Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Paddlepop Lion wrote:

Why do 3 loaded out Flyrants have a lower comp score than 3 Nightscythes? (even accounting for the Tyranid MC tax)

If I'm reading the rules right 3 Flyrants with no other MCs purchased are 7 points.

Flyrants are one of the most difficult to deal with units in the game.

Sorry you have missed the global rule on FMC which is mentioned in the flyrant rule.
Its 1 for the 12 wounds worth of Mcs
1c1 x 3 making 6 for the Flyrant rule
c1 x 3 for the FMC rule

making 10 total so its 1 credit more than 3 night scythes.

We are actually on the verge of dropping the cost of night scythes a bit, the council is divided on it right now. If Terracon comes along and they are still getting played as infrequently as they are that will likely tip the scales.

Ah I see now, I'd say also take a look at Flyrants in general, they seem really cheap compared to other Flyers not just Nightscythes.

That said, won't be saying anymore since you said something, in a serious manner, that earns an automatic place on my ignore list in your last post.

Why do you think flyrants are cheap?

They are double costed if they are shooty.. and 7th ed really nerfed the CC ones on its own...

This still hasn't been answered:

 Melissia wrote:
If someone takes a power list and doesn't win the tourney they can still destroy everyone else and ruin everyone else's fun, so what's the point of this again?

GodDamUser wrote:
Why do you think flyrants are cheap?

They are double costed if they are shooty.. and 7th ed really nerfed the CC ones on its own...

Look at the costs of all the other Flyers. For example the Stormtalon. Worse firepower, can't leverage it's firepower as well (you can't "move behind" a Flyrant to reduce it's firepower), less survivability, no psychic powers. Comped the same cost, the only thing that makes the Flyrants more is the blanket MC cost.

Also mind if I ask a question? If this is tournament relevant why isn't it being posted in the tournament discussion as well?

 Melissia wrote:
This still hasn't been answered:

 Melissia wrote:
If someone takes a power list and doesn't win the tourney they can still destroy everyone else and ruin everyone else's fun, so what's the point of this again?

Sorry didn't get round to that one.

The idea is that the power lists you refer to are a max of 20 credits. They are certainly a lot stronger than average lists but they aren't so much stronger that am average list couldn't have a go at least.

The only motivation to do this is to maliciously try an ruin someone else's fun because spending over about 15 credits puts you out of contention.
Players know that they can't win anything that way because the system is completely transparent.
We can stop someone trying to upset people, that will be up to the to. Many events have limited the credits you could spend to 15 or sometimes less to help solve this.
We allow 20 because sometimes a newer player doesn't have access to lots of models and might be unable to play without a high cap.

So the answer to your question is nothing. Cc doesn't stop players from doing it but it removes all legitimate motivation and removes any excuses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:


Also mind if I ask a question? If this is tournament relevant why isn't it being posted in the tournament discussion as well?

I could put it there too. I just had time to monitor one thread

We allow 20 because sometimes a newer player doesn't have access to lots of models and might be unable to play without a high cap.

But they won't be able to win the even anyway, so why would they bother to play again. Unless they are forced to play under comp outside of an event. But then people are kind of a forcing other to play the game the way they want, with 0 chance to refund the cash they spent on a normal army.

It's an intresting idea but the order rules are introduced and that there's no introductory words of any kind make it hard to sell.

To have fun? Most of the new tournament goers I meet go to their first tournament to have so fun with their mates.

But they can have that at home without paying entry fee, travel and they don't have play with comp which makes them auto lose with a normal army.

Paddlepop Lion wrote:
stroy everyone else and ruin everyone else's fun, so w
The idea is that the power lists you refer to are a max of 20 credits. They are certainly a lot stronger than average lists but they aren't so much stronger that am average list couldn't have a go at least.

so.... You don't have an answer then.

You have bizarre ideas about balance.

GodDamUser wrote:Oh I'm not saying don't bother...

I'm just against this we have solved everything attitude and that they have done everything right attitude that has been coming out.

I also had a scope of the community comp forum and there doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion.. or a listing of who are the 'council'

oone of the big things that has been pointed out here that rings for me is the general spacemarine devs are not costed but csm havocs are.. and then when asked why paddle has given a 'yyou don't understand' response without actually explaining himself

Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

Paddlepop Lion wrote:
The forums are still brand new so there hasn't been much traffic move there yet.

