Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
The game has gotten pretty crazy since 5th edition and with the new Eldar rumors it seems now more than ever tournaments need to employ some kind of comp system.
Events in Melbourne where im from has for a long time played largely comp and pretty much everything you can think of has been tried.
Each comp system always seems to come with thier own set of problems which either centers around the systems lack of transparency, sweeping rules that work perfectly for 90% of cases but poorly in others or inconsitently executed subjective elements.
My team and I created Community Comp which is a system to grade the power level of armies ultimately for use as a comp score in tournaments to avoid these problems.
Players will build thier own comp score as they make thier army by comparing the units they want to use against the relevant pages in the Community Comp Document.
Everything is explained in full so players are never hit with a nasty supprise of a bad comp score they werent expecting.
To minimise the inhearent bias we all have we maintain a council of 15 experienced players and tounrnament organisers who decide on costings for powerfull units or combos.
They make decisions based on feedback from the community and tournament data through rigorous debate. Were not afraid to admit when were wrong so when theres a resounding call for change by the comminty we make changes.
We have a strict policy of no Knee jerk reactions, dont change things too often and dont make sweeping rules.
We have learned through observation of other failed systems that sweeping rules hit the relevant 90% of cases perfectly but miss out on the outliers.
To avoid this we make targed solutions for spesifically defined problems. This leads to added complexity but its worth it in the end.
Communtiy Comp has been running for 2 years now and over the last year we have seen significant success in Tournaments across Australia.
Its very common for people to have a bad first impression, to think they can break it after reading it through once or think its jsut another crack pot system that will change the meta but not ballance it.
I have leanred that these first responses fade and fade quickly. As people start to make armies for the system, try and break it and play games with it they quickly change thier tune.
I invite you all to check it out on our website and facebook page linked below.
Comp like this is a stupid idea, and this example is no exception.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Sorry, to intrude, but I'm curious. I only play friendly games. The closest thing I go to that is a "tournament" is a 3 month long, free to enter, 2 games a week thing, where the only thing that matters is win/loss/tie.
Now that that is out of the way, what exactly is "comp"? I've seen references to it quite often in tournament discussions, and I know some people hate it. All I understand, is it has something to do with list building.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
You may think you have broken the system with your assesment of mek guns and thunder cav but as i said lots of people feel that way with thier first impression.
When you start actually building armies with this system and using it in tournaments you will quickly change your mind.
Penitent engines can be spammed and an average army would have trouble dealing with them. These things are terrible in the face of no comp tau and serpent spam but those things have been comped hard.
"Why crushers and fiends are comped the same as screamers and hounds"
becase the grimwar is comped hard so screamers arent screamer councils and hounds arent hard to handle unless theres lots
"Why are only imperial fist devs C1 but all havoks are C1? "
We feel dev squads arent quite good enough to incur a credit but these two are if you run several
"Why is a bastion worth the same as a skyshield? "
because they both offer reletive protection and can be used in certain armies to great effect
"Why is a Vendetta the same comp as a valk? Why is a vendetta the same comp as a hades drake? "
fliers are usually costed on how hard they are to kill rather than thier particular damage output. Valks in a comp event do a relevant ammount of damage that comprible to a vendetta, Hell drakes are similar untill you give them the bale flamer which is aslo costed.
"Why are lvl 3 GK libbies not C1 or C2 when CSMlvl's are C2? "
we dont cost things in a vacuume, CSM sorcs have acces to fast asault units which combine with buffs like endurance to great effect. They are costed differently
"Why is invis -8 if you even want a chance at it while solar staff is -1? "
Because its a 1 turn only thing
"Why are destroyers only C1 if there's a stalker?"
Because they become BS 5 preferred enemy so they go from what is a little bette than bs 5 to BS10 essentially.
the rest of your questions might be worth raising with us as feedback that we might consider changes from rather than holes of problems.
Whatever you think might be wrong with the system, it is very well tested and has been in use for a year in australia. It works and works well.
Victorian masters last year used it with a special mission pack that we provide. It has historically been a no comp event but used community comp with no comp score but capped players at 14 credits.
The ballance from CC plus the ballancing effect of the mission pack made it the best and most ballanced 40k any of us had ever played. We had a resounding positive responses from everyone who attended.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ happyjew.
Comp means some kind of alteration to the game made to bring about ballance.
It can come in the form of detachment restrictions, unit restrictions or special formats like highlander.
it can also come in the form of a handicap score of various forms which limit the number of points you can add to the battle scores you earn at a tournament.
Community comp can be used in several ways but it combines some reasonable restrictons to detachments with a few units that are costed in such a way that they are basically restricted in how many you can play and even fewer units that are banned.
It also employs a handicap scoring system so that players are able to come to an event even if they only have one army painted up that happens to be noticably harder or softer than the power level of that event.
Hope that helps
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/24 21:27:54
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Penitent engines can be spammed and an average army would have trouble dealing with them. These things are terrible in the face of no comp tau and serpent spam but those things have been comped hard.
And this just demonstrates one of the problems with comp: you nerf the best things, then you need to nerf the second-best things, and so on until everything has been heavily penalized and there's no game left. If you're to the point of penalizing penitent engine spam then I think it's safe to say that you should have stopped a long time ago.
"Why are only imperial fist devs C1 but all havoks are C1? "
We feel dev squads arent quite good enough to incur a credit but these two are if you run several
No, you missed the point there. Havoks and devs are essentially the same unit, just like tactical squads in different marine codices. Why is a devastator squad with ultramarines blue armor comp-free while one with khorne red armor C1?
fliers are usually costed on how hard they are to kill rather than thier particular damage output.
That's a stupid way to do things. Why are you only considering one part of a unit's power when determining its comp score? Under this absurd concept a flyer with no guns would get the same comp score as one with a 100-shot D-weapon.
"Why are destroyers only C1 if there's a stalker?"
Because they become BS 5 preferred enemy so they go from what is a little bette than bs 5 to BS10 essentially.
