|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Nov 25, 2009 17:19:02 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
I have a proposal for the GT about comp. I read the blog link Jay provided on comp today, and it gave me an idea. First of all, I think we realize that the system we implemented for the 2009 GT had issues, however well intended it was when created. And second, I know how much we value comp as a group (however defined).
So, my proposal is that there be no comp score for the GT at all - that's right, no comp score. But while comp "may be dead" and GW in 5th edition is closer to balancing the various armies than ever before, we should impose the following "real" mandatory limits on all armies. These rules must be followed by all participants and will be checked for compliance when lists are turned in before the tourn:
1) Only 1 named character may be taken. (even IG)
2) No Super Heavies or Armour Company may be taken.
3) No duplicate HQ choices can be made unless they are the kind that do not take up slots (i.e. IG priests, or Greater Deamons).
4) No more than 2 choices of the same units can be taken in the Elites, Fast, or Heavy slots.
We should then add 1 question in the player judged sheets for sportsmanship that says something like was this in your opinion a balanced army? And another question that says something like was this army well composed/themed?
The first and second limits have already been covered or are obvious. The third limit would eliminate the two lash deamon prince list (although they could still bring a deamon prince, a sorceror, and a greater deamon or two ...), and other possible nasty, unrealistc double HQ combos that I can't think of right now (like who believes that two identical deamon princes would be hanging out together in the 40k universe?). The fourth limit just tones down the nasty spam, so you could have 6 oblits, but not 9, 6 Leman Russ, but not 9, 2 monoliths, but not 3 ... etc ...
The two questions in the sportsmanship player judging create a subjective measure of comp. They would only amount to 10 total points, but at least it would allow a player who feels they have been cheesed to subtract a couple sportsmanship points in a way that the last system may not have provided very well.
My intent here was to recognize that comp scoring systems don't work well - and thus I propose we eliminate it. But also to recognize that we value balanced, themed, well composed armies and by imposing the "real" limitations on lists we achieve a degree of balance that is both reasonable and yet would allow most players who hate comp to make a tough list that would only get penalized by a point or two during the judging of sportsmanship (which is of course subjective and not always going to play out that way).
Oh yeah, forgot to add that as a huge bonus it would put an immediate end to our drawn out (and ultimately frustrating) discussion about how to make next year's comp sheets. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by shilekjalan on Nov 25, 2009 18:19:40 GMT -5
Or instead players could learn new dimensions within the game and develop a better understanding on how to counter such threats. Lesson #1 - take any given army, think about all the threats and develop appropriate counter measures. It's not a player's fault if their opponents have not invested the time to do such things. Better yet - come to AdeptiCon and sign up for the tactics seminar that Jay and Shaun are hosting on the Thursday before the con. Artificial limits won't stop the noise. It will just make other options and combinations louder. In all honesty I had fun at the last event with everyone who was there and I am very happy with each person who played in the event. Everyone played within the system that was established and victory was achieved by the players who scored the most points within the system being used. I look forward to seeing everyone again and do not wish to alienate any players. However, at the end of the last tournament surveys were handed out as well as conversations with people who had played in the event. In response to what many people indicated that they would like to see changed in future events, we will restructure point totals to focus more on the play on the table and less on list that feature internet spam power builds. A limit on special characters was one of the suggestions to achieve this and much like the organizers of the Worldwide 40K event, we agree that this will be affective. As for the invite to AdeptiCon, I do thank you but it isnt a financial possibility this year. Hopefully in 2011 it will be a different story because I would really enjoy visiting and competing in this event. As for signing up for Jay and Shaun's tactical seminar, why bother, after all who do you think they learned from! In all seriousness, tactics are somewhat different from power building. Tactics focus on what to shoot, what to assault, unit placement and movement, deepstriking/reserve strategy, etc while army building is more of a Math Hammer exercise where you figure out what units are the most undercosted/overpowered for their point cost and take 3 of them. Couple this with special abilities granted from unanticipated combos along with powers that take advantage of certain rules discrepancies and you truly have an army that is miserable to play against. The first (tactics) is used by good players seeking to improve their skills, the second (power building) to me seems about as much fun as kissing your sister. "Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." -Dennis Miller As for the artificial limits, no these are real limits and they will be in place not to harm the chances