Comp at Tournaments

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.

**sourclams**

It can be made less than ideal, but as long as the point level is appropriate (which is something testable/measurable), I don't think it's any less balanced than current 40k while achieving the goal of diverse units and appearance.

**warboss**

Fearspect wrote:It sure is easy to dismiss something a 'fallcy spouting' without actually explaining why.

if you make a grand statement or simply one with nothing to back it up, it's up to YOU to prove it not others to definitively disprove it. i can claim that confucius was actually from louisianna but that doesn't mean its true.

Fearspect wrote:
Of course there is no standard set of rules for running a 40k tournament, but you can get some direction from a few areas:

1) GW no longer advocates comp in any of its own official tournaments, why do you still cling to it?

doesn't the throne of skulls use awards based on how you did relative to others playing your army instead of an overall metric? that's a form of comp.

Fearspect wrote:
2) When units are comped, you have supplanted your own rules onto the Warhammer 40k ruleset, which quite explicitly outlines the use of the force organization chart. Tournament organization aside, the individual games within it are no longer following the rules provided by your books.

um, hate to burst your bubble but EVERY tourney does this in some form or another. ANY time you use a custom mission, you're no longer following the rules provided by your book. ANY time the TO makes a ruling for a question that isn't adequately covered or is confusing, they're effectively making up their own rules.

Fearspect wrote:
All this aside, despite many comp proponents posting within this threat about how great it is, not one example of an actual comp system has been posted here for examination. What exactly are you argueing for if there is nothing that anyone is willing to post that can stand up to any criticism?

use the search function to find the dozens of other threads where they are. the problem is that when you post a comp system people tend to focus on the one or two things that can be gamed/tweaked in order to throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of looking at the overall effect it has on the event. NO comp system is perfect but NEITHER is the game we're using it with. use the sportmanship thread you trolled earlier in the week as an example. mannahiem posted a sportmanship grading scale that overall was very well recieved but you continued to pick at one or two points regardless of how the system worked overall. i get it. you don't like comp or sportmanship and probably painting too. fine. simply play in ard boys where NONE of that will affect your score. simply because you don't like something doesn't mean that its wrong and doesn't belong for the rest of us.

**mikhaila**

Fearspect wrote:It sure is easy to dismiss something a 'fallcy spouting' without actually explaining why.

With some of the things you say, yes it is. Glad we agree.)

Definitely stay away from Adepticon if you don't know what Gladiator is, and think Kill Teams isn't 40k. KT is some whackjob rules set that...oh, dear, did it really appear in a 40k rulebook? fancy that! Guess it is 40k after all. I mention Charity events because they generally have strange rules mean't to make players/and or spectators part with cash for Charity. Strangley enough, the people playing consider them 40k. Templecon did a great one this year, that raised several hundred dollars.

You've got a very narrow veiw of what you call 40k. You also haven't experienced these varieties of 40k. Rather than denounce them, you could just let it go and let other people play the game the way they want to? If it never affects you, what do you care?

**Fearspect**

@warboss: Sorry, warboss, if you are the one that is deciding to make changes, don't you understand that for you to support it, it is you that has to prove it is effective and not the other way around? On another note, thank you for agreeing with me that every comp system has holes in it. That sure is a great argument for using it.

@mikhaila: I know exactly what Gladiator is, I looked it up. In addition I have played at quite a few comped events, and still contend that the game is better without those rules.

Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

**nkelsch**

Fearspect wrote:
Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

I think the restricted ForceOrgs for low point quicker tourneys are pretty effective. 40k in 40minutes and other tourneys are a funw ay to play and there is really no reason for everyone to have a full forceorg and 3 HS slots in a 500point army... not to mention a lot of codexes are not even remotely balanced or fair for under 1000 points. Restricting things like no combined AV over 33, Restricting forceorg slots and restricting wounds and AV work pretty well in those low-point games. The games are fun, and the COMP makes it more fair. Can people game it? Sure... but you then have people bringing an suped up engine to a car race instead of a supersonic jet. People can game the comp but the extremes are less drastic and most times 99% of the people have a good time.