So what? Going from BS 5 to BS 10 is only a 16.5% increase in firepower because of the diminishing returns on BS over 5. You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that a high score in a unit's stat line is always a significant difference in how it works in the actual game.
It works and works well.
Only if you're very generous in defining "works". It's a broken system, just like every similar system in the past. You've added absolutely nothing innovative to a broken concept, so what exactly is the point?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Happyjew wrote: Now that that is out of the way, what exactly is "comp"? I've seen references to it quite often in tournament discussions, and I know some people hate it. All I understand, is it has something to do with list building.
Essentially comp is "I don't like the way you built your army so you have a X% penalty on your final score, if you're even allowed to attend my event". It claims to be an attempt at adding balance to the game, but the execution almost inevitably penalizes weak units/armies along with the strong ones. A comp system sets up a list of score penalties for taking units that the TO doesn't like, and then the total penalty your army earns is applied to your final score for the tournament (along with game wins, painting, etc). Alternatively the TO can skip the formal list and just apply an arbitrary penalty, which can usually be summarized as "my friends get full points, anyone I don't like gets a zero".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/24 21:38:06
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I would be much more interested if your post and your website were better formatted. Proper presentation is the bedrock of influencing people with the written word (your clear intent here). You seem to have a reasonably competent grasp of web design, but your website and post advertising it could benefit for an edit for proper spelling, punctuation, grammar, and general composition. When you lack these things, it can make people wonder if your rules lack a similar attention to detail.
Many starving writers out there make ends meet doing just such editing, often for extremely low fees. (Usually a flat fee per hour, and if you just want flat editing, that'd wind up being dirt cheap in this case.) For slightly higher, many offer substantive editing, where the propose alternate ways to structure or say things in order to convey your point with greater intensity or clarity.)
I'd be more than happy to check out your proposed rules with an open mind once they've been given a good polish edit.
Only if you're very generous in defining "works". It's a broken system, just like every similar system in the past. You've added absolutely nothing innovative to a broken concept, so what exactly is the point?
.
If you think this system is broken then i challenge you to break it.
I have been listening to people say exactly what your saying for 2 years now and only 1 person has ever made an army that was overpowered enough to call it broken. there have been several people come up with a list that should have cost 2 or 3 credits more than it did but thats about the best that anyone with your attitude ever manages to do.
So i challenge you to prove this system to have holes. I have been offering a $100 games workshop voucher to anyone to break the system for the last year so thats on the table (i actually mean this)
im so sorry that your turned away by our pedestrian formatting Juimsolo, we have all done this in our spare time and havent wanted to put in a whole lot of cash to pay people to edit it for us.
This system wasnt just vomited out onto the page in a weekend, we have been analysing tournament data, writing what must be thousands of army lists to try and break the system ourselves and tweaking and re ballancing thing all while debating each other furiously.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: If you think this system is broken then i challenge you to break it.
I just did. I've already pointed out some examples of how your scores for individual units are nonsense, and I could easily add more. And then there's the fundamental problem with this kind of comp scoring: it still allows you to play with the overpowered stuff, it just punishes you after the game. If I bring a 20/20 list and crush everyone the fact that I didn't win the tournament doesn't magically make the games more enjoyable for my opponents.
I have been offering a $100 games workshop voucher to anyone to break the system for the last year so thats on the table (i actually mean this)
And you're never going to pay it because your definition of "broken" is going to conveniently change to exclude any list that might win. You've already conceded that a 2-3 point error isn't enough to call your system broken, and I'm sure if I post a 4-point error that will also be too small to get my $100. And on top of that there's no way to prove whether or not an army deserves its comp score. If I post something completely broken all you have to do is say "that's not really too powerful" and you get to keep your $100.
This system wasnt just vomited out onto the page in a weekend, we have been analysing tournament data, writing what must be thousands of army lists to try and break the system ourselves and tweaking and re ballancing thing all while debating each other furiously.
Too bad the output is still garbage. Perhaps you should reevaluate your methods if this is the best you can manage with all of that effort?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/24 23:58:26
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
no i mean design an army that should cost 6 credits more than it does. That puts it a whole bracket beyond where it should be.
Either that or come up with an army that has no buisiness existing in a comp environment that you can jam into 20 credits.
Do that and you get the $100. Im completely serious ill honestly asses it and actually pay you.
You have a bad first impression thats all. Lots of people have the same first impression you do and they have all come around.
the strongest critics of the system held on for 8 or 9 months but they have pretty much all come around.
Almost every event run in victoria now uses it, every event run in south australia uses it and the other states are starting to use it as well.
If you dont think anything is wrong with 40k the way your playing it then thats good for you and i wish you well.
But if you are like so many others that want the game to finally return to a day where you could play 30 tactical marines in rhinos and not wish you didnt then weather you know it yet or not, community comp is for you.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: no i mean design an army that should cost 6 credits more than it does. That puts it a whole bracket beyond where it should be.
Either that or come up with an army that has no buisiness existing in a comp environment that you can jam into 20 credits.
Do that and you get the $100. Im completely serious ill honestly asses it and actually pay you.
And now you're completely ignoring the main point of my criticism: that it over-penalizes units/armies that don't deserve a penalty. Almost anyone can design a comp system that does a pretty good job of banning the most powerful options. The hard part is making one that excludes the powerful stuff but doesn't unfairly punish people who show up with weaker lists. So let's modify this a bit:
I win and get my $100 if I can design a 2000 point army that should cost 6 credits more or 6 credits less than it does under your system. If you disagree and we can't resolve the question by discussion then it will be decided by a forum poll on this site.
Otherwise you are conceding that you're fine with the following scenario:
You bring a fairly weak "fluff" list to a tournament, and through skillful play you manage to reach the final game undefeated. Your opponent, the only other undefeated player, is playing a clearly stronger list, but you continue to be an awesome general and manage to win by a narrow margin. Surely you win the tournament, right? Too bad you got a significantly higher comp penalty than your opponent, despite having a weaker list, and you have to settle for second place.
You have a bad first impression thats all.