If you go the the website there's a list of all the people In the council.

I didn't give a you don't understand attitude. I have been trying to keep up with responding to like 6 people at once and got lost on that one.

Havoks have been costed as they are because auto cannons are better weapons than the guns other armies get in thier devs.
Its hard to justify not running 12 auto Cannons for 350 ish points.

It hasn't been bright up in a while and this discussion has stimulated us to have it again. We just decided earlier to change them to 1 credit for the 10th auto cannon on havoks.

Despite the haters this has been pretty usefull discussion so far

Without trying to be intentionally offensive, the attitude you give off is a little 'you don't get it'.

Part of the problem is that you have been far too broad in assigning Comp scores. If Havoks are comped because of auto cannons, comp auto cannons specifically. It's unfairly penalising a unit that has alternate uses.

I get that you're trying to ease off hardcore tournament, but the concept of a TAC list is you can handle All Comers. 30 Tacs in Rhino's are blatantly anti-infantry. You shouldn't be allowing bad decisions to act as a reason to pigeonhole people into specific builds. Because Timmy wants his Tac spam, I can't run a wall of AV 11? A TAC should be able to handle that, especially if they're squadroned. It needs a little refining, details, but hell, maybe it does work. Don't take criticism as an attack. Valid points have been raised.

I'll second (third?) that the impression you guys give off is that you've fixed everything and everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. The only answers I have ever seen about why things are costed the way they are all along the lines of "The council has decided this is the comp cost. The End." and then when clarification or reasoning was asked for, no real reason was given. I'd suggest that if you want actual transparency, perhaps some reasoning behind the comp scores could be shared with the community. If this exists and I've missed it, I'd love to see a link so I can understand some of the calls.

As to the idea that taking nothing but auto-havoks for your HS slots is tempting, as a chaos player, let me prepare a suitable response;

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Why do you think flyrants are cheap?

They are double costed if they are shooty.. and 7th ed really nerfed the CC ones on its own...

Look at the costs of all the other Flyers. For example the Stormtalon. Worse firepower, can't leverage it's firepower as well (you can't "move behind" a Flyrant to reduce it's firepower), less survivability, no psychic powers. Comped the same cost, the only thing that makes the Flyrants more is the blanket MC cost.

Also mind if I ask a question? If this is tournament relevant why isn't it being posted in the tournament discussion as well?

A flyrant is less surviable then a stormtalon... can be taken down by Str3 weapons.. and can be grounded. Also has weaker weapons in general

GodDamUser wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
Why do you think flyrants are cheap?

They are double costed if they are shooty.. and 7th ed really nerfed the CC ones on its own...

Look at the costs of all the other Flyers. For example the Stormtalon. Worse firepower, can't leverage it's firepower as well (you can't "move behind" a Flyrant to reduce it's firepower), less survivability, no psychic powers. Comped the same cost, the only thing that makes the Flyrants more is the blanket MC cost.

Also mind if I ask a question? If this is tournament relevant why isn't it being posted in the tournament discussion as well?

A flyrant is less surviable then a stormtalon... can be taken down by Str3 weapons.. and can be grounded. Also has weaker weapons in general

A Flyrant has twice the number of "wounds" and a 3+ armor save (while the Stormtalon can only get a 4+ cover save, and that's only if it Jinks and sacrifices firepower). It's *way* more survivable than a Stormtalon.

Yeah, sure, you can theoretically kill a Flyrant with Lasguns. You're just going to need 432 shots to do it on average.

Also, 12 S6 rerollable BS4 shots is stellar firepower, much better at engaging light vehicles and most infantry than the Stormtalon is.

2 stormtalons cost 3 creds. .

2 twin link dev flyrant cost 5 (and a extra point if you have a 3rd MC in the list)


Also using bad math it would be impossible to do a lot of things in this game. All it takes is one lucky hit and then the tyrant player to roll 2 1's (or 2's) aand that is half of its wnds gone

GodDamUser wrote:
2 stormtalons cost 3 creds. .

2 twin link dev flyrant cost 5 (and a extra point if you have a 3rd MC in the list)


Also using bad math it would be impossible to do a lot of things in this game. All it takes is one lucky hit and then the tyrant player to roll 2 1's (or 2's) aand that is half of its wnds gone

Sure, but those are the kind of odds casinos use to make tons of money. A Grot can theoretically kill Abaddon too, but the odds are hugely against it.