of the truly great players from winning but as a way to help everyone compete on a more level playing field. Again the goal is to differentiate our event from the GW sponsored 'Ard Boys tournament and to focus on ever aspect of gaming not just one. I would sincerely hope that most people can see this and respect the goal we are trying to accomplish. Greetings Brothers, I was not sure if this paticular item of debate on the forum was open to all Warhammer players/fanatics or just the ones who are going to be running the Grand Tournament but I was hoping no one would mind me throwing in this little bit. I really love it when there is composition at tournaments because I feel that it limits most of the crazy stuff out there. It stops people from doing ultra powerful lists and it stops people from using things just because they are good for winning. Winning is not the point of this game, people like that should go play magic. Warhammer is about having fun, the comraderie of your brothers, painting, assembling, converting and so on. People that just play to win are annoying anyway. That is why their is the Ard boyz, so that way people can have an outlet for their "I have to win!" feelings and emotions. I really love playing games that are about Armies, not retinues and I love games that are for fun and for thinking (like strategies and tactics) not just smashing your way through your opponents army with a bunch of cheased out stuff that requires no thinking. Ave Imperator, Courage and Honour |
|
MajorSoB
Moderator 
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Nov 25, 2009 19:57:06 GMT -5
Greetings Brothers, I was not sure if this paticular item of debate on the forum was open to all Warhammer players/fanatics or just the ones who are going to be running the Grand Tournament but I was hoping no one would mind me throwing in this little bit. I really love it when there is composition at tournaments because I feel that it limits most of the crazy stuff out there. It stops people from doing ultra powerful lists and it stops people from using things just because they are good for winning. Winning is not the point of this game, people like that should go play magic. Warhammer is about having fun, the comraderie of your brothers, painting, assembling, converting and so on. People that just play to win are annoying anyway. That is why their is the Ard boyz, so that way people can have an outlet for their "I have to win!" feelings and emotions. I really love playing games that are about Armies, not retinues and I love games that are for fun and for thinking (like strategies and tactics) not just smashing your way through your opponents army with a bunch of cheased out stuff that requires no thinking. Ave Imperator, Courage and Honour My faith has been restored, thank you! As much as I would like to wipe the slate clean of comp since it is not a very easy thing to handle and always sparks controversy and debate, I believe that it would not be true to the ideals held by our club that hosts this event. As for the suggestions: 1) I agree and the vast mojority of our members also agree, 1 named character only. 2) Super heavies have never been legal in a standard game and Armoured Company is no longer a legal list with the release of the new Imperial Guard codex. 3) Duplicate HQ, while the ban on this is noteworthy, the problem extends far beyond spamming HQ's. 4) I do like your suggestion on only two choices being the same in Fast, Heavy and Elite slots. ( And no switching a weapon here or there does not make it a "different" choice!) I think this option should be opened up for discussion. Thanks Paul! While these are good outlines I dont think they eliminate the need for a comp score since we have all played in tournaments like this where limits are imposed and someone always seems to find a way to skirt the system. Unfortunately some people look at guidelines as a challenge to squeeze their lists through while still keeping an unforeseen advantage over their opponents. Sportsmanship is really a separate issue. I can say that in the past event there were almost no issues with sportsmanship. While we would like sportsmanship to be more of a factor it seems that people either max their opponent's scores or chipmunk them. I would be far more inclined to eliminate sportmanship scoring before eliminating comp, but again its just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Nov 25, 2009 20:21:04 GMT -5
We need to get rid of player judge sportsmanship and player judged comp. I'll use a tournament I was at recently as an example...
I bring a marine list, no special characters, I had 2 dreads (non-venerable) and 2 predators in my army... the rest was mechanized. I got a 10/15 for comp...
I am courteous to my opponents, but somewhat quiet, because I was a bit tired that day. I get a 10/15 for sportsmanship.
I get a 66% on soft scores because people don't like space marines or the people who play them. great....
sportsmanship is too subjective. people often give out 2's and 3's out of 5 if their opponent was decent, and never give out 5's. Then there are people who give straight 5's to everyone. In the end, if you have the former as an opponent in all 5 games, you stand no chance against someone who had the latter.
As far as comp scoring from your opponent, half the people playing in tournaments don't know how to score it. see a marine army across the table, and nobody will EVER give you a 5 for comp, because nobody likes playing against marines, because they are so common. Play against any army common in your gaming area, and your never going to give them a 5, because your never looking forward to playing that same old boring army.
