They posted the new comp rules for 40K RTTs and possible Indy GT from Sacramento. Here they are:

http://www.greatescapegames.com/ContestofChampions/40K/COC%20Comp%20Scoring.htm

What do you guys think of the new comp rules?

I think it is lame. My SM army that I was thinking of bringing up to the event would get a 21 without the bonus points. Much less if they had some way to dock me on "rending." I will look at my Black Legion list and see if it is more comp friendly.

BTW, what is non-armoured?

BTW, when is this super comp event?

Darrian
(Non comp-friendly)

I think comp rules like these ridiculously favor some armies and are therefore idiotic and unfair.

Comp is lame.

Anyone who supports comp for their wargame should have to play in a dress.

I like it. I played in it last year and it helped get rid of the cheeze that everyone seems to see in everyone elses army. This tourney favors troops, and penalizes top heavy characters, etc... I play a troop heavy list so I have to do VERY little problems getting full comp (last year I took 29-30, I forget). It boils down to personal preferences on where is no standard, so just be aware of what you're getting into when signing up.

Yeah, on first look, I would say that a drop-pod marine list would be both comp-friendly and successful.

Darrian

Comp is so lame! I would love to see the judges and organizers of this event have to wear dresses to the event.

Darrian

Yea!!  Heaven forbid that folks have think about playing differently for a change! 

These comp rules are pretty slowed, they penalize anything effective and favor Space Marines who have very effective basic units and require less heavy weapons because of higher BS.

Orks in general would be penalized by this comp, and that's just slowed.  

What's the goal of this comp system? Are you trying to create diversity, or just steer people away from certain armies?

I'd consider going, but my Deathwing would pretty much get a big fat 0 under this horrifying system.

Can we at least stop referring to things as "lame" (and the other terms that pop up frequently) when we don't like things? This is meant to be a forum for everyone to use, and heaven forbid there maybe a few gamers who are "lame" etc. Just because a load of 16 years old saying frequently and it makes its way into the current lexicon doesn't make it right. Name calling just isn't funny.

And Mauleed, for some-one who claims to have people working for him you should know alot better. Use that at work and you will find yourself in court for discrimination before you can blink if used in the prescence of the wrong person. Want to make some-one rich?

If the language cannot be used in a relative public place like work I just don't think it is suitable for here either - we are meant to be responsible adults.

Anyone who supports comp for their wargame should have to play in a dress.

What about a kilt?

I support comp, but comp for a reason. This list has a lot of anti-Marine bias. Most armies have a lot of trouble getting close to good comp, and Marines have it very easy (Just for example no penalty for rending shooting, max squad size for them is only 10 models, they have the best basic trooper in the game, ATSKNF that is as good as fearless or better that they don't have to pay for, and access to a stength 8, AP3 weapon that most armies anti-tank is AP 2...I could go on).

I could make a very hard OOT Blood Angels army that would get very bad comp scores in any other RTT, but get next to perfect comp here.

I don't think breaking down comp like this works.  You should just have 5 catagories from excellent to broken.  You are always going to have some  dog balls givenbut the judges can correct that themselves if unwarranted. 

Well, my Godzilla army gets a 22. And thats with the +2 for no special chars.

I get totally hosed on power weapons, # monstrous creatures, # fearless units, and % troop selections.

But I totally make out on AP1&2 weapons, # vehicles, multiple saves, and infiltration.

WTF is armored vs unarmored btw?

For all weapons with an AP or 1 or 2, multiply the strength of the weapon by the number of shots (maximum possible or average if random number). Add this number for all such weapons in the army and consult the chart below. For each AP1 weapon add 1 to the total.

Yeah, that was definitely my favorite. It should have read:

"Is your army effective against MEQs, the most commonly seen opponents in the game?"

Yeah Mauleed, you need to stop using the term "lame." Using the term "lame" is so lame! I am sure it offends "lame" people, whatever the hell "lame" means. I am sure that someone with a fullheadofhair somewhere is so offended by your blatant and flippant use of the word "lame," if indeed there is such a word,that he is forming some sort of special interrest group to protest the use of the word lame.

Darrian
(not lame)

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 3:58 PM
Yeah Mauleed, you need to stop using the term "lame." Using the term "lame" is so lame! I am sure it offends "lame" people, whatever the hell "lame" means. I am sure that someone with a fullheadofhair somewhere is so offended by your blatant and flippant use of the word "lame," if indeed there is such a word,that he is forming some sort of special interrest group to protest the use of the word lame.

Darrian
(not lame)

It also makes you sound like a complete and utter moron.  Unless you use this smiley of course

 

Still waiting for the comp identifier that provides increasing negatives for armor over 6+.  You average horde army would love it, your average MEQ player would be working under a severe deficit. Tau would be banned of course, and Eldar would be right out.  And don't get me started on those SOB's. Chicks are not allowed to have sticks! What, no doctor I haven't taken my medicine yet... 

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 3:58 PM
Yeah Mauleed, you need to stop using the term "lame." Using the term "lame" is so lame! I am sure it offends "lame" people, whatever the hell "lame" means. I am sure that someone with a fullheadofhair somewhere is so offended by your blatant and flippant use of the word "lame," if indeed there is such a word,that he is forming some sort of special interrest group to protest the use of the word lame.

Darrian
(not lame)

You forgot to add (not lame - not that there is anything wrong with that)

Destroys a GK army. Once again comp seems to favor marine armies above others.

If your going to have comp, every army should have a CHANCE to meet all the requirements, other wise just list the armies you don't want to see at the tourney and give them a penalty.

Doesn't this question mean that Marines can only get a 45 at the absolute best? (-3 then, -2 for not having a max score for each catagory).

You mean to get full points everybody must spend 925 on troops? That means that If Tau only use FW then they need to take 8 squads (without wargear) to meet this requirement.

My Super uncheesy Necron list could only muster a 33. That's with EVERY SQUAD AT FULL size: 1 lord, 2 troops, 1 Immortal, 1 Flayed, 1 wraith, 1 destroyers, 1 scarabs, and no Monolith (yeah I really am building that army for fun). That's a medium comp list? What's a brother gotta do to get a perfect?

And if your lame, are you also a phag or just kweer?

comp systems like this would make me want to bring the 4 pie plate 9 obliderator IW list with supersized flying demon with dark blade and 6 las/plas squads

Ironkodiak, don't you dare ask questions like that. Someone with a fullheadofhair is likely to report you to the cyberpolice for a netiquette violation and for misspelling. It is amazing what offends people these days.

Darrian

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 4:59 PM
Ironkodiak, don't you dare ask questions like that. Someone with a fullheadofhair is likely to report you to the cyberpolice for a netiquette violation and for misspelling. It is amazing what offends people these days.

Darrian

my my my ... what a clueless individual we are. It has nothing to do with mis-spelling or netiquette. Using "phag" "kweer" and "j00w" etc are just offensive, unnecessary and show a disturbing lack of vocabulary. <?

Unless you are totally clueless, there is no way you would use "cigarette" "queer" or "jew" in a face to face conversation as a derogetory descriptive, unless of course you do not mind the occasional smack in the face from said "cigarette" or "jew". Changing the spelling to make it look "kewl" and adding a smily doesn't make it less offensive or make you appear to be any less stupid and uneducated.

{sigh}

This comp really sucks. Some armies are completely ruined by this.
For example, deathwing get hosed by the things with two saves and power weapons crap. All 4 chaos cult armies are destroyed by the fearless% thing.

I'll go and make it really easy for everyone.

Don't use the word "lame" on Dakka if at all possible. In fact, please refrain from using racial or sexual slurs of any kind. It's in the Dakka forum rules.

The intentions of such slurs is often hard to discern in verbal communication and it is doubly difficult in a strictly written format.

Dakka is a family forum designed for discussing wargames. All posters should feel welcome regardless of their personal backgrounds.

If you feel that this kind of restriction somehow limits your ability to communicate, feel free to move onto another forum that allows swearing and/or racial/sexual slurs (I'm sure such a place isn't very hard to find).

People who support comp should still have to play in a dress.

And in addition to comp and sports there should be a score for how fabulous they are.

But my appologies to any actual gay people offended by my use of the term "lame".

I have played with this comp. My Deathwing [consisting of 5x5 man squads,a command squad,and a Ven Dread] got a I think 35. I got hit for Character points, Squad size, Deep Striking and Power weapon attacks. The comp is designed to hurt those armies that are designed as power gamer armies, ie Daemonic Statured DP and a Greater Daemon in the same list, and encourage balanced forces. All armies can be made to get a perfect comp. The question is how much comp do you sacrifice to make the unbeatable army. The ARMORED vs NONARMORED is ARMOR VALUE vs NON ARMORED VALUE [example Preadator vs Marine]

Hahaha- Mauleed you rascal. I really think that's unfair to women gamers. How about making everyone who uses comp wear a dunce cap? Or ride a tiny shriner car to and from the tourniment. No wait- that last one would be fun! *cues homer's ballet music*

Those are the most patheticly slowed comp rules I've ever seen. While I don't necessarily approve, I can understand the mindset behind comp, with some feeling it necessary to limit certain options due to GW's complete inablity to write clear, concise and balanced rules. But that mess doesn't make it any better. I haven't even played 40kv4 (yet?) and I can tell those comp rules blow chunks. Good luck if you're anything but a marine army, 'cause you'll need it.

Hmmm... my Lysander wing gets a 21 (23 if you count lysander wing themed and fluffy). My mech tau get a 29.

Posted By GM Aeneas 08/08/2006 8:19 PM
I have played with this comp. My Deathwing [consisting of 5x5 man squads,a command squad,and a Ven Dread] got a I think 35. I got hit for Character points, Squad size, Deep Striking and Power weapon attacks. The comp is designed to hurt those armies that are designed as power gamer armies, ie Daemonic Statured DP and a Greater Daemon in the same list, and encourage balanced forces. All armies can be made to get a perfect comp. The question is how much comp do you sacrifice to make the unbeatable army. The ARMORED vs NONARMORED is ARMOR VALUE vs NON ARMORED VALUE [example Preadator vs Marine] </quote>

Amen!

There was a ton of feedback solicited by the organizers last year on what to change and why, and plenty given from last years players. It wasn't created in a vacume and the organizers weren't out to neuter any list but marines, so please lay off the "brutally slowed" part.  I can see why the power gamers don't like it.

And yes, a someone from our group brought an armored company with about 6 pie plates to last years event because he could.  Anyone can, you'll just get dinged for it, and it's your choice to get hit.