If we're going to be judging Hive Tyrants based on possibilities you may only see once in several dozen games, over hundreds or thousands of dice rolls, we're being a bit silly. A Hive Tyrant's survivability against most of the weapons being thrown at it is going to be markedly better than a Stormtalon will be.

I'll second (third?) that the impression you guys give off is that you've fixed everything and everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about. The only answers I have ever seen about why things are costed the way they are all along the lines of "The council has decided this is the comp cost. The End." and then when clarification or reasoning was asked for, no real reason was given. I'd suggest that if you want actual transparency, perhaps some reasoning behind the comp scores could be shared with the community. If this exists and I've missed it, I'd love to see a link so I can understand some of the calls.

As to the idea that taking nothing but auto-havoks for your HS slots is tempting, as a chaos player, let me prepare a suitable response;

The reasons for each costing are quite often very long and complex and the result of quite a lot of debate, when im gettig peppered with the hard questions its hard to give all the reasons. in the end the council makes a call on every costing but it not just random or what one guy thinks, its the results of a debate.
i am absolutely happy to spend hours explaining everything in detail its jsut hard when im handleing pretty much all of it myself. When people ask on the facebook page or the forums there are more council members available to answer.

The reason it sounds like im saying we have fixed it all is because this system works far better and solves pretty much all the problems that other systems have. It has a set of its own sure but they are a lot smaller and a lot smaller than you imagine them to be before trying it out.
The system really does work in practice and it is fixing our tournament scene by creating ballance.



on the topic of flyrants vs storm talons.

its a fair point that the first flyrant is about the same cost as a storm talon in credits but think about the debate you two are having, they are not the same by any stretch but they are comparible. A flyrant has better guns vs some things and worse vs others, its tougher against things like auto cannons and lascannons but more vulnerable to S4 weapons and below.
Personally given the choice between a flyrant and talon i would always chose the flyrant but consider that the talon is half the points.

Would a flyrant be better than 2 storm talons? Personally i think no.

but we cant compare these things in a vacuume, a flyrant exists in a tyranid army full of tyranid stuff and the flyrant is by no means expendable. He is usually needed for up feild synapse and the psychic dice are usually quite necessary against lists with some psykers. They need to keep that guy alive so when you fire a few plasmas at a flyrant he will likely jink which significantly reduces its value on the table, when its jsut 1 flyrant i think they arent that bad. 2 is a whole different story however so is its cost.

But then you also take into account the vast majority of the options from codex tyrants are comped compared to codex spacemarine where is there is actually very little comp..

The Spacemarine list that was mentioned as winning a community comp event in NSW was actually a 0 pt spend list (pro tip vindicators don't take a comp hit)

correction, vindicators DIDNT take a comp hit.

since then (and actually because of then) AV 13 vehichles are C1 as of the third.

So 2 vindis are free but the third costs 1 and a 4th costs 2 making 3 total.

Also to be fair that list did get a pretty amazing streak of luck but it was a good choice for the meta none the less and it should have costed 1 or 2 more than it did.

Still that list that won only had 2.. so it was still a 0pt list

GodDamUser wrote:
2 stormtalons cost 3 creds. .

2 twin link dev flyrant cost 5 (and a extra point if you have a 3rd MC in the list)


Also using bad math it would be impossible to do a lot of things in this game. All it takes is one lucky hit and then the tyrant player to roll 2 1's (or 2's) aand that is half of its wnds gone

All it takes is 1 lucky krak grenade hit and then a 6 to pen and the 'Talon is effectively out of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Paddlepop Lion wrote:

The reasons for each costing are quite often very long and complex and the result of quite a lot of debate, when im gettig peppered with the hard questions its hard to give all the reasons. in the end the council makes a call on every costing but it not just random or what one guy thinks, its the results of a debate.
i am absolutely happy to spend hours explaining everything in detail its jsut hard when im handleing pretty much all of it myself. When people ask on the facebook page or the forums there are more council members available to answer.

The reason it sounds like im saying we have fixed it all is because this system works far better and solves pretty much all the problems that other systems have. It has a set of its own sure but they are a lot smaller and a lot smaller than you imagine them to be before trying it out.
The system really does work in practice and it is fixing our tournament scene by creating ballance.