No, it's not just a bad first impression. Your comp system is exactly the same as previous systems that have been tried in the past, the only difference is that you assign different penalties for different units since the game has changed since those other systems were abandoned. And your system very obviously suffers from the same problems as those previous attempts.
But if you are like so many others that want the game to finally return to a day where you could play 30 tactical marines in rhinos and not wish you didnt then weather you know it yet or not, community comp is for you.
Making 30 tactical marines in Rhinos a good list is trivially easy: ban everything except tactical marines and Rhinos. The hard part is accomplishing that goal without unfairly punishing the people who want to use other strategies, and you've utterly failed to do this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/25 00:34:50
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: You may think you have broken the system with your assesment of mek guns and thunder cav but as i said lots of people feel that way with thier first impression.
When you start actually building armies with this system and using it in tournaments you will quickly change your mind.
I've been working on an army for Terracon and am well aware of the strong limitations my army faces, especially when I see Thundercav or Wraiths across the board from me. If I could stomach actually buying space wolf models, you'd better bet I would be running thundercav in a heartbeat.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Penitent engines can be spammed and an average army would have trouble dealing with them. These things are terrible in the face of no comp tau and serpent spam but those things have been comped hard.
Considering they can be glanced to death by fire warriors (and tau will assuredly have fire warriors since crisis are comped hard) and are 11/11/10 and open topped, I really don't see how any army, even a low comp one, would have trouble dealing with them, especially when squadroned.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why crushers and fiends are comped the same as screamers and hounds"
becase the grimwar is comped hard so screamers arent screamer councils and hounds arent hard to handle unless theres lots
And crushers cost 45 ppm and are doubled out by missiles with a 5++ while screamers suffer the same fate but have a 4+ jink to fall back on if the grimoure (which is only 2 points) fails. The grimoure is not comped hard at all, fateweaver is (at, what, 16 points out of 20 to get fateweaver and grimoure IIRC?) You can still safely cram a Tz Herald (or 4) into a unit of screamers (6 or 7 strong to avoid a comp point) and fire off the grimoure. If you take Belakor (sans invis), you also get to ensure you'll get shrouding so they can have a 2+ rerollable coversave if the grimoure fails too. As long as you don't buff the heralds lvl, you don't even pay comp points at all for the unit! Not too scary for Tau (markerlights) or Marines (Thunderfire cannons) but most others are screwed.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why are only imperial fist devs C1 but all havoks are C1? "
We feel dev squads arent quite good enough to incur a credit but these two are if you run several
As previously mentioned, what makes Havoks better than Devs? Is it because Devs get a signum and can make one heavy weapon BS5? Perhaps the lack of ATSKNF is what gives chaos the edge? Maybe the additional chapter tactics the Devs get makes them inferior? Is it the 5 point discount that makes the SM versions less good? What about Long fangs? Is the addition of Accute Senses, ATSKNF AND split fire worthy of no comp at all compared to the C1 of havoks for exactly the same points? (Yes, I am a little bitter, why do you ask?)
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why is a bastion worth the same as a skyshield? "
because they both offer reletive protection and can be used in certain armies to great effect
If you don't see the benefits of an indestructible "building" that provides a 4++ (3++ with mark of Tzeentch, 2++ with grimoure) and effectively disallows assault forever compared to an immoble AV14 building that a minimum amount of models can shoot out of, then I question your wisdom.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why is a Vendetta the same comp as a valk? Why is a vendetta the same comp as a hades drake? "
fliers are usually costed on how hard they are to kill rather than thier particular damage output. Valks in a comp event do a relevant ammount of damage that comprible to a vendetta, Hell drakes are similar untill you give them the bale flamer which is aslo costed.
So, if fliers are comped based on survivability rather than damage output, why is the baleflamer 2 more points? It adds nothing to the survivability of the drake, in fact, it makes it a bigger target. By this logic, the vendetta is overcomped since the drake has a 5++ to fall back on against things that ignore cover/jink. Why is a stormtalon costed the same (1 point C2) when 2 HP of 11/11/11 is generally much more fragile compared to 3 HP of 12/12/10 with a 5++?
When was the last time anyone feared anything from a hades drake?
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why are lvl 3 GK libbies not C1 or C2 when CSMlvl's are C2? "
we dont cost things in a vacuume, CSM sorcs have acces to fast asault units which combine with buffs like endurance to great effect. They are costed differently
Are you telling me that the ability to DS in 1st turn with terminator troops as bodyguards doesn't qualify for the fast assault ability? What about the ability to fire off vortex before I have even moved with a minimal chance of perils? What about Njal Stormcaller? He's a lvl 3 IIRC and his codex most certainly has access to fast assault troops, or simply just a glut of lvl 2 rune priests on bike rolling bio. Endurance on (already undercomped) thundercav is not very nice. I'd seriously question that Ahriman is worth 2 comp points either, but that's a seperate discussion.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why is invis -8 if you even want a chance at it while solar staff is -1? "
Because its a 1 turn only thing
But we all know that early turns are where the most benefit can be derived from invis, especially since you can plan around always having it, and it can never be denied, regardless how many dispel dice your opponent has, no can it fail to go off, regardless of how many warp charge you throw at it. There's a reason you've all but banned even the chance at getting invis, why let 'Crons have it virtually for free? Not to mention it's something you can plan around having it, and IIRC, you can even activate it in your opponents phase, so it doesn't even matter if you don't go 1st unlike invis.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: "Why are destroyers only C1 if there's a stalker?"
Because they become BS 5 preferred enemy so they go from what is a little bette than bs 5 to BS10 essentially.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but destroyers are pretty boss even without the stalker. How they're not comped and penitent engines are I cannot fathom. T5 JSJ relentless 2 wound platforms with either S5 AP3 or lascannons are rough even on a non comped army, let alone one run with the limitations that have been put in place under your comp system.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: the rest of your questions might be worth raising with us as feedback that we might consider changes from rather than holes of problems.
Whatever you think might be wrong with the system, it is very well tested and has been in use for a year in australia. It works and works well.
