Switch Theme:

Composition Scoring in War Gaming  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User






Army composition scores generally are a subjective based evaluation of the overall "feel" of an army. And as we all have varying viewpoints on what this could mean, you can see how the subjectivity of the score comes into play. To give you some background, I recently attended the WHFB SooiePalooza game in Fayetteville, AR. It was a 2500 point game with high stakes on the line. The top 2 finishers got their way paid to the 2011 GW National Championship in Las Vegas next year. So you can imagine that in order to be in contention you needed all the points you could get. The composition score at the tournament was roughly 25% of your overall score. The interesting thing about the scoring though was that it was NOT done by the judges for the tournament. Instead, it was done by the players. Before the tournament started, each player was handed a random folder with 5 army lists in it. The judges had them numbered to ensure that no one received their own list. Then each player had about 20 minutes to rate each army on its composition. 0 being the worst, and 5 being the best. Thus each player had an opportunity to score a total of 25 points for composition.

I had never played in a tournament which emphasized composition so much. 25% of your overall score is really big and not having played in a tournament with comp score before, I didn't really know or understand what was expected of me. There were NO instructions on what to look for or base your grade on. Thus each score was completely subjective.

How do you grade someone on composition? Do you dock them points for playing with all "cheesy" units? What about if they are being "true" to their army book? Maybe playing with multiples of the same unit is bad - not being diverse enough within the codex? Just because a person is playing with the best unit in his/her codex, does that mean they should only use one of those units? If any of you are students of war, you will note that generals rarely take only one unit of their best troops. If they have the resources available, they will always go for the sure fire win condition. This often means overwhelming their adversary with the most powerful units. You can easily see how this kind of evaluation can be very argumentative and challenging.

On the one hand, I will say that composition can be a very useful tool for evaluating the flavor and use of an army's codex. However, I do not agree with the players providing the composition score. Since, as previously noted, these scores are subjectively based on a person's ephemeral ideas of what makes an army viable, and not on an actual grade scale, then the score is purely left to chance.

Having said that I would have been fine with one or a small select group grading the armies for composition. With a smaller focus group, the odds of varying ideologies are greatly diminished. Consistency has weight again, and the scores do not suffer from the "luck of the draw" (at least as far as comp score is concerned).

On the flip side of that coin, however, I will also say that in a tournament environment where money is on the line (cash, prize support, etc), you could argue that there is no room for composition scoring. The ideology here is that you are competing for the top spot and thus should be allowed to bring any and all means necessary to win. People refer to this as the Win At All Costs (WAAC) approach to gaming. This approach is often criticized since it can take away from the overall enjoyment of the game (another ephemeral experience) because you and/or your opponent are playing with things that are supremely overpowered.

To view the argument in a different way, take a look at other competitive games. Modern team sports could definitely be accused of the WAAC mentality. You don't see the Yankees trying to offset their roster since they have A-Rod and Jeter (tier 1 players) by bringing Yunievsky Bettencourt to their team. Instead you see them, year in and year out, trying to bring the very best talent available to the table to win a championship every year. And for those of you are saying, "you can't compare sports to war gaming," let me ask you this…do you really thin that George Steinbrenner is really in this for the "love of the game?" If you believe that, then I've got a bridge over the Missouri river, I'd like to sell you. No way. He's in it for the all mighty dollar. Sure he probably loves baseball, but winning championships will get you a lot of money.

Closer to home, you could also take a look at Magic the Gathering. Here is a game that has been around in the competitive world since the early 90's. For those of you who never played the game competitively, the deck styles are basically broken down into 3 types. Tier 1 decks, these usually consist of the current "broken" combination of cards from the current block and are usually fairly expensive to put together. Tier 2 decks, these are still good but aren't usually as expensive to build. And lastly, the rest of the decks out there. Each block (3 sets) will have it's own tier 1 decks, of which there are only about 2 or 3, that will generally win just about all of the major tournaments for the year. Plain and simple, if you want to do well competitively in Magic, then you had better play with the "cheese."

