A lot of bad things have been said about my friend composition of late and I’m not about to lay down and watch him take it. After all, if people know anything about me it’s my devilish good looks and sophistication. If they know anything else, it’s that I will happily stand behind internet anonymity and defend an intangible concept!
Here's to you Intangible Concept!
I’m not going to go in to the history of army composition or even the ways it can be horribly bungled and leave a bad taste in people’s mouths. We all know and have experienced bad composition before. I instead want to talk about its place in tournaments.
If you are a gamer thinking about attending an event (notice the lack of the word tournament?) you need to look at what the event is hoping to accomplish. If the purpose of the event is to have fun, show off your army and not really care about winning or losing, then go to that event with an appropriate army. Your mech-vet spam list won’t be appreciated and is certainly not wanted. If you would rather go to a tournament that only rewards generalship and doesn’t care about anything else, bring your mech-vet spam list to that event and go to town.
Same goes for tournament organizers(TOs), understand what type of event you want to host before you start advertising. This will inevitably help in ensuring the wrong kinds of armies aren’t crashing the door.
The biggest problem with army composition as it has been executed in the last decade is that TOs simply used army composition regardless of the style of event. Pair this with a failed understanding on how to manage such an intangible concept and lazy ways (checklists) to try and police it and what do you get? The angst of gamers magnified by the power of the internet.
Does this mean every event should have composition? No. Absolutely not. This comes down to the TOs understanding the kind of events they are running. The Bay Area Open wants to see who the best general is and is running their event appropriate to that goal. They don’t have composition. They shouldn’t have composition. The Massacre on Istvaan V wanted to tell a story and even limited the armies player’s were allowed to take. Should they then use army composition to encourage player’s to bring armies true to the fluff and in the spirit of the narrative event they want to run? Yes!
I think the biggest problem is that gamer’s who want to be ass hats and bring their douche lists want to show up to events where they aren’t welcome or wanted. Because their style of play and army is anathema to the desires of the TOs, they get hit with bad comp and whine online. My suggestion is, don’t show up. If you hate an aspect of an event that much, don’t validate the TOs by paying money, YOUR money, to attend their event and play in their playground. If you stay home, trust me when I say that you’ll be happier and so will they.
I end this post with a random non-sensical demotivational poster.
You're Welcome.
Jaded Gamercast 
Umm… So you entire defense of comp is that (regardless if it is analytically a useful component of an event or not), if you don’t like it, don’t participate? There are so many fallacies on the side of comp proponents that every single discussion they try to have on the topic always boils down to exactly what you posted above: refusal to drop something that is fundamentally flawed despite being explained while this is true.
The worse part about it, is the old-school roots that army composition has in the community. Those same individuals that were playing back in 3rd, etc, when it was abundant are the exact same people that have networked the connections to actually have 20+ set up game boards from the community to run a tournament on. Do I think it can be done better? Yes. Do I have the means to do it myself? No. TOs in the area are community leaders, whether they like it or not, and by means of their access to these connections they are dictated their opinions on all of the newer gamers.
This is why TOs can’t just stick their head in the sand when someone disagrees.
Once again Tim it seems as though you are missing the point. I mean that in a very neutral manner. You’re just missing the point… of Composition and of Nathan’s views regarding it. Essentially composition boils down to this: A way for a TO to make sure that a middle ground is met for all players in an Event/Tournament setting with regards to the types of armies that players will be forced to play. This is not always needed if the tournment is geared toward nothing but Generalship.
Do I feel that I have encountered more bad comp situations in tournaments? Hell yes, we all have. But to say that you are understanding Nathan’s defense of Comp in general to be a “Play or Don’t Play” rule, is somewhat laughable. Yes, he says stay home and don’t play in something you don’t approve of, however that does not exlude the position (like my own) that your own disagreements are only a small part of why you play in events/tournaments.
I understand the need for Comp and I understand the purpose of Comp. I don’t look poorly on the Leaf Blowers and I don’t play those types of list. I like the challenge. I like knowing I am a better General than I am a list builder.
I am the only one of me there is ever going to be, so I also understand that ‘fun’ and ‘fairness’ are just as etheral a concept as ‘Comp’.
I think the opinion that comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill is… not really all that true. In fact, it’s an assertion at best.