And like they did for fantasy, those years of comp got combined into the core rulebook for the next edition. I really hope 6th edition 40k includes official point totals for competitive play and sliding forceorgs for lower and higher point games.

**imweasel**

Fearspect wrote:Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

+1. Completely agree.

**warboss**

Fearspect wrote:Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

prove you wrong? what's the point. simply look at the other thread and the explanations given for sportmanship; someone did post an effective sportmanship system and you just kept trolling along ignoring the valid points raised and addressed by it. as for every comp system having holes it in... sure... but they're meant to plug even bigger holes caused by a lack of tourney rules in the core 40k set. as for comp proponents "changing" the rules, there are no official tourney rules from GW and comp systems have been a part of GW tourneys (even the official ones) for over 10 years. by advocating that they all be thrown out, you're actually the one advocating change (a change which is unfortunately slowly occuring regardless but nontheless).

**imweasel**

warboss wrote:prove you wrong? what's the point. simply look at the other thread and the explanations given for sportmanship; someone did post an effective sportmanship system and you just kept trolling along ignoring the valid points raised and addressed by it. as for every comp system having holes it in... sure... but they're meant to plug even bigger holes caused by a lack of tourney rules in the core 40k set. as for comp proponents "changing" the rules, there are no official tourney rules from GW and comp systems have been a part of GW tourneys (even the official ones) for over 10 years. by advocating that they all be thrown out, you're actually the one advocating change (a change which is unfortunately slowly occuring regardless but nontheless).

Except that 'effective' sportsmanship system doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Enforce sportsmanship.

Are there penalties? Sure. Insignificant ones. If someone decided to be a total jerk to (on average) half of their opponents, the penalty is miniscule. With zero long standing repurcussions. The paint scores used in the example of the system could have a GREATER effect on the outcome of the tournament than the sportsmanship scoring.

**Saldiven**

Seriously, the answer is simple. If you don't like comp and sportsmanship, don't choose to play in tournaments that have them. There are plenty of tournaments out there that do not have these scores; in fact, the majority of tournaments today do not have them. Please leave be those people that want them without trying to browbeat them into your personal view of how the game should be played.

Honestly, I really don't see what the big deal is. I, personally, have a good time playing in tournaments both with and without soft scores of any type. In the Atlanta area, there are a decent number of both types of tournament, so there are options available for all different preferences. I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over this.

Just as an aside, years ago when soft-score events were the most common, I was on the side of those who wanted more non-soft score tournaments. I believe there is room in the community for both types, and I really cannot understand the mindset of those people who try to force others to accept that their personal view is the way every tournament should be.

**warboss**

imweasel wrote:
Except that 'effective' sportsmanship system doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Enforce sportsmanship.

Are there penalties? Sure. Insignificant ones. If someone decided to be a total jerk to (on average) half of their opponents, the penalty is miniscule. With zero long standing repurcussions. The paint scores used in the example of the system could have a GREATER effect on the outcome of the tournament than the sportsmanship scoring.

if you're a total jerk and continually get marked off on sportmanship for the first half of a tourney, you're likely to be in the bullseye of any competent TO who will either watch you carefully (thereby affecting your level of doucheness for the rest of the time) or simply get ejected before the next round. either way, mannahnin put it best so i'll just quote him and link the other more appropriate thread for the other soft-score debate.

Mannahnin wrote:The first question you need to ask in implementing a Sportsmanship system is:

What is/are your goals?

Is it to reward the Best Sportsmen out there? Is it to encourage good/great Sportsmanship, including specific positive behaviors? Is it to prevent donkey-caves from winning events while being donkey-caves? The system you design or choose needs to support which of these goals you want to accomplish.

Other important considerations are ease of speed and use (IME with a 1-5pt or 1-10pt subjective range, many players ignore reading the criteria; with an objective checklist I believe more players actually read through them, but it adds time), and resistance to "Chipmunking", or dishonestly scoring someone badly as a manipulation of the tournament system.