For all of you who are attacking the comp list Question How would you fix it [without removing comp completely]?

@Moopy, I played at "Capital Punishment" last year also and I saw that guy play the 6 basilisk army. He phased-out a Necron player on his turn one without the Necron player having his turn. The funny thing is that the comp was so screwed up, it gave him the sam comp hit if he had 2 ordinance weapons or 6. That is lame!

The guy who won, won with a drop podding Blood Angels list and looking at the "new" comp list, he could easily do it again.

I played a pure Grey Knights list and I had one of the best comp scores, being dinged for fearless and 10 guys in 2+ armor. I played a guy who had 21 dark lances in his DE army and my game was over on turn 4. BTW, he got dinged for more than 3 AP:2 weapons and he came in third in the event.

@GM Aeneus Other than dropping the whole comp nonsense, I would simply list what you can and cannot have in each armylist and make it more even to non marine players. The comp system as it stands will be very marine friendly and that is sad. I will make you a bet right now that a Marine player wins. Wanta bet?

Darrian

If I go agin this year I am going to play my Chaos army with a siren prince and a bloodthirster and say screw comp. I figure so many knuckleheads there will have neutered their lists to be comp-friendly I can hope fully go 5-0.

@GM Aeneus Other than dropping the whole comp nonsense, I would simply list what you can and cannot have in each armylist and make it more even to non marine players. The comp system as it stands will be very marine friendly and that is sad. I will make you a bet right now that a Marine player wins. Wanta bet?

The problem with going through every list is how many there are. How many possible combinations just using the SM Traits? The comp list does not favor anylist I can make a perfect comp list with almost any list [Chaos cult and Deathwing are the only ones I can think of that I can't, but they get benefits because of what they lose]

@Aeneus. I think you are missing the point. No one is argueing that you cannot build an armylist with perfect comp, that is not important. What is important is howto build a "comp-friendly" list (40+ score) AND make it a viable tourney winning list. That is the issue! What most of us have realized and you seam to miss is that Space Marines can do this very easily in the current comp system. Can you do the same with Chaos? I bet you cannot.

This is why the system is unbalanced.

Darrian

@Darrian13  Yep. I placed in the top 10 in that tourney and took an award (have to look what it was when I get home).  I've seen that BA army, and to be fair that player (Travis?) can crush with most any army.  He's a really freek'in good geneal.

Yes, you are right last years comp had that loop hole.  I'm not sure if you were at the feedback session after the event in the hotel conferense room; that was pointed out loudly. It's really not that fun when a game boils down to, "Who gets the first turn = wins".  Might as well just dice off for the win instead of actually playing a game. Not much fun in that.

Point is this comp system discourages that type of army (which isn't fun to play against), and comp is that enforcer.  It can't stop an opponent from taking it, but they'll find it harder to win even if they crush all their opponents with an OTT army. Of course some people will try and do just that to tweek the organzier's noses to so show, "they can".

The stock Choas list I can. The cult lits I can not, nor can I with Deathing. Competitive army or a Comp Friendly is where the individual players make the choice. The person who wins overall will find the balance between the two extremes.

Tim

@Aeneus. Here is my Space Marine List

HQ: Epistolary FotD/FoA term armor, 4 termy command squad, 2 assault cannons, drop pod.
Troops: 10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, melta gunx2, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, melta gunx2, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, flamer, plasma gun, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, flamer, plasma gun, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/ p-fist, plasma gunx2, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, drop pod.
Fast attack: Land speeder tornado
" "
" ".

Obviously this is a very rough draft but I think you can see that it is very comp-friendly, 35 without bonus points 41 with.
Would you want to face this list with a similiar scored list from another race? If so, which?

Darrian

@Aeneas, Really? Ok, I showed you a 40 comp point Marine list, now show me a 40 comp point Chaos list. I bet you cannot make it competitive. Let see.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Darrian

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 10:04 PM
@Aeneas, Really? Ok, I showed you a 40 comp point Marine list, now show me a 40 comp point Chaos list. I bet you cannot make it competitive. Let see.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Darrian

Which Legion?

So, do chaos squads that are the size of their god's number (ie: "Favored") count as full sized? If not, they take a ding for not being "maximum" sized, or, if max size, they take a ding for not being fluffy. What about IG? A "full" platoon is five squads, and that's only one troop choice. Fill them out with special and heavy weapons and then they'll be taking extra dings for all the firepower. If comp is designed to penalize abuse, why can one fit in a Siren Prince Daemonbomb that could squeeze in at 40? Isn't that what comp is supposed to prevent?

I have played with this comp. My Deathwing [consisting of 5x5 man squads,a command squad,and a Ven Dread] got a I think 35. I got hit for Character points, Squad size, Deep Striking and Power weapon attacks. The comp is designed to hurt those armies that are designed as power gamer armies, ie Daemonic Statured DP and a Greater Daemon in the same list, and encourage balanced forces. All armies can be made to get a perfect comp. The question is how much comp do you sacrifice to make the unbeatable army. The ARMORED vs NONARMORED is ARMOR VALUE vs NON ARMORED VALUE [example Preadator vs Marine]

The comp system is bad for a lot of reasons. Here are just a few:
While trying to stop the abuse from army X from happening, they are also penalizing armies Y and Z.

If they are trying to stop the Statured Demon Prince and Bloodthirster combo, they are doing a poor job of it. Since most chaos armies are going to be already hit by the penalty for the expensive HQ and the over the Wargear limit, they are only penalized one point for taking 2 monstrous creatures. Hardly a deterrent.

And what is in the comp rules about stopping a siren prince? One of the most over powered units in the game.

And still Amour Company is ok? Here you are limiting everyone?s anti-tank by trying to limit the AP 1 and AP 2 weapons, and yet AC is ok. (By the way armies like elder and SoB have all of their anti-tank in AP 1& 2 form).


But there are 2 comp rules that are the strangest:
?Of the total number of units in your army, what percentage is fearless??

Why is their a need for this rule? No one has ever said that fearless armies are overpowered. If you look at all of the GT results, not fearless army has even been close to winning. Actually, most have been at the bottom. Those fearless armies pay points for fearlessness for example, look at the cost of a grey knight in power armor and compare him to a marine. Now look at the marks of chaos..they pay for fearlessness, and get some neat abilities to boot, but everyone forgets that they get a lot of drawbacks as well (heavy weapons anyone?). Now look at marines: They cost a heck of a lot less, and they have ATSKNF which is arguably better than fearlessness because it lets you break out of combat and shoot.

And then my own pet peeve:
?What percentage of your troop selections are at maximum size??

I think GW just pulls the max squad sizes out of their rears. If you have a max squad size of 10 like space marines do, they are fine. But no way are you getting some of the armies to 50% of their troops at full squad size (#1 people don?t want to buy all of the models that they will never use again. #2. The cost of some large squad means that is all you will have in their army.). Here is another example of a bad comp rule. What is often overpowered, and that people don?t like to see is the mini-maxed army. The marine army with the 6-man las/plas squads, or the Iron Warriors army with the 4 HS and 9 oblits, and the 2 5-man squad of CSM in their lawn chairs. You can make this comp rule better by having people take 10 man minimum squad sizes, not the 15, 20, or 30 man squads that some armies have as a max size.

Most people want to discourage MEQs because that is all they face at tournaments. This comp system encourages it.

Also you will have 2 camps. The ones who will follow closely the comp rules, and the second will bring what ever they want, and crush the first group.

Posted By GM Aeneas 08/09/2006 12:38 AM

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 10:04 PM
@Aeneas, Really? Ok, I showed you a 40 comp point Marine list, now show me a 40 comp point Chaos list. I bet you cannot make it competitive. Let see.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Darrian

Which Legion?

You can start with Thousand Sons to show that the comp system is broken (The Thousand Sons are one of the least powerful armies out there, and so they should get a good comp score right?).

And then you can do a Black Legion army for real.

I agree with Blackmoor completely. Generic comp systems like this cannot and will not ever be fair. They will always penalize some army types while rewarding others.

If a group hosting a tournament doesn't like certain combinations in armies, then they should just come out and say it. Penalize those particular combinations in each army specifically. Sure it takes more time but it also doesn't hide behind a veil of fairness made by a uniform system.

Everyone who wants to attend that tournament will clearly know that taking 'X' kind of army is going to mean they are playing at a disadvantage in points.

I have to pop in here with my opinion. I understand that comp is unfavorably looked upon by most on this board; thats fine. I understand that people dont like this particular comp system; thats fine as well and I agree that this system still needs work. My response is, if you dont like it dont play in the tournament. Simple really.

I play at the home store in Sacramento where this system was developed. The owner of the store, who is also the organizer of Capital Punishment, is a big fan of comp because it helps level the playing field for players and has put in alot of effort and taken tons of advice (and abuse) for it. The reason we have the system we have is there was a time where the only armies we would see at our bi-monthly tournaments were min-maxed, super powered armies. The same armies and the same people won, over and over and over. It got to the point where new players or people who didnt play purely for WAAC had zero chance and consequently stopped playing. The store had the choice between 1) let things happen and become a place where the 'elite' ruled completely and 40k would slowly die off with the advent of FoW, Warmachine, LotR, Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, heroclix, stratomatic baseball, etc etc etc, or 2) devise a system that applied to everyone, was known to and created in part by the players in that environment, and would create a competitive atmosphere for both tournies and regular gaming.

Let me say here and now that the players in the store have fought long and hard over what this comp system should look like. In the comittee that helped design it, they have 6 long time GW players, one of which is a playtester for fantasy. They know the rules, they know the armies, and they argue more than anyone about whats fair and whats not. We all agree, organisers and players alike, that this isnt a perfect system and there might never be a perfect system. We know that. The only way there will ever be a 'fair' comp system will be to do one for each army individually -- and then whos to say the person making the comp is being objective and unbiased? Its nearly impossible and I dont envy those who try to try to equalise something that was never meant to be tournament-friendly.

Everyone needs to realise a few things here. First, the comp is out there...its your call to build a comp-friendly army and try to win, or build an ultra-competetive army and try to make up the points in your battle score. Like I said above, if you dont like it just dont play. Second, there are plenty of tournaments that dont have comp or have minimal comp. Go to some other board somewhere, and youll find the bizarro-world version of Ed Maule complaining about the Adepticon Gladiator rules and saying people who bring forgeworld bloodthirsters should play in dresses. It all boils down to personal preference.

