Page 1 of 4

should comp scores be taken out for A-con 2010?

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:05 am
by 00Enron
Do you think army composition scores should be taken out for adepticon 2010?

I personally voted for yes. The reasons are:

1. No way to judge fairly and consistantly

2. Creates problems when players feel like they lost to a "Power Army"

3. If I am paying for a tournament why cant I run what I want.

4 Gives players an opportunity to chipmunk other players becuase they lost.

There is no one way to run an army. It can be done many ways. Respect players rights to choose to play how they want to play.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:26 am
by Kuma
amen brother!

Comp = complaining

Tournaments= best of the best, not best of the worst.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:32 am
by Elthniar
As I said in the other thread, I think comp should be taken out completely or be put in full effect. I felt that this year it had one foot in the door being 1 point of the sportsmanship. I voted to remove it, because it is a competitive tournament setting, although I would not oppose to keeping it since it can be argued that it has a place among the other "soft" scores.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:44 am
by incarna
I play 40k and, as far as I am aware, we didn’t have comp scores in our tournaments.

With that said, I believe comp scores can severely negatively impact the outcome of a tournament. In 40k tournaments that I’ve played in where there was a comp score, I’ve actually heard people say flat out; “If my opponent beats me, I give them the lowest comp score possible.”

Imagine you and your buddy head to a tournament that has a cop score. By round 3 you and Random dude X are neck and neck for first place and your buddy happens to play Random dude X.

Is your buddy, knowing that his friend and his opponent are neck and neck and he has the ability to influence the outcome of the entire tournament in his friends favor going to grade his opponent objectively on comp? If so, ask yourself if everyone is a noble as your friend.

In a world where everyone behaves like a Bretonian Grail Knight, comp scores make a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the real world, the world we live in, consists of Chosen of Sigmar to Nurglings and everything in between.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:19 am
by Generalissimo_Fred
Comp can be easily achieved with clever scenario writing.

Primary objective - control 3-5 objectives. Vehicles can not contest and models must be outside of vehicles (even open topped ones) to claim the objective.

Mission scenario - Psychic warpstorm over the battlefield causes all psychic tests to be made on 3d6. Any roll of 12 or higher results in a perils of the warp attack.

Mission Scenario - The battlefield is a Bog Marsh. No model may turbo boost this game.


I think those three changes to three different scenarios can hamstring Land Raider spam, Chaos Lash and Nob Bikers. If someone takes a more balanced list which does not go overbaord with any of those units you will be fine. Otherwise you might not want to bring those lists to the tournament. Think of some other wones. They must be universal (affect both players) and they don't prevent things from working, just make them less optimal to be taken or used.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:24 am
by n00bzilla99
I agree with Fred on this one, you can easily make these so called "Power Lists" into uncompetitive ones with Clever scenario writing. So long as you don't do it every game but only certain missions, that way each list struggles in a match.

That being said, I brought a fair "All-Comers" IG list and lost 5 points of my sportsmanship score to a team of Nob-Bikers and Mega-Nob lists because we beat them... Now, sour-pusses like that really are what screws up sportmanship.

Turns out too, that their partners had cheated my teammates the entire game, claiming that a painboy worked like a KFF (I don't think it does) and saying their KFF gave a 4+ save. So essentially every Ork had a 4+/4+. They spent 2000 points of shooting at 1 Mob to only kill 3 Orks, and WE got penalized for sportmanship, thats a bunch of bull.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:14 pm
by Redbeard
The problem with the 'screw you' missions is that they catch non-power lists as well.

Taking your examples:

Control 3-5 objectives without vehicles: Ok, that screws land raiders. It also means that any mechanized force is screwed. Such powerhouses as mech-tau or chimera-guard.

Psychic Warpstorm: Screws lash. Also screws most eldar armies, not that they weren't pretty-well hamstrung in 5th already.

Bog Marsh: Slows nob bikers. Screws Ravenwing, White Scars, and Samm Hein armies too.


I've never been a fan of missions that are designed to punish someone for the list they bring. It doesn't stop those lists from winning their other games. If you get matched up with that army in one of the other rounds, you're just as screwed as you would have been. And it does make for some pretty demoralizing games for people who brought less-competitive armies to begin with, and then have to play through a game that's designed to screw them as well.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 12:51 pm
by Generalissimo_Fred
No they don't 'screw' over anyone exept lists that take one thing and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat.

If you actually have troops for those transports, then you are fine. It's the 5 Land Raiders who have 2 5-man scout squads who are in trouble. Mech Tau and Guard should have a troop unit for each transport. No problem for them.

Eldar don't need to take Farseers, but if they do then a 10pt Runes of Witnessing will negate the affect and their psychic rolls are 2d6 at leadership 10. Lash Armies are relying on their power. A well balanced force is not relying on their psychic powers.