Victorian masters last year used it with a special mission pack that we provide. It has historically been a no comp event but used community comp with no comp score but capped players at 14 credits.
The ballance from CC plus the ballancing effect of the mission pack made it the best and most ballanced 40k any of us had ever played. We had a resounding positive responses from everyone who attended.
Please consider this as feedback raised then. I genuinely am interested in how you're going to comp the new Eldar codex, and if certain units are simply banned.
Is there any intention to have positive comp for terrible units like Mutilators, or is that also just encouraging abuse?
Peregrine wrote: What, you don't like rolling dice to see how many dice you roll? Why are you such an anti-dice bigot?
And now you're completely ignoring the main point of my criticism: that it over-penalizes units/armies that don't deserve a penalty.
Im not ignoring that at all dude i am just telling you like i have from my first post that people often have the same perspective you do and it disappears quickly when they actually start making armies and playing within the system. I understand your perspective, i really do i have even been there myself looking at a new system and having strong disagreement with an idea, thinking it is laden with problems. But the proof is when you sit down and actually put it too the test that you find out how it really is. Sometimes your right and the idea is bad but we have been shedding off bad ideas for 2 years now and we have a system that actually works.
Its not perfect i dont proclaim that, you may even find a hole but you will be only the second person to do it out of hundreds of players who have tried.
win and get my $100 if I can design a 2000 point army that should cost 6 credits more or 6 credits less than it does under your system. If you disagree and we can't resolve the question by discussion then it will be decided by a forum poll on this site.
well 1850pts really and it has to be an army that has no business being in a comp tournament (that a list that spends say 15 cant reasonably beat) or a list that really should cost 6 credits more than it does. I mean more as well, anyone can just pay Cumulative 2 on valkyries with no guns x times.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: But the proof is when you sit down and actually put it too the test that you find out how it really is.
And, as I said, your system has already been tested in the past. You're using the exact same method as failed comp systems from the past, and repeating the exact same mistakes. Nothing about your system is unique or innovative.
Sometimes your right and the idea is bad but we have been shedding off bad ideas for 2 years now and we have a system that actually works.
Your refusal to accept my challenge for your $100 test is a concession that it doesn't work. You aren't going to accept it because you know I'm absolutely correct when I say that you over-penalize lists that don't deserve comp penalties, and if you do accept it you're going to be sending me $100 a few minutes later.
well 1850pts really and it has to be an army that has no business being in a comp tournament (that a list that spends say 15 cant reasonably beat) or a list that really should cost 6 credits more than it does.
And once again you're completely ignoring the main point of my criticism: that you over-penalize armies that don't deserve comp penalties. You're obsessively focused on how your system excludes every overpowered army and completely neglecting the other half of the problem. And that other half of the problem is just as bad.
I mean more as well, anyone can just pay Cumulative 2 on valkyries with no guns x times.
And that means that your system is broken. If you have to claim that certain things "don't count" then you've admitted that your system can't handle the situation.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Before we all proceed we should take a moment to understand that all armies should be spending some credits, an average army spends between 8 and 12 credits.
A unit having a cost isnt a statement that the unit is over powered, It jsut means that there is a way to use that unit that can be difficult for an average army to deal with.
Units Penetent engines are C1. this means that the first unit of 3 is free and the second unit of up to 3 is jsut 1 credit. The third unit of 3 which now makes 9 av11 walkers making 27 hull points that have 2 heavy flamers each and enough attacks to comfortably kill anything short of an imperial knight.
Im not saying they are over powered, not at all. but to run 9 of these is only 3 credits of what might end up being 10 credits. How do you think an army with 30 tactical marines in rhinos would go against this?
You might dissagree but its a reasonable cost for 27 HP of av11
Theres alot to respond to ther Drasius.
First of all what army are you trying to build thats so hard? Have you tried making a post about it on the Community Comp facebook page?
So, if fliers are comped based on survivability rather than damage output, why is the baleflamer 2 more points? It adds nothing to the survivability of the drake, in fact, it makes it a bigger target. By this logic, the vendetta is overcomped since the drake has a 5++ to fall back on against things that ignore cover/jink. Why is a stormtalon costed the same (1 point C2) when 2 HP of 11/11/11 is generally much more fragile compared to 3 HP of 12/12/10 with a 5++?
When was the last time anyone feared anything from a hades drake?
I have missrepresented myself on the topic of fliers, they arent only costed based on thier toughness its jsut a very important consideration.
Nobody is shaking in thier boots from a hades drake sure but its the toughest flier in normal 40k, can hover, vector strike and shoot ok. It will likely see the end of every game and will have killed a few things along the way. Maybe its not worth its credit we will have another look at it.
Vendetta is almost as tough and has 3 TL lascanons, for 190 pts has 2 heavy bolters as well.
A Valk which is a worse flier admittedly for 145 pts shoots a heavy bolter (snapfires the other) a multi laser and 2 S4 large blasts. Its not amazing sure but it is still reasonably good at shooting infantry and is a tough unit to kill. It also transports 10 guys. Sure its worse than a vendetta but its not THAT much worse and its cheaper to boot so we have equated it to be worth its 1.
A storm talon is cheaper again but shoots alot better than the valk hence its cost being the same despite being easier to kill.
Again when you make lists with them it becomes apparent that these costs are about right. We have seen players use all of these fliers in tournaments.
Are you telling me that the ability to DS in 1st turn with terminator troops as bodyguards doesn't qualify for the fast assault ability? What about the ability to fire off vortex before I have even moved with a minimal chance of perils? What about Njal Stormcaller? He's a lvl 3 IIRC and his codex most certainly has access to fast assault troops, or simply just a glut of lvl 2 rune priests on bike rolling bio. Endurance on (already undercomped) thundercav is not very nice. I'd seriously question that Ahriman is worth 2 comp points either, but that's a seperate discussion.