So why shouldn't this be true for war gaming at the tournament level? I would say that it shouldn't be. Composition has a place in the environment, but I believe it's better suited at the non-competitive level. Even MTG has Friday Night Magic which is typically a low cost or free event held by shops for players to test new ideas, and allow them to take a step back from the competitive grind. The non-competetative level for war gaming, in my opinion, would be any game where money is not on the line. League games are probably the exception, because they are tailored to camaraderie rather then the WAAC mentality, but are paid to add a level of competition, all be it small.

Opponents to this idea would probably argue that the war game is, at its heart, a game centered in "friendly" competition. And I would agree that the game is, for the most part, a great outlet for feeding the creative whimsy that many of us are subject too. However, as the game does have a competitive element to it and that element is greatly enhanced when placed in a tournament environment, I would argue that the tournament becomes the great divider between the game as a hobby to the game as a sport. And before any of you get your panties in a wad, I am not arguing that the game is an actual sport, but instead using the sport as a comparison to the competitive tournament environment.

Composition scoring does have it's place in the world of war gaming, but I believe that place is better suited to non-competitive games.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/26 17:25:33


"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User






Kilkrazy wrote:Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.


I agree, however, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about the necessesity of it at all

"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I’ve known people who’ve admitted to tanking their opponent’s soft scores for no other reason than to boost themselves in the rankings. I’ve also known tournament judges, suffering from accusations of bias from previous tournaments, to unfairly dock their friends because they wanted to avoid the appearance of holding biases. We don’t live in an ideal world and it’s naïve to implement a system that’s ripe with potential for exploitation and expect the results of such a system to be remotely fair.

By what standard should I judge the “composition” of an army? Why is composition relevant? Why should a player be penalized for incorporating units that are perceived to be powerful and why should a player be rewarded for building an army list that is perceived to be sub-optimal?
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws




Montgomery, AL

I don't use Comp in my tournaments. I have played in tournies that each opponent scored your comp after the game. I tabled a guy and got low comp cause he was made I beat him so bad. I also got low comp in a tie because the guy needed the edge to beat me.

Keep in mind this was a 1500pt game back in early 4th with Blood Angels I had 2 tacts, Chaplin (Non-named), Furry Dred, and a basic Pred, nad 1 Assault squad. Hardly a broken list. Since no one went undefeated, the Comp scores keep me from having a chance at the win.
Comp was 0-10 per game with Max Battle points 25/game and paint 0-10/game

I also don't think players should have a huge say in paint. In a differnt tournament I faced 2 Pro-painters. By that I mean their main source of income was painting figs for people. They judged my painting skills to theirs and of course was found wanting, so they tanked my paint. Not saying I should ever win apainting contest, but to be given a 3 out of 10 when every model is painted to three colors, no over paint, and things are clean is a bit much.

The only score your opponent should decide is Sportsmanship, and I allow them to vote for their favorite paint army and the most votes gets a small bonus to their score. The main paint I score and I have a check list that I use.

On Dakka he was Eldanar. In our area, he was Lee. R.I.P., Lee Guthrie.  
   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






Las Vegas, NV

Comp is for the weak.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

We’ve had a number of these threads over the years.

Personally I think Comp is a nice idea for handicapping tournaments a bit, taking into account the unavoidable fact that GW doesn’t really balance their army books very well against one another, or playtest for extreme builds. And assuming that players in general prefer to see a variety of interesting armies appear at tournaments, as opposed to the 2-3 Tier 1 builds you see at M:tG events.

Currently I think using a council of experienced tournament players, who personally all own and play a variety of armies, to score pre-submitted lists, is the best system out there.

I have seen one good opponent-scored one, though, which I got from Adepticon- Marty (aka Mr. Clean)’s Escalation tournament used the following system at least a couple of times: At the start of the game, players exchange lists, and mark their scoresheet as follows: 0) this list appears to be abusive and unfun to play against; 3) this is a pretty normal tournament army; 5)this list has clearly been handicapped either to be made deliberately weaker or to fit a theme. After the game, you then checked one additional box, to modify the score: 0) Army pretty much what I thought it was; -1) Army harder than it looked; or +1) Army softer than it looked. This is pretty easy, and reduces the impact of sour grapes. You can always tweak the numbers a bit, too, to make it either have more or less of an impact, depending on your preferred points scaling.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Comp and other soft scores were introduced by GW US and are also used in Australia and some European countries.