The thing about the game at present is that lists are fairly normalized. Leafblower doesn’t just go winning every event, and neither does Loganwing, razorwolves or anything similar. None of these lists are trumps, or even close to it in the remotest ways. Most well-run events are won or lost by same strong players… adding entirely brand new list building mechanics via comp MAY change up what lists you see (though I don’t think you can prove it increases variety in the simple definition of the word), but they also create a new mini-metagame to solve, and that by nature will on AVERAGE put more pressure back on list building over skill.
If we want tournaments to be won by skill, outside of requiring everyone play with the same list, we should let the game continue to develop and let successive codices continue to normalize and balance. The more familiar and established the better lists from each codex are, the more it becomes player skill and not “oh crap I wasn’t ready for or expecting that list!”
I heard your cast, I re-read the post above, there has been no substance to why you guys stand behind it. Unfortunately, from work, I don’t have access to the cast itself until tonight, so I cannot clearly explain at the moment why I disagree with every point raised.
At which point in my post was my opinion: “comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill is” ???
Tim, once again my friend, the point is lost on you. I am stating my own personal feelings regarding gameplay and fun, as you might have gleaned by the copius use of ‘I’ in that paragraph. What you are going on to say here is what is generally known and accepted by all but the most dense of gamers. Neither Nathan nor myself have stated that LeafBlowers are unbeatable or unfair, but instead have gone on at length over multiple podcasts about the exact opposite.
All tournaments are won by a combination of skill and luck. So say otherwise is ridiculous. If what we say has no substance according to you then why are you taking the time to argue an ever changing debate that does little more than attempt to support your own personal gaming style?
“At which point in my post was my opinion: “comp causes tournaments to require more player skill and less list skill is” ???”
You said that when you wrote:
“I understand the need for Comp and I understand the purpose of Comp. I don’t look poorly on the Leaf Blowers and I don’t play those types of list. I like the challenge. I like knowing I am a better General than I am a list builder.”
Why am I taking the time to discuss it, you ask? Myself, I have been in this game a bit over two years now. What I am trying to understand is the mentality behind yours (and other) gamers that have been in longer that (for the most part) unequivically support adding in this tournament mechanic.
If this is not the forum for it, I will take my leave. Maybe we can discuss it some time over a beer or two in Vegas, if you would be up for that.
Uh-oh! Looks like my Trolling has gotten to Tim!
Well here is the thing Tim. At one point you said that you thought that this was the forum for you to air your concerns with Comp and have an ‘informed’ discussion. So what you are missing is that this is not a forum, it’s a blog and a podcast. Notice that there is no link to a forum.
We tried to have and neat little discussion even after you decided that it would be cool to post a reply to a well intentioned blog regarding Nathan’s views on Comp with your own brand of ‘debate’ that basically amounts to you saying everything that Nathan said is SO WRONG!! I am sure Nathan is sorry if you took it personally.
But even then you took it further, reading into what was being said with the intent of simply picking out things you could further declare as wrong and ignoring the rest until someone called you on it. You contradict and you flat out insult before you decided to take what you see as the high ground and say “I was just trying to have an intelligent discussion!”
Guess what sweety? You should get your own blog so you can go on at length with your own views about how wrong the rest of us are. I am sure you will be very successful. However, here and now, all you’ve done is make yourself look like either an ass or just oblivious to how you come off. How you think this is some top-tier podcast (when all we do is drink and bitch about games and the players whom we hate) where you aren’t going to get called a child for belaboring a point you’ve already missed in the first place… is beyond me.
For now just accept the fact that no one is leaping to your defense and that YOUR point has been well made… and made… and made… to death by now. Again, start your own blog! You’ve got the power of the forum inside you! But for now…
Shut up.
You are missing the point. I didn’t want to talk about how to do comp because inevitably every TO that chooses to run a comp system will choose to do it their own way.
My point was that if TOs are running events where they don’t want assholes with their asshole lists, that is their prerogative. If you want to be the asshole with the asshole list crashing their party then you should absolutely be punished for it.
Your argument stems from the fact that you view every event as the same; an opportunity to prove who has the biggest wargaming dick by trying to win at all costs. I disagree with this. Vehemently. My blog entry specifically links tournaments all around the continent that all have different focuses and tournament mechanics as a result.
