Natcon Comp - Judge vs Player

[Philfy]

Final (Amended & Triple Checked) Results for Natcon 09



Judge Panel Comp Results



Player Comparison Comp Results



I haven't drawn any real conclusions myself yet from the comparisons... although I have yet to look at them closely myself - having barely had the time to collate them all in the past week or so.

Cheers

[Fujin]

First - thanks for publishing the correct results 


Second, third, fourth and so on... Here are some things I noticed:

- there are only two scores using 1/2 marks (Tom Van Roekel and Mark Owen) and they are both given by the same judge. Either none of the other judges felt comfortable using 1/2 marks or they felt it wasn't necessary.

- there are more 'significant hits' (-2 or -3) than 'significant boosts' (+2 or +3)

- the marking for the TK lists is a bit bogus, i.e. 3 judges awarding '0' but the other two giving big minuses for Harry. I might be noticing this because I hate friggin Tomb Kings of course... 

- the Ogre list marking is also... interesting. John's 'Leadbelcher funtimes' list came out on top. Wha?

- only 4 of the 38 lists saw the players agree with the judges. WOW! Empire (woot), WoC, Dwarfs and one Dark Elf army managed this.


In future I would look at a veto automatically being acheived when a critical mass is reached. So the judges can still ask to have a list vetoed but the preference is to collect the marks in and if a player gets an aggregate hit of
-6 or more (or whatever number you are happy with) then the list triggers a veto. I would also suggest a similar veto for lists that are too soft. It appears to me that the veto option available was not utilised to the extent that it was intended. I have a personal preference for seeing lists balanced to get more even battles and less tournament strategising (the "I'll take a comp hit but smash 'em bro" approach; not dissimilar to the "I'll get smashed bro but nail the soft scores with my fluffy army and cuddly physique" attitude). All-round hobby-type approach.

The player comp vs judge comp idea was bloody brilliant - good thinking Batman! I haven't run the math but I wonder what the mean differential is? Looks like a -3 mean difference at a glance. My goodness - the Lizardmen and Brettonian armies! Golly!

[Simon]

I would also suggest a similar veto for lists that are too soft. It appears to me that the veto option available was not utilised to the extent that it was intended. I have a personal preference for seeing lists balanced to get more even battles and less tournament strategising (the "I'll take a comp hit but smash 'em bro" approach; not dissimilar to the "I'll get smashed bro but nail the soft scores with my fluffy army and cuddly physique" attitude). All-round hobby-type approach.

I'm absolutely, totally 100% agree with you for once.

[Josh]

It's funny to see the judges results. Judges 2-4 were usually very consistent, while judges 1 and 5 obviously went through stages of having too much coffee, there's some very irregular behavior in those columns 

BTW, good call Fuj. I'm sure that's what the players pack means when it says all players should aim for the '0' in comp, but it would be a great idea to try and get some roll over armies a little more balanced.

[Fujin]

 

Holy crap! I'm 2 for 2!


EDIT - So the next big question to ask, based on where some tournaments in Australia are going, is: would the ETC system work in NZ tournaments?


EDIT 2 - Oops, one more thing to add. 5 judges dropping high/low doesn't really give you enough numbers to work with IMO. I would go so far as to hunt around for 8 judges, dropping extremes to get 6 scores.

[Doug]

I'm pretty confident that the coffee-fuelled marks I awarded align pretty closely with the marks awarded by the players (except with one notable exception, where I acknowledge that I marked too kindly).

In general, all off the judges scores vaguely correlated with player-judged scores, in that the same lists which players marked down the judges tended to mark down, and ones the players awarded high the judges tended to too.

Now, stepping into the contraversial zone here, I think the reasons why the TK players, and one or two others, got almost universally penalised, was because it was clear that their lists were highly efficient and honed tournament rosters (whether or not they were both played as finely honed machines varied).  Note I'm not saying they were too hard, far from it - they just weren't as 'unoptimised; in the context of what can be fielded from their respective army books as most of the other rosters from other armies.  Compare with the likes of the daemon and DE rosters (and pretty much all the others rosters, when it comes down to it), which clearly tended towards more moderate selection whilst still attempting to remain competitive.

In general, I think the comp system did what it was intended to do.

In addition, I think this comparison of players scores which don't count with judge scores which do count is a real step forward in post-tourney assessment, for a multitude of reasons (nice one Phil!).

First, it enables the judge scores to be calibrated (I've certainly learned something, again, with one roster in particular).

Second, it essentially overcomes the alleged Tiercomp problem of lacking 'standard' tournament lists for each army.  Lacking the standard list, we can compare to the 'standard score' issued by players for lists we *do* have.   This feedback can be incorporated for furture judging.

Third, it means the players themselves get more valuable feedback about their lists, and how they should modify them for future games/events, as they have both independent and opposition-based scores to look at.

Finally, as the player-judges scores dont 'count' for anything, it means players should give (and get) more accurate assessments of the lists, as those alleged problems with peer-based scoring (assassination, chipmonking, players with outlying/extreme opinion, etc.) no longer exist, as they have no bearings on final standings in the actual event.

[Fujin]

Now, stepping into the contraversial zone here, I think the reasons why the TK players, and one or two others, got almost universally penalised, was because it was clear that their lists were highly efficient and honed tournament rosters (whether or not they were both played as finely honed machines varied).  Note I'm not saying they were too hard, far from it - they just weren't as 'unoptimised; in the context of what can be fielded from their respective army books as most of the other rosters from other armies.

What struck me here was that they weren't more universally penalised. Two big minuses and 3 '0' adjustments aren't a universal penalisation.

Fecking Tomb Kings... 

[Doug]

They were'nt obnoxious armies, Dave.  They could be viewed as both fair or tuned.  Some judges just viewed them as more fair than perhaps others did, and rightly so (which is why we have more than 1 judge, and why seeing the peer-judging is so useful).

[Dirty_Vod]

I've just done some analysis on the full data set to see how close the average of the judges scores were to the average of the player judged scores and there are a few interesting findings.

• 2 of the judges (#1 & #4) were on average slightly harsher than the players, the other 3 were slightly friendlier than the players were.
• across the board the average comp scores given by the players and the judges avearged out to very close to 0 - which is what the player pack suggested that people should aim for.

Player avg = 0.2961
Judge 1 avg = -0.0263
Judge 2 avg = 0.3158
Judge 3 avg = 0.3947
Judge 4 avg = -0.1579
Judge 5 avg = 0.6578

• I think that it is apparent that everyone (players and judges) carry pre-conceptions about certain armies which impacts on the comp scores given.
• It would be interesting to see if the result of the games had an impact on the comp score given by the player - Phil, are you able to provide this data?
• If you look at the individual results you'll see that all of the judges varied from the players averages by more than +/-1 point on numerous occasions, I guess that we were all drinking equal amounts of coffee eh? 

# of times judges mark varied from player avg by +/-1 or more

Judge 1 = 16
Judge 2 = 11
Judge 3 = 13
Judge 4 = 17
Judge 5 = 16

[Antony]

Thanks for posting the comp score Phil.

I think that panel comp is a great idea, especially with moderate sized events where marking is not going to be too much of an arduous task for those involved.

The greatest benefit is that people are more likely to get a fair and constent comp score. I think the objective of comp is that you can take the army you like but the end result of the tournament will reflect your skill at the game rather than the factors ralated with your army/army book. It is also to encourage fun and diverse armies, but moving on.

But there is the risk with army tiers of double jeapardy. The pattern emerging for me from these comp scores posted is that the lower (harder) your army tier the more likely you are to get a lower (worse) comp modifier. Taken on its own this would indicate that judges are not comparing one army against another of it own kind in isolation.
Teir 1 (4 armies) average comp modifier    -2.25
Teir 2 (12 armies) average comp modifier  -0.29
Teir 3 (9 armies) average comp modifier   +0.33
Teir 4 (9 armies) average comp modifier   +3.0
Teir 5 (5 armies) average comp modifier   +2.0

That is to say if you take an army that is not fancied (higher tier) the more likely the judges are to consider it softer that usual and give it a better comp modifier hence "double jeapardy".

No solutions here, just raising the issue 

[Vaul]

Wow, turns out I didn't get quite as ruined on sports as previous results indicated, and in fact I came 8th on battle points, and with the new results in, moved up a number of positions in the overall ranking.  Thanks!

I don't think people realise that Tomb Kings army lists really need to be meticulously planned if you want to do well with them.  The more concessions you make, the quicker the army unravels and spirals down into the fluffy end of the spectrum, relative to other armies.  I am willing to bet some of the judges saw it this way, whereas others didn't.  Tomb Kings also have weaknesses that may not be well understood by certain players that only seem to come up against practiced TK generals. 

I see a lot of people dispelling the WRONG incantations, and then moaning about the headache of having nothing left to stop the important stuff.  I think there is more people can do to trap heirophants, weaken chariot units etc... I also think sometimes my opponents could flee from some of my charges and beat me later, given that I may have expended my jar or moved all my important casters in range just to get one charge off.  Oh well.

[Dirty_Vod]

Ant,

I completely agree with you on that front, here's a snippet of an e-mail that I sent to Phil and the other comp judges on exactly the same point.

When you look at the average comp modifiers for each of the tiers it looks to me like the Tier 1 & 2 lists are subject to a "double ping" effect.  I suspect that this may be because it is easier to spot the "tricks" in the T1 & 2 books making it more likely that a judge will 'ping' them.  I know that this is too a small sample sample set to use to draw any conclusions but it would be interesting to see if this is a common trend in other events as well....

My concern is that all of the T1 lists dropped by 9-14 places in the overall rankings when you take into account their final position vs their battle points position.  Sure, none of the T1 lists were being run by "name" generals but that kind of a drop across the board, and the fact that T2 & 3 lists were able to do similarly well in battle points indicates to me that the net effect of the double ping, made it effectively impossible for a T1 list to place in the top 5 of the table...

 

[Dirty_Vod]

Wow, turns out I didn't get quite as ruined on sports as previous results indicated, and in fact I came 8th on battle points, and with the new results in, moved up a number of positions in the overall ranking.  Thanks!

I don't think people realise that Tomb Kings army lists really need to be meticulously planned if you want to do well with them.  The more concessions you make, the quicker the army unravels and spirals down into the fluffy end of the spectrum, relative to other armies.  I am willing to bet some of the judges saw it this way, whereas others didn't.  Tomb Kings also have weaknesses that may not be well understood by certain players that only seem to come up against practiced TK generals. 

I see a lot of people dispelling the WRONG incantations, and then moaning about the headache of having nothing left to stop the important stuff.  I think there is more people can do to trap heirophants, weaken chariot units etc... I also think sometimes my opponents could flee from some of my charges and beat me later, given that I may have expended my jar or moved all my important casters in range just to get one charge off.  Oh well.

With all due respect Vaul - comp judges can't score your comp based on how badly your opposition choose to play against your TKs.  All we can do is judge based on the potential that the army has based on the assumption that its general knows how to use it at its optimal.  Based on that i'm more than happy with the scores that I gave the TK armies (-3 & -2 respectively) and given that 4 of your 8 opponents gave you the same score, I'd venture to say that I was pretty close to the mark afterall things are considered.

Your milage may vary 

[Vaul]

No, I quite agree with you - the point of my comment there was more a defence against some of the sentiment I have been hearing about people not enjoying their games against Tomb Kings as much.  I'm looking forward to playing against Tomb Kings when I move on to my next army!

[Doug]

I don't think people realise that Tomb Kings army lists really need to be meticulously planned if you want to do well with them.  The more concessions you make, the quicker the army unravels and spirals down into the fluffy end of the spectrum, relative to other armies.  I am willing to bet some of the judges saw it this way, whereas others didn't. 

I'm willing to bet that all of the judges are well aware of how TK armies are built and function.  I'm also willing to point at the individual scores which were assigned to the TK armies at the event and point out where those doing the judging did not think that the Tk owners had done anything to either unravel their army or see it spiral down into the fluffy end of the spectrum (something that, curiously, the high tier armies seem to be quite ready to do).   Those TK armies were tuned.  They could have been much softer without being unplayable.

This relates to Tony's observations that the low tier armies are tending to get penalties, whilst the high tier armies are tending to get bonuses.  IMO, that is because the high tier armies are making extra effort to field moderate armies for their types.  We judges just aren't seeing many high tier armies at the harder ends of the scales allowed by their army books.  Yet we still see that for low tier armies (although, again IMO, less so in this event).  Some of the low tier army problem may well be that there are very few poor choices in their army books, so it is comparitively harder to make a less effective army, even with less common choices.  But the larger part of it is just players still taking what they consider necessary to win their games.  You get that

Although, all said and done, there were no obnoxious armies IMO, and nothing overly requiring a veto.  Furthermore, had this ewvent not used the fluffycon guidelines, many of those armies (such as the TK) probably would have recieved less in the way of penalties (reiterating: they were only tuned, they werent obnoxious).

[Fujin]

I'm willing to bet that all of the judges are well aware of how TK armies are built and function.  I'm also willing to point at the individual scores which were assigned to the TK armies at the event and point out where those doing the judging did not think that the Tk owners had done anything to either unravel their army or see it spiral down into the fluffy end of the spectrum (something that, curiously, the high tier armies seem to be quite ready to do).   Those TK armies were tuned.  They could have been much softer without being unplayable.

I'd be willing to back that bet but it does make me more confused as to how, given it was obviously tuned and the judges could see no evidence of a fluffy downward spiral inherent in the list, that 3 of the 5 judges equated 'tuned without concession' to a '+/-0' modifier. Don't think I've ever felt more justified in starting a Vampire Counts army. I realise they are different army books (which is a significant point of difference) but getting a mere 4 points of comp score more with (no Stank/Altar/Inner-Circle Knights) Empire than Harry's vastly superior TKs really doesn't seem worth it upon reflection.

I'd rather have had an army entirely immune to psych and spent a lot less time running away

It's not a whinge (wait... ok, yes it is a bit of a whinge ) - mostly I'd really like to better understand where I went wrong and why the difference between the lists (as represented by the composition score) was judged to be so small.


I'll also happily admit that it's this sort of personal bias that will forever prevent me from becoming a comp judge 

[Simon]

Here are some interesting results I found in Natcon, relating to the Tier system

My analysis method:

Comparing lists of different race with similar Comp score, which have been boosted or tuned down by the tier system

Tier 3: High Elves   Joe Dixon      Judge -9/+9: -5   Comp Score: 34
Prince, Halberd, Amulet of light, Armor of Caledor, Vambrace of D, STAR DRAGON
BSB, B-steed, HA, Lance, shield, Warbanner
Mage, 2 scrolls
2 Eagles
2 RBT
Chariot
9 Dragon prince, FC, gem of Courage, balance Standard
7 SM, Champ
7 SM, Champ
21 Spearmen, muso, standard, Lion Standard
10 Archers

Tier 3: Tomb King    Luke Brimblecombe   Judge -9/+9: -4   Comp Score: 35
King, DESTROYER, cloak of dunes
Prince, flail, LA, Chariot of fire, Enchanted shield
Priest, jar, scroll, steed
Priest, Collar of shapesh, CASKET OF SOULS
SSC
Scorpions X2
Carrion X3
20 Skete (bows), standard
20 Skete (bows)
10 Skete (bows)
Swarm
15 tomg guards, champ, standard, Banner of undying
Chariots X3
Chariots X3, standard, icon of sacred eye

Tier 2: Bretonnia,    Henry Poor   Judge -9/+9: +1   Comp Score: 34 (I can’t believe this, get +1 with bretonnian and still get lower score than the high elves and tomb king, total BS)
Lord, B-horse, shield, Virtue of confidence, Sword of Carcass, Gromril helm, gauntlet of duel.
BSB, horse, Virtue of duty, Banner of lady
Paladin, Virtue of empathy, morning star. Shield, tress of Isoudle, Cuirass of fortune.
Damsel, horse, 2 scrolls
Damsel, lvl 2, prayer icon, power stone
Trebuchet
10 bow men, skim, brazier
10 bow men, brazier
10 bow men, brazier
24 men at arm, FC

24 men at arm, FC

Knights of the realms X 12, FC warbanner
Knight of the realm X 9, FC, banner of twilight
Errant X9, FC Errantry banner

Tier 2: Dark elf,    Nick Buckley   Judge -9/+9: 0      Comp Score: 33
Master, HA, SDC,Shield, Sword of might, Pendent of Khaeleth Cold one
Master, BSB, GW, Armor of darkness, Pearl of Infinite bleakness
Sorc, lvl 2, Seal
Sorc, lvl 2, 2 scroll
20 Corsairs, extra HW, FC
20 warriors, FC, shields, Warbanner
10 Crowbowmen
5 Dark riders, crossbow, muso
5 Dark riders, crossbow, muso
5 Harpies
5 cold one knights
16 black guards, champ, halberd, null tali, standard, Hag Graef
Shades X 5 , GW
Bolt thrower
War hydra

Tier 2:Lizardmen   Glen Tibbles   Judge -9/+9: +2   Comp Score: 35

Saurus oldblood, LA, shield, Blade of revered tzunki, Glyph necklace, Carnsaur
Saurus Veteran, BSB, LA< shield, Coldone, Sword of might, War drum of Xah
Saurus Veteran, LA, Shield, Cold one, Scimitar of sun
Skink priest, D scroll
2 Razordons
1 Razordons
6 Cold one Cavalry, FC, warbanner
10 skinks, blow pipe
10 skinks, blow pipe
11 skinks, muso, standard, Kroxigor
11 skinks, muso, standard, Kroxigor
15 Saurus warriors, FC, Spears
15 Saurus warriors, FC, Spears


From the sample above, I took 5 armies, with comp score, between 33 to 35.
High Elf, at -5
Tomb king, at -4
Dark elf at 0
Bret at +1
Lizard, at +2

Using Nick Buckley’s army as a reference for a balanced army (since he gets 0), from my point of view, the high elf and Tomb king army are SIGNIFICANTLY more tuned than the other 3 armies, but as a result, they end up with similar Comp score due to the tier system.

So, in my conclusion, the tier system didn’t work as well as it should have, in fact, it actually penalties armies at higher tier and boosted armies at lower tier. In result, a VERY overpowered army gets the same Comp score as a well balanced higher tier, or a significantly tuned down tier 1 army.

So, in my point of view, veto the tier system.

[dave grant]

As one of the judges I have to say I was very careful to avoid the double -ves for low tier armies (and vice versa for high tier).

One thing the results do show is how subjective comp is - quite a lot of varience.

Overall, on reflection, probably 1-2 scores I should have changed, but overall happy with the scores I gave.



Phil - or keep the tiers as a start point and increase the impact of the +ves/-ves

[pete dunn]

I've updated the NZ rankings with the correct results.

Pete

[Philfy]

Using Nick Buckley’s army as a reference for a balanced army (since he gets 0),

Simon you need to bear in mind that that "0" was scored for a "Dark Elf army" compared to other Dark Elf armies that can be built from the book.  It should not be taken as a "0" in comparison to a Daemon or a Beastmen army.

the high elf and Tomb king army are SIGNIFICANTLY more tuned than the other 3 armies, but as a result, they end up with similar Comp score due to the tier system.

Indeed - but it is difficult to get a "harder" TK or HE army than those there.  Whereas other army types in a different tier scoring a similar overall comp score are indicative of either concessions being made, or a harder army being taken.  Brets, Dark Elves and Lizards were all of a higher tier than the three armies you mention.  Your example here actually shows that tier comp WORKS by giving them an even score.  It is possible to make much harder Bret, Lizard, and Dark Elf armies than those you have listed.

So, in my conclusion, the tier system didn’t work as well as it should have, in fact, it actually penalties armies at higher tier and boosted armies at lower tier. In result, a VERY overpowered army gets the same Comp score as a well balanced higher tier, or a significantly tuned down tier 1 army.

  Yes an over-powered High Elf army will get the same score comp-wise as an "underpowered" army of a higher level. But then the idea behind the tiers is that a higher tier army has a book that is inherently harder - so it actually achieves the goal by giving them an even comp.  The thing is, even if Harry's TK army had been penalised even more in comp...  he still would have been streets ahead of the field due to his gameplay.  So you must begin to ask yourself laddie...  how much of this is about comp...  and how much of this is how well people use their particular armies?  And also bear in mind with a random selection of opponents...  any player (particularly over a 5-6 game event with a larger number of players) may not end up facing those few armies that have the necessary tools to render his own army ineffective.

Harry and Reid in particular played sublimely.  I was obviously in a position to watch many of their games...  and whilst yes, Harry's army was harder for a TK than Reids was for a Dark Elf, at the end of the day much of it came down to how they played.

So unfortunately Simon...  whilst I can see where you are coming from to a degree, your argument that the tier system is flawed so should thus be veto'd, is incorrect because your analysis of it is what, from what you have written here, is what is flawed.

*****************************

Overall I was happy with the fluffycon comp descriptions, and would use it again.  Giving players a "start point" of what their ballpark comp score will be for their army as I did in the player pack (Ranging from a 27/60 base for Tier 1 to a 51/60 base for Tier 5) I think is a good idea.  Bear in mind that an "average" Daemon army SHOULD be able to make up that 24 point difference from a Beasts Army over the length of a 6 game tournament - depending of course on what opponents it meets and how the player using it plays.  So for Natcon with it being in fact an 8 game event...  the difference between Tiers 1 & 5 (giving that I was using actual point for point rather than this percentage alteration crap) ended up being only 3 points per game.

I'd challenge anyone to play a Daemon army against a Beast army and not be able to make up THAT difference.

And yet...  there is at least one player whom did not attend because (the impression I have gotten) there was not a high enough weighting on composition.  Personally I think I got it pretty much right.  Both in weighting, and in how the scores ended up.

I reiterate here that I think the selection of players to serve as "judges" is important.  This is something that I felt showed a little at Fluffycon with some of the results being wildly different.  There are only 1-2 armies here that I think scored out of the "expected" range in comparison to other judges as noted by Doug.  This is inevitable I think.

I am a firm believer, particularly looking at the player comp scores, that Tier or not, a Judge panel is better than player comp.  Why?  Because those softer scores that were given to the harder armies - were ALL from players whom I would consider "less experienced".  Which is how harder armies manage to slip through under player comp and dodge the "comp hit".  Its often known as the "Fireside Chat" and referred to by Murishido (Wargamer AU) in his blog as the "comp campaign".  A judge panel of experienced judges avoids this dire flaw of player comp.  It also disallows "chipmunking" (percieved or intentional), particularly as judges are in no way aware of WHO is played what army, nor do they have "sour grapes" at having just been being beaten by it (another flaw of the lesser experienced tourney player).

As a side note I was a victim of this at one Natcon under 6th Ed where in turn three my half my Orc/Goblin army charged my opponents Beastmen army...  causing most of it to either die or flee off the table due to ensuing panic tests...  to find myself with ) comp and sport score from my opponent (where I had scored 4/5 or 5/5 from all my other opponents).  He was a 40k player who had ventured to his first WFB event and returned directly to 40k afterwards from what I am told.

There was one player in particular at this Natcon just been who was routinely giving opponents who beat him a low sport and comp score, and if he won the game they got a better comp/sport score.  There are, and will always be these kind of players around...  Judging Panels help negate the negative effect they have on some peoples weekend.  (I had a couple of good talks to him and HOPE to see his attitude improve).

My intent with the Fluffycon description and a range of a -3 to +3 modifier to army comp (which meant a range of -9 to +9 in total for comp) for the judges (and players) to mark on, was that concessions would be rewarded.  And I think they were.

For myself...  given that my own High Elf army list was also marked by the judges (in case I ended up playing) and scored 3 pts worse on comp than Joe's (Mine was very similar)...  means that I now have a benchmark and a challenge to see what I know will be a "harder" HE army build that will get better comp than the one I submitted, do better also in Battle scores.

And at this stage, I am sticking with something similar to "Natcon" for "Over The Top" next year.

At the end of the day... don't worry as much about comp - play better.  (so long as comp doesn't make up some ridiculous 30+% weighting of the entire event...  otherwise we'll never see any tier one armies fielded...  ever.)

[Vaul]

Thanks phil, good writeup.  Btw simon there was a typo on my list for the event, sadly when I submitted my list I had 20 archers with bows, 10 more with bows, and 20 more 'unspecified'... this was an accident - they were meant to have been listed as having hand weapons & shields.  No big deal.  Can I have my bits of paper with the lists back next sunday?

[Simon]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but from my point of view, the whole idea of having the tier system in place is to adjust the balance between the armies BEFORE comp score is applied.

From my analysis provided above, I in fact didn’t compare a “0” dark elf army to a “0” tomb king army or a “0” high elf army. In fact, I’m comparing a “0” dark elf army to a “-4” tomb king, and a “-5” high elf army, which end up with very similar comp scores.

Comp score is given, AFTER tier system is applied. Since the tier system already eliminated the different between armies, therefore we are looking at 5 different armies with similar comp scores above which SHOULD have very similar effectiveness and strength.

But from my point of view, the high elf army and the tomb king army are significantly more powerful than the other 3 lists.

Secondly, one other major issue with the tier system is that a higher tier army can NEVER get good comp score due to the significant reduction of comp score from the tier system. Therefore, a VERY fluffy demon or vampire count army can never get really good comp score. (eg, a daemon army leads by a herald of slaanesh with no gifts, and 10 units of FC daemonettes.) While a VERY tuned up low tier army can NEVER get under average Comp score, (eg, a Super hard and tuned ogre kingdom army)

 I hope u can see where I’m coming from.


 

[Fujin]

Somewhat bizarrely Simon I believe I can see where you are coming from.

To address the first point - this is exactly what I don't understand: how, despite vastly different baseline effectiveness (i.e. not taking generalship into account), a range of armies received the same score (or were within a small variance of each other).

I'd agree with your second point except that at the point the Daemon army is aiming at ultra-fluffy or the tier 5 army is aiming at super-hard I'd be vetoing the list    I think I'd be happiest if every list in an event was receiving '+/-0' adjustments (i.e. getting their base tier comp score). My only concern then would be are all of the Daemon armies going to be the same? And is an unmodified Daemon list the same as an unmodified VC list which is in the same tier? My thinking is that while you should start by comparing armies within their own race you should end by comparing armies within the same tier - all those armies lumped together as tier 3 for example... if three different tier 3 armies received their base comp score could they still be thought of as being equal?


Philfy - I think it would be a real shame to not see any Daemon or VC lists in a tournament field. Thanks for raising the point - I hadn't considered so much what a 30% comp weighting might do to the tier 1s. Good call.

[Dirty_Vod]

Somewhat bizarrely Simon I believe I can see where you are coming from.

To address the first point - this is exactly what I don't understand: how, despite vastly different baseline effectiveness (i.e. not taking generalship into account), a range of armies received the same score (or were within a small variance of each other).

And how is this any different from how comp was done in the past?
previously either players or judges would mark a list out of 5 - the usual score being ~3, and you would often see lists that were of wildly differing levels of effectiveness getting around the same comp score.

Given the subjectivity of list comp scoring I doubt that this issue will ever totally go away but at least with the tier system there is a better chance that this won't happen.

On a side note - as an avowed (and long time) player of the tier 1 lists (VC for 21 years, daemons about 17) it's hardly like I'm the most likely proponent of tier based comp as it certainly makes it significantly more difficult for the T1 lists to place well in events.

[Simon]

And how is this any different from how comp was done in the past?
previously either players or judges would mark a list out of 5 - the usual score being ~3, and you would often see lists that were of wildly differing levels of effectiveness getting around the same comp score.

Given the subjectivity of list comp scoring I doubt that this issue will ever totally go away but at least with the tier system there is a better chance that this won't happen.

if the tier system doesn't improve the comp system, then i don't see the reason why u need it. simple makes perfect, I am happy with the previous comp score, (eg score by 6 different judges, without the tier system and look at every armies as a whole, or score by the players who play against the armies.)

Given the subjectivity of list comp scoring I doubt that this issue will ever totally go away but at least with the tier system there is a better chance that this won't happen.

as a result above, the tier system didn't help this issue go away, in fact it actually makes the comp system even more unbalance than before.

From my point of view, EVERY armies should have equal and same opportunity to be able to score low or high in army comp.Tier system simply doesn't allow this to happen therefore I believe it is unnecessary and offset the balance even further.

since i'm not the TO, there is nothing much I can do, but as long as such system in place, I will not enter any touernment with this comp system with any of my tier 1 armies, and I believe many other tier 1 players do agree with me.

so next time u might as well just ban all tier 1 armies.

 

[Doug]

since i'm not the TO, there is nothing much I can do, but as long as such system in place, I will not enter any touernment with this comp system with any of my tier 1 armies, and I believe many other tier 1 players do agree with me.

The tier system exists to modify final placings by acting as an army handicap.  A comp system in general exists to ensure that people take armies contributing to good games.

Are you attending to ensure placings at the event, or are you attending for some good games.  If the former, then sure, avoid that tier 1 army if you feel you cannot make up the difference with generalship.  If the latter, then it doesnt matter what comp system is used.  No?

[Doug]

Harry and Reid in particular played sublimely. 

As in, their opponent's armies evaporated without passing through a liquid phase?

I'll get me coat...

[Simon]

The tier system exists to modify final placings by acting as an army handicap.  A comp system in general exists to ensure that people take armies contributing to good games.

Are you attending to ensure placings at the event, or are you attending for some good games.  If the former, then sure, avoid that tier 1 army if you feel you cannot make up the difference with generalship.  If the latter, then it doesnt matter what comp system is used.  No?

let me give u an example:

GuardCon 2009, max battle points 160, max painting points 40, max army comp 60, max sportmanship 40.

A and B entered Guardcon. A uses daemon B uses tomb king

A uses a VERY fluffy daemon army and should have scored MAX 60 for army comp, but the tier sytem limited it to 45/60

B uses a balanced tomb king army and scored 48/60. (boosted by tier system)

(since the tier system should have eliminated the armies different, so both armies should be equally effective.)

A and B have perfectly painted armies and very friendly during the games, they both played very well and scored the same battle points.

but becuase A uses daemon and the tier system limited his max army comp points he can get, therefore he comes second.

Therefore, the tier system offsets the balance.

[Glenn Patel]

Simon, what IS this super-fluffy Daemon army?

If it's wall to wall Daemon infantry with full command... then it is STILL stronger than wall-to-wall Tomb King infantry with full command, because it can march (and this hypothetical wall-to-wall TK's army doesn't have enough incantations to ever resolve them against say 5 dispel dice because it went with a Liche Priest and a Tomb Prince).

Also, its troops are significantly better in close combat.

And BOTH of these armies are better than the wall-to-wall all-Night-Goblins-with-no-fanatics-or-magic army, because the NGob army has essentially no chance of beating an enemy with a terror causer.


If we give the Daemon 'Wall of Infantry' full comp marks, what do we give the stupidly-fluffy-non-Daemon armies? They're even weaker.


Hells, Wall-to-wall Slaaneshi infantry? Probably can beat some 'real' armies.


Also, the difference between 'cakewalk' and 'tough' daemons is really, really slim. Make that wall-to-wall Slaaneshi infantry with four heralds and it's a boring, but strong list*. Wall-to-wall Plaguebearers and Heralds? I've played armies that quite possibly couldn't get points other than table quarters off it.

* It'll fold to some things, but Daemonettes are not that bad, and that version can take a magic phase.


Anyway.

Point of comp should be to make it so that there's no obvious army to play if you want to place well. If you're considering swapping armies in pursuit of comp, consider it may be a case of 'the grass is always greener'... me, personally, being unable to win an event is more due to my regrettable tendency to make play errors than any hosing that's going on.

[Vaul]

If it's wall to wall Daemon infantry with full command... then it is STILL weaker than wall-to-wall Tomb King infantry with full command, because it can march (and this hypothetical wall-to-wall TK's army doesn't have enough incantations to ever resolve them against say 5 dispel dice because it went with a Liche Priest and a Tomb Prince).

Did you mean to say 'stronger' there?  I think you did.