No we dont call that fast assault unit. Sure it could charge turn 2 but its just infantry. You can move away from them pretty easily, were more referring to units that move 12" in the movement phase.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but destroyers are pretty boss even without the stalker. How they're not comped and penitent engines are I cannot fathom. T5 JSJ relentless 2 wound platforms with either S5 AP3 or lascannons are rough even on a non comped army, let alone one run with the limitations that have been put in place under your comp system.
Actually we have noticed this. we will be changing the costs of some of the necron stuff especially things that buff the reanimate protocols like illuminatoir ceres.
Please consider this as feedback raised then. I genuinely am interested in how you're going to comp the new Eldar codex, and if certain units are simply banned.
Is there any intention to have positive comp for terrible units like Mutilators, or is that also just encouraging abuse?
Oh i am i have already added these points to the discussion list.
Eldar are a hard one but we havent decided to ban anything out of it yet. We really hate banning things i cant stress that enough, if we can find a way to cost around a problem we do but banning is a last resort.
We should have a beta version out for critisizem in the next 3 or 4 days.
Its something we had discussed at the start positive comp and it really is a dangerous thing to do. The quality of a unit is very much relative to the context its in you must understand.
Even a terrible unity in an army where the opponent has better things to do than kill it will make a dent. Take say vespid for example. They suck and we all know it but when your opponent has a choice between shooting vespid in cover or 2 dozen battle suits with melta / plasma what are they killing? this means the vespid manage to get in there and kill those Marines that they wouldnt before. So if you can take 30 vespid and gain say 3 credits you could jam in another 6 battle suits or another riptide etc.
You have added a bad unit but your army got better for it. and maybe cheaper.
Space marine Scout bikes are pretty crap but whats better a unit of Space marine bikes with a Libby on bike or a unit of scout bikes with a chapter master on bike?
This is actually one of the holes that is exploitable under a pannel comp system. You dont see this but a pannel judge has 50 lists to comp and a life to live, they spend about 2 mins, on each list or they go mad so they are looking for red and green flags.
A red flag is a unit they have put in the good box and when they see it thats a tick
When they see a unit they think is really bad they take a tick off.
not everyone does it exactly like this and alot of people probably do it without realising but thats whats going on. Deliberately exploiting this is how i managed to get away with the filth i did all through 5th and 6th edition.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Before we all proceed we should take a moment to understand that all armies should be spending some credits, an average army spends between 8 and 12 credits.
And this is a problem. If every army is suffering about 50% of the possible comp penalties then it's a sign that you're imposing too many comp penalties.
A unit having a cost isnt a statement that the unit is over powered, It jsut means that there is a way to use that unit that can be difficult for an average army to deal with.
Anything can be used in a way that is difficult to deal with, unless it's such a terrible unit that taking it cripples your chances of winning. By this standard you have to impose comp penalties on 90% of the game, which makes your comp scoring meaningless.
How do you think an army with 30 tactical marines in rhinos would go against this?
Pretty well given that the 30 marines in Rhinos are not the entire army. You're going to have tanks, devastator squads, etc. And if you're taking an army of nothing but tactical marines in Rhinos then you have only yourself to blame.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
And, as I said, your system has already been tested in the past. You're using the exact same method as failed comp systems from the past, and repeating the exact same mistakes. Nothing about your system is unique or innovative.
got a link to a system which has done exactly what we have done? i would like to see it because everyone i have seen try has failed because of one of these things.
Not enough transparency aggravates players
Sweeping rules that cover 90% of cases perfectly and fail on the outliers
They have overestimated the depth of thier own experience and not calibrated for bias
They have failed to understand some complex but fundamental effects in the game
i have seen them fail and learned from them so we wont make those mistakes.
Your refusal to accept my challenge for your $100 test is a concession that it doesn't work. You aren't going to accept it because you know I'm absolutely correct when I say that you over-penalize lists that don't deserve comp penalties, and if you do accept it you're going to be sending me $100 a few minutes later.
Im not refusing to accept the challenge man i issued it. the challenge is make an 1850 list that jams a no comp list into 20 credits or make a list that should cost 6 credits or more than it actually does. Obviously you are at the mercy of my honour but i am a man of my word and ill asses it honestly.
And that means that your system is broken. If you have to claim that certain things "don't count" then you've admitted that your system can't handle the situation.
The system just doesnt cater for armies that are deliberately built to be bad.
And this is a problem. If every army is suffering about 50% of the possible comp penalties then it's a sign that you're imposing too many comp penalties.
Why? why is this a sign that we adding too many costs? Theres a bell curve dude, the first standard deviation is between 8 and 12, the second is beteween 6 and 14. We need somewhere to go to seperate the scoring of harder and softer armies.
Pretty well given that the 30 marines in Rhinos are not the entire army. You're going to have tanks, devastator squads, etc. And if you're taking an army of nothing but tactical marines in Rhinos then you have only yourself to blame.
So is the sisters... 9 engines is just over 700 pts man thers a some immolators, a bunch of sisters some jump pack girls and celestine whatever you want theres an army there to go with it.
The point is the marines HAVE to kill the engines before bad things happen which makes the rest of the army harder to handle, the kind of army that takes 30 tac marines is likely to have trouble with it. So we gave it a measly 3 credits cost.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: got a link to a system which has done exactly what we have done?
No, I'm not going to dig up old tournament rules from 2010, if they even still exist anywhere.
i have seen them fail and learned from them so we wont make those mistakes.
Except you haven't learned anything because you're still making the exact same mistakes:
1) You're over-penalizing lots of random stuff that isn't a balance problem.
2) You're punishing people after the game is over and the player with the weaker list has had their experience ruined instead of working to fix balance issues before the game (adjusting point costs, changing special rules, etc).
Im not refusing to accept the challenge man i issued it. the challenge is make an 1850 list that jams a no comp list into 20 credits or make a list that should cost 6 credits or more than it actually does. Obviously you are at the mercy of my honour but i am a man of my word and ill asses it honestly.
