Comp difference

[boldo]

It seems that people have become a bit embittered by comp. There is a lot of discussion about my use of comp checklists which many seem to dislike intensely. Yet judged comp seems to get a fairly good rep. I was wondering why people seem to so intensly hate knowing what their comp score is in advance? I think having the ability to pick the comp you want to play would be a plus while not knowing what the score would be or how changes would affect your score would be in all ways inferior. Now others disagree so I was just wondering what the advanges in others mind were for judged comp, asuming a comp will be used.

Boldo

[Ranger Dude]

I do agree that knowing your score ahead of time is nice, but the checklists are either biased in one direction or too complex, having to have specific info for each army. The reason Judged comp is gaining popularity is that it is easier to catch the abusive lists, and doesn't handicap others. Yes, it's still not perfect, but it's easier to be all inclusive with it.

[adsvampire]

I used to be a strong supporter of paper-based comp. However, time and experience has shown that paper-based comp just doesn't work. No matter what system you make there is always a loophole and/or method to break said system. Also, most systems (yours in particular) appear to be biased toward a particular army(s) or style(s) of play. Not everyone wants to play the infantry horde supported by a few warmachines. Paper-based comp makes the appearance of being restrictive which is why people don't like it. However, the latest set of rules you posted IMHO is quite good ... but it still falls short in some specific cases (which are not addressed ... HE rares in particular).

Opponent based comp has its flaws as well but I do believe it is better in many ways than paper comp. The biggest problem with opponent based comp is that not everyone agrees on what is good and bad comp (which is fine) so you get inconsistent scores. And, some people just ignore the comp sheet altogether and give poeple max scores (or min). Also, winning or losing the game can also effect one's comp score. You can mitigate some of this by forcing players to exchange lists and grade comp before their game is played (and do so in secret).

Judged based comp is my favorite system at the moment. If you have 1+ experienced players you can get a more accurate comp score overall. Sure, the judges themselves will be biased toward particular armies and builds but if you have more than 1 judge you can hopefully get a better account. Heck, if the tournament is small enough you could hand out the lists to everyone present and ask them to score every army there except their own (time consuming though). Also, no one says you have to reveal the comp scores.

The 4th option is to not have comp worth any points at all but instead be used for pairings throughout the tournament. You give the army a raw score and add their battle score to that to determine pairings between rounds.

I don't know about everyone else but I do like comp ... despite my complaining. What I don't like is being force-fed a style of play because of a particular paper comp system or judge. I also don't like army specific rulings to weaken a particular army (VC) purely because the tournament organizer feels they are too powerful or doesn't agree with the wording in the book (and actually goes so far as to invent new rules to explain his point of view). You are the tournament organizer and thus can do and invent whatever rules you want ... but it doesn't mean the rest of us (which seems to be just me) have to like ... hence my complaining on this forum.

[skyth]

Everyone has biases about what sort of armies that they want to play against.

The difference between judged (player or judge based) comp and a matrix is that a matrix is open and honest about why your army scored the way it did and the biases that it has.

I really like Boldo's ideal that comp is used to balance the armies against each other, rather than the way I commonly see it used to punish and bully people who play something that you don't like.

I was thinking (which gets dangerous)...I posted a 5 point comp system (Which, granted, needs a bit of work and help with it). What if you used that in the following way:

A win is worth 15 points. A tie is worth 10 (No, we don't do do-over of ties in a tournament Boldo ) and a loss is worth 5. To this score, you add your comp score and subtract your opponent's comp score. In extreme cases, if you have a 0 comp army and you play someone who has a 5 comp army, a win is worth 10 points, a tie 5 points, and a loss 0 points. For the guy playing the 5 comp army a win is worth 20, a tie 15, and a loss 10.

Granted, I'd perfer that regardless of what happens, the guy that wins scores at least 1 more point than the guy who loses.

The other alternative is to, as adsvampire stated, not have any 'score' towards winning for comp, but rather have the match-ups determined by that. Granted, this really only works in a bigger tournament.

Comp doesn't work as a balancer in a tournament if it's a pure score, as if you have two 0 comp armies face off, and two 5 comp armies face off, the battles are even but the guy who took the 5 comp army comes out the overall winner. When this happens, comp is being used as a punishment rather than an equalizer.

[Iron Warrior]

A Checklist comp system allows people to play games with the check list. It now becomes how do we breack or bend the complist and still get what I want. I dont think there should be games played outside the actual game on the table.

[skyth]

As long as there is comp, sports, and painting, games will still be played outside the actual game at the table.

[MajorSoB]

I wish I had a giant erasure so I could wipe away all the nonsense in this thread before I start my post...

First off I do agree that comp in a necessary evil to help balance armies in a tournament setting. GW does not, nor ever will, write army books that balance with each other. It has never happened and most likely never will. GW does not play test their armies well enough to uncover possible rules exploits and loopholes which make a somewhat innocuous power and make it a game breaker when combined or used in ways that were not envisioned. We need comp, plain and simple.

What we dont need is a comp system that lends itself to exploits and loopholes. I know Alex has tried his hardest to come up with a comp matrix which treats all armies the same. He has done a good job but the system is still flawed. It still makes it possible to slip a hard build through the cracks of the system while other softer builds get slammed due to the very nature of the army. The matrix is biased against magic and slams magic based armies while other equally hard armies are rewarded due to their equally powerful non-magical abilities and their ability to gain rank bonuses. On one hand I think this system is a good start but when you take away a persons ability to think when scoring comp you overlook mitigating circumstances which may increase or decrease scoring. Most players understand what is good and what is broken. Most players are decent sports and can be trusted to score fairly and honestly. Yes their are rotten apples in every bunch but for the most part I think players or judges can be trusted to make the determination of comp using a soft matrix along with the brain God gave them.

Again this is one man's opinion, Alex has his and although I do not agree 100% with him, I do respect his opinion on this matter.

[Iron Warrior]

As long as there is comp, sports, and painting, games will still be played outside the actual game at the table.

Only with people of Low moral standing and poor self enforcement as well as Poor sportsman.

[skyth]

May 21, 2008 17:19:23 GMT -5 Iron Warrior said:

As long as there is comp, sports, and painting, games will still be played outside the actual game at the table.

Only with people of Low moral standing

You mean, like people who feel the need to degrade people who don't agree with them?

[MallSecurity]

May 21, 2008 9:57:24 GMT -5 adsvampire said:

Opponent based comp has its flaws as well but I do believe it is better in many ways than paper comp. The biggest problem with opponent based comp is that not everyone agrees on what is good and bad comp (which is fine) so you get inconsistent scores. And, some people just ignore the comp sheet altogether and give poeple max scores (or min). Also, winning or losing the game can also effect one's comp score. You can mitigate some of this by forcing players to exchange lists and grade comp before their game is played (and do so in secret).

Judged based comp is my favorite system at the moment. If you have 1+ experienced players you can get a more accurate comp score overall. Sure, the judges themselves will be biased toward particular armies and builds but if you have more than 1 judge you can hopefully get a better account. Heck, if the tournament is small enough you could hand out the lists to everyone present and ask them to score every army there except their own (time consuming though). Also, no one says you have to reveal the comp scores.

My only problem with Judged comp tends to be the way it 'punishes' out of towners who may not be aware of the local styles of play or the judge’s particular likes/dislikes.

I can think of two examples of this:

IIRC at last years Crossroads GT Matt York's Skaven got a 5/20 for comp. Regardless of whether this was a 'correct' score or not - it was not the score he was expecting. I do consider you and Cory to be two of the best Fantasy comp judges but I have seen this at just about every judged comp tourney I have ever been to.

For 40k there was a Chaos player from Syracuse at our last GT who built was he deemed to be a 'fair' list but it got blasted in comp by our local standards. Needless to say he was a bit annoyed at what he thought was a comp friendly list getting nailed because he didn't know what was considered 'friendly' around here.

I have seen this cause some problems and trigger cries of home-cooking. Although you can never please everyone I believe it underlines the advantage of knowing your Comp score ahead of time.

