Sometimes an article is so obviously going to result in a fight that I do have to use it. This feel into the latter camp.
I knew a little bit about this before it actually hit the presses, since Brent contacted me for permission to quote a recent post of my own. From that moment on I knew that this would result in the next FNIF and that Brent must be punished for his sins. By way of punishment, he's been cut out of the fight entirely, in spite of his many many replies. Wait, is that a reward for him? Well, we'll just go with this is project mayhem's way of continuing to fuck with Brent's head. Or is it?
I could have pretty much started copying text from any random point in the comments section and got something pretty entertaining. Luckily for you, dear readers, I took the time to read the entire fucking thing and find the choicest morsels for you. Ever thought a disagreement about comp could result in a fight about English high tea? Well you'll soon find out that it can. Ever wondered if your head will explode if you drink coke with a mouthful of pop rocks? Well that one will have to wait.
As always, none of the names have been changed to protect the innocent, but their avatars have been for my own amusement. In trying to make the insane ramblings of a bunch of meth addicts make sense, I have taken some liberties with editing posts into a flowing narrative. I assure you, however, that these are all the words of the original posters. I will be snowmobiling bitches in red font. Be sure to vote in the poll on the right hand side of the screen to pick this week's winner.
~and if you cut the head off of all false answers, lightning shoots out, car headlights explode, and Sean Connery teaches you how to sword fight.
Composition should be thrown in the trash. It is subjective, exclusive, wrongly opinionated and insulting to the person who owns the army and made it following the prescribed rules for following a Force Organization Chart.
As long as you follow the FOC rules, make whatever the hell army you want. ~oh to live in your black and white world where everything is so simple...
~and this was not
~oh dear god, not you! For the love of all that is unholy! That's quite a boast, especially given that your comment didn't actually say anything at all. ~huh? Whom are you addressing here? What's going on? Why do I even have these night vision goggles?
On to the matter at hand. Buffo accuses it of being "subjective, exclusive, wrongly opinionated and insulting" and yet he manages to be at least three of those things in his post too. Can no one see this? Or perhaps his rudeness is enough to inspire admiration? ~I think it is. You should know, you managed to do that in your post. Can no one see this?
~lol. Glad to see not all of the BoLS peanut gallery is hanging on Porky's every word. I was scared there for a bit.
~because any opinion that is not mine is obviously and completely wrong Why are the opinions wrong? Why is someone who has knowingly submitted an army list for a comp score being insulted? ~because fuck you is why
~It's true, I do! That statement wasn't exclusive or insulting You enter a tournament with a Comp Score.
I am a judge. ~I am the law! Put down your weapons and prepare to be judged.
You brought four units of genestealers for troops because that is the fluff of your army.
I hate genestealers.
You get 0 comp. ~rats!
Congrats on being penalized in this hobby for doing nothing wrong. ~awww man why are you congratulating me for something bad. That's just not right. Enjoy the fact you can now never get 1st place just because you came across a judge who doesn't like your army/units/your face. ~he doesn't like you. I don't like you either
~since we're trying to use big words to sound all smart-like why don't you try these on for size: hyperbole, parable, onomatopoeia
I'm no fan of comp, mind you, but I'm even less enamored of bad arguments. ~when you're done playing with your high horse, you may want to come down and give some support to the people who are on your side
As for winning, the comp score doesn't make it impossible to win, it just makes it more unlikely. ~tomato/tomato.... wow that really doesn't work for shit in writing, does it?
Do try to deal with the reality of what is being discussed. ~only if you make some attempt to be less of a cockstain
~oh no, you just made a short, definitive statement, clearly picking a side. Look out, the peanut gallery is afoot as is all the aspects of competitive 40K. By bringing our army to the table we submit ourselves to subjectivity, even if only battle points are scored. ~ugh. not where I thought you were going with that one...
Too many people see comp as an opposing force to building an effective army list. I would recommend (for those playing in an event with comp scores) that you think of your comp and your battle effectiveness as part of the same army-building step. I like to start with a concept and build from there. ~and once again, you've managed to prove the invalidity and uselessness of comp while trying to argue for it It can be a narrative-based concept, a focused rule or wargear exploit, a particular set of models - really anything you can express to those reviewing your list.
This last tournament (Da Grand Waaagh in the Bay Area) I had wanted to play Chaos Daemons and had settled on the concept of the four horsemen of the apocalypse from Christian eschatology. I knew I wanted to set some parameters for the narrative aspect of the list - four heralds, one of each god, assigned to the four horseman roles, no special characters (no Changeling, 5 points or not) and one troop unit and one support unit for each god. This would leave me with a well-rounded list. ~doesn't sound like it to me. Sounds like you've got a battleforce, unfluffy cluster-fuck of a list on your hands there.