And yet again you keep ignoring my point: you're obsessively focusing on the "I ban all the powerful stuff" aspect of the challenge and ignoring my "you also over-penalize weak lists" criticism. My whole point is that your challenge is one where you've set the conditions so that you are almost guaranteed to win and you don't have to worry about the biggest weakness of your system. And the fact that you're afraid to expand your challenge to include finding a list that should have a much lower score than your comp system gives it is a concession that you know your system mis-scores lists in that direction.
The system just doesnt cater for armies that are deliberately built to be bad.
Then your system is broken. If a deliberately bad list isn't getting an appropriate comp score then it means that your comp scores are not based on the actual strength of the list you're evaluating. A working system should provide accurate scores for everything from the most blatantly overpowered list to a list that has no hope of winning.
PS: taking multiple Valkyries without gun upgrades is hardly "deliberately built to be bad", it's just valuing the transport capacity more than the guns.
Why? why is this a sign that we adding too many costs? Theres a bell curve dude, the first standard deviation is between 8 and 12, the second is beteween 6 and 14. We need somewhere to go to seperate the scoring of harder and softer armies.
The point is that if most armies are scoring approximately a 10 and virtually every army is at least a 6 then a score of 6 is effectively the "zero" on your scale. Deleting most of the comp penalties would simplify the system and have no real effect on the scoring, since everyone would just shift downward by ~6 points. The 8/20 and 20/20 would still have the same relative penalty, it would just be scored as 0/12 and 12/12 with a much shorter and simpler list of penalties to keep track of.
The point is the marines HAVE to kill the engines before bad things happen
Bad things like what? They're melee-only threats with weak AV, and even once they finally get into range even tactical marines have a decent chance of killing them with krak grenades before they can attack. They're a mediocre distraction unit at best, and giving them any comp penalty is a joke. This just highlights the problem with your system: anything that is even remotely effective gets a comp penalty, and "comp penalty" loses all meaning. It's no longer about penalizing the most overpowered stuff, it's about ensuring that every army has at least 10 comp penalties applied to it.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
1) You're over-penalizing lots of random stuff that isn't a balance problem.
2) You're punishing people after the game is over and the player with the weaker list has had their experience ruined instead of working to fix balance issues before the game (adjusting point costs, changing special rules, etc).
This is absolustely something we do not want to do. Changing special rules/adjusting points cost is changing the game, not balancing it, and would be met with even more backlash.
The system just doesnt cater for armies that are deliberately built to be bad.
Then your system is broken. If a deliberately bad list isn't getting an appropriate comp score then it means that your comp scores are not based on the actual strength of the list you're evaluating. A working system should provide accurate scores for everything from the most blatantly overpowered list to a list that has no hope of winning.
In a way what you say is fair, but again, it simply can't work that way. We have to allocate credits to units that are used to their potential. That's like a player saying "Yes, I have Fateweaver and Grimoire and 10 screamers, but I'm not going to use the grimoire on the screamers, and I promise I won't use the reroll on getting grimoire off"
It is at a player's own discretion to play badly, everybody makes mistakes, we can't not comp a unit because somebody might make a mistake in using it.
Why? why is this a sign that we adding too many costs? Theres a bell curve dude, the first standard deviation is between 8 and 12, the second is beteween 6 and 14. We need somewhere to go to seperate the scoring of harder and softer armies.
The point is that if most armies are scoring approximately a 10 and virtually every army is at least a 6 then a score of 6 is effectively the "zero" on your scale. Deleting most of the comp penalties would simplify the system and have no real effect on the scoring, since everyone would just shift downward by ~6 points. The 8/20 and 20/20 would still have the same relative penalty, it would just be scored as 0/12 and 12/12 with a much shorter and simpler list of penalties to keep track of.
A common issue when people first look at the system is that people automatically get into the mindset that paying a credit is a penalty. This is not really accurate. We expect most lists to average between 8-12 credits. That is our baseline. Lists that come in below average, are therefore likely to be scoring 0-4 points. Again, spending points is not a penalty, we expect] players to be spending credits. It's the mindset that 'must try and remain at 0 credits' that really makes it hard.
How about this? Come up with 5 lists, run them through the systme, and post them with their Community Comp credit score. That way, we can all objectively assess whether those lists seem accurate in their credits in relation to each other. That is the important bit, because so far, all you're saying is 'x unit costs a credits, and I don't think it should" when you post whole lists, the full picutre starts to get filled in.
JBrehaut wrote: This is absolustely something we do not want to do. Changing special rules/adjusting points cost is changing the game, not balancing it, and would be met with even more backlash.
Adding new rules for comp scoring is changing the game. If you can't even admit that you're changing the game then your plan is hopelessly broken.
In a way what you say is fair, but again, it simply can't work that way. We have to allocate credits to units that are used to their potential. That's like a player saying "Yes, I have Fateweaver and Grimoire and 10 screamers, but I'm not going to use the grimoire on the screamers, and I promise I won't use the reroll on getting grimoire off"
It is at a player's own discretion to play badly, everybody makes mistakes, we can't not comp a unit because somebody might make a mistake in using it.
You completely missed the point there. Nothing in that exchange was about using units badly once the game begins, it was purely about the contents of a list. If your comp system can't handle "deliberately bad" lists then it is not a functioning system. The units are all there in the army list for everyone to see.
And in this specific example it's trivially easy to fix. The other guy claimed that a list that spams Valkyries with no gun upgrades to accumulate a high comp score is "deliberately bad" and beyond the scope of tournament comp scoring. But all you have to do to fix the problem is to have the Valkyrie be worth 1 comp point by itself, and another 1 comp point for the rocket pod upgrade.
A common issue when people first look at the system is that people automatically get into the mindset that paying a credit is a penalty.
Of course it's a penalty. If you have a 10/20 comp score you lose 50% of the comp points. Other players with a lower penalty will lose a lower percentage of those points. If you take a more powerful list you lose more than 50% of the points. The ideal outcome is to find a zero-penalty list that is as overpowered as possible and win all of your games with a full (or close to full) comp score. I don't know how you can pretend that this is anything but a penalty.