Comp should be a checkbox. If your opponent has a fairly balanced army, check it off. if not, don't.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Nov 25, 2009 20:57:43 GMT -5
Comp should be a checkbox. If your opponent has a fairly balanced army, check it off. if not, don't. Hmmm, an interesting idea, an all or nothing approach! In all seriousness do you think this would solve problems and do you think that people would vote accurately knowing that their opponent gets nothing at all if they check no? What should the total deduction be for scoring "no" in all 5 games, the equivalent of 2 games worth of max points? I do agree with you on sportmanship. I was once at a Canadian GT where a somewhat mediocre Ork player max scored every opponent he played in every category and shared this info with his opponents before turning in the scoring sheets each round. Guess who won "Best Sportsman" that tourney?  I do believe there should be some way of quantifying sportsmanship but in terms of finishing order it should have the least impact. |
|
|
|
Post by malice on Nov 25, 2009 21:54:59 GMT -5
We need to get rid of player judge sportsmanship and player judged comp. I'll use a tournament I was at recently as an example... I bring a marine list, no special characters, I had 2 dreads (non-venerable) and 2 predators in my army... the rest was mechanized. I got a 10/15 for comp... I am courteous to my opponents, but somewhat quiet, because I was a bit tired that day. I get a 10/15 for sportsmanship. I get a 66% on soft scores because people don't like space marines or the people who play them. great.... sportsmanship is too subjective. people often give out 2's and 3's out of 5 if their opponent was decent, and never give out 5's. Then there are people who give straight 5's to everyone. In the end, if you have the former as an opponent in all 5 games, you stand no chance against someone who had the latter. As far as comp scoring from your opponent, half the people playing in tournaments don't know how to score it. see a marine army across the table, and nobody will EVER give you a 5 for comp, because nobody likes playing against marines, because they are so common. Play against any army common in your gaming area, and your never going to give them a 5, because your never looking forward to playing that same old boring army. Comp should be a checkbox. If your opponent has a fairly balanced army, check it off. if not, don't. It's interesting you recently had this experience Steve. That same scenario has played out time and time again ever since player based scoring was introduced. This is the exact reason why we don't even bother worrying about what we bring. We simply bring what we want to play and attempt to treat everyone in a fair and friendly manner throughout the event. While I give people credit for trying to institute various types of comp/sportsmanship systems, the same results happen over and over and over and ..... wait for it.... wait for it....over again. A sane person won't keep poking themselves in the eye. ----------------------------------- @sob People say they truly want to have fun. Please define "fun". We see fun as developing unique and strong armies along with playing a tactically challenging game. We can have this no matter what system is implemented. Unless you devolve to checkers or chess - your comp systems won't "protect" people. Some of the reasons why are below: Net lists - you didn't see one net list build in the top five generalship spots at DaBoyz GT. So it must be the lower scoring players bringing net lists. If so - then the so called net lists didn't do well and yet you want to use that as a basis for implementing limitations. So I see this as a 0% score basis for making this change. Special Characters - I believe only one list in the top five generalship spots had two special characters. Good to see that two special characters dominated so much. That deserves a score basis of 20% since one in five meet your criteria. How interesting is that. Sounds like a great basis to make concrete decisions on. 0% of the top five in battle meet your net list criteria and 20% of the top five in battle meet your special character limitation - good job. Tactics - It is not the opponent's fault that people did not know how to handle these lists. It's interesting how lists can be attributed to success, but yet practice, strategic skill development and experience (say 18 years for me) seem to play such a minor role. You try to emphasize these by inserting your "restrictions", but the same thing will happen again. Strong or even stronger builds will be made and you will still be in the same conundrum. Complaints about strong builds and limitations and fluff and theme will be heard again next year. That is the sound of inevitability. ----------------------------------- To All - I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet that even after Steve (Horst's) loss to me, he has thought about that game and how to counter the various moves that were made. In talking with Wyatt (my 4th game) - he had started to pick up on a lot of the subtle things that he saw me doing to maximize my odds of success. Things that he may not have thought of before. It is that process which allows a general to take a regular, solid or top tier list to an exceptional level. Finally - if your definition of "fun" is more in "fluff or theme", you should be aware that you will not necessarily keep your models on the board and you will most likely lose some games. That should not bother you. You are coming in to an event to play games against/meet new people or even friends. Some will outclass you either through army build, tactical skill or both. It's going to happen no matter what type of comp system you put in place. If it does bother you - then you need to really question your own motives for showing up to the event. |
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Nov 25, 2009 23:06:30 GMT -5
Malice is making a lot of sense here; so maybe its time we started thinking outside the box a little more? Since there really weren't a bunch of "internet spam power builds" that drastically affected the outcome of our GT, why are we reacting like there were?
