8 Bloodletters

or

5 man terminator squad with 2 assault cannons

I know they are from two completely separate armies but... I guess what I'm trying to say is what is cheesier?

Too little information.

Neither of those units is ?cheesy? by itself. They might be looked at askance in certain army builds; it all comes down to what is in the list as a whole.

You are right there is too little to make a well balanced thought on it.

It was a silly debate I was having last night with my opponent. It was hardly serious but I was unsure if people dreaded seeing bloodletters as much as I dreaded seeing assault cannons.

Neither.  8 bloodletters is not min/maxed and 5 termies is pretty standard and the capacity for your standard issue LR. 

 

 

5 termies with assault cannon!!! Nothing says cheese like 3x 5 man termies squads with 2 assault cannons and a librarian with term command squad and 2 assault cannons. Not to mention the 2 min scout squads to make the min troop choices, and maxed Tornado squads

Jfrazell: I completely disagree with you as to the LR comment. LR/LRC are so that Assault Termies can get into close combat, without losing a turn and getting shot to crap because the deepstruck next to enemy lines

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 8:36 AM


Jfrazell: I completely disagree with you as to the LR comment. LR/LRC are so that Assault Termies can get into close combat, without losing a turn and getting shot to crap because the deepstruck next to enemy lines

respectfully,
1.  You disagree with me? Clearly you're wrong then argument over 8)

2.  We're only talking the one unit, not a full list of supposed cheesiness. 

3. Landraiders move termies about.  There is no notation that they are purely for assault termies. Thats a supposition on your part.  how about drop pods? I forget how many termies they can carry offhand but I'm betting 5 max as well.

Its completely legal.  The size is pretty common. I would not ding them on comp for that. You may and that shows swhy the concept itself is broken.  Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 8:52 AM

Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

  Yeah, I've only been to two tournaments so far, but I'm already disliking comp when it's player scored. What's a "fair and characterful" army varies greatly with the person you're playing against.

I'm all for promoting fun and characterful armies, but I'd rather the judges score the comp for everyone, with general comp expectations outlined before the tournament.

Posted By logan007 on 12/08/2006 9:15 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 8:52 AM

Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

  Yeah, I've only been to two tournaments so far, but I'm already disliking comp when it's player scored. What's a "fair and characterful" army varies greatly with the person you're playing against.

I'm all for promoting fun and characterful armies, but I'd rather the judges score the comp for everyone, with general comp expectations outlined before the tournament.

Sorry Logan, 12 Assault cannons in a 1500 list is cheesie by any standard .

Yeah, I realize its hard to judge them by themselves so it was more of an open ended discussion than a "you are wrong, I am right argument."

I'm glad the opponent in question chimed in.

Sorry Logan, 12 Assault cannons in a 1500 list is cheesie by any standard .

However, that was not the question. only whether A unit was cheesy. Would you say it was cheesy if the rest of the list was nothing but ten man squads with missile launchers and flamers?

Neither is cheesey. And even considering tanking someone's scores over this is bad sportmanship.

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 9:31 AM

Sorry Logan, 12 Assault cannons in a 1500 list is cheesie by any standard .

However, that was not the question. only whether A unit was cheesy. Would you say it was cheesy if the rest of the list was nothing but ten man squads with missile launchers and flamers?

I need some sarcasm tags.  He didn't have 12 assault cannons. 

Who cares which is cheesier.

If you're playing some old time dinosaur that needs the crutch of comp to have a good time, just eat the bad comp score while you wreck his whole tourament.

Comp is dead. Some people just won't admit it yet. 

Wait, I have been toying with the idea of doing a Saim-Hann Mech eldar army maximizing wave serpents and falcons. I have never done a GT, only a few Golden Demons comps. Am I going to get low comp for bringing a competitive army? That seems really lame. Why would I bring an army that I knew wasn't very good??

Isn't what I described what a Saim-Hann army is supposed to be?

I am confused...

engine

Its one of the pitfalls of playing in a GW tournament. If your really lucky you'll offend them so much they'll post on one of the forums about how cheesy your list was or you had wobbly dice, etc.

Bad comp is any list that wins. Plain and simple.

And Cheese is anything that can do something that my army can't.

Or anything that kills Marines really well.

And the cries of cheese tend to be rather hypocritical (One tourney had a guy whining about cheese when my Calidus moved his IF Defiler where I could see it...)

Another lame argument on cheese. If you can do it then do it. There will always be people that can make devestating army lists and those who cant (ie me) who cares, just copy there list if you are that bothered.

Forget Chease and beardyness. Taking points of for a supposed cheasy army is just wrong, Are you breaking any rules ? No then why is it done. Remember some people play to win, It makes them feel better for not having a life but who cares let them get on with it. Dont dock them points for it or cry chease.

Whereas one mans idea of chease is not always anothers. who decides what is cheasy or not.? Skyth is right, people cry cheese when an army wins.

Engine just bringing eldar might get you tagged by some marine players.  Others will love the chance to play a non-MEQ list.  Just take the best list you can that fits your play style and have a good time.

Maxing Assault Cannon is cheese and will always be cheese.

The player in the question was directed at, answered, but he does not completely cheese his lists out all the time

Rule of thumb for comp score for me at least: 1 3/4 strength unit for per assault cannon. There is just something that irks me when your assault cannon upgrade cost is more than your entire troop choice cost.

On a side note, I have successfully created a list that is competitive and does not have any assault cannons!(But 2x Ordo Xenos Heavy Bolters)

As I said, each to his own, but this shows how comp is broken. Any contest that relies on your opponent to score you is inherently caca (technical term there).

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 1:10 PM
Maxing Assault Cannon is cheese and will always be cheese.

The player in the question was directed at, answered, but he does not completely cheese his lists out all the time

Rule of thumb for comp score for me at least: 1 3/4 strength unit for per assault cannon. There is just something that irks me when your assault cannon upgrade cost is more than your entire troop choice cost.

On a side note, I have successfully created a list that is competitive and does not have any assault cannons!(But 2x Ordo Xenos Heavy Bolters)

Two HQ units are cheesey you know

Are US GTs like this? Everyone complaining because they got beat by a competitive list when they brought a non-competitive list? I would laugh in their face. Why bring sub-standard equipment to any competitive event?

The cheese arguement sounds so ridiculous in any other connotation.

"Oh man, you are totally cheesy with your brand new custom balanced bowling ball." - says guy with scarred loaner ball at a tournament.

If I took an underpowered Ork army to a GT, I would expect to get my butt handed too me. No wonder I have stuck with the GDs all these years...

engine

No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

"If your really lucky you'll offend them so much they'll post on one of the forums about how cheesy your list was or you had wobbly dice, etc."

LOL... sounds like some people I know of.