The UK and some other European countries do not use soft scores.

The problem with soft scores is that they are subjective at best and at worst open to abuse by unscrupulous players.

I understand the idea that soft scores are intended to encourage positive behaviour such as painting your models and being a good sport, however it seems that legislating for these things often brings out the worst in people and is counter productive.

The specific issue of comp scoring arises because army books are badly written, or rather they are not written for competition play. Lists in historical games are limited by the real life composition of armies and can be balanced by points values. 40K is only limited by the 'one size fits all' force org chart.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

Subjective does not necessarily = bad, though. Especially given how much interpretation and negotiation can be involved in simply resolving an unclear rule!

People have been tinkering with these scoring systems for a while, and there are some systems which are less open to abuse than others. I’ve cited a couple of examples in this thread and in the other one going right now.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws




Montgomery, AL

Mannahnin wrote:Subjective does not necessarily = bad, though. Especially given how much interpretation and negotiation can be involved in simply resolving an unclear rule!

People have been tinkering with these scoring systems for a while, and there are some systems which are less open to abuse than others. I’ve cited a couple of examples in this thread and in the other one going right now.


Your check the box, and readjust after the fact can still be used to tank someone. I Mark it's abusive, and then Just what I thought regardless of whats in the list, simply because it gives me a scoring advantage, esp in the case of ties.

On Dakka he was Eldanar. In our area, he was Lee. R.I.P., Lee Guthrie.  
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

Players can always cheat and be douches. Aiming your score sheet to best cater to the lowest common denominator, IMO, is giving in to the worst elements in the hobby.

If I were using that scoring system, I'd take a peek at the lists of anyone who got a zero. If the score didn't seem warranted, and I saw the same thing happen two or three times from the same opponent, I'd boot Mr. Chipmunk.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






I'm not a big fan of this sort of "Everybodys a Winner" mentality.

All it does is adds a variable into an unvariable situation.
1. You either win or you don't. If you don't you now got another excuse as to why you got tagged with the cheese, when you play with your listed army. I/E someone else is bagging you points because they have a way to bag points.

2. It is a proven fact that if you give someone a way to take advantage of a system that they will and in fact do it without a thought in the world when theres serious prize on the line.

3. After the last conversation on the subject, I found it an outright distraction to the next tourny when we start seeing and overhereing discussions on D baggery to the point where I just stopped playing and watching the same "Chosen Few" take turns winning around the local area, and actually see this system almost lead to violence.

It is not subjective, its an unintended loophole.

Scoring should be on playing alone. You want an army contest, that should be seperate. You want a painting contest, that should be second, you want to dog a guy out because he wants to play with a tank army, and your running a infantry gunline? that's too bad.
The bottom line it comes down to is that 1. How many points got wiped off the table? How much is left at the end of the game? Did he wipe out any vehicles or characters and what was the overall score? standard, run of the mill SImple scoring that leaves no room for outside discussion on winning and losing.

I've seen the so called "Box's" and even having them in there has no bearing on the overall tourny.

If I bring my paper cardboard cutouts, have my list presubmitted, then that right there tells me that I'm good to go to play in the tourney, paper cutouts and all.
Why do I need any other competitors approval or judgements on what I come to the table with?

I was allowed to play, so what gives an opponent, I/E someone else who benefits from dogging my points... A say is my list, army, painted units, paint jobs, composition, or whatever else?

Torny participants should have no say in scoring, other then killing units, taking objectives, and playing a game. There outright should be a disinterested 3d party judge/ referee for things of that nature.

Its almost like telling you that you set the speed limits on the roads, and give yourselves tickets if you go too fast.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/24 22:04:11




At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Mannahnin wrote:Subjective does not necessarily = bad, though. Especially given how much interpretation and negotiation can be involved in simply resolving an unclear rule!

People have been tinkering with these scoring systems for a while, and there are some systems which are less open to abuse than others. I’ve cited a couple of examples in this thread and in the other one going right now.


There's a difference between agreeing together to play a game with each other, and the subjectivity involved in awarding scoring points to an opponent on the basis of the fluffiness of their army or how sporting they are.

