PDA

View Full Version : Australian comp



Thud
06-02-2010, 17:16
As I'm listening to an Australian podcast centering on the local tournament scene I'm hearing a lot of talk about comp scores and whatnot.

Personally I've never been a big fan of comp scores, but that's not what this thread is about. What I'm wondering is what actually goes into Australian copm scores? What's considered cheesy and what would get you punished by the comp system?

WinglessVT2
06-02-2010, 20:17
If you take multiples of pretty much anything, you're going to be called 'cookie-cutter,' and lose 'comp points.'

Thud
06-02-2010, 20:20
Even for Troops and units generally perceived as 'weaker' or just for the better units?

And what about Noobhammers? Will taking those cause you to suffer on comp?

WinglessVT2
06-02-2010, 20:26
In Australia, sternguard and plague marines are considered seriously overpowered, and 'cookie-cutter.'
They're going to complain a lot if you take more than two tactical squads in rhinos, because they're - by their own design-philosopy - not able to effectively deal even with light armor, due to units that carry powerful weapons being 'overpowered.'

Radium
06-02-2010, 20:29
Wow, that's a pretty harsh comp system. Or a serious lack of competitive players.

So what kind of list is considered a 'strong' list that is still 'acceptable'?

WinglessVT2
06-02-2010, 20:40
Not a whole lot of them.
It's not so much harsh as it's restrictive. In an environment like that, bad players are still going to be owned by good players, but they won't have anything to fall back on if the good players make serious mistakes, so there's virtually no chance of them ever winning.

You'll probably get decent ratings for something like the following: chaplain on foot, 2x5 tactical squads, 2x10 tactical squads in rhinos, 5x2 assault marines without jump packs in rhino, 1x10 vanguard with all the trimmings, 2x10 devastators, mixed heavy weapons for both units.

Actually, that could lose you points, because the vanguard are so 'cookie-cutter.' They do come with the ability to assault after a deep strike, after all.
Plus you have four troops, and lots of speedy units.

Oh, and you can't have powerfists, because that's 'cookie-cutter.'

Occulto
07-02-2010, 02:31
As I'm listening to an Australian podcast centering on the local tournament scene I'm hearing a lot of talk about comp scores and whatnot.

Personally I've never been a big fan of comp scores, but that's not what this thread is about. What I'm wondering is what actually goes into Australian copm scores? What's considered cheesy and what would get you punished by the comp system?

Lately most events use a panel form of comp which tries to grade the armies objectively. So a bunch of experienced players (who aren't entering the event) are asked to look at the armies, mark down the obvious power combos (lash/oblits, valk spam, etc) and boost those players who've made concessions by picking the "crap" units (possessed, repentia etc).

It's not nearly as harsh or restrictive as WinglessVT2 makes it out to be. Take what he says with a large handful of salt - it's a helluva lot of hyperbole. :rolleyes:

For instance, at the last event I went to, one of the Deathguard players received a respectable 32/50 for comp - which was smack bang in the middle of the field (highest comp was 40, lowest 24). That seems strange for a system that apparently punishes a person for daring to take plague marines, doncha think?

My own list (mechanised DA) scored quite well too (34) and I had plenty of powerfists, so I'm not sure where this idea that taking them is an auto comp hit comes from. :eyebrows:

The intention is not to tell players they can't field X, Y and Z - rather to try and ensure that someone doesn't start off an event with a severe disadvantage because they haven't taken or are incapable of taking a net-list.

Geep
07-02-2010, 03:17
Which podcast was this?

WinglessVT2
07-02-2010, 10:13
I've seen Australians be up in arms over both plague marines and rhinos.

Occulto
07-02-2010, 10:46
I've seen Australians be up in arms over both plague marines and rhinos.

...and I've seen people call almost everything in the game cheese at one point or another. That doesn't necessarily make it so. :p

Thud
07-02-2010, 10:59
Which podcast was this?

Mandollies.

WinglessVT2
07-02-2010, 11:16
"
...and I've seen people call almost everything in the game cheese at one point or another. That doesn't necessarily make it so. " Which makes aussies punishing players for playing two units of sternguard, and double librariians...what, exactly?

Occulto
07-02-2010, 11:41
Which makes aussies punishing players for playing two units of sternguard, and double librariians...what, exactly?

Much as I like to keep up with the local scene, I don't have a photographic memory of every score given out to every army at every event in the nation. There's quite a few of them after all. :eyebrows:

Besides, what exactly is "punishing?" 0/30? 15/30? 29/30?

fluffstalker
07-02-2010, 12:35
lol @ vanguards being cookie cutter. Id advise you to find new tournaments with new rules. The whole continent cant be that bad can it?

PatrikW
07-02-2010, 14:39
lol @ vanguards being cookie cutter. Id advise you to find new tournaments with new rules. The whole continent cant be that bad can it?

Most likely it is a gross overstatement as is often the case as soon as somebody mentions comp scores around here.

I would love to see who they do it down under so if anyone has a link feel free to post it =)

ragnarok14
07-02-2010, 15:10
I think this explains things pretty well:

http://www.wargamingworld.com/BlogRetrieve.aspx?BlogID=3751

Giganthrax
07-02-2010, 15:17
Not a whole lot of them.
It's not so much harsh as it's restrictive. In an environment like that, bad players are still going to be owned by good players, but they won't have anything to fall back on if the good players make serious mistakes, so there's virtually no chance of them ever winning.

You'll probably get decent ratings for something like the following: chaplain on foot, 2x5 tactical squads, 2x10 tactical squads in rhinos, 5x2 assault marines without jump packs in rhino, 1x10 vanguard with all the trimmings, 2x10 devastators, mixed heavy weapons for both units.

Actually, that could lose you points, because the vanguard are so 'cookie-cutter.' They do come with the ability to assault after a deep strike, after all.
Plus you have four troops, and lots of speedy units.

Oh, and you can't have powerfists, because that's 'cookie-cutter.'
Surely, you must be exaggerating? :eek:

If not, then I'm absolutely terrified if that's how things really are in Australia. That's why scrubs should never be allowed to organize tournaments. :cries:

zetaplus
07-02-2010, 15:24
So glad I don't play at tournies.

WinglessVT2
07-02-2010, 15:29
I've seen forums where people whined and raged over how 'overpowered' horde guardsmen are, and the 'cookie-cutter'ness of meltaguns.

They don't want you to take transports, they don't want you to take large units of useful models, they don't want you to take meltaguns, and they absolutely don't want you to take durable units.
Australians will rant and rave endlessly over how 'overpowered' plague marines are, demanding that people never take more than two small units of them - which is hilarious in itself, because if they allowed you to field mobile armies, with low-AP guns, plague marines and other 'durable' units wouldn't be a problem.

Giganthrax
07-02-2010, 15:50
They don't want you to take transports, they don't want you to take large units of useful models, they don't want you to take meltaguns, and they absolutely don't want you to take durable units.
Australians will rant and rave endlessly over how 'overpowered' plague marines are, demanding that people never take more than two small units of them - which is hilarious in itself, because if they allowed you to field mobile armies, with low-AP guns, plague marines and other 'durable' units wouldn't be a problem.
That's what happens when scrubs are allowed to run the show. These sort of players never bother to learn how to deal with an enemy army - they just instinctively call stuff overpowered and want to ban it from play, resulting in total crushing of game balance and an unending chain of bans on units/weapons.

The game is fine as it is. The only comp scores that would make sense is maybe marking the builds that invalidate entire armies (dual lash oblit spam being the only one at the moment), and banning it from tournament play. There's nothing else in entire 40k that warrants such a ban, and certainly not individual units.

Gazak Blacktoof
07-02-2010, 15:52
People seem to mindlessly rage-out at the mere mention of comp. Each system is just one idea of how the game should be. Don't like it? Don't play using those comp. rules.

The game has gone through so many changes over the years and this has resulted in individual codexes with gaping holes and exploits. Comp. tries to correct the flaws in the system without a total re-write.

I don't think calling people "scrubs" or injecting hyberbole and extreme examples that don't actually apply to the system being described is helpful.

Personally I think a peer judged system has many advantages, such as being able to catch armies that attempt to fall through the cracks of a more rigid system. Its a lot of work though and mistakes do get made.

WinglessVT2
07-02-2010, 16:52
Having a restricted system in the name of fairness doesn't really make things fair or balanced.

It only downsizes things.
People are still going to powergame each other, but when you vilify or outright ban certain units, items, or combos, you only pull power away from those who need it the most.

If I wasn't allowed to take my 15 crisis suits, I'd roll you over with stealthsuits instead.
You know this, so you've made it so people who take more than one of any given thing are branded 'cookie-cutter.' Okay.
Fine.

So I take a mix of both types, and there's nothing you can really do about that.
The n00bs get owned hard, because they're not allowed to bring massed firepower, or quality transports, deep strikers, infiltrators, meltaguns, etc.
They complain, and you vilify all tau elites as 'too powerful,' 'imba,' 'unbalanced,' 'cookie-cutter,' or 'overpowered.' Fine.

I take lots of kroot instead, because I now know for a fact people aren't going to bring large units, templates, or any real firepower.
All the n00bs get owned, and you vilify kroot.

This cycle continues until you or I give up, and since I like playing the game, with the models I bought, using rules that everyone who plays the game know, I give up first, and you can have your battles of tactical squads versus tactical squads.

It's like playing smash brothers at tournaments, only somehow more immature.

fluffstalker
07-02-2010, 18:47
Give me the addresses of the tournament organizers in your area.

Im coming for them. *Loads shotgun*.

Seriously though, I doubt that it can be as bad as you make it out to be. Every single tournament in your area plays by these rules and this scrub mindset? Literally every one?

chromedog
07-02-2010, 21:56
That's why scrubs should never be allowed to organize tournaments. :cries:

Scrubs DON'T organise tourneys in Australia.
The majority of tourneys are run by solid veterans (with 10-15 years experience in running events AND gameplay).

Comp is used to ensure a more "civilised" gaming environment. Australian tourneys are more of a "get together with mates - from across the country - share beers and maybe play a few games". GW tried the hardcore BP only tourneys then pulled out of doing them because we don't want them. The Aus. tourney scene is a lot more laid back than the euro/US/UK scenes. Yes, we do have a few people who take the game and success way too seriously as well.

Close games are generally more fun (for both sides) than walkovers. If victory is handed to you, does it feel a little hollow?

Veloxnex
07-02-2010, 22:27
If victory is handed to you, does it feel a little hollow?

NEVAH!!

But on a more serious note, there's really nothing more annoying then building and painting an army to find your gonna be gimped because someone feels something is overpowered.

My club recently ran a large tournament both 40k and fantasy, and in the set up we were looking at putting down a fantasy comp system. 40k isnt as unbalanced as people make out, but fantasy is madness.

