The game has gotten pretty crazy since 5th edition and with the new Eldar rumors it seems now more than ever tournaments need to employ some kind of comp system.
Events in Melbourne where im from has for a long time played largely comp and pretty much everything you can think of has been tried.
Each comp system always seems to come with thier own set of problems which either centers around the systems lack of transparency, sweeping rules that work perfectly for 90% of cases but poorly in others or inconsitently executed subjective elements.
My team and I created Community Comp which is a system to grade the power level of armies ultimately for use as a comp score in tournaments to avoid these problems.
Players will build thier own comp score as they make thier army by comparing the units they want to use against the relevant pages in the Community Comp Document.
Everything is explained in full so players are never hit with a nasty supprise of a bad comp score they werent expecting.
To minimise the inhearent bias we all have we maintain a council of 15 experienced players and tounrnament organisers who decide on costings for powerfull units or combos.
They make decisions based on feedback from the community and tournament data through rigorous debate. Were not afraid to admit when were wrong so when theres a resounding call for change by the comminty we make changes.
We have a strict policy of no Knee jerk reactions, dont change things too often and dont make sweeping rules.
We have learned through observation of other failed systems that sweeping rules hit the relevant 90% of cases perfectly but miss out on the outliers.
To avoid this we make targed solutions for spesifically defined problems. This leads to added complexity but its worth it in the end.
Communtiy Comp has been running for 2 years now and over the last year we have seen significant success in Tournaments across Australia.
Its very common for people to have a bad first impression, to think they can break it after reading it through once or think its jsut another crack pot system that will change the meta but not ballance it.
I have leanred that these first responses fade and fade quickly. As people start to make armies for the system, try and break it and play games with it they quickly change thier tune.
I invite you all to check it out on our website and facebook page linked below.
Sorry, to intrude, but I'm curious. I only play friendly games. The closest thing I go to that is a "tournament" is a 3 month long, free to enter, 2 games a week thing, where the only thing that matters is win/loss/tie.
Now that that is out of the way, what exactly is "comp"? I've seen references to it quite often in tournament discussions, and I know some people hate it. All I understand, is it has something to do with list building.
You may think you have broken the system with your assesment of mek guns and thunder cav but as i said lots of people feel that way with thier first impression.
When you start actually building armies with this system and using it in tournaments you will quickly change your mind.
Penitent engines can be spammed and an average army would have trouble dealing with them. These things are terrible in the face of no comp tau and serpent spam but those things have been comped hard.
"Why crushers and fiends are comped the same as screamers and hounds"
becase the grimwar is comped hard so screamers arent screamer councils and hounds arent hard to handle unless theres lots
"Why are only imperial fist devs C1 but all havoks are C1? "
We feel dev squads arent quite good enough to incur a credit but these two are if you run several
"Why is a bastion worth the same as a skyshield? "
because they both offer reletive protection and can be used in certain armies to great effect
"Why is a Vendetta the same comp as a valk? Why is a vendetta the same comp as a hades drake? "
fliers are usually costed on how hard they are to kill rather than thier particular damage output. Valks in a comp event do a relevant ammount of damage that comprible to a vendetta, Hell drakes are similar untill you give them the bale flamer which is aslo costed.
"Why are lvl 3 GK libbies not C1 or C2 when CSMlvl's are C2? "
we dont cost things in a vacuume, CSM sorcs have acces to fast asault units which combine with buffs like endurance to great effect. They are costed differently
"Why is invis -8 if you even want a chance at it while solar staff is -1? "
Because its a 1 turn only thing
"Why are destroyers only C1 if there's a stalker?"
Because they become BS 5 preferred enemy so they go from what is a little bette than bs 5 to BS10 essentially.
the rest of your questions might be worth raising with us as feedback that we might consider changes from rather than holes of problems.
Whatever you think might be wrong with the system, it is very well tested and has been in use for a year in australia. It works and works well.
Victorian masters last year used it with a special mission pack that we provide. It has historically been a no comp event but used community comp with no comp score but capped players at 14 credits.
The ballance from CC plus the ballancing effect of the mission pack made it the best and most ballanced 40k any of us had ever played. We had a resounding positive responses from everyone who attended.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ happyjew.
Comp means some kind of alteration to the game made to bring about ballance.
It can come in the form of detachment restrictions, unit restrictions or special formats like highlander.
it can also come in the form of a handicap score of various forms which limit the number of points you can add to the battle scores you earn at a tournament.
Community comp can be used in several ways but it combines some reasonable restrictons to detachments with a few units that are costed in such a way that they are basically restricted in how many you can play and even fewer units that are banned.
It also employs a handicap scoring system so that players are able to come to an event even if they only have one army painted up that happens to be noticably harder or softer than the power level of that event.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Penitent engines can be spammed and an average army would have trouble dealing with them. These things are terrible in the face of no comp tau and serpent spam but those things have been comped hard.
And this just demonstrates one of the problems with comp: you nerf the best things, then you need to nerf the second-best things, and so on until everything has been heavily penalized and there's no game left. If you're to the point of penalizing penitent engine spam then I think it's safe to say that you should have stopped a long time ago.
"Why are only imperial fist devs C1 but all havoks are C1? "
We feel dev squads arent quite good enough to incur a credit but these two are if you run several
No, you missed the point there. Havoks and devs are essentially the same unit, just like tactical squads in different marine codices. Why is a devastator squad with ultramarines blue armor comp-free while one with khorne red armor C1?
fliers are usually costed on how hard they are to kill rather than thier particular damage output.
That's a stupid way to do things. Why are you only considering one part of a unit's power when determining its comp score? Under this absurd concept a flyer with no guns would get the same comp score as one with a 100-shot D-weapon.
"Why are destroyers only C1 if there's a stalker?"
Because they become BS 5 preferred enemy so they go from what is a little bette than bs 5 to BS10 essentially.
So what? Going from BS 5 to BS 10 is only a 16.5% increase in firepower because of the diminishing returns on BS over 5. You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that a high score in a unit's stat line is always a significant difference in how it works in the actual game.
It works and works well.
Only if you're very generous in defining "works". It's a broken system, just like every similar system in the past. You've added absolutely nothing innovative to a broken concept, so what exactly is the point?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: Now that that is out of the way, what exactly is "comp"? I've seen references to it quite often in tournament discussions, and I know some people hate it. All I understand, is it has something to do with list building.
Essentially comp is "I don't like the way you built your army so you have a X% penalty on your final score, if you're even allowed to attend my event". It claims to be an attempt at adding balance to the game, but the execution almost inevitably penalizes weak units/armies along with the strong ones. A comp system sets up a list of score penalties for taking units that the TO doesn't like, and then the total penalty your army earns is applied to your final score for the tournament (along with game wins, painting, etc). Alternatively the TO can skip the formal list and just apply an arbitrary penalty, which can usually be summarized as "my friends get full points, anyone I don't like gets a zero".
I would be much more interested if your post and your website were better formatted. Proper presentation is the bedrock of influencing people with the written word (your clear intent here). You seem to have a reasonably competent grasp of web design, but your website and post advertising it could benefit for an edit for proper spelling, punctuation, grammar, and general composition. When you lack these things, it can make people wonder if your rules lack a similar attention to detail.
Many starving writers out there make ends meet doing just such editing, often for extremely low fees. (Usually a flat fee per hour, and if you just want flat editing, that'd wind up being dirt cheap in this case.) For slightly higher, many offer substantive editing, where the propose alternate ways to structure or say things in order to convey your point with greater intensity or clarity.)
I'd be more than happy to check out your proposed rules with an open mind once they've been given a good polish edit.
Only if you're very generous in defining "works". It's a broken system, just like every similar system in the past. You've added absolutely nothing innovative to a broken concept, so what exactly is the point?
.
If you think this system is broken then i challenge you to break it.
I have been listening to people say exactly what your saying for 2 years now and only 1 person has ever made an army that was overpowered enough to call it broken. there have been several people come up with a list that should have cost 2 or 3 credits more than it did but thats about the best that anyone with your attitude ever manages to do.
So i challenge you to prove this system to have holes. I have been offering a $100 games workshop voucher to anyone to break the system for the last year so thats on the table (i actually mean this)
im so sorry that your turned away by our pedestrian formatting Juimsolo, we have all done this in our spare time and havent wanted to put in a whole lot of cash to pay people to edit it for us.
This system wasnt just vomited out onto the page in a weekend, we have been analysing tournament data, writing what must be thousands of army lists to try and break the system ourselves and tweaking and re ballancing thing all while debating each other furiously.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: If you think this system is broken then i challenge you to break it.
I just did. I've already pointed out some examples of how your scores for individual units are nonsense, and I could easily add more. And then there's the fundamental problem with this kind of comp scoring: it still allows you to play with the overpowered stuff, it just punishes you after the game. If I bring a 20/20 list and crush everyone the fact that I didn't win the tournament doesn't magically make the games more enjoyable for my opponents.
I have been offering a $100 games workshop voucher to anyone to break the system for the last year so thats on the table (i actually mean this)
And you're never going to pay it because your definition of "broken" is going to conveniently change to exclude any list that might win. You've already conceded that a 2-3 point error isn't enough to call your system broken, and I'm sure if I post a 4-point error that will also be too small to get my $100. And on top of that there's no way to prove whether or not an army deserves its comp score. If I post something completely broken all you have to do is say "that's not really too powerful" and you get to keep your $100.
This system wasnt just vomited out onto the page in a weekend, we have been analysing tournament data, writing what must be thousands of army lists to try and break the system ourselves and tweaking and re ballancing thing all while debating each other furiously.
Too bad the output is still garbage. Perhaps you should reevaluate your methods if this is the best you can manage with all of that effort?
no i mean design an army that should cost 6 credits more than it does. That puts it a whole bracket beyond where it should be.
Either that or come up with an army that has no buisiness existing in a comp environment that you can jam into 20 credits.
Do that and you get the $100. Im completely serious ill honestly asses it and actually pay you.
You have a bad first impression thats all. Lots of people have the same first impression you do and they have all come around.
the strongest critics of the system held on for 8 or 9 months but they have pretty much all come around.
Almost every event run in victoria now uses it, every event run in south australia uses it and the other states are starting to use it as well.
If you dont think anything is wrong with 40k the way your playing it then thats good for you and i wish you well.
But if you are like so many others that want the game to finally return to a day where you could play 30 tactical marines in rhinos and not wish you didnt then weather you know it yet or not, community comp is for you.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: no i mean design an army that should cost 6 credits more than it does. That puts it a whole bracket beyond where it should be.
Either that or come up with an army that has no buisiness existing in a comp environment that you can jam into 20 credits.
Do that and you get the $100. Im completely serious ill honestly asses it and actually pay you.
And now you're completely ignoring the main point of my criticism: that it over-penalizes units/armies that don't deserve a penalty. Almost anyone can design a comp system that does a pretty good job of banning the most powerful options. The hard part is making one that excludes the powerful stuff but doesn't unfairly punish people who show up with weaker lists. So let's modify this a bit:
I win and get my $100 if I can design a 2000 point army that should cost 6 credits more or 6 credits less than it does under your system. If you disagree and we can't resolve the question by discussion then it will be decided by a forum poll on this site.
Otherwise you are conceding that you're fine with the following scenario:
You bring a fairly weak "fluff" list to a tournament, and through skillful play you manage to reach the final game undefeated. Your opponent, the only other undefeated player, is playing a clearly stronger list, but you continue to be an awesome general and manage to win by a narrow margin. Surely you win the tournament, right? Too bad you got a significantly higher comp penalty than your opponent, despite having a weaker list, and you have to settle for second place.
You have a bad first impression thats all.
No, it's not just a bad first impression. Your comp system is exactly the same as previous systems that have been tried in the past, the only difference is that you assign different penalties for different units since the game has changed since those other systems were abandoned. And your system very obviously suffers from the same problems as those previous attempts.
But if you are like so many others that want the game to finally return to a day where you could play 30 tactical marines in rhinos and not wish you didnt then weather you know it yet or not, community comp is for you.
Making 30 tactical marines in Rhinos a good list is trivially easy: ban everything except tactical marines and Rhinos. The hard part is accomplishing that goal without unfairly punishing the people who want to use other strategies, and you've utterly failed to do this.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: You may think you have broken the system with your assesment of mek guns and thunder cav but as i said lots of people feel that way with thier first impression.