[Iron Warrior]

You mean, like people who feel the need to degrade people who don't agree with them?

No I mean people who purposely would go out of thier way to make this game and hobbie to stand in disrepute and otherwise take the fun out of it. People who would tank scores becuase they lost a game rather than award the player who won what they deserved.

You can disagree with me all you want, but people who do dishonest and immoral acts are still dishonest and immoral people, no two ways about that.

I think you are over sensitive to these jibes and friendly bantering.

As for whats "exactly" Fair/balanced, whether you an out of towner or from the home team there is that sense of balance that every person shares. For example and not to Pick on him, he is a great guy, Jeremy from Syracuse does play burly armies and he agrees that he does. He doesnt hide the fact he just does. Thats his style of play. But he admits its a hard, burly army and most of us agree with him. There is that basic understanding out there. People can claim ingnorace but in the end they too know at a basic level whats fun and whats not.

[MajorSoB]

That brings up an interesting point. Jerermy Constance from Syracuse does play burly armies. He does admit that. His builds are "all meat and no fat". He does bring an A-Bomb to a knife fight. The difference between Jeremy and other players I have come across is that he freely admits to what he plays, just like Ron said. When I scored him a 6 for his comp at the GT we talked through several PM's. He never said his army was great and from what I remember I understood he would have given himself a score in the 8 to 10 range. Again, we are talking 2 to 4 points overall, not a huge swing, no where's near what a spiteful opponent could screw you out of in just one round. In contrast too, I do remember Jeremy gaining nearly perfect painting scores ( although later it was pointed out that the Khorne army he painted was playing Tzeench rules, ooops!). Also Jeremy is a fun person to play against, I am sure Ron can attest to that. He makes games fun and interesting for his opponents. These are scores that you also need to maximize if you hope to win a tourney. Comp is important but only part of the whole equation.

[skyth]

May 21, 2008 19:38:21 GMT -5 Iron Warrior said:

I think you are over sensitive to these jibes and friendly bantering.

Maybe so. I used to love playing and designing lists that I think are fun to play (and by default, if I think something is fun to play, I think I would have fun playing against it) and seeing what I could do. I was happy in my ignorance.

Then I got to see and experience all the name-calling and bullying that goes on in the 'hobby', something I've had to deal with all my life. It really ruins the enjoyment of the game where I'm paranoid that I'm going to be bullied if I take a list that I enjoy playing. Heck, I've been called names here for championing a commonly held rules interpretation. So yes, it pisses me off.

As for whats "exactly" Fair/balanced, whether you an out of towner or from the home team there is that sense of balance that every person shares. There is that basic understanding out there. People can claim ingnorace but in the end they too know at a basic level whats fun and whats not.

And that's the biggest load of bull that I've heard yet. First off, not everyone has the same idea of what is 'fun'. But even on the 'balanced' front=

Here's a nice summary of why-

As an example, say there are (And probably there really are about) 5 tiers of lists (1-5, with 1 being the post powerful and 5 the least powerful).

Person A is used to playing tier 1 lists. He is asked to bring a 'friendly' list, so he brings a tier 2 or 3 list which is a downgrade from what he normally uses.

Person B plays Tier 3 lists, so brings a tier 4 or 5 list when asked to bring a 'friendly' list.

Person A is thus genuinely surprised when person B starts complaining about the list that they brought that they thought was a 'friendly' list.

[Iron Warrior]

Skyth Ive already given an example of an out of towner and our own gamers knowing whats a hard army vs whats not. Do you need more? Ok Coyotes Den, Gary...not from our area, also knows the diffrence between a Hard list and a Fun list. I have also met few people at our GT and tournaments that have the same basic fundamental ideas as to whats hard vs fun. So I have already shown you that there is indeed a basic fundamental idea as to whats fun vs hard out there and indeed not "a bunch of bull" as you so ellegantly put it. Of course there will always be those people that just dont get it.

[skyth]

You keep on repeating it like if you repeat it enough times, it will somehow magically become true...