Do comp tournaments really balance out 40K

[Polonius]

I'm not horribly for or against comp in 40k, i think that the various codices and builds are different enough in strength and capacity to merit some external measure to balance things out.

The problems, I see, are many,including no really good way to implement comp, but the question I have is: does it work?

By that, I mean, has anybody seen comp really change what lists are competitive top to bottom, or does it simply punish certain notably bad builds. Even in comped events, it doesnt seem that Dark Angels or Demonhunters really excel. Does anybody have different experiences?

[DarkLink]

Short answer: not really

Long answer:
We've had some pretty large scale discussions on this topic before, and my impression is that the general consensus here is not in favor of comp systems.

The thing is, it isn't about when comp systems work. It's about when they fail. If you look through the other discussions we've had, you can probably find a lot of cases where the comp system created unfair results, such as someone's sportsmanship score being tanked for no reason by some jerk.

My personal opinion is that comp scores create more problems than they solve. If you have a jerk player, they need to be taken aside by a judge and given a talking-to, if not get thrown out of the tournament. You don't need to have a system of questionable effectiveness to deal with cheaters.

Plus, including a comp system just creates more rules for those cheaters to abuse.

Now, I've seen comp systems that work ok. But they are all very, very minimalistic. For example, someone mentioned a system with two or three checkmarks. Basically, you gave your opponent a thumbs up or thumbs down. If they were a bad sport, they got a thumbs down. But if you gave someone a thumbs down, a judge would have to verify it anyways. It wasn't so much a comp system as a way of letting the judges keep track of potential problem players. Anything more complex than that just doesn't work well.

[Melissia]

Of ocurse not, they're competitive tournaments; competitive players on average care nothing about balance except where their own side is weaker, and they frequently set out to ruin every game they play (example, whining about allowing one to select more than twelve units at a time in Starcraft 2).

[RocketRollRebel]

In 40k tournys I dont think heavy comp scores are necessary at all since the codex's are a lot more balanced. In WHFB tournys I say yes to avoid having half the armies being the same Demon and Dark Elf internet lists over and over again.

40k has its power builds (16 chimera IG, Vulkan hammer spam ect ect) but not to the extent that WHFB has.

[BuFFo]

Does anybody have different experiences?

Comp scores are such a horribly executed idea that most tourneys should avoid them.

[Bean]

I'm generally in agreement with the rest of the posters. Comp scores routinely fail to be helpful, and they have the potential to be seriously exploited.

That said, it does seem like an involved rubric system which would effectively balance armies should be possible. I don't know what it would look like, and I know that I haven't seen one or seen one suggested that even comes close, but I do think it should be possible.

[Stubber]

There's already an arbitrary system in place which is meant to ensure fairness and balance in games. It's called a points limit.
Comp just punishes people who come up against poor tacticians. It's not the list that's win games, it's how a player uses it.

[Madness]

There's already an arbitrary system in place which is meant to ensure fairness and balance in games. It's called a points limit.
Comp just punishes people who come up against poor tacticians. It's not the list that's win games, it's how a player uses it.
Right, so you can basically pick random units and have the exact same chances right?

[Polonius]

One factor for me is that 5th edition radically the ideas of comp. Before, many armies only took minimum troops, while now that's a recipe for disaster. All non-troop units now have to be notably better than a troops unit to merit inclusion, which is why we already see more troops heavy armies. It's not a suprise that most of the more powerful armies have a solid core of top notch troops (orks, IG, chaos all do).

there was a discussion I read on another forum where a store owner said that he gets great turn out for comped events, and people seem to like it, and I think that might be possible, but I've yet to see a comp rubric that actually leveled out the field. Most just tilt it a different direction.

it's not that I haven't tried to come up with a scoring mechanicism. I think the only workable system would be similar to paint: have an experienced, savvy tournament vet judge each army on it's overall strenstgth, and score it accordingly. the problem there is having enough qualified judges.

Another idea I kind of liked is to simply divide lists into vague tiers, and use those tiers to determine first round pairings. so hard lists play each other, soft lists play each other, and so on

For smaller (under 12 man) store tournaments, I've been pushing the FLGS to have paint and comp judged by all players. Have every player look at every army and every roster, and rank both from first to last. aggregate the scores and use them as part of teh over all.

[Jwolf]

In our local monthlies (limited to 30 players), we have two different types. One is Hobby, which allows a scoring of the opposing army's composition, and the other Heavy, which has no such scoring. The Hobby tournaments invariably generate far more acrimony among the players.

Both have painting scores, and there are almost never issues with the painting scores.

With 12 players and 3 rounds, random is fine; the lists will sort themselves out.

[MVBrandt]

My reply: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/composition-or-how-to-have-not.html

[DarkLink]

My reply: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/composition-or-how-to-have-not.html

Quite well written.

In an amendment to my previous statement, which was in reference to general "soft" scores in general, I'll add this about army composition scores.

They have absolutely not place in any way, shape or form in a 40k tournament. If my codex allows me to take unit "x", then I can take unit "x", whether you like it or not.

[Mobious]

Competitive players on average care nothing about balance except where their own side is weaker, and they frequently set out to ruin every game they play

Well I could not disagree more with that statement. I consider myself a competitive player and my close friends do as well, and we do not just favor our side of the battle when we think about competition.

Maybe our definitions of competitive are different but for me, it is a hard fought battle over 5+ turns. To me a competitive player is one that brings the tools and skills needed to take on all-comers. This cannot be possible if there is not some sort of balance between codexs.

Anyway the reason I think competitive 40k players dislike comp is it never actually balances anything. It usually just creates a more unbalanced environment, with new power lists rather than no power lists. In the end 5th Edition 40k is pretty dam balanced. Only a couple of codexs find it hard to compete, while the rest can keep up. All the new codexs released by GW are completely balanced with one another and it looks like the trend will hold. So as far as creating balance goes, lets let leave it to the paid game designers because they really are getting their act together.

[Lerra]

I don't have a problem with the concept of comp scores, but I've never seen them implemented in a way that actually improves the situation.

For what it's worth, I've played Tau, Space Wolves, and Dark Angels at tournaments in 5th ed, so I've seen both ends of the spectrum. Most comp systems hurt the old codices more than the new codices. With Tau and Dark Angels, I don't have much flexibility in list building if I want to bring a competitive army. I can't adapt to a comp score system. With Space Wolves, I have a wide range of good lists to choose from and will find a way to adapt.

Comp scores also tend to discourage players from running goofy "just for fun" lists at tournaments. It is counterproductive to penalize lists like close-combat Imp Guard or Space Marine Scout company that rely on spamming a few units. Then you've got the Necron list that gets penalized for spamming the only 4 good units in the codex . . .

If I saw a comp system that was fair and added to the game, I might change my mind, but I'm skeptical if such a system is possible. Balance in a complicated game like 40k is fragile, and the situation in 40k is already very close to balanced - any changes to the game by tournament organizers are too ham-fisted and large-scale to help.

The current situation in 40k is not bad enough to warrant a comp system anyway. I can bring even the worst 40k codices to a tournament and win a few games. At a tournament last week with 35-ish competitors, Necrons came in 2nd and there was a Tau player in the running for 1st. The game isn't perfectly fair, but it's not that bad either.

[Melissia]

Well I could not disagree more with that statement. I consider myself a competitive player and my close friends do as well, and we do not just favor our side of the battle when we think about competition

To me, a competitive player is usually one who is hardcore into tournaments, powergaming and takes every single advantage without remorse or regret. Competitive players are the kind of players who complain about gameplay improvements like being able to select more than twelve units in Starcraft 2 because it reduces the amount of skill required to play the game. Or they complain about how America in Company of Heroes is so overpowered, and while playing Panzer Elite and saying that faction is overpowered (the fact that PE has the best WLD ratio of all factions notwithstanding). They're the first to abuse any bugs or glitches or unbalanced portions of a game and proclaim that it's a feature and isn't unbalanced at all, even if it means that they win every single game when they do it. They say things like "fox only, no items, final destination" and say that's the only real way to play because it tests your "skills" the most, even if it doesn't.

No, I don't have very good experiences with "competitive" players. But then I don't see the term "casual player" to be defined as "let's not try and win".

[Shavnir]

No, I don't have very good experiences with "competitive" players. But then I don't see the term "casual player" to be defined as "let's not try and win".

In my experience casual player usually amounts to "I haven't played since 4th and haven't looked at the new rules and my tau gunline gets paired against mech orks first round".

[MVBrandt]

In my experience casual player usually amounts to "I haven't played since 4th and haven't looked at the new rules and my tau gunline gets paired against mech orks first round".

What's funny is I've actually seen that EXACT thing happen.

Melissa, you're referring to an asshat, not a competitive player. Being competitive is the OPPOSITE of a sin. A tournament by definition is a COMPETITION. If you are not competitive, you should not attend.

Asshats are people who take every advantage at the expense of sportsmanship, good fun, and fair competition.

If you go to a tournament and are not attempting to win your games, why are you going? I have yet to meet someone who has fun when their opponent ****s around all game and doesn't care about the game at all.


Competitive simply = sportingly attempting to win to the best of your ability. This includes understanding and utilizing the rules of the game (notice: not abusing).

Asshat = well, being an asshat.

There's an enormous breadth of people in the hobby, especially the internet, who seem hellbent on changing the definition of the word "Competitive" into something foul and uncouth. It is far from it.

[RocketRollRebel]

I'll bite and echo MVBrandt. Being competitive doesn't automatically=Asshat. I like to think that I'm a fun and friendly opponent but at the same time I LOVE tournament play. That doesn't mean I'm a douche and I still love delving into the fluff of armies and I enjoy casual themed games with friends, just playing at tournaments and trying to place as high as I can is probably one of my favorite parts of gaming.

