mandatory COMP but are not against comp in some competitions, where do we answer the poll? This is not a question that has only two valid options, by forcing people to choose either extreme, especially extremes they don't fit in to fully, it is attempting to distort the issue and the thread becomes this weeks troll against softscores.

Biased poll is biased.

And since this OP didn't feel the need to specify 'judged comp' which is what he seems to be talking about, all current formats have COMP via missions and scoring so if you are for any type of mission other than the core rulebook missions then you are FOR COMP via missions and scoring. So I would feel very confident in saying all tourneys should have COMP because currently they all do.

So write your own poll.............. I'll still answer that, no, I do not believe comp belongs in the current tournament scene.

nkelsch wrote:
Then the OP's poll is based on a flawed premise.

So for people who are not for mandatory COMP but are not against comp in some competitions, where do we answer the poll?

It's a pretty simple question, if you are for comp vote yes. In your case where you are not against comp in some competitions then vote yes.

nkelsch wrote:
And since this OP didn't feel the need to specify 'judged comp' which is what he seems to be talking about, all current formats have COMP via missions and scoring so if you are for any type of mission other than the core rulebook missions then you are FOR COMP via missions and scoring. So I would feel very confident in saying all tourneys should have COMP because currently they all do.

As it has been pointed out previously, Comp dictates what you can bring. You get docked points from a total sum of points based on what units you bring, even though your choices were valid choices in your codex.

Missions on the other hand can be approached by any means at your disposal and do not limit your list to what ever the judge thinks is not overpowered this week. It lets the player approach the mission the way they want to, not the way they have to through an arbitrary scoring system.

Until someone presents a good reason for comp, it has no place in a competitive environment.

Grokin wrote:

It's a pretty simple question, if you are for comp vote yes. In your case where you are not against comp in some competitions then vote yes.

It is a slanted question as it forces all people in the middle who feel COMP is ok sometimes to answer 'no' because of the implied interpretation that this poll means 'MANDATORY JUDGED COMP'. You can be against Mandatory Judged COMP but still Like Judged Comp.

Which is why biased poll is biased because it attempts to make the point "SEEEEEE? EVERYONE HATES THE COMPZ!" when that may not actually be the case.

As it has been pointed out previously, Comp dictates what you can bring. You get docked points from a total sum of points based on what units you bring, even though your choices were valid choices in your codex.

Missions on the other hand can be approached by any means at your disposal and do not limit your list to what ever the judge thinks is not overpowered this week. It lets the player approach the mission the way they want to, not the way they have to through an arbitrary scoring system.

Really? You seem to have a real handle on this whole 'comp' thing.

So you mean if a TO judges that mechanized and fast units are overpowered, overplayed and unfair, and he gives everyone who uses fast units negative COMP, then it is unfair..> Even though you are clearly allowed to bring them and play with them, you just lose comp points.

But yet, when you have a mission made by a TO that gives extra kill points for all units that can move over 6" in a single phase which basically punishes fast units making it hard to win, then that *NOT* an arbitrary system that doesn't change on a whim based on what the Mission Writer thinks is overpowered this week? How is giving an all speed army basically an instant loss *NOT* telling you what you can bring?

Hard boys mission 3 would like to have a word with you about the idea that there is no such thing as Mission comp. I cannot think of anything *MORE* arbitrary or focused at 'what is powerful this week' than mission 3 was. And many other events also do this by having special rules like extended nightfight or deployment zones or HQ special scoring explicitly to spoil the metalist of the week on the internet blogs. As soon as we hear one superlist is crushing at a tourney, almost if on cue the very next tourney releases missions that totally are designed to prevent and harm that specific army. Is it coincidence? maybe, it is still COMP.

My impression is people are fine with COMP when they have an opportunity to game the system. *KNOWING* that Mission 3 screws you allows you to tailor a force that is still WAAC but overcomes that mission. The only difference between JUDGED and MISSION is people demand to know the missions upfront so they can game the missions but judging they can't see upfront so they cry unholy about it.

If the missions were private and not released until the day of the event, I guarantee people would be crying about Mission based comp because they didn't have an opportunity to game them. It doesn't mean mission/scoring COMP doesn't exist and isn't alive and well it that people want to be able to game the comp for them to accept it.