- Greenie

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

With all the whining about the maxed assault cannon list, it actually isn't all that effective compared to other tournament armies out there.

Anything that carries an assault cannon is very fragile in a tournament environment.

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

Why should players score comp? Why can't the judges score comp? If one of the goals of a tournament is to promote fun/fair lists, why should the players decide if what they're playing against is fun/fair? Is it fair to assume that people playing in a tournament are knowledgeable about EVERY army and what's cheesey and what's not? What if a player thinks a certain unit is cheesey because they haven't thought of a strategy to counter them? What if a player tanks another person's comp score out of spite?

I've met people who think that regardless of the number of points involved, 2 HQs are cheesey. I've met people who think having two identical units are cheesey. I've met people who think paying more than 160 points in your HQ slot is cheesey. Not devoting 40% or more of your points to troops is cheesey. Not using a minimum of 5 troop slots is cheesey.

Who decides these things?

Posted By skyth on 12/08/2006 5:06 PM

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

With all the whining about the maxed assault cannon list, it actually isn't all that effective compared to other tournament armies out there.

Anything that carries an assault cannon is very fragile in a tournament environment.

As a person who loves loves assault cannons, I agree with you

I'm going to have to disagree, a well built assault cannon maximized tournament list is very competitive.

I pack 6 in my standard list. I could squeeze 9 into an 1850 list (And have the models for it), but I like my 6 AC list better. The list with 9 just seems WAY too fragile for my tastes.

Its no big deal, I wont dock much, but if a "competitive list" can be played by a monkey, then I have issue with it

I have 13 assault cannons in my 1850 list, and its not lysander wing.

Yeah I mean, how dare someone build an army within the guidelines of the army list!

Come on people, blame the army lists themselves, not the players who choose to utilize powerfully designed units/weapons.

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 6:20 PM
Its no big deal, I wont dock much, but if a "competitive list" can be played by a monkey, then I have issue with it

Any list can be played by a monkey...But it can't be played well and in a competetive manner.

Stop complaining moosifer, just play with AC. Its true why get called cheesy when all you have done is build an army within the confines of the list? Blame GW

I've just built an 1850 Tournament list that I've begun playtesting on and it has 10 Assault Cannons. The reason I posted what I did was that I had finished my first playtesting game with it and I had him resign on Turn 5. When done right, with the right trait combo, assault cannons are evil.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 12/09/2006 6:15 AM

When done right, with the right trait combo, assault cannons are evil.

Would you like to share with the rest of the class?

My rant from another thread.

I dont mark anyone down. Comp is a false sense of security only utlized by those who feel an army is beardy.

if it is legal to take, then its is legal in comp. American comp is slowed and I cannot wait for the day when we go to the more reasonable UK standard.

Thats why the rules system for 40K isnt meant for competition. The rules are just too damned flawed to really recognize actual winners.

So they make a comp system to attempt to fix what should have been fixed in the rules.

MTG is a very solid card game system. The rules are very clear and by playing the rules winners are recognized. You dont see WOTC handing out slips of paper asking if that arcbound ravager deck were "'within the spirit of the game". For them the rules are the game. They spend quite a bit of money to make sure the game is solid. Somethings slip through development *coughskullclampcough* but in general, even the screwups they stand behind until it is time to ban a mistake because it is overwhelmingly and obviously broken. Which overall, is very few indeed.

40K is meant for sitting at home and playing games with friends. For GW to push the RaW as they do lately is biting them in the ass, as the rules are flawed.

Posted By logan007 on 12/08/2006 9:15 AM

Posted By jfrazell on 12/08/2006 8:52 AM

Reasonable people can disagree and your score either benefits or gets hammered because there is NO DEFINED TERM FOR WHAT IS COMP.

 

  Yeah, I've only been to two tournaments so far, but I'm already disliking comp when it's player scored. What's a "fair and characterful" army varies greatly with the person you're playing against.

I'm all for promoting fun and characterful armies, but I'd rather the judges score the comp for everyone, with general comp expectations outlined before the tournament.

Thats the problem though. GW does define comp to be scored by judges in 40k Tourneies. (40% troops, etc.) You either follow their comp for more points, or you dont.

Why they give an opponent a score sheet for comp is beyond me. To me its just an excuse for sore losers to be true buttfaces. I have played in a few rtt's and later found out that even though I let the guy actually reroll dice when the roll sucked, I was scored low in both comp and sportsmanship.

I was playing 3rd ed sisters from the rulebook, before they had a codex. Yep, pretty cheesy for me to do that.

The abuse of comp scoring is alot more harsher and open to abuse than the list "cheesy" people bring.

Comp is made to fix what GW doesnt, and in so doing, further breaks the competitive game.

Comp scoring by players is broken.

Yes assualt cannons are nasty but sometimes they work sometimes they dont, if you rely soley on them you will lose.

Posted By beef on 12/09/2006 3:57 PM
Yes assualt cannons are nasty but sometimes they work sometimes they dont, if you rely soley on them you will lose.

Dude, that's simply not true.  If you take enough of them, and thus rely on them, you can and will win.  I just took my tournament army for another test run and it was a Crushing Victory.  My army is practically nothing but 10 Assault Cannon toting monstrosities. 

Give those suckers Tank Hunters and you have the best gun in the game against anything.

I just came back from a small store tourney today. Logan007 won (ya punk) with a very balanced list with 4 assault cannons. Many of the marine players, except me, had at least 3 assault cannons in it. Is that cheese? Nope. It is to the point where voodoo is talking about 7/8/9 assault cannons where it stops becoming a fine comp scoring list to something that is just ridiculous.

I would like to come out and say, I am not mad at the players who do this, most are fine individuals. They build what is within the confines of the game that GW gave to us. GW is to blame by creating such insane rules for assault cannons in 4th ed. But just because you can do it does not mean you SHOULD do it.

I do not know Voodoo's tourney list, but off the top of my head I am guessing that he has 3x5 man termy squads with 2 assualt cannons, a dread with AssCannon, and either 1 unit or 3 single Landspeeder Tornados. Right there is 10 assault cannons, and voodoo please correct me if I am wrong, min scout squads with teleport homers.

The scouts with homers come out to 85 a peice without other gear so a total of 170 points in troop choices. Now cost for him to upgrade all but one AssCannon (Dred), is roughly 120 for the Termies (6x20) and 90 for the Land speeders (3x30) which comes out to 210 points. 210 points for JUST assault cannons which is 40 points more than his ENTIRE troop choice.

That to me SCREAMS Gouda

www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/14/postid/125110/view/topic/Default.aspx

I was loathe to post this here as I was kind of hoping that people wouldn't realize that cheese of that level was going to show up at the GT's, but considering I have to take it to the local shops and tournies to practice with, local players who would also go to the GT would know about it anyway.

After Xmas I can stop proxying my last Terminator Squad and should have the army 100% painted, marked, based, and WYSIWYG, and it will be hitting the local area.

I think only Iron Warriors can contest this list for being cheesier. 

I had two assault cannons

My bad, 2 assault cannons you didnt have the speedy mc speeders. And that list is sick voodoo, I wouldnt give min comp score, but half cause half is list, half is painting

I would like to add that I'm very angry at all those people that say you should just build a powerful list because cheese is a flawed concept.

I listened to these people. My friends don't play me anymore.

Tournaments, fine, but get a perspective on things.

Very true. Thats why its called a friendly game. be on the same level. have fun.

Unless of course youre both wearing your cheddar hemets, then its go time!

If you are competitive build a cheese list, if not then build what you like. when codex space marines firts came out I was tempted to build a 1500 point army for a tournie with 3x3landspeeders with AC and 3 dreds with ac, 12 ac altogether, with a 5 man tac and scout squad. however after building and painting the 3rd landspeeder I got bored and never bothered with the list as it was sooo boring to play with. I personally always try and make lists which i like, Hence my HQ is always so damn expensive (hq does rep the player after all) so if all else in my army dies my Hq either lives or has kicked so much ass before dying that I am very happy. you should see how expensive my wolf lord can is. he tops out at the upper levels of 200pts.

I know one level for comp that has been bandied about is the 40% troops points total.  In an 1850pt game that is 740pts.  One way to encourage more rounded lists would be to award the opponent the difference in victory points.  So in Voodoo's list for example:  His opponent would recieve 450vps just for showing up with 740pts worth of troops.  He wouldn't get any more points even if he had more than 740pts invested in troops.  His grunts might all get smoked by the massive amount of assault cannons, but the marine player had better be careful with his terminators.

Another way to shake things up would be to have certain missions not permit more than two elites, fast attack, or heavy support.  Any extra choices take no part in the battle.  This would shake things up and make all asscan terminators or 4 heavy support Iron Warrior lists a little more of a risky proposition. 

The problem with a lot of the top-tier lists is that they are built around putting all the eggs in a few totally awesome, bulletproof baskets.  These rules would encourage the player to spread their points around and think about flexibility.  If there is the possibility of an Alpha game, a VP comp differential, and a random floating limit on Force Org. Charts.  Voodoo's list goes from being insanely good to having a real fight on its hands against a more balanced army.

I think that the ability to always know the terms and conditions your army will be fighting on leads to stagnant gameplay.  This is especially true in competitive play, where the same four or five army build types face off against each other at the top, leading to ridiculous situations like two marine armies firing their drop pods at some random point on the map and having it out. 

Comp should be a factor in competitive play, but the opponent scoring it is pure crap.  If the tournament rules penalize "cheesy" lists, then people will have to compensate, and that can't be all bad.  My main reason for saying this is that  balanced lists really are more fun to play with and against.  I'd like to see more balanced armies be competitive.

Good post. I agree.

I am not so sure about how to go about making a truly fair comp scoring, but anything to encourages balance and flexibility isnt bad.

Its not that list have become more abusisve as opposed to the 2nd edition, its just that more people play now and the players have evolved and become smarter at abusing the system and the loop holes. All this RAW crap and faqs. In the old days people played an army cos they liked the models or background, not cos of its distructive or game winning qualities. People were genrally more into playing for the sake of playeing rather than playing only for the sake of winning.

When I first started gaming 14 years ago My first army was SW. not cos of the snazzy rule etc but because of the cool model. that was my reason for playing SW. Same with my brother, heliked the red colour of the BA and thats why he choose them. I did not pick up a codex to see how powerful the army was before purchase. Most people never bought the codex befofre the models. now the codex is bought first.

To this day my main army is SW.

Posted By moosifer on 12/08/2006 4:10 PM
No Comp means the player can voice his opinion about the makeup of the opponents list. A trained monkey could win with a maxed out assault cannon list and that is not very sporting. To me comp score should weigh in as about 10% of the score, not to much but enough to matter. It really is no fun paying all that money to go up against a list that is metagamed/power gamed to death

Logan my army is 2 HQ, 5 Troop, 1 Fast 1 Elite and 2 heavy. And the HQ's are not the same type of HQ.

A trained monkey could win only if their opponent also were not taking a maxed out list.  Then you have a fair fight. But thats the argument isn't it?  If you're going to a GT and you want to be competitive you have to take a competitive list. Simple as that.

If you want to take your fluffy super converted list and just play games to have fun then thats also excellent (and in my mind the proper view on life).  But don't expect to win every game.

 

Posted By logan007 on 12/08/2006 5:23 PM

Why should players score comp? Why can't the judges score comp? If one of the goals of a tournament is to promote fun/fair lists, why should the players decide if what they're playing against is fun/fair? Is it fair to assume that people playing in a tournament are knowledgeable about EVERY army and what's cheesey and what's not? What if a player thinks a certain unit is cheesey because they haven't thought of a strategy to counter them? What if a player tanks another person's comp score out of spite?

I've met people who think that regardless of the number of points involved, 2 HQs are cheesey. I've met people who think having two identical units are cheesey. I've met people who think paying more than 160 points in your HQ slot is cheesey. Not devoting 40% or more of your points to troops is cheesey. Not using a minimum of 5 troop slots is cheesey.

Who decides these things?

Quoted for truth.

I'm of the opinion that comp scoring in a competitive environment is never going to be fair.

The game itself just suffers from too many rock/paper/scissors matchups, so what's fair to one person is death to another.

The best situation you could get is trying to find an unbiased judge to go through each army, but they'd have to be familiar with every army in the game and all the rules for it. Not impossible to do, but no one will ever be fair.

If you put arbitrary restrictions like "40% Troops" then you just reward some armies and punish others. Marines would largely be OK, Chaos would be great (Demonbombs ahoy!), and Tau & Eldar would get screwed.

I don't disagree that playing more "for-fun" and friendly games is much more rewarding and more "fun" overall than the cut throat stuff, there is the appeal of competition and when you go to a tournament you go to win, at least that's how I look at it. My list will never go to a GW store to be played without the opponent first hearing "Hey I have a nasty tournament list I want to test out, but if you don't want to play that kind of game, I can do something else". It also won't show up as a list to use against my friends outside of them helping me playtest it in practice.

I have much more fun playing with my pure Ultramarine lists that have 10 Man Squads w/ Honor Guard in Rhinos, a LR loaded with Assault Terminators and a Vindicator running support with some preds. But it's not something I'm going to take to a tournament since you know, I want to win. The prospect of going to a GT or even the RT at a games day and winning is something I want to try to do, and well sometimes playing "the cheese game" can be fun to, but in a different way.