If you just want to REWARD the Good/Great Sports, you can basically divorce the Sports scoring from the overall scoring, and use one of the above systems. Forced Ranking of opponents is good at creating separation in this department, and if a low score doesn't hurt your Overall chances, you don't need to feel bad about giving a couple of your opponents lower ranks if all of them were good. The system of players having tickets or tokens to give to opponents for a separate prize drawing is also a great approach for this.

If you want to encourage SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS, then the Objective checklist is pretty cool, because it lays out to the community, particularly new players, what behaviors are expected of them by the community.

If you want to PREVENT JERKS FROM WINNING WHILE BEING JERKS, then I strongly suggest Pass/Fail. Although Objective Checklist can do okay in this department, usually a jerk can get most of the points on this list and only lose one or two points per game due to being a nasty, unpleasant SOB.

In most of the tournaments I've run in the past I've used objective checklist questions, but more recently, inspired by clubs like The Warmongers and TFG in NY/NJ, as well as collaborative discussions with The Lost Legion and guys from other clubs, I've devised the following system, which I recently made an article on Dakka. IMO it is the best system I've yet seen for achieving the best balance of the above goals- rewarding good sports, reducing the chance of an donkey-cave winning, and minimizing the impact of guys trying to cheat and manipulate the system, while being quick and easy to use.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/349269.page

Saldiven wrote:Just as an aside, years ago when soft-score events were the most common, I was on the side of those who wanted more non-soft score tournaments. I believe there is room in the community for both types, and I really cannot understand the mindset of those people who try to force others to accept that their personal view is the way every tournament should be.

agreed. all that browbeating just seems so unsportmanlike for a debate.

**imweasel**

Saldiven wrote:Seriously, the answer is simple. If you don't like comp and sportsmanship, don't choose to play in tournaments that have them. There are plenty of tournaments out there that do not have these scores; in fact, the majority of tournaments today do not have them. Please leave be those people that want them without trying to browbeat them into your personal view of how the game should be played.

Honestly, I really don't see what the big deal is. I, personally, have a good time playing in tournaments both with and without soft scores of any type. In the Atlanta area, there are a decent number of both types of tournament, so there are options available for all different preferences. I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape over this.

Just as an aside, years ago when soft-score events were the most common, I was on the side of those who wanted more non-soft score tournaments. I believe there is room in the community for both types, and I really cannot understand the mindset of those people who try to force others to accept that their personal view is the way every tournament should be.

Well just make sure that you tell everyone that your comp and sportsmanship scores are not balanced and you should just be peachy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:
if you're a total jerk and continually get marked off on sportmanship for the first half of a tourney, you're likely to be in the bullseye of any competent TO who will either watch you carefully (thereby affecting your level of doucheness for the rest of the time) or simply get ejected before the next round.

Then why in the world do you need a sportsmanship scoring system?

If the TO is going to adjudicate these things anyways, why have a system that does as lttle as possible to 'enforce' sportsmanship?

**sennacherib**

@ IMweasel Sportsmanship scores are there in part because of Drum roll please.... Pg 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE (Capitolised because its actually written like that in the book) winning is less important than having fun.
some people try to make this game all about winning and since it isnt about crushing your foe face first into the mat and then having a good laugh about how bad you crushed them... sportsmanship is included. Making the game all about winning when the codex are obviously not all fair and balanced (necron, spacewolves ??? Balanced) makes it kindof hard to have a fair match. Yes 40k is so complex and so many different armies can be built that a realistic Comp system is really hard to make. that does not mean that it should not be included in a tourni where all armies are supposed to play and have a fair match. If that is the way that things are going to be played then some armies will never be played in tournis resulting in a decrease in the diversity of both players and armies that support the tournaments. Not at all a good thing for the hobby in my opinion. if you dont like comped events then only play in ARD boys tournis.