The big problem we found after testing a few systems is that you just get a new meta that folks can work around. We ended up with some absolutly rediculous lists that stayed within the confines. It all got scrapped in the end with a blanket "no special characters" for fantasy and nothing on 40k.

And with 70 40k players over the weekend the lists that ended up top were NOT cookie cut lists of cheese. they were good lists run by good generals.
Maybe size of player base is an isssue but i've never seen something remain out of control power level here as the meta changes and peoples allcomer lists add the newcomer.

Is there a lack of adaption in Oz?

And on the people runnig things, i often find that people who played through 3 or 4 editions tend to like piling on restrictions and clamp down on the "cheese". Some people don't like the way the games changed and maybe it's time for them to find a new game not those who don't want to be comped up.

Gain
07-02-2010, 23:29
I'd sure like to know which tournaments have this attitude, because I've never played one where people freak out about taking doubles of units.

Recently I was at Arcarnacon 40k, which at 200 players is Australia's largest tournament. "Soft scores" are considered pretty important there with sportsmanship being the big one. Composition was a factor too, but the system for it was good.

The opponents of an army can tick a box letting the organizers know they think the list is "over powered" and a few veterans amongst the TOs judge whether it's truly an awful list or if the player just had a hard time against it.

I think out of 200 folks, something like 11 got tagged as over powered.

For more information:
http://40k.arcanacon.org/selection.htm

Thud
07-02-2010, 23:46
Recently I was at Arcarnacon 40k, which at 200 players is Australia's largest tournament. "Soft scores" are considered pretty important there with sportsmanship being the big one. Composition was a factor too, but the system for it was good.

The opponents of an army can tick a box letting the organizers know they think the list is "over powered" and a few veterans amongst the TOs judge whether it's truly an awful list or if the player just had a hard time against it.

I think out of 200 folks, something like 11 got tagged as over powered.

But what exactly constitutes over-powered?

I get the panel comp thingy, but what is considered over-powered?

How would my Eldar mech army go down, for example? (4 Serpents, 3 with Fire Dragons, 1 with Dire Avengers, 2 DAVU Falcons, 2 Vypers)

Occulto
07-02-2010, 23:46
Surely, you must be exaggerating? :eek:

He is. I'd like to know if he's attended an Australian event or just seen a bit of whinging on Yes The Truth Hurts. :p


If not, then I'm absolutely terrified if that's how things really are in Australia. That's why scrubs should never be allowed to organize tournaments. :cries:

There's absolutely nothing stopping people from running non-comp events down here.

It's not like there's some all-powerful tournament illuminati that have a stranglehold on the scene. :rolleyes: In fact, it's quite the opposite - existing TOs have constantly said they're quite willing to help out newbie TOs run events if they need assistance or advice.

The problem that's always struck me, is that those most vocal about how comp's bad for the game rarely put their money where their mouths are and run their own non-comp events. Which strikes me as weird - if there's this huge undercurrent of players who'd attend events but are scared by the comp bogey-man, then surely these events would take off and become just as successful as the big events like Arcanacon, Cancon and Terracon.

Instead the anti-compers seem to be content to just whinge, call people "scrubs" or "uncompetitive" and try to bully existing TOs into changing the way current events are run.

That's their right, but it's also the right of the TO to look at his or her attendance numbers and say: "doesn't look broke to me, so why fix it?"

Finally, for those interested in cut-throat, no-holds barred gaming. The vast majority of events award the Best General prize which is awarded by battle points alone. No comp, no sports, no painting - just pure, raw gameplay.


How would my Eldar mech army go down, for example? (4 Serpents, 3 with Fire Dragons, 1 with Dire Avengers, 2 DAVU Falcons, 2 Vypers)

Hard to tell from just that. You got it the list in a more complete format?

ragnarok14
07-02-2010, 23:52
I hate to repeat myself but here is what I linked to for those who dont like clicking links. I think it explains how it came about an has evolved to the current situation pretty well IMHO.


Comp or no Comp

Is anybody else sick of whinging about comp at events? I am, and I hope this inaugural rant will be enough to shut some people up about the issue for good. Put simply, comp is a necessary evil in wargaming, particularly in small population centres (such as Australia) to help encourage more people to come along, and I for one am a big proponent of it. It'll be at any tourny I run and if there was ever a no-comp tourny on at the same time as a comp tourny I know which would get the nod for my attendance.

First of all let's try to explain to the newb tournament goer what comp actually is. It stands for “Army Composition” and was introduced years ago because the early tournament scene (specifically the GW tournament scene) was beginning to stagnate with identical armies being used by the majority of players. The basic idea was that, by adding an extra score to players based on a certain mathematical formula, players would increase variety to their list building. Did it work? Hell no! I can still remember playing 5 games against marines in my first tournament and, while I would never be bored by wargaming, would certainly have enjoyed it more if I'd come up against some other armies.

The concept that a mathematical formula could be applied to army composition is flawed as army codicies are too complicated to fall into simple maths and players wanting to maximise their comp score can easily do so without providing variety to the tournament scene.

However, something interesting happened to comp over the years. It became more about the power of a list. This means that the intention behind comp scores is now, not to encourage diversity of armies (although it certainly does that by default), but rather to handicap a “harder” list so “softer” lists can compete on an equal footing in the tournament.

One main source of comp whinging comes from those who believe that if something is in their codex, they should be allowed to take it without penalty (and everyone else should “harden the ******* up”). This style of thinking (if you want to call it that) fails in respect to certain game systems. Sure, it's a good attitude to have when the rules for each potential force is released at the same time, such as when a game is brand new (Malifaux, Infinity, etc) or when it undergoes a major revision and all lists are revised at the same time. Big props to Privateer Press here for doing so with their MKII rules release for Warmachine and Hordes (and even bigger props for releasing the rules for testing by all players months before the actual release).

When a games system doesn't re-release everything at the same time (Games Workshop being the leader in this sort of marketing strategy) it means that older lists, which were not written with new rules sets in mind, suffer due to poor rules synergies. This is not to say that every list that can be written by that codex is pus, but rather they start to only have one or two competitive builds available to them. Let's look at the latest codecies from GW – marines, guard, tyranids (even those cheesy Space Wolves). Everyone agree that these are very well written codexes with some extremely powerful builds available to them, but also enough variety to have many different competitive lists written using them. Dark Eldar can be massively powerful but there is really only two competitive builds in that dex (sisters and necrons are even worse off). Put simply, to encourage people to take different lists to a tourny, when codexes are so far behind rules revisions, comp is needed.

Other issues arise when a company refuses to acknowledge the concept of tournament play when testing rules sets. GW (Jervis in particular) is on record as saying that the game is not about tournament play, it's about having fun with your mates. Fair enough, but it's obvious that there are some famously atrocious to play against builds in GW codecies – lash/oblits, nob bikers, vulcan and melta spam etc. If we look at the UK and US tournament scene (and in particular the top 10 in their bigger tournies) we see very similar lists rearing their heads. The reason is that there is no comp (generally) in these tournaments which only encourages the most powerful builds out of codicies to be fielded. Speaking from an Australian standpoint, most people prefer to see more variety, which comp helps with. If you want the same bunch of power builds, go play Magic.

Even when we get past all that, there is still the issue of how comp is marked (see some comments floating around about Cancon 2010 40k). Peer-marked comp (opponent) was very popular for a while but it suffers from a couple of problems. Marking after a game where the result was very one sided can change results (either way) drastically and most agree it should be avoided. Pre-game is better but many are unaware of particular codicies and give a random score. Buddy boosting and sniping are other issues that plague peer-marked.

The solution is panel marked comp. It stops the above problems and gives a fairer indication of army power. Yes, not every mark is the same, but people who have used the system say that the differences are small between panel members usually. Let's face it, comp is not a science, otherwise we'd go for the mathematical system discussed above.

What it boils down to is that comp (if done correctly) enhances tournaments. People who cry over their comp score (panel marked) are generally newer players who look at their army through rose-tinted glasses. Sure, have comp for those game systems that warrant it and by all means run the occasional free-for-all non-comp tourny (although they generally get less people along to them). But comp is here to stay, deal with it, or find another game system.

thearchiver
07-02-2010, 23:54
I've seen forums where people whined and raged over how 'overpowered' horde guardsmen are, and the 'cookie-cutter'ness of meltaguns.

And we all know that whiny forum posts give a true indication of whats really going on.

Thud
08-02-2010, 00:00
Hard to tell from just that. You got it the list in a more complete format?

Yriel
Autarch w/ fusion gun, power weapon, banshee mask

5 Fire Dragons incl exarch w/ dragon's breath flamer, crack shot
Wave Serpent w/ star engines, spirit stones, twin shuricannons
5 Fire Dragons
Wave Serpent w/ star engines, spirit stones, twin shuricannons
5 Fire Dragons
Wave Serpent w/ star engines, spirit stones, twin shuricannons

9 Dire Avengers incl exarch w/ dual shuricats, bladestorm, defend

2x5 Dire Avengers

2 Vypers w/ scatter lasers, shuricannons

2x Falcon w/ shuriken cannon, holo-fields, spirit stones

1750 points




@Ragnarok14: I'm not looking for pros and cons about comp, but what it actually is and what's considered over powered. The reason for this, if you're wondering, is what I'm hearing as the "hardest lists" are quite frankly not very impressive (i.e., horde Orks).

Worsle
08-02-2010, 00:07
Comp is a wonky idea and ultimately is not good for the game. Gives GW a free ride and warps peoples perceptions as to what is wrong with the game. It also punishes people for making good lists and instead pushes the second tier lists to the top. Just replaces one set of problems with a whole new set of problems while encouraging sloppy list writing, yay for us.

Banning special characters like a lot of fantasy stuff does is even more confusing to me. End up with the situation where a whole bunch of crap things are banned but really powerful character can live on as they don't have a name. I really don't get the idea behind that.

Ragnarok I read that link I just did not think much of it. It spends to much time trying to make the opposing view look stupid instead of making an argument strong enough to stand on its own merits. I also don't think much of any one saying I don't see you doing any better, that is not a good argument either. Just because people can't or just don't want to run events them selves does not make their opinions wrong.

edit. Thud if that list got hit badly by comp it would be an indictment the whole system. Not that it is a terrible list but there are quite a few places where you could tighten your belt (not talking about vypers either, they have a lot of uses).