I think the 40% troops guideline is valid.  After all,  armies are supposed to be made up primarily of their basic soldier.  Yes, this restriction favors certain armies, but those are armies that use lots of troops.  Daemonbombs (other than Siren ones) are pretty fluffy for Chaos armies, but they have issues against mech forces and hordes.  You don't see many horde armies in tourny play because without some sort of comp benefit they can't compete.

Most of the fighting should be done by basic soldiers.  Mech Tau and Eldar armies can make powerful and fluffy lists (Kroot + Devilfish-Firewarriors, or Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents, Jetbikes) my suggested alterations would just make them question how many points they want to have be troops and how many they want to be elites.  Right now, min/maxed troop choices and maxed out Force org everything else, benefit some armies more than others.  This just makes it so there is something to compensate for that.

I mean, stationary Marine armies can be deadly and are fluffy, the same goes for Iron Warriors with a decent number of infantry squads.  Imperial Guard, using the regular platoon structure in a tournament is a joke.  It will get tabled by the top tier armies every time.  It seems like the only way to play IG and be competive at that level is to use an all plasma drop troops list, which is about as unfluffy as possible. 

Another neat remedy would be to mix in a certain amount of jungle, swamp, cityfight, and desert tables, plus the special rules to further throw players for a loop.  A Teminator drop pod list will have issues in a swamp.  And Mech armies will have a hell of a time in jungle terrain.  This variety would make some lists that are awesome become crappy overnight.  It also would breathe new life into horde armies.  I think  swarm style nids are much more characterful than Zilla nids.

Posted By beef on 12/11/2006 2:12 AM
Its not that list have become more abusisve as opposed to the 2nd edition, its just that more people play now and the players have evolved and become smarter at abusing the system and the loop holes. All this RAW crap and faqs. In the old days people played an army cos they liked the models or background, not cos of its distructive or game winning qualities. People were genrally more into playing for the sake of playeing rather than playing only for the sake of winning.

When I first started gaming 14 years ago My first army was SW. not cos of the snazzy rule etc but because of the cool model. that was my reason for playing SW. Same with my brother, heliked the red colour of the BA and thats why he choose them. I did not pick up a codex to see how powerful the army was before purchase. Most people never bought the codex befofre the models. now the codex is bought first.

To this day my main army is SW.

That was a very long time ago and you are right, being a new gamer I have found most people to be very competitive.  They play to win.  Its not much fun when you are starting out to get totally thrashed by a really good army list.  No fun at all.  the only thing you learn is that to win you have to have certain kinds of lists.

You need better friends.



The reason this comp rule isn't used anymore is its bad for some armies. Some armies work better with min troops others work better with max troops.

There never should be min troops, ever. Of course your elites are better than your troops that is why they are elites. I think the best work around for these would be to create a elite/heavy/fast for every troop choice. That would be the fairest way

Posted By Samwise158 on 12/11/2006 8:56 AM
I think the 40% troops guideline is valid.  After all,  armies are supposed to be made up primarily of their basic soldier.  Yes, this restriction favors certain armies, but those are armies that use lots of troops. 

Which makes it, on its face, an invalid method for measuring comp. If its not equitable its sucks.

The problem with comp, is that there would have to be different rules for every single army. Rules that would be more than fair for one army "three full size troop choices" (fine for marines) Would completely bone others (IG would have to fill two platoons and an armored fist just to be in the min size).

It would only be fair if every choice in an army list were worth taking. The simple fact of the matter is that alot of armies have crap units. Making someone take garbage to make YOU feel better won't improve the game it will only reduce the number of armies seen on the table.

And thats the fundamental issue. Each army has strengths in different choices. Some are strong in troops. Some are strong in HS. Some are strong in FA. But limiting to set piece situation hurts somebody. Add in the fact that if you ask each person in the tourney what is comp you'll get a completely different answer and its a twitchy system.

Foil is right, comp rules need to be different for every army. As such, it needs to be written in to the Codex. That is the only way. Game Development, like other games that have a big tournament following (Magic), need to look at a Codex and think about what kind of armies they are allowing. If they don't want 5 man Dire Avenger squads in Wave Serpents, then that should be written in as a "3 max", or a larger minimum size squads. It should not have to be dictated by players, that is just ridiculous.

If they didn't want the game getting competitive, they shouldn't have started the GTs, or the RTT circuit.

Comp is easily put in to the codex, and that is where it belongs. It certainly doesn't belong as a grade in a tournament.

engine

Again, can you give me an example of a "poor" troop unit in the game? Of course they are going to be poor compared to say termies or obliterators, but they are troops for crying out loud. Im just mystified at this point. TBH limit any non-troop choice to 0-1 or 0-2 and this would be done with

Your basic eldar Guardian or Imperial Guardsman.

Compare everything to a 6 man las/plas marine suad and you'll get an idea.

Dark Eldar Warriors & Gaunts come to mind. Tau, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, & Tyranids suffer from having extra restrictions put on them. Chaos, Witch hunters, & Deamon Hunters get bland. Space Marines, Necrons, and Orks are the winners in this case. So if you really want to increase the number of Space Marine armies this is the way to go.

I can make an argument that almost all troops are good if you know how to use them.

But to answer the chesse question, anything that can kill marines are cheesy.

I play with Darrian13 alot at RTTs, and no one even looks twice at his 14 assault cannon army of death. While I take a little bug tyranid horde (lots of guants, hormaguants, and genestealers) and I get a worse comp score than him.

I alway's liked the comp rules they had in what was it finland a couple years back for WHFB. Where you start with a base amount of points, get dinged or added depending on what choices you made. You could still make a really nice list and only be dinged a little, and those who got points boost needed it because you could still steamroll em.
But I'll admit if that isn't an option I'd rather see comp die. I'm tired of getting dinged for 3 exorcists or falcons in 40k and even more so for maxing out on special and rare choices in my TK. God forbid i don't want to rely soley on 9 pt goblins.

Blackmoor, the differenece between us is not the army, it is the skill level. You keep crushing your opponents and making them cry. It is no wonder why people dock you on soft-scores.

Often, the reasons I win are because of pure luck and a strong list. My opponents usually feel that they had a good chance of winning. I am not sure that yours feel the same way.

Darrian

Just get rid of Comp scores. Stop adding more and more restrictions. Is it any wonder people dont go to tournies that often. I have seen people go to tournies once and never again.

The problem (that has been stated) is that GW writes crappy rules.

Everyone wants to go to the no-comp UK standard,but in their tournements, only a few armies are at the top tables. I don't want to see the US GTs go that way where everyone starts to bring Iron Warriors.

I would like to see some kind of affirmative action for the weaker codexes.

But player judging is not the way to do it. For example: a lot of people think there is no way to cheese up the Thousand Sons, but I have a lot of bad comp scores to prove it! It is one thing to look over the army list and say that it is weak, but when you ask someone to judge if the army is well comped after you just wiped them off the the table, it will always get a poor score whether or not you have brought a cheesy army.