Ravenwing, White scars and Samm Hein armies are screwed in every mission. No need to throw the bath out with the bathwater.

The power lists that brings out the wrath of some players is allowed to fester because of the mundane, simplistic scenario writing which let's them perform so well. Mix it up, it doesn't need to be every mission, and the more balanced armies will shine.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:10 pm
by n00bzilla99
Generalissimo_Fred wrote:The power lists that brings out the wrath of some players is allowed to fester because of the mundane, simplistic scenario writing which let's them perform so well. Mix it up, it doesn't need to be every mission, and the more balanced armies will shine.


Agreed! I'd like to see some variance in the scenario writing at Tournaments to encourage more balanced list writing as well as some really cool scenarios that should exist in the 40k universe instead of every daying being "A Clear Sky with a slight chance that the fight might go until dark."

Since I didn't bring a Power-Hungry list, I wouldn't have been screwed over at all by what Fred suggested.

Even next year, with rough list ideas floating around, those kinds of scenarios would be AWESOME to play, I wouldn't have too big a time dealing with that.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:23 pm
by incarna
I think one problem with writing scenario’s to hinder power lists is that what is and what is not a power list is very subjective.

Nob Bikerz beat lots of stuff…
Eldarzilla/Nidzilla makes mincemeat of Nob Bikers…
Swarm guard/ork/nid makes mincemeat of eldarzilla/nidzilla
The cycle goes on and on

What’s more, I think it falls outside the interest of what the game is about to subjectively select an attribute deemed by the community at large to be “too powerful” and lay out a blanket rule within a scenario that turns that attribute into a disadvantage.

Today, everyone hates Nob bikers. All we hear is how broke Nob bikers are. So why is it acceptable to create a scenario where an army that consist primarily or entirely of bikers is at a severe disadvantage? Why not just take that extra step and ban nob biker armies all together? How is hamstringing such an army “fair play” but simply banning them from AdepitCon wouldn’t be?

I used to play an all-jetbike Eldar army and I got spanked constantly. That was the army *I* CHOSE to play. Maybe I should petition AdeptiCon scenario writers to write scenario’s that make any model in contact with the ground to take dangerous terrain test every turn. This would certainly “balance” things in favor of the CHOICE I made in what army I play. Doesn’t that sound fair? Or, since I’m only one voice in the storm, perhaps that ISN’T fair by virtue of the fact that I’m in the minority?

Tomorrow, everyone will get bent out of shape over the myriad of power-house Guard armies that will be popping up soon. Nob bikers will vanish under a flurry of up to 9 pie plates and we’ll all scream; “The army is broke!” The game will start all over and we’ll continue this ridiculous dance instead of taking the responsibility ourselves for dealing with the issue INDIVIDUALLY.

Comp scores and broken lists are two separate issues. The issue with comp scores is that ANY given opponent will view ANY given unit outside the required HQ and 2 troops (or whatever you guys have to take in fantasy) as potentially broken and give out a poor comp score based purely on that experience during a game, in the interest of themselves, in the interest of a friend, or simply because they didn’t like how their opponent looked. This is an unreliable method of determining tournament performance and amounts to no more that a twisted popularity contest where the popular “powerful” units are beaten up and thrown in a locker while the “less powerful”, unpopular units become prom king.

“Broken Lists” are indicative of a tournament environment. The CHALLENGE is to build a balanced all-comers list that can ALSO handle the extremely nasty lists you could potentially encounter.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:49 pm
by incarna
I will add on the subject of “broken lists” that giving each player an optional 200 to 400 point “sideboard” of units which they can exchange for units in their core list might be an interesting idea. Next year codexes that have not yet been updated for 5th ed will be faced with quite a wide range of extremely powerful lists which they have to deal with in Orks, Guard, and potentially Necrons. As time progresses in 5th, I find my own Eldar codex is growing more and more out of context and I can only imagine how Tau, Tyranid, and Dark Eldar players feel.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:01 pm
by ifearnobeer75
I think comp is OK as long as there is a set standard to measure it against. Is it fair to penalize someone the same for taking Throgg the troll king (not really overpowered and fluffy) as someone who has Archaon? The only way to make a comp system fair is to tailor it for each army seperately, and you need to tell everyone what you are going to hit their comp score for. It is rather ridiculous to tell someone they can take special characters/Rhinox riders and then ding their comp for it.

Lastly in no way, shape or form should opponents be allowed to judge comp. I can't help but have the feeling that I got hit because people didn't think they should lose to ogres.

Jay

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:46 pm
by n00bzilla99
ifearnobeer75 wrote:Lastly in no way, shape or form should opponents be allowed to judge comp. I can't help but have the feeling that I got hit because people didn't think they should lose to ogres.