How about this? Come up with 5 lists, run them through the systme, and post them with their Community Comp credit score. That way, we can all objectively assess whether those lists seem accurate in their credits in relation to each other. That is the important bit, because so far, all you're saying is 'x unit costs a credits, and I don't think it should" when you post whole lists, the full picutre starts to get filled in.
Why should I do your work for you? You're the one proposing a system and trying to convince people that it isn't a stupid idea like every similar comp system in the past. If my complaints about your scoring system aren't valid then provide some example lists with the context that makes those "weak" units so powerful that they need a comp penalty.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
HS:
Penitent Engines x 3 240
Penitent Engines x 3 240, 1 Comp Point
Penitent Engines x 3 240, 2 Comp Points
Having 55+ models, 1 Comp Point
20/20 Comp used or otherwise a "zero" comp list.
If I were to actually bring that list to any of your comp events, I'd be laughed off the table. Yet according to your comp scoring, I'd be at all 20 credits spent and 0 for tournament points. And you don't see this as a problem with how your comp system "works"?
There is a fine line between genius and insanity and I colored it in with crayon.
1) You're over-penalizing lots of random stuff that isn't a balance problem.
2) You're punishing people after the game is over and the player with the weaker list has had their experience ruined instead of working to fix balance issues before the game (adjusting point costs, changing special rules, etc).
This is absolustely something we do not want to do. Changing special rules/adjusting points cost is changing the game, not balancing it, and would be met with even more backlash.
And ultimately, that's the problem. To really *fix* the balance, you'd really have to change points costs and rules.
Fundamentally, it has to be accepted that GW isn't designing rules according to any sort of "balance" criteria, and that a balanced, tactical wargame is not what GW is setting out to create. If that's what you want from the game, then changes *must* be made. Otherwise you're just dressing up a turd or putting a bandaid on a skull fracture.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
You completely missed the point there. Nothing in that exchange was about using units badly once the game begins, it was purely about the contents of a list. If your comp system can't handle "deliberately bad" lists then it is not a functioning system. The units are all there in the army list for everyone to see.
But who is building a deliberately bad list? and if they are doing that can they really expect to win anything? If they cant expect to win anything why does thier comp score matter?
Truth its its completely irrelevant because the good players who try will build lists that fit thier play style and tune them over the course of games to work nicely.
Evil lamp 6. That list has deliberately wasted credits but if you dropped even just 1 ministorum priest from that list you save 6 credits making the list s 14/20 which is actually a playable comp score.
If you dropped a second priest which is realistically not needed for anything and added in the wargear thing that lets priests in a unit auto pass thier battle hymns you save a further 4 credts making the list a 10/20 which is quite honestly a decent comp score.
Those 10 credits if you consult the table in the document earn you 70% of the available comp score. In a standard 5 round event where you can earn 20 pts per round that should be about 50 points available for comp so you earn 35 of them.
Now you may say but thats a very bad army. Allow me to share with you a few armies that have been getting played in events. Now these lists look like they would probably take the upper hand against the sisters but remember these are tournament lists and the sisters was a deliberately bad one.
Primary Detachment – Dark Eldar Combined Arms Detachment
Succubus Armour of Misery, Haywire Grenades, Archite Glaive, Agoniser
5 Warriors, Blaster, Syrabite with Haywire Grenades, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Blaster, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Blaster, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
5 Warriors, Blaster, Venom with 2 Splinter Cannons
Razorwing Jetfighter 2 Dark Lances, Splinter Cannon
Razorwing Jetfighter 2 Dark Lances, Splinter Cannon
Ravager 3 Dark Lances
Ravager 3 Dark Lances
Ravager 3 Dark Lances
Formation Detachment – Dark Eldar (Haemonculus Covens) Grotesquerie (540 pts)
Haemonculus Scissorhand
4 Grotesques, Aberration with Scissorhand, Raider with Nightshield
4 Grotesques, Aberration with Scissorhand, Raider with Nightshield
Credits total: 9
10 Splinter Cannons: 3
17 Lances: 3
Razorwing Jetfighter cumulative points: 2
Grotesque units under 5 in an army with Raiders cumulative points: 1
Total credits 8
2 from 116 models
6 from fleshhounds
Herald of Khorne lesser Reward lesser Reward , Exalted Locus of Wrath , Juggernaut
Herald of Khorne lesser Reward lesser Reward , Exalted Locus of Wrath , Juggernaut
Herald of Khorne lesser Reward lesser Reward , Exalted Locus of Wrath , Juggernaut
Paddlepop Lion wrote: If they cant expect to win anything why does thier comp score matter?
Because it's a test of how well your system works. If your system is evaluating lists accurately then it should provide the correct score for any list, regardless of what chances of winning it has. If there are legal lists where it provides a score that isn't even close to correct then there must be major flaws. All you're doing is blindly guessing at an appropriate score and getting lucky in some cases.
That list has deliberately wasted credits but if you dropped even just 1 ministorum priest from that list you save 6 credits making the list s 14/20 which is actually a playable comp score.
And yet again you admit that there are serious problems with your system.
1) There shouldn't be any such thing as "wasted credits". If there is a situation where a unit causes a comp penalty but doesn't provide any benefit then your system is broken.
2) If dropping one model from that list changes the score from "maximum penalty, borderline WAACTFG" to "a little over average" without having any significant effect on the list's strength (and no, that single priest is not a major loss) then your system is broken. Either it's scoring it way too high with the priest included, or way too low with the priest removed.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Look i get your point but its not the aim of the system to generate an exactly correct score for every army no matter what it is but NO system does that not even a pannel of judges.
The aim of the system is to create a balanced and competitive metagame wherein players make armies with the intention that it is as good as it can be for the lowest cost it can be while still behaving the way the player wants it to.
We have made the system so when players do this they revive an accurate score and it works very well and an awe full lot better than any other system any of us have seen.
One fail point for comp systems is that all the players are trying to find a way to get more power into a list for non higher score. they want to find the "best army" and players tend to be very good at this. I have yet to meet a system that isnt community comp i cant gain relevant advantage from by doing this.