**Fearspect**

sennacherib wrote:@ IMweasel Sportsmanship scores are there in part because of Drum roll please.... Pg 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE (Capitolised because its actually written like that in the book) winning is less important than having fun.
some people try to make this game all about winning and since it isnt about crushing your foe face first into the mat and then having a good laugh about how bad you crushed them... sportsmanship is included. Making the game all about winning when the codex are obviously not all fair and balanced (necron, spacewolves ??? Balanced) makes it kindof hard to have a fair match. Yes 40k is so complex and so many different armies can be built that a realistic Comp system is really hard to make. that does not mean that it should not be included in a tourni where all armies are supposed to play and have a fair match. If that is the way that things are going to be played then some armies will never be played in tournis resulting in a decrease in the diversity of both players and armies that support the tournaments. Not at all a good thing for the hobby in my opinion. if you dont like comped events then only play in ARD boys tournis.

You're missing the point, senncherib. No one has yet made a comp system that can't be broken way worse than the rules already allow. It actually puts those looking for fun at a further disadvantage.

**sennacherib**

I acknowledge that 40k is so complex and so many different armies can be built that a realistic Comp system is really hard to make.

Thats why having a judge who looks at the army and either gives it a 1-3-5 score with 5 being cheesey netbuild, and 1 being a army Handcapped by fluff seems like the best way to go.

Its not that hard to look at a 3 battlewagon ork list or SW ML and Razor spam and recognize the difference between that and a Kroot incursion force.

**Mannahnin**

sourclams wrote:And I agree that any comp system, no matter how rigorous, unless it literally boils down to taking preselected armies specifically designed for general balance against each other, good list builders can break it wide open. This is actually one of the reasons I'm staunchly opposed to comp; comp systems simply create another aspect of rules to be gamed. Good gamers will game the rules and get max points or limit the handicapping factor; 'casual' gamers will not do so and often get dinged for having poor comp or an older, more limited codex.

I disagree. IME casual gamers will build a casual army, which will score well on Comp, OR they will build a stronger army, get dinged on Comp, but stand a better chance of winning their games against more serious gamers who are "gaming the system" and have thus toned-down their armies to maximize their comp score. Win-win.

The fact that a comp system creates a metagame for people to play is a feature, not a bug, to my mind. It adds to the depth of the tournament game for the guys who are serious about it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fearspect wrote:Dismiss me all you want by calling what I do trolling, no one has posted an effective comp system yet, just like no one posted an effective sportsmanship scoring system in the other thread. Prove me wrong.

At least two (possibly three) have been listed in the thread, and you've ignored them.

Why should people keep explaining things to you when you just ignore it and stick your fingers in your ears going "la la la I can't hear you comp is bad"?

**Fearspect**

Okay then, why are battlewagon orks 5 points where the Kroot will be a 1? Why not give the Orks 4, or 6 or 10, or 100? How have you defined this scale, and what is the mathematical impact on their overall score?

What is the definition of a cheesy netbuild? How much exactly must one deviate to get a 3 instead of a 5? You start having to mathematically boil down every single list's exact value to an exact amount. 1-3-5 doesn't cut it. It is just not possible to do it correctly.

**Mannahnin**

imweasel wrote:
warboss wrote:prove you wrong? what's the point. simply look at the other thread and the explanations given for sportmanship; someone did post an effective sportmanship system and you just kept trolling along ignoring the valid points raised and addressed by it. as for every comp system having holes it in... sure... but they're meant to plug even bigger holes caused by a lack of tourney rules in the core 40k set. as for comp proponents "changing" the rules, there are no official tourney rules from GW and comp systems have been a part of GW tourneys (even the official ones) for over 10 years. by advocating that they all be thrown out, you're actually the one advocating change (a change which is unfortunately slowly occuring regardless but nontheless).

Except that 'effective' sportsmanship system doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

Enforce sportsmanship.

Are there penalties? Sure. Insignificant ones. If someone decided to be a total jerk to (on average) half of their opponents, the penalty is miniscule. With zero long standing repurcussions. The paint scores used in the example of the system could have a GREATER effect on the outcome of the tournament than the sportsmanship scoring.

Thanks conceding the argument by failing to respond when I took this argument apart last time. What do you think "enforce sportsmanship" means? Physical force? Throwing people out? Read the thread again and do us the courtesy of making SOME effort to actually read what has been said by the people you're disagreeing with. Or stop trolling. It just makes you look bad.

