A lot of the more competitively minded bloggers out there have discussed the merits of composition scoring as it relates to army building and fostering competitive play... uh... another link*. If you don't feel like clicking/reading on any or all of those links, I'll save you the time:
Composition rules do not foster good competitive play or good army building.
Hell, there's even a guy in the BoK article that holds that comp scoring is bad for his business. Yikes.
Then you have the other side of the argument. There are a lot of people who just plain love the idea of comp scoring in particular and soft scoring in general. Not as many links here, because I hate linking to shit-post after shit-post on various forums. Go read the comment on BoLS or your garbage forum of choice if you need more examples.
The general idea is that comp scoring rewards people who field softer, fluffier armies by punishing the players who take 'harder' lists by denying them complete points in the froufrou that is a comp score. Fairness blah blah blah cookie cutter lists are bad blah blah blah it's more fun blah blah blah balance etc. There's also a very strong fluffy-bunny streak that often runs through this as well. This is all covered ad nauseum in any of the links I've posted.
What I'd really like to pick out of the pro-comp argument is the idea that comp scoring creates an environment where you see many different kinds of armies and units you wouldn't normally see in the WAAC/unfair/boring lists without comp scoring. Often times, comp scores are trotted out because someone feels that players should be able to bring any combination of units and have a reasonable chance of doing well in the tournament. Boiled down even further - the idea is that comp scoring fosters creativity and diversity.
This is complete and utter fucking bullshit.
Composition doesn't do any of that. Just how exactly do restrictions and punitive measures engender creativity and diversity? Oh, that's right, they fucking don't. Last time I checked, being punished for taking more than one of a unit or being outright prohibited from taking others is the exact opposite of a free environment that would do anything positive for creativity and diversity.**
Not only does comp kick competition in the dick, it also puts a boot in the very things that many of it's misguided adherents claim to love - the fluff. That's the sad, sad irony of the situation. You see, it turns out that the people who hold up the fluff as some sort of inviolable sacrament that's under attack by WAAC gamers are some of the the least imaginative douche bags on the planet. Because these scrubs can't or won't conceptualize ideas outside of their shitty little box, everybody else is asked (or flat out told) to suffer.
In future installments, I'm going to explore my ideas and thoughts a little deeper.
---[Foot Notes]--------------------------------------
*Well aware that many of these are from the same site. However, lots of different authors.
**Unless of course you are an unapologetic Soviet censor. In which case the value you place on a free and open environment may be a tad different than mine.
Oh my God, the red text just fucking MADE this.
ReplyDeleteARGH, I want to PUNCH something!
I also totally agree, gj Lauby.
Haha! Glad you liked the red (and the article). I almost pulled the trigger on adding a tag... maybe next time.
ReplyDeleteYou neglected to mention that the "fluff" argument isn't even well thought out. How is a real world army composed? Does the UN put 3 different kinds of tank in a functional unit or do they have 3 of the same kind? Generally the latter. Redundancy (or taking multiples of a unit) is probably more fluffy than taking a unit of devastators, a predator, and a whirlwind.
ReplyDeleteOh, I didn't forget. That's coming up in part deux.
ReplyDeletespoiler alert...
ReplyDeleteI laughed for about a minute straight. I fucking love this post.
ReplyDelete@Dethtron
ReplyDeleteWAAC-er! Don't confuse us with the facts of history or actual military tactics!
I think my favorite part of the article was this one:
"You see, it turns out that the people who hold up the fluff as some sort of inviolable sacrament that's under attack by WAAC gamers are some of the the least imaginative douche bags on the planet. Because these scrubs can't or won't conceptualize ideas outside of their shitty little box, everybody else is asked (or flat out told) to suffer."
I gotta agree.
ReplyDeleteYou know what? You don't need punitive rules to judge whether or not you like an army, or whether it has a theme. Tourneys can have separate prizes for themes, just look at TSHFT it works quite well. They do it without any notion of comp.
If you see what you think is a boring army... well maybe it is effective, but it is still boring to you. That is a personal judgment, an opinion. Opinions cannot be legislated. If I see a well painted, converted army with some sort of theme or fluff to it, I will be impressed. The person who spent hours on the army doesn't need an extra 30 points or whatever, maybe they will get a sense of satisfaction just from all the jealous looks and the compliments they receive. Do we really need to rank everything? Is that the only important part of the hobby, where you place in a tournament? "Well, I scored #1 in the tourney, that means I am the best in all ways and I had the most fun." "I scored 15th, so I had one fifteenth the fun units of the winner." Let comp die and let cool armies speak for themselves and reap their own intangible rewards.