Warning! Opinion ahead. Proceed with caution
[opinion]
I think the whole comp issue is one thats going to divide folk irreconcilably. It comes down to how you view a tournament. If you see it as an extension of the hobby, i.e. a chance to meet other gamers, play various armies and generally have a good time where everyone is, basically, equal, then you're gonna like comp. However, if you see tournaments as a chance to prove your tactical superiority, and assume that everyone else is there to do the same then you'll likely feel that comp is daft.
Taken from the latter perspective, a tournament is an opportunity to measures one's generalship against other gamers in the area. Bearing this in mind, it seems logical that players who attend a tourney are there to prove they are the best i.e. to win games of 40k/WHFB. Part of being good at these games lies in choosing one's army, both in terms of army-build, and codex-choice. A great deal of games are won or lost before a dice is even rolled. "Levelling the playing field" is all well and good in friendly competition, but
is a tournament a friendly competition? If it is, then when does one get the chance to prove oneself the best? Mike mentioned golf handicaps as a system similar to comp, but correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't use handicaps at the Master's Tournaments, do they? Wimbledon? The World Cup? Likewise, taking an example close to my heart, in a painting competition they don't say "You've got a really nice Winsor and Newton paint brush. He doesnt, so to make it fair, you're not allowed to use the colours red, blue or white."
The tournament scene is not representative of the hobby as a whole, and should be viewed as a small subsection where the ability to win a game of 40k/WHFB is pretty much the be-all and end-all of the hobby. This doesn't mean you should be a dick about it, but it does mean that if someone turns up with a "cheesy" army then it's no-one's fault but your own that you didnt bring one too. Yes, this means that if you take this theory to its logical conclusion some army builds are pretty much going to disappear from the tourney scene, but a tournament is not there to be winnable by anyone. Much like evolution, it's there to be won by the most able. Yes, that means that certain army builds are, once everyone gets wise to em, going to become more and more common, but only until someone works out how to beat them. I can't believe that either 40k or WHFB is
so broken that there is one single army-build that is literally invincible. Worst case scenario, given enough iterations of this survival-of-the-fittest situation, everyone ends up bringing the exact same army, and then we'd
really see who the best general was...
While I strongly believe that the fundamental point of the hobby is to have fun, meet folks and push around bits of pretty plastic on a table as a precursor to a beer-filled evening, I also feel that pushing oneself to succeed in any field (including wargaming) can be very rewarding. I think it's important to differentiate the hobby as a whole, and the tournament scene in particular. The two are by no means the same thing.
I also believe that certain armies are stronger than others - I've said it before jokingly, but I genuinely think that Tau are terrible. Rob may argue that Tau can take on any opponent, but in a game where one player gets 2000pts of Tau and the other gets 2000pts of Blood Angels, and the loser and anyone who bets on him gets disembowelled, I know who I'd be betting on.
It's not that Tau can
never win. The same goes for SoB, Grey Knights, or any other "low-tier" army you care to mention. They can all fluke a victory, either by lucky dice, or by catching a well-matched opponent. However, taken in the great scheme of things, there is a ranking of "winnability" in the 40k codexes. Ultimately, if you want to play in tournaments, the first decision you have to make which will affect your chances of winning is "which army will I play?"
Magic The Gathering provides a comparison. It is possible to play this game for fun. The vast majority of players do. However, the vast majority of Magic players would not ever think of entering an official Magic tournament. Why not? Cos they'd get their bums handed to them, that's why. They don't have the cards they need to win. Ain't got 4 copies of whatever the latest, greatest doom-combo card is? Then stay at home, kiddo, yah might git hurt. In fact, Magic is even less fair than 40k/WHFB, as at least in the GW games you have absolute control over what minis you buy. in Magic, your card collection is either hella random or hella expensive. (A thousand dollars for a Black Lotus on ebay, anyone?)
I think the point I'm rather circuitiously trying to get at is: A tournament is not The Hobby in microcosm. It is a distinct, separate entity and should have it's own rules and standards. If you want a friendly, all comers-equal gaming session, then organise one, like Stu did in Golden Week. He said it very clearly: This Is Not A Tournament. If you want to organise/join a tournament, then do so, but make it clear to the gamers that they should bring their big guns, not their pocket knives.
[/opinion]
NOTE: This is my opinion. It does not need to be your opinion. I would very much enjoy it if you would care to challenge my opinion with your own. If you can find logical faults in my opinion, or indeed, give your own opinion in sufficiently convincing terms for me to change my opinion, then that would make me a very happy man indeed. It's all about mutual respect. i did not type this indubitably verbose post simply to start an argument. Had I intended to do that, I could have just made a comment regarding Aspect Warriors and their necessity in an Eldar army. Thank you for reading