Lets use Capital Punishment as an example. I hear alot of people argue that lower comp equates to a tougher army, whereas higher comp is a powderpuff list. My BA army, which gets a perfect score in RTs incidentally, got a 39 and was middle of the pack comp-wise. I have 3 drop pods, a pair of predators, a pair of scout squads, hell I even run a veteran assault squad which most agree is not one of the most cost effective units in the list. In the course of the tournament I beat 2 people that scored mid to high 40s and were undefeated at that point. I also played the 6 basilisk AC, which scored mid 20s, and I beat him too. Its not so simple as its made out to be, and to Darrian13, I know who you are. Youre not so good as to be able to walk in and win on autopilot, so youd better bring a tooled up army. The norcal scene has some very good players and the implication that a comp system facilitates that is insulting. Another argument I hear is the system is designed for marines to do well and god help you if you dont have power armor. If I recall correctly, Mat Estes dark eldar scored mid/high 40s and he won Best General. Shock value for an unfamiliar army? That may be part of it but he mulched some good players. Steve Fox's Tau scored mid/high 40s also, and he was playing for first place in the last round. Blackmoor's 1k sons scored, what, 18? How'd he end up in the tournament? I dont even remember. Can we have even a slight aknowledgement that there is some amount of skill involved, regardless of comp?

Bottom line: dont like it, dont come. I look at comp like free points - RT comp is easy to get, systems like this are more challenging. At least I know ahead of time, and the same rules apply to everyone. I look forward to well-organised events, and Capital Punishment is better than most. Kublacon is better than most, even though the scoring this year was fubar and the person that was given the best overall award didnt actually win it, turns out. I look forward to Adepticon next year, and the return of the GTs.

@Hokkaido, "if you don't like it don't play in the tournament, simple really" Wow, that is pretty enlightening, thank you for that insight. I hope you are not the guy in charge of public relations for this event. You know, most events actually TRY to get people to attend, but your approach is pretty novel.

Onto Capital Punishment last year, I am amazed that you did so well with a Blood Angels army. Your comp system, last year was even more weighted for marines than this year, and you played a marine army and got a good comp score, imagine that. Wait a second, the guy that won also played a Blood Angels army, that must be a coincidence, surely not the pro-marine bias that we have been mentioning. I am not questioning your ability to play the game nor Syrus's, I am pointing out that the comp system is very flawed and is OBVIOUSLY pro-marine.

Onto your examples, I played Mat Estes and he is a very god player who completely disregarded comp, in favor of a hard as nails Dark Eldar list. I was whiped out on turn 4. I also played Steve Fox, in the 3rd round, and did slightly better but ultimately lost a close game. I must point out that I was not too happy with the fact that I caught him cheating, claiming to have gear on his hammer heads that he did not pay for. The fact that he cheated, and I caught him, had no negative reprecussions with the judges, but whatever.

Onto me, I played a pure Grey Knight list at your "comp-friendly" event and I made every attempt to maximize my comp score. While my comp score was very high, it cost me too much of my lists effectiveness, especially when playing against an optimized list like Mat Estes' Dark Eldar. Since I was a noobie, I had been playing 40K for 3 months at that point and Capital Punishment was my third RTT, I figure I did pretty well. This year I will take your advice if I attend and do my best to bring an optimised list in favor of a watered down, comp-friendly one. Hopefully, I can do as well as Mat did with his.

Darrian

To Hakkaido23
You want to have comp thats fine, but your system is bogus as its weighted toward one codex.
How many non-marine players were on this committee? How many non-MEQ players in general?


You use this as an argument to make non-cheesed lists, yet your comp remains focused on marines, generally penalizing the power of non-marine players.

Interesting that the penalty on Fearless does not include ATSKNF. Why is that again?

Interesting that rending weapons are not penalized. Why is that again?

Interesting that anti marine weapons get penalized severely, as do monstrous creatures, and high armor vehicles. Oh wait, marines don't have monstrous creatures and their base weapon is str4 so not especially harmed.



I'm starting to get it now.

Im not involved with the tournament in any way. Its not even my comp system, I have no bearing on it one way or another apart from suggestions the players give after tournaments.  I care about you showing up only in the capacity that the tournament will do well if more people show. In lieu of a proper GT, this is the best we have locally. When I say "if you dont like it, dont play", I mean just that...no one is forcing you to play. If youre going to complain, save yourself the trouble of posting, dont show up, and it wont affect you. What will be your reasons for coming, if you do, and comp has not changed? If you dont like it so much, dont come. I'll be the first to say the comp system isnt perfect. I said so before the event last year, and I'll be saying it again when we next discuss this topic at the Contest of Champions in September. Im not saying this comp system is good and everyone should use it, im saying this is what we have, like it or leave it. I can say with certainty there will be *some* form of comp, and the majority of players are in favor of that. Theres no escaping it, lets just make the best of it. Theres always the opposite -- 5 games in a tournament against the armies people whine about being cheesy...3 monoliths, 14 assault cannons, 17 starcannons and a 40 man seer council, whatever it is, take your pick.  As far as specific aspects of the comp system...I personally dont think fearless should be penalised.  Fearless troops generally cost more points than the same model without it, so no penalty should be assessed IMO.  Rending weapons (lets be real here, assault cannons) should be included in any category penalizing ap2/3 weapons, but IMO the assault cannon being so easily available and effective is a product of the marine codex.  Hell, my first army was guard...penalize the heavy bolter, if youre going to knock people for taking certain types of weapons.  Believe it or not I lean toward less comp.  This isnt my system, im simply pointing out that I really dont think theres as strong a marine bias as you think.

Assume the comp is weighted in favor of marines....how could a Tau and Dark Eldar army score so high and do so well battle-wise if that was the case? I hate to use those two armies as an example again but thats what I can remember. Yes, Mat's army took advantage of as much as he could to both get a high comp and still be a strong army but if thats the case, why didnt he win overall? One of the flaws from last year was there wasnt a 'sliding scale' to breaking an item of comp, if you were going to get zero points for one area you might as well go way way overboard and get as much advantage as you could. Mat's army did this to a certain extent, but the rules were posted well in advance...you work with what you have. This year the comp system will be amended to include that sliding scale, im told. What about the armored company? That army blew the comp system away and was amazingly effective in certain missions; why didnt he win best overall? He phased a necron player out in the top half of the first turn. As in, the necron player set up his models, then immediately removed them and packed them up again. Is that what a tournament organizer wants?? With no comp, every army can be like that. The hope is players will try to get as high a comp as they can; after all its basically free points. The armored company player himself said he didnt care about comp and just wanted to bring a broken army...well, how do you stop that? Disallow armored companies? Siren isnt fair in most people's opinion. Do you ban Siren? Pretty soon youre getting into 'that army is way too effective' or 'we just dont like it' and everything goes to hell. Wheres the happy medium?

You got a good comp score with your grey knights, good for you. Youre what a tournament organiser hopes to see, someone who tries to work within the framework of the comp system rather than exploit it. Is your list's ineffectiveness a product of having been forced by the comp system into a 'mold', though? Is it your weakness as a player? Is it the matchups you faced? Is it the list itself and the cost value of your basic models? Id say yes to all of those except the first.

the guy that won also played a Blood Angels army, that must be a coincidence, surely not the pro-marine bias that we have been mentioning

I take exception to this. Yes, first place was BA. Second overall was Khorne zerk/letters/hounds flootsloggers. Third overall was mech tau. Best general was dark eldar. Moopy took 6th or 7th with a very fair BA army. Also in the top 10 were 2 eldar lists and the now-infamous armored company. In the current series at the Sacramento game store that uses this list, 1st place is Biel-tan, 2nd is necrons, 3rd is full comp daemonhunters. Everyone just getting lucky here? Marine players phoning it in? I wont argue that you might be able to construct a marine army that is 1, effective and 2, high comp, but is it really impossible to do with any other army? You cant tell me the Saim-Hann army that scored a 46 wasnt viable, the Khorne zerk/letter list that took second wasnt viable, the necron horde of mostly warriors that scored 50 wasnt viable. There has to be some factor of skill that mitigates your percieved comp bias.

Sure, there are loopholes - Im not arguing that the comp is perfect, no way in hell. I am saying that just because its different and not what you want doesnt make it as horrible as youre making it out to be. So bring your optimised list, you can try your luck against players that know what theyre doing and arent fooled or intimidated by tricks and we'll see what happens. It better be marines too, cause if you win with SoB or Tyranids or something....it kinda kills the pro-marine theory.

 

For jfrazell: The comittee includes, to the best of my knowledge: 1 Saim-hann/chaos player, 1 necron player, 1 necron/eldar player 1 SoB player, 1 marine player, and one who doesnt currently play anything but is a playtester for GW and has alot of experience with 40k in the past.  From what I have seen, they argue extensively about the comp system, each has their own wishlist of what should and should not be in it, and I am very glad I am not one of them.

You're dead right, if you don't like the comp system, dont play.

And most won't.

But I don't see any reason not to point out how bad they are. These comp rules are not only "playing like you lack a pair", but poorly designed from a game standpoint because they fail to do what they intended to do, which is balance out armies.

If I lived closer I'd show up with something that still earned 35 or so points but was only ever so slightly less nasty, and certainly just as unpopular as anything else I'd bring. But when people complained, I'd laugh (harder) in their face, because I'm following the (crappy) rules.

Posted By Hokkaido23 08/09/2006 7:43 AM

 

For jfrazell: The comittee includes, to the best of my knowledge: 1 Saim-hann/chaos player, 1 necron player, 1 necron/eldar player 1 SoB player, 1 marine player, and one who doesnt currently play anything but is a playtester for GW and has alot of experience with 40k in the past.  From what I have seen, they argue extensively about the comp system, each has their own wishlist of what should and should not be in it, and I am very glad I am not one of them.

Let me preface in that I am not against comp per se', just comp lists that are preferential to certain lists.

-So in answer to the question, no horde players, no players who don't have a 3+ save armies.  You only have MEQ players on the council.  No guard, Orks, Nids, Tau, DE players are noted. 

 

Mauleed, if you went with that attitude you might end up being the inspiration for a sportsmanship guideline for opponents next year!  I can see it now:

How many times did you feel insulted by your opponent?

0-1 : 3 points

2-3 : 2 points

4-5 : 1 point

You cried during the game : 0 points

Bonus Points:

Your opponent never implied that your male figures were, perhaps, female : + 1 point

Your opponent never made a chicken-like 'bwark, bwark' gesture towards you : +1 point

Your opponent wasn't Ed Maule : +1 point

BTW, my Kroot army gets a 24?!?!  Wow, I must be a cheese monger.  I wanted to punch a coworker when I got to the part about how many units in the army have infiltrate.