My system works absolutely fine. The size of the penalties is significant and are going to be sufficient in most cases to prevent a jerk from winning the event. That's the purpose, and it succeeds.

Here's the thread I mentioned before, since you were evidently unable or unwilling to put in the effort to understand the math, here some of it has been done for you in relation to last year's Adepticon Championships:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/287345.page

**Fearspect**

Okay, Mannahnin, let's walk through a quick summary of this thread:

1) Beardy posted the first, a checklist which was quickly shown to allow known, successful build styles (Deathwing, razorspam) in while potentially injuring those it is trying to protect.

2) You posted the second one, the 1-3-5 system. There is a short reply above. At the end of the day, it is held to the whim of biases rather than to any hard rules and holds a large potential to simply allow someone to be docked by anyone else. What incentive would someone wanting to win have to give someone a high score? Let the score of the result of the battle stand on its own.

3) Nazdreg began talking about how limiting what units could be played would in fact increase the number of lists you would see. MVBrant went into excellent detail explaining how this isn't true.

4) Beardy then suggested a, 'FOC? Yes/No' comp system. I stand corrected, one comp suggestion exists in this thread that I cannot find any problems with.

5) You then starting talking about raising the points values (which are determined through extensive testing) an arbitrary amount based on repetition in a list. Just like the 1-3-5, how did you pick this amount? How do you know it has resulted in a fair distribution of points?

6) Sourclams listed a 1-1-1-1 FOC comp system, while admitting that it has some large holes in it (namely that some have great options in certainly slots that could completely overpower an army without a response).

7) You went through this thread just like I just did, realized that every comp system (which you strongly support including) listed did not stand up to any analysis, and resorted to just calling me a troll.

Did I miss anything?

**Mannahnin**

You missed where I described the Comp Council system.

Which was in the same post where I posted the 1/3/5 system, and criticized the 1/3/5 system.

You also, apparently, missed each of the FOUR other posts I made referencing it.

Since I've mentioned the Comp Council system in five posts (and other folks have commented on it as well), and you still are acting like you're unaware of it, that gives the appearance that you're not actually doing the opposing side in this discussion the courtesy of reading their posts.

Let's go into the rest of your list:
1. Sure.
2. As I said, it's not perfect. But it's reasonably clear. What incentive? The incentive not to be a douchbag. MOST players are honest and decent human beings. And in any normal scoring system, even if you're a douche, it doesn't actually HELP you to mark your opponent down unless the two of you got a Draw. Your reasoning is flawed.
3. Sourclams and I both explained how MVBrandt was mistaken.
5. Lack of attention to detail on your part. Actually Sourclams raised the concept of reducing the points costs of bad units, and I responded with a brief mention of a similar concept that I had heard of an event doing. We didn't go into detail. It's obviously a system which would require a lot of work and tinkering.
7. See the first section, above.

**sennacherib**

If i understand the argument put forth by the non comp players its something to the nature of this.

players should only be scored by how well their particular army does in each individual game. that way nothing other than poor luck, a poorly designed list, or bad tactical planning will influence the scoring in the tourni.

The only real problem with this view is the fact that not all codex are created equal. can we all agree that some codex are way better than others. This IMHO gives some players (espcially those who rush out and buy the components necessary to build very tough to beat lists) a substantial advantage. That is why most serious tourni players stick to a limited number of codex and some other codex like necrons, GK(for now) and a handful of other codex never really stand a chance at playing on the same level as the newer and certainly much tougher codex.

The only way that the tourni scene will be fair to all parties under the non comp tourni system is if all players are playing new codex. THis leads to less diversity of play. Also younger players and poor players who cannot afford to have whatever the new winning codex happen to be are left in the position of not playing at all or to pay to play in a tournament that will amount to ten hours of having thir butts kicked.

Is their ANY solution besides comp to avoid this outcome. Can any NON comp players suggest a means to make game play better for players who dont have the access to the newer codex.? Any suggestions besides just complaining about the current system which is not fair to everyone else.

BTW. maybe since the number one rule in 40k is largly being ignored by the non comp gamers, they must have missed the part where it actually says that WAAC is of less importance than EVERYONE haveing a good time. So it sounds like they are advocating some sort of system where everyone has a good time. sort of sounds reminicent to comp. scoring.

**MVBrandt**

I didn't see any extensive or effective explanation of my arguments being mistaken. There's a lot of overbearing elitism in this thread. It's divisive, as usually occurs in comp discussions. It's also worth noting that seeing different lists is not the same as seeing a greater variety of lists, especially when those different list have less total units to choose from. Even with comp council, you aren't playing "better" 40k, you're just playing 40k according to the council. Little more of that "we're so smart and proper" attitude. It can turn people off, in the same way that power gamers turn some people off.

Lengthy arguments over it tend to be a waste of time, because you have too much entrenched haughtiness on both sides. We have a couple of ideas in brew to address the comp loving crowd, but there's a shortage of the kind of positive attitude in this thread that you'd want to engage on the subject. I frankly don't get it.

**Mannahnin**

Mike, you've participated in good faith and I'll be happy to go into detail for you this evening. I'm just on my way out the door to my local league's final. I'll get back to you.

**sourclams**

sennacherib wrote:
BTW. maybe since the number one rule in 40k is largly being ignored by the non comp gamers, they must have missed the part where it actually says that WAAC is of less importance than EVERYONE haveing a good time. So it sounds like they are advocating some sort of system where everyone has a good time. sort of sounds reminicent to comp. scoring.

You're making a big goof here. Non-comp does not equate to WAAC. I've only ever seen soft scores reduce the overall level of fun in a tournament, via chipmunking. Truly WAAC guys can use soft scores to dick over their opponents.

Comp scoring often punishes those it's designed to protect, like when a Pedro Kantor Sternguard list gets 2/20 because of too many special characters, max elites, too few troops, etc.

Slapping a comp system on 40k does not suddenly make it more or less fun. It simply adds another system on top of "regular" 40k.

And that's all well and good for normal play, but what is the true goal of a tournament? Is it to provide an event where everyone can mingle and laugh and have a good time? That's a normal day at my game store. A tournament is when you want to ratchet up the level of competition to compete for prizes. On those days, everybody brings their A-game and expects the best man to win.

**mikhaila**

True goal of a tournament is another of those topics that can be debated forever, with many people adamant that what they want is best. It's part of the comp minefield.)

**sennacherib**

@ SOurclams. Everyone wants to bring their A game to a tournament. The fact is that no matter how good your A game is it can never be good enough if you have an older codex and your opponent is running one of the net lists Like razor spam.

Comp is there to address this desparity.

The simpler comp systems while subjective are the best way to go in a game as comlex as 40k. Since we pay to play for a monetary reward, and everyone should be able to play with a realistic and fair chance of winning to encourage larger numbers of people to participate in events, creating more diversity of armies and players and play styles. Comp should be included.

**yeenoghu**

Having read through all the suggestions, I have to say what I think about all attempts at putting a system towards soft-scoring. Sportsmanship "rules" are just as hopelessly pointless.

To base it on FOC is a dumb idea, because some armies lean heavily towards non-troop slots for their A-game (Eldar?) and others lean heavily towards troops (SW?). Likewise some (like my SM for instance) are better off with the minimum HQ I have to take, whereas others (Njal, Eldrad, Mephie for instances) are glad to take an HQ. So this is not a fair assessment of army composition.

Next, minmaxing: Every player knows about 2 wound models with variety wargear upgrades, and having just enough Storm Shields to count for the whole squad.

Everybody knows about long fang missile spam. These are overused to the point of cookie cutter armies because they are good. They exploit a rules loop (in the first case) and exploit a badly thought out Codex (in the second).

This puts any SW player at a loss for composition points, because NOT taking advantage of the ability to make shenanagins out of wound allocation makes you an IDIOT, and taking advantage of it makes you CHEESE. No win situation! This is unfair to SW (who some could argue's very existance is unfair to other armies but that's not the point). I don't see any nob bikers without varied equipment either, because it's a no-brainer. Does that mean all TWC and nob biker players should be deliberately moronic in order to score composition points? Again, fail.

Any attempt to make soft scores into hard scores by assigning an objective scoring system is just a hopeless failure attempt as it is subjective to what the judge's particular bias happens to be.

I have said it in the thread about sportsmanship scores and it applies here too:

If you need a concise system of points to determine whether or not you are being an ass, you are being an ass.

**z3n1st**

yeenoghu wrote:

I have said it in the thread about sportsmanship scores and it applies here too:

If you need a concise system of points to determine whether or not you are being an ass, you are being an ass.

I think that sums it up best, well said!

**sennacherib**

i can agree with the sportsman ship needing a concise system of rules akin to a rubric that you score your opponent on.
something like...
1pt. showed up on time and set up and pregame was completed in a timely manner and completed each round quickly without unnecessary delay
1pt. had all necessary gaming supplies like dice, templates and tape measure and copy of rules and codex.
1 pts resolved rules disputes fairly
1pt was willing to explain codex specific rules and made no effort to concean afformentioned rules to their advantage
2pts remained in good humor throught the match
2pts Did not engage in poor sportsmanship behaviores i.e. Cheering when you rolled poorly, calling your dice, making derogatory comments about your army or other players armies.
2 pts. This was someone that win or loose you would like to play against again.

COMP it has been well agreed apon is to complex for a simple rubric to be used for. COmp should be judeged by the judge seperating armies into armies Handicapped by fluff, Normal tournament army, Abusive cheese army.
In order that players could see examples of these lists i think it would be best to provide them ahead of time with copius examples culled from here on dakka. Players could also email their list to the TO and get a ruling prior to the match so that they would be able to alter their list to a less cheesy makeup. Failure to do so would just lie on the players shoulders.

**Fearspect**

@sennacherib: First off, you need to stop dismissing every good army as being abusive and cheesy. They aren't. No one is using terms of that nature to describe armies that weren't built with a balanced gameplan in mind.

Let's take another example, Magic:the Gathering (M:tG) tournaments. There is no system in place for comp because though stronger (hint: synergistic) lists exist, you are are making a conscious choice to not bring them and thus expected to do less well. If more people let the money talk and did not invest in the older codexes that only support a single truly competitive build, GW would get the message to update on a schedule more akin to M:tG or Privateer Press with Warmachine/Hordes (each army book is rewritten every year or two).

The list of items you listed are definitely excellent items and could just as easily be placed in the tournament packet as player expectations. If someone is breaking it, they are called on it and dealt with by a judge or TO as opposed to leaving my overall ranking further at the hands of an opponent than what resulted on the table. All that being said, it has nothing to do with this thread.

Further to your clear-cut comp divisions (fluff, normal, abusive/cheesy), I ask again: Give me a list that is abusive and cheesy, now tell me the exact changes I would have to make to put it into the normal division. After that, rank every single list an individual can bring and assign it a mathematical value to add to it's points that accurately awards it for the points it gave up in tournament placing to be scored in such a manner.

**dayve110**

I've been following this thread for a while now and i can honestly say i cannot think of any way COMP scoring can be put into place efficiently, effectivly and fairly.
With all the different armies and all the different list options within those armies it would be hard to determine what constitutes a cheese list.

I've had players complain about my own armies' "cheesiness" while others have called them original, interesting, or just plain odd. What constitutes cheese is different from person to person which is why player scoring comp would not work at all. For example 2 players competing for the top spot, and one of them misses out simply because their opponents were slightly harsher with their opinion on COMP scoring.

A comittee would solve some issues, but is still subject to human bias. How many drop-pods does it take to make a themed army? How many drop-pods does it take to make a spam army?

As for a checklist, a few adjustments to most net-lists can get them through with max points.

IMO if you need a "cheesy" net-list to win, then you arn't a good player and will, most of the time, be out-played.