When you start actually building armies with this system and using it in tournaments you will quickly change your mind.
I've been working on an army for Terracon and am well aware of the strong limitations my army faces, especially when I see Thundercav or Wraiths across the board from me. If I could stomach actually buying space wolf models, you'd better bet I would be running thundercav in a heartbeat.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Penitent engines can be spammed and an average army would have trouble dealing with them. These things are terrible in the face of no comp tau and serpent spam but those things have been comped hard.
Considering they can be glanced to death by fire warriors (and tau will assuredly have fire warriors since crisis are comped hard) and are 11/11/10 and open topped, I really don't see how any army, even a low comp one, would have trouble dealing with them, especially when squadroned.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why crushers and fiends are comped the same as screamers and hounds"
becase the grimwar is comped hard so screamers arent screamer councils and hounds arent hard to handle unless theres lots
And crushers cost 45 ppm and are doubled out by missiles with a 5++ while screamers suffer the same fate but have a 4+ jink to fall back on if the grimoure (which is only 2 points) fails. The grimoure is not comped hard at all, fateweaver is (at, what, 16 points out of 20 to get fateweaver and grimoure IIRC?) You can still safely cram a Tz Herald (or 4) into a unit of screamers (6 or 7 strong to avoid a comp point) and fire off the grimoure. If you take Belakor (sans invis), you also get to ensure you'll get shrouding so they can have a 2+ rerollable coversave if the grimoure fails too. As long as you don't buff the heralds lvl, you don't even pay comp points at all for the unit! Not too scary for Tau (markerlights) or Marines (Thunderfire cannons) but most others are screwed.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why are only imperial fist devs C1 but all havoks are C1? "
We feel dev squads arent quite good enough to incur a credit but these two are if you run several
As previously mentioned, what makes Havoks better than Devs? Is it because Devs get a signum and can make one heavy weapon BS5? Perhaps the lack of ATSKNF is what gives chaos the edge? Maybe the additional chapter tactics the Devs get makes them inferior? Is it the 5 point discount that makes the SM versions less good? What about Long fangs? Is the addition of Accute Senses, ATSKNF AND split fire worthy of no comp at all compared to the C1 of havoks for exactly the same points? (Yes, I am a little bitter, why do you ask?)
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why is a bastion worth the same as a skyshield? "
because they both offer reletive protection and can be used in certain armies to great effect
If you don't see the benefits of an indestructible "building" that provides a 4++ (3++ with mark of Tzeentch, 2++ with grimoure) and effectively disallows assault forever compared to an immoble AV14 building that a minimum amount of models can shoot out of, then I question your wisdom.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why is a Vendetta the same comp as a valk? Why is a vendetta the same comp as a hades drake? "
fliers are usually costed on how hard they are to kill rather than thier particular damage output. Valks in a comp event do a relevant ammount of damage that comprible to a vendetta, Hell drakes are similar untill you give them the bale flamer which is aslo costed.
So, if fliers are comped based on survivability rather than damage output, why is the baleflamer 2 more points? It adds nothing to the survivability of the drake, in fact, it makes it a bigger target. By this logic, the vendetta is overcomped since the drake has a 5++ to fall back on against things that ignore cover/jink. Why is a stormtalon costed the same (1 point C2) when 2 HP of 11/11/11 is generally much more fragile compared to 3 HP of 12/12/10 with a 5++?
When was the last time anyone feared anything from a hades drake?
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why are lvl 3 GK libbies not C1 or C2 when CSMlvl's are C2? "
we dont cost things in a vacuume, CSM sorcs have acces to fast asault units which combine with buffs like endurance to great effect. They are costed differently
Are you telling me that the ability to DS in 1st turn with terminator troops as bodyguards doesn't qualify for the fast assault ability? What about the ability to fire off vortex before I have even moved with a minimal chance of perils? What about Njal Stormcaller? He's a lvl 3 IIRC and his codex most certainly has access to fast assault troops, or simply just a glut of lvl 2 rune priests on bike rolling bio. Endurance on (already undercomped) thundercav is not very nice. I'd seriously question that Ahriman is worth 2 comp points either, but that's a seperate discussion.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why is invis -8 if you even want a chance at it while solar staff is -1? "
Because its a 1 turn only thing
But we all know that early turns are where the most benefit can be derived from invis, especially since you can plan around always having it, and it can never be denied, regardless how many dispel dice your opponent has, no can it fail to go off, regardless of how many warp charge you throw at it. There's a reason you've all but banned even the chance at getting invis, why let 'Crons have it virtually for free? Not to mention it's something you can plan around having it, and IIRC, you can even activate it in your opponents phase, so it doesn't even matter if you don't go 1st unlike invis.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why are destroyers only C1 if there's a stalker?"
Because they become BS 5 preferred enemy so they go from what is a little bette than bs 5 to BS10 essentially.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but destroyers are pretty boss even without the stalker. How they're not comped and penitent engines are I cannot fathom. T5 JSJ relentless 2 wound platforms with either S5 AP3 or lascannons are rough even on a non comped army, let alone one run with the limitations that have been put in place under your comp system.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: the rest of your questions might be worth raising with us as feedback that we might consider changes from rather than holes of problems.
Whatever you think might be wrong with the system, it is very well tested and has been in use for a year in australia. It works and works well.
Victorian masters last year used it with a special mission pack that we provide. It has historically been a no comp event but used community comp with no comp score but capped players at 14 credits.
The ballance from CC plus the ballancing effect of the mission pack made it the best and most ballanced 40k any of us had ever played. We had a resounding positive responses from everyone who attended.
Please consider this as feedback raised then. I genuinely am interested in how you're going to comp the new Eldar codex, and if certain units are simply banned.
Is there any intention to have positive comp for terrible units like Mutilators, or is that also just encouraging abuse?
And now you're completely ignoring the main point of my criticism: that it over-penalizes units/armies that don't deserve a penalty.
Im not ignoring that at all dude i am just telling you like i have from my first post that people often have the same perspective you do and it disappears quickly when they actually start making armies and playing within the system. I understand your perspective, i really do i have even been there myself looking at a new system and having strong disagreement with an idea, thinking it is laden with problems. But the proof is when you sit down and actually put it too the test that you find out how it really is. Sometimes your right and the idea is bad but we have been shedding off bad ideas for 2 years now and we have a system that actually works.
Its not perfect i dont proclaim that, you may even find a hole but you will be only the second person to do it out of hundreds of players who have tried.
win and get my $100 if I can design a 2000 point army that should cost 6 credits more or 6 credits less than it does under your system. If you disagree and we can't resolve the question by discussion then it will be decided by a forum poll on this site.
well 1850pts really and it has to be an army that has no business being in a comp tournament (that a list that spends say 15 cant reasonably beat) or a list that really should cost 6 credits more than it does. I mean more as well, anyone can just pay Cumulative 2 on valkyries with no guns x times.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: But the proof is when you sit down and actually put it too the test that you find out how it really is.
And, as I said, your system has already been tested in the past. You're using the exact same method as failed comp systems from the past, and repeating the exact same mistakes. Nothing about your system is unique or innovative.
Sometimes your right and the idea is bad but we have been shedding off bad ideas for 2 years now and we have a system that actually works.
Your refusal to accept my challenge for your $100 test is a concession that it doesn't work. You aren't going to accept it because you know I'm absolutely correct when I say that you over-penalize lists that don't deserve comp penalties, and if you do accept it you're going to be sending me $100 a few minutes later.
well 1850pts really and it has to be an army that has no business being in a comp tournament (that a list that spends say 15 cant reasonably beat) or a list that really should cost 6 credits more than it does.
And once again you're completely ignoring the main point of my criticism: that you over-penalize armies that don't deserve comp penalties. You're obsessively focused on how your system excludes every overpowered army and completely neglecting the other half of the problem. And that other half of the problem is just as bad.
I mean more as well, anyone can just pay Cumulative 2 on valkyries with no guns x times.
And that means that your system is broken. If you have to claim that certain things "don't count" then you've admitted that your system can't handle the situation.
Before we all proceed we should take a moment to understand that all armies should be spending some credits, an average army spends between 8 and 12 credits.
A unit having a cost isnt a statement that the unit is over powered, It jsut means that there is a way to use that unit that can be difficult for an average army to deal with.
Units Penetent engines are C1. this means that the first unit of 3 is free and the second unit of up to 3 is jsut 1 credit. The third unit of 3 which now makes 9 av11 walkers making 27 hull points that have 2 heavy flamers each and enough attacks to comfortably kill anything short of an imperial knight.
Im not saying they are over powered, not at all. but to run 9 of these is only 3 credits of what might end up being 10 credits. How do you think an army with 30 tactical marines in rhinos would go against this?
You might dissagree but its a reasonable cost for 27 HP of av11
Theres alot to respond to ther Drasius.
First of all what army are you trying to build thats so hard? Have you tried making a post about it on the Community Comp facebook page?
So, if fliers are comped based on survivability rather than damage output, why is the baleflamer 2 more points? It adds nothing to the survivability of the drake, in fact, it makes it a bigger target. By this logic, the vendetta is overcomped since the drake has a 5++ to fall back on against things that ignore cover/jink. Why is a stormtalon costed the same (1 point C2) when 2 HP of 11/11/11 is generally much more fragile compared to 3 HP of 12/12/10 with a 5++?
When was the last time anyone feared anything from a hades drake?
I have missrepresented myself on the topic of fliers, they arent only costed based on thier toughness its jsut a very important consideration.
Nobody is shaking in thier boots from a hades drake sure but its the toughest flier in normal 40k, can hover, vector strike and shoot ok. It will likely see the end of every game and will have killed a few things along the way. Maybe its not worth its credit we will have another look at it.
Vendetta is almost as tough and has 3 TL lascanons, for 190 pts has 2 heavy bolters as well.
A Valk which is a worse flier admittedly for 145 pts shoots a heavy bolter (snapfires the other) a multi laser and 2 S4 large blasts. Its not amazing sure but it is still reasonably good at shooting infantry and is a tough unit to kill. It also transports 10 guys. Sure its worse than a vendetta but its not THAT much worse and its cheaper to boot so we have equated it to be worth its 1.
A storm talon is cheaper again but shoots alot better than the valk hence its cost being the same despite being easier to kill.
Again when you make lists with them it becomes apparent that these costs are about right. We have seen players use all of these fliers in tournaments.
Are you telling me that the ability to DS in 1st turn with terminator troops as bodyguards doesn't qualify for the fast assault ability? What about the ability to fire off vortex before I have even moved with a minimal chance of perils? What about Njal Stormcaller? He's a lvl 3 IIRC and his codex most certainly has access to fast assault troops, or simply just a glut of lvl 2 rune priests on bike rolling bio. Endurance on (already undercomped) thundercav is not very nice. I'd seriously question that Ahriman is worth 2 comp points either, but that's a seperate discussion.
No we dont call that fast assault unit. Sure it could charge turn 2 but its just infantry. You can move away from them pretty easily, were more referring to units that move 12" in the movement phase.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but destroyers are pretty boss even without the stalker. How they're not comped and penitent engines are I cannot fathom. T5 JSJ relentless 2 wound platforms with either S5 AP3 or lascannons are rough even on a non comped army, let alone one run with the limitations that have been put in place under your comp system.
Actually we have noticed this. we will be changing the costs of some of the necron stuff especially things that buff the reanimate protocols like illuminatoir ceres.
Please consider this as feedback raised then. I genuinely am interested in how you're going to comp the new Eldar codex, and if certain units are simply banned.
Is there any intention to have positive comp for terrible units like Mutilators, or is that also just encouraging abuse?
Oh i am i have already added these points to the discussion list.
Eldar are a hard one but we havent decided to ban anything out of it yet. We really hate banning things i cant stress that enough, if we can find a way to cost around a problem we do but banning is a last resort.
We should have a beta version out for critisizem in the next 3 or 4 days.
Its something we had discussed at the start positive comp and it really is a dangerous thing to do. The quality of a unit is very much relative to the context its in you must understand.
Even a terrible unity in an army where the opponent has better things to do than kill it will make a dent. Take say vespid for example. They suck and we all know it but when your opponent has a choice between shooting vespid in cover or 2 dozen battle suits with melta / plasma what are they killing? this means the vespid manage to get in there and kill those Marines that they wouldnt before. So if you can take 30 vespid and gain say 3 credits you could jam in another 6 battle suits or another riptide etc.