Having this kind of brutal composition scoring could end up with the unthinkable scenario of an army with one draw beating an undefeated army at a tournament.

- Oaka

 

When you show up to a tournament (where there are prizes for being the best in certain categories) shouldn't you come to win? Even if you don't plan on winning you should at least plan on trying to be competitive out of respect for the other atendees who came to play their asses off.

If you want to play 'comp friendly' or kid glove games then bring that junk on any other day than thournament day.

i agree comp rules usually are biased and comp list like this keep people away because of all the model requirements. im not going to buy another 40 dark eldar warriors just to play in 1 tournament.

everyone seems to want to "fix" all the broken issues with 40k. instead of writing some silly comp rules, just come up with better scenarios!!!!and better terrain!!!!

for example if you want less pod/fear lists. then create one of your scenarios that negatively impacts pods. just make sure everyone can have access to your scenarios beforehand. you want less MEQ's ? make a heavy gravity scenario where your movement is restricted to your armor save, so 3+ armor saves can only move/charge 3+. you want less armored company, add minefields to the scenario.

whatever it is you are trying to "fix" can be done with nore diverse scenarios.


 or god forbid....playing with 1500 points.

1500 point games usually allow 4 games in a day as opposed to 3, allowing a wider range of scores and narrowing a field of 20 players down to 1 undefeated person.

1500 points give more room for movement and allows horde armies to actually setup in a timely fashion with enough room.

1500 point games correct a lot of the so called cheese in  lists.
if you dont. (necrons for example)


so thats just my uninformed opinion. fix "cheese" with better scenarios better terrain and four 1500 point games in a day.

Silly, My mech sisters get 41 without breaking a sweat, only getting zeros in:

Armored> nonvehical 0(its a mechanized army, duh)

AND

Troops at max size 0(size is 20 max, their at 10 to fit in rhinos)

And being kind and giving myselfa 2 in the most expenisve HQ slot.

Other than that, I max out everything, since I dont worry about power weapons, infiltrate, fearless......since I dont have those normally, and Acts of faith take care of that when I need it.

Hokkaido, how is comp supposed to help new players? Unless someone sits a new player down and explains comp to them, theyre unlikely to score well on it. Unless theyve been playing that way the entire time, a new player will have to field a different army then theyre used to, and wont do as well. And the experienced players just tweak their existing power armies a bit to squeeze out some more points. They know they can still whomp everyone and win, and wont worry about a few points lost cuz they took effective units.

As a Tyranid player, it would seem that I get hosed, plain and simple. Tyranids only have a few effective choices, and if I go with a Godzilla variant like Im playing now I would take a huge comp hit. Sure, I can take huge units of troops, nids do that well, but we have to balance 'huge numbers of troops' with other gak that actually works'. This comp method marginalizes Tyranids.

Your opponent never implied that your male figures were, perhaps, female : + 1 point

I just find the chest seed very, very odd.

And lo, the Emperor spoke thus, "Go forth, and impregnate the chests of young men everywhere!"

So... if I was playing Guard - no, wait, Mechanised Guard - would I have to bring a full 55-man/6 Chimera platoon to have a full sized troops choice?

This comp system is beyond stupid. Comp is stupid actually, but this system is worse.

BYE

If I lived closer I'd show up with something that still earned 35 or so points but was only ever so slightly less nasty, and certainly just as unpopular as anything else I'd bring. But when people complained, I'd laugh (harder) in their face, because I'm following the (crappy) rules.

I can easily give you a mech sisters army that breaks 40 that can win if played right.....Assuming 2Kish....

I flying cannoness with toys

5 sister squads in rhinos

2 seraphim squads

3 exorcists.

I give the system an 'A' for effort, but a 'D' for execution. Honestly, power-armor lists (excepting things like Deathwing or Grey Knights) should take a hit. ATSKNF and rending need to be figured in on top of this. Marines have such an advantage out of the gate, they need to take a hit for any kind of system to truely level the playing field.

Posted By jeremycobert 08/09/2006 10:03 AM
for example if you want less pod/fear lists. then create one of your scenarios that negatively impacts pods. just make sure everyone can have access to your scenarios beforehand. you want less MEQ's ? make a heavy gravity scenario where your movement is restricted to your armor save, so 3+ armor saves can only move/charge 3+. you want less armored company, add minefields to the scenario.

Bleh. I haven't liked the idea of scenarios that penalize a person for bringing a type of army in the some of the indy GTs for fantasy, and it doesn't work here either. Get rid of the comp and let people play what they feel like. The people that play for fun will, and those playing to win will maximize thier lists like normal.

I posted this to get some feedback on the comp system. I know a lot of people here don't like comp of any kind. I like comp, but I like a good comp system.

I want to see limits on the abused armies, combinations, and imbalances, but this comp system does not do this.

I rather have no comp (or just player selected comp) than bad comp.

And yes, we have a right not to show up if we do not like it. We were going to have several people come up from So. Cal to play, but they were all turned off by the comp system.

I want to change the comp system and try to make it better, but it is not getting any better. I was at the meeting after Capitol Punishment, and I addressed a lot of the issues, and nothing has changed.

It's a shame because I want this event to do well. Since GW canceled all of the GTs, I would like to see more local indy GTs pick up the slack.

Is your list's ineffectiveness a product of having been forced by the comp system into a 'mold', though? Is it your weakness as a player? Is it the matchups you faced? Is it the list itself and the cost value of your basic models? Id say yes to all of those except the first.

Mine was the first. I changed my army around to make it more comp friendly, and ended up takes an ineffective list that I hated. (Ironically, I misread the comp rules, and I would have scored a little better if I took my normal RTT list). But I had the worst comp score at Capitol Punishment, so why am I at a very large point disadvantage from playing Thousand Sons? Are they the power list that the local players were all playing that they wanted to limit? (As a note: If it was the last ?Is it the list itself and the cost value of your basic models?? Then the comp system should help you, not hurt you.)

Kublacon is better than most, even though the scoring this year was fubar and the person that was given the best overall award didnt actually win it, turns out. I look forward to Adepticon next year, and the return of the GTs.

Whatever. They scored my judges comp wrong, but I am not going to rehash it over, and over, again. Since it looks like I am not going to Capitol Punishment, I will see you at Adepticon.

well, rending weapons would be considered power weapons 1/6 times, right? Also, as written, the power weapon rule doesn't cover power fists or thunderhammers. What's with the +2 for a maximum score on all checked items? You're perfect already, here have some more points? That's that for?

I don't think special characters have any place in a tournament. No exceptions.

Blackmoor,

If you want feedback on it, or to work on a Comp System, then you need to post it maybe in the Rules Dev forum, and make it clear you don't care whether people like it, just that you want feedback on how to improve it (and then make sure to ignore the people who can't help but post in a derogatory manner).

While it might appear that no one likes comp, that's not true.  I wouldn't attend a GT that didn't have comp, playing that type of power-game isn't my thing.

I'd love to see or help in working up a system that works better, just in case someone might want to use it in their event.

Blackmoor,

I don't believe you can make a complicated comp system like this work. When you run a big tournement like this you have to prescreen weed out broken list and then let the players grade. Most players will be fair (even Ed who never dings people in comp even tools) and if anyone gets below average let a judge review the list. That way you have a system that much more fair were the players have some form of appeal and you nerf no armies from the start of the tourney.

I ran my 1,000 point Last Chancers army through this Comp System and ran into several major problems.

Questions 1, 2, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are impossible to figure out with a Last Chancers army. That?s mostly GW?s fault though.

Question 4 ? so my army, which has only one power weapon-wielding model (total 9) and that?s only because I?m forced to take it, gets the same number of points as a MEQ army that could have fifteen?! What the...? :evil:

Question 8 ? I get dinged because my entire army can Infiltrate. Fair enough, I guess. But why do deepstriking units get dinged for being able to infiltrate, especially when lots of them can?t? And why don?t I get dinged worse ? my entire army can either infiltrate or deepstrike?

Question 9 ? Why should I get dinged on a 50+% of my units being Fearless and lose the same number of points as a Dark Angels player who has a 50%+ Fearless army when I can lose my Fearless ability any time during the game and he can?t?

Question 10 ? define a retinue. Do Imperial Guardsmen with an officer count? Last Chancers with Schaeffer?

Question 11 ? I have no ordnance template weapons but I get rewarded the same points as someone who has 10? Can someone explain that to me?

Question 12 ? This is mathematically impossible for me to score high, or any all-infantry army, which is stupid. I have no armour. Thus I can get two points for having more non-armour than armour, but I can?t get three points because I have to have twice the amount of armour. Twice the amount of zero is zero. I have more than zero models.

Bonus points ? I would presumably get bonuses for having a themed army, as my army is the Last Chancers. But I lose points for taking a Special Character which is vital to my theme? Say what?

Anyway, to get my final result, I assumed a lot, including that I got the bonus points for being well themed. I got 35. For a frickin? Last Chancers army, for crying out loud.

Awful, awful, awful system.

I'm not a tournament player so feel free to ignore my opinion. But...

Two key problems with a complex Comp system like this:

1. It's inevitable that some armies get penalised unfairly. For example, Tau cannot spend more than 720 points on troops without wargear, and some of their wargear is useless junk they should not be forced to buy just to get +1. I'm sure other armies have the same kind of problem. The point is that the game isn't balanced and can't be rebalanced without imposing some quite severe restrictions on list design.

2. The Comp system becomes part of the metagame. Designing a list for the best pay-off of comp/effectiveness is just one step higher than designing for effectiveness. That's not going to help the less analytical players who are in it for fun rather than to win.

UK GTs don't use comp and hundreds of players still enter happily.

Basically it's a wargame and tournaments should be decided mainly by who wins battles.

I don't like the system at all but mostly because I really don't want to have to spend like a half hour with a slide rule and a protractor to figure out my comp score. Comp is the Carson Cressley of wargaming

This comp system is absolutely awful. Comp in general is no good because you can't make a "generic comp" template unless you make a "generic army list game" where each army is equal in regards to the comp scoring. In that case it merely becomes nothing more than a 50/50 chance at winning, i.e who rolls better. That is a horrendously boring way to play.



But I will add this.
The Tau CAN top out over the minimum requirement to have 50% troops, as they can take Devilfish. Seeing as how "Units with transports" are not used in the equation for the ratio of armored to unarmored it wouldn't effect anything. Also I am wondering if Carmachu's Mech SOB list comp score is taking that into account.