Occulto
08-02-2010, 00:28
Yriel
Autarch w/ fusion gun, power weapon, banshee mask

5 Fire Dragons incl exarch w/ dragon's breath flamer, crack shot
Wave Serpent w/ star engines, spirit stones, twin shuricannons
5 Fire Dragons
Wave Serpent w/ star engines, spirit stones, twin shuricannons
5 Fire Dragons
Wave Serpent w/ star engines, spirit stones, twin shuricannons

9 Dire Avengers incl exarch w/ dual shuricats, bladestorm, defend

2x5 Dire Avengers

2 Vypers w/ scatter lasers, shuricannons

2x Falcon w/ shuriken cannon, holo-fields, spirit stones

1750 points

Fire dragons tend to be one shot wonders, and you really don't have that many bodies for 1750. You've also not taken cliche choices like Eldrad, bike seer council, an Avatar. Hell, you don't even have a Farseer for doom/fortune goodness.

On the other hand, you've included a couple of "scoring" Falcons that'll be very hard to dislodge and plenty of wave serpents to zoom round and contest objectives. Enemy vehicles shouldn't give you any grief (even if it's a suicide squad doing the killing) and you've got enough dakka to keep hordes down.

Probably middle of the road, leaning towards the weaker end to be honest. Without knowing the missions (some tournies here use standard out of the book, others don't) - I'd give it 6-7 out of 10.

As an aside, I think it's a pretty cool list - and would love to give it a game.

ragnarok14
08-02-2010, 00:30
I'm not trying to say the link is perfect, I just think it gives a good insight into why comp came to be in place and what it susposed purpose is meant to be. I for one am more of the opinion that there shouldn't be comp in tournaments but can see why people try make it work. And while the blog is a little offensive to those of the differing view (I think its meant to be a little like that) I think it brings up a good point about GW not designing its games for competitive play regardless of which side of the fence you sit on.

Me I think the problem is comp tries to target things that abuse the rules in an unsportsman like fashion (like when particular words are left out of a description for a power/unit which then 'break' that power/unit when used in a particular way eg. shrike and a bunch of assault terminators) but ends up catching effective lists, things like a powerfist in a marine squad mech armies etc.

If anything I think things like comp scores and sportsmanship should be kept completely seperate from battle scores if they are used at all and awarded seperately, but having said that I dont want to face the lastest power fad army in 3 out of 5 games or whatever.

Worsle
08-02-2010, 00:39
Hang on, hang on the avatar would get you a comp hit? I think there must be something wrong here. What could possibly get the avatar a comp hit? Really you should be given bonus points for taking one. See things like that puts me of comp, internal logic is just screwy in places.

Ragnarok, I have no doubt it was trying to be offensive to people of an opposing view but that is hardly a good thing. I would agree that sportsmanship scores should be kept separate and the same with painting just turns it into a popularity contest.

ragnarok14
08-02-2010, 00:47
Hang on, hang on the avatar would get you a comp hit? I think there must be something wrong here. What could possibly get the avatar a comp hit? Really you should be given bonus points for taking one. See things like that puts me of comp, internal logic is just screwy in places.

Ragnarok, I have no doubt it was trying to be offensive to people of an opposing view but that is hardly a good thing. I would agree that sportsmanship scores should be kept separate and the same with painting just turns it into a popularity contest.

From my experience the avatar will give you a comp hit when taken with certain units/hq (which even at its worst arent that terrible to play against). Not the avatar by itself.

Tourniquet
08-02-2010, 01:00
I love the amount of misunderstanding and whining from people who really don't fully get it in this thread.

To sum it up,
It causes variety and doesn't hinder to much. It mostly stops things like the old nidzilla or Double lash armies.
And each Comp varies tourney to tourney.

ghoulio
08-02-2010, 01:17
I have never actually been to a tournament with a "Comp Score Council". I think if you had that type of unbiased system it could work. I personally *hate* peer judged Comp scores because they never make any sense and are really just another sportsmanship/popularity score. I am all for ANYTHING that helps vary up the lists that you play against.

For example the last tourney I went to I was playing Tyranids. In the 6 games I played marines 5 times (2 salamanders, 2 wolves and one led by that Crimson Fist Character) and 1 Imperial Guard player. Of those 5 lists the 3 marine armies were almost the exact same, save their special characters and maybe one unit. Every marine army I fought DID have a unit of assault terminators (including both wolves). Like it isnt boring enough playing the same army over and over again, now you have to play the same list over and over again lol.

Gaargod
08-02-2010, 01:20
I (with a few specific exceptions, as later) strongly disagree with comp banning units.

Personally i say the best marking for tournaments include actual points for battles, painting, sportsmanship and composition scores. Say, if its out of 30, battles are maybe 15, comp is 7, painting is 5 and sportsmanship is 3. If you take a rock hard list, you MIGHT pull off a 15 for battles, but then get 0 for comp - but a good player using a softer list might get 12 for battles and a 4 for a comp, giving them a better overall score.

Whether its done by a panel or a mathematical formula is a different matter. The advantage of the panel is that it means you can't get around the system using some screwy loopholes, but it is of course a lot more subjective (on a panel of, say, 7, if 3 of those HATE TH/SS termies of any kind with a burning passion, even one squad is going to massively tank your score). The mathematical formula is also very hard to get right, and sometimes seems rather arbitrary.

I'd personally go, if you can get a good one, with a panel every time though. It'll take them a while to do, but the results work better.

Comp itself is a good idea - if it works. It encourages people to bring varied lists and to think up their own strategies, rather than use netlists. It does NOT stop people being able to counter things, just means they have to think about it rather than stick a lot of pie plates, some melta and lots of armour in there, and all it a day. You get the weirder units coming out when comp is in play.



There are however a very few specific units/combos that i can see tournament advisers point blank banning. In fantasy, that's basically special characters (unlike 40k, armies basically aren't dependent on SCs for moving around the FoC. A few exceptions of course, but even then they're generally unusable in themselves - people just use the SCs for their specific rules normally), people bringing over 12 PD (12 power dice is a LOT, easily enough to overpower most magic defense. More than that is just insane, especially as some armies physically can't get more than that), a few other things. Again, a competent enough panel will deal them without needing to ban stuff.

In 40k, the list is a lot shorter - basically wound allocation abuse units, because that's not how the game is meant to be played (i don't mean banning nob bikerz, i mean banning them from having over say 4 different types of 'groups', not including ICs, in a single unit).

Occulto
08-02-2010, 01:38
Hang on, hang on the avatar would get you a comp hit? I think there must be something wrong here. What could possibly get the avatar a comp hit? Really you should be given bonus points for taking one. See things like that puts me of comp, internal logic is just screwy in places.

Well depends what you're measuring it against doesn't it? I suspect your local metagame might be a bit different to mine.

Just over 150 points for a 4W S6 MC with a 3+/4++ save that's immune to flame/melta weapons and can fire off a melta shot himself?

Certainly not shabby and considering the number of players who load up on melta weapons as their AT (to knock over AV14) round here, that's a significant advantage.

Had Thud used the Avatar instead of Yriel or the Autarch, then I would've given the list 5 - 6. Which is still a (small) boost when you consider 5/10 should be an average list. If he'd taken the Avatar and a Farseer with fortune, then that's probably going into the range of 4 - 5.

Worsle
08-02-2010, 01:48
The concept of metagame is bunk, just a fancy way of dressing up list tailoring. If it make the avatar seem strong then it is also making your lists weaker.

An avatar would do nothing for Thud's list other than make it worse. It is a slow MC in an army that can't support them if you can't deal with that then what can you deal with? Or if you can't deal with the avatar why not just ignore it as it has no way of being an active threat. In the end being immune to meltas is nice but that really is all the avatar has going for it and it is just not enough. See this is the problem with comp it is made to the tastes of the people who are organising it and if it is coloured by notions like meta gaming it is no good to anyone.

Edit. If you can make an army worse and get a comp hit for it I am not sure how that system is defensible.

Occulto
08-02-2010, 02:13
The concept of metagame is bunk, just a fancy way of dressing up list tailoring. If it make the avatar seem strong then it is also making your lists weaker.

Erm... yeah. That's kind of the point of comp. To encourage a level playing field so weaker lists like Necrons, Tau and DH actually appear.

That generally means that players are encouraged to tone down their lists, which makes them weaker.


An avatar would do nothing for Thud's list other than make it worse. It is a slow MC in an army that can't support them if you can't deal with that then what can you deal with? Or if you can't deal with the avatar why not just ignore it as it has no way of being an active threat.

Stop being so simplistic. I'm simply pointing out that the Avatar is constributes more in the general case, than other HQ choices in the codex. It is not the hardest or the HQ which contributes the most, it's simply a better choice than a naked Autarch (as an example).

It's not a case of: "I can kill it so +1" or "I can't kill it so -1"


Being immune to meltas is nice but that really is all the avatar has going for it and it is just not enough.

Yes, I can see how a tough MC in an army of fragile T3 models that have little decent assault ability wouldn't contribute anything. :eyebrows: You're right. When that nid MC or drop podding dreadnought comes popping up out of nowhere, you're not going to want something that can go toe-to-to with it. :rolleyes:

Also, if necessary, the Avatar can use his fearless bubble to stop units falling back - handy in an army with so many small units.


See this is the problem with comp it is made to the tastes of the people who are organising it and if it is coloured by notions like meta gaming it is no good to anyone.

That's why the organiser palms off comp marking to a panel that's neutral.

Stumpy
08-02-2010, 04:29
I think the OP is just talking about 1 or maybe 2 tournaments. Most (possibly all?) of the 40k tourneys I've gone to have had no comp. Fantasy needs it because they get the inexperienced/thoughtless/useless writers for army books that your standard veteran could do better than in one weekend. 40k only has a handful of stupid things, which can usually be worked around.

Giganthrax
08-02-2010, 04:57
Comp is used to ensure a more "civilised" gaming environment.
Crushing game balance is exactly the wrong way to get a "civilized" gaming environment.

The problem with all this comp stuff I've read in this thread is that it's both extremely annoying and extremely easy to take advantage of.

Let's say the comp guys currently hate th/ss terminators, so th/ss termies are banned/restricted. At the same time, they hate spammed meltaguns, lascannons, and plasmaguns, so they ban/restrict that too.

The marine player then goes on to take a huge unit of tactical terminators, and roll over 99% of the opposition simply because there aren't enough easily-available AP1 and AP2 weapons around to oppose him. His tactical terminators have suddenly become "overpowered" simply because weapons that otherwise countered them have been banned/restricted from the game. In addition, his land raider is now pretty much indestructible. In effect, the "overpowered th/ss" isn't gone - it has just been replaced with something else.

The "imbalance" is therefore only shifted in another direction, which will usually be a lot worse then it was if they just left things be.

This causes new bannings/restrictions, and it all leads to a moment when, in order not to get any comp disadvantage, a player must have an army of tactical marines and nothing else. And the saddest thing? TH/SS termies, meltaguns, plasmaguns, and lascannons were all perfectly fine, balanced things - it was simply that some dudes out there couldn't deal with them, and so wanted to change the game, rather then learn to cope.

And the absolute worst thing about it is not allowing/penalizing people to use the models they paid good cash for and spent time assembling and painting.