Another aspect I embrace on tournaments with comp is the no repetition rule. If it is at all possible, I avoid using a unit type more than once.~for the last fucking time: non-repeated units doesn't mean fluffy. In many cases, it's the antithesis of fluffly I was able to do it easily with my four horseman list, as the design ensured no duplication. Last Spring for KublaCon I build a Death Guard list using the same rule. Because I had only one troop choice - plague marines - I built those squads with variety. ~well great for you. I'm so proud that you're able to be so much better than everyone else when you make shitty, disjointed lists.
A comp score tests how challenging a list is that a general has put together. ~so by this logic comp awards you for being an idiot. You must be the belle of the ball at comped events Combined with battle points, it is a measure of what kind of general you are - did you mash the opponent with a Uber-net list, or did you pull out three wins and two draws with a unique list with character and challenges? The former might put you in a tie with the other Uber-lists for battle points, but the latter may win you Best General. ~oh thanks for the reminder, I almost forgot that using a net list automatically means you're a bad general. fuck off!
~that troopers name was Chucky. I gave him a back story and everything.
Comp seems like just a handicap, the way you have described it. ~comp seems like a handicap when anybody describes it, though that mostly is due to the fact that it is.
If you want to do something that is different from the net-lists, should you have to do it because Charlie Tournament-organiser thinks it is cool to have restrictions on your army, or should it be because you actually think it is worthwhile to your army? ~go free will
A non-comp list juggles what is perceived to be optimum. The comp list has those concerns and then has extra concerns thrown in on top.
If I don't spam [because RL armies never duplicate units o_O] then Charlie will like me. ~if you duplicate units he is liable to bite your finger
If I am fluffy, at least to what Charlie thinks the fluff is, he'll like me.
So comp encourages you to guess what the weather is [in Charlie's heart]~cloudy with a chance of GET TO THE FUCKING POINT and make a best-prediction of what you should take to the tournament.
If Charlie likes the way you hobby, you get extra points and beat the guy who actually outperforms you.
Why on earth is that good? ~because it lets whinny assholes who would rather play the blame game than improve themselves and their generalship exert their control over the hobby under a self-righteous, self-serving banner. How could that be a bad thing?
We were told that Chaos forces hate one another for years. How is a combined force fluffy in that case? ~because
I get it, GW realised how impractical that actually is on the TT and although they left that option open for those who wish to nobble themselves, realised that fluff made Daemons a weak army. So they changed the fluff. *gasp*
o_O Fluff can be changed?!
So why is it that we then adhere to it for making lists and justifying comp? ~stay on target
It is great that you are competent with a poor list. Your abilities are like a silk purse in using the sow's ear army list. Jolly good.
But who cares if you are good with rubbish? ~lots of people. If this describes you, chances are you've got a long career in waste management ahead of you.
Whilst we may golf clap the driver who has the bad team but does very well, it is Schumacher and Ferrari who will always go down as the winners and the ones who people rave about. The driver with the bad team will be at best a footnote on a show about Schumacher and Ferrari.
Why are you lionising the driver with the bad team?
I don't see even people who play sport for fun nerfing themselves like you do.
I'll wear my shoes on the wrong foot. ~feh, you call that restricting. I'll cut my feet off. You've already lost.
I'll use we weak side every second shot.
Comp just fiddles with a game that already (sort of) works. If you are not savvy to comp, you get stooged by those who are. BBB covers the rules. The Internet covers lists and tactics if you don't have any of your own.
Where do I learn about comp?~the Internet?
It sounds like snobbery to me. Something the high classes of Britain know about and look down their noses about when Tommy lowborn doesn't follow tea etiquette. ~I ate some marmite the other day and gagged- true story. Would that be considered bad etiquette?
You don't have to play proper 40K if you don't want to.
But I'd be surprised if you would convince me that those social airs and graces contribute anything worthwhile to the game, except for those in the inner-circle. ~but it's best to stay away from that inner circle, what with all the paddlings and ookie-cookie and what not.
~here we go again. Why can't you just disappear like Zingbaby seems to have done? It has to be possible for a player to justify his or her army composition. This could be done through a short description provided with the army for judging in which the player explains the selection in the context of the game world and codex limitations. ~seriously who the fuck does this? Most tournaments seem to struggle with testing the legality of players' lists. I can't pretend to imagine that submitting a short story with your list would go over at all The justification might not always be accepted in full, and such a system is still open to what might be termed abuse, but it ought to reduce the degree to which a score can be uninformed, poorly considered and subjective.
It's winning based on the rules alone that's ever so slightly odd. ~not nearly as odd as what you just wrote. Regardless of the tournament, you should still win based on rules, whether they are actual game rules or made up comp rules- they're all still rules The rules don't exist in a vacuum ~unless you vacuum your rule book. I may well do this just to prove a point- that Porky_Poster sucks- they're part of a hobby of many facets. A solution is needed to accommodate the parties who don't think the hobby can be reduced in this way. You don't have to be a part of that solution; the tournaments you'd prefer to attend are easier to organise and common. ~wow, two falsehoods in one clause. Nicely done sir, I didn't think it was possible to pack that much conjecture and outright lies into one thought.