Yeah, people want to compare 'effective' versus 'ineffective' units when bashing the comp rules. If your idea of 'effective' is 6 carnifexes, well....I dont know what to tell you. The comp system does just fine when you put a vanilla army into it, but lets face facts -- if youre going to try to get a WAAC army through it, youre going to take a hit and thats the price you pay. Thats the way comp is, you dont score extra points for thinking up sick combos or taking only underpriced units and a fat HQ. The underlying premise of comp is, I believe, the more basic your army, the better your score. RT does this in a very loose way, this comp system is more restrictive and in many ways only serves to complicate things. I'll say it again - I know its not perfect, and I never claimed it to be. But is it really 100% marine biased and impossible to use with another army?

Blackmoor, your 1k Sons army had, what, 20 or so models? From what I heard it was brutally effective. Very specialised, everything bulked up with wargear, and those units were extremely tough. I dont know what you thought your comp score would be, but you can tell before you even start if youve got a comp friendly list with alot of troops or a WAAC list that maximises an army's potential. Stu-rat, I'll agree with you that a Last Chancers army isnt an overpowered list but it is unorthodox and consequently takes hits on comp. Its not a basic army and it operates outside the 'normal' army parameters...I dont know else what to tell you, other than I dont know of a comp system that will restrict all armies equally. The system isnt fair, and I dont think it ever will be. They have said that squads within an infantry platoon count individually for squad size so youre not penalised for not maxing your platoons, for what its worth.

Ive played in non-comp events. You get to bring all the fun toys in your army, you get to break out some nasty units, and I generally think its fun to use stuff I dont get to use or would get kicked in the nuts for using in a 'friendly' game. If I pay $50 for a tournament tho, Im going to want some kind of standard for armies. RT comp covers about 80% of my concerns; playing with no comp oftentimes reduces the game to a mathematical equation where I can figure out ahead of time whats going to happen, or it turns the game into 'my combo trumps yours' and removes some of the variables and, for me, some of the fun.

I know the Dakka Ivory Tower crowd has a seething hatred of anything that supposedly emasculates the game of 40k, but is it really that impossible to create an army that scores fairly well, is still competetive, and is not marines? How much of this thread is a well-founded argument against this and all comp systems and how much is just reactionary, bandwagon whining? Come up with a system that works, if you can, if thats even possible.

Dakka rarely ever agrees on anything, but here it's pretty obvious everyone agrees that this comp system sucks. And sucks badly. If you are trying to limit Armored Companies, Siren Prince Demonbombs, 9 Oblit 4 pie plate Iron Warriors, min/maxed lists and whatever else I haven't thought of, then *limit those* choices. I don't agree with it, but it's a helluva lot better than that complicated mess. As is, that system rewards some abusive lists while penalizing soft & fluffy ones.

Posted By Hokkaido23 08/09/2006 2:42 PM
Blackmoor, your 1k Sons army had, what, 20 or so models? From what I heard it was brutally effective. Very specialised, everything bulked up with wargear, and those units were extremely tough. I dont know what you thought your comp score would be, but you can tell before you even start if youve got a comp friendly list with alot of troops or a WAAC list that maximises an army's potential.

Go ahead an say it...I brought a cheesy Thousand Sons army. I double dog dare you to. (No one can resist a double dog dare!) 

Loading up on wargear is the only way Thousand Sons work. They need to be tooled up because they can't shoot worth a damn because they have no heavy weapons. I took a dreadnought and a predator as my heavy support, and chosen with a land raider in the elite slot. No one who saw my army on paper would ever say that it was overpowered.

Oh, and Thousand Sons are 24 points each. I can't take a lot of troops even if I wanted to.

 

 

I don't agree with it, but it's a helluva lot better than that complicated mess

Exactly. You gain a comp score but you lose time and precious sanity trying to figure out what the score is and WHY that score is....


Comp is trying to replace the old "Sportsmanship" score that was horribly abused by those who didn't like someone or had an opinion of someone else's army being 'cheesy' because they couldn't beat it. While that is commendable (sp) I still find the idea lacking in substance.

Example, an IW army can have 4 Heavy Support Choices and a Word Bearer army can take up to 9. While it is fluffy for both to do this only the IW will be penalized for it even though it is an acceptable part of their army list. Not only that but the WB army would get further points for doing so because they would have twice as many troops as elites, FA and Heavies easily. Not too mention the 50% troops etc...

My point? The specialization of certain armies needs to be represented in the comp score in some fashion in order to better balance it out. You did so in one respect by not counting Infantry transports in the one rule.

May I go through and maybe attempt to bring specifics from specialized armies into the comp score currently or would that be too invasive?

>>The Tau CAN top out over the minimum requirement to have 50% troops, as they can take Devilfish.

How does that work? Dedicated Devilfish are Transports, not Troops. Non-dedicated Devilfish are Troops and fill slots, but cost less than maximum size FCW squads even when pimped.

Let's not derail the thread with this, though.

Posted By Blackmoor 08/09/2006 3:18 PM

Yes, I beat Steve who won best general with them...but that is because I am good.

And modest apparently

@Hokkaido. So just out of curiosity, What is the prize for this super special "comp" event? I don't remember from last year, so please indulge me.

If it were up to me to provide prize support for this "comp" event, I would give the winner a Nerf gun. Best general a box of Space Marines without their guns and I would have them painted UN blue. Best sportsmanship a nice frilly dress. and the players choice maybe a set of those Neuticals that they give to male dogs after they have been "comped", I mean fixed.

I was wondering how to make a 40+ eldar list thats competative. My old standard list, farseer, scorpions, bansheess in serpent 4 guardiand defender sqads, 2 storms squads in serpents, 2 wraithlord and falcon, and 2 vypers gets heavily dinged.

a squad of 8 banshees is nasty but they are so weak, every game I kill a unit and then die. or I just die, and rarely do they ever get to make their points and live. But 48pts for squad of 8 is crazy. I think this comp thing needs to take into account a realistic value based on the strength of the model. A banshee with a power weapon isn't as dangerous as a space marine with a power weapon. 1pt difference right. GW says a banshee is 16pts but a space marine with power weapon is 45pts, and blood angels... sheesh. this chart needs to keep going well past 100 if you want to eliminate all the real clown armies. (oh are powerfists excluded, i assume you meant to include them, otherwise it seems clear that this rule only penalizes eldar, what about rending?)

This other thing about the AP 1 and AP2 weapons... why is balistic skill not factored in? There's a huge difference between BS3 and 4, and twinlinked and stuff like that. But in this comp its all the same, thats so bad.

Eldar can field up to 4 monstrous creatures, nids can field 8... why are they getting some sort of bonus for it? Welcome to 4th edition.... wraithlords are too slow, its a shooting game now. Again what if a nids player takes 6 big bugs.. thts no worse than taking 8... according to this, but in reality its nasty.

What percentatges of your army can infiltrate, deep strike or drop pod... i.e. what percentage of your army isn't in a standard transport that was nerfed in 4th..... No one plays walking armies anymore, if you don't have some sort of accelerated movement or are 100% shooty you will lose. I think that this should be revised so that if you can do any of thise stuff reguardless of the mission.. then calcuate the percentage.

What pecenatge of your army can use the ordinacne template... .... don't give IG the bonus!! WTF. And not all ordinace template weapons are created equal, so please don't penalize armies the same. TAU have hammerheads but those ordinance templates aren't as nasty as a tyranid barbed strangler which is in no way as powerful as a basilisk shot. Why arent we calcualting strenght of the weapon divided by AP? You guys must like old school IG without traits?

% of army thats fearless (why are you doing this?)

I guess the rest is ok. I'd rather you guys just say well we'd like to ban the use of linburger and groeiere cheese, but some swiss and any milder cheese is acceptable.

Posted By Darrian13 08/09/2006 5:11 PM
@Hokkaido. So just out of curiosity, What is the prize for this super special "comp" event? I don't remember from last year, so please indulge me.

If it were up to me to provide prize support for this "comp" event, I would give the winner a Nerf gun. Best general a box of Space Marines without their guns and I would have them painted UN blue. Best sportsmanship a nice frilly dress. and the players choice maybe a set of those Neuticals that they give to male dogs after they have been "comped", I mean fixed.

 

So you mean dark angels then

Chaos Cola its the real thing...

 

 

Posted By mauleed 08/09/2006 8:24 AM

You're dead right, if you don't like the comp system, dont play.

And most won't.

Pure speculation, nothing more. We'll find out after the event.

@Blood Angel:  Compairing "comp friendly" to "Kids glove games" is brutally slowed.

I'm sorry you feel that way but there is no need to get defensive.

Whining and complaing about comp based on someone's opinion of how a list 'should' be constructed is lame.

I typically take comp friendly lists but I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what my opponents take - I just try and handle the business on the playing field.

There should be less complaining about what someone else takes and more time spent figuring out how you are going to win with whatever you chose to bring.

Plain and simple - at a tournament (especially at one of these national events) you should be there to bring the heat.

Comp does nothing to even the playing field. You're just playing a modded version of the game. Say, capture the flag or zombie mod in counterstrike rather than the typical mode of play. It's nothing better, nothing worse, since you can choose which army you want to bring and ultimately wipe armies off the board. I don't see why anyone's complaining, really, since it looks like DP marines will do fine.

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 9:42 PM
@Aeneus. I think you are missing the point. No one is argueing that you cannot build an armylist with perfect comp, that is not important. What is important is howto build a "comp-friendly" list (40+ score) AND make it a viable tourney winning list. That is the issue! What most of us have realized and you seam to miss is that Space Marines can do this very easily in the current comp system. Can you do the same with Chaos? I bet you cannot.

This is why the system is unbalanced.

Darrian

Well, to be honest Darrian, I beat you last week with a Chaos army (Word Bearers) that I was going to take up to Contest of Champions (the same comp people) a couple of weeks ago.

That army would have scored around a 47 under this comp system. (I only lose 3 points for not having half of my troops at max size.)

 

 

Blackmoor, your 1k Sons army had, what, 20 or so models? From what I heard it was brutally

After a statement like that, I can't see any point in continuing the conversation. Obviously you not only don't get it, you lack the capacity to get it.

Either that or you live in the land of the easter bunny, the tooth fairie and brutally effective thousand sons.

Again... marines. Marines and MEqs are favored by this system.

How does that work? Dedicated Devilfish are Transports, not Troops. Non-dedicated Devilfish are Troops and fill slots, but cost less than maximum size FCW squads even when pimped.