My assertion stands. If you don’t like comp, don’t go to an event that has comp. You say that the fallacies lie on the side of people who use comp. I am both sides of this argument. As a gamer, I hate comp events and don’t attend. As a TO, I don’t want to run Ard Boyz. Instead, I focus on the fun, community and teamwork this game can foster.
Finally, if you don’t like the tournaments being run in your area, then run your own tournament. It’s what Out of the Basement did. It’s what I did.
Not to mention the fact that as a TO, I put my own money down to run events. By not going you do 1 of 2 things:
1) Prove your viewpoint is that of the majority of gamers in the community when I lose money.
2) Prove that your viewpoint is NOT that of the prevailing community when my event is a resounding success (It was.)
/end_nerd_rage
Yes, yes, I’m a total asshole because I disagree with you. Also, I have a small dick, obviously, and can only prove myself as a man by winning games apparently.
You were at ‘Ard Boyz, did you really meet these kinds of people there?
I remember reading the pamphlet for your weekend event, and despite the fact that you were clear to state your intent, all the staff at Kingsway along with most of the players were calling it the ‘Cowtown’ Tournament.
Call it what it is: there are people that want to play bad lists (no synergies, purposely ignoring/ignorant of how to make an army effective in an all-comers environment) and there are people that think this apathetic attitude should be rewarded in a tournament. Meanwhile, the former individual can always claim the moral high ground no matter the result of a game:
1) They win, it was their skill that caused this, and the fact that they practice with suboptimal units, or;
2) They lose, it only happened because the other list was cheesy. A four-year-old could win with that army.
Is that really the sort of environment you want to be winning in? I have never seen so much passive-aggressiveness put into list building as I have seen in those on the side of army composition.
Oh Timmy… Your understanding of this topic and these replies is now bordering on the inane. I am beginning to wonder if anything we say will be able to penetrate the thick layer of self-importance that turns our comments regarding Comp into a personal attack on you.
If Nathan wanted to say: “TO’s don’t want assholes like Tim at their tournaments” … He would have said so.
However, considering what I am seeing he can probably answer at least one of your questions rather honestly:
TIM: You were at ‘Ard Boyz, did you really meet these kinds of people there?
NATHAN: Yep. There was a guy there named Tim.
All other comments aside, Nathan, I want you to understand that I do not want events like yours to fail. A metric of, “Was it successful?” is useful, I suppose, but I hope it doesn’t get in the way of the more important question: “Could it have been done better?”
Tim:
We improve for the players of our community. In fact, the day after the event I asked players to fill in our little feedback form to tell us how we can improve the event.
We’re always looking to improve.
“Your argument stems from the fact that you view every event as the same; an opportunity to prove who has the biggest wargaming dick by trying to win at all costs. I disagree with this. Vehemently. My blog entry specifically links tournaments all around the continent that all have different focuses and tournament mechanics as a result.”
Yup, I must have read too much into that. My bad.
LOL /sarcasm
🙂
Alright, a few things (I love numbered lists!):
1. Lange is an internet troll.
2. I use harsh language to illustrate points. I was at Ard Boyz. There was one guy like that (he failed to qualify for semis) but everyone I met in Idaho were fucking fantastic people.
3. Nothing witty. Sorry.
I think the problem Tim, is that you are only looking at it from the Bell of Lost Souls tinted eyes of only winning matters.
You are absolute correct when you say that no list is unbeatable. The problem with that assertion is that you are making an assumption on the skill level of those generals. 50% of the people who attended my tournament had been to less than 3 tournaments in their life. These are not people who obsess over Warhammer the way we do (I spend approximately 40 hours a week thinking about Warhammer. It is literally a second job to me.)
Of the remaining people there, approximately 10% were the “hardcore”. These are the people I play for fun because they are as good and dedicated to the game as I am myself. The purpose of comp at my event is to try and coax that 10% to take an unusual (fun) list and not their tried and true, forged from 1000 hours of blood, sweat and tears, list.
I’m sure the first thing you are thinking is why? Why encourage those players to play something else? Because I want the 50% of people who will never beat the Leaf Blower or Loganwing or any other power net build to have fun. Tournaments should be fair and fun for everyone in attendance and not the top 10%. That’s why I use comp. As both the carrot and the stick to gamers in an attempt to shape the type of lists that people are bringing.