That is a thoroughly ridiculous thing to say. I am saying that nicely, btw. ~if only you could really speak your mind in the comments thread.
The rules determine the game you play. The game you play is based on rules.
If you do not win based solely on the rules, what on earth are you playing? ~playing Dr. perhaps
How can a game be won outside of the rules? ~cheating?
That is cheating .~lol
If you are saying that Comp is part of the game, cool. This is where it breaks down though. I ask you where do I find the rules of this Comp aspect so that I and my fellow tournament goers are all reading from the same set of guidelines? ~the Internet. How do you not use this? You appear to at least be able to surf the net to some extent.
There is none. That is some of the reason that Comp is terrible. Until GW produces a Comp rule book, people who know what Charlie ~who is this Charlie and is he all around us? thinks makes for a good hobbyist are in, and those who don't flounder.
Not to mention that Comp and Sportsmanship have all been used by WAAC players to get them and there buddies ahead of their competitors. ~wait, so rules designed to prevent WAAC gamers can be exploited by WAAC gamers. Competitive and WAAC aren't the same thing?
I can see someone cheating on the TT, with their elastic tape measure and "special" dice or rolling technique. ~double knuckle shuffle FTW
I take it on blind trust that my opponent isn't an 'all smiles and back teeth' guy on the TT but actually an assassin, when I play Comp.
With No-comp, it doesn't matter if he is two-faced, as it has no bearing on my results. ~I don't know. Seeing a two-faced person would really throw me off my game. Are we talking like Zaphod 2 faced or Two-Face 2 faced here? He has to live with himself and I don't.
With Comp, I have to live with his deviousness.
~let's see, if we change the quote to Porky_Poster said: "winning based on... rules [is]...odd [and I'm a whinny fucking bitch]" I'm pretty sure we'll pass the MLA citation muster The key word being "alone". I then expanded on this to make it clear that the rules are only one aspect of the hobby. ~no you didn't
Following your argument through and responding, the game isn't won outside of the rules if every tournament attendee knows the criteria for overall victory.
Anyway, the discussion today doesn't seem to be in earnest. It's still fun though. I'm refusing a flank and having a cup of tea.
I haven't seen places that talk about how to understand and deal with Comp rules. ~beginning to wonder if you do know how to use the net. Did BoLS just happen to be open on the browser when you were at your local library trying to beat the heat?
I don't think we need to make extra rules that vary from event to event. Just like wargaming itself, some chaps will be naturally good at getting the most out of it and others will be left behind. Organisers don't have one set of rules for these things.
If a tournament has comp then the rules of that comp are made available to the players beforehand. ~I want so badly to not think your opinion is valid
As for the examples you give they are just silly. In non-comp tournaments it is possible to use psychological and other tricks to pysche out the opponent, just as it is in a comped tournament. ~I recall no mention of psychological warfare
~and I don't like your face. could be that silly moustache
:( ~yeah, that's the face
~have you been dropping acid and masturbating with microwaved fruits all day?
"Jeeves have you seen my bowler hat?" ~calm down young Mr. Wooster
~come to think of it, I've never seen a bowler or a valet in person, so maybe they don't exist
~Al preguntársele si los libros comunistas en la etiqueta del té británico existen
~yeah, because nobody has ever written books about dining etiquette ever
~I think you are teasing me with your statements that curiously end in question marks?
There is tea etiquette in Britain though.
~they tried to invite you, but I let the committee know that you're an unfunny asshole, so they sent your invite to Jamie Oliver instead.
I suspect you may be refering to that stand by of the lazy journalist about whether to put milk in the cup before or after. But then like most stand bys for lazy journalists they are myths - rather like Britain pulling together in WWII... when in fact there were more days lost to strikes that at any time in the country's history and the only way the army was kept under control was becuase of the formation of soivets.
Still if the myth sells over priced novelty tea to tourists, I guess we shouldn't complain. ~I almost don't want to offer you any help, since you're such a dick, but you may find this enlightening http://www.suite101.com/content/english-afternoon-tea-etiquette-a34922
~when are people going to stop using words like seem and probably and make a definitive statement about something? I made no such statement.
I expressed a recommended attitude for those who choose to participate in comp events. You attitude on the matter, such as it is, is another perspective. From your comments it seems this subject has caused you some stress. ~maybe all this condescension is causing you undue mental trauma Do you have a lack of events without comp in your area? I wonder how much enjoyment you get out of this hobby, given your vitriol. Perhaps you should ask yourself if wargaming really makes you happy.
~I like cake
I don't like it when people infer I should drop something [a hobby] because I argue against how they are wanting to play [which then involves how others are to play]. ~then why don't you quit?
You were saying that army building does not have to be seen as separate from comp restrictions as it is not an impediment to building a successful list. I am sure you can build a powerful all-comers list that will consistently defeat your own comp-list.
I think that shows comp is an impediment to building an effective list.
You are showing how to adapt to comp successfully? ~You are also showing the order in which to words put when a question asking?
I am saying people shouldn't have to adapt. ~stasis for all! So while I didn't answer in the manner you expected me to, I was posting to you as much as anyone else.
~viva stasis! Do not mistake my comments for being in favor of or against comp scoring in tourneys ~shit thought you might have an opinion and a spine there for a second. Guess not
I am showing how a player can have a positive attitude and embrace an aspect of an event even though they may loathe it. ~viva conformity! If you don't like something, suck it up and do it anyway. Don't bother talking about change, nothing really matters anyway By doing so, this may increase their enjoyment of the event.
Also, I stated you should consider dropping the hobby not because you presented an argument, but based on how you argued it. Implication would indicate subtlety, whereas I was speaking directly to you. ~grammar lessons would indicate douchebaggery, whereas...oh wait, that's what you did, you condescending douchebag
Audiences infer. Writers and readers imply. ~and readers are audiences. Your point, other than that you are bad at transitive logic?
~oh dear god, is this how we're going out?
verb ( -ferred , -ferring ) [ trans. ]
deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements : [with clause ] from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing.
verb ( -plies, -plied) [ trans. ]
strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated) : the salesmen who uses jargon to imply his superior knowledge
[with clause ] the report implies that two million jobs might be lost.
• (of a fact or occurrence) suggest (something) as a logical consequence : the forecasted traffic increase implied more roads and more air pollution.
Thank you, I didn't really know of the difference. But shouldn't audiences AND readers infer as they are receiving and writers be the imply'ers as they are the ones sending the text or other medium? We mish-mash the terms and I use them. ~We do the mash. It was a graveyard smash
Like respiration and breathing.
Or over costed when they really mean over valued or over priced. ~or over-explained when I really mean... oh shit, that is what I meant
You didn't state it. You did not speak directly.
"Perhaps you should ask yourself if wargaming really makes you happy."
That is no statement that I should quit the hobby. That is an implication. You are implying I should quit by getting me to ask a question of myself,~know thyself see that I dislike one thing [Comp] so much that it overshadows all the other categories I do like about the hobby, and could only conclude that this hobby is filled with too much angst for me. So whilst infer vs imply was something you showed me, I thoroughly disagree that you ever stated that I should quite the hobby. ~it is quite the hobby, isn't it Maybe that is what you meant when you wrote it, but it is not what your words actually say. I even asked someone else to read it, just in case I was "too close to the issue". ~a clear sign that you're taking this too seriously. In case writing well over a few thousand words in a series of blog posts weren't sign enough He came to the same conclusion as me. ~I'm glad that you found a like-minded individual to agree with you
It seems, do you....? I wonder....? Perhaps you.... should ask yourself if
If you do think that is a statement, I am cool with that. ~looked more like a series of questions to me, but after seeing the questionable use of question marks elsewhere in this thread, I'm beginning to question a lot of things Hopefully I have shown that it isn't and you can see and even embrace that what you said was no statement. Whilst your meaning was more than clear, your words were reflective and questioning.
"Perhaps you should consider handing in your resignation, Mr Smith"
Oh I never told Mr Smith to resign. Yes? ~no? wait, maybe? no? Shit? I don't know? AAAAAhhhhh?
I agree with your making the most of Comp. If I choose to Tourney and these are the rules and regulations, I have submitted myself to them and cheerfully so. It is not my place to share my ill feelings with fellow hobbyists and the organisers at the event.
Here is where I get to share my fears and frustrations with you all, away from the event. If that was too ugly for you, I apologise. I always think of online people as brothers, ~slap me five rather than acquaintances. Perhaps I am being overly familial with you. ~oh the holidays at the Wilhelm residence must be so much fun
I still think you implying I should quite was ugly, ~quite ugly even but perhaps I am too much a petal. ~imagine the lily of the....
"Life is terrible in this certain regard" "Maybe you should ask yourself how much you enjoy this life? [and quit living]"
o_O ~ (_l_) I can make funny pictures too
Whilst I will not love comp, I certainly can move within its confines and prosper. ~well love or not, comps father has already traded me a milk cow, 2 goats, and 5 chickens in exchange for your hand in marriage. In time, I think you will grow to love each other I just think it is poor that I would ever have to :)
~that's cold man. He invited you into his fake, dysfunctional Internet family and you just throw him out into the cold. Just when he has that arranged marriage to deal with, even. You heartless bastard
I appreciate your apology. ~what apology