We all know there are frequent abuses involved in soft scores, and there are none in hard scores. (Barring actual cheating.)

Is the game better off with or without? I don't know. There isn't a reliable method for measuring, so it's impossible to tell.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Comp is always bad. Unless 1 TO thinks he can balance the game better than an entire company...then its still bad.

Lets look at the current games

40k
Besides Necrons and GK being slightly lower tier, pretty much everything else is competitive if built right.

Fantasy
Besides Daemons being slightly OTT and a couple armies being non competitive, pretty much everything is competitive.

So basically all comp is doing is going to great lengths to pull 1-2 armies in each system up to the rest. Punishing everyone so 1 or 2 armies can be on par (note they can still compete, they just need better players) is ridiculous.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I'm opposed to comp, for the usual reasons. Folks should get to use whatever they buy.

All in all, fact is that Warhammer 40K has never been as balanced as it is now, and codex releases have never been as interesting as they are now (new units and vehicles and tons of new special rules/strategies each release -- not just the same old crap with a few changes in statlines and points costs).

-Therion
_______________________________________

New Codexia's Finest Hour - my fluff about the change between codexes, roughly novel length. 
   
Made in us
Hunter with Harpoon Laucher




Castle Clarkenstein

Is the game better off with or without? I don't know. There isn't a reliable method for measuring, so it's impossible to tell.

I measure by how many people show up to play in tournaments. In the NE, there are several 80-100 person tournaments using comp, and thriving. I'm getting far more people for tournaments involving painting and comp than I am for 'Ardboyz.

These threads always go the same way. Over time, anyone that isn't against comp quits posting. At best, you get beat on. At the worst, you're told 'you're an asshat that only uses comp to cheat and let the locals win'. This comment was made after I posted a tournament announcement, by someone who'd never been to one of my tournaments, or even knew me.

One thing to keep in mind, while having your discussions of "why I hate comp", is to refrain from beating on TO's, or critisizing events that many people spend a lot of time putting on, just because they use comp. It won't change peoples minds, it will just result in burnt out TO's, and less events.

....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

Tau are seriously gakked right now. What you are saying is very idealistic at best. A good TO watches over the tourney very closely, reviewing the scores at the end of each round and walking around the tables during the games. Comp can be a tool for a good TO.

G



Timmah wrote:Comp is always bad. Unless 1 TO thinks he can balance the game better than an entire company...then its still bad.

Lets look at the current games

40k
Besides Necrons and GK being slightly lower tier, pretty much everything else is competitive if built right.

Fantasy
Besides Daemons being slightly OTT and a couple armies being non competitive, pretty much everything is competitive.

So basically all comp is doing is going to great lengths to pull 1-2 armies in each system up to the rest. Punishing everyone so 1 or 2 armies can be on par (note they can still compete, they just need better players) is ridiculous.

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

Mikhaila, as usual, speaks the truth from experience.

Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Feasting on the souls of unworthy opponents

mikhaila wrote:Is the game better off with or without? I don't know. There isn't a reliable method for measuring, so it's impossible to tell.

I measure by how many people show up to play in tournaments. In the NE, there are several 80-100 person tournaments using comp, and thriving. I'm getting far more people for tournaments involving painting and comp than I am for 'Ardboyz.

These threads always go the same way. Over time, anyone that isn't against comp quits posting. At best, you get beat on. At the worst, you're told 'you're an asshat that only uses comp to cheat and let the locals win'. This comment was made after I posted a tournament announcement, by someone who'd never been to one of my tournaments, or even knew me.

One thing to keep in mind, while having your discussions of "why I hate comp", is to refrain from beating on TO's, or critisizing events that many people spend a lot of time putting on, just because they use comp. It won't change peoples minds, it will just result in burnt out TO's, and less events.


I think that other factors are in play here. 'Ard Boyz is FLGS supported. I don't have to drive 7 hours to participate in 'Ard Boyz. There are no GTs in the SE (except for a new one....) so getting any gaming in aside from FLGS 6-10 person tournies requires a drive. I'd come to your GT regardless of what the points looked like. Composition, sportsmanship, battlepoints - it doesn't matter. I'm driving 7 hours for a weekend of 40k gaming in a bigger venue than I've had before.