Super agree! I got pinged for having an "unbalanced" list with a 55 model, 3 tank Guard army! Just because I beat nob bikers! I Beat the bikers and my opponents looked at me like, "THATS NOT FAIR!" and I just wanted to laugh as my ordnance wiped out 3-4 bikers a turn.

Judges ought to score comp so that sore-losers don't have their revenge, even if it's just one point.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:02 pm
by Turtle
I am watching the threads dealing with comp and fairness with growing frustration and anger. so since this is pretty long sit back and enjoy, and if I anger somebody that was not my intention, it's just my opinion on the subject in general

Who has the right to tell me what I get to bring to a tournament without fear of being docked points for bringing something that I think is cool and fun to play with. At what point does my right to bring what I want to play with get surperceded by your right to tell me that's not fair? And fun not being part of the equation, since i've played against many people with tooled up power lists, and i've had very little chance to win, and still had a blast playing the game. Showing that it's not the list its the player who determines if the game is fun or not.

All of these lists that people are talking about being unfair, News Flash AREN'T really that unfair. Nob bikers can be beaten, same goes for bloodcrushers, lash, triple monolith, eldar seer council, nidzilla, darklance spam, the list goes on and on.

So much of what people call "unfair" or "cheesy" is really just people covering up their own failures as a player. (apologies if I offend someone)

All of the codex's have their own powerful units that people like to bring, but guess what ALL of the codex's have their neat toys, and nobody has the right to say well i think lash is unfair so you get penalized for that , but that guy brought, unit X so he gets bonus points. That's like the nfl saying oh well since you're playing against the lions and they're really bad, we'll spot detroit 14 points. Seriously!?!?!?

I feel 5th edition 40k has brought a lot of very good changes to the rules, and how the game is played, and the game as a whole is very healthy right now, every codex gets neat toys that are fun to use and can be "powerful" however none of those things win out against everything in the field. Just because you didn't have an answer to something in your list doesn't make that "uber" unit unfair, you just weren't prepared for it.

Case in point, did anybody see how many "uber lists" there were at the team tournament this year? I'll wager it was quite a few of them. Take a good look at the results, the team who won didn't have a max out on lash, (sorry I'm not familiar with what was all in their list), but more importantly the guys who came in 2nd look at what they had, It was totally "unpowered" lists for your reference ill post up one of the lists

chaos lord, daemon weapon, personal icon
10 summoned daemons
2 oblits
6 raptors 2 melta gun, champ w/lightning claws, icon
6 possessed, icon
12 marines champion w/combi melta, melta gun, flamer, icon

yeah thats really powerful, and yet those guys came in SECOND
So how can people complain about comp and this being unfair and that being unfair when people bring lists like this and place 2nd. (for the record they played sisters+lash, thunderhammer stormshield termies in crusaders, nob bikers, and bloodcrusher spam, so you can't argue that they had easy matchups, they did well against everybody's "power lists"

look at fantasy tournaments, I believe they have some problems with how their tournament is scored.

They kind of, in my opinion have a damned if you do, damned if you don't problem

If I am an average painter, for me to do well in the tournament and have a shot at overall, i have to do one of 2 things,

1. build a super nasty list to crush my opponents and hear the lamentations of the women. Problem with that is that I get hammered on comp (as I understand it) and have no chance to win

2. build an awesome "themed" army that has lots of subtlety, and unit choices picked not for effectiveness but for fluff reasons. Problem with that is that I get crushed by all the people who went with option #1

Its situations like that that make me look at comp and think that its a very draconian approach to a game. It's also how you equalize the chances of average to poor painters, and converters to win a tournament.

Switching to a more don't bring that unit comp system in my opinon could only be a detriment to tournaments and playing in them as I see it.

Now soft scores are very important to a tournament as a whole, since i feel that a tournament is a showcasing of the HOBBY in general and not just winning. (warmachine has that mentality that they don't want any hobby in their tournament i don't mean offence to it just using it as an example) Personally I like going to tournaments to have a good time with new people I meet and to look at cool painted and converted models people have brought. Hopefully you all do too since its a hobby we're participating in, not who wins more.

Soft scores are where tournaments are won and lost you can't win a tournament unless you are fun to play with, have some painted dudes, and win some games, if you are found lacking in any of those three area's you usually lose out on overall by a couple of points, so you need soft scores to run a tournament

That's why I think how scoring was done at adepticon this year was pretty much spot on, You could bring what you wanted and have fun playing with it, but without those soft scores you don't end up towards the top.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:04 pm
by Turtle
oops forgot something,

You can't really have somebody judge comp, or even come up with a fair system, since what one person thinks is fair or balance somebody else can think just the opposite about them, case in point I have no problem with people bringing nob bikers, and don't see them as cheesy or unfair at all, (and no I don't play orks)