The thing thats different about this system is that it is made to deliberately stop players who are gaming the system from building more powerfull armies. In fact the system motivates them to run softer armies around 5-7.
When your not trying to spam a particular unit type or jam or run some insane list of all ministorum priests then its not only quite accurate but players dont run into situations where they have to pay 5 credits for a 25 pt model.
What this does is encourage varied, medium strength lists to be played by the power gamers and top table players so all the less experienced or fluff centric players have less powerful lists to play against and they have more fun.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: Look i get your point but its not the aim of the system to generate an exactly correct score for every army no matter what it is but NO system does that not even a pannel of judges.
Yes, which is why comp is a stupid idea. Point-based systems like yours don't provide accurate evaluations of list strength, and judged systems inevitably turn into "my friends get full points, everyone else gets a zero". The solution is to stop repeating the same old mistakes people have tried in the past and admit that comp doesn't work. Once you've stopped trying the broken approaches to fixing the game you can do it the right way: by modifying unit rules/point costs/etc to fix the worst overpowered stuff.
We have made the system so when players do this they revive an accurate score and it works very well and an awe full lot better than any other system any of us have seen.
Except they don't receive an accurate score, as we've demonstrated. Your system frequently over-penalizes stuff that isn't a balance issue.
One fail point for comp systems is that all the players are trying to find a way to get more power into a list for non higher score. they want to find the "best army" and players tend to be very good at this. I have yet to meet a system that isnt community comp i cant gain relevant advantage from by doing this.
Again, this is why comp is a stupid idea. It bans some things, but it still has the same end result of players taking the most powerful possible lists. All comp does is change which units those lists contain.
The thing thats different about this system is that it is made to deliberately stop players who are gaming the system from building more powerfull armies. In fact the system motivates them to run softer armies around 5-7.
That's not different at all. Your system is literally a copy of previous failed systems, with the specific penalties updated for the new codices. I'm starting to suspect you're really new to 40k. Were you playing back in 5th edition? Are you familiar with the comp systems that were used back then (and then abandoned because everyone finally realized that comp sucks)?
When your not trying to spam a particular unit type or jam or run some insane list of all ministorum priests then its not only quite accurate but players dont run into situations where they have to pay 5 credits for a 25 pt model.
And there you go again, admitting that your system is broken. If something as simple as bringing lots of priests breaks your scoring formula and causes it to provide a laughably wrong score then your method is broken. A proper evaluation method does not require this constant list of disclaimers about what lists you aren't supposed to attempt to score. It just gives you an appropriate score no matter what the list is. Let's make this nice and simple:
The correct answer: "well, I guess our cumulative penalty for priests is too high and we need to fix it. Also, we should probably reevaluate our general approach to cumulative penalties and limit them to the worst spam problems instead of applying them to half the units in the game."
The wrong answer: "it's your fault for putting too many priests into your list, you need to make sure you only attempt to score lists that are designed to produce an accurate score."
What this does is encourage varied, medium strength lists to be played by the power gamers and top table players so all the less experienced or fluff centric players have less powerful lists to play against and they have more fun.
Except that's not all it does. It reduces the overall power level of the metagame, but it over-penalizes stuff that isn't a problem. So yeah, that fluff player might not have to face the worst Eldar tournament abomination, but they're still not going to be having much fun when their weak "fluff" list gets a 20/20 score because your system is broken. That is, if they can use it at all. A fluffy Elysian drop troops list, for example, would be well over the 20 point limit in an 1850 point game and banned entirely.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/25 08:40:00
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: First of all what army are you trying to build thats so hard? Have you tried making a post about it on the Community Comp facebook page?
A CSM list, though part of that is because I'm limited by the models I own, part is limited by models which are painted and part is limited by the theme I want for my army in conjunction with conversions I'd like to show off. It's more a case of me dealing with the chaos dex not having any actual cohesion or synergy and one of the reasons I chose to attend Terracon was that I might actually not get stomped off the table in a handful of turns just for taking chaos since it's a comp environment.
That's not really anything to do with the things I feel are wrong with the comp system you guys have though, it just appears to me that those things I mentioned stand out as ... inconsistancies ... with regards to the other things which are comped. There's still a bunch of terrible units that will rarely see the light of day, and that makes me sad.
Peregrine wrote: What, you don't like rolling dice to see how many dice you roll? Why are you such an anti-dice bigot?
If you have an inconsistent comp system then it isn't balancing the game, it is just changing what the meta is.
And I agree with peregine on just changing the units points instead. You're already changing rules in the game by modifying how you build army lists with comp points it shouldn't be a problem to change other rules. The problem with comp points is you are basically fixing a broken abstracting pointing system by creating a second abstract point system to balance it. It is easier to just work with the one system and unit point costs is more "tangible".
Anything in the game can be balanced with the appropriate points cost. A unit as bad as lets say Mutilators would be broken if they only cost 5pts/per and a unit as overpowered as the new Wraithknight would be awful if it cost 1500 pts. There is a happy medium for every unit and if everything in the game had this happy medium for their points cost the game would be balanced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/25 10:10:50
I have been playing since the blood angels release of 5th ed i cant remember when that was exactly but im certainly not new.
You keep saying that we dont accurately score armies and then keep ignoring me when i say you need to actually try building armies to understand that it does in fact work.
Its totally fine if you disagree with the fundamental idea of comp, personally i dont like it either and would far rather that the game was just balanced and fair out of the box.
The game would be far better if we could band together as a community and re write the rules to fix them and everyone accept that new authority but that isnt going to ever happen. We all have our own different opinions of how the game should be and when someone makes a set of house rules then people generally find one thing they dislike from amongst them and get all angry and wont have a bar of it.
A comp system is something that players might not love but they will tolerate and with the game being what it is now, especially with the new eldar there are lots of people who want one.
I know you would rather believe im a noob or delusional when i say it works because it goes against your preconceived idea that comp is a waste of time and that because a system similar has failed before this one will suffer the same fate but it wouldn't have taken so well as it has in Australia if it wasnt at least better than other comp systems do.