Close games are generally more fun (for both sides) than walkovers.
You know why I like to play competitively, and actively seek out other competitive players?

Because those games are almost invariably very close fought, and because they're actually challenging. "Fooling around" games are fun from time to time, but I can play that with my buddies. A tournament is a tournament.

The opponents of an army can tick a box letting the organizers know they think the list is "over powered" and a few veterans amongst the TOs judge whether it's truly an awful list or if the player just had a hard time against it.
This is an absolutely horrible concept. There are units/characters all around that plenty of people find it easier to whine about then to deal with. I can already see marine players getting penalized enmasse for using th/ss terminators and vulkan, and the new nids getting owned by comp scores whenever they field swarmlord. And I would pity that poor guy who included a lash prince in his themed emperor's children army.

AbusePuppy
08-02-2010, 05:38
*snip truth*

Right on the nose here.

To expound a bit:

While it's true that there are codex balance issues in the game, caused largely by the staggered release schedules, by no means are the "viable" codices limited exclusively to recent releases- indeed, Dark Eldar and Witch Hunters both have some extremely strong builds available to them, they just don't have very many good builds compared to, say, the Tyranid codex. I understand what comp wants to do, but I think it is ultimately destined to failure for a number of reasons, not the least of which being the imperfect judgment of the comp panelists. Their biases are always going to be reflected in the scoring system- and if any of you haven't noticed, wargamers tend to have some pretty strong opinions about what is and isn't good, opinions that are as often as not total nonsense. A lot of people have been talking about Plague Marines as an archtypical "overpowered" unit, but several of my local opponents see them as (at best) mediocre because "they die just as easily to anything that kills Marines and cost more."

Moreover, intentionally crippling the tournament scene is counterproductive. As Giganthrax pointed out, no matter how many "overpowered" units you cripple by docking people's comp scores for taking them, competitive players are always going to find the next-most-overpowered thing and wreck people with that, ad infinitum, until you've banned every unit in the codex. Shaving off the top 10% of something still leaves a top 10%, and can easily lead to irregularities in balance due to "gaps" in the codex created by the restrictions on what players can take in their lists. (Note the complaints about vehicles and lack of melta discussed earlier in the thread, for example; seems like vehicles wouldn't be such an issue if melta weren't vilified, hmm?)

Comp proponents say that it increases variety of lists, but I honestly don't think this is the case. Punishing players for taking the list they want to does not increase variety, it merely makes them unhappy. A healthy tournament scene sees waves of change and counter-change in response to trends in the environment; increased number of transports means more melta is brought, which in turn encourages long-range/horde lists, which shifts things towards blast-heavy, which transports are immune to, etc, etc. A scene will only stagnate if the game itself is grossly unbalanced (which I don't believe 40K is) or if players refuse to innovate- as is common when "cheesy" and "broken" lists are simply banned, with no thought given to whether those lists have weaknesses of their own or counters that render them balanced. These same sort of arguments are common to other games (and those intrested might read up on Sirlin.net, who has some very good discussions on this topic), and yet many of these games have extremely healthy tournament scenes even years later, with no changes or bans made.

In short: comp is a knee-jerk reaction to things that players don't like. It doesn't solve problems, only create more problems, and is all too often overly strong-handed ("Zero comp points for having five TH/SS termies, sorry.") or outright incorrect ("Minus some point for having an Avatar..."), doing more harm than good.


To sum it up,
It causes variety and doesn't hinder to much. It mostly stops things like the old nidzilla or Double lash armies.

Neither of these armies were overpowered or impossible to deal with. In the age of mech, double lash is actually a rather mediocre choice, all things considered. This is a good demonstration of the inherent flaw of most comp systems: percieved strength is more important than actual strength.

adreal
08-02-2010, 06:42
I really like how you people seem to think that because Aus uses comp, that certain units/combo's are out right banned.

Occulto is trying to explain the comp helps level that battlefield, and your all twisting his words.

Most tournie results in aus are something along these lines
Battle 50% (thats just strait battle points, no comp or anything)
Sports 15% (that not being a tool)
Comp 25% (thats how your list is built)
Painting 10% (min three colours and highlighting)

So, if you play a good game (16-20 battle points a round), are a nice guy (4-5 sports points per round), have a painted army (6-10 points), and have a hard army (2 out of 5 comp points per round), you should see the podium, or atleast the top 20 (out of 100+).

Now if you play a bad game (10-0 points per round), but your a nice guy (4-5 sports points per round), you hae a ainted army (6-10 points) and you have a soft army (4-5 comp points per round) you might see the middle of the pack.


So yeah comp play's a huge part in australia, and stop's you taking a 'hard' army.....

Dranthar
08-02-2010, 06:56
WinglessVT2 is grossly misrepresenting the composition scene in Australia. It's not even close to being as draconian as that, and the comment about Vanguard just goes beyond ridiculous.

It's also pretty short-sighted to assume that EVERY tournament (or even most tournaments) in Australia use the same comp system (if they even use a comp system). It'd be like me assuming that every WHFB tournament in Europe uses the ETC system.

When it comes down to it, some OZ tournaments have no comp, some use opponent-judging, and some use an impartial panel.

I'm not aware of any tournaments in OZ that have banned or restricted certain units/options. It's certainly never been done in Perth.

(Speaking as a tournament organiser myself)

SPYDER68
08-02-2010, 07:04
makes me glad i dont play 40k with people from Aussie land :P

After reading this post, its the dumbest things ive heard in a good time.


I bet i could get mechvet IG banned from the sounds of it :p

Dranthar
08-02-2010, 07:07
makes me glad i dont play 40k with people from Aussie land :P

After reading this post, its the dumbest things ive heard in a good time.

I bet i could get mechvet IG banned from the sounds of it :p

Seriously, read the thread.

I doubt WinglessVT2 has even been to Australia, let alone played at a tournament there.

WinglessVT2
08-02-2010, 08:44
"Erm... yeah. That's kind of the point of comp. To encourage a level playing field so weaker lists like Necrons, Tau and DH actually appear.

That generally means that players are encouraged to tone down their lists, which makes them weaker. "

Stop lying. I've seen players from your country rage, rant, and go absolutely nuts because someone didn't accept all their stupid excuses and reasons for him to drop 20 plague marines he had bought, painted, and played with for years.
So you downsize it, so my tau can compete?

Fine, really.
Will I get comp-docked when I overload with you kroot, and have all my elites filled with battlesuits? Because, without them, tau aren't going to stand up well even to necrons.
What about the necrons? Is he going to get 'docked' for taking 12+ destroyers, 12+ immortals, twin lords, minimum warriors, and a tomb spyder?

A weak list will forever be a weak list.
Under your system, a 'weak' necron list as above will utterly dominate everyone, because your own lists aren't 'weak,' but 'bad.'

chromedog
08-02-2010, 09:05
If the people who don't like tourneys that use comp didn't play in them, instead of just playing and whining and pouting and quoting YTTH, then perhaps their actions might have more weight.

If comp is so unpopular, why do so many tourneys here use it? Because the opposition can't be arsed to run their own ones to prove their point. It takes far less effort to criticise someone else's effort than put in your own.

There are a handful of no-comp tourneys here in this country. They are pretty much the same environment as the comp tourneys (but with harder lists - and even harder drinking generally).

WinglessVT2
08-02-2010, 09:28
YTTH?
I don't combine drinking with warhammer. In fact, I don't drink at all.

IJW
08-02-2010, 09:36
I doubt WinglessVT2 has even been to Australia, let alone played at a tournament there.


I've seen players from your country...

Looks like Dranthar hit the nail on the head... ;)

Ozybonza
08-02-2010, 09:49
I think people who are complaining the hardest don't really get it - you can still take a hard list and win the tournament. You just get a small handicap.

I just played in a tourney with panel comp. I took a fairly hard IG list and got 2/5 for comp.

Most people got 2 - 3 with a few 4s, hardly any 1/5 or 5/5s. What that meant was that most lists were on a fairly even playing field, with only the most broken lists getting a real handicap or really fun, soft lists getting a decent boost. It was a really good system that encouraged you to take a softer list, but you could still take a hard list without too much penalty.

SatireSphere
08-02-2010, 09:58
I think the less extreme end of comp is the best way to go. It should have a presence, but ultimately the tournament should (90% of the time anyway) go to the player who won the most games of warhammer in the most convincing fashion.

Impartial comp is preferable post game as well, as you're less likely to see scorebombing.

Comp is definitely a necessary evil (even moreso in fantasy where some armies regardless of composition just have a plain advantage over another (daemons vs ogre kingdoms for example). In a situation where everyone is playing to win, and where you don't want to see the same army at very table comp scores are the catalysts for success.

Zazoo
08-02-2010, 10:05
I have played in Comp and NON comp tournaments of all types and all I can say is COMP tournaments are flawed and biased.

The math comp hits armies that dont deserve it because they get hit with the same rules. EG No double HQ's is a completely different affair when talking Space Wolves and Witch Hunters.

The Panel thing is probably the worst there is so much bias and misunderstanding of the power of units in a list that most people do not understand that unit x is powerful in a certain combination of units and wasted points in another combination.
Also people's personal pet hates come through in the scoring as well.
Yea ive heard the argument that it is a panel but I have seen from experiance that certain people are more vocal than others and they will make thier opinions count more than the less vocal people. So if you play an army they dont like your score will be lower than it should be.

The only set of comp rules I actually like is ETC because the rules target certain things that are powerfull but does not ban anything and the comp is made by a lot of players worldwide so a particular person's/countries bias does not have the same effect as it would if it was local.
But alas there is no ETC rules for 40K.

PatrikW
08-02-2010, 10:06
If the people who don't like tourneys that use comp didn't play in them, instead of just playing and whining and pouting and quoting YTTH, then perhaps their actions might have more weight.

If comp is so unpopular, why do so many tourneys here use it? Because the opposition can't be arsed to run their own ones to prove their point. It takes far less effort to criticise someone else's effort than put in your own.

There are a handful of no-comp tourneys here in this country. They are pretty much the same environment as the comp tourneys (but with harder lists - and even harder drinking generally).

Quoted for truth =)

In Sweden maybe 8/10 tournaments uses one sort of comp or another. Sure every now and then there are complains about it being used on the forums, but more often then not the complains comes from people that haven't tried it yet but happened to be reading the rules for an upcoming tournament. There are of course people that have played quite a few tournaments and still have complains about the system, but overall the system sits fine with a big majority of the players.

I think it depends on how you view the games and tournaments, are they primarily for having fun or competition where you can win great prizes.
One other thing I have been thinking about is the prizes, I don't know know exactly on what levels the winnings are in different countries but here wining the biggest tournaments might get you a battleforce and/or a boxed set.
I could easily see the level of competitiveness raising if you for example might win a whole army.

