Glenn's Rant

I think a big part of the fun in a tournament is the attitude of the players as well. I know - this isn't something that a tourny organiser can control... but getting beat to a pulp by someone who actively tries to make the game fun can be more enjoyable than winning against someone who looks like he just doesn't care to be there.

I agree with all of the above.

I also like it when the TOs keep to the schedule. Start the day/s and games on time.

I like it when the TO announces in player packs and up front what the intent of the tournament is. If its fun based, competitive based, whatever. But state it up front, so a person is not disappointed after they pay to play.

I prefer it when the TO also states up front what the prize values are. Noone likes to be gouged, and even better, if they give an idea of how the entire funds raised are going to be used. For example, if 20 people play in a tourney at $50 each and theres 3 $50 voucher prizes, thats $850 left over for various costs (hall hire etc), which would be unreasonable, for a game someone can play with mates for free...

Scoring system needs to be transparent. If it cant stand up to scrutiny during and most importantly at the end, then the TOs are rightly open to question.

I also like it when tournaments dont fool around with the rules too much. They should state what version/s stand and play by them. Things like parts of codices not being allowed or being adjusted due to someones opinion is imo wrong. Of course they will say its for balance sake, but if the game needs to be balanced by the organiser's opinion - then is the game system itself tournament worthy?

Wile I agree that models should be painted I think flat out no you can play doesn't work.
I mean were Ozzies tell us to do something and we will rail against.
...
Well I am an Ozzie at least and just saw this was a .com not .com.au

Anyway having a clear definable painting guide for points for tournaments is much better.
Have an over all rating system rather than just game wins.
Now that would lead into sportmanship and gamesmen ship which is a whole other topic.

Some competive players are often players who don't care about painting however you make it a part of tournaments then they do care.
My two bob anyway.

Despite our AUSSIE friend above(ozzy sings for black sabbath)and his rather dour view of this, I have to say in regards to tournament play unpainted should just not be allowed.
Look at it like a uniform, if this were fooball(you kind or ours) would the teams be allowed on the field in any old clothes? NOPE they are not. And this is the same thing.
i have been to places where they just didnt allow unpainted figures to be used. and I endorse that. If you really cared you would have had the stuff painted anyway.
army creation is usually different for tourny players anyway. you usually buy ONE army, they are usually pretty small or of a controled size based on points. the least you can do is paint your figures. you have so few to worry about.
I have painted THOUSANDS of figures in my day. THOUSANDS we can count em. and i use them when i play in public places, run games at conventions or play in tournaments.
PAINT YOUR DARN TOYS....is this yanks echoing call,but in our vernacular

I know a bunch of friends who had a weekly painting night - where they all got together and painted. I think they usually ended up chatting more than brushing but if a few models get some colour on them rather than none at all - I say success.

Another option for motivation is to allow them to enter the tournament but charge a penalty for an unpainted army. It doesn't have to be much but it does motivate them!

Yes Glenny, let's have a painting night together! and I can finally get together and meet all your friends, woo figurines and other related stuff.

It's like you stole the words out of my mouth.
Thanks Glenn, nice summary.

Think your right on' until it's a douche deciding the comp scores' then it becomes find another system because he/she is biased and that isn't how it should work' Infinity ftw

Reducing the "douche factor" is why I'm a proponent of panel comp - careful selection of panel means less incorrect comp results.

As a player of a number of systems (rather than GW games) at tournaments that don't use "comp scores" (eg warmachine and hordes, and infinity), I've never felt the absence of a comp score to be an impediment. Maybe this highlights more of an issue with the particular gaming system, or players involved with that gaming system, where comp is required as a "necessary evil"...? Other systems cope quite well without it...

I don't think comp is necessary at all. If you must have it, use it only as a tiebreaker.

playing an older codex is penalty enough. I play WH, and I have a few builds I work from. I can make an army that can compete with the newest of codecies.
I have fewer options than newer codecies, that's for sure.

I don't think this encourages better generalship either. I mean, would it be fair for a sports team to be penalized for having 'too many' top players? It's like telling the New york Yankees at the beginning of the game that they brought too many top players, and as a result, to make the game competitive, their opponents were going to get 2 runs at the start of the game.

the outcome will determine which is truly the better coaching staff.

I suppose my point is that any game (wether it be warhammer 40K or sport) isn't solely listbuilding or generalship. Good listbuilding is PART of good generalship.

With 5th ed's coming, I think more of the older codecies became more competitive.

basically, if you hamstring old codecies because you want more 'variety' with your comp system, I'm more likely to not show up with my WH's, and bring yet another Space Marine flavor army.

new codexes have more variety, and more powerful, cheaper units, plus the ability to re-arrange their force org charts.

The Australian experience of comp generally improves the variety. Older codexes only having (generally) one competitive build, doesn't encourage people to take the less competitive units. The variety of armies at the tourny I went to last weekend was amazing - every codex was represented (from memory) and most armies were reasonable in terms of their apparent power (few exceptions). This was mostly due to the comp system.

There is a very different view between the american tourny experience and the australian. America has enough population to not worry about what people want in their tournaments - they should get people there no matter what. Australia has a very small gaming population compared to the states. Comp tournies in Aus have been continually growing in numbers whereas most comp tournies have small numbers. This suggests to me that comp is good for our tourny scene at least.

how big a thing do you guys think wargaming is in the US. there are a lot of us no doubt, but really its not like everyone here does this stuff.

i am still of the ilk that wargaming shouldnt be "fair" and points systems are silly all around. I have yet to see any war in which the combatants set a limit on the amount of men and material. which is why sometimes one side has an advantage. I mean would we so a points system for say, battle of little big horn? nope. its just not a natural part of wargaming.

Big books with army lists, MARKETING PLOY. gimme a book with some rules, if applicable a character creation process for generals and other "hero" types and let me do the rest.. but then i dont do competition play like that, and i generally avoid GW games like the plague(figures are frightfully lame really come on. no more giant guns...why cant things be proportionate?) because the business model the use makes it prohibitivly expensive.

play for fun not for trophies!!!!
and that is all i have to say about that

Unfortunately comp falls down when the Organiser/s (panel system as such) are still peers of players, and therefore by default if not purposely still use a 'peer system'. ie cheat?
My last experience in a 40k tourney was to see an army, owned by a member of the same club as the TO and appeared to be friends, that was almost identical to mine, score 5/20 points higher than mine. A whole 25% better score? The 'friend' achieved 2nd place vs my 9th overall, based on similar win/loss ratio!
Thats the true effect of comp in action!
Comp will only work with consistency, and I am too cynical to believe that we can get that with 100% confidence in any given tourney. The only true 100% consistency can be achieved by playing Rules as Written. They are published for all to see and play by. Artificial variations to them, which comp is, leaves the door open...
I did then, as you have advised at the end of the rant, found other systems. Thankfully as it has turned out.

Arbitary rules lead to arbitary wins.

A game system that needs a comp score just isnt suited to tournament play. It can be fun and enjoyable. You can still play competitively over successive games by introducing gradual handicaps but it'll always be second guessed at a tournament.

40K is particularly prone to this do to the size of the catalog. The permutations are huge. Further, some lists can be extremely strong vs some kinds of armies but weak against other types. Assigning a single accurate comp score in that situation is impossible. Allowing 2 lists helps mitigate this issue but then you'd need a composite comp score which is prone to twice as much error.