Competitive does not automatically = douchery :p

[MVBrandt]

Not to cross link to myself again, but since I just expounded on this subject and things in relation, http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/02/what-is-competitive.html

[Shavnir]

What's funny is I've actually seen that EXACT thing happen.

Oh wait, I also forgot "brings an illegal list that isn't noticed until I play against them in the 2nd or 3rd round.

One of these two scenarios has happened to me in every tournament I've been to for 40k in the last year. I'm like some sort of "haven't read the rulebook" / "illegal army list" magnet :(

[Melissia]

brings an illegal list that isn't noticed until I play against them in the 2nd or 3rd round.
I associate that more with competitive players, too :P Always trying to get an advantage whether or not it is a legal one.

[MVBrandt]

See, that has nothing to do with competitive or not. CHEATING is not COMPETING. It's cheating.

You're thinking of CHEATERS and DOUCHEBAGS, not competitive people, Melissa.

Frankly, by the way you enjoy going at it in arguments on the forums, fact of the matter is you yourself are HIGHLY COMPETITIVE. That's a good thing :) ... not a bad thing.

[Melissia]

Yes, I'm highly competative in a sense. But I don't think of myself as a competitive player... I refuse to go to tournaments for example.

[MVBrandt]

I think that you're probably missing out. Not b/c there aren't cheaters and d-bags out there, but b/c the majority of people you run into at a tourament are competitive, they want to win, but they're also highly sporting (they play by the rules, and fairly) and a lot of fun to chat with. They're people, just like you, me, and everybody else.

Being a veteran of tournament circuits, and having played in numerous ones where I've taken home best sportsmanship *AND* best general simultaneously, it's not all that whacky or weird to run into someone who plays to win, has a strong list, but isn't a cheating douchebag asshat.

[Melissia]

I probably am. But I don't want to go through another fiasco involving getting a bad comp score just because I play Sisters.

[MVBrandt]

Then go to a tournament that doesn't use comp scores. Like mine, in August. ;)

[Lerra]

To me the difference between a casual player and a competitive player is this: Let's say you love the models/fluff for Chaos Spawns, but the rules are pretty terrible. A casual player will add them to the list anyway, either playing by the codex rules or by writing his own rules for the unit. A competitive player won't run the models unless the rules are good. Competitiveness is a priority over the cool factor.

Of course there is a scale of competitiveness, with lots of people falling in the middle, and a few people at the end of the spectrum for whom winning is so important that they prioritize it over integrity and being a reasonable human being (aka cheaters and jerks).

[MVBrandt]

Aye, Lerra; my point generally revolves around the notion that as soon as you are a cheater and a jerk, you are no longer a competitor. You're a cheater, or a jerk. Or both.

If you aren't playing by the same rules as your opponents, you aren't competing anymore. As a result, competitiveness by its very definition (IMO) is sporting. It must by needs be.

[Shavnir]

I associate that more with competitive players, too :P Always trying to get an advantage whether or not it is a legal one.

I assure you neither time I've had that happen to me was it done on purpose or was it done to further the person's chances of winning (unless the person really thought they could win by having more TL Big Shoota wartrakks)

[Polonius]

@ Melissa: I think you're attaching a defintion to compettive player that few people realy use. the behaviors you're describing have labels, things like power gaming, win at all costs (WAAC), or even just cheating. Competitive gamers, by nearly any defintion, are simply those that see the game as being worth winning for the simple reason of winning.

you're allowed to use the words you want, but to intentionally use a word so far removed from it's accepted meaning, knowing it will cause drama, can be easily seen as trollish.

[BuFFo]

you're allowed to use the words you want, but to intentionally use a word so far removed from it's accepted meaning, knowing it will cause drama, can be easily seen as trollish.

Melissa... Trollish?

Are you new to the forums? ;)

[Melissia]

I'm not trolling, I'm being quite honest in my views of the average competitive player based off of my experiences both online and off. Not like I claimed my definition fits everyone, nor do I ask anyone to agree with it. Merely that is the one that I use, when I refer to "competitive players" I tend to do so with venom on my tongue.

[Heimagiblin]

Well, i'm quite new to tournements and the best comp scoring system i've encountered yet is one where you hand every list into the guys running the tournement and then give you back the list and say you can't use it but with suggested changes if and only if it breaks the game system. Stuff like flying circus for example.Or slaanesh leadership bomb.

About competative players, I myself am one and when I went to my first big tourney there was no comp and I played 3 great games(2 massacerd and a draw) and actually got full victory points first round meaning I spent my time on table 1 and 2.Not 1 bad sport in the hole thing.Just competative players having a great time playing each other.

[Aims]

Play nice, ladies and gentlemen. Expressing opinions is all well and good, and is even encouraged, but getting into flame and insult wars is not. Keep it civil.

[DarkLink]

...you can't use it but with suggested changes if and only if it breaks the game system.

Here's the problem, though. Define "breaks the game system". Arbitrarily banning lists based on a subjective judgement isn't a very fair way of going about things in my opinion. The reason I don't like comp lists is because i feel they make the game more unfair than it was before more often than not.