Edit: I would think WAACers who want to emphasize win records would like 'judged comp' better. You can then play rulebook missions, have toilet comp and then go 4-0 win record and win best general. In this magical land of 'no judged comp' the TOs will just make biased missions designed to spoil gadget list and powerful metal lists so while you don't have negative comp, you can choke on that auto-loss mission for a 3-1 record and win nothing! Biased missions do much much more to hand metagamers a loss that knocks them out far more than judged comp does. GW even promoted this mission design by making the missions drastically different so you needed to bring a balanced army with aspects of all parts of your codex to not get spoiled by the missions. Which is why Hardboyz mission 3 shows that mission comp still exists and is designed to accomplish the exact same thing as Judged comp... Sending people who bring gadgetlists or 1-trick pony metalists home with no prizes.

By the way, as opposed to comp, if someone made a 'casual tourney' where they wanted to encourage different playstyles, and did something like give each army cool limits or weird starts to armies, I'd be all for that.

For instance, offer an interesting style of IG:

1) Prison battalion - The IG start out with 600 points of prison battallions as troops, and may only take one veterans squad as other troops choices. Artillery may not be taken, but tanks and other support may. (For purposes of this tournament, all standard guardsman may be fielded counts as prison battalion despite WYSIWYG)

While such a format would be clearly unbalanced and silly, and thus not competitive, it would be very cool and fun to build armies in. I think people might enjoy it.

Comp just rewards you for having a codex with lots of quality units and built in redundancies in slots. It's the lazy man's version of the above. Yay, Gun Dreads, Las sponson Predators, and Long fangs with missiles are all ranged HS that trashes light armor to medium armor. I can get good comp by bringing 1 of each! Alternatively, it's done by clever judges who will 'clearly' catch the above, and thus rewards you for 'pulling a fast one on the judges' (or punishes you for accidentally invoking a judge's ire).

The poll does not imply mandatory judged comp ... at all.

It simply implies comp.

Also, the mission/scoring = comp stuff is something you fire off a lot, but not something I think most people buy into. While some extreme examples exist, and while people will opine on their impact extensively, there are no facts to really support that the majority of simpler / better thought out tournament missions really have that much impact on what the best lists / etc are.

Composition judging / scoring / etc. is generally unpopular for a reason. While some like it, and as a result it should not be abolished from tournaments everywhere (people putting in the time to run a tournament should always have final say, and not be bullied by e-polls), trying to redefine comp as being "everywhere and everything lolz" is a little excessive / pointless. I don't know anyone is really buying what's being sold in that regard, so I don't know what the point of extensively repeating it is.

MVBrandt wrote:The poll does not imply mandatory judged comp ... at all.

I was just told I was wrong and it does mean this poll is about Mandatory COMP of the judged kind. Which is why I said the poll was biased if that is how they inteded it to be.

So anyone who believes comp has a place but maybe for not all events is forced to vote 'NO' by the OP's own statement.

Composition judging / scoring / etc. is generally unpopular for a reason. While some like it, and as a result it should not be abolished from tournaments everywhere (people putting in the time to run a tournament should always have final say, and not be bullied by e-polls), trying to redefine comp as being "everywhere and everything lolz" is a little excessive / pointless. I don't know anyone is really buying what's being sold in that regard, so I don't know what the point of extensively repeating it is.

You are blind if you do not think some TOs write missions explicitly to spoil armies. GW explicitly says they do this and has done it for years at their events. The result is the same be it a comp score that brings down your overall total or a Mission designed to sink specific types of armies. It is something to limit what types of armies people bring. How explicitly changing the system to promote specific army builds while punishing other is not COMP... I don't know how you can say that.

I'll say it again. Write your own poll instead of continuing to whine about how this one is 'unfair'. Yes, this poll forces you to choose sides. Yes or no. Deal with it.

NO COMP!

Coming out of WHFB, and the tournies in my area that it entails, I was perpetually sickened by "the comp" and how important it was, how it had to be handled a certain way, and how it had to be subjective. Even when I felt it was "done pretty well" (translated to: "mostly in line with my own biases"), I still would have preferred none.

Granted, WHFB 7th was completely unbalanced, but I would have preferred no comp.

One of the nice things I see in potentially coming back to playing 40k (now that I'm not too interested in 8th Ed WHFB), is that Comp seems to be more generally disdained, or not used, or seen as unnecessary. The varying missions (even from just the BRB) and the books themselves appear to be "balanced enough" where Comp isn't as merited.

I see that as a very big plus; I don't like going to a tournament where what I take gets rated poorly, but an army that is just as bad, but in a "different" or somehow "more accepted" way, gets a much higher score.