Aussie Comp

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Aussie Comp

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:37 am

Found this on Warhammer.org.uk:
Notwithstanding some concerns I had, I think we (Australia) have finally cracked a good comp system (not sure who developed it - but thanks to those that put in the hard yards!). It comprises 3 parts:

1. A Tiered system where armies get a 'base score' per game (e.g. Beasts of Chaos 5/5 and Vamps 2/5 per game).

2. Lists are reviewed by a panel of experienced players (generally not playing in the tourney) and the base score is then amended by the build. For example - an Empire List with Stank and Alter will move from a 4 (base) to a 2 and a VC army with none of the tricks can move from a 2 to a 3.

3. Composition counts for 10 - 15% of total points, meaning that a VC player in a tourney (out of say 180 maximum points) could be down by 2 points per game or 12 in total. In Australia, the top 10 is usually separated by 10 -15 points so it has some punch. The key is FORCING players (esp WAAC) to moderate their becauiour by changing the environment they are in. You can't change the player BUT you can change the environment and you CAN change their behaviour. Alll you have to battle against is the FRINGE WAAC who realise that their 'skills' are but a mirage - they are simple average players using horrid lists.

The Tiers for the 2008 Masters are:

Tier 1 (base score 2.5): Vampire Counts
Tier 2 (base score 3.0): Daemons of Chaos
Tier 3 (base score 3.5): Bretonnians, Dark Elves, Wood Elves
Tier 4 (base score 4): Empire, High Elves, Tomb Kings, Lizardmen, Warriors of Chaos, Skaven
Tier 5 (base score 4.5): Dwarfs, Dogs of War, Orcs & Goblins, Chaos Dwarfs
Tier 6 (base score 5.0): Beasts of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms

Each list is then modifed according to its build relative to other 'reace specific' buuilds (my preference is by an indpendent panel) ...

Soft. (+1): This list has forsaken most of the tougher options available to it from its army book. It is still competitive but the owning general has made some considerable sacrifices when putting the list together. It is definitely weaker that what you would honestly expect from a tournament version of the army.

Sort of Soft (+0.5): In between Standard and Soft.

Standard (no change): This should be awarded to an army that could be considered a standard build for an army of its type. It is a good solid tournament list that has some tough elements and some weaker elements of the book. It is not over the top in any one category and is what you would expect for a tournament army of this particular type.

Sort of Tough (-0.5): In between Standard and Tough.

Tough (-1): This list is pretty tuned and includes a few of the nastier combinations, units and/or magical items available to it. Whilst it could be made stronger/nastier it is still considered a tough version of an army put together from the relevant army book.

Sort of Very Tough (-1.5): In between Tough and Very Tough.

Very Tough (-2): This particular version of the army contains almost all the tough combinations, units and items. It has basically left nothing out and would represent one of the strongest versions of this particular army. The owner of this army is bringing to bear the best his army book can bring.



Does it work? If the goals of a comp system is to (a) moderate lists and (b) encourage a diversity of lists that can be competietive - then the answer is YES. We've trialled in approx 6 large tournies and ironed out the problems (and there are some).

How would it have worked at the embarassment known as the UK GT Heat 2? Each of the Demon armies would be starting at - 24 tournament points (i.e. 1 out of 5). As a result the waac'S probably would not have brought those skill-free-zone lists ain the first place and those that did may have struggled to qualify for the final in the first place let alone finish in the top 10.

Is this a good thing?

If you want to have 9 of the top 10 armies from the same race then NO - but if you would like to create an atmosphere where you cancompete with all armies - then yes ...


For those interested you can search on Wargamerau or MOAB to get the idea. Of coruse, I realise that because it "wan't invented here" it will stretch the immagination to believe it works, but I think you should give it a go.

Cheers


Charles

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:52 am

Looks okay in concept to me. I still find it hard to swallow that just by picking up one of the army books you may be at a disadvantage over other players, but I DO see the neccesity.

