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.

Depend on which whiny git you play

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

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

Beef, you have two accounts?

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence strongly suggests comp helps variety.

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

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

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

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

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