The top 10% will win more than they lose with any army they bring. I want the 50% of people who casually play this hobby to have fun as well.
Haha, Nathan. Anyone is free to troll away. I am pretty sure I have been booted off more Warhammer forums than you probably know exist 😉
First off, I really need to make it clear that I avoid Bell of Lost Souls like the plague. The fact that it is an ego delivery system for two auhors (e.g. Goatboy, whats-his-face-that-played-leafblower), along with the uselessness of their actual advice (I recently got sent a link to an article entitled “The Death of the Meltagun”, which, while good for laughs, is so covered in garbage that the failtruck is waiting to cart it off to the dump) makes my vibrate somewhat in anger that it is actually so popular.
Winning is not what is most important to me. Playing good players with good lists is what matters, win or lose. Like you guys, I have completely stopped showing up to ‘vets’ night at my shop, there is absolutely nothing for me to get out of it. Unlike you guys, I have only played in two ‘tournaments’ in my life, ‘Ard Boyz prelim and semis (having not owned a painted army before). I am still of the very strong opinion that while I may not beat either of you if we were to play, I can guarantee that I will not be walked all over by anyone. My solution has been to form a small gaming group who’s only purpose is to test the best lists against each other. I get thanks from all of them for forming it, mostly based on the complaint that they have not gotten better in such a long time because they couldn’t get practice in. This tells me personally that there are a lot more out there that need a challenge, whether they actually know it or not.
Going back to your 2nd last paragraph, I disagree with the fact that 50% will never beat a “power net build”. They are coddled into not improving by this exact kind of hand-holding. You guys said it exactly in one of your casts, no one really goes to a tournament (emphasis here, I do not want you think I’m slinging crap at your event) not planning to win. You want to be the best. How can that be determined with a comp system in place?
Still, I said it before in reply to your cast, I don’t 100% disagree with the imaginary concept of composition. Are there some imbalances? Yes. Does every army DESERVE to be competitive? Here is where I think you and I disagree. The problem now is actually putting it into effect. While not an exhaustive list, most solutions have boiled down to two major solutions:
1) Checklist Comp. The problem with this is the more exhaustive the list is, the more opportunity there is to actually game it. I 100% guarantee you that if you (hypothetical TO) put that in front of me, I could write you an army list that breaks it wide open. It is actually a fun intellectual exercise to try sometimes. I am still considering showing up to Astronomi-con with an all-foot, 30+ Heavy Weapon Team Guard army…
2) Comp Council. Here is another one with issues. Don’t take this one the wrong way guys, but some of the things you say makes me question your fitness to sit on this council. I am going back to it because it sticks in my head, but lash CSM has come up a few times as a dick army in your casts. I may be erring in thinking that you believe it is actually good, and are simply saying aesthetically it is dumb (agreed), but it is a heaping pile of shit. Still, if you ask around our area, people think that is a cheese list. I am completely unconvinced that any group could sit at a table, for any length of time, and actually rank lists. Further to that, how are you actually calculating their mathematic impact to the overall score? That is what happens when you assign it an arbitrary deduction.
I really think that the NOVA Open (novaopen.com) has found a solution with their ‘functional comp’ system. Combining that with lack of battlepoints and you actually have one of the friendliest formats for casual players in existence.
Maybe before actually making judgement you should have the experience to qualify it.
You’ve never judged comp (let alone used any sort of system like this) so you can’t speak to it.
Do stop. You’re just digging yourself into a deeper hole.
No problem. I didn’t realize that experience was the only way to qualify someone to analyze a system to see the flaws. How many tournaments do I have to be in before my experience is enough?
I’d say that you should at least run 2. Judge 4. Play in 16. Observe 27… But those are just arbitrary numbers considering that your view of what qualifies our ability to be similarly involved in a Comp Council is just as arbitrary.
Do I even have to say that you’ve once again missed the point? 😛
The point that you are saying that the only way to have a middle ground between a mix of players is with comp hasn’t been missed. It is what I am contending.
I thought that an informative conversation could be had, considering how you present yourselves in the webcast, but I see now that you are too involved in your own Tournament Organization to see things otherwise than what you believe. The fact that you rely on hyperbole and insults rather than actual discussion speaks volumes.
Would you consider players flying in from overseas just to play in your tournament a success? What about selling out 256 tickets half-a-year before the actual GT? That is what is happening with the NOVA Open.