Ianos
08-02-2010, 10:29
I have played in Comp and NON comp tournaments of all types and all I can say is COMP tournaments are flawed and biased.

The math comp hits armies that dont deserve it because they get hit with the same rules. EG No double HQ's is a completely different affair when talking Space Wolves and Witch Hunters.


Exactly! I also do not want to ever play in comp tournaments, because by using such a score the organizers are effectively causing what they are supposedly trying to avoid. There are whole threads (especially in other 40k sites), on how to disquise a list to look comp friendly, yet still be powerfull.

My marine lists for example usually have one of everything and maybe a Lysander which is usually considered not so OP. I can then even use tactical termies and give them re-rolls and a libby to even the odds vs. cc beasts. My devas, dread and speeders are in/behind 3+ cover (the list is AWSOME!) and because i am smart, when i see i am winning, i might toss a bone to the other guy so he can be happy for killing one tactical and Lysander with his brave warboss! Yay! what a "close game" with a a balanced list, i get my max comp and then give him the min because i just hate those battlewagon nobs he had!

Just an example, but it shows how stupid it is to have your own opponent as ref.

Occulto
08-02-2010, 10:55
Stop lying. I've seen players from your country rage, rant, and go absolutely nuts because someone didn't accept all their stupid excuses and reasons for him to drop 20 plague marines he had bought, painted, and played with for years.

I don't believe I'm the one ranting and raging here. You are quite the feisty one aren't you? :eyebrows:


So you downsize it, so my tau can compete?

You'd probably get better comp for taking Tau than an Ork player. They have a newer codex, which is arguably more powerful in most instances - therefore, unless they went all out with the sub-optimal/viable/whatever units, you would reasonably expect to get more comp points.


Fine, really.
Will I get comp-docked when I overload with you kroot, and have all my elites filled with battlesuits? Because, without them, tau aren't going to stand up well even to necrons.

You tell me, you seem to know everything there is to know about Australian comp. :p


What about the necrons? Is he going to get 'docked' for taking 12+ destroyers, 12+ immortals, twin lords, minimum warriors, and a tomb spyder?

Considering how ridiculously easy it would be to phase out such a list, I doubt they'd get a low score. But again, I defer to the "expert" who's heard that Australians throw tantrums at the slightest whiff of Nurgle. :angel:


A weak list will forever be a weak list.

That doesn't mean a player who owns such a list should be discouraged from even setting foot in the door.


Under your system, a 'weak' necron list as above will utterly dominate everyone, because your own lists aren't 'weak,' but 'bad.'

Not when it's being phased out every game. ;).


YTTH?
I don't combine drinking with warhammer. In fact, I don't drink at all.

Then you probably wouldn't enjoy an Australian tournament at all. :p

Thud
08-02-2010, 11:07
I think the OP is just talking about 1 or maybe 2 tournaments. Most (possibly all?) of the 40k tourneys I've gone to have had no comp.

As I understand it there's a big difference in practice between Western Australia and the East, with comp being mainly an Eastern thing.


It's also pretty short-sighted to assume that EVERY tournament (or even most tournaments) in Australia use the same comp system (if they even use a comp system). It'd be like me assuming that every WHFB tournament in Europe uses the ETC system.

Is this referring to me? If so, I don't really care about the systems, I'm more interested in which units, combos, armylists etc. are considered overpowered and will suffer in a comp environment.



(Speaking as a tournament organiser myself)

Would you mind giving me some specific examples of what would suffer comp penalties in your tourneys? I get it that twin Lash Princes accompanied by Plague Marines and 9 Obliterators wouldn't be received kindly, but what else? From what I gather from the podcast I referred to earlier, horde Orks are considered top of the pack down under, or at least around Canberra, and that really makes me wonder about the local meta as horde Orks are pretty boned around here.



In Sweden maybe 8/10 tournaments uses one sort of comp or another

I've seen some pretty extreme examples of Swedish comp, which is strange, as here, over the border, we don't use comp at all, not even in Fantasy. ;)

Worsle
08-02-2010, 11:13
Erm... yeah. That's kind of the point of comp. To encourage a level playing field so weaker lists like Necrons, Tau and DH actually appear.

That generally means that players are encouraged to tone down their lists, which makes them weaker.

Stop being so simplistic. I'm simply pointing out that the Avatar is constributes more in the general case, than other HQ choices in the codex. It is not the hardest or the HQ which contributes the most, it's simply a better choice than a naked Autarch (as an example).

It's not a case of: "I can kill it so +1" or "I can't kill it so -1"

Yes, I can see how a tough MC in an army of fragile T3 models that have little decent assault ability wouldn't contribute anything. :eyebrows: You're right. When that nid MC or drop podding dreadnought comes popping up out of nowhere, you're not going to want something that can go toe-to-to with it. :rolleyes:

Also, if necessary, the Avatar can use his fearless bubble to stop units falling back - handy in an army with so many small units.

That's why the organiser palms off comp marking to a panel that's neutral.

Oh you are trying to be condescending, that would work better if your points had merit. Yes I get the idea that comp is meant to drag down the level of armies but if you have done that to the point where bad choices become to strong and then have to get a comp hit them selves the system is a bad one.

Avatar brings more what exactly? Only thing I can see it doing is giving you a larger paper weight. An eldar army does not need a unit that can go toe to toe with dreadnoughts or MC they have plenty of other and much better ways of dealing them. He is a big slow guy who is not that hard to kill but no one had to kill it because of the way eldar armies are built and how slow he is. You know what makes T3 troops harder? Tanks, not some pointles paper weight.

If you show me an eldar army with just an autarch and an avatar I can tell you now the autarch list is better. +1 to reserves and the cheapest HQ choice is better than a giant model that adds no viable use to the army other than waisting a few points you could spend else where. Though why they would not spend just a few more points and have him spend the game pretending he is a fire dragon I don't know but still better than an avatar.

What suddenly makes the panel natural? If they are comp hitting avatars they are not nutral or making good decisions. As AbusePuppy
put it, they are dealing with perceived power not actual power.


I really like how you people seem to think that because Aus uses comp, that certain units/combo's are out right banned.

Occulto is trying to explain the comp helps level that battlefield, and your all twisting his words.

Most tournie results in aus are something along these lines
Battle 50% (thats just strait battle points, no comp or anything)
Sports 15% (that not being a tool)
Comp 25% (thats how your list is built)
Painting 10% (min three colours and highlighting)

Are soft banning units though comp hits really any better than hard bans? Even worse when you are giving comp hits to things that clearly should not be getting them so banning them in all but name. Sorry but that is not misrepresenting him but instead calling him on the flaws and at least a system with outright bans is a truthful one.

Ok looking at this system 25% is decided by popularity contest as that is what painting and sports is. Why people insist on adding in painting scores is beyond me given how hard it is to judge it fairly and the ease at witch you can get pre-painted stuff. Sports is even worse impossible to judge fairly and so open to abuse it is not even funny. Then comp and the inherent unfairness of that has already been gone over. So that is 50% of your tournament being controlled by elements that have nothing to do with what is happening on the table top and are all some what unfair systems.


Quoted for truth =)

Nonsense. That is a terrible argument like with other things in life you really don't have to be doing any better to spot the flaws in something. Best movie critics are not people who make movies them selves as being an insider can warp your sense of perspective.

WinglessVT2
08-02-2010, 11:26
I like how I've just been told that maxing out destroyers and immortals for necrons makes the army 'easy to phase out.'

Does this mean that maxing out my battlesuits will also make you consider my army weak, because 'it has so few units?'

Really, if you don't know what is good and what isn't, and only base your comp around what is KNOWN TO BE GOOD, and happens to be popular at the time, you're doing it wrong.

Sidorio
08-02-2010, 11:33
I'd suggest popping over to www.wargamerau.com if you want to see the sort of lists we use in tournies. I'm preety sure they still have a link to the Cancon armies up there along with the results and the details about the comping for the tournie.

I personally (and I am an Aussie player) quite like the comp system used in our tournies and the more relaxed power level of the lists. For starters its so much nicer going to a a club or tournie and knowing you won't face the cheesiest lists as brought to you by warseer and can just get into a good, friendly game. Sure there still are those stronger lists out there and they definately appear at the tournaments but their not the common thing on our tournament scene.

Sidorio
08-02-2010, 11:37
I like how I've just been told that maxing out destroyers and immortals for necrons makes the army 'easy to phase out.'

Does this mean that maxing out my battlesuits will also make you consider my army weak, because 'it has so few units?'

Really, if you don't know what is good and what isn't, and only base your comp around what is KNOWN TO BE GOOD, and happens to be popular at the time, you're doing it wrong.

You know I think we would all benefit so much if you would just walk away from your computer or at very least this thread and not come back because quite frankly all you seem interested in is arguing about this and not even trying to understand what the other people are saying.

Zazoo
08-02-2010, 11:40
Oh you are trying to be condescending, that would work better if your points had merit. Yes I get the idea that comp is meant to drag down the level of armies but if you have done that to the point where bad choices become to strong and then have to get a comp hit them selves the system is a bad one.

Avatar brings more what exactly? Only thing I can see it doing is giving you a larger paper weight. An eldar army does not need a unit that can go toe to toe with dreadnoughts or MC they have plenty of other and much better ways of dealing them. He is a big slow guy who is not that hard to kill but no one had to kill it because of the way eldar armies are built and how slow he is. You know what makes T3 troops harder? Tanks, not some pointles paper weight.

If you show me an eldar army with just an autarch and an avatar I can tell you now the autarch list is better. +1 to reserves and the cheapest HQ choice is better than a giant model that adds no viable use to the army other than waisting a few points you could spend else where. Though why they would not spend just a few more points and have him spend the game pretending he is a fire dragon I don't know but still better than an avatar.

What suddenly makes the panel natural? If they are comp hitting avatars they are not nutral or making good decisions. As AbusePuppy
put it, they are dealing with perceived power not actual power.



Are soft banning units though comp hits really any better than hard bans? Even worse when you are giving comp hits to things that clearly should not be getting them so banning them in all but name. Sorry but that is not misrepresenting him but instead calling him on the flaws and at least a system with outright bans is a truthful one.

Ok looking at this system 25% is decided by popularity contest as that is what painting and sports is. Why people insist on adding in painting scores is beyond me given how hard it is to judge it fairly and the ease at witch you can get pre-painted stuff. Sports is even worse impossible to judge fairly and so open to abuse it is not even funny. Then comp and the inherent unfairness of that has already been gone over. So that is 50% of your tournament being controlled by elements that have nothing to do with what is happening on the table top and are all some what unfair systems.



Nonsense. That is a terrible argument like with other things in life you really don't have to be doing any better to spot the flaws in something. Best movie critics are not people who make movies them selves as being an insider can warp your sense of perspective.