Its true most Uk tournies I have been t have been won by Iron warriors or Eldar. the last one I went to suprisingly did not have any Iron warrior (very odd indeed) but was won by a Chaos army non the less. followed by Eldar.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/11/2006 4:56 PM
So if you really want to increase the number of Space Marine armies this is the way to go.

Is that even possible at this point?

I like the fact that I have the ability to directly affect the outcome of my opponents score, since his list affects my enjoyment of the game. Maybe I am stubborn because I have a clear definition of what "cheesy" to me would be, and that I can objectively judge comp scores.

There really is no easy fix, but without limitations by GW ruleset I forsee comp scores to stay

What's your definition of cheesy moosie? 

 

-How would you rate an armored company list with commander, tank ace, two ST squads, 1 sentinel squadron, 1 hellhound, 1 demolisher, 2 vanquishers and 2 Leman Russ?

 

-How about an IW list with 2 oblits and 4 heavy supports?  9 oblits and one heavy

 

-Undivided chaos list with 3 infiltrating squads and the remainder in bloodletters and demon prince?

 

-IG troopy SAFH with 18 lascannons and 12 heavy bolters with rough riders and maxed plasma? How about if maxed melta?

 

 

Since when is comp staying?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/6/tpage/2/view/Topic/postid/118319/Default.aspx

The US GT's next year will only have Sports scores, not comp. Maybe in some RTT's they'll have comp and all that, but it won't be at the biggest events I think.

Quiet Voodoo, your use of facts and logic is just getting in the way of a good argument.

I could not rate half of the example you have listed because I have yet to play them. But could you not agree part of sportsmanship is creating a balanced list, not a cheaped out min/max list?

The only list on your list I have actually played is the maxed plas/las shooty IG. It is a *female dog* to fight, and yes I would consider that to be a wee bit cheesy. There should be a max number of heavy weapons allowed in any list to prevent min/maxing. Iron Warriors get 4 heavy choices? Fine restrict them to 2 elites or require additional troop choices to go beyond the 3 heayv choices (ie for every heavy choice after 3, 2 more troops are required for 1 additional heavy)

And jfrazell has it right, stop with your logic and let the arguers argue!

I always have a nice comp score even though (shhh its a big secret) I have been using min size squads all over my LatD. I guess its all in the presentation.

yea your min troop choice is also like what 60 zombies? =p

Someones cheasy list does not stop me having a good game, the person being an arrogent Nob does.

I personally dont see the problem with any of the examples jfrazel has given, In fact the IW usuallly have 9 oblit and 4 heavey support.

Posted By moosifer on 12/12/2006 7:27 AM
I could not rate half of the example you have listed because I have yet to play them. But could you not agree part of sportsmanship is creating a balanced list, not a cheaped out min/max list?

The only list on your list I have actually played is the maxed plas/las shooty IG. It is a *female dog* to fight, and yes I would consider that to be a wee bit cheesy. There should be a max number of heavy weapons allowed in any list to prevent min/maxing. Iron Warriors get 4 heavy choices? Fine restrict them to 2 elites or require additional troop choices to go beyond the 3 heayv choices (ie for every heavy choice after 3, 2 more troops are required for 1 additional heavy)

And jfrazell has it right, stop with your logic and let the arguers argue!

So, what happens if you go up against these armies that you've never played before and get owned? Are you going to ding their composition because you didn't think of a good strategy to fight them and therefore conclude that they're cheesey?

And what kind of rationale is that for the IW? If you only have a vague idea about an army and its components you're going to make an on the spot judgment about their list and what they need to do to make it fluffy?

I wouldn't consider a guard SAFH cheesey.

Posted By moosifer on 12/12/2006 7:27 AM
But could you not agree part of sportsmanship is creating a balanced list, not a cheaped out min/max list?

I don't agree with this statement at all. If it were true, why are there separate scores for sportsmanship and composition?

Posted By the_trooper on 12/12/2006 7:43 AM
I always have a nice comp score even though (shhh its a big secret) I have been using min size squads all over my LatD. I guess its all in the presentation.

Your trick with placing all your 5 man traitor guard squads right on top of each other so they look like 10 man formations is pretty good too.

well in moosifars case any army that beets him is cheesy. Even if its a basic list ie cheap Hq, 6 troops choices with max figure but no upgrades or special/heavy weapons.

Also sportmanship does not depend on list. A person can be sporting and fun to play despite his killer list.

Well I will give an example of a list i fought and never played again. Min Plas/Las Tact Squads, assault cannons up the wazoo, 2 vindicators. I was wiped off the board by turn two. Now I am not always the best and most tactical player in the world but if I play a list and lose in 2 turns of shooting, there is something totally cheesey about it.

I will fight to the death that balance needs to be achieved by GW. It is not by giving over powering weapons, or giving everyone the same thing, but by limiting units to certain amounts (ie 0-1, 0-2) that there will no longer have ot be a comp score or the like given.

Im headed to baltimore this year and hopefully wont run into a zillion lysander wing, SAFH with 18 las cannons and 12 HB's, min/maxed daemonbombs, IW with gazillions of bassies and the like. But if I do, I will grade them on how they play and give them the best score I feel I can give them. With a list I would consider cheesy, if the player is a total tool about it, you damn right Im giving em low scores, but if they are respectful and the like, how am I gonna dock them points? How can I ethically do that, without ruining my integrity.

It's probably been said already, but the issue with comp is that you get losers that will zero someone just for beating them, regardless of WHAT their army looks like. Giving such a mechanic to the players is a mistake IMO, especially when it can affect your standing in the tourney. I have heard horror stories about people with good armies that are great tacticians steamrolling opponents only to lose the top spot because opponents have dinged them on comp just so they wouldn't win!

I mean yeah, something should keep the cheesey armies in line so there isn't a situation like the Necron player who fought some cheeseweasel and had his army phased out before his first turn, but the comp system is WAY too open to abuse and has far too much potential to screw players just because you beat the snot out of some arrogant git and he decided to zero you in Sports/Comp to lower your ranking.

Help Help Im being repressed!!!

Its a wonder you actually play any games moosifar with that attitude. All you will get at the tournies is lysander wing, AC chease list as they are competitive lists and you ARE after all going to a Competition.

Next time use cover and you might not get shot to peices by turn 2, or learn to play a bit better

Hence my reason for putting those up (plus I’ve played three of those).  Here’s the rub.  Any list using 40% troops as a requirement could be met by all those lists, ironically except the AC.  

 

-The SAFH list is not SAFH. I could pack much more in the way of painful hurley burley. I also could still have double the number of troop squads vs. HS or elites (I think-its been a long time since I played it and only for a game or two).  There are some who say that list is non-comp because there are too many troops (WTF???) or too many heavy weapons (no matter how many troops). You often can’t win.

 

-The AC list is least comp not because of all the tanks, but because of too few tanks.  Its actually min maxed on the Leman “troop” choices.  Yet it would most likely get dinged for the tanks. If I brought an all tanks list its would still get dinged heavily, despite meeting every comp thing you can think of.

 

Not picking on you Moosie, it just excellently illustrates the problem. Without the lists being absolutely fixed there are going to be issues with comp. Add each person’s unique viewpoint on comp and it gets squiggelly fast.

Thats why it would be better to do away with comp scores. Take that power away from the gamers as like others have already stated a sore loser will vent his frustration through that.

I agree with ou jfraz, and you logan. Im playing devils advocate here (kinda) since i expect a little more out of wargaming than min/maxing. But that is just me I guess.

Comp score in my mind is good if objective because it give a player on something other than just painting and w/l/d.

Maybe a better solution would be since lists are suppose to be pre-approved that the organizers can do the calculations (ie 40% troop etc...) while everyone is playing and give it a score 1-3. 1 being most skewed for the army and 3 for being balanced. Since organizors (hopefully) know how each army works, they can be the ones to deem cheese vs uncheese, therefor still keeping it in the scoring system but out of the hands of hte impartial players?

 

 

edit:  Beef it was my 3rd game ever.  Also if the entire store refuses to play this kid because he is cheesy, dont you think something is up?

Who was it? I can think of a few people from that store I could go without playing. Was he at the tournament?

No he wasnt. I have not seen him around in a few weeks. Logan played him, but in a 4 way match. I dont know point values.

Edit:  Beef I get plenty of games, I lose alot so people love to play me

Posted By moosifer on 12/12/2006 9:33 AM

 3 for being balanced.

Most truely competetive armies ARE balanced armies.  You have to be in order to take on all comers in a tournament and still win.

 

Min/Maxing is a definite part of creating a balanced army.

So true

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/11/2006 10:04 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/12/2006 11:59 AM
I would like to add that I'm very angry at all those people that say you should just build a powerful list because cheese is a flawed concept.

I listened to these people. My friends don't play me anymore.

Tournaments, fine, but get a perspective on things.

You need better friends.

Where do you suggest I get these? England?

Yeah come over to England, the weather sucks but umm. . . ..
hmm. . . . cant think of anything else

Posted By moosifer on 12/12/2006 9:19 AM
Well I will give an example of a list i fought and never played again. Min Plas/Las Tact Squads, assault cannons up the wazoo, 2 vindicators. I was wiped off the board by turn two. Now I am not always the best and most tactical player in the world but if I play a list and lose in 2 turns of shooting, there is something totally cheesey about it.

I will fight to the death that balance needs to be achieved by GW. It is not by giving over powering weapons, or giving everyone the same thing, but by limiting units to certain amounts (ie 0-1, 0-2) that there will no longer have ot be a comp score or the like given.

Im headed to baltimore this year and hopefully wont run into a zillion lysander wing, SAFH with 18 las cannons and 12 HB's, min/maxed daemonbombs, IW with gazillions of bassies and the like. But if I do, I will grade them on how they play and give them the best score I feel I can give them. With a list I would consider cheesy, if the player is a total tool about it, you damn right Im giving em low scores, but if they are respectful and the like, how am I gonna dock them points? How can I ethically do that, without ruining my integrity.

Well if you're heading to Baltimore next year then we will probably meet up at the tournament at some point.  I know my list is bordering on a*$%&*) levels of cheese, that's pretty much what I expect to face at a tournament (though I've never been to one as a player, I saw the armies at last years Games Day so I'm fully expecting the cheese). 

I do try to be a nice guy in any game I play and like to make it as fun as possible.  I figure against the other power lists it should be a pretty tactical game.  But if you do show up with a fun fluffy list that isn't powered out, well you'll likely get blasted.  From what I saw of the armies in the 40k RT last year bringing a balanced fluffy list is like bringing a knife to a gun fight; playing 40k in a tournament/competitve setting  is almost like playing a completely different game.  At least that's what I've found when my gaming group and I have had our little cheese battles.

Please dont get me wrong voodoo, despite what beef calls a "whining", Im really a player who plays to enjoy himself. If I played your list, knowing that it would be there, I would have little issue with it if you played it with a smile and a colorful comments. I will goto Baltimore, get my ass handed to me, and be happy about it. It will be a fun experience(i hope)!

On that note, why dont auspex work against drop pods? I mean seriously it is the next step up from infilitrating

Posted By beef on 12/13/2006 1:40 AM
Yeah come over to England, the weather sucks but umm. . . ..
hmm. . . . cant think of anything else

..and dental work.

I think the issue here is that some people, myself included, have just started playing in a tournament setting.  I never even took my first army to any real competitive setting besides the staturday / sunday game at the store or with my friends.   At that point I would build the most vicious lists possible because I was learning the game.  My friends would meet the challenge and build equally devastating lists.  It was fun because we were all on the same level.  When I played at the store I had fun crushing braggards that were supposedly better at the game than I.

A couple years and much more experience later, I wanted to be more about the tactics and flavor of the army than the winning aspect.  I went with a lesser army and started building.  It was a personal choice and I had my taste of power armor.  I won enough before, had enough crushing victories but now I draw blood in the game through attrition.   I love every minute of it.  I think I also enjoy the hobby aspect much more now too.  I get a better feeling from playing friendly games now too.

Remember that list that was posted some time ago, the one about the different levels of gaming?  I think its true.  I know what it is like to powergame with the best of them (Black Legion Daemon Bomb / DP / BT / 3 oblits 5 man las / plas lol ) but I also know the enjoyment of friendly games.  Where I play now, its more of an understanding / respect for the other player not to do things overpowered.  Why? Because no one else will.  The tournaments I have been playing in have had a similar understanding.  Take a good army but no need to add 7 ringer units.  Pick the best you think are possible but change it up.  No need to take the cookie cutter out if no one else does.  

Its like the start of the thread, 8 blood letters or two butt-cannons.  Neither of the two are cheesier than the other but in mass quantities both are easily among the worst abused units in the game.

-The End

How about the army of zombies vs my chaplain and the 2 bionics saves

I think Im going wiht a different approach as to learning the game by getting myself thrashed so I see how other play their armies and what they are good at etc etc. In this I have started to define (to myself) what is cheese/un-cheese.

Soon I will have the SM army of uber pownage and everything will be done. I will win at 40k!

Its like the start of the thread, 8 blood letters or two butt-cannons. 

Please explain to me how a squad of bloodletters is "cheesy."  They are a troops choice.  8 is not a min/maxed troop number. 

So whats the deal?

Its not cheesey. Thats the deal. I have heard many people whine about both so I figured it would be a good discussion. 9 pages later, it got people talking.

It was actually more of a rhetorical quetion.

Ah, I see now.

If you take a lot of Bloodletters and go for what amounts to a pretty resilient Demon Bomb, yeah it's a cheesy list (as is almost any Demon Bomb that revolves around Bloodletters or Demonettes).

They're cheesy because the demon bomb is powerful, there is very little your opponent can do to stop it, and those two units are VERY good demons.

Just because someones cheese just happens to be in "Troops" doesn't automatically make it not cheesy anymore.

This is one reason I don't feel bad taking the list I have to the GT's. There is so much cheddar there I'm practically itching to come across an Eldar player with 3 Falcons some Waveserpents (which this list is kitted out to kill), and with some luck beat the crap out of them - and then watch them proceed to call my list cheesy.

There's all sorts of cheese out there and different flavors beat eachother in some kind of Sci-Fi version of Rock Paper Scissors. A well built Demon Bomb should beat the tar out of a Stand & Shoot Marine list, but it'll struggle against Mech Tau and Mech Eldar.

I bet you after each game the Marine player would call the Chaos guy cheesy, and the Chaos guy would call the Tau/Eldar player cheesy.

Besides so many people will complain about different things. I had one friend tell me that he was tired about hearing of his brothers "cheesy" build for his upcoming Eldar army. It was 3 sets of Vibro Cannons and 6x 5 Rangers - hardly cheese from what I can tell.

Posted By onlainari on 12/12/2006 6:55 PM

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/11/2006 10:04 AM

Posted By onlainari on 12/12/2006 11:59 AM
I would like to add that I'm very angry at all those people that say you should just build a powerful list because cheese is a flawed concept.

I listened to these people. My friends don't play me anymore.

Tournaments, fine, but get a perspective on things.

You need better friends.

Where do you suggest I get these? England?

I thought Aussies were tough. Whiny Aussies just seems wrong on so many levels. You mean to tell me there's no such thing as "Australian rules Warhammer"? Full contact, beer drinking, head-butting power gaming? My world view is crushed.

I have friends I don't like playing, but I do it anyway because they are my friends.

Well you guys do have a new serial killer.

Posted By Crimson Devil on 12/13/2006 10:40 AM

Well you guys do have a new serial killer.

Or do they....

You're a naughty one, Saucy Jack!
You're a haughty one, Saucy Jack!

A buddy of mine said my Deathwing was cheesy. Even though he never loses to it.

I dont listen to cheese whines anymore because of that.

Its enough to not drink beer at my house and just have wine on the table, so when the whine starts to happen, I can say there is enough wine on the table already.

yeah we do have a new serial killer but thats gotton boring quick. at the moment he is just targeting Prostitutes. I think the head counts at 5 so far. The girls need there crack and heroin so they are still risking working on the streets. Most reckon its a disgruntled customer of theirs.

Imagine if disgruntled GW customers when out and satrted killing the red shirts. hmm. . .

Also did you know why they call heroin "heroin" Its a french word. they thought it was a cure for cancer back in the days.

Australia is where comp will never die. The community is very strongly for it. I think it comes down to the question: If two players scored equal battle points in a tournament, but one used a stronger list, which is the better general? Which should receive some sort of bonus?

Also people here don't like facing cheesy lists in general. There are plenty of them down here it's just people don't like facing them.

The community thinks of comp as the evil we have to have. They understand all the flaws in comp, and are working towards better comp systems. It's evolving, and many tournament are starting to drop math comp, and drop opponent scoring comp, sticking with TO or "Elite panel" comp, as they're the systems that work best.

yeah but who decides whats cheesy? we ourselves cannot do that as everybody has a different view. If GW says certain lists are beardy/cheesy then thats fine otherwise it a fruitless endevour. Its a competition for F sakes, you go to win

Not necessarily beef, in the GW universe winning is rude. The moral high ground goes to the loser and the winner should feel shame for the rest of his days.

Comp is garbage. The only way to resolve this is to have predetermined army lists for each army. No alterations. Play this army, then play this list. Everyone uses the same stuff. Only then will best general be determined. Of course people will still complain.

Crimson you could not be more far off. Winning is not rude, it is part of the game. The issue arises when the way in which you win is rude. You write that comp is garbage and say the only way to resolve it is predetermined army lists. Well isnt this what happens at tourney's anyway? Barring a few personal choices in characters you will see the same list for each and every "winner" at the GTs and like. How original are you when you find out that 12 assault cannons tear thru anything in the game? How great a tactician do you have to be when your weaponry more than makes up for any inadequecies in tactics.

With that said, to powergame, build the "optimized" list, is only human and as a player I cannot 100% fault you for it. However your attitude and playstyle with which you participate in playing is what starts these types of arguements. I could play the nicest person in the world with ultramauleens and be content with losing because they played a nice game. However as Mannahian has said, the attitude of the players playing these lists turns into poor sports and bad winners.

That and im partial to cheese assault cannon lists, hey logan think next time we play you could have a max'ed out asscannon list for me to fight?

Actually I was being sarcastic. there are a ridiculous number of people who believe winning should only happen as a pleasant surprise. And not something to strive for. Your right about attitude being very important. It also helps being a good painter. Both have softened the impact of my army list. Since I don't fit the stereotype of a power gamer I can get away with more extreme combinations. Although I think assault cannons are over-rated.

I think too much credit is being given to the army lists. That why I think there should be standardized lists for tourneys. I've heard on numerous occasions the a monkey could win with ultramauleens. The player is seen as an incidental factor to the game's out come. Building optimized lists is a great mental exercise, but it doesn't make the player any better.

Well said crimson devil. Your rights I have seen so called cheesy lists and the annoying thing is not the list but the player who fains suprise when they win and act like "oh my god you nearlly had me there" Yeah right.

In Australia the most popular comp system 3 or 4 years ago, even 2 years ago, was to mark your opponent's army out of 5.

It took years, but we realised the huge flaws in this way of marking. People would just give 5's because they don't believe in comp, or because they're friends, or just give 0's because they lost, and even honest people would give a 4 when it should be a 2 or vice versa because they don't understand the army.

Math comp became very popular. Players knew what comp they were going to get before the tournament, their comp score was not going to be based on luck on who they faced. Math comp still is very popular. But now we're seeing the flaws in math comp, some things are ignored by math comp like what weapons kit out you had. People tried to fix this by making math comp more complex. This in the end hurt fluffy armies more than it did powergamers, so this wasn't taken up in many tournaments.

Then people started realising that TO comp works. They can decide what is cheesy. They are very smart and have been playing this game for a very long time. They understand what is powerful on the table top and what is not.

"Elite panel" is a step up. It's like TO comp, they just mark the army on its merits, but you're less likely to have bias. Eventually major tournies will get the idea that this is what Australians want.

Australia has no-comp tournaments. However they're not popular because we are lesser beings than you Crimson Devil. Scrubs, if you will.

Onlainari, you get extra points for making me laugh. I'm American, arrogance is part of my genetic structure.

You've also illustrated the problems with comp. Its an extra set of rules that harm the out come of the tourney more often then improve it. If the game isn't balanced for the tourney, then its the game which needs to be fixed.

I hate soft scores in general. Means I will never win a tournament. I've won around 7 best generals in 9 tourneys. Went undefeated in 5 of them. One I went 6-0 with my radical Daemonhunters and got 13th place out of 16 because people tanked all my soft scores.

When soft scores count for that much of the total points and people can tank you in it, there is a definite problem.

 so in a   1850 game  a  dark eldar play wold take  up too  12 dark lance and    4 blaster and a  wytch hq  with 8 wytches and  i succubuss with drugs and a  hq of  DElt with 6 inucubi with a master incubi , with drugs isnt  too cheesey with  three ravangers with  diss and  two raiders with  DL , and   slave nets??

Depend on which whiny git you play

see beef i dont actually understand your attitude? Why does having issue with "power gaming" lists automatically mean they are whining? Cant people have a discussion about the merits/percieved overpowered in an adult fashion? I can honestly say, you seem to be the only one that is looking at comp as this truely evil monster holding you back from something. Over-powered lists are over-powered, if you play one, expect to get crap for it. period

Posted By Kultofthebonedragons on 12/14/2006 4:57 PM
 so in a   1850 game  a  dark eldar play wold take  up too  12 dark lance and    4 blaster and a  wytch hq  with 8 wytches and  i succubuss with drugs and a  hq of  DElt with 6 inucubi with a master incubi , with drugs isnt  too cheesey with  three ravangers with  diss and  two raiders with  DL , and   slave nets??

Beef, you have two accounts?

 

Posted By moosifer on 12/15/2006 6:01 AM
see beef i dont actually understand your attitude? Why does having issue with "power gaming" lists automatically mean they are whining? Cant people have a discussion about the merits/percieved overpowered in an adult fashion? I can honestly say, you seem to be the only one that is looking at comp as this truely evil monster holding you back from something. Over-powered lists are over-powered, if you play one, expect to get crap for it. period

No, he's not the only one.   He's just the loudest   Comp is crap anyways.  We're talking a tournament here, not a friendly game.  Tournament=you bring your best game, including your best army.  Doing anything else is an insult to your opponents.

 

Fought a kid at a tournament with a footslogging Eldar army that was all mis-matched...No coherent theme running through it, and tabled him.  Game wasn't very much fun for me because he didn't bring an army that was challenging.

I kinda see what you saying, but maybe that is the best the kid could have done. I have been tabled a good amount of times, and probably have won a total of 8 games since I started 40k in june, but I always try and put out a list I enjoy playing. I could put out the ultramauleens for a tourney, but I would not feel right about it. To use a MMO Term, and no offense to mauleen cause his list is nasty, but it is the new "cookie cutter" list. I try and field a list that is not so much cookie cutter but is decent. Recently I have used the deathwatch killteam mixed in with my list and it has done surprisingly well. I have only recently started to give into smaller heavy weapon tact squads, and with the new dev set coming out i might put out 2 more dev squads

Posted By skyth on 12/15/2006 6:18 AM

 Comp is crap anyways.  We're talking a tournament here, not a friendly game.  Tournament=you bring your best game, including your best army.  Doing anything else is an insult to your opponents.

 Fought a kid at a tournament with a footslogging Eldar army that was all mis-matched...No coherent theme running through it, and tabled him.  Game wasn't very much fun for me because he didn't bring an army that was challenging.

 

Bringing a varied list isn’t an insult to your opponent if you’re good with it.  And winning with a non-optimized list is honestly a more impressive feat than winning with a proven “A” list.  Your opponent’s list wasn’t the problem.  It was his lack of skill. 

 

Skyth, comp is a good thing because it encourages more variety in the armies you see.  Here in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> we get to see more than just Iron Warrior/Black Legion/Alaitoc/Ulthwe on the top tables at our GTs.  And more than just Skaven/Brets/Wood Elves on the fantasy side.  That’s a good thing.  Comp plays a big role in making it happen.

 

With no comp in the upcoming GTs, we’ll have to see how much the lists shift this year.  Maybe not that much, as the culture of comp is somewhat entrenched, but if we’re seeing the usual suspects from the UK GTs winning every time, I don’t think that’s a desirable outcome.

There's a difference between a non-optimized list and a crap list...And comp doesn't help make more of a variety. Anything that isn't 'fluffy' Loyalist Marines is dinged. Bring a daemon prince, you get dinged. Bring Dark Eldar, you get dinged. Bring guard with plenty of AP 2/3 weaponry and you get dinged. Comp actually makes the lists near identical and boring to play against. If you find something new, even if sub-optimal, and make it work, you get dinged.

So basically, you're stuck with troop heavy (ie boring) armies, mostly marines.

I've brought flavorful/themed/underperforming armies to tourneys before and got killed on my soft scores because simply because I won and I know how to use even underperforming units (Flying possessed, Daemonhosts, DCA's, etc) to optimal effect.

I'm sad to hear that's your experience. That hasn't been my experience with Eldar or Marines. I've found those kind of opponents much more the exception than the rule.

On the bright side, I tend to find that the players most likely to misunderstand a fluffy/interesting list and score it badly are also bad players, and easy to beat in the game itself.

If your experience is that most of your opponents at tournaments are bad sports who don't understand other armies enough to rate them fairly, why do you continue to go?

I haven't gone lately, but I like getting that many games in in one day.

I hope to go to the Baltimore GT this year. We'll see if I'm able.

The evidence strongly suggests comp helps variety.

Math comp not so much, but that's being phased out. Peer comp has been more popular in the past, and with all its flaws, one of them was not retarding variety, in fact the complete opposite happened.

And with the phasing in of TO comp, we will continue to see great variety in Australian tournaments.

Tournament organizer/committee comp does seem like it's the wave of the future, though it does require prior submissions of lists and some time investment on the part of the organizers.

Australia seems to be doing very well with it; the WPS runs what seems to be one of the best and most enjoyable Indy GTs in the UK using a similar system.

My comp system is "math comp", or a checklist, and thus doesn't fit every army perfectly, but I think it works pretty well. I score it, but players can calculate most of their score ahead of time, and I have some wiggle room with some Judges Discretion points. The only opponent-scored portion is that every player has to vote for their favorite army (of the ones they faced), and each vote is worth bonus points.