I’m going to take umbridge to this particular statement:
I disagree with the fact that 50% will never beat a “power net build”. They are coddled into not improving by this exact kind of hand-holding. You guys said it exactly in one of your casts, no one really goes to a tournament (emphasis here, I do not want you think I’m slinging crap at your event) not planning to win. You want to be the best. How can that be determined with a comp system in place?
Seriously?
The way you involve yourself in the hobby (bashing skulls) isn’t the way I choose to involve myself in the hobby. I know I’m not a top general, nor do I try to pretend to be. I don’t aspire it.
By your logic, that’s a deficiency and I shouldn’t be in this hobby.
Shame on you. You seriously cannot on one hand say that TOs are self-righteous pricks for choosing to dictate how the game ought to be played and then in the same breath say something like that.
Also: I won’t bother parlaying with you if any response to me isn’t an apology and a retraction. I’m not getting sucked into this.
Not sure what you are looking for from me.
1) I have never mentioned the hobby. I am talking about tournaments, and went out of my way to excluded your hobby event from this discussion.
2) I haven’t actually said anything to you at all to apologize over, I was talking to Nathan on his blog post.
Shame on you for demanding an apology.
LOL Good Lord Tim…
Makes me wonder why we are taking the time to debate with a 16 year old. 😛 It’s like trying to convince my son that his imaginary friend isn’t real.
In what universe are “tournaments” and “the hobby” mutually exclusive terms? The hobby includes everything from building and painting, to list building, to playing the actual game. You can’t have a game without involving the hobby in some way, shape or form.
Obviously some events focus on winning and some focus on the “soft scores” which are simply there to ensure that people are trying to have fun and not just beat the shit out of each other and then zero bomb afterwards.
I agree Dan. Every one of those items are a part of the hobby, and some people focus on just one to an exclusion, and they aren’t wrong for doing it.
Still, there are a lot of players that have a difficult time competing in the Painting portion when judged overall in a gaming event, while others do it professionally. I suggest that we introduce one of the following:
1) Three maximum colours. This includes inks and highlights. That way the 10% of the people who spend time perfecting advanced blending or airbrush techniques would not have an unfair advantage.
2) Judge every army in advance and rank them. Then, assign deductions to their score equivalent to how well they would do in painting judging. That way, regardless of their skill in this area of the hobby, it will not give them an overwhelming overall score.
Paint comp.
Sorry does my painting ability make you enjoy playing against me less? Because someone playing a douchey list sure makes me enjoy the game less.
Tournament scores reward people for doing something positive. Painting well is a good thing. Being an effective general is a good thing.
Building an unoriginal, win-at-all-costs army list that makes the game miserable for most opponents is bad.
Anyway this stopped being funny a while back, so I’m not gonna reply anymore. Even if I want to 😀
Uh-oh! Looks like my Trolling has gotten to Tim!
Well here is the thing Tim. At one point you said that you thought that this was the forum for you to air your concerns with Comp and have an ‘informed’ discussion. So what you are missing is that this is not a forum, it’s a blog and a podcast. Notice that there is no link to a forum.
We tried to have and neat little discussion even after you decided that it would be cool to post a reply to a well intentioned blog regarding Nathan’s views on Comp with your own brand of ‘debate’ that basically amounts to you saying everything that Nathan said is SO WRONG!! I am sure Nathan is sorry if you took it personally.
But even then you took it further, reading into what was being said with the intent of simply picking out things you could further declare as wrong and ignoring the rest until someone called you on it. You contradict and you flat out insult before you decided to take what you see as the high ground and say “I was just trying to have an intelligent discussion!”
Guess what sweety? You should get your own blog so you can go on at length with your own views about how wrong the rest of us are. I am sure you will be very successful. However, here and now, all you’ve done is make yourself look like either an ass or just oblivious to how you come off. How you think this is some top-tier podcast (when all we do is drink and bitch about games and the players whom we hate) where you aren’t going to get called a child for belaboring a point you’ve already missed in the first place… is beyond me.
For now just accept the fact that no one is leaping to your defense and that YOUR point has been well made… and made… and made… to death by now. Again, start your own blog! You’ve got the power of the forum inside you! But for now…
Shut up.
