40k comp

[Iron Warrior]

My Iron Warriors score fairly well on this with 20 points. I dont see what your problem is Dragon. Wait a min, yes I do!

Anyways...The best way to do this would be to make a rubric for EACH army. Its the only way where you cannot make a cookie cutter army and be biased to one army with a general rubirc. Yes it will be time consuming, yes you will have to take alot of time doing it. But its the only way to make something close to an unbiased rubric system. Boldo and Norton did one for fantasy and it seemed to work great. I liked it. A general rubric cheats the better comp-er

Painting should not be judged by a rubric, that makes no sense. I didnt like they way they did it in the rtt a while back. Someone who did the bare minimum to get the points would get the same score as someone who did an awesome job. That cheats the better painter. Best way to do it is to have judges do it.

And unfortuantly you dont have to be a better player to win at 40k. You can just tool it out! hehe

My personal belief is that comp/sports/battle points should be equal in thier standings for a total score. A Person that can master all 3 should be a champion, not one that tools out one section.

[Goldeagle]

I agree with Ron on this one, especially if the comp criteria for each army is done with an eye towards the "fluff based" theme of each specific army (i.e. some armies don't use a fast attack choice and some are mostly fast attack - check out Jay's swarm of red Saim Han jet bikes sometime - while some armies like Iron Warriors are themed to have 4 heavies and obliterators - they need to be killed up close and personal in hand-to-hand for the faint hearted). I hope you're volunteering to figure this out Ron because something like this could really help us have a high class old school Indy GT next fall. Otherwise, the whole idea that this is a 40th century universe with a running story line is lost in the crush-em all urge to build uber armies. IMHO, if you disagree go play a gladiator style of 40k and declare yourself last man standing. I also agree with Ron that a balance between comp, sportsmanship, and battle preserves the spirit of the game better than any other system. He who can balance all of these and come out on top at the end of the tourney is a true champion. That said, see you fellows in "my backyard" on Sunday.

[skyth]

goldeagle said:

a balance between comp, sportsmanship, and battle preserves the spirit of the game better than any other system. He who can balance all of these and come out on top at the end of the tourney is a true champion.

Or has the most friends or got lucky with opponents that generally score high.

Comp and sports are about the same thing anyways, so having comp being twice as important as how you actually do on the battlefield doesn't really sit well with me.

[Goldeagle]

These are not the same thing at all, although of course they are related, but in the same way that battle is to comp and sportsmanship. Comp is army design. It takes place before the tournament, long before in fact given the length of time it takes to design and paint up an army. Sporstmanship is how you handle the actual game, which includes winning and losing gracefully. Your argument sounds jaded by the incredibly stupid way the game has turned in the last few years in which groups of supposed friends (or should I say gangs) chipmunk particular players to "win at all costs". There is a simple solution by the way. Hand out sportsmanship points in a sliding scale at the end of the tourn and not in front of the guy you just played. Give your top opponent the best score and so on down to the worst opponent. Have everybody do this in private at the end of the tourn and check for cheating (i.e. no voting for friends you didn't play). If people can't handle this they are just jerks anyway who shouldn't be playing with toy soldiers. One more thing, I should have said a balance between battle, sportsmanship, comp, and PAINTING determines a true champ. Sorry I left that out (no slight to master painters intended).

[Ranger Dude]

I have to agree with goldeagle here. You do sound rather jaded, but you aren't the only one. I kind of like the sliding scale system. Boldo did something similar for fantasy. Score standard, but you can give one opponent an extra vote at the end of the tourney. I think he may have tried the "rank your opponents" system too.

Ron, I only partially agree with you about the painting. I think a rubric can be useful for scoring painting, but like you, it shouldn't decide the results. I think someone who put in the effort to paint their army well, completely, with basing should get a decent paint score. Yeah, there are those out there who could have painted it much better, but that doesn't mean the average painter should be penalized because Courtney showed up. (Sorry Chris). Use a rubric to set a baseline. Then judges can come in and score from the baseline. And not one judge. I've seen just as much trouble with bias in a single judge system. It should be at least two, preferably three.

I've written more in this posting than I have in months. I must be coming out of hibernation.

[Iron Warrior]

On the same token Rangerdude, do you think Courteny deserves the same painting score as someone who did just the very basics and didnt put much effort into his painting at all.

I dont think thats fair to the gamers out there that put that "extra" effort into painting to make it looks nice.

Its no so much as a penalty as it is a reward.

Sure you can have your basic rubric or what not, but there should be extra point for armies that go over and above the "average" painter. Some people put squat in for time painting and some practice a ton to achieve what they are at now. I say reward those that are really nice (like courtneys)

It only seems fair, and it just sounds relly weird to me that someone that is perhaps and average painter should recieve the same score as someone thats an above average one.

Take for example this statement in realtion to what you said about painting:

" I dont think I should be penalized because I am a average player in my battle points because someone else is a better player."

Doesnt that sound wierd?