Doug you had your faith restored by somebody agreeing with you and then you just shrugged off my idea because you were vindicated. Your arguments to Steve about his all or nothing suggestion and your comments about sportsmanship and comp in most of your posts show that there are inherent flaws with trying to make a check list approach work. At the very least, please consider the idea of creating some kind of simple comp threshold and then doing away with comp scores without just drawing a line in the sand simply for the sake of preserving our difficult to define values. We don't want an Ard Boyz tourney agreed - so why not impose a few simple comp restrictions which disallow that which is most unsavory to the group and then stop trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You can't skirt a simple system, so there would be no fear of the system being broken. It would only stop that which we do not want to see (i.e. 2 named special characters, 2 exact daemon lash princes, 9 obliterators, etc ...). A few simple limits should still allow for some super tough builds for those that prefer them, but also allow the fluffy/theme armies too. I know I play a theme army and accept that I will probably loose at least a few games because of it.
Happy Thanksgiving to all!
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Nov 26, 2009 6:03:32 GMT -5
I liked the way the last daboyz tournament handled comp though... I thought fair scores were handed out to people there. I got a decent score but not perfect, because I had some repetition in my troops choices. it seemed balanced. why fix what isn't broken? The only change I would recommend is getting rid of the best general prize, and getting rid of the sportsmanship prize, and just giving out 1-9 best overall as prizes.
Put more emphasis on the hobby overall, and less on individual aspects of it. I'm sure people wouldn't bring high power 2 special character spam lists if they knew we weren't going to give a best general prize. If we have only best overall prizes, and people know that going in, we'd probably see alot more balanced lists.
|
|
|
|
Post by ccourtney on Nov 26, 2009 8:03:10 GMT -5
As you keep discussing composition for the next GT I would like to suggest that we decide if we want to run a scoring system for the love of the “Hobby” or for gamers.
A tournament for hobbyists takes in all the aspects of 40k. These include winning games with a well painted army that fits into the 40k universe while making sure both you and your opponent enjoy the game.
A tournament for gamers is about winning games.
If you look at the rule books and codex’s they are only about 20% to maybe 25% rules. Often there are just as many pages dedicated to painting, but over half of every codex and rulebook is dedicated to the fluff, background and suggested “composition” of the armies. The majority of every codex and rulebook is dedicated for the love of the hobby of 40K, most “Gamers” ignore these sections as they are just wasted pages in between the stat lines and special abilities of the unit entries.
What I think sets (or could set) the Daboyz GT apart for 99% of the other tournaments out there is that we run it for the love of the “Hobby.” A huge part of that is taking cool armies that fit into the fluff and background of that codex, or revolve around the background of a special character. Composition also runs hand in hand with sportsmanship. As you are composing your army you are concerned with making sure you and your opponent enjoy the actual “game” aspect of the hobby. Now there are people who will tell you that their enjoyment in playing is to be challenged by the hardest army someone can field and to do the same back to them. That’s fine, you are a gamer, more than a hobbyist then, nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of tournaments out there that cater to gamers including the ‘Ard boyz.
I personally am a hobbyist. I spend 3-4 hours on each model for the love of the hobby, I have been painting terrain like mad to make the tables look and play as cool as the models. When I make my army lists I take the good units, but never more than one. I make armies that fit into the theme of force I am putting on the table, even if the units suck I try to make them work. I stand back and look at the list and say, is this a army I would have fun playing against? In the end I try to bring a well painted army, cool terrain to play on, and a themed force. All of this is not just to make sure I have fun, but more so to make sure my opponent, win or loose, enjoys the “game” aspect of the hobby.
I think this is what the hobby of 40k is all about. If we decide to just start playing games then let’s just kill painting and sportsmanship while we are at it. I can stop spending so much time on terrain and paining models. We can play on blank wood tables with cereal boxes for buildings. Our only concern can become winning at all costs.