Again, I think it's not OUR problem yet but I do like what I see. Good find.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Wed Nov 12, 2008 11:11 am

I was thinking a little more on this. What kind of panel would we need for this system to work? Usually here we have one ref for the whole she-bang and I don't know that many players would feel comfortable with any one person (even me, who is admittedly well loved and very awesome) applying a potentially crippling penalty to their army fro the tourny.

Would these requirements be met if the opponents of each amry were to award the rankings of Very Soft - Tough? I think they might here in town actually. SO long as the criteria is discussed briefly before the day begins.

But apart from that I think I would like to run this comp at the big tourny I have planned for the end of February. That means I would like to run it at a smalelr event beforehand to become acquainted with it better. That means we need to do a tourny in early January. Three rounds, 2000 points?

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:05 pm

One comment I would have to temper the exact implementation of this system is that I do not think it requires a ban on special characters to function. As any lists will be subjectively judged by the panel, any instances of "KARL FRANZ ON DRAGON WITH STEAM TANKS LOL!" or Daemon armies with the Masque of Slaanesh will be taken care of at that adjustment stage.

On the other hand, there are many special characters that are pretty well balanced, and in fact are the only way to build certain sorts of armies. Dark Elf players shouldn't feel bad about throwing points away on Khouran and I'd also really like to see a WoC army led by Throgg. I really think special characters are being made more of an integral component in the newer armies with things like Sigvald making a unit ignore terrain, or Wulfrik letting a unit of Marauders come on like Miners. They open up tactical possibilities without being too over the top ridiculous.

I would like to see the list judging kept to a theoretically objective panel rather than opening up the can of worms that typically comes from opponent judged comp (the two biggest problems being "everyone gets a 10!" and "TAKE THIS YOU DOUCHE BAG! 0'S FOR YOU!"). If you want to avoid having a predetermined set of judges, I would let everyone who didn't play someone score their army so there aren't the issues of hurt egoes and trading scores and that sort of thing (so if I played A, B and C, then D, E, F, G, H, etc. would judge my list - not A, B and C). I would still prefer having a set council though.

One of the keys that the original poster (the head GW Aus tourney organizer) mentioned was that they have published a series of example lists so people have an idea what to expect before writing the list.

Apparently I had more than one comment!

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:57 pm

I agree about special characters being just fine now. It goes back from the days 5th ed and earlier where special characters were retarded good. Most of them know are just really interesting examples and I do NOT hold it against people who take them. I love Skarsnik and Grom will be making his triumphant return soon...

As for making a panel complicated I don't know that I like that idea. I'd hate to spend a 1/2hr plus at the END of the day figuring out army comp scores.

A comittee of one works a little better if players can see the example army lists you speak off. I like it.

Did you ask GoC what he thinks of it?

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  Carson on Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:42 pm

Interesting system they came up with. Not sure if I would rank Vampire Counts as a "harder" army than Deamons though.

I think a tournament in January to try this out is a good idea, with Scott acting as the commitee of one.

Can we get access to thier proposed sample army lists?

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2779
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:16 pm

I've messaged the guy, but I am sure we can come up with some of our own before December.

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:12 pm

If we're going to use someone else's comp rules I'm more comfortable taking all of their data and running it with those to begin with. I don't mind at all putting our own slant on Soft/Tough armies but I'd like to run his suggested lists through the mill first. If possible.

Thanks for finding this Eric, I'm really encouraged by it. I've always wanted a decent comp system in tournies but I'm unsatisfied with any system I've run into to date.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  squalie on Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:16 pm

I hate opponent comp scoring, as people are way too subjective. I actually just finished that thread when I came here and saw this thread. Rob and I have been talking for weeks about a fair comp system that we would use. When we read this we were trying to figure out if it's just that simple and why no-one thought of this before.

"TAKE THIS YOU DOUCHE BAG! 0'S FOR YOU!").

I always liked "douche bag". Hard to top that one!

squalie

Posts : 3495
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:03 pm

I actually disagree with you a little Don. Opponent scoring is subjective but I find it tends to be an equalizer. That's before this crazy Aussie comp scoring system though.

Way back when there used to be a mathematical breakdown of 40% core etc. and you could max out your score and still have an army that was way too tough to beat with another army books version of a maxed out army comp list. The opponent scoring system was a way of equalizing that.

The simple thing I find that works at tournies that inexplicably never seems to happen is... THE SPEECH!!!!!

At the start of the day i think an organizer is obliged to give a speech, one that encourages players to give out the average score of 3/5 or whatever and that the opponent needs to earn a different one. Tell people that you can have fun playing a guy and give him a 3/5 and that's okay. same with army comp. We had a Tourny where all round good guy and habitual "best sportsman" Rob Gonda took a min/maxed chaos army complete with super scary dragon guy. His scores all came back with max sports and min comp, and I like to think it's because I gave the speech that told players to seperate the two. I am great!

In events where I've forgotten to give THE SPEECH then I've found everyone reverts to the bubble effect of giving a player either max sports and comp or min sports and comp. And without THE SPEECH you can almost always tell the battle results from the sports/comp scores without looking at the win loss record.

So I would hate to have a system that relied entirely on either a ref (Who is of course subjective) or entirely on a mathematical breakdown.

But that's me. I would like to try this system out for the next tourny.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

army comp

Post  Ironwoulf on Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:19 pm

I don't like the mathematical comp system as numbers can be made to lie or not take all the facts into consideration. Elves are magic heavy so do you penalize them by limiting magic and give a bonus to Empire who have little use for magic.

It looks like the Aussie system takes a look at each army individually and comparing apples with onions. Seems good but looks like a lot of work before and after.

Get the framework out and we can make up soft, hard and uber army lists and play test them in the upcoming league.

The speech the great one talks about works on decent guys, real assholes will still do thier own thing. It was intertesting to see the reaction to my min/max Chaos army. A real example of players doing the right thing and being honest - a credit to the SAskatoon players.

Ironwoulf

Posts : 348
Join date : 2008-06-19
Age : 55
Location : Dalmeny SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:42 pm

And as should be mentioned, ROb won the tourny. The scores were pretty decent that day with a few notable exceptions. I remember one guy tried to hammer Stash's score (His list was fine. Maybe even soft) because it was a storm of chaos list. The dude in question had the WORST min/maxed army at the con. It was okay as the great one fixed it when the dude was unable to justify the score adequetly.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  Carson on Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:16 pm

In regards to the "speech". I know that I've given them and sometimes have forgotten to. The thing I found frustrating before every tournament....even the ones I was just playing in was the fact that 3/4 of the players either ignored what the judge was saying or kept right on talking while the judge was trying to give his spill. It pisses me off when I'm trying to give out or hear information from the judge and everyone is just going on like noone is talking.

Bit of a rant and off topic, however, the "speech" does help to fix the scores up for the day though. I was never a fan of opponent judging but have since come to like the system.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2779
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  B1B on Thu Nov 13, 2008 1:13 am

Some more discussion on how they (the Aussies) like/dislike the comp scoring system:
http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=60700&hl=comp%20system

I'll read some more on this and post more later.

A couple of points/comments:
  • Seems like a good system based on quite a bit of testing.
  • Not a perfect system but appears to get rid of opponent bias and/or inexperience of knowing what is actually an OTT list.
  • One of the major reasons it seems to work is the 6 "unbiased" experienced judges that rate the lists (I believe with no names attached to the lists) and I am guessing that high and low are discarded with an average or total taken from the remaining to get your comp score. I am not sure that the system could be scaled down to the level needed around here. I can contact the "developer" of the system to ask about "scaling" it down unless someone already has an in with him?
  • IMHO (admittedly based on limited experience) but opponent based comp scoring seems to be open to misuse/abuse. Although, if "the speech" had been used at Octocon (unless I missed it by yapping . . . sorry Carson Smile) it may have cleared up a lot of confusion on my part.


My .02 for now and let me know if I should bother trying to find out about "scaling down" the system for local tourney's.

Later,
Rob

B1B

Posts : 7
Join date : 2008-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  RickyDMMontoya on Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:13 pm

ScottRadom wrote:If we're going to use someone else's comp rules I'm more comfortable taking all of their data and running it with those to begin with. I don't mind at all putting our own slant on Soft/Tough armies but I'd like to run his suggested lists through the mill first. If possible.

If that's true shouldn't we use the 6 member judging council too?

RickyDMMontoya

Posts : 1124
Join date : 2008-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:18 pm

RickyDMMontoya wrote:
ScottRadom wrote:If we're going to use someone else's comp rules I'm more comfortable taking all of their data and running it with those to begin with. I don't mind at all putting our own slant on Soft/Tough armies but I'd like to run his suggested lists through the mill first. If possible.

If that's true shouldn't we use the 6 member judging council too?

Ideally yes, but practrically no. I'd like to emulate their system as close as possible but the likeliness of us having 6 non playing army judges is not high. If we can se their impressions on what weak or tough armies are I'd like to incorporate that into our version of the system if possible.

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  squalie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:43 pm

I actually disagree with you a little Don. Opponent scoring is subjective but I find it tends to be an equalizer. That's before this crazy Aussie comp scoring system though.

Way back when there used to be a mathematical breakdown of 40% core etc. and you could max out your score and still have an army that was way too tough to beat with another army books version of a maxed out army comp list. The opponent scoring system was a way of equalizing that.


I don't have near as much experience as you fellows, but is that still how it works? I would think that things have changed a bit in 7th. I may not be entirely convinced of the equalizer you speak of, as it seems people have an auto fear of DoC, VC, and to a lesser extent DE's. These are guys that would kill you in comp, having never played against them before, but since the internet told them that these armies are usually cheese-fests they automatically rank them poorly. Or is that just my perception?

Somebody said during Octocon that he never gives full marks. If that is true, it would seem that people already have their own system for ranking, and could conceivably rate an army unfairly.

Having said all this, I'm a Beasts player so I think this system is just hunky-dory!

squalie

Posts : 3495
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:29 pm

There is no current math style comp formula in use for tournies as far as I know. It wouldn't work, or would heavily penalize some armies over others. Some, like High Elves need their extra special and rare choices and thus make a typical math style formula pretty hard to come up with.

In regards to opponent scoring, THE SPEECH does wonders to fix that problem. Also a judge needs to police the scores. Judges should have a pretty good idea from their own experiences what armies should be comping out at, and by circulating should also have a pretty close idea of what the sports scores should be like. If you know a player is using a "softish" army but his returns are coming back in the other direction likely do to him winning then the judge needs to go and ask what the reason for the score was, and ask if they have reasons behind it. Often they may point out something that was overlooked or more often it becomes apparent that the player just can't cope with having lost to a player rather then some "Broken army"

Classic example being Stash taking a SoC Archaons horde army with no special characters, lots and lots of infantry block and a smattering of chariots and cav. Not overpowered at all, and very, very little in the way of magiv items and such. Chaos personified, but no big combos here. For Stash to win he had to relly on traditional warhammer tactics of "flank 'm and tank 'm". He played a dude with a traditional HoC army list. This guy had min core (Hard to do in a chaos army!) with a few hounds. His lord was maxed out on magic, as was every character he took, as well as having the "Banner of the Gods" for good measure. He lost, 'cause his army and his playing was crap and tanked Stash with zero's all around. I asked hinm why he thought Stash deserved that and he said "Storm of Chaos lists are banned everywhere else." It's not only not true, but when I asked him if that meant Stash should also recieve zero sportsmanship and no honor points he said "Yes". So I just deleted those scores and gave Stash the average score from his other three tourny rounds. An extreme, but not isolated incident.

No comp system will be perfect, and no system will be able to be implemented without a judge overseeing the affairs.

True story about that dude who played Stash, he proposed to his wife in White Dwarf (Maybe issue 300?). Interesting. I can't imagine getting my wife to read white dwarf let alone play warhammer, so that's kind of cool. Actrually I'd be happy if my wife quit throwing my Wd's out....

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  Carson on Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:15 pm

Actually I was the one who said he never gives out perfect scores. I try to judge all armies fairly but I find it hard to give out perfect scores, probably because as a judge it sucks getting results back from 8 players all scoring perfect scores.....come on put some thought into it!

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2779
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  squalie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:07 pm

I guess that's exactly what I'm talking about, Scott. It's dicks like that just just "don't get it". That's the kind of guy that forgets it's a game, even if it is a tournament. I have played some stupid-ass lists before just because I thought It'd be fun and use some models that were collecting dust. These kinds of guys see a Daemon list and don't even look at what models are in the army, to them it's just auto-broken. They see one large rare choice and think the guy went over the top. OR, they see 10 power dice and feel this guy isn't playing the game so it's fun for everyone. I personally think 8-10 power dice is a "magic based army", and 14-16 is certainly taking advantage. Whenever I see that much dice, I personally think that this guy's blowing up something by turn 3 anyways, but I digress.....

Carson: If that was you, maybe it's just an experience thing. After being a judge for so long, or being a tourny player for so long, it may just get to the point where your perspective changes? I'm just asking as I tried to be as fair as humanly possible during Octocon, even if I had a feeling I was being scored lower. Case in point: I played an O&G player (Chris). Really nice guy, and certainly knew his army and the rules. Before the game started, to clear up some issues about terrain, etc, I said that dice are rolled flat, all the time, no exceptions. Period. We play it that way in the Jaw, so there is absolutely no hard feelings. Dice flat, on the table, done. He stated that what they do is put another dice on the dice that isn't flat, and if it slid off, then it was a re-roll. Now, I thought that was the single most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. In my mind, just re-roll everything that isn't flat, and you don't even have to worry about it. Sounds like a make-work program. Well, I may have come across a little over-zealousy with my opinion, and it's possible I may have even offended him. Certainly not my intention, but as the game began, even though we had fun, I thought that this may come back to bite me in the ass.

I may be one of those guys that might sway towards giving good comp, as when I look at the army on the table, I'm not certain whether it's a tough list or not as I've never played against a lot of different armies. And certainly not against tourny regulars.

squalie

Posts : 3495
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:13 pm

Don as per dice rolls, I tend to agree with ypu but the official international "cocked"dice definition is exactly as the guy said. It is dumb though...

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  squalie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:22 pm

Don as per dice rolls, I tend to agree with ypu but the official international "cocked"dice definition is exactly as the guy said. It is dumb though...

Don't I feel like the dumb-ass....

squalie

Posts : 3495
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  ScottRadom on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:10 pm

you haven't achieved nerdom until you've had an opponent ask the ref to come and judge if a dice is "cocked" or not. Star Fleet Battles for me, about '97.

Sigh...

ScottRadom

Posts : 2156
Join date : 2008-04-18
Age : 40
Location : Saskatoon, SK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  Carson on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:28 pm

Hey what about Death or Glory 2 during the 40k tournament. Quite a big blowup between Joe Westfeld and his opponent over dice. Both were convinced that thier opponent had weighted dice or some such nonsense. I basically told them to grow up and continue the game.

Carson
Admin

Posts : 2779
Join date : 2008-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  squalie on Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:44 pm

[quote]Star Fleet Battles for me, about '97.

Wow, does that take me back a few years....

squalie

Posts : 3495
Join date : 2008-06-05
Location : Moose Jaw

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Aussie Comp

Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:30 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum