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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:You know, I remember a time when the ability to make a powerful list was one of the skills of the game.

Huh? I don't recall powergaming / powerbuilding to be a desired category.

Nowhere is a strong list implied by any of those categories.

Tournaments are a contest in excellence.

Words like "Powergaming" don't really mean anything.

WRT deflecting issues, there are issues that I want to discuss, others that I don't care about.

You said "the ability to make a powerful list", which is simply powergaming / powerbuilding. In most cases, making a powerful list is merely a question of finding out which units are the most powerful for their points cost and spamming the hell out of them because you can. It has nothing to do with gameplay (Generalship) or coolness (Theme).
So I don't think you're using the word "Excellence" properly.

So in context, "Excellence" doesn't really mean anything either, as making a powerful list isn't difficult in the internet age. Netdecking, netlisting has pretty much destroyed that requirement. Hell, you can even ask Ste- Beetlejuice to make your list, and he'll be happy to do it.

As for "raising one's game", again, I think we differ in objectives in terms of what sort of game we each want to play.

If you want Comp (structure) to mean Theme (concept), then I can understand that. In your case, Comp is the difference between spamming 3 units of TH/SS Termies and Theming them with boobs.

@John I apologize if you misunderstood my message as me personally attacking. I did not meant to do that. I used to be a strong proponent for comp until I saw in one tournament it did little else other than benefit armies with superior troop choices while the weaker armies had poor troop choices. You do have a point without comp restrictions that most of those armies still are not as well off. Still I know your trying to make a tournament system that gives non-optimization a bonus but sadly a uniform system cannot work as well unless you break it down by codex and rate comp on a per army basis. Personally I think much of my frustration in discussing topics with you is I feel like sometimes I am talking to a brick wall.

@Warmaster. I appreciate your effort in what you proposed as you wanted to make a tournament that was more for people new to the hobby. Why not have a tournament that caters to people who newer players and then have a veterans tourney.

Peace, Godbless.

thehod wrote:Why not have a tournament that caters to people who newer players and then have a veterans tourney.

I think that's the best idea so far in the thread. Make a Special Olympics Tournament (Or whatever you want to call it), and go through each codex and make any necessary restrictions. Something like:

The following units may not be taken:
Eldrad Ulthran
Nob Bikers
More then one Vindicator

etc. etc.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Wow, you need to call stuff "crap" to feel superior? Are you really that small- and petty-minded?

No, I simply make a practice of heaping scorn on inexcusably silly ideas.

In that case... *holds up a mirror for you*

Well, we can let other people decide what's a sillier idea. I can only speak for myself.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Why else do units of a given army have varying points-effectiveness? GW does a far better job of balancing than you might think, and GW clearly includes certain options that are deliberately weak to make a point.

Or they simply make up stuff that sounds cool, do some rudimentary playtesting, ignore comments that contradict what they think, and move on, because they're Not Interested in getting everything perfect, as long as it sells models.

That is starting from the false premise that every option should have the same in-game points utility, when reality states otherwise. If you were correct, then GW would have to limit the Codices solely by what they include and excluded, which is a fairly blunt instrument. As it is, by deliberately under- ("good") and over- ("bad") costing units, GW can have a more nuanced picture of what any given army is supposed to be like.

So GW deliberately makes units in codexes that don't perform well, because they want people to use them, and thus have a more fun game. Well, that's one opinion. It might even have some validity - except for this: when they're extolling Unit X in WD, for which they've just happened to release new models, they praise it to the skies. "New Vanguard Veteran SMs - masters of HTH combat and concentrated assault killiness." Or whatever they write to sell models - has little to no validity on the actual tabletop.

So the other opinion is quite simple: they make units that don't perform as advertised because they don't care to put in the effort to make them work as advertised. In a competitive atmosphere, why penalize players because the Games Dev studio works to a different standard.

JohnHwangDD wrote:"TMIR" is The Most Important Rule - to ensure that *both* players have fun.

Based on your responses, I'm not at all surprised that you've ignored it, despite it being prominently stated in the Rulebook.

TMIR works both ways. Why is the player who deliberately takes sub-optimal choices inherently morally superior to the player who takes a strong list? I do my opponents the courtesy of assuming that they're at least as good a player as I am. To do otherwise would seem to me to be patronizing.

Lets remember, too...we're talking about competitive tournament gaming here, not an apoc megabattle or a pickup game. Even if you're only playing for bragging rights, the whole purpose of a tournament is to find out which player happens to be the best player in the room on that day...who's got the best "total package" of luck, skill, and analytical ability.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote: A standard SM Codex army for 40k should be a demi company:

That's a joke, right? If that's how GW wanted the game to be played, they could have very easily made Tactical Squads 3+, Assault Squads 1+, and Dev squads 1+.

GW is a lot smarter than that. They *allow* more variety than that, but what is allowed isn't the same as what is desired.

Ah, so GW deliberately makes codexes so that bastards like me can "abuse" them, just so that people like you can feel morally superior. Right, that makes sense.

Or, I know, they want us to become better people, by learning how to deliberately compete at a lower level so that everyone can feel equal.

All sarcasm aside, maybe they allow variety because it sells more models, and they' don't care how we play as long as we're buying models. What a radical idea.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Any universal comp system is Epic Fail, because it can't do that, or else its not Universal. You could probably come up with separate comp lists for each codex in the game...but then you're essentially re-writing the codex.

That is a fool's argument. It's like arguing you can't have a core rulebook for 40k, or general rules for a Tournament.

Nice try, but your analogy falls apart because the codexes are written (theoretically) so that they build on the core rules, and a well-run tournament should not be biased towards any player or army in particular.

I've never seen a comp system that didn't inherently favor certain codexes over other codexes. The actual closest I've seen was the ridiculously complicated one used at the GT's 6-7 years ago, where there were 60 or so possible points, but only up to 40 counted. End result: the comp system was almost universally ignored, because each army could get near-maximum points while still taking so-called "abusive" lists.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:Because the armies without those solid, resilient, multi-purpose troops can rely on other force org slots to pick up the slack. Under your proposed system, they're penalized for doing so.

40k5 is already Troops-oriented. And under my proposed system, those armies with good Troops are penalized by not being able spend all of the points on Troops. So it goes both ways.

Really.

Warboss
Lootas
Snikkrot & Kommandos
6 mobs of boyz and grots
Scorcha wartakk
Any HS choice

Full comp under your system, if you remove the dupe troops. Because we all know that horde orks are handicapped and don't do well.

I'll repeat: Epic Failure.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, if you look into that SM Codex and the notional OOB, along with the sorts of varied armies that GW actually fields by example, then these kinds of varied armies actually *are* more "correct".

Or maybe they construct armies for the codex and OOB (whatever that acronym stands for) and WD because they want to show off a variety of models so that they'll sell more models.

OOB is "Order of Battle", and is used to define the men and materiel available to a particular force for a battle. For example, the OOB for Germany in Early War 1939 includes NO King Tiger Tanks, because those weren't fielded until the 1940s Late War. In wargaming, OOB is a Historical/Fluff-based restriction that is applied to an army to disallow un-historical composition. GW splits the difference by specifying an OOB in the SM Codex as recommended guidance.

They don't specify an OOB anywhere in the codexes that I'm aware of...they specify a TO&E, which is what you're referring to. The only OOBs I can think of come in apoc when they're describing specific engagements, because OOB are battle-specific.

Oh, I forgot. RW military units are ALWAYS arranged exactly as their TO&E specifies.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:And the fact of the matter is, if you're focused on trying to field the most effective way to outfit or construct army lists, then by definition, you're powergaming.

Never denied the fact that I'm a competive gamer.

Non-competitive gamers who really aren't playing to win, don't care if they win. So-called friendly-gamers who decry people who play power lists are really saying, "I want to win, I just don't want to have to deviate from my own limited vision of how the game is supposed to be played in order to win."

No, friendly gamers are saying, "I paid $XXX to actually *play* my army, not to spend a day being TFG's punching bag to goldfish against." There's a huge difference that you just don't get.

You're still saying, "I want to win." If just playing with an army was sufficient, you wouldn't feel the need to handicap other armies.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Having played competitively for many years, I know for a fact that a piloting strong list does not require as much generalship as a sub-optimal list. After all, if you have a strong list, and you win then you're not proving anything except the strength of the list.

I note that you didn't respond to the actual point. It is a fact that a strong list requires less skill as a general to achieve the same results.

So what. It's also a fact that a strong list doesn't guarantee victory. You're creating a straw man argument.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Ultimately, I don't think we really have anything else to say to each other. You want to powergame with no-comp WAAC lists. I get it. I think that's passe and boring, and that comp opens the door to more interesting gameplay. We disagree. End of discussion.

In other words, because you can't defend your points, besides making accusations about things that you honestly know nothing about, you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and hum.

No, at this point, we're just repeating ourselves. There's nothing more to say. The difference is that I at least understand what you're saying and disagree. You're the dork who's got his fingers in his ears and not even listening.

Oh, I'm a dork. Let me go off in the corner and cry.

I've never criticized you personally...just pointed out that your ideas are silly, inherently biased, full of logical inconsistencies, and generally self-righteous.

A lot of people also make the mistake of thinking the list is what wins you games, which isnt the case at all. It helps, but a good general will beat someone stuck in 4th or a noob with just about any list as long as it wasnt designed to lose agaisnt the opponents.

I also have more fun against someone trying their hardest to beat me, with a list they have honed/are honing, than with someone who made 1850 by picking out what looked pretty.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
making a powerful list isn't difficult in the internet age. Netdecking, netlisting has pretty much destroyed that requirement. Hell, you can even ask Ste- Beetlejuice to make your list, and he'll be happy to do it.

You keep talking about it like it is a bad thing, but you have yet to argue why it is a bad thing.

Well, if you view a tournament as a competition of skills, and realize that the skill in 40k is divided between making a list, and playing it on the tabletop, then someone who is using a list they copied off the net is, essentially, not doing their own work. They're cheating, as much as if they had someone stand next to them and tell them how to move their models.

If you don't view a tournament as a contest of skills, then this is moot.

Is it also wrong for someone to learn a painting technique online and use it to make their models look better?

There is a difference between learning and doing yourself, and copying. And, there are plenty of threads that do think that it is wrong for people to use armies they didn't paint themselves.

If people are not supposed to take powerful lists to a tournament, then what are they supposed to take?

They're supposed to take their own list. If they can make it powerful, that's good for them. But copying the list-du-jour off the internet isn't their own list.

I think it's detrimental to the hobby in the same way that netdecking is detrimental to M:tG. I really quit playing Magic once the internet decks took over. There was fun in playing against someone else's invention. There wasn't fun in playing against yet another goblin deck.

The same problem is likely to happen here. The more prevalent the power net builds become, the less variety we'll have to play against. When all your games start looking alike, don't you get bored and go and find something else to do?

Centurian99 wrote:[Y]our ideas are silly, inherently biased, full of logical inconsistencies, and generally self-righteous.

Cent, you're my new hero man. I mean, that quote above sums up WRONGBADFUN's antics in damn near every thread he posts in.

BYE

Redbeard wrote:They're cheating

Ok, no, stop. That's fuggin' slowed. Having someone help you make a list is not 'cheating' in any sense of the word. Not in the slightest.

Having a good list does not win you games. It helps, but lists do not play themselves. If you honestly believe that