I agree with the above..

I missed the 15% sportsmanship thing, honestly because I didnt read the original post completely the first time, but anyone who has played in tournaments with sportsmanship will realise VERY quickly that it is VERY VERY, I cant stress this enough, VERY flawed and should NEVER be part of a tournament score.

Occulto
08-02-2010, 12:05
Oh you are trying to be condescending, that would work better if your points had merit. Yes I get the idea that comp is meant to drag down the level of armies but if you have done that to the point where bad choices become to strong and then have to get a comp hit them selves the system is a bad one.

And if comp was doing that, your point would have merit. Instead you've just presented a classic slippery slope logical fallacy.

Comp hasn't done that and shows no signs of doing that (ie people still take tough lists - they just have to work harder to place higher).

More importantly, if everyone started getting penalised then the penalty stops having any meaning whatsoever.

"I get zero for comp for taking lash/plague/oblit spam... and I also get zero for comp for taking radical daemonhunters with no heavy or special weapons whatsoever. Hmmm... so what's the disincentive for taking lash/plague/oblit spam again?"

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but why on earth would TOs do that when the inevitable result is self defeating? A love for paperwork?


Avatar brings more what exactly? Only thing I can see it doing is giving you a larger paper weight. An eldar army does not need a unit that can go toe to toe with dreadnoughts or MC they have plenty of other and much better ways of dealing them. He is a big slow guy who is not that hard to kill but no one had to kill it because of the way eldar armies are built and how slow he is. You know what makes T3 troops harder? Tanks, not some pointles paper weight.

If you show me an eldar army with just an autarch and an avatar I can tell you now the autarch list is better. +1 to reserves and the cheapest HQ choice is better than a giant model that adds no viable use to the army other than waisting a few points you could spend else where. Though why they would not spend just a few more points and have him spend the game pretending he is a fire dragon I don't know but still better than an avatar.

What suddenly makes the panel natural? If they are comp hitting avatars they are not nutral or making good decisions. As AbusePuppy
put it, they are dealing with perceived power not actual power.

I find it slightly ironic that you're condemning a panel for making precisely the same type of analysis that you're doing yourself. :p

Panels are made up of multiple people, selected from experienced players who attend multiple events a year and play a wide variety of people. Why would their assessment be less valid than yours? The only difference is, as panel markers, they're being asked to quantify whether they think a list is strong or weak, by giving it a mark.

Well that's not true, the other difference is that the people on the panel have a proven track record - using the tournament rankings: http://www.gosfordgamers.net/ATR/index.htm

For all I know, you could just be some guy making s*** up on the internet because you only play a handful of crap players. :D

If I were on a panel (and I freely admit I'm not and haven't been), then the other 4 or 5 markers might disagree that the Avatar is a stronger choice. In which case their marks would represent that. It's averaged out and so minor quibbles over individual units even out.

They're neutral because they don't have any interest whatsoever in the outcome of the event. That stops buddy boosting or getting the person you've just tabled to give you an unbiased assessment of your list.

Worsle
08-02-2010, 12:37
Ironic for a panel doing what? Knowing the avatar is not any good? No really explain that one for me. Avatar is not any good no matter how you spin it, just does not fit into the eldar army or at least not any eldar army that is worth fielding. So please explain.

Oh and the disincentive for not fielding the lash army is it not being that good, comp hitting it on top of that is just silly. Lash armies and avatars are good examples but I am sure there are a lot of other stuff getting comp hits that should not get any. Or in the other direction things like tau getting bonuses when they should not because the are far from as week as people think. Comp creates its own self feedback loop you refine comp based on the results of comp giving you a very warped perception on what make a good list.

They are not neutral unless you can guaranty they are not working of their own preconceptions of what is strong rather than what is. If find it hard to believe you can so all you are doing is replacing an unfair system with an other unfair system that has just created a new and arbitrary top tear. At least with the basic rules we all know what we are getting into.

Occulto
08-02-2010, 13:05
So please explain.

Forget I ever mentioned the Avatar m'kay? Because you're going at it like a dog with a bone. Next time I'll put a disclaimer in:

"The views expressed in the above post are, in no way, shape or form, to be taken as an indication of the absolute marking trends by tournament panel members for Australian events that use such a scoring system."

I think it's rather rude to demand explanations when you've cheerfully ignored questions I've asked of you. Time for a bit of quid pro quo - it's only fair:

Again, explain to me why you think that it's valid for you to make the assessments you have made in this thread about the relative power of units/lists/codices as if they're immutable truths, but it's not valid for a panel of experienced players to do so.

You're saying that panels have preconceptions, and therefore their marking is not correct - after listing your own bunch of preconceptions about the relative worth of the Avatar, the lash army, and Tau.

Worsle
08-02-2010, 13:28
I am sorry but what questions? If it is what you are asking in that post, it would have been rude if you had asked me about it straight up instead to making some insinuations in its general direction. If you want me to explain something ask me straight up, it is what I did. Same reason I have not called you some random dude on the internet, it is something I really could do without.

As to my views while yes I can be wrong about things (avatar is not one of them, neither is the lash or tau) my being wrong does not matter unlike in a comp system. If I am wrong worst thing that can happen is I end up with egg on my face, people making comp get it wrong and you are making the game worse. Lets say purely for example for some reason the panel thought orks where strong despite them being rather crap. Ork lists would find them selves being unfairly penalised for no good reason, however if I mistakenly thought orks where too strong I might make a fool of my self with an ork army and giving out bad advice but ultimately only person really penalised is me. So no you are not making a real comparison here and it is as much of a red herring as asking why I am not doing something better my self.

Avatar I was only using as an example as it is a lot easier to deal with than some vague comments. You could replace what I said with stuff on lash lists and I would still be making the same overall point. Comp is focused on perceived verity and strength rather than what is really good for the game.

edit. Related to what I said about critics having a good track record at tournaments does not mean you have a good understanding or the game, just like being about to make a good movie does not make you a good movie critic. Even more so when you are playing good in a comp system where 50% of the score is unrelated to your results in the game. Just means you are basing the system on the system, unless you have good outside voices it is not going to help.

Axis
08-02-2010, 14:12
This thread is just getting nasty now. I really think everyone should just walk away. I'm hoping it gets closed soon.

Australian tournaments use comp more than other countries apparantly. This is unlikely to change on the back of a warseer thread. So maybe just let us play the way we want, you can play your non-comp, non-paint, non-sports tournies. Or any combination of the above.

I've been to some Australian tournies. Maybe other ones have been better overseas or with different formats. I dont know. All i know is the tournies i have attended have been very well run. They have been immense fun. I've seen very weak lists and very powerful lists. Some of the powerful lists placed very highly (and indeed won) some did badly because they were played badly.

At the end of the day if you bring a powerful list and play it well you'll probably win (providing someone else didnt do the same and play better). This is true for comp and non-comp tournies. I really think people on both sides of the fence are over-exaggerating the effect (positive and negative) of comp. It's just not that big a deal.

Occulto
08-02-2010, 14:21
I am sorry but what questions?

The first which was about your slippery slope argument:

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but why on earth would TOs do that when the inevitable result is self defeating? A love for paperwork?

But the one I'm more interested in:


Panels are made up of multiple people, selected from experienced players who attend multiple events a year and play a wide variety of people. Why would their assessment be less valid than yours? The only difference is, as panel markers, they're being asked to quantify whether they think a list is strong or weak, by giving it a mark.


If it is what you are asking in that post, it would have been rude if you had asked me about it straight up instead to making some insinuations in its general direction. If you want me to explain something ask me straight up, it is what I did.

They're straight questions mate. :D


Same reason I have not called you some random dude on the internet, it is something I really could do without.

Thought the :D would show I was being facetious. But seriously - the guys in those rankings are people I've either met, or can be vouched for through someone else.

On the other hand, you're just a faceless individual behind an internet handle. So when you say that: "Tau aren't as weak as people say," I don't know if those the words of someone who's experience is distorted by the fact they only face Tau used by a very good player.


As to my views while yes I can be wrong about things (avatar is not one of them, neither is the lash or tau) my being wrong does not matter unlike in a comp system. If I am wrong worst thing that can happen is I end up with egg on my face, people making comp get it wrong and you are making the game worse. Lets say purely for example for some reason the panel thought orks where strong despite them being rather crap. Ork lists would find them selves being unfairly penalised for no good reason, however if I mistakenly thought orks where too strong I might make a fool of my self with an ork army and giving out bad advice but ultimately only person really penalised is me. So no you are not making a real comparison here and it is as much of a red herring as asking why I am not doing something better my self.

Yet the feedback consistently indicates that the comp panel works for what it's intended to do.

Cancon ran panel comp recently and 117 players competed. Krefey (the TO) mentioned that he used 7 judges and all of their scores were within 1-2 points of each other. If those 7 judges were producing wildly varying results, then sure, I'd be more inclined to believe that it doesn't work or that there was serious bias at play.

No one's saying it's perfect - people are saying that after years of experimenting and tinkering, that panel comp is considered the best way to do it at this point.

I ran a poll for the 40K event I run and (although the sample size was small) the vast majority of respondents were happy with the panel system being used:

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?&showtopic=83875&mode=show&st=

Over 80% of players wanted some form of comp and almost 70% of players wanted a panel system. Now, unless there's been some serious rorting done with the poll, I'm going with what the players want, over people who aren't even in the same country (that's not directed at you BTW).


Avatar I was only using as an example as it is a lot easier to deal with than some vague comments. You could replace what I said with stuff on lash lists and I would still be making the same overall point. Comp is focused on perceived verity and strength rather than what is really good for the game.

And what is good for the game?

That's where people differ in opinions. I think the healthiness of the Australian scene speaks for itself.

Recently, Arcanacon was run with 200 players and a waiting list of people wanting to get on board. As I mentioned before, Cancon got 117 players. Terracon got 98 players to Naracoorte - which is in the middle of nowhere. (Honestly, it's about 4 hours drive between two major cities)

No comp-free event in Australia (to my knowledge) even comes close in terms of participants because there's less of a perception that you need whatever is the latest and greatest netlist floating round.


edit. Related to what I said about critics having a good track record at tournaments does not mean you have a good understanding or the game, just like being about to make a good movie does not make you a good movie critic. Even more so when you are playing good in a comp system where 50% of the score is unrelated to your results in the game. Just means you are basing the system on the system, unless you have good outside voices it is not going to help.

Which assumes that these players either don't play outside of comp tournaments or don't play in comp-free environments.

DemonMonkey
08-02-2010, 22:21
I've seen forums where people whined and raged over how 'overpowered' horde guardsmen are, and the 'cookie-cutter'ness of meltaguns.