Let's not derail the thread with this, though

Curious statement. I wonder just what you are insinuating at? Points wise in order to meet the 50% troops you would need 925. Taking 6 twelve man squads of FW each in a Devilfish would more than top that out before upgrades. 200points per unit times 6 equates to 1,200 points in troops. The transports points still count in regards to the size of the unit pointswise.

 

The only thing that transports DON'T count in regarding this comp score list is the percentage of armored vs. unarmored units.

Besides this isn't YMDC... Devilfish are not able to fill Troop slots alone in the real world, only on dakka's RaW driven forum previously mentioned.

Hey,

Posted By stonefox 08/09/2006 7:35 PM
Comp does nothing to even the playing field

Sure it does. Everyone's lists are nerfed equally. :- /

I can take a stab at guessing the organizers' intent:

army points spent on troops
Why: Lists feature racial Units as core.

troop selections at maximum size
Why: Min/maxers.

points spent on wargear
Why: WYSIWYG fanatics.

power weapons
Why: Fewer Troops = bad, apparently.

weapons with AP1 or 2
Why: Irresistable force.

monstrous creatures
Why: Wraithlord, Monolith, Gav.

vehicles with a combined armor of 48 or more

Why: Rabid treadheads.

Infiltrators and drop pod units
Why: Tourney Objective Scenarios.

fearless
Why: Immovable object.

your most expensive HQ choice
Why: Herohammer.

ordnance
Why: Zero conflict shy-guys.

armored units
Why: Troop transports = good, apparently.

troop Units
Why: Sly comp jiggery by the unwashed.

multiple saves
Why: Bogged Assaults.

background appropriate to the 40K universe
Why: Female SM, Nazi Deathkorps, Grey Knights of Khorne.

no special characters
Why: Bookkeeping.

twice as many troop selections as any other
Why: Theme.

maximum score
Why: Carrot.

Of course, YMMV . . .

Playa

The problem is that certain armies get punished and there isnt anything they can do about it except play a different army, any cult army with the fearless, or daemonhunters(although they can take storm troopers), any chaos army in general with the maximum troop sizes(try playing TS with 20 marines in each troop slot), among others, every army should be able to get max comp and with this system they cant.

aaron

Posted By mauleed 08/09/2006 8:16 PM

Blackmoor, your 1k Sons army had, what, 20 or so models? From what I heard it was brutally

After a statement like that, I can't see any point in continuing the conversation. Obviously you not only don't get it, you lack the capacity to get it.

Either that or you live in the land of the easter bunny, the tooth fairie and brutally effective thousand sons.

 

The funny part is that he accuses me of being a WAAC (win at all costs) Thousand Sons player.

The other thing is that I wanted to bring my WAAC pure Demonhunter army to the 2006 Capitol Punishment, but the comp really hurts them.

I guess I am drawn to the cheesy lists.

 

@Blackmoor, I think you are underestimating the comp hits on your WB army. You failed to take into account your number of summoned units and the number of power weapons in your list (bloodletters?).

While it is true that you beat me with that list, to be fair, it was my first try with Space Marines. I know I am a fast learner, but come on. BTW, I did happen to win the RTT 2 days later with that list and you played your WB's list there, didn't you?

Darrian

Well, I ran my (rather bad) footslogging Orks through and got a 41 without bonuses. Things that stick out as dumb for Orks are...

% of points spent on Troops. I'd spend more if I got more than 6 slots. A Grot mob is around 90pts.

% of Troops at Max size. Grots?

% of Fearless. Maxed out Ork mobs... are Fearless.

% of Units with Multiple Saves. Grots and Kustom Force Fields.

Posted By Darrian13 08/09/2006 11:12 PM
@Blackmoor, I think you are underestimating the comp hits on your WB army. You failed to take into account your number of summoned units and the number of power weapons in your list (bloodletters?).

While it is true that you beat me with that list, to be fair, it was my first try with Space Marines. I know I am a fast learner, but come on. BTW, I did happen to win the RTT 2 days later with that list and you played your WB's list there, didn't you?

Darrian

I ran it through the comp system and I was hit by:

<PRE>What percentage of your troop selections are at maximum size?</PRE><PRE>Less than 25% 0 </PRE><PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE><PRE>For any model armed with power weapons (or considered to be)</PRE><PRE>multiple the strength of the model times the number of attacks it has. </PRE><PRE>Add these numbers together for all such models and consult the chart below. </PRE><PRE>(Include bonus attacks from extra hand weapons but not from charging)</PRE><PRE>91 or more 0</PRE></PRE><PRE>(Bloodletters, Chaos LT+Dark Blade, 1 Powerfist and 2 Oblits)</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE><PRE>Of the total number of units in your army, what percentage can infiltrate? (Include Deep striking units, summoned units, Infiltrators and drop pod units) </PRE><PRE>21 to 35% 2</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>So that army was -7 in comp. 43 points is very good with that competative list.</PRE><PRE>I could use that list and do well at most RTTs.</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>And yes, you did win the RTT I played those Word Bearers at. We both went 2-0-1. </PRE><PRE>Too bad you got your tie early so I could have seen if </PRE><PRE>I still could have beaten you at the top table.</PRE> </PRE> </PRE>

The Troops being at max size should be only for units that have a max troop size of 10.  The fact that my footslogging Ork force that doesn't have any troops at max size (20 boyz in Ork mobs, 20 or so Grots in a mob) and gets penalized for that is rediculous.

You can't make this kind of comp setup for a tournament without having tons of qualifiers because of the diversity of armies - which just makes it even more complex.

And as stated there are many armies that can get excellent comp scores and still be incredibly effective or min/maxed or whatever you want to call it.

Comp sucks. Instead of punishing people for taking stuff, why not design senarios that make them work for their wins. The multiple objective based senarios at adepticon are a great example of this. Bonus points and penalties that tie in with senarios could also be used (ie -2 points if you lose 2 or more elite units or -2 if you lose all your troops).

What is so sad about this "comp" thing for me, is that the event itself is awesome. The coordinaters put so much effort and time in, it definitely shows. The venue is perfect, large enough for 64 players without much cramping. And the players are great, except for the cheater. The store that sponsors the event, Great Escape is also very nice.
But sadly, this comp crap is such a deterrant for me that I will not go this year.

Darrian

I will not be able to attend this year as I no longer live in CA. ^____^;

Moopy, depending on where you moved to, that may not be an excuse. I drove up from Los Angeles last year, that was a hell of a drive, so you better have moved far.

Darrian

Washington State now, and driving from CA to WA in one day was also a hell of a drive. @_@

I don't understand why people are penalized for bringing power weapons, but not for bringing power armor. It doesn't make any sense. If people weren't fielding power armor, you wouldn't need to bring power weapons to get passed the power armor! It's assbackwards.

Maybe rather than penalizing people for not bringing max sized units, they should penalize people for bringing troop units with less than 20 models in them. That would work better, it's more fair.

I agree also, that it's dumb to ding Fearless units but not ATSKNF. If you're going to ding one ding both, they both break the Ld. rules.

Also, there should be a penality for bringing too many models with both a S and T of 4 or more. That's just abusive and broken!

To answer the original Q, I think this comp is terrible and I would not play in any tourni that uses it. I agree with mauleed.

-Eli

I am getting the feeling that this event "Contest of Champions" will not get the Dakka Dakka seal of approval.

I also think that the fact that there is a comp system at "Contest of Champions" will severly lower the prestige of winning the event. I mean, how can you brag about being the champion of a comp event? That is kinda like being the winner of a 6' and under basketball league. I guess a guy who is the best player in such a league is a pretty good player, but I doubt he gets taken too seriously.

Darrian

This comp system just enforces the old standby comp scoring-

(speaking from a Marine player's point of view) Bad comp is

1) Anything that can do something that I can't do and/or
2) Anything that kills Marines really well.

It also goes with the idea that if an army is effective, then it is an army with bad comp.

@Hokkaido. You mentioned Kublacon in one of your earlier posts stating that "the scoring was fubar and the person who was awarded best overall did not actually win it." I was not there, but I am curious, can you elaborate? What happened?

Darrian

Darrian13 -- The contest of champions is for a boxed army at the end of the year. Nobody brags about anything, thats just the name of it. And nothing gets the Dakka Dakka seal of approval; we deal in negatives here. For people presumptuous enough to write an FAQ, where is the inspiration to compose a fair and equitable comp list (we're working under the assumption that such a thing exists). I understand the Mauleed-iots (new word, thx) dont want one and there are plenty of 'mere mortal' gamers who wont play without one. Im somewhere in the middle tho...I catch flak in this thread for the comp system because I disagree that it completely sucks, but im not a comp nazi and I actually prefer RT comp. A simple, concise tip of the cap to fair gaming. How about a series of tournaments across the US that all use a unified scoring system, resulting in national rankings and an invite-only tournament at the end of the year / season that would truly be a Grand Tournament? Id be all for that. Everybody needs to hop inside yakface's big brain and come up with something that works.

The Kublacon mess arose when one of the GW-provided judges added the scores wrong. Some people only got credit for 4 games instead of 5, and it wasnt caught until a few days after the tournament. Its too bad too, the main organizer works his butt off to pull everything together on his own, GW steps in and dangles some official recognition, and then screws it up. In the grim darkness of the far future, there are only judges who cant count.

I catch flak in this thread for the comp system because I disagree that it completely sucks, but im not a comp nazi and I actually prefer RT comp. A simple, concise tip of the cap to fair gaming

Except its not. An ork player is going to get hammered by this comp system, while at the same time a WH player can build a killer army with a 40+ comp score.

It's not fair. That is its main problem.

GTs used some of these same elements at one time or another, and they moved away from them for all the reasons mentioned. Ultimately, different armies get their strength in different ways and in different parts of the org chart.

I've defended the purpose of comp at GTs many times here in the past, mainly from the standpoint of being a business decision by GW to make their events (at least seem) friendlier. But I've come to the conclusion that comp is mostly a pointless exercise. If they have a rigid, quantitative system, it'll reward some armies over others and it becomes another exercise in min/maxing. If they have a loose quantitative system, everyone probably ends up scoring near max scores, making the whole exercise almost pointless. If they have a player-judged system, it'll be abused by those who care too much and tank scores, and those who care too little and pass out max scores to everyone. If they have a judge-based system (which is how the early U.S. GTs operated), people will complain that armies were unevenly judged and that the judging isn't transparent.

No matter how you try to put a comp system in, there are going to be serious flaws and people are going to be unhappy. And unhappy players is what the thing is trying to prevent in the first place.

Here's an idea for comp: "codex armies only". No chapter approved, no eye of terror no White Dwarf armies. Everyone plays with the armies from the codexes, knows everyone else will be playing armies from the codexes, and will all be able to choose from the same armies. Sure some codexes are out of balance, but everyone has access to everything on the menu from the shelf of a store. No other restrictions.

Here's an idea for comp: "codex armies only". No chapter approved...

My 200+ painstakingly converted and painted Kroot thank you. Care to 'splain why a Codex army is more acceptable than a non-codex army? You have a suggestion, now explain your reasoning.

To me in a tournament setting every one should bring the best they can.  F**K comp.  When is the last time the US army said oh we have this great tank with all these great guns, but we shouldn't use it because our enemy can't destroy it easily.  Everyone should take the strongest list they can make.  It is about who is the best, so everyone should bring their best and play for the win not a comp score.  That is not to say that Sportsmen ship should not be counted because I don't care how comps friendly your list is; if you?re a d*ck to play against no one will have fun.

I understand comp is there to keep things fair and balanced but i have never seen a comp system that is fair to all armies.  The only way to do it is to have a different comp rubric for every codex.  Even then you are not garneted to have anything that is fair to all army builds.

Posted By Furious 08/11/2006 8:57 AM

Here's an idea for comp: "codex armies only". No chapter approved...

My 200+ painstakingly converted and painted Kroot thank you. Care to 'splain why a Codex army is more acceptable than a non-codex army? You have a suggestion, now explain your reasoning.

Codexes are supposed to be balanced for play. White Dwarf/Eye of Terror/Chapter approved armies are for fun armies that aren't necessarily balanced for play, kinda like Forgeworld. Some tournaments are not allowing Lost and the Damned armies and there is no Genestealer Cult armies anymore even though someone may have eleventy billion models painted up, they get denied to play in a tournament too. There's no reason to act all defensive because you have a custom non-codex army.

Good for you on making the army, you bring a lot to the game, your list just doesn't fit the requirements for my idea of tournament play.

EOT was not added in the UK (Only the UK) GT under the proviso that its no longer in print, not that the list was a "fun" list or untested.


Convince me the BA list is balanced and I'll buy you a beer. And not that cheap US stuff, real beer.

Posted By jfrazell 08/11/2006 12:23 PM

Convince me the BA list is balanced and I'll buy you a beer. And not that cheap US stuff, real beer.

 

I have always found the BA list under 3rd edition quite balanced both to play with and against (I used to play BA and Salamanders).

But speaking of beer, as a brit living in the US finding decent beer is always a struggle especially if you want beer that doesn't leave an after taste for the rest of the evening (as with Miller, Bud et al that leave no taste at all even when in your mouth!!). Luckily QFC is the greatest savoir - Young's WaggleDance and SLA, Bellhaven Scotch Ale etc and a little reminder of home is just sat in my fridge.

Back O/T - I am a "story" player and painter more than a hard core gamer. If I don't get to play for a month or two no biggie. However, for a tournement it should be no holds bard to the victory the spoils etc. Death, destruction and total crushing of your opponent is the key - comp and sportsmanship have no bearing (though loss of points for being a dork should happen). People should wince at the carnage.

It is like chess. A friendly afternoon game with beer and friends and you allow you opponent a "take back" or warn him/ her of an error. In a championship match you pull your best moves and crush you opponent and take advantage of every error and try and "psyche" him out. The two events are total unrelated and should not even be compared.

p.s I hate agreeing with Ed.

Codexes are supposed to be balanced for play. White Dwarf/Eye of Terror/Chapter approved armies are for fun armies that aren't necessarily balanced for play, kinda like Forgeworld.

Edit: I've thought out my arguement a little better...

I don't agree with your interpretation of "balanced."  Dismissing an army list based on where it was printed is too general.  By this definition, the Dark Elder (in addition to the Wych Cult) would be ineligble because they have had their changes printed in White Dwarf and Chapter Approve.

One could argue armies printed in the categories you mentioned are under-developed and therefore unbalanced.  However, the Kroot Merc Army had gone through no fewer than three versions and the Feral Orks have been changed at least twice.  These two armies have seen more refinement and had more player-driven changes than most Codex armies.  I feel they are among the most developed list out there, and argueably more balanced than Codex armies in existance.

In regards to the Great Escape Games comp system, I feel is is unfair solely for the fact it is impossible for certain armies to _ever_ receive a perfect comp score.  The Kroot Merc will never receive a 50, simply because compulsory choices, HQ and Troops, infiltrate as a core ability.  Armored Company takes a double ding from having more Vehicles and Armor than non-vehicle/armor selections.  I know there are other armies that fall into this category and I think it would be more productive to examine this issue and use it to promt change in the existing comp system.

Posted By jfrazell 08/11/2006 12:23 PM
EOT was not added in the UK (Only the UK) GT under the proviso that its no longer in print, not that the list was a "fun" list or untested.


Convince me the BA list is balanced and I'll buy you a beer. And not that cheap US stuff, real beer.

Note that I wrote:

Sure some codexes are out of balance, but everyone has access to everything on the menu from the shelf of a store.

I'm fully aware that the codexes aren't perfectly balanced, and some are out of whack. Also note that I am saying that it is all available on the shelf of a store. This applies to any chapter approved army, not everyone has access to those lists. It is my opinion and has been stated as my opinion that tournaments should be restricted to codex armies because they are available to anyone, are supposedly balanced according to GW and would 'even' up the playing field by being widely available. How many people attributed the feral ork wins at tournaments to their obscurity in addition to the skill of the person playing it? Quite a few people if I remember correctly. I'm all for specialized lists in friendly play however.

 

Posted By Furious 08/11/2006 2:25 PM

Codexes are supposed to be balanced for play. White Dwarf/Eye of Terror/Chapter approved armies are for fun armies that aren't necessarily balanced for play, kinda like Forgeworld.

Still not buying it. My Chapter Approved army has seen more tweaks and adjustments than some Codex armies out there. The Kroot Merc rules have gone through at least 3 changes and Feral Orks at least two. And what about Dark Eldar? Their most recent changes were featured in a Chapter Approved article.

Try again.

"aren't necessarily balanced" doesn't mean they are all imbalanced, I am generalizing for the benefit of the other players. You don't have to agree with me and I am admitting I am generalizing, but hey, it was stated as my opinion to start with.

It is my opinion and has been stated as my opinion that tournaments should be restricted to codex armies because they are available to anyone, are supposedly balanced according to GW and would 'even' up the playing field by being widely available. How many people attributed the feral ork wins at tournaments to their obscurity in addition to the skill of the person playing it?

Since it is a question of availability, I'd like to point out both the Feral Ork list and the KMA list are available for download. I believe this makes them "more available" and easily accessable than the Codicies because they are free (one could argue they are only available to those with computers, and to those nay sayers, I recommend going to the nearest Public Library which, ironically, will most likely not have any codicies). I feel it is a players responsibility to bring one's Codex to any tournament in case any questions arise. Personally, I bring multiple copies of my "Codex" for reference and for my opponents to keep. I've been making the KMA rules "available" and "accessable" for the last three years of competitive play.

I don't believe your arguement is at all valid. Players are perfectly able to research other materials and/or ask questions of their opponents. To fail to do so and blame a loss on "unavailable" or "obscure" lists is a result of their failure to investigate potential opponents. Especially for GT's where Feral Orks were on the list of approved armies.

Now if someone managed to win a GT with a Squat army, perhaps then I would credit that to winning with an obscure army.

Regardless, I would like to see if anyone has thought of other armies that could never receive a 50 on the GEG comp scores...

Okay, there's been a lot of "I like comp" vs "I hate comp" arguments but no real constructive critisism toward coming up with a more realistic system that people can (more than less) agree is fair.  What follows is just a basic start for anyone with the time, patience, or reason to come up with such a system.  I'm sure there are enough people interested in seeing such a work that it wouldn't take long as a community effort...

The basic idea seems to be that a fair comp system needs to take into account each individual race's individual abuses that are often seen as 'crossing the line'.  This is not a discussion on whether or not tournament play should or should not even have a comp system.  That is a matter for the tournament organizers to hash out between themselves, I'm sure they see/hear the same crap day in and day out that we've all seen a million times on this subject already.

This is attacking the problem from a different angle, it is an attempt to find a reasonable solution that makes the majority of players who are in the middle of the spectrum happy.

Notice that these guidelines would sport a lower average comp score than what has been discussed in this thread.  I think that an army's composition score should only come into play in those tournaments where you see a few points difference between certain players.  I also think the scores should really mean something, so that a player with an exceptionally high score is truly handicapping himself by taking an underpowered list on purpose.  Beyond that, it should simply be seen as another piece of the puzzle for tweaking out one's list - balancing the scale between effectiveness and guaranteed comp points.  Nobody should really want to play a perfect comp score list under this kind of system.

So, a simple start would look like this -

Race independent Guideline (max 6 points)

<PRE><?     Total number of squads that are at maximum size* = comp points gained.</PRE><PRE>   For this calculation, use the following guidelines:</PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in left 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt">·         Any unit with 20 models is added if its normal maximum size is over 20 models.</PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in left 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt">·         Any unit with 15 models is added if the normal maximum size is between 15 and 20 models.</PRE><PRE style="MARGIN-LEFT: 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.25in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in left 45.8pt 91.6pt 137.4pt 183.2pt 229.0pt 274.8pt 320.6pt 366.4pt 412.2pt 458.0pt 503.8pt 549.6pt 595.4pt 641.2pt 687.0pt 732.8pt">·         No unit with a maximum size of less than 5 models ever counts for this bonus   </PRE><PRE> Race specific Guidelines</PRE>

  Space Marines (15 points maximum)

Total number of drop pods:

0    3

1-2  2

3-4  1

5+   0

 

Total number of units with rending weapons:

0    5

1    4

2    3

3    2

4    1

5+   0

 

Total number of Librarians:

0    2

1    1

2    0

 

Total number of units with an upgraded character (Vet Sgt or equivallent, Terminator Sgt does not count):

0    5   

1    4

2    3

3    2

4    1

5+   0

 

 

Tyranids (20 point maximum)

Total number of monsterous creatures:

0    10

1    9

2    8

3    7

4    6

5    5

6    4

7    3

8    2

 

Total number of non-Warrior rending units:

0    10

1    9

2    8

3    7

4    6

5    5

6    4

7    3

8+   2

 

 

Necrons (16 point maximum)

Total number of Monoliths:

0    6

1    4

2    2

3    0

 

List has no C-Tan: +2

 

Total number of Res Orbs:

0    6

1    3

2    0

 

List has no Veil of Darkness: +2

 

 

 

But speaking of beer, as a brit living in the US finding decent beer is always a struggle especially if you want beer that doesn't leave an after taste for the rest of the evening (as with Miller, Bud et al that leave no taste at all even when in your mouth!!). Luckily QFC is the greatest savoir - Young's WaggleDance and SLA, Bellhaven Scotch Ale etc and a little reminder of home is just sat in my fridge.

Beer Advocate

Except its not. An ork player is going to get hammered by this comp system, while at the same time a WH player can build a killer army with a 40+ comp score.

It's not fair. That is its main problem.

Did I ever say anywhere that it was fair? No. I said I prefer RT comp, which is minimal even for those who hate comp altogether. RT comp is simple and covers the basics. You misread my post.

Posted By Furious 08/11/2006 5:03 PM

It is my opinion and has been stated as my opinion that tournaments should be restricted to codex armies because they are available to anyone, are supposedly balanced according to GW and would 'even' up the playing field by being widely available. How many people attributed the feral ork wins at tournaments to their obscurity in addition to the skill of the person playing it?

Since it is a question of availability, I'd like to point out both the Feral Ork list and the KMA list are available for download. I believe this makes them "more available" and easily accessable than the Codicies because they are free (one could argue they are only available to those with computers, and to those nay sayers, I recommend going to the nearest Public Library which, ironically, will most likely not have any codicies). I feel it is a players responsibility to bring one's Codex to any tournament in case any questions arise. Personally, I bring multiple copies of my "Codex" for reference and for my opponents to keep. I've been making the KMA rules "available" and "accessable" for the last three years of competitive play.

I don't believe your arguement is at all valid.

The nice thing about discussions is that both sides are not required to agree, just to discuss. My proposed codex only requirement fits what I think is adequate to keep things fair. You can prove that your army is codex worthy, available to the homeless and I still won't be convinved because I am basing my opinion on:

Codex armies can be checked off the shelf of a well stocked gaming store. They might be able to provide downloads, but they will likely have codexes. Friends will have codexes. Anyone can buy a codex, anyone with a codex can tell what edition it is, wether it is up to date fairly easily and is something that opponents can thumb through with friends and have an idea of what can be brought. That's what I see for tournament play. If you don't like it, don't play it, each tournament has it's own set of rules and that is the kind of tournament I would like to play at.

I begin to think that the fairest 'comp' system is simply a set of three lists for every army that are valid in the tournament. You pick one, you bring it, you get full comp. You bring anything else and you're disqualified.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the argument that the game is perfectly fair as it is - you could just as easily have brought the army that you're calling cheesy. I imagine that the main incentive for comp scoring is not to make the game more fair, as it's perfectly fair, but rather to make the game different. Currently, it's pretty obvious that certain armies are much more capable of winning a tournament than are others. While fair, that's not necessarily fun for everyone - some people undoubtedly want a tournament where codex Orks have a chance. Any comp system is perfectly fair (for the same reasons that no comp is perfectly fair), but the ideal system balances all the codices against each other. Since that's next to impossible, why not simply pick three lists from every codex that have a 50/50 chance of beating every other selected list and demanding that players bring one of them? You're not forcing the player to pick things any more than most comp systems force Armored Company or Iron Warriors players, and you can offer a decent selection of army types.

If you want to make composition rules then at least don't do it in a general way but do it unit by unit from every army. The player and judge at the tournament do not evaluate composition because this is already include in the way that people select their army.

A good way to do it would be like they did in Confrontation with the Dragon rouge. They do not only add tournament rules over the basic rules but also add more detail to some general rules and specific unit rules and detail every limitation to maintain balance. They also discuss every limitation they add on forum. The format is good enough that every tournament I saw use those rules unlike 40k tournament where I am always stuck with weird general rules that break balance for some army

Rules that add point and deduct point on the tournament result should be balance with the effect they produce. If there is 100 battle point in the tournament an army with a limitation and some composition bonus point should end up with the same amount of point than the same army would have earn without those limitation. A factor that give composition point but does not make the army better should not be part of the composition point. There is no point giving bonus point to somebody that use a lot of troops if his army is more efficient that way. The different composition system that I saw in 40k are always of that type and break balance.

I personally like comp, just not this version, for all the reasons that have been stated (although I'm surprised more IG players aren't complaining, they get truly shafted in this comp system)

To make a workable and fair comp system, you need a seperate system for every codex. Period. The reason is that each codex is differant, emphasizing differant areas as their strengths. Marines have small numbers of models, each of whom is fairly effective, while an army such as IG requires 2 or 3 times as many models and weapons to accomplish the same effect becuase they don't hit as often and the troops carrying them aren't as durable. Why are IG donged for having more heavy weapons than marines? Why are they dinged for not being able to field fulll troops choices, but given an allowence for ordnance (which they shouldn't get)? Why are 3 leman russ demolishers more acceptable than 3 space marine vindicators, despite the fact that the weapons in question are every bit as effective and are located on tougher vehicles?

A couple other issues I have are infiltrate/deep strike. Why are these against comp, but dedicated transports are not? They accomplish the same task, sometimes less effectively than a transport would, especially as not all scenarios allow infiltrate/DS, but they ALL allow for transports. In point of fact, transports are not even counted against comp at all and in fact help with comp (by adding points to Troops). I'm not saying transports are bad so much as they are no better than deep striking and infiltrate. My Deathwing army whould take a huge hit to comp, becuase of deep strike and power fists and multiple saves, and yet the reason it should be mid-comp (all the rending weapons) has nothing to do with it.

In any good comp system, every army should be able to score perfect or almost perfect by taking the proper (supposedly underpowered) units. Under this system, it's simply not possible for some armies to score even close, despite the fact that they are not very powerful armies. That's where the problems arise. This comp system really doesn't limit the type of armies played, nor does really do what it is meant to do: give "weak" lists a bonus to make them comparable to "powerful" lists overall. It's just too specific about some things while not taking a lot of other things into account.

Would I play in a tournament with this com system in place? Yeah, sure, but I'd be pretty vocal to the judges about the inherent problems it has.

Mauleed wrote:
Anyone who supports comp for their wargame should have to play in a dress.

Anyone who believes *any* grown man who plays toy soldiers has room to comment on the masculinity of others has a serious mental disorder.

Might aswell get the organisers to "select" everyones army so it is fair and no one can get confused with dice provided by the organiser in a "Trouble" dice popper so there is no "lucky" dice.

For our tournaments we have an open slather policy of bring any list you like, codex, white dwarf, forgeworld, GW website as long as you have a copy of the rules and the correct figures no problem. Nearly all of the time a standard "codex" army wins and not the old vets who take FW vehicles and ork clan lists, but we play 1500pt tournies, and extra points are mainly for painting, basing and a background for your army. As one mans cheese is another mans balanced list, depending on what side of the fence you are on.

If a person is an arse it is him regardless of what list he plays with.

>>If a person is an arse it is him regardless of what list he plays with.

Sigged.

Mech Tau got a 34. and it wasn't all that optimized for MeQ...

My extremely sub-optimal, loses-most-games IG army got a 30. My much more effective DA list got a 36.

Anyone who believes *any* grown man who plays toy soldiers has room to comment on the masculinity of others has a serious mental disorder.

And any person who keeps degrading the HOBBY into 'toy soldiers' should be drug out into the street and beaten. I don't play 'toy soldiers'... I play a tabletop HOBBY wargame.

A: they ARE toy Soldiers.
B: Just because I play with them does not degrade my masculinity, if you believe that you might be a little insecure.


Comp is lame because it relies on other people?s interpretation on what is fair. I have a Crazy Idea, let?s write fair and balanced rules, and throw away comp. I'm sick of being penalized for being a jerk.

Anyone who believes *any* grown man who plays toy soldiers has room to comment on the masculinity of others has a serious mental disorder.

At least a few members here also particpate in what are perceived to be very masculine activities, such as power lifting, personal training, or even military careers.

Mauleed, whom you referenced in particular, can bench nearly 400 lbs.

Just something to mull the next time that you decide that the "grown men" here aren't all that masculine.

Just because I play with them does not degrade my masculinity, if you believe that you might be a little insecure.

Agreed but my response was directed to the original person who degraded the hobby in the first place in order to throw a dig at Ed. Why some people go out of their way to try and flame Mauleed is beyond me.

Posted By DaIronGob 08/14/2006 11:52 AM

Just because I play with them does not degrade my masculinity, if you believe that you might be a little insecure.

Agreed but my response was directed to the original person who degraded the hobby in the first place in order to throw a dig at Ed. Why some people go out of their way to try and flame Mauleed is beyond me.

It's how he makes himself feel better and to compensate for whatever shortcomings he posesses. After all, it is much easier to say "97% of miniature gamers are loosers except for me, of course!", sling mud and make other such digs than to provide any sort of constructive criticisms. :shrugs:

Posted By DaIronGob 08/14/2006 11:37 AM

Anyone who believes *any* grown man who plays toy soldiers has room to comment on the masculinity of others has a serious mental disorder.

And any person who keeps degrading the HOBBY into 'toy soldiers' should be drug out into the street and beaten. I don't play 'toy soldiers'... I play a tabletop HOBBY wargame.

Which consists of playing with toy soldiers.  Don't fight it, embrace your inner dork. 

Seriously most hobbies, when you really get down to it, are stupid and dorky (except full contact tiddlywinks cage match special edition of course).  But they are fun. 

Oh my inner dork is more than embraced much to my wife's chagrin.

Hobbies and collecting are all dorky to the jocks and 'cool' clique but then again I heard a pretty funny joke... fantasy football is to jocks what Dungeons and Dragons is to dorks.

 

Edit: Spelling.

I just had to post this, we all need to laugh every once in awhile at our selves. 

Yes, that is funny.

Trust me I used to be a 'Red Shirt' and I for one now know what it's like to be scorned by the jocks AND the dorks! lol.

Booyah.  A picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

Jocks.  There's something I haven't heard in a long time. They're dorks too. 

'Wow so you spent all day hitting that little ball around a field with a stick? What a waste of a perfectly good walk..."

 

Posted By DaIronGob 08/14/2006 11:52 AM

Why some people go out of their way to try and flame Mauleed is beyond me.

Am I the only one who thought this was amusing?