I think if you did a GT without all the softscores, you'd still get as many people. Its a GT - that's the distinguishing factor.

   
Made in us
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

I am very interested in playing in tournament with my wood elves... but not in playing in tournaments with no comp at all.

I like a system I saw mikhaila mention somewhere about a panel reviewing the lists and matching up similarly "powered" ones for the first few rounds. It gives people who didn't max out a puncher's chance of having an exciting game, imho!

There's definitely a place for no-comp style tournies, and 'Ard Boyz has definitely shown that. But it's definitely not how every tournament should be run! There's a reason why comp scores have been around for so long, and will continue to do so- to cut down on people taking what are perceived as unfair or unbalanced armies that take advantage of loopholes in the rules, and the like.

That's also a good point about the TOs, mikhaila- I guess people don't think about that before posting in a knee-jerk reaction to comp discussions. If an event is run well by a TO, comp should somewhat fade into the background imho. I think you have a good system set up for it for your events, from what I've read about them (and hoping to attend one soon, since you're so close by).

Cheers,
Steve / RiTides
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User






To continue on my earlier thoughts...

I would add that, while I don't think comp is ALL bad, I just think it's an outdated system. This game has been around a long time, and hopefully a long time to come. But the difference between then and now is that this game used to be about the "game." Meaning that tournaments were nothing more then people getting together and commenting on the new cool conversions they made and what not.

Today the game continues to have many of those same elements at your FLGS. But it has also has a larger, more competitive following. Just look at the increase in large tournaments over the years. In fact the biggest tell tale sign of the competitive increase is the fact that the game's manufacturer, GW, has introduced the 'Ard Boyz tournaments. Where being D bag is not encouraged, but bringing the cheese is.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/02/25 01:15:57


"So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

Miklila point was great. Typically a childish person will constantly post derivise remark against a TO to the point of hyperbole.


G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Anointed Dark Priest of Chaos






natedawgg wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.


I agree, however, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about the necessesity of it at all


It is very "necessary" so as to ensure that the organizers friends advance or that those they wish not to advance don't...

The tourney you played in had 25% of the score tied to a popularity contest.

The game rules (via Field allowance, points systems, etc.) and army lists( by what they give access to within the bounds of field allowance and points system) should be the tools by which a company purposes army balance and composition.

Once a game system has been released to the public and a codex has been released for it, the horse has already left he gate as far as I'm concerned.

If a list is legal by the standards of the army list and rules of the game in question then it should be allowed and playable. Tourney comp. is a forced, biased and artificial means of doing what the game company whould have done in the first place.


++ Death In The Dark++ A Zone Mortalis Hobby Project Log: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/663090.page#8712701
 
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Woodbridge, VA

I'm thoroughly opposed to "Comp". I should never lose points in a competitive environment for taking a legal army list.
And, if used, there's no way in Hades taht the player's should be invlolved in scoring it. That SooiePlaooza system sounds extremely gakked. Each player received five random army lists and was expected to score all five of them for Comp in 20 minutes? Did they provide codexes, etc to each player as well? I'm willing to bet taht well over half of them had no clue as to what the units in the lists they were grading could do, etc etc.

Now "Theme", ie the "overall feel of the army" can be included as part of the appearance scores an I have no problems with that. But to say that a list is "too hard" so you lose points? No, I totally disagree. Still play in events that have it, cause I like to play.

Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD 
   
Made in us
Hunter with Harpoon Laucher




Castle Clarkenstein

Dashofpepper wrote:
mikhaila wrote:Is the game better off with or without? I don't know. There isn't a reliable method for measuring, so it's impossible to tell.

I measure by how many people show up to play in tournaments. In the NE, there are several 80-100 person tournaments using comp, and thriving. I'm getting far more people for tournaments involving painting and comp than I am for 'Ardboyz.

These threads always go the same way. Over time, anyone that isn't against comp quits posting. At best, you get beat on. At the worst, you're told 'you're an asshat that only uses comp to cheat and let the locals win'. This comment was made after I posted a tournament announcement, by someone who'd never been to one of my tournaments, or even knew me.