You have added a bad unit but your army got better for it. and maybe cheaper.
Space marine Scout bikes are pretty crap but whats better a unit of Space marine bikes with a Libby on bike or a unit of scout bikes with a chapter master on bike?
This is actually one of the holes that is exploitable under a pannel comp system. You dont see this but a pannel judge has 50 lists to comp and a life to live, they spend about 2 mins, on each list or they go mad so they are looking for red and green flags.
A red flag is a unit they have put in the good box and when they see it thats a tick
When they see a unit they think is really bad they take a tick off.
not everyone does it exactly like this and alot of people probably do it without realising but thats whats going on. Deliberately exploiting this is how i managed to get away with the filth i did all through 5th and 6th edition.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Before we all proceed we should take a moment to understand that all armies should be spending some credits, an average army spends between 8 and 12 credits.
And this is a problem. If every army is suffering about 50% of the possible comp penalties then it's a sign that you're imposing too many comp penalties.
A unit having a cost isnt a statement that the unit is over powered, It jsut means that there is a way to use that unit that can be difficult for an average army to deal with.
Anything can be used in a way that is difficult to deal with, unless it's such a terrible unit that taking it cripples your chances of winning. By this standard you have to impose comp penalties on 90% of the game, which makes your comp scoring meaningless.
How do you think an army with 30 tactical marines in rhinos would go against this?
Pretty well given that the 30 marines in Rhinos are not the entire army. You're going to have tanks, devastator squads, etc. And if you're taking an army of nothing but tactical marines in Rhinos then you have only yourself to blame.
And, as I said, your system has already been tested in the past. You're using the exact same method as failed comp systems from the past, and repeating the exact same mistakes. Nothing about your system is unique or innovative.
got a link to a system which has done exactly what we have done? i would like to see it because everyone i have seen try has failed because of one of these things.
Not enough transparency aggravates players
Sweeping rules that cover 90% of cases perfectly and fail on the outliers
They have overestimated the depth of thier own experience and not calibrated for bias
They have failed to understand some complex but fundamental effects in the game
i have seen them fail and learned from them so we wont make those mistakes.
Your refusal to accept my challenge for your $100 test is a concession that it doesn't work. You aren't going to accept it because you know I'm absolutely correct when I say that you over-penalize lists that don't deserve comp penalties, and if you do accept it you're going to be sending me $100 a few minutes later.
Im not refusing to accept the challenge man i issued it. the challenge is make an 1850 list that jams a no comp list into 20 credits or make a list that should cost 6 credits or more than it actually does. Obviously you are at the mercy of my honour but i am a man of my word and ill asses it honestly.
And that means that your system is broken. If you have to claim that certain things "don't count" then you've admitted that your system can't handle the situation.
The system just doesnt cater for armies that are deliberately built to be bad.
And this is a problem. If every army is suffering about 50% of the possible comp penalties then it's a sign that you're imposing too many comp penalties.
Why? why is this a sign that we adding too many costs? Theres a bell curve dude, the first standard deviation is between 8 and 12, the second is beteween 6 and 14. We need somewhere to go to seperate the scoring of harder and softer armies.
Pretty well given that the 30 marines in Rhinos are not the entire army. You're going to have tanks, devastator squads, etc. And if you're taking an army of nothing but tactical marines in Rhinos then you have only yourself to blame.
So is the sisters... 9 engines is just over 700 pts man thers a some immolators, a bunch of sisters some jump pack girls and celestine whatever you want theres an army there to go with it.
The point is the marines HAVE to kill the engines before bad things happen which makes the rest of the army harder to handle, the kind of army that takes 30 tac marines is likely to have trouble with it. So we gave it a measly 3 credits cost.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: got a link to a system which has done exactly what we have done?
No, I'm not going to dig up old tournament rules from 2010, if they even still exist anywhere.
i have seen them fail and learned from them so we wont make those mistakes.
Except you haven't learned anything because you're still making the exact same mistakes:
1) You're over-penalizing lots of random stuff that isn't a balance problem.
2) You're punishing people after the game is over and the player with the weaker list has had their experience ruined instead of working to fix balance issues before the game (adjusting point costs, changing special rules, etc).
Im not refusing to accept the challenge man i issued it. the challenge is make an 1850 list that jams a no comp list into 20 credits or make a list that should cost 6 credits or more than it actually does. Obviously you are at the mercy of my honour but i am a man of my word and ill asses it honestly.
And yet again you keep ignoring my point: you're obsessively focusing on the "I ban all the powerful stuff" aspect of the challenge and ignoring my "you also over-penalize weak lists" criticism. My whole point is that your challenge is one where you've set the conditions so that you are almost guaranteed to win and you don't have to worry about the biggest weakness of your system. And the fact that you're afraid to expand your challenge to include finding a list that should have a much lower score than your comp system gives it is a concession that you know your system mis-scores lists in that direction.
The system just doesnt cater for armies that are deliberately built to be bad.
Then your system is broken. If a deliberately bad list isn't getting an appropriate comp score then it means that your comp scores are not based on the actual strength of the list you're evaluating. A working system should provide accurate scores for everything from the most blatantly overpowered list to a list that has no hope of winning.
PS: taking multiple Valkyries without gun upgrades is hardly "deliberately built to be bad", it's just valuing the transport capacity more than the guns.
Why? why is this a sign that we adding too many costs? Theres a bell curve dude, the first standard deviation is between 8 and 12, the second is beteween 6 and 14. We need somewhere to go to seperate the scoring of harder and softer armies.
The point is that if most armies are scoring approximately a 10 and virtually every army is at least a 6 then a score of 6 is effectively the "zero" on your scale. Deleting most of the comp penalties would simplify the system and have no real effect on the scoring, since everyone would just shift downward by ~6 points. The 8/20 and 20/20 would still have the same relative penalty, it would just be scored as 0/12 and 12/12 with a much shorter and simpler list of penalties to keep track of.
The point is the marines HAVE to kill the engines before bad things happen
Bad things like what? They're melee-only threats with weak AV, and even once they finally get into range even tactical marines have a decent chance of killing them with krak grenades before they can attack. They're a mediocre distraction unit at best, and giving them any comp penalty is a joke. This just highlights the problem with your system: anything that is even remotely effective gets a comp penalty, and "comp penalty" loses all meaning. It's no longer about penalizing the most overpowered stuff, it's about ensuring that every army has at least 10 comp penalties applied to it.
1) You're over-penalizing lots of random stuff that isn't a balance problem.
2) You're punishing people after the game is over and the player with the weaker list has had their experience ruined instead of working to fix balance issues before the game (adjusting point costs, changing special rules, etc).
This is absolustely something we do not want to do. Changing special rules/adjusting points cost is changing the game, not balancing it, and would be met with even more backlash.
The system just doesnt cater for armies that are deliberately built to be bad.
Then your system is broken. If a deliberately bad list isn't getting an appropriate comp score then it means that your comp scores are not based on the actual strength of the list you're evaluating. A working system should provide accurate scores for everything from the most blatantly overpowered list to a list that has no hope of winning.
In a way what you say is fair, but again, it simply can't work that way. We have to allocate credits to units that are used to their potential. That's like a player saying "Yes, I have Fateweaver and Grimoire and 10 screamers, but I'm not going to use the grimoire on the screamers, and I promise I won't use the reroll on getting grimoire off"
It is at a player's own discretion to play badly, everybody makes mistakes, we can't not comp a unit because somebody might make a mistake in using it.
Why? why is this a sign that we adding too many costs? Theres a bell curve dude, the first standard deviation is between 8 and 12, the second is beteween 6 and 14. We need somewhere to go to seperate the scoring of harder and softer armies.
The point is that if most armies are scoring approximately a 10 and virtually every army is at least a 6 then a score of 6 is effectively the "zero" on your scale. Deleting most of the comp penalties would simplify the system and have no real effect on the scoring, since everyone would just shift downward by ~6 points. The 8/20 and 20/20 would still have the same relative penalty, it would just be scored as 0/12 and 12/12 with a much shorter and simpler list of penalties to keep track of.
A common issue when people first look at the system is that people automatically get into the mindset that paying a credit is a penalty. This is not really accurate. We expect most lists to average between 8-12 credits. That is our baseline. Lists that come in below average, are therefore likely to be scoring 0-4 points. Again, spending points is not a penalty, we expect] players to be spending credits. It's the mindset that 'must try and remain at 0 credits' that really makes it hard.
How about this? Come up with 5 lists, run them through the systme, and post them with their Community Comp credit score. That way, we can all objectively assess whether those lists seem accurate in their credits in relation to each other. That is the important bit, because so far, all you're saying is 'x unit costs a credits, and I don't think it should" when you post whole lists, the full picutre starts to get filled in.
JBrehaut wrote: This is absolustely something we do not want to do. Changing special rules/adjusting points cost is changing the game, not balancing it, and would be met with even more backlash.
Adding new rules for comp scoring is changing the game. If you can't even admit that you're changing the game then your plan is hopelessly broken.
In a way what you say is fair, but again, it simply can't work that way. We have to allocate credits to units that are used to their potential. That's like a player saying "Yes, I have Fateweaver and Grimoire and 10 screamers, but I'm not going to use the grimoire on the screamers, and I promise I won't use the reroll on getting grimoire off"
It is at a player's own discretion to play badly, everybody makes mistakes, we can't not comp a unit because somebody might make a mistake in using it.
You completely missed the point there. Nothing in that exchange was about using units badly once the game begins, it was purely about the contents of a list. If your comp system can't handle "deliberately bad" lists then it is not a functioning system. The units are all there in the army list for everyone to see.
And in this specific example it's trivially easy to fix. The other guy claimed that a list that spams Valkyries with no gun upgrades to accumulate a high comp score is "deliberately bad" and beyond the scope of tournament comp scoring. But all you have to do to fix the problem is to have the Valkyrie be worth 1 comp point by itself, and another 1 comp point for the rocket pod upgrade.
A common issue when people first look at the system is that people automatically get into the mindset that paying a credit is a penalty.
Of course it's a penalty. If you have a 10/20 comp score you lose 50% of the comp points. Other players with a lower penalty will lose a lower percentage of those points. If you take a more powerful list you lose more than 50% of the points. The ideal outcome is to find a zero-penalty list that is as overpowered as possible and win all of your games with a full (or close to full) comp score. I don't know how you can pretend that this is anything but a penalty.
How about this? Come up with 5 lists, run them through the systme, and post them with their Community Comp credit score. That way, we can all objectively assess whether those lists seem accurate in their credits in relation to each other. That is the important bit, because so far, all you're saying is 'x unit costs a credits, and I don't think it should" when you post whole lists, the full picutre starts to get filled in.
Why should I do your work for you? You're the one proposing a system and trying to convince people that it isn't a stupid idea like every similar comp system in the past. If my complaints about your scoring system aren't valid then provide some example lists with the context that makes those "weak" units so powerful that they need a comp penalty.
HS:
Penitent Engines x 3 240
Penitent Engines x 3 240, 1 Comp Point
Penitent Engines x 3 240, 2 Comp Points
Having 55+ models, 1 Comp Point
20/20 Comp used or otherwise a "zero" comp list.
If I were to actually bring that list to any of your comp events, I'd be laughed off the table. Yet according to your comp scoring, I'd be at all 20 credits spent and 0 for tournament points. And you don't see this as a problem with how your comp system "works"?
1) You're over-penalizing lots of random stuff that isn't a balance problem.
2) You're punishing people after the game is over and the player with the weaker list has had their experience ruined instead of working to fix balance issues before the game (adjusting point costs, changing special rules, etc).
This is absolustely something we do not want to do. Changing special rules/adjusting points cost is changing the game, not balancing it, and would be met with even more backlash.
And ultimately, that's the problem. To really *fix* the balance, you'd really have to change points costs and rules.
Fundamentally, it has to be accepted that GW isn't designing rules according to any sort of "balance" criteria, and that a balanced, tactical wargame is not what GW is setting out to create. If that's what you want from the game, then changes *must* be made. Otherwise you're just dressing up a turd or putting a bandaid on a skull fracture.
You completely missed the point there. Nothing in that exchange was about using units badly once the game begins, it was purely about the contents of a list. If your comp system can't handle "deliberately bad" lists then it is not a functioning system. The units are all there in the army list for everyone to see.