They don't want you to take transports, they don't want you to take large units of useful models, they don't want you to take meltaguns, and they absolutely don't want you to take durable units.
Australians will rant and rave endlessly over how 'overpowered' plague marines are, demanding that people never take more than two small units of them - which is hilarious in itself, because if they allowed you to field mobile armies, with low-AP guns, plague marines and other 'durable' units wouldn't be a problem.

sorry, i realise this is at the start of a thread, but i'm an australian TO & this what we refer to in australia as a lie.

Or at least an exaggeration, along the lines of 'i was eating an apple when i saw a car crash' = 'apples cause car crashes'

carry on

adreal
09-02-2010, 06:08
Are soft banning units though comp hits really any better than hard bans? Even worse when you are giving comp hits to things that clearly should not be getting them so banning them in all but name. Sorry but that is not misrepresenting him but instead calling him on the flaws and at least a system with outright bans is a truthful one.

I'm almost certain that there hasn't been anything banned in the aus tournie scene...Okay, I for one have never seen nob bikers, but taking 'them wont tar you with a black brush for life.

Powerful units will get comp hit, but that doesn't mean they are bad. Most tournie lists over here get a 3/5, which is a balanced list, it has strengths and it has weaknesses, which makes for a funner game for both players. Now you can make a 2/5 list or a 1/5 and steamroll the 'softer' lists, but you wont make that many friends.

Yes, us aussie's are more laid back, but just because our lists are softer doesn't mean our comps are, the game is competitive and FUN



Ok looking at this system 25% is decided by popularity contest as that is what painting and sports is. Why people insist on adding in painting scores is beyond me given how hard it is to judge it fairly and the ease at witch you can get pre-painted stuff. Sports is even worse impossible to judge fairly and so open to abuse it is not even funny. Then comp and the inherent unfairness of that has already been gone over. So that is 50% of your tournament being controlled by elements that have nothing to do with what is happening on the table top and are all some what unfair systems.


Sports is not being a nob in game, seriously, are all the games you play against real anal players that check every messurment, double check every rule and call you on everything?

Sorry but how would that game be any fun?

You can have a competitive game without being a dick, I mean, seriously, this is a game of plastic figures we pay a large amount of money for, and the result of said games are never life and death. So smile, have a joke, buld a rapour with your opponent, that is what sportmanship is all about, not a popularity contest, just being a good person.

Painting is abit of sore spot for some people, but hey, atleast most game's in a tournie you can tell that some effort has been put into that side of the hobby, even if that effort is paying someone else to do the job for you.


How is sports not something that happens on the table? If I loose a unit to a bunch of bad cover saves (it has happened) what would be better for the game being played? Me to bitch and moan and chuck my stuff around, and be aggressive towards you, or for me to kinda give a shocked laugh, give you a smile and remove my figures from the table? I mean you made the shot (or shots) and due to luck, I've lost a good portain of my army, me sulking about it wont bring them back, but moving on, adapting and striving for the win (even when things look pear shapped for me) without causeing you to think bad of me as a person will make the game a hell of alot more fun.

DemonMonkey
09-02-2010, 06:38
Okay

An Australian Tournament

This is not all tournaments, just an example of what one may be run like.

Battle points

Duh. usually out of 100-120 at 20 points a game. This is the big stuff, usually correlates to who hits the podium. it also usually has its own award, meaning that if you are a serious space barbies player with no paint skills, personal skills & taking some sort of double lash 9 oblit whatever, this is the prize for you.

Composition

Like a handicap system, this rewards people who take an army from a book that probably shouldnt exist in this edition. Its an attempt to level the playing field just a little.

If you look at the median being 3/5 then a really tough & effective space marine build may be a 2/5 whereas a daemonhunter soft may get a 4/5.

So a softer list may gain a point a game, whereas a tougher list will lose a point a game. Thsi is hopefully panel judged/TO judged if he knows his stuff.

In the same way that you can't base your opinion of a whole country based on quotes you read on the republican party website, don't base your opinion of the composition scene on some peoples rants on a forum.

Sports

A necessary evil. The effect on the tournament is not huge. Except at the top end. Sports exists not as a popularity contest but a way of ensuring that you don't get complete ******s - like the type of guy who gets banned from toy stores - ruining everyones day. Not by winning. People who win are applauded. But you don't have to be a cheat, or a jerk, or any kind of offensive person to do it.

Whats incentive for them to not? the knowledge that they may drop an oh so crucial point or two a game, which at the top end can cost you the big prizes. Its sad that its needed. But its also sad to read the people who are against its rants. They seem like real real problem children. I can't link YTTH

Again the median is 3/5.

Painting

This is really dependant on the TO. It depends on what the focus of the tournament is about. Are you rewarding a hobbyist who does well at all aspects of the hobby? If so then theres usually a painting component. This generally ensures that painted armies get on the table, for the same reason that the other two categories exist



Okay so lets look at the numbers

initially with the scores given above the percentages look all out of balance. (and again, numbers are just examples, it really depends on the TO in regards to the weightings)

Battle 100
Comp 25
Sports 25
painting 25

Holy crap, the soft scores are 14% of the total each???

not really. Going back to the median lets assume that everyone at my tournament has a basically painted army, isnt a douche & all have your basic starter marine army so they are all on 15/25 for each of the categories. except for Matt who brought a guard army with no heavy or special weapons. or tanks. his army is soft. excrutiatingly so (and annoying.)

so he gets a 4/5 for comp. that gives him a 5 point bonus over the other guys. which means that if lets say Matt & Paul go through the whole tournament & get the same battle scores (lets say 20's) , Matt will win that tournament. Simply because he won with a weaker army. And so logically is the better hobbyist

And so on.

WinglessVT2
09-02-2010, 12:00
Again, what's YTTH?

Thud
09-02-2010, 16:05
Again, what's YTTH?

Yes The Truth Hurts. It's a blog. Its author is a somewhat controversial figure, so to speak. ;)

Worsle
09-02-2010, 16:30
Wingless YTTH stands for Stelek's blog http://www.yesthetruthhurts.com/. Stelek is something of a derisive figure shall we say? He is a big proponent of the no comp system. He is also a great list writer and will at least back him self up even if it is in an abrasive or dismissive manor. Any thing more can probably be learnt from looking at his blog. Edit. Ninjaed by thud and my overly long response.

adreal perhaps you are not familiar with the term soft ban? It is a term used in fighting games for where something is not outright banned but instead it is looked down on to such an extent that it might as well have been banned. So if things are getting comp hits where they shouldn't or saying taking only one small unit of th/ss terminators gets you such a comp hit that taking them becomes pointless. Soft bans like that are not fun they are also dishonest at least an outright ban lets everyone know where they stand.

Comp tends to give the illusion of fairness and fun in my mind it is all to do with appearances to much rather than substance. Why I feel it is easy for it to win the PR war; it is very easy to cast a bad light on non-comp but much harder when it comes to comp as it is cast in the light of being a solution and you should be part of the solution not the problem right?

I will wrap the rest of my comments to you with my ones to DemonMonkey as I would just be repeating my self. You talk about sports only in the negative sense of how it can punish bad players but never in the positive despite saying it should be at average 3/5. Seem rather strange to me, it also seems strange you never give me a good way for it to be done fairly. When it comes down to it why should I have the ability to punish an other player for something like that? Would chess (incert what ever game you want, magic the gathering maybe?) be a better game if you could dock the other guys for not smiling enough? It is a silly idea and is entirely a personality contest. What gets you good sports? The right personality, making it a personality contest. You also skip the fact that given sports has to happen after the match it means the results of the match will influence your score as the other player is only human. Also what defines poor sport in other than the obvious? Is having an army the other guy thinks is cheesy bad sport? Can you stop some one getting a sport hit because of it? Effectively doubling the punishment because of the comp hit as well. Sports is just a bad idea.

Painting is even stupider, enforce a minim paining standard if you want, having painting competition but having it able decide a tournament? TShould painting compitions also have to factor in a mini tournament? Using it as a threat against players to make them paint is no good and will turn people off painting as well. No one likes to paint under-duress so you are just at likely to harm the hobby like this than help it. Want better painting encourage it properly that than punishing people for not.

Occulto the problem is your questions miss the mark. It is not a slippery slope but the law of unintended consequences. You comp some elements so they are no longer than strongest, some thing new will rise to the top if your system is consistent (will come back to that and why it is needed). Lets say comp hits mech armies as it is reasoned that 5th edition has made those armies too good. If you do that then non mech lists will start to take over, that means elements that did not effect mech will start to become a lot more imporant. This will bring new set top lists and you will have to re-evaluate what you have done because new elements will have become too powerful. You might get good balance in the end if you can pull this off but it wont be what you intended and will take a lot of fiddling.

Though that is if we are consistent if not then we are just trying to kill the game. Lets take this back to why my views on what makes a strong list and a panels that are then put to numbers. These are different by the simple fact are different because I am not trying to codify my views to a number (also the fact my mistakes don't mess up other peoples chances of winning). The whole idea of giving armies numbers is stupid, similar reason to why any review with a number has some thing stupid in it. That does not mean the review will be bad but trying to take it down and codify it to a score is an act of madness. One army gets a 3/5 and one gets a 2/5? Trying to explain that over the long term in a consistent manor just can't happen. This makes panel judging inherently inconsistent as it is done by humans trying to hammer a complex set of ideas (what makes a strong army in this case) into an abstract set of numbers.

Now why is this ultimately bad for the game? You think any other large an popular game or sport would benefit from randomly changing rules? Would chess (again magic would make a good example here) have a surge of popularity if the rules changed in every location and event? No it would be madness and bring the game down eventually. GW are not perfect but the game is in a better state of balance than it has been for a long time and the inconsistencies comp panels can only bring is not going to do any thing but muddy the waters. Yes you might get short term gain but it is hurting the long term future (even if that future does also require GW to keep making its baby steps to progress).

Oh and I am a lot less impressed by you telling me the voting is all rather uniform than you would think. At least with diverse voting you would know there are a lot of different options going in, less chance of group thing but when it all gets uniform? All it shows me as they are all thinking in similar ways and if so why have a panel at all? You missed my point in that final quote there too. There ways a whole sentence before that bit. Playing in comp only envelopments would only heighten problems not create them.

PapaDoc
09-02-2010, 21:01
We use comp in Sweden. Not in every tournament ofcourse (becouse you have to pull some uncomped ones to "adjust" the comp system and for other reasons). I like our comp system a lot becouse everybody can turn up with their halfshitty army and play. The winners are still the best players. I think the case is a bit the same in Australia. Sure the "serious people" win the events. But 40k tournaments are about having fun and meeting and playing new people. And comp allows a large turnup and not the same five "competative players" playing each other over and over again.

DemonMonkey
09-02-2010, 21:27
What gets you good sports? The right personality, making it a personality contest. You also skip the fact that given sports has to happen after the match it means the results of the match will influence your score as the other player is only human. Also what defines poor sport in other than the obvious? Is having an army the other guy thinks is cheesy bad sport? Can you stop some one getting a sport hit because of it? Effectively doubling the punishment because of the comp hit as well. Sports is just a bad idea.

well no. the trick is to make the component an idiot checkbox attemptng to make the 'funniest guy' not the key to a sports mark. its not a much more of a personality contest than lets say 'not being a *********' or 'dont do something offensive'.


Painting is even stupider, enforce a minim paining standard if you want, having painting competition but having it able decide a tournament?

again, it depends on what you are trying to promote & reward - which in my case is the hobby as a whole. Granted there is a place for the no soft score tourney which australia does have, and even in other tourneys, theres a place for the 'battlepoints only' side of things - read 'Best General'


Should painting compitions also have to factor in a mini tournament? Using it as a threat against players to make them paint is no good and will turn people off painting as well. No one likes to paint under-duress so you are just at likely to harm the hobby like this than help it. Want better painting encourage it properly that than punishing people for not.

actually less than 2% of people who attend my tourney do not have an army before entering. which is the only way your example works. People generally have armies ready, or an idea that they want to explore & so 4-6 months before will do that. I'm doing that myself now for a tournament in June. Otherwise i doubt paint would get to miniature before 2011. So its actually an encouragement.

You make valid points, but i'm going to have to disagree with you on most of them (respectfully) :)

WinglessVT2
09-02-2010, 22:51
I've never heard of, or seen, comp be a successful thing.
Everyone and their mothers considers twin hydras and dragonlords for dark elves as the ultimate in overpowered, but we have a player that runs this without tanking comp.
How?

He has all the other good units ever, all the good items, but he also has a really large unit of witchelves.
This means he artificially raises his on paper comp, and completely bypasses the arbitrary rules of comp itself.

Falkman
09-02-2010, 22:56
Then you're using a ****** comp system if it lets dual hydra and dragon through, simple as that.
And you have heard of comp being a successful thing, from several people in this thread...
I haven't played with 40k comp yet, but I've played with fantasy comp a lot, and with the state of that game, comp is an absolute must for lots of people here in Sweden to even consider entering a tournament.

WinglessVT2
09-02-2010, 23:11
I play with the harcore swedish comp in fantasy, which is found at atlantis. You should be very familiar with it, since we're from the same country.
It really doesn't work, because you can abuse it at will if you're determined enough - like the player I've told you about does.

Really, it all makes sense.
You start with a set amount of 'comp,' dragons decrease this, hydras decrease it more, but witchelves and executioners increase it. The solution?
You take large units of both, which put you back on the plus, even when you have twin hydras and a dragonlord.

Occulto
09-02-2010, 23:42
Though that is if we are consistent if not then we are just trying to kill the game.

If it was killing the game, then I'd expect after 10+ years of soft scores (it appears comp is not your only bugbear) the tournament scene in Australia would be as it was prior to the introduction of RT guidelines.

Skeletal and avoided by the majority of sane people. :p

Instead, the tournament scene has consistently grown so forgive me if I believe the data isn't backing your (or other people's) assertions that it's killing the game.

Now if that's peculiar to Australia, then fine. We'll do our thing, have our events run by scrubs for scrubs and continue to have events that we enjoy. The rest of the world can do whatever it wants - I've seen a checklist system from Sweden that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot barge pole, but if that's what they want and it works for them, then I'm not going to say they need to change. After all, the chance I have of visiting Sweden with a 40K army in the near future, is even less than my chance of convincing you that the sky is not about to fall due to soft scores.

If there are locals who believe soft scores are bad for the game, they're entitled to run their events without them and can take up the offers of support from existing TOs. There's plenty of experience out there on offer, about the basic mechanics of running an event (ie nothing to do with scoring).


Now why is this ultimately bad for the game? You think any other large an popular game or sport would benefit from randomly changing rules?

You mean like motor racing, amateur golf, horse racing or even salary caps for sporting teams?

These are all examples where the handicaps are used and/or the rules are changed (often arbitrarily) in the interest of promoting a more level playing field.


Yes you might get short term gain but it is hurting the long term future (even if that future does also require GW to keep making its baby steps to progress).

If it looks like it's hurting the long term future - then players will be vocal about their objections and TOs can react accordingly. No TO wants to run their event into the ground on a point of principle.


Oh and I am a lot less impressed by you telling me the voting is all rather uniform than you would think. At least with diverse voting you would know there are a lot of different options going in, less chance of group thing but when it all gets uniform?

I suspect that if there was diverse voting, that you'd be making the point that panels are useless because they can't get it consistent. :eyebrows:


All it shows me as they are all thinking in similar ways and if so why have a panel at all?

To reduce any perception of individual bias - aka the "well they guy marking my army obviously hates that codex" syndrome. :rolleyes:

Saying: "7 judges thought your army deserved 20/20" is a lot more authoritative than saying: "my single judge thought your army deserved 20/20."

Falkman
09-02-2010, 23:51
I play with the harcore swedish comp in fantasy, which is found at atlantis. You should be very familiar with it, since we're from the same country.
It really doesn't work, because you can abuse it at will if you're determined enough - like the player I've told you about does.

Really, it all makes sense.
You start with a set amount of 'comp,' dragons decrease this, hydras decrease it more, but witchelves and executioners increase it. The solution?
You take large units of both, which put you back on the plus, even when you have twin hydras and a dragonlord.
To even get to an "even" point (comp 15 seems to be the lowest allowed at the moment in most tournaments) you have to spend 1250 points on +FC troops, so those Executioner/Witch elf units are not large, more like gigantic.
And if you do take such huge units of crap, I really think you can be allowed to take a Dragon plus hydras.
It's not abusing it at all, he's taking incredible amounts of crappy troops to get the good stuff in, exactly what that comp system is designed to do, punish you for taking the good stuff.
And I wouldn't call it hardcore at all, it's rather nice and just makes tournaments more fun.

As to 40k comp, I haven't played with any comp yet, since I just got back into the game my games consist of friendly games with other "beginners" down at the club, with us using whatever models we actually have available, so I can't really comment on comp there.
Though in general people seem to be happy with the 40k comp in use here in Sweden at least.


You should be very familiar with it, since we're from the same country.
So why the heck are you bitching your ass off about comp used in a country on the other side of the globe then?

Dranthar
10-02-2010, 00:39
So why the heck are you bitching your ass off about comp used in a country on the other side of the globe then?
I'd like to know that too.

Zazoo
10-02-2010, 06:09
@Occulto, its great that comp works for the Australian market.
From what I have gathered from what you and others have said is that the majority of tournaments are comp tournaments with very few non comp tournaments.

One thing is fact "like minded people, attract like minded people" so by applying your comp you have been attracting those people that agree with you and chasing away those that did not.
So how many players have you chased away from the game!!
Its not a question that you can answer but is it possible that your tournaments would have more players if you accomodated BOTH schools of thought instead of only catering to one?

The reason I ask is because in South Africa we have had many arguments about this very same topic (But for fantasy not 40K) and Im thinking that having an equal number of tournaments that are comped and not comped might be the best direction to go.

chromedog
10-02-2010, 06:19
How many player have we scared away?

I don't know. We can't count the unknowns. We probably have a fair chunk of kids who don't do tourneys (and wouldn't regardless of stance on comp). However, since the numbers have been increasing in the last few years, it's not a significant proportion. A lot of players ONLY game in a club or store and regard store events as 'tourneys'.

And it's not like the non-comp people don't have the opportunities to RUN their own events.

Dranthar
10-02-2010, 06:25
One thing is fact "like minded people, attract like minded people" so by applying your comp you have been attracting those people that agree with you and chasing away those that did not.
So how many players have you chased away from the game!!
Its not a question that you can answer but is it possible that your tournaments would have more players if you accomodated BOTH schools of thought instead of only catering to one?

Actually, I think that question CAN be answered. There are still non-comp tournaments in Australia and from what I've seen, they've been consistently less popular than tournaments that include composition. It's a phenomenon that's also been pointed out in at least one Australian Podcast (Mandollies?).

Furthemore, the impression I've gotten on the Australian forums is that while there are always a number of people who say they won't attend a tournament because it doesn't have a composition system, I almost never see people voicing the opposite opinion.

Just as an aside, I get the impression that some people might have an underlying impression that there is a single entity that organises tournaments in Australia or failing that, an assumption that all Australian TOs have the same ideas about running tournaments. This is simply not true. We do regularly borrow ideas off of each other, but it's not as if we hold secret meetings in darkened rooms plotting the format of tournaments over the year. ;)

Occulto
10-02-2010, 07:44
@Occulto, its great that comp works for the Australian market.
From what I have gathered from what you and others have said is that the majority of tournaments are comp tournaments with very few non comp tournaments.

One thing is fact "like minded people, attract like minded people" so by applying your comp you have been attracting those people that agree with you and chasing away those that did not.
So how many players have you chased away from the game!!
Its not a question that you can answer but is it possible that your tournaments would have more players if you accomodated BOTH schools of thought instead of only catering to one?

Honestly, I think the horror stories about tournaments (in general) on the internet probably do more to scare more people away than any aspect of the scoring system. :(

The recurring problem TOs face is trying to convince potential players that no, we're not all beardy, argumentative gits who laugh evilly as we grind newbies into the dirt.

Even this thread is a prime example - exaggerated claims about TOs "banning" units based on nothing more than hearsay. Nothing gets banned ('cept maybe FW - but that's a whole different argument).


The reason I ask is because in South Africa we have had many arguments about this very same topic (But for fantasy not 40K) and Im thinking that having an equal number of tournaments that are comped and not comped might be the best direction to go.

Those who profess to enjoy non-comp (for the most part) aren't stepping up to the plate to do so. Some do and I applaud them for doing so.

These discussions have occurred ad nauseum on WargamerAU (the biggest Australian wargaming site) and whenever someone's told to put their money where their mouth is, the majority tend to go very silent. :eyebrows:

To those of us who do run events, it's highly insulting to put in hours of work only to have some guy rubbish your efforts when they're unwilling to even try it themselves.


We do regularly borrow ideas off of each other, but it's not as if we hold secret meetings in darkened rooms plotting the format of tournaments over the year. ;)

Psst. The meeting's actually next Thursday. Bring cake.

chromedog
10-02-2010, 07:47
Dranthar has that right.

We have no unified organisational committee along the lines of Adepticon.
We do have lines of communication within each state so that we can try to minimise scheduling conflicts, and to pass on tips and so on, but no universal FAQ or house rules. We did used to have one, but it isn't used much anymore.

One tourney is more or less different to the next (unless the TOs run multiple events, then they tend to have the same rules answers).