One thing to keep in mind, while having your discussions of "why I hate comp", is to refrain from beating on TO's, or critisizing events that many people spend a lot of time putting on, just because they use comp. It won't change peoples minds, it will just result in burnt out TO's, and less events.


I think that other factors are in play here. 'Ard Boyz is FLGS supported. I don't have to drive 7 hours to participate in 'Ard Boyz. There are no GTs in the SE (except for a new one....) so getting any gaming in aside from FLGS 6-10 person tournies requires a drive. I'd come to your GT regardless of what the points looked like. Composition, sportsmanship, battlepoints - it doesn't matter. I'm driving 7 hours for a weekend of 40k gaming in a bigger venue than I've had before.

I think if you did a GT without all the softscores, you'd still get as many people. Its a GT - that's the distinguishing factor.


Quite possibly true. Might even get more.

I run a GT essentially the same way I run our monthly tournaments. ( I say 'I' a lot, but the tournaments I'm running now involve about a half dozen people doing a lot of work, along witht he help of about a dozen more when it's crunch time.) Partly this is because it's what people have come to expect. Partly because I like the format. I really wish there was a way to test it, but data points are thin, and every year it seems the experiment changes.

I have a WFB GT scheduled for July, and I'm thinking about renting more space, and attatching a 30-40 person 40k GT to the event as well. We're talking about running it quite different than the rules set we have for the SVDM. Not because we think one is essentially better, but because we are going to be running over 30 tournaments this year, and it's an opportunity to run a lot of formats. Most likely will have no comp element to it at all. March 20th we made our 'normal monthly' tournament into an Adepticon style Gladiotor event. No comp, obviously).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/25 05:40:29


....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World.
 
   
Made in us
Heroic Senior Officer





Woodbridge, VA

Yeah, Mike, I still plan on getting up there someday. You want to go ahead and mark my army as a "hard" one now or wait until I actually send the list........

Don "MONDO"
www.ironfistleague.com
Northern VA/Southern MD 
   
Made in jp
Hacking Shang Jí






People who don't play with their toy soldiers the way I play with my toy soldiers are not playing with their toy soldiers correctly, and are therefore bad people.



If you don't like comp score tournaments, don't go to those. If you don't like non-comp score tournaments, don't go to those. The fact that both are popular should tell everyone something about how clear this issue is.

"White Lions: They're Better Than Cancer!" is not exactly a compelling marketing slogan. - AlexHolker 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






I don't have a particular problem with 'comp' as a concept but it is usually a band-aid for a problem with the gaming system.

3rd and 4th edition had big problems which comp tried to cover for. Even the worst armies in 5th edition are not as bad as some of the cheese seen in 3rd. Some of the cheese seen in 3rd made the game unplayable. Going to a GT around 2003-2004 when they were doing 250 people really showed these lists and how wrong they were.

I'm not sure comp is needed in 5th, but if people want to do it then so be it. Tournaments are not competitive gaming events to all organizers, to many it is a 'hobby' competition which includes appearance, pub trivia and designing fluff and comp of armies. If they want to advertise and run thier tourney as a hobby competition, so be it. If someone wants to advertise and run a tourney as a purely metagame competition with nothing but battle points, that's cool to.


My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Tilter at Windmills






Manchester, NH

CT GAMER wrote:
natedawgg wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.


I agree, however, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about the necessesity of it at all


It is very "necessary" so as to ensure that the organizers friends advance or that those they wish not to advance don't...


Right after Mikhaila just got done explaining about ignorant people insulting tournament organizers whom they've never met...




Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More 2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++
A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments
The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.

Maelstrom's Edge! 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Mannahnin wrote:
CT GAMER wrote:
natedawgg wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Composition scoring only happens in some GW tournaments.

It isn't needed in other games like WRG Ancients.


I agree, however, I was curious if anyone had any thoughts about the necessesity of it at all


It is very "necessary" so as to ensure that the organizers friends advance or that those they wish not to advance don't...


Right after Mikhaila just got done explaining about ignorant people insulting tournament organizers whom they've never met...



Right, cause someone posted their OPINION on the internet before you, it completely invalidates yours. Duh...

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: