The continuing saga of comp scoring and political activism in tournament gaming

I had arranged a game with Dave last night but he called and was forced to cancel after his wife cracked the whip (far enough too - he's been working his butt off for the last couple of weeks and with an intensive tournament coming up next weekend and Father's Day on Sunday, family time is at a premium). This was unfortunate as I'd been looking forward to the game all week... oh well. Hopefully we can catch up later this week before FoB.

This left me with time to twiddle my thumbs and it got me back to thinking about comp scoring - particularly as it relates to FoB as this clearly involves me directly.

Having the scores back from our (frighteningly) efficient judges so early has given me time to analyse the data. I've calculated the comp average and the average for each army involved. I can't divulge that information yet of course (will post a debrief in a couple of weeks adn on WAU) but it has rather importantly allowed me to go back to several players and offer them the chance to reconsider their lists.

Before your hackles rise onthe back of your neck at the injustice of only asking someof the players to revise their armies, let me explain:

* Having the comp average gives me an idea of where each player's score falls in relation to the bigger picture of what we have at the tournament. Exactly 4 of those players were deemed to have presented lists that fell well below the comp average. Now, well below is a very subjective term of course but suffice to say it was by more than 4 points (ok, quite a bit more). Certainly enough by comparison to the comp average the average of the other armies of their race to warrant a revisit.

* The idea behind a tournament with comp scoring is that it is there to moderate what people are taking. One of the issues I have realised in running this process is the extreme influence that Vampire Counts and Daemons (especially) have had on the individual players perception of what their list will be required to cope with. In essence I found that quite a few players were literally expecting the worst. Unfortunately, despite the fact that there are quite a few Daemon/VC lists in attendance there is still no guarantee that you will be facing either for more than a few rounds. This means your army is really overpowered by comparison to something that isn't Daemons/VCs. Ok, this is a generalisation and not EVERYONE tooled their army up but, following the response from the judging panel, the MAJORITY of the armies were VERY hard and I think this at least partially reflects the paranoia associated with the possibility of facing these two armies.

* Ulimately (and somewhat naively) it is hoped that most of the scores received will be a '3' - according to the player's pack this would "place (the list) with the majority of the other lists and/or normal tournament armies". Clearly some lists place higher or lower but the intent is to aim towards the middle ground. Some players are happy to sacrifice battlefields effectiveness for higher 'soft' scores (comp/sports/painting) and these armies tend to score higher (4s and the occasional 5). Some will sacrifice comp for battlefield effectiveness but really, as with the previous comment, comp scoring encourages most players to aim to the middle ground, satisfying the comp expectation (this really what it is - it's not a requirement as such). The 4 lists that I asked to be revised most definitely erred towards battlefield effectiveness. The issue here is that players should not reasonably expect to face such extreme armies (which go a way towards defeating the impact and purpose of composition scoring). I'm happy to say that one of the lists has already been revised and 5 of the 6 new scores have already been returned - this resubmission has earned the player a substantially higher comp score and will also earn him more respect (and enjoyment) from his opponents in his games at the tournament.

My understanding is that Marcelo (TO for The Pilgrimage) was hoping to receive lists and judges scoring back early enough to follow this mode of thinking through (resubmission the more... extreme lists) but with over 100 entries (having expected around 50) this was just too difficult to achieve. With only 38 players involved it's something we've been able to accomplish and I'm increasingly happy with the result.

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

A good friend of mine has also opened my eyes as to the highly political "gamey" side of tournaments - not least of all FoB. I had somehow overlooked the fact that the highest ranked player in NZ would get paid entry (flights etc) into the Oz Masters this year! With 3 players in close contention this is an exciting opportunity for sure but it also means that the organisation of the tournament has to be done particularly carefully. Paint scoring, entry of comp scores, rules "disputes" (however unlikely), the round draws - all of this and more MUST be done with absolute transparency of process and clarity so no one feels there is any bias involved. Clearly we are all great guys but as great guys we are also highly competitive and don't want to feel we've been ripped off. All I'm really saying here is I appreciate how important it is that the organisation and systems at the tournament are clear and unbiased and that everyone has a fair shot; that all external scoring is truly objective; and that no one (that being me) makes any dumb mistakes that inadvertently screws anyone over.

No pressure... :)