Is there a link to the forums where this is documented by the people who have time?

So we agree bad math is bad..

But we are talking about 2 units that fulfill different roles in the game, and you can field 2 of one for the price of 1 of the other

JBrehaut wrote:

But you see, this is partly why we've come to places like Dakka to share this idea. Surely you don't believe the motive was to make every tournament world-wide run Community Comp? No, we want to share this with people outside Australia, or rather Vic and SA's meta.
We WANT feedback, we WANT people to show us holes, and we WANT people to respond.

That's not the impression I'm getting. Without commenting on the system itself, the way you're dealing with criticism in this thread is poor. Whenever someone has pointed out a flaw in your system or described a list that breaks it, the advocates have started furiously dismissing, dodging questions, handwaving and claiming that the examples don't count because reasons.

They're also using the "No, X is totally beatable / powerful if you just get good dice / use TACTICS!" argument. Those should have no place in any balance discussion, because it should be obvious that you can get good dice and play well with overpowered units just as much as weak ones.

Why is it whenever I see comp mentioned I cannot take the event seriously at all. To me it's like making the painting score part of the overall score really.

For example it's meant to penalise power lists correct? Not bad I suppose (but you can't stop outliers, you can almost stop them all but there will always be one of two things that will manage to eventually slip through in either direction. ), but comp always seems to basically just work by nerfing everything, the outright bans at least make more sense and actually help more than the scoring system would itself tbh. If it's hard to deal with something, why not instead limit the said "opbrokencheeseness" with how many they can actually take in a different way. Don't want them spamming 3 of something? Restrict it to 0-2.

Mean looking through it you may as well have just banned making stuff like knights your primary. Cause unless I'm adding it up wrong trying to run 3 knights (errant or paladin) would be 20, that's not even worrying about the other things you could add in either that just seems to cap out at if I remember right under 1500 out of an available 1850.

Stuff like banning units like superheavies or nerfing SD to be S10, they work without forcing itself to become excessive and tedious.

In relation to your community como forum.. you guys do realize if you want it to succeed you actually need to keep it active?

You can't just hope randoms will sign up and magically make it a place to post stuff

That's not the impression I'm getting. Without commenting on the system itself, the way you're dealing with criticism in this thread is poor. Whenever someone has pointed out a flaw in your system or described a list that breaks it, the advocates have started furiously dismissing, dodging questions, handwaving and claiming that the examples don't count because reasons.

They're also using the "No, X is totally beatable / powerful if you just get good dice / use TACTICS!" argument. Those should have no place in any balance discussion, because it should be obvious that you can get good dice and play well with overpowered units just as much as weak ones.

I really havent meant to give off that impression. I havent dodged or dismissed any questions i simply havent had time to answer them all. i may have come off quite blunt but its sheerly from answering as many questions as i can in limited time at the same time trying to rebut people saying its just a stupid idea.

Just because someone thinks there is a hole doesnt mean there is a hole. This system is quite complex and as i have been saying it really is impossible to know what Penentent engines being C1 means until you make armies and test it like i said.
So you see im not just dismissing what people have pointed out as flaws because several of them were not in fact flaws but just things they thought looked like flaws.

There was a flaw that was pointed out which was the Khorne chariot army which wasnt a good army but did point out something that we missed which needed rectifying. He won the $100, the army cost 0 and should have cost about 6.

FYI all

Eldar update has just been released;
http://www.communitycomp.org/files/CommunityComp.pdf

Since the council only seems to care about the comp cost of strong lists (as shown by the absolute disregard for the many examples of poor comp costs on bad lists), and since the spam penalties are high on the comp scale, why bother with comp at all instead of some kind of highlander format?

Because they want to be hero's with their 'new' format that they came up with and claim to save the scene..

They recently got a article up on BolS talking themselves up

LeperColony wrote:
Since the council only seems to care about the comp cost of strong lists (as shown by the absolute disregard for the many examples of poor comp costs on bad lists), and since the spam penalties are high on the comp scale, why bother with comp at all instead of some kind of highlander format?

Because that doesn't let them shame the "bad" people. If you just make everything 0-1 then everyone is on a level playing field and gets the same "comp score". It's much better to allow the overpowered stuff since it identifies the "WAAC TFG" players and lets you give them a public shaming. Which, after all, is the whole point of comp scoring.