Hey Tim,
Nobody goes to a tournament not planning to win? What about those of us who play this game to blow off steam from the stress of the real world crushing in on us from all sides; there are those of us who just want to have some fun because life throws enough tension our way as it is!
So me wanting to have fun from the first or second game (I define “fun” as a low-pressure yet close game…win or lose) as opposed to having to wait until the last game of the tournament for —though likely makes me a “pussy” in your eyes, I’m betting. Why is it a crock of crap for me to think I deserve good, fun games right off the bat, without having to resort to using an overly optimised list—especially in a setting where I’ve paid to be there?
Only playing the “best” lists matters? What about those of us who LOVE the mythology of 40k and are drawn in by the back story and want to emulate some of that on the tables top (in a non-Gav-Thorpian kind of way…ie: not reliant on special named characters to have fun).
Fuck you. Go run your own goddamn tournaments and get a clue about the costs intrinsic to prize support, hall rental and the providing of gaming-tables (populated with an abundant amount of scenery) before you start implying that everyone has to play games the same way as you. Because guess what: me and all the “pussies” who want to have fun playing games against new opponents are hoisting the dead weight of your ass at tournaments.YOU’RE the leech, not us. It’s US making tournaments big, not you. The “top 10 percent” of tournament players should not forget who, ultimately, is making it possible for them to be in the top 10 percent: it is all the people who turn up and not only lose games but PAY for being at tournaments.
Maybe you should be running 6 or 8-man, serious-as-can-be tournaments. Surely even with just two years gaming experience, you can muster 3 or 4 tables together. Oh that’s right: you haven’t managed to paint ONE army in that time.
I’m not saying you have no right to play how you will–or to want there to be tournaments that cater to your style of play, but what gives you the right to deny others playing tournaments & events that cater to how they play their games?
Why do you feel you must attend events where you not only don’t want to be but are also not welcome?
Because you’re not welcome. Stay in Edmonton, and don’t come to my events.
Let me just say.. Tim has been (as previously stated) playing for 2 years.
I’ve got this theory and it goes like this…
There is a certain bell curve that all gamers around the world (or at least in Canada) fit to. I have been playing this game for only slightly longer than it took for Dark Eldar to get a new book (If you don’t get this, you haven’t been playing long enough). I have seen gamers from Canada, coast to coast, and they all seem to fit this perfectly.
When you first begin playing Warhammer, you get you ass stomped, you’re new, it’s naturally going to happen. As you begin to gain a knowledge of the the game you slowly get better. You learn about other armies, and begin to understand how to counter certain strategies.
Slowly you shift from the “Noob” section of the curve to the power gaming section. Here, the curve begins to grow exponentially as you begin to run through your codexs/army books, and begin to pick out and optimize. During this process your lists grow in power and you begin to power game harder and harder. Perhaps this is because now that you’ve started to win, you like the feeling and fly off the handle. Maybe it’s because you’re sick of getting stomped and feel like this is somehow payback for all that time you spent in the “Noob” phase.
Eventually this curve begins to level off as you begin to realize that nobody wants to play you anymore because you’re a total douchebag with the way you play or the way your army is constructed (or both). If you are still playing Warhammer you have probably reached the point where simply walking over people with power-gaming lists is no longer fun for you, as you have advanced as a general (and therefore require more of a challenge)and hopefully matured as a person. It is at this point that the curve begins to descend. This descent can be slow or fast, it really depends on the gamer.
After that, who knows where it goes. I’ve not yet lived long enough nor played long enough to find out.
The point is this.. Eventually you will reach a point where you realize that power-gaming is actually not fun for you nor your opponent. You will realize that mostly everything has a purpose and can be used to great effect if you’re a good enough general. You will realize that having a game where your opponent matches and counters your move, forcing you to respond and change your tactics, is significantly more fun and rewarding than rolling dice and having people remove models because you took 2-3 Manticores or whatever Leafblower Guard fields. You will realize that you have only been playing this game for 2 years and you don’t know jack shit about this hobby. You will realize that you are arguing, OVER THE INTERNET, against people who are much more mature and knowledgeable than you. You will then come to a realization about how ignorant that makes you sound.
Believe me, the day may not come for quite some time. I took about 7 years to get out of my power gaming phase. But it will come, and you will understand.
May your truth torpedoes fly true..