But who is building a deliberately bad list? and if they are doing that can they really expect to win anything? If they cant expect to win anything why does thier comp score matter?
Truth its its completely irrelevant because the good players who try will build lists that fit thier play style and tune them over the course of games to work nicely.
Evil lamp 6. That list has deliberately wasted credits but if you dropped even just 1 ministorum priest from that list you save 6 credits making the list s 14/20 which is actually a playable comp score.
If you dropped a second priest which is realistically not needed for anything and added in the wargear thing that lets priests in a unit auto pass thier battle hymns you save a further 4 credts making the list a 10/20 which is quite honestly a decent comp score.
Those 10 credits if you consult the table in the document earn you 70% of the available comp score. In a standard 5 round event where you can earn 20 pts per round that should be about 50 points available for comp so you earn 35 of them.
Now you may say but thats a very bad army. Allow me to share with you a few armies that have been getting played in events. Now these lists look like they would probably take the upper hand against the sisters but remember these are tournament lists and the sisters was a deliberately bad one.
Primary Detachment – Dark Eldar Combined Arms Detachment
Succubus Armour of Misery, Haywire Grenades, Archite Glaive, Agoniser
5 Warriors, Blaster, Syrabite with Haywire Grenades, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Blaster, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Blaster, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Blaster, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
Razorwing Jetfighter 2 Dark Lances, Splinter Cannon
Razorwing Jetfighter 2 Dark Lances, Splinter Cannon
Ravager 3 Dark Lances
Ravager 3 Dark Lances
Ravager 3 Dark Lances
Formation Detachment – Dark Eldar (Haemonculus Covens) Grotesquerie (540 pts)
Haemonculus Scissorhand
4 Grotesques, Aberration with Scissorhand, Raider with Nightshield
4 Grotesques, Aberration with Scissorhand, Raider with Nightshield
Credits total: 9
10 Splinter Cannons: 3
17 Lances: 3
Razorwing Jetfighter cumulative points: 2
Grotesque units under 5 in an army with Raiders cumulative points: 1
Total credits 8
2 from 116 models
6 from fleshhounds
Herald of Khorne lesser Reward lesser Reward , Exalted Locus of Wrath , Juggernaut
Herald of Khorne lesser Reward lesser Reward , Exalted Locus of Wrath , Juggernaut
Herald of Khorne lesser Reward lesser Reward , Exalted Locus of Wrath , Juggernaut
Paddlepop Lion wrote: If they cant expect to win anything why does thier comp score matter?
Because it's a test of how well your system works. If your system is evaluating lists accurately then it should provide the correct score for any list, regardless of what chances of winning it has. If there are legal lists where it provides a score that isn't even close to correct then there must be major flaws. All you're doing is blindly guessing at an appropriate score and getting lucky in some cases.
That list has deliberately wasted credits but if you dropped even just 1 ministorum priest from that list you save 6 credits making the list s 14/20 which is actually a playable comp score.
And yet again you admit that there are serious problems with your system.
1) There shouldn't be any such thing as "wasted credits". If there is a situation where a unit causes a comp penalty but doesn't provide any benefit then your system is broken.
2) If dropping one model from that list changes the score from "maximum penalty, borderline WAACTFG" to "a little over average" without having any significant effect on the list's strength (and no, that single priest is not a major loss) then your system is broken. Either it's scoring it way too high with the priest included, or way too low with the priest removed.
Look i get your point but its not the aim of the system to generate an exactly correct score for every army no matter what it is but NO system does that not even a pannel of judges.
The aim of the system is to create a balanced and competitive metagame wherein players make armies with the intention that it is as good as it can be for the lowest cost it can be while still behaving the way the player wants it to.
We have made the system so when players do this they revive an accurate score and it works very well and an awe full lot better than any other system any of us have seen.
One fail point for comp systems is that all the players are trying to find a way to get more power into a list for non higher score. they want to find the "best army" and players tend to be very good at this. I have yet to meet a system that isnt community comp i cant gain relevant advantage from by doing this.
The thing thats different about this system is that it is made to deliberately stop players who are gaming the system from building more powerfull armies. In fact the system motivates them to run softer armies around 5-7.
When your not trying to spam a particular unit type or jam or run some insane list of all ministorum priests then its not only quite accurate but players dont run into situations where they have to pay 5 credits for a 25 pt model.
What this does is encourage varied, medium strength lists to be played by the power gamers and top table players so all the less experienced or fluff centric players have less powerful lists to play against and they have more fun.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Look i get your point but its not the aim of the system to generate an exactly correct score for every army no matter what it is but NO system does that not even a pannel of judges.
Yes, which is why comp is a stupid idea. Point-based systems like yours don't provide accurate evaluations of list strength, and judged systems inevitably turn into "my friends get full points, everyone else gets a zero". The solution is to stop repeating the same old mistakes people have tried in the past and admit that comp doesn't work. Once you've stopped trying the broken approaches to fixing the game you can do it the right way: by modifying unit rules/point costs/etc to fix the worst overpowered stuff.
We have made the system so when players do this they revive an accurate score and it works very well and an awe full lot better than any other system any of us have seen.
Except they don't receive an accurate score, as we've demonstrated. Your system frequently over-penalizes stuff that isn't a balance issue.
One fail point for comp systems is that all the players are trying to find a way to get more power into a list for non higher score. they want to find the "best army" and players tend to be very good at this. I have yet to meet a system that isnt community comp i cant gain relevant advantage from by doing this.
Again, this is why comp is a stupid idea. It bans some things, but it still has the same end result of players taking the most powerful possible lists. All comp does is change which units those lists contain.
The thing thats different about this system is that it is made to deliberately stop players who are gaming the system from building more powerfull armies. In fact the system motivates them to run softer armies around 5-7.
That's not different at all. Your system is literally a copy of previous failed systems, with the specific penalties updated for the new codices. I'm starting to suspect you're really new to 40k. Were you playing back in 5th edition? Are you familiar with the comp systems that were used back then (and then abandoned because everyone finally realized that comp sucks)?
When your not trying to spam a particular unit type or jam or run some insane list of all ministorum priests then its not only quite accurate but players dont run into situations where they have to pay 5 credits for a 25 pt model.
And there you go again, admitting that your system is broken. If something as simple as bringing lots of priests breaks your scoring formula and causes it to provide a laughably wrong score then your method is broken. A proper evaluation method does not require this constant list of disclaimers about what lists you aren't supposed to attempt to score. It just gives you an appropriate score no matter what the list is. Let's make this nice and simple:
The correct answer: "well, I guess our cumulative penalty for priests is too high and we need to fix it. Also, we should probably reevaluate our general approach to cumulative penalties and limit them to the worst spam problems instead of applying them to half the units in the game."
The wrong answer: "it's your fault for putting too many priests into your list, you need to make sure you only attempt to score lists that are designed to produce an accurate score."
What this does is encourage varied, medium strength lists to be played by the power gamers and top table players so all the less experienced or fluff centric players have less powerful lists to play against and they have more fun.
Except that's not all it does. It reduces the overall power level of the metagame, but it over-penalizes stuff that isn't a problem. So yeah, that fluff player might not have to face the worst Eldar tournament abomination, but they're still not going to be having much fun when their weak "fluff" list gets a 20/20 score because your system is broken. That is, if they can use it at all. A fluffy Elysian drop troops list, for example, would be well over the 20 point limit in an 1850 point game and banned entirely.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: First of all what army are you trying to build thats so hard? Have you tried making a post about it on the Community Comp facebook page?
A CSM list, though part of that is because I'm limited by the models I own, part is limited by models which are painted and part is limited by the theme I want for my army in conjunction with conversions I'd like to show off. It's more a case of me dealing with the chaos dex not having any actual cohesion or synergy and one of the reasons I chose to attend Terracon was that I might actually not get stomped off the table in a handful of turns just for taking chaos since it's a comp environment.
That's not really anything to do with the things I feel are wrong with the comp system you guys have though, it just appears to me that those things I mentioned stand out as ... inconsistancies ... with regards to the other things which are comped. There's still a bunch of terrible units that will rarely see the light of day, and that makes me sad.
If you have an inconsistent comp system then it isn't balancing the game, it is just changing what the meta is.
And I agree with peregine on just changing the units points instead. You're already changing rules in the game by modifying how you build army lists with comp points it shouldn't be a problem to change other rules. The problem with comp points is you are basically fixing a broken abstracting pointing system by creating a second abstract point system to balance it. It is easier to just work with the one system and unit point costs is more "tangible".
Anything in the game can be balanced with the appropriate points cost. A unit as bad as lets say Mutilators would be broken if they only cost 5pts/per and a unit as overpowered as the new Wraithknight would be awful if it cost 1500 pts. There is a happy medium for every unit and if everything in the game had this happy medium for their points cost the game would be balanced.
I have been playing since the blood angels release of 5th ed i cant remember when that was exactly but im certainly not new.
You keep saying that we dont accurately score armies and then keep ignoring me when i say you need to actually try building armies to understand that it does in fact work.
Its totally fine if you disagree with the fundamental idea of comp, personally i dont like it either and would far rather that the game was just balanced and fair out of the box.
The game would be far better if we could band together as a community and re write the rules to fix them and everyone accept that new authority but that isnt going to ever happen. We all have our own different opinions of how the game should be and when someone makes a set of house rules then people generally find one thing they dislike from amongst them and get all angry and wont have a bar of it.
A comp system is something that players might not love but they will tolerate and with the game being what it is now, especially with the new eldar there are lots of people who want one.
I know you would rather believe im a noob or delusional when i say it works because it goes against your preconceived idea that comp is a waste of time and that because a system similar has failed before this one will suffer the same fate but it wouldn't have taken so well as it has in Australia if it wasnt at least better than other comp systems do.
Dude the daemon list you posted is broken. it is just spamming the same two units (demonettes + Flesh Hounds w/ herald) in triplicate and happens to have a pink horror squad. I use a list like this in uncomped games and wreck face. Plus someone already posted the SoB army that is max comp but pretty much unplayable (and Penitent Engines are bad. They are slow, open-topped rhinos how can people not deal with them). These are both examples of this comp system failing to adequately balance their codexes.
I know you would rather believe im a noob or delusional when i say it works because it goes against your preconceived idea that comp is a waste of time and that because a system similar has failed before this one will suffer the same fate but it wouldn't have taken so well as it has in Australia if it wasnt at least better than other comp systems do.
No one here has accused you of being a noob or inexperienced. All I've seen are people posting criticisms of the comp system (if perhaps a bit too aggressively). If you're going to get defensive about it and just shut out everyone by saying "you're just have a bad first impression" then why are you even here?
Also just because a bunch of people are playing it doesn't mean you can't make it better. You should always be striving to fine tune any rules system.
I know you would rather believe im a noob or delusional when i say it works because it goes against your preconceived idea that comp is a waste of time and that because a system similar has failed before this one will suffer the same fate but it wouldn't have taken so well as it has in Australia if it wasnt at least better than other comp systems do.
Victoria, 1 tournament in SA, Qld and the ACT - I would hardly call that taken so well.
Even on WargamerAU, there had been alot of discussion how the comp council says that they are looking for feedback, and when feedback is given its shut down as the council has 'better' ideas. Apparantly under the system; 55 Termagaunts are comped the same as 55 marines (but its ok, because you have an 'expert' Tyranid Player on the council who says that both horde and MC lists are OP.)
Banning the Stompa, but Imperial Knights are fine?
The Khorne Daemonpack is lol worthy - Khorne Spawn; yep - totally OP; better hit them a point.
Also; limiting the detachments/formations (ie 1 detachment and 1 formation, or two formations.) is abit overkill isnt it?
Ok. So just going to pause for a sec. as far as i am aware the US seem to be fairly anti comp. So i am not really surprised that there is negative feedback here. So i want to give you some stats.
In australia the tournament attendance has dropped significantly since 6th edition dropped and tournaments ran no comp. We had massive drop outs of players due to the arms race that is 40k. Regardless of if you like comp or dont like comp in australia players have stopped showing up to no comp events and the events running community comp have been increasing in numbers.
Biggest event in the state of South Australia called terracon had 75ish players at the end of 5th. Then 6th dropped and the scene began to die. It was 50ish players for the next 3 years. The TO for terracon ran community comp last year, we got great feedback and this year it has 100 players signed up. Players that are attending these events are enjoying it.