|
|
Soleman
Chapter Master
The "Strait Talkin"
Posts: 1,389
|
Post by Soleman on Nov 26, 2009 10:03:33 GMT -5
As you keep discussing composition for the next GT I would like to suggest that we decide if we want to run a scoring system for the love of the “Hobby” or for gamers. A tournament for hobbyists takes in all the aspects of 40k. These include winning games with a well painted army that fits into the 40k universe while making sure both you and your opponent enjoy the game. A tournament for gamers is about winning games. If you look at the rule books and codex’s they are only about 20% to maybe 25% rules. Often there are just as many pages dedicated to painting, but over half of every codex and rulebook is dedicated to the fluff, background and suggested “composition” of the armies. The majority of every codex and rulebook is dedicated for the love of the hobby of 40K, most “Gamers” ignore these sections as they are just wasted pages in between the stat lines and special abilities of the unit entries. What I think sets (or could set) the Daboyz GT apart for 99% of the other tournaments out there is that we run it for the love of the “Hobby.” A huge part of that is taking cool armies that fit into the fluff and background of that codex, or revolve around the background of a special character. Composition also runs hand in hand with sportsmanship. As you are composing your army you are concerned with making sure you and your opponent enjoy the actual “game” aspect of the hobby. Now there are people who will tell you that their enjoyment in playing is to be challenged by the hardest army someone can field and to do the same back to them. That’s fine, you are a gamer, more than a hobbyist then, nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of tournaments out there that cater to gamers including the ‘Ard boyz. I personally am a hobbyist. I spend 3-4 hours on each model for the love of the hobby, I have been painting terrain like mad to make the tables look and play as cool as the models. When I make my army lists I take the good units, but never more than one. I make armies that fit into the theme of force I am putting on the table, even if the units suck I try to make them work. I stand back and look at the list and say, is this a army I would have fun playing against? In the end I try to bring a well painted army, cool terrain to play on, and a themed force. All of this is not just to make sure I have fun, but more so to make sure my opponent, win or loose, enjoys the “game” aspect of the hobby. I think this is what the hobby of 40k is all about. If we decide to just start playing games then let’s just kill painting and sportsmanship while we are at it. I can stop spending so much time on terrain and paining models. We can play on blank wood tables with cereal boxes for buildings. Our only concern can become winning at all costs. Very well said Chris! This is precisely what makes Daboyz stand out from others, IMO. |
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Nov 26, 2009 11:33:26 GMT -5
What I think sets (or could set) the Daboyz GT apart for 99% of the other tournaments out there is that we run it for the love of the “Hobby.”
Thats all that needs to be said. That sums up Daboyz GTs very well. And I agree 100% with Courtney.
|
|
|
|
Post by malice on Nov 26, 2009 12:29:47 GMT -5
What I think sets (or could set) the Daboyz GT apart for 99% of the other tournaments out there is that we run it for the love of the “Hobby.” Seriously? I would not be so quick to put yourself up on that pedestal. Do you seriously think that 99% of the other event organizers do this for some other reason beyond love of the "Hobby"? We all have slightly different views on what the "Hobby" is, but come now Chris. I can easily give you a list of people that put hundreds upon hundreds of dedicated hours a year into their events, with little compensation. Do your really believe other organizers/volunteers put themselves through this stress, sacrifice time from their family, incur far more costs than are seen by others and more for anything but love of the "Hobby"? Please. |
|
|
|
Post by evil_red_orks on Nov 26, 2009 12:34:25 GMT -5
I think we should drop "Best General" from the award lineup.
OR
Increase the weight of comp in the next GT by a good 10%.
Also maybe a include a mission that forces players to swap an elite unit with their oppenents. That way for at least one game, those players that build super-uby units wont have them.
I dont think we need a major over-haul of the comp system we used at the last GT, just a few tweaks.
|
|
|
|
Post by starchilde on Nov 26, 2009 12:40:31 GMT -5
I just wanted to interject a quick note here and say, "THANK YOU!" to you folks for running your GT the way you do. Two years (or so) ago when I first played in your tournament at Geneseo I was seriously ready to quit the game/hobby because I was so sick of it being about winning at any cost. For me, the game/hobby is a balance of building, painting, playing, and fun, but since I started I was constantly being stomped by overpowered, unbalanced, generally unpainted armies whose owners only cared about two things: winning, and bragging about winning.
That will quickly ruin all the fun if you're trying to bring a well rounded, fluffy, painted army to the table.
So thank you all - seeing the discussion and debate that goes on here about "soft" scores and building a GT based on the hobby makes me feel vindicated for sticking with 40k all these years. I'm honestly proud to be (at least slightly) associated with DABOYZ.
Again, thank you!
Sincerely
-Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by ccourtney on Nov 27, 2009 11:16:37 GMT -5
In no way shape or form did I say or even imply anything you said in your response.
This sentence was only to say that the bulk of tournaments are run, and scored more for "gamers" than "hobbyist." They reward battle points only, or if painting, comp and sportsmanship are scored they do not weigh enough (or have enough deviation in scoring) to make a difference in the outcome of the tournament.
I apologize if you took that sentence to mean what you described in your response that was not my intention. I am extremely respectful and thankful to anyone who devoted there time and effort to promoting or running tournaments.
|
|
I do believe there should be some way of quantifying sportsmanship but in terms of finishing order it should have the least impact.