Reward the person who excels in the area, not standardize the scoring.

[skyth]

Yeah, I am jaded...Might be because of going to a tourney with a nicely painted and converted army, I ended up tied in painting with someone who had stuff unpainted in his army because I brought a themed army that actually won. (Note-Themed that wins==cheese to alot of people).

I also know ALOT of people cheat on sports scores. If they lose badly and they brought a knife to a gun fight then they tank your comp and your sports, regardless of what you actually do in the game.

[Ranger Dude]

Ron, I agree with you. Above average painter should be rewarded. That's why I suggest having judges score things after a rubric. All I'm saying is that I think a rubric would help to at least encourage/enforce a standard level of painting. I actually thought the old RT rubric was pretty good. It just wasn't enough for scoring those people who went the extra bit. Use it to enforce the standard, and then Judge based on quality.

[Goldeagle]

Skyth, I am not surprised by your answer. The decision to combine comp and sportsmanship into "soft scores" that your opponent decides is what caused you to be jaded, imho. It allowed tourn to become both popularity contests and easily manipulated. In this thread, however, we were discussing hypothetical ways to "fix" the system. Making comp a score that occurs before the tourney and having multiple painting judges who can recognize real effort in painting and conversion (just like back in the day ...) would really help to restore the balance in the game. Iron Warrior's idea of creating comp rubrics for each army and my idea of making sure that theme was part of these rubrics would go a long way to making tourn worth going to again. As is, some whiny groups managed to suck the life out of what was once a great hobby where you could be rewarded for your careful army design, painting effort, gamemanship, and conversion skill in addition to your ability to bash your opponent on the field of battle. Truth is, maybe I'm jaded too.

[skyth]

Yeah, I'm tired of all the whiners constantly screaming 'cheese' at anything that is remotely effective (Like my daemonhunters list). Or that can do things that thier army/Marines can't do. It really turns me off playing the game.

They act like playing a powerful army is a bad thing and people only do it because they only want to win. That's bull. Especially since thier version of a 'good' army is a absolutely codex marine force. Any attempt to play a Xenos race involves whining unless the Xenos are beaten easily.

I'd rather play powerful armies and against powerful armies.

[skyth]

To further add...If there's a tournament, I've learned to always ask how comp is being scored and what house rules they use. Opponent scored comp is a no-go. Any rubric that they won't tell you how it works is a no-go.

You have to ask about house rules or get killed in sports, because the definition of a 'rules lawyer' is anyone who has a different interpretation of the rules than I do, especially when they are right according to the actual rules.

And opponent scored painting isn't that high of an ideal either. I'm tired of my painting score being used as a way of grading my composition. I've been tanked on painting WAY too many times. Heck, I've had non-playing judges rank my painting as lower than an army that wasn't completely painted.

[dragons3]

If the designers of 40k new what they were doing, COMP WOULD NOT EXIST! Anything written in a Codex should be used anyway you want, that's why it's call a Codex.

Painting should not penalize people from play, I DON'T PAINT CHINESE CHECKER or CHESS PIECES. Make painting a separate competition.

Now the idea is to play a military game and fun, so make sportsmanship 15% of the game total score.

What ever yields the most players is the way to go, the gamers population is dwindling, but whining is up 400%.

My opinion, and opinions can't be wrong!

It's Alex's tournament, what every he wants to do is fine with me.

See you girls Sunday!

BAITING CENTAL,CIAO

[Iron Warrior]

YOu know what, I think I will take Golden Eagles advice and start a comp rubric for each individual army. I will start with Chaos as its what I know best...Its will be my little project! hehe

side note, YOu can be fluffy and be "cheesy" at the same time...take it from an IW player, its true.

/ignore Dragons

d**n, it doesnt work in this game!!!! GAH!!

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

dragons3 said:

If the designers of 40k new what they were doing, COMP WOULD NOT EXIST!

The challenge of playing in a tournament is finding a balance between effectiveness of units chosen and the theme of the army you are playing... Theme is NOT taking a lot of 1 thing just because your army can.

Painting should not penalize people from play, I DON'T PAINT CHINESE CHECKER or CHESS PIECES. Make painting a separate competition.

There's also no composition in chinese checkers or chess.... because painting and composition are not part of those games

Now the idea is to play a military game and fun, so make sportsmanship 15% of the game total score.

But if sportsmanship is only 15% of the points total... we aren't sending a very strong message about the fun thing... now are we?

What ever yields the most players is the way to go

I actually agree with this one.... as long as it involves those players returning for future tournaments.

the gamers population is dwindling

I don't think the population is dwindling... theres just a few factors preventing them from showing up on a regualr basis...

• Work
  
• Family
  
• warhammer designers really have no clue how to make the game better
  
• moving out of state
  
• warhammer designers have not updated the list for the army they enjoy playing
  

but whining is up 400%.

no, just it's focus has changed.

[Iron Warrior]

Well Said Wolflord, well said!