Canberra's biggest event runs community comp. And almost every event in victoria and south australia has been running community comp. Players are getting back into the game for a number of reasons.
1. Rightly or wrongly people know the score their army will get before they rock up.
2. Army variety has been amazing. Units that you never previously saw at events are being used.
3. BS armies arent in attendance.
Now we do ask for feedback and we do alter the system where appropriate based on feedback. We dont believe we are infallible. What becomes difficult though is when people new to the system pick a handful of units in a vacuum and not in context of armies.
What we are more interested in is what armies you feel are under costed. What armies do you believe are slipping under the community comp radar. The sisters of battle list deliberately tried to hit 20 comp credits and it was over costed. Paddlepop lion is serios about the $100 voucher. The first person to write a list that is UNDER costed by 6 credits or more then you will win a voucher. Anything less than that is hardly broken. It may require tweaks, but hardly broken.
basically in australia we use comp, in the US you dont. We tried not using it and our tournament scene died...
I'd ask if you realised that Vic is not the only place in Aus, but then, your statement speaks for itself. In Australia we use comp? Get over yourself mate.
Biggest event in the state of South Australia called terracon had 75ish players at the end of 5th. Then 6th dropped and the scene began to die. It was 50ish players for the next 3 years. The TO for terracon ran community comp last year, we got great feedback and this year it has 100 players signed up. Players that are attending these events are enjoying it.
My first big tournament in 5th had almost 200people playing. The same tournament in 7th, with eavily modified with missions, and rules changes and ETC-like comp system. Had under 60 players.
Or an even better example. Non comp WFB did not exist in europe. It was in fact a different game in many senses, with cut slots, banned stuff, spell changes, banned teclis etc.
And it still didn't stop WFB from being dead .
I want to add my 2 cents because I was originally really opposed to this system. In general, I think math comp is a dumb idea that doesn't work at all, it just changes what's filth. For that reason I was really down on community comp. Thought it was a terrible idea being implemented by a bunch of power gamers who didn't understand what comp was really about.
Recently I've done a complete 180 and think its a great idea. I don't play 40k much these days and so don't have my finger on the pulse of whats filth and what isn't anymore, so when I throw a list together I usually check out its CC score to see whether I've accidental created a monster.
Tournaments are starting to pick it up. GROTs is using it next weekend, and it works.
As difsta says, flawed or not, it's having the desired effect. List diversity is up, people aren't bringing filth and the comp system is transparent.
Is it perfect? Almost certainly not, but the team doing it have stuck by their guns and continue to tweak it and modify it to make it work based on their experiences.
I think it's important to note that nothing is costed in a vacuum, everything is considered in terms of combos, allies and all the filthy possibilities that go along with that.
Comp is only good for books like eldar or necron. where you have 6+ units to pick from. A necron player can take 2 units of immortals 2 of warriors 1 scyth , 1 barrge etc. What is a nid player suppose to do? take 1 tyrant ? why play nids at all then. But at least a nid player will still have non comp games to have fun. What about those with bad or weak armies like IG?
1 unit of vets , 1 wyvern . Can't even task a paskinator because it is hits comp like a hammer. At the same time the eldar player has to "hurt" his list by taking jetbikes, DAs and guardians for backfield.
Drasius wrote: I'd ask if you realised that Vic is not the only place in Aus, but then, your statement speaks for itself. In Australia we use comp? Get over yourself mate.
Lol. Not sure what state you are from. but name 1 state in australia which has successfully managed to keep a no comp tournament scene running without a drastic decline in tournament attendance outside of WA which has never really played comp tourneys.
Every state that has done it has had numbers drop. Every single one...
Victoria, 1 tournament in SA, Qld and the ACT - I would hardly call that taken so well.
Even on WargamerAU, there had been alot of discussion how the comp council says that they are looking for feedback, and when feedback is given its shut down as the council has 'better' ideas. Apparantly under the system; 55 Termagaunts are comped the same as 55 marines (but its ok, because you have an 'expert' Tyranid Player on the council who says that both horde and MC lists are OP.)
There are like 3 potatoes on WargamerAU with a chip on thier shoulder because they had some bad ideas that we didn't go with.
Truth is we have made dozens of changes to the system as a result of feedback from the community.
Its not called community comp for show. We recognise that no one person or small group of people can ever have enough experience to get it all right and so we are constantly probing the community for feedback
Also its almost every event in Victoria and south Australia not just 1 in SA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote: Comp is only good for books like eldar or necron. where you have 6+ units to pick from. A necron player can take 2 units of immortals 2 of warriors 1 scyth , 1 barrge etc. What is a nid player suppose to do? take 1 tyrant ? why play nids at all then. But at least a nid player will still have non comp games to have fun. What about those with bad or weak armies like IG?
1 unit of vets , 1 wyvern . Can't even task a paskinator because it is hits comp like a hammer. At the same time the eldar player has to "hurt" his list by taking jetbikes, DAs and guardians for backfield.
The como stick doesn't really hit like a hammer, remember that average armies spend between 8 and 12.
Nids have heaps of options you just have think in terms of softer meta game. Tyranid warriors are viable in this Format
Back in the day Australia was all about comp; then the Hammer House successfully argues for no comp saying it will increase variety. Then net lists and overpowered filth starts to perminate the Tournament scene. Then the same guys who destroyed the tournament scene come up with a comp system that 'saves' all of Australia?
Please.
The tournament scene in Aus went fine with peer and panel comp previously.
ANU in the ACT increased its numbers when it went no comp but bounced unfair lists; but that's not because of the comp system. It's because 7th is a very fun game if you stop the slow lists from coming.
Community Comp is ok, but it's not the saving grace of the Tournament scene. Cancon Competitive , which ran the Community Comp had its lowest numbers in the past 10yrs
Paddlepop Lion wrote: You keep saying that we dont accurately score armies and then keep ignoring me when i say you need to actually try building armies to understand that it does in fact work.
And you keep saying "build some armies" as if it magically wipes away all of the examples of situations where your scoring method gives the wrong answer.
The game would be far better if we could band together as a community and re write the rules to fix them and everyone accept that new authority but that isnt going to ever happen. We all have our own different opinions of how the game should be and when someone makes a set of house rules then people generally find one thing they dislike from amongst them and get all angry and wont have a bar of it.
How is this any different from banding the community together to change the rules and add a comp system? Your approach has all of the same problems as doing it the right way, the only difference is that your approach doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
difsta wrote: What we are more interested in is what armies you feel are under costed. What armies do you believe are slipping under the community comp radar. The sisters of battle list deliberately tried to hit 20 comp credits and it was over costed. Paddlepop lion is serios about the $100 voucher. The first person to write a list that is UNDER costed by 6 credits or more then you will win a voucher. Anything less than that is hardly broken. It may require tweaks, but hardly broken.
And yet again you keep ignoring the fact that giving overpowered lists a score that is too low is only half of the problem. Giving weak lists a score that is way too high is an equally serious problem. It unfairly punishes people who bring weaker lists and become collateral damage of your obsession with making sure every powerful unit is penalized, and it proves that your method is completely broken. Let's make this nice and simple:
Consider a comp system as a black box. You put a list into the box, and out comes a number that represents the power of the list on a scale from 0 to infinite. It doesn't matter what is inside the box, all we care about is the final result. Now to test it we generate some lists, decide what their score should be, and put them into the box.
If the stuff in the black box is accurately evaluating lists then every list should get a score that matches the correct answer (+/- a small margin because opinions on list strength are kind of subjective). Every deliberately weak list should get a 0/20, every mid-level list should get around a 10/20, and every blatantly overpowered list should get at least a 20/20.
If the stuff in the black box isn't accurately evaluating lists then we should expect to see situations where the output from the box significantly diverges from the correct answer. It might sometimes give the correct answer by sheer luck despite a bad method (for example, by counting the number of red-painted models in the army), but because its evaluation is spectacularly wrong in some cases we know that something is wrong with its method. We might not be able to point to the exact reason (after all, it's a black box), but we know that we can't trust it.
Your comp system is clearly in the second case. We give it a list as input, and we get obviously wrong output. Therefore something is wrong with the method, and any accurate scores are merely the result of blind luck. And you don't get to use blind luck as "proof" that the system works.
Also, it might be interesting to add units and fun gear that actually lower the comp rating. This way we can see rare units and cool stuff more often!
For example, if you take a SAG big mek, substract -1 from your Comp.
If you take Possessed that are not part of formation, substract -1 for every 5 in a squad.
Its natural to come to this idea, most people do but theres a side effect that isnt intuitive.
When you have a big scary unit that your opponent really has to kill urgently they are distracted from attacking some less important units that might also be applying pressure.
Take for example a space marine assault squad with no weapons. Its not a good unit and the opponent can probably kill a few models and then cop a charge from it without a problem.
If you move up the field and run with this assasult squad at the same time as a big unit of Death company with jump packs, characthers and lots of power weapons and melta bombs the opponent really has to focus all thier fire on the death company.
So now rather than arriving to the opponent with the dregs of the death company, maybe its only a couple of models, the characters which look out sired all the wounds jump into the assault squad and make a charge against an important unit at full strength.
in this situation the assault squad was more valuable than it is on paper. If you give the army a credit for running this normally bad unit then they can use that credit to make the big scary unit bigger and more scary for the same comp score. So the army actually gets better for the same comp score.
This isnt obvious so dont feel like im shooting you down here.
To simulate the kind of positive effect of this without the down side we have left basic units that arent a problem free and costed more heavily the units which make mince meat of these bad units.
Stuff like Vespid or Chaos bikers or Shining spears or ork komandos etc etc are all better choices in community comp because the kinds of units they end up having to fight are generally less tough units. All of these units are much better in the format where 30 Tactical marines in rhinos is a decent choice.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: When you have a big scary unit that your opponent really has to kill urgently they are distracted from attacking some less important units that might also be applying pressure.
No, this is a fundamentally broken way of looking at the game. A weak unit might be able to do damage while your opponent is busy dealing with something else, but so would a second powerful unit. In fact, the second powerful unit would do more damage while your opponent is unable to deal with it. Regardless of what else is in your list taking the weak unit is still a weaker choice than taking a stronger alternative.
All of these units are much better in the format where 30 Tactical marines in rhinos is a decent choice.
No they aren't. They're still bad units and will still perform worse than the better alternatives people take in a no-comp game. The only difference is that now you have to decide if you're willing to put up with a terrible unit so that you don't have your shame score reduced. If you say "screw comp scoring, I'm here to win" those neglected units are still trash and will never appear in a list.
Nids have heaps of options you just have think in terms of softer meta game. Tyranid warriors are viable in this Format
how, they are rather bad no matter what the opposing player brings. In fact the nid army is more or less build around delivering, protecting and buffing tyrants. Everything else in it is just a bonus. But am no nid player. I play IG and under the comp it doesn't work at all. It doesn't work under comp either, but with comp it gets even worse, because for some unexplainable reasons taking the medicore unit gets punished. At the same time this doesn't make the realy bad IG units good, worse in some cases trying to take them is punished, Can you explain why wyrd psykers are worth 1 point?
And you keep saying "build some armies" as if it magically wipes away all of the examples of situations where your scoring method gives the wrong answer.
But it actually does and you wont know unless you do it. We dont cost things in a vaccuume we do it in context of the armies they appear in. one thing might seem over costed but then the units that make them work or are compulsory choices in the army cost nothing so when you actually make the army it evens out.
How is this any different from banding the community together to change the rules and add a comp system? Your approach has all of the same problems as doing it the right way, the only difference is that your approach doesn't work.
because the actual game is played the same and the size of the army is still 1850 and with the small exception of the very very few units which are banned the choices players can make are the same. This is an overlay to a wildly unbalanced game that doesn't actually change the game just motivates players to chose to run medium strength armies that will be more inviting to newer players and augment the competitive element.
Consider a comp system as a black box. You put a list into the box, and out comes a number that represents the power of the list on a scale from 0 to infinite. It doesn't matter what is inside the box, all we care about is the final result. Now to test it we generate some lists, decide what their score should be, and put them into the box.
The point you make here is absolutely right. IF ALL you what you want is a black box to accurately score lists regardless of motivation or metagame then Community Comp is not for you.
This however it is not true to say that all CC is. The ultimate aim of it is balanced metagame and it doesn't attempt to go about it by ONLY being the black box. It takes the approach of using the motivations of players to guide them into ballanced and varied lists.
This misunderstanding might be where we are having this disagreement. Were not trying to make a perfect black box but take a more holistic approach to ballaning the game.
No, this is a fundamentally broken way of looking at the game. A weak unit might be able to do damage while your opponent is busy dealing with something else, but so would a second powerful unit. In fact, the second powerful unit would do more damage while your opponent is unable to deal with it. Regardless of what else is in your list taking the weak unit is still a weaker choice than taking a stronger alternative.
sorry you misunderstand me. Im saying that even a bad unit has its day and if you allow even a bad unit to do the one thing it can do competently then it will act like a decent or even good unit rather than a bad one.
No they aren't. They're still bad units and will still perform worse than the better alternatives people take in a no-comp game. The only difference is that now you have to decide if you're willing to put up with a terrible unit so that you don't have your shame score reduced. If you say "screw comp scoring, I'm here to win" those neglected units are still trash and will never appear in a list.
You really are looking at it completely backwards dude. A unit is only good or bad by its context. In a fight between stubborn, lasgun guarsdmen and tactical marines the tactical marines are good and the guardsmen are bad. In a fight between tac marines and a keeper of secrets the tac marines are bad and the KOS is good. In a fight between a KOS and stubborn guardsmen the KOS is bad and the guardsmen are good.
If you dont get this then theres no saving you unfortunately but this is the context in which we have been scoring things. No unit exists in a vacuum and so we score them in context. This is why you need to actually build armies to see how the system works.
one thing might seem over costed but then the units that make them work or are compulsory choices in the army cost nothing so when you actually make the army it evens out.
Is that why tanks, paskinators, wyverns batteries and priest in IG all cost comp points. Because all those units are compulsory for an IG list and even with them IG doesn't get anywhere near even vs necron or eldar or nids
how, they are rather bad no matter what the opposing player brings. In fact the nid army is more or less build around delivering, protecting and buffing tyrants. Everything else in it is just a bonus. But am no nid player. I play IG and under the comp it doesn't work at all. It doesn't work under comp either, but with comp it gets even worse, because for some unexplainable reasons taking the medicore unit gets punished. At the same time this doesn't make the realy bad IG units good, worse in some cases trying to take them is punished, Can you explain why wyrd psykers are worth 1 point?
Your ideas about tyranids stem from how they were before all thier recent updates and how they are under harder metagames.
These days nids are really just fine, theres less S8 now that missile launchers are bad and psyflemen are gone so tyranid warriors are much better than before. 1 or sometimes 2 flyrants will often find thier way into an army sure but they really dont need to. With formations like the skytyrant brood and the death leaper formation there is actuially quite a lot of variety between nid lists under CC.
A tyranid list recently won the Rampage tournament in Victoria. He did have a flyrant but it certainly wasnt he core of his list.
i really dont think guard are bad under CC either, a guard list won Victorian masters last year which was CC Wyverdane psykers are costed because of the deamon summoning ability and thier ability to force a power to go through the opponents deny dice.
Because they are brotherhood of psykers they can deal with taking multiple perils of the warp before they go down. Its been a while now since we reviewed guard so ill put wyverdanes on the discussion list for maybe changing to cost if you have over a certain ammount of warp charge.
Is that why tanks, paskinators, wyverns batteries and priest in IG all cost comp points. Because all those units are compulsory for an IG list and even with them IG doesn't get anywhere near even vs necron or eldar or nids
no all these things are costed because they are really good. Guard have access to a lot of differnt really good tools and the majority of the codex is free.
Nothing in the criticism we've been giving you requires building an army list under those rules, because all of your scores are independent of what else is in your army. If unit X has a comp penalty that is way too high then that's something independent of list building in general. If your choice of comp penalty is appropriate then you should be able to explain why the criticism is inaccurate instead of just saying "I'm right until proven otherwise, go figure out why you're wrong".
And let's not forget that when you were given an example list where your system fails spectacularly in evaluating it you had to hide behind excuses for why it wasn't the right kind of list (where "right kind of list" is apparently defined as "a list where my system works").
because the actual game is played the same
It's also played the same way if you change the point costs for unbalanced units. In fact, changing point costs is exactly what you're doing! Now instead of just having a single point cost a unit has two: its "traditional" point cost (out of 1850, for example), and its comp cost (out of 20).
The point you make here is absolutely right. IF ALL you what you want is a black box to accurately score lists regardless of motivation or metagame then Community Comp is not for you.
IOW, "if you want a comp system that works Community Comp is not for you". Accurate "black box" scoring is a basic requirement for a functioning comp system. If you can't pass this simple test then your system sucks.
Were not trying to make a perfect black box but take a more holistic approach to ballaning the game.
No, you're absolutely using the "black box" method, you're just doing a bad job of it. You aren't changing how the game works/improving rules/etc, you're just assigning each list a shame score and telling people to minimize their shame points or take a penalty on their tournament score. The only difference between your approach and a good "black box" system is that the functioning system motivates players based on accurate evaluations of list strength, while yours attempts to motivate them by throwing darts at a list of potential comp scores.
sorry you misunderstand me. Im saying that even a bad unit has its day and if you allow even a bad unit to do the one thing it can do competently then it will act like a decent or even good unit rather than a bad one.
That's also wrong. Bad units are bad units because they suck on average. Occasionally performing at an adequate level in perfect circumstances and/or with good dice luck doesn't change the fact that it's average performance is much worse. If you can't even understand basic game balance concepts like this then you have no business attempting to create a comp system.
If you dont get this then theres no saving you unfortunately but this is the context in which we have been scoring things. No unit exists in a vacuum and so we score them in context. This is why you need to actually build armies to see how the system works.
And yet again you admit that your system sucks. You claim that you can't evaluate units in isolation, but your system does exactly that. The only time your comp score considers what other units are on the table is when units get a cumulative penalty for taking multiple copies of the same unit. By assigning a fixed penalty to a unit regardless of circumstances you're very clearly stating that you believe that units do exist in a vacuum.
So now I'm starting to wonder: do you keep contradicting yourself because you really don't understand how game balance works, or because you're so desperate to defend your comp system that you'll make any argument that seems to "help" without paying attention to whether it contradicts your other claims?
Nothing in the criticism we've been giving you requires building an army list under those rules, because all of your scores are independent of what else is in your army. If unit X has a comp penalty that is way too high then that's something independent of list building in general. If your choice of comp penalty is appropriate then you should be able to explain why the criticism is inaccurate instead of just saying "I'm right until proven otherwise, go figure out why you're wrong".
This just istn true i can and will explain the costing for everything. I havent hidden behind anything, I said sometimes a unit SEEMS like its costed too highly but in context it is right not sometimes it IS costed to highly.
That's also wrong. Bad units are bad units because they suck on average. Occasionally performing at an adequate level in perfect circumstances and/or with good dice luck doesn't change the fact that it's average performance is much worse. If you can't even understand basic game balance concepts like this then you have no business attempting to create a comp system.
I dont know if we are just failing to communicate or if you cant grasp how all the units on the battlefield contribute to the relative power of each other unit.
If you cant get this idea it shows you arent able to understand the game well enough to actually discuss this constructively.
If you ever developed the want to better understand CC then feel free to ask but right now your actually just attacking it without knowing anything about the system.
You dont understand why but it works and works well. Players in victoria and SA are absolutely sold on it and the rest of australia is warming too it as well.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if the system sucked there wouldnt be so many people gorging on it right now.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: This just istn true i can and will explain the costing for everything. I havent hidden behind anything, I said sometimes a unit SEEMS like its costed too highly but in context it is right not sometimes it IS costed to highly.
Then why haven't you explained it when we've given you examples of bad costs? You've just said "it only seems that way, trust me" and refused to give any convincing explanations.
I dont know if we are just failing to communicate or if you cant grasp how all the units on the battlefield contribute to the relative power of each other unit.
No, you just don't understand what "bad unit" means. If a unit is effective (and I mean legitimately effective, not just "it doesn't suck quite as much") in combination with a second unit then it isn't a bad unit.
If you ever developed the want to better understand CC then feel free to ask but right now your actually just attacking it without knowing anything about the system.
I know all I need to know about it because it's right there in your rules document. It's really not a complicated system, it's just a badly designed one. I know it might be hard to believe, but there are reasons to dislike your work beyond "I haven't studied it enough to understand how awesome it is".
You dont understand why but it works and works well. Players in victoria and SA are absolutely sold on it and the rest of australia is warming too it as well.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if the system sucked there wouldnt be so many people gorging on it right now.
And there were comp-heavy tournaments back in 5th edition and earlier that had lots of players attending them. But comp was still broken, and eventually people finally realized it and stopped using comp scores. When I say that nothing about your system is new I really mean it.
Community Comp is ok, but it's not the saving grace of the Tournament scene. Cancon Competitive , which ran the Community Comp had its lowest numbers in the past 10yrs
This isnt quite accurate Aeon.
Cancon used to be over 100 and by 2014 dropped to 56. 2015 Ran Community comp and had over 60 signed up, 56 ended up turning up. Next year we will get a picture of how well it has taken, this year the organiser received resounding praise from the attendants and according to him only player complain about anything.
Terracon used to hit 127 then by 2014 had dropped down to 54 in 2013. It ran Community comp in 2014 and got 52 but people loved it so much that it sold out this year at 100 players with quite a few on the reserve list.
As I see it, you've made two major mistakes in your comp system:
1. Coming to Dakka promoting a comp system.
2. See #1
Even those of us who liked comp back in the old days understand that it's just not a worthwhile pursuit anymore. 40K is too convoluted and the tournament culture has little tolerance for a third party telling them what they can or can't put in their army. Broken 40K is the new norm: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
the_Armyman wrote: As I see it, you've made two major mistakes in your comp system:
1. Coming to Dakka promoting a comp system.
2. See #1
Even those of us who liked comp back in the old days understand that it's just not a worthwhile pursuit anymore. 40K is too convoluted and the tournament culture has little tolerance for a third party telling them what they can or can't put in their army. Broken 40K is the new norm: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
LOL. +1
Now, seriously:
I went and read through the PDF. First of all, A+ for effort! I think it's pretty neat, and would not mind trying it.
In my mind, there are two barriers to its success. The first, and most important, is ubiquity; until enough people use it, it's hard for players to model their armies using a comp system if they want to be "competitive", unless the other person uses the same system. The second is that it's a little complex, probably too much so for the casual player, who doesn't have a crazy army anyhow.
And then even more laughs when the same arguments were made that have already been said elsewhere with this system... but apparently everyone except for the people in their circle is wrong.
I also find their boast about it taking off all over... The majority of the events in Vic and SA are ran by the same few people or their friends... same with most of the community comp system events that have happened.....
I also did laugh at their post of the FB page when they were boasting about putting a post on the BolS forum saying how great they are....
I get what they are trying to do.. but they are failing at it... Some things on the document are comped correctly other things seemed to be comped for the sake of comping...
I do belive paddlepop owes some people $100 (au so only 75 for you mericans )
HS:
Land Raider 250 4 Comp points
Land Raider 250 6 Comp points
Land Raider 250 8 Comp points
20/20 comp points used, all because Little Timmy happens to like Land Raiders because they are all awesome and stuff! And don't tell him he can't take four Land Raiders because his codex says he can and he really likes the models and that would make him cry! You wouldn't want to make Little Timmy cry now would you?
So yeah, aside from maybe an Ork list that brought absolutely zero Powerclaws, I don't see the above list winning against other hardcore 20/20 comp lists anytime at all (expect maybe my SoB list from earlier).
So there you have it, Little Timmy's list with the stuff he likes in it getting 20/20 on the comp list and losing terribly. But he even brought 30 Tacticals in Rhinos! How could he lose?!?
I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
Sidstyler wrote: I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
These were last codex bikes.. but yes
Also apparently when making these costs they didn't/don't compare to other units from other lists.. because that is silly... >_>
They make up what they think is a 'even' tourney list and then comp off that... >_>
no all these things are costed because they are really good. Guard have access to a lot of differnt really good tools and the majority of the codex is free.
Could you list any corner stones of IG list that aren't a tank or that don't require a vehicles to be transported or a priest to sit inside the unit?
Or is good another word for narrative ?
I also find their boast about it taking off all over... The majority of the events in Vic and SA are ran by the same few people or their friends... same with most of the community comp system events that have happened.....
You have actually jsut made that up... honestly where do you get this from?
Josh diffy and i have run one event each using communty comp, i also ran a few crappy little leagues early on.
We added Eric (who runs terracon) to the group after he had a great success with it at terracon and became very enthusiastic about it.
Just off the top of my head in vic there has been
Rampage, the western smash now 2 years running, the Dog show, Orbital bombardment, Grot Riggers plus others are all events run not by someone on the council and while we know the TOs they arent close mates as you seem to suggest.
In SA i know of a guy Jesse thompson and someone called Ty both running events using community comp that we barely know and theres others i dont hear about.
Evil lamp you probably want to pick a better example because i could quite honestly beat people consistently with that list in the metagame that CC creates.
Its not so good that you would smash people well enough to justify spending that many credits on raiders but lists like that are bad for a comp Metagame. You actually want to discorrage that kind of army because its too polarising. Players who cant deal with land raiders probably get thier ass kicked pretty often and ones that kill them easily smash it off the table.
Our aim is to have a situation where a player can always look across the table and feel like they have at least a chance to win and ridiculous spam like this goes against that.
Could you list any corner stones of IG list that aren't a tank or that don't require a vehicles to be transported or a priest to sit inside the unit?
Or is good another word for narrative ?
I consider the blob squad to be that kind of unit. Doesnt require a priest (its a steal at 1 credit though to chuck one in)
I think Company command squads do jsut fine with a lascannon sittin in the backfield ordering a blob.
I think Sentinels are quite reasonable for the cost in comp
Primaris psykers are exclelent and fit really well in units for an ally.
Bullgryns and ogryns are pretty good in this metagame as well i think, add maybe a space marine charachter and some primaris psykers hoping for endurance and that unit is tough to move and hits reasonabhly hard. (hell get draigo in there for gate even)
I have spent more time combing over tournament lists than probably everyone reading this combined and it really doesnt seem to me that guard have a problem. Keep in mind you can have 3 chimera and 3 other tanks for free, you are likely to hit the 55 model rule once but you can easily run a blob with buffs and you have only hit that 1 credit so far. Throw in Pask and another punisher for 5 credits and Yarrik for your 7th and that list is honestly good for the CC meta
.
I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
OK it seems like thats off because suits are OKAAAY and bikes are awesome right? but make those two things work in an army. i can tell you as an experienced eldar player that 44 bikes is probably too many to manage efficiently. you need warlocks and warp charge to make them really good and some backup combat unit and some long range guns., Your probably pushing it for points and have too much of one kind of firepower.
9 suits is all sorts of different things in a tau army and can be used for heaps of differnt jobs. Maybe 1 or 2 of them are drop melta suits for example which are really handy for stuff like line breaker and tackling crappy scoring units with a flamer and a few gun drones.
the other 6 might be missile suits or plasma suits which do differnt jobes but all of them can take drones and marker lights arent hard to come by. You can add in a commander to one of those untis and suddenly all those 8 maker drones in one unit can fire at BS 5 so the second unit of 3 plasma suits can smash a unit a turn with BS 5 ignore cover and gun drones or something.
Not hard to make those suits do something big and keep in mind we are talking a comp metagame here.so the things they are fighting are alot softer than that of no comp.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Evil lamp you probably want to pick a better example because i could quite honestly beat people consistently with that list in the metagame that CC creates.
Its not so good that you would smash people well enough to justify spending that many credits on raiders but lists like that are bad for a comp Metagame. You actually want to discorrage that kind of army because its too polarising. Players who cant deal with land raiders probably get thier ass kicked pretty often and ones that kill them easily smash it off the table.
Our aim is to have a situation where a player can always look across the table and feel like they have at least a chance to win and ridiculous spam like this goes against that.
I shudder thinking about what lists actually do get played in this comp then. That list was terrible. Aside from the Assault Terminator Squad (with Lightning Claws as opposed to TH/SS!) the Land Raiders are empty. How threatening are empty Land Raiders?!? They are maybe putting a couple of Lascannon shots and Heavy Bolter shots downrange each? And what exactly is going to win the game here, the 3 squads of Tactical Marines in Rhinos? Again I shudder to think that that list would stand a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning in the meta created by this comp. I'm honestly surprised someone doesn't run a good 20/20 comp list and just trounce everyone if lists like that SM one have a fething chance! Please tell me how people are getting their asses kicked by Land Raiders?
That list was garbage. Empty Land Raiders, for their points, are terribly, disastrously bad units.
Empty, for their firepower and armor, they ought to cost in the region of 150ish points, maybe 175 for BS4 and twin-linked on its guns. AV14 just doesn't cut it anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I noticed you cannot field an Adamantium Lance as it would be 21 points.
I shudder thinking about what lists actually do get played in this comp then. That list was terrible. Aside from the Assault Terminator Squad (with Lightning Claws as opposed to TH/SS!) the Land Raiders are empty. How threatening are empty Land Raiders?!? They are maybe putting a couple of Lascannon shots and Heavy Bolter shots downrange each? And what exactly is going to win the game here, the 3 squads of Tactical Marines in Rhinos? Again I shudder to think that that list would stand a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning in the meta created by this comp. I'm honestly surprised someone doesn't run a good 20/20 comp list and just trounce everyone if lists like that SM one have a fething chance! Please tell me how people are getting their asses kicked by Land Raiders?
well they arent that threatening but they arent empy eaither. The tac marines obviously go in them which opens up some pretty interesting tricks.
I know its a differnt kettle of fish entirely to compare the tactics of this army but the fundimentals are still there.
We played in our ATC team for victoria during 6th a dark angels bolter banner list which was something liek this.
Libby termninator
Command squad banner power weapons and FNP
10 scouts
10 scouts
10 tac marines
Death wing crusader raider
Death wing crusader raider
Death wing crusader raider
Fortress of redemption.
So there was quite a lot of tricks with how you used the infantry inside there. You could get them all out and make a circle around them with land raiders and shoot out of a gap at soemthing then when it came time to return fire they couldnt see the infantry.
The small number of power weapons in there was actually huge when the opponent couldnt really kill the raiders, You could charge a unit with them and then turbo boos a raider to cover the unit when it broke out of combat so the enemy couldnt shoot them and you couild set up another assault.
Obviously the list has a prtetty glaring weakness which is infantry, gauss and meltas right.
You pretty mich auto lose to necrons that cant be escaped but even a drop pod list doesnt necessarily get you and shooting the rhino that has some meltas in them so you can assault that unit with tac marines before they melt your raider isnt hard.
8 Tl lascannons an 4 TL heavy bolters when focused will kill stuff and with the shooting from the marines inside i think i could punch the crap out of every non necron scrub at an event and beat up pretty convincingly any good player who didnt have several good units for killing raiders.
Also, I noticed you cannot field an Adamantium Lance as it would be 21 points.
Why not just ban it?
Well we really hate banning stuff and some members of the council while they agreed that ad lance has no place in comp they wanted to avoid using the word banned. I was for it but i was out voted,its no big deal.
I'm thinking it must be good because it costs more than 21 credits, so my tournament points and % available are somewhere in the negatives.
The list is actually impossible for alot of armies to handle. think about the poor space marine player with 30 tacticals. what does he have to do to deal with 3 dimacrons let alone the other MCS running in behind them?
But then you play against Tau or Grey knights and your screwed.
No the list isnt good to bring to a tournament because you will certainly play someone who will smash you but think of poor little timmy who took heaps of necron warriors because last event he had to play against a 4 land raider list and got smashed.
We want to avoid people from meeting thier opponent at the table then having no way they can see to beat the army. Spam ruins that and thats why spamming things costs Cumulative scores and gets more expensive than its worth. to discorrage exactly the kind of crap these lists are.
well they arent that threatening but they arent empy eaither. The tac marines obviously go in them which opens up some pretty interesting tricks.
Denying killpoints is a trick?
We played in our ATC team for victoria during 6th a dark angels bolter banner list which was something liek this.
Do you know that Codex Space Marines dont have a Bolter Banner?
Obviously the list has a prtetty glaring weakness which is infantry, gauss and meltas right.
Not to mentioned being hit from the comp stick
Also, I noticed you cannot field an Adamantium Lance as it would be 21 points.
Why not just ban it?
Well we really hate banning stuff and some members of the council while they agreed that ad lance has no place in comp they wanted to avoid using the word banned. I was for it but i was out voted,its no big deal.
You have banned other stuff; so obviously the 'council' arent afraid to ban things - are you sure you didnt just miscalculate that it exceeded 20pts?
I'm thinking it must be good because it costs more than 21 credits, so my tournament points and % available are somewhere in the negatives.
The list is actually impossible for alot of armies to handle. think about the poor space marine player with 30 tacticals. what does he have to do to deal with 3 dimacrons let alone the other MCS running in behind them?
There are these things called Krak grenades that every Marine has; S6 AP4. As most of the big bugs are slow and are WS3;; the marines hit first on 3's and wound on 4's or 3's depending on the MC and in some cases ignore the army.
Besides, didnt you say that you dont care if the soft armies get hit - as long as it hits the hard armies. So if you punch someone in the face because they took a soft army; that's cool because you are hitting the guys who take a 'hard' army. Unless of course you do stealth cheese.
Is the rules council just based in Victoria? What about the differing meta around the place?
Whats the incentive to take a soft army if it gets hit as hard as a tooled army? Isnt the point of a comp system to punish hard armies and reward soft armies - hitting every army isnt a comp system, its a crimes against 'the council'
Why not do a comp score for armies assuming that they dont ally; that way Sisters dont get slammed (unless of course they want to spam AV11 Walkers with 2 Hull Points; those things are so OP.
As for the Eldar Codex, how much of that will be banned, or will you just mark it as 21pts so you dont need to ban it?
No the list isnt good to bring to a tournament because you will certainly play someone who will smash you but think of poor little timmy who took heaps of necron warriors because last event he had to play against a 4 land raider list and got smashed.
Poor little Timmy? You have already said you dont care about Poor Little Timmy as you assume everyone will try to take hard armies.
You cant claim to ignore the harsly hit soft armies to excuse the poorly thought out scores then lift up poor timmy of why they wouldnt want to allow a poorly thought out army.
Simply put; a 7 credit army should have an equal chance of winning against another 7 credit army. Is this the case?
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?
Paddlepop Lion wrote: OK it seems like thats off because suits are OKAAAY and bikes are awesome right? but make those two things work in an army. i can tell you as an experienced eldar player that 44 bikes is probably too many to manage efficiently. you need warlocks and warp charge to make them really good and some backup combat unit and some long range guns., Your probably pushing it for points and have too much of one kind of firepower.
And likewise, crisis suits need a lot of support in order to be truly good, namely from markerlights since, unlike Eldar, they have BS3 base and miss half their shots. Crisis suits aren't performing miracles all on their own, and when comparing the two I would still say Eldar jetbikes are far superior for the points spent, but since I'm talking to "an experienced Eldar player" I guess it doesn't really matter what I say.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: 9 suits is all sorts of different things in a tau army and can be used for heaps of differnt jobs.
So in other words I'm being docked points because of the supposed utility of a crisis suit, even though I can still only equip it to do one job in-game.
It would make sense to me if you got hit on comp because you spammed missile suits, because spamming mid-strength weaponry with lots of shots is actually strong, but docking points for all suits regardless of how they're equipped just because they can be customized is kinda stupid in my opinion. Especially since every point spent on crisis suits is one less point spent on riptides, which are the real broken unit. A Tau player fielding crisis suits over riptides in this edition is already gimping their list, so punishing them for it anyway just rubs me wrong. Hell, even fething stealth suits cost you points if you spam them, I can't wrap my head around that one either.
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.
Insensate Rage BT's costing an extra point even though in KDK they are clearly the worst BT since they cannot take gifts like in Chaos Daemons, sure they have a D weapon melee but strikes at init 1. Its not like it has EW or a ranged attack.
Its also no clear if the part which says C1 for all BT's and Flying DP's stacks onto the standard FMC C1.
Spawn is a flat 1 point with C1 with no regards to unit size, why the hell should I pay 1 point and extra if I'm taking single spawn.
Why is the soul grinder C1, its khornate and is already covered by your AV13 general rule, so if heaven forbid I take 3 soulgrinders its 7 points regardless of what they are armed with.
Bloodcrushers cost you points just because their fast moving, seriously? And don't spout some garbage about the grimoire because your already costing that then making KDK pay additional points just in case they ally in daemons for it.
And then we get to the gorepack, so not only does it cost you 1 point upfront regardless of unit sizes but if your actually going to make use of the formation your looking at around 5+ points in total.
You basically penalise a combat orientated army for choosing fast units because god forbid you shouldn't let your opponent shoot you for 3 turns first.
I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
9 suits is all sorts of different things in a tau army and can be used for heaps of differnt jobs.
I find it hilarious. Suits are... versatile, but NOWHERE near as GOOD as jetbikes. The bikes cost 27pt each with scatterlasers. Crisis are 22pts base. Bikes have 12" move, and the same JSJ tactics as the suits, but come with jink, turboboost, etc.
Weapons: Missile suits are 57 points each for 2 missile pods, and a target lock (squad is 166 for THREE suits. That's 6.14 bikes roughly). All for 12 shots at S7 AP4. Meanwhile, the 6 bikes have 24 shots at BS4, and the same range. Shooting at each other would give 4.44 unsaved wounds on the crisis, and... 1.66 unsaved wounds on the bikes. Plasma rifles would do better, but the bikes would just outrange the suits in every way. They get an extra 6" movement, plus turboboost, and have 12" range on the guns iirc.
What I'm saying is, for your "comp" is broken with suits. Sure suits CAN do a wide range of jobs, BUT can only ever be kitted out to do one, MAYBE two effectively for the cost. MAYBE. And honestly, a lot of the jobs suits do, other things can do better. Anti Transport/medium AV? HYMPs. Anti horde? Hell, fire warriors. 2x BC crisis suits are 136pts, while 15 fire warriors are roughly the same, but have an extra 12" range, and at 15" (only 3" closer than burst cannons), they put out 12 shots more. Anti TEQ/MEQ? IA Riptide. 2x PR target lock suits would be about 166pt, so for 20pt more, you get a riptide, with a S8/9 Large Blast (or 3 S7 shots), Gets hot 72" range vs 3-6 S6 shots from 24" to 12". The place suits best fit in are either with the missile pods (mobile anti light/medium AV) or a fusion blaster unit to pop high AV.
That's my thoughts on this. Your comp needs a lot of work, especially with what everyone else has talked about. I personally cannot ever see this system working well
Comp systems need to arrange units by undercostedness/overpoweredness and then go from there. This means that objective decisions about what is truly overpowered needs to be made by the comp team.
No assaulting, moement and blocking tricks. too much to get into but they exist.
You have banned other stuff; so obviously the 'council' arent afraid to ban things - are you sure you didnt just miscalculate that it exceeded 20pts?
No obviously we didnt misscalculate we have drawn a line, its a vague one but a line over which too much power or toughness out of one unit or model is too much.
The line is "what is reasonable for an average army to be expected to deal with"
3 knights are stupid but an average army can beat them (at least good players can) a if they get a bit of luck but Ad lance we decided was too much to ever be present.
Stompas, tessrract vaults and obelisk are all things we also thought was just too much to expect an average army to handle. (keep in mind we play the necron ones with 270 degree ark of fire)
The stompa might make it in, were kind of on the line about it, it will jsut depend how the debate and public opinion goes.
Besides, didnt you say that you dont care if the soft armies get hit - as long as it hits the hard armies. So if you punch someone in the face because they took a soft army; that's cool because you are hitting the guys who take a 'hard' army. Unless of course you do stealth cheese.
Is the rules council just based in Victoria? What about the differing meta around the place?
Whats the incentive to take a soft army if it gets hit as hard as a tooled army? Isnt the point of a comp system to punish hard armies and reward soft armies - hitting every army isnt a comp system, its a crimes against 'the council'
Thats not what i said. i said that armies made by players trying to make a good army within the system will be comped quite accurately but players who just chuck random stuff into a list migth run into costs they arent taking advantage for. For example a player might take the grimwar and fate weaver with no intentuon of using fate weavers reroll on the grimwar but he pays for it anyway.
Someone might want to run a full unit of ministorum priests and pay heaps of credits for them when he jsut wants to run squad of priests.
My point is that the accuracy of the comp score for people doing random stuff like this is less relevant because those players dont win thier games anyway. They benefit from the system because they dont get crub stomped by everyone else.
the incentive to run a softer list is points. You get the best bang for your buck if you spend about 5-7 credits. The best players, the power gamers all spend about that much on purpose. its a design feature we put in deliberately for this reason
The council is made of several victorians because thats where it began but we have several south australians some NSW people and some Queenslanders. we have 1 kiwi and 2 italians.
We are actively looking for more people to join the coucnil to offer a better and broader perspective to improve the system further which is one reason why i came here.
It would be great to get some americans on the team to help out.
There is no restriction on av12 vehicles in general, just walkers. So there is nothing preventing me from spamming the av12 khorne chariots and some slaanesh chariots. So this list has 9 av12 vehicles, 1 av12 walker, 3 av11 vehicles and the Av12 portalglyph. The pink horrors get two conjurations which if they get sacrifice can be slaanesh heralds on regualr chariots so i could have 2 more av11 chariots as well.
but since I'm talking to "an experienced Eldar player" I guess it doesn't really matter what I say
sorry i gave you the imression i dont care what you think, dont know how i did but i absolutely dont mean to say that im just trying to explain why a given set of costs are what they are.
So in other words I'm being docked points because of the supposed utility of a crisis suit, even though I can still only equip it to do one job in-game.
It would make sense to me if you got hit on comp because you spammed missile suits, because spamming mid-strength weaponry with lots of shots is actually strong, but docking points for all suits regardless of how they're equipped just because they can be customized is kinda stupid in my opinion. Especially since every point spent on crisis suits is one less point spent on riptides, which are the real broken unit. A Tau player fielding crisis suits over riptides in this edition is already gimping their list, so punishing them for it anyway just rubs me wrong. Hell, even fething stealth suits cost you points if you spam them, I can't wrap my head around that one either.
No i dont mean they are costed because they could be kitted out to do multiple jobs at once i mean they can be kitted out to specialise in several different jobs. It doesnt take much support for them to do amazing things just 1 or 2 markers will make them do quite a lot of damage. You can put them together with pretty much any weapon configuration and they will do well at what job you want them for. The reason they are costed how they are is so you can take 3 for free, one unit is fine and tau should be allowed to have that.
The cost how it is was tweaked upward slowly because we were seing heaps of players running lots of suits. With the cost how it is now we have started to see generally the max suits players run is 3. Currently we are talking about backing off on that cost a little bit and the march update may well see that happen.
I find it hilarious. Suits are... versatile, but NOWHERE near as GOOD as jetbikes. The bikes cost 27pt each with scatterlasers. Crisis are 22pts base. Bikes have 12" move, and the same JSJ tactics as the suits, but come with jink, turboboost, etc.
Just so where on the same page here man we havent got the new eldar book comped yet so we are compareing them to old eldar bikes.
Its also no clear if the part which says C1 for all BT's and Flying DP's stacks onto the standard FMC C1.
Thanks for that comment the wording on that is a bit confusing we will fix that asap.
If you observe the FMC rule it tells you that all FMC are C1 and that you should add all your FMC together for this cost so this point is jsut marking out that they are C1 so no it doesnt stack.
Spawn is a flat 1 point with C1 with no regards to unit size, why the hell should I pay 1 point and extra if I'm taking single spawn.
Bloodcrushers cost you points just because their fast moving, seriously? And don't spout some garbage about the grimoire because your already costing that then making KDK pay additional points just in case they ally in daemons for it.
Got nothing to do with the grimwar, as you say we have already costed it. We habitually cost fast assault units. They have a critical mass effect that overwhelm the opponent when you throw a bunch at them, plus forcing your opponent to deal with a unit with nearlyt 20 wounds protects other units in your army from harm for a while.
That said you make a good point about the unit size, as we are going through and re evaluating each book worth we have been moving to a pay x per y models format for fast assault units.
We will get onto that one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You keep saying make a broken list with the comp system. Fine.
Here is a broken list that you can't refute as broken by your own system because this list has 0 comp points.
There is no restriction on av12 vehicles in general, just walkers. So there is nothing preventing me from spamming the av12 khorne chariots and some slaanesh chariots. So this list has 9 av12 vehicles, 1 av12 walker, 3 av11 vehicles and the Av12 portalglyph. The pink horrors get two conjurations which if they get sacrifice can be slaanesh heralds on regualr chariots so i could have 2 more av11 chariots as well.
All for 0 comp points
Please send me the $100.
i think the specific list you posted i dont think quite makes it but with a tweak or two it would. Its at very least polarising enough that we should make a change to fix it.
40k is absolutely nothing near a balanced game. It doesn't even make the pretense anymore, and GW will be the first to say as much, and they have. Organized, competitive play is not what the current 40k ruleset is about, and it shows.
In many ways I think the idea of a 40k "tournament" is increasingly pointless and absurd.
Particularly if people aren't willing to change units and rules.
However, that does not mean that organized events in general can't still be done. De-emphasize winning. Don't bill the event as a "tournament", just advertise it as a "gaming event". Don't promote wins, don't track battle points or award for best general, but rather Sportsmanship (not necessarily through strict Sportsmanship scores, but instead through awarding their favorite opponent raffle tickets and whatnot), and painting and background adherence (to further de-emphasize things like daemon-summoning Eldar or Imperial Knights in Dark Eldar armies and the like).
This way, competition is put into not being an ass and the more constructive aspects of the hobby, and channeling it away from simply winning and list construction absurdity given that the game simply isn't functional in that capacity.
GodDamUser wrote: Have to say that has been mentioned on wau a few times as well
But there are plenty of people who feel there needs to be a winner.
Increasingly I'm thinking they're in the wrong game, and GW will probably be the first to tell them that. The game is simply too bloated, convoluted, imbalanced and weirdly thought out for "winning" to really mean anything anymore. And I say that as someone who's taken best overall at three of my last five events and second place at the other two.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: That would work just fine if there wasn't a whole lot of people wanting to play tournaments, many of those wanting it to be balanced.
Fortunately despite what many posting here think, community comp does this.
I've never found it to do anything but simply create a different power meta personally, every place I've ever played that's tried it has dropped it because it just changed what was on top instead of putting everything on an equal footing, more often than not hurting the "little guys" and fluff players more than anyone else. I really would love it if it did work, I've just never seen any sort of "comp" system have any of the effect that was originally intended.
If people want a tournament out of a game that has gone out of its way to not function as a tournament game, then the best way to do that is going to be to actually change units and rules to make them function properly in a tournament, not just try to lay an additional points system on top of the existing one in a vain attempt to fix what the original is supposed to already do.
But you haven't tried this. Cc doesn't just change what's on top it allows for so much variety that I can't think of 2 tournaments that had the same codex win.
So far from memory there was I think necrons win forge fest, space marines win one in nsw last year can't remember the name. Leviathan maybe.
Orks won Terra con, tau won an event in SA I don't know the name of, deamons won my first event, guard won Vic masters, nids win can con I think, blood angels won Western smash.
Seems like there isn't any one thing in top doesn't there?
GodDamUser wrote: Community comp attempts you mean.. you are no where near balanced yet.
You are quite right. We are not infallible. Far from it.
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.
The thing is, we want to make the system better, and opening up to more scrutiny helps us do this. Already, several discussions about costings have been started due to response in this thread and others like it.
The thing is, those who simply respond 'the idea is stupid, comp shouldn't exist' etc, are not the people we need to be reaching out to. There's certainly a preference for comp/no-comp, and that's fine, that'll always exist.
What we ARE saying is, if you like the idea of the system, have a look and give us some feedback, if you DON'T like our system, but are open to the idea of comp working correctly, please, have a look and give us feedback.
If you hate the idea of comp, and refuse to acknowledge it as an option, then that's fine, we won't be affecting the tournaments you're playing in, but please don't be offended if we don't drop the idea after 2 or 3 people say '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
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
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.
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.
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?
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: 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.
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.
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.
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;
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
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 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
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)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 "WAACTFG" players and lets you give them a public shaming. Which, after all, is the whole point of comp scoring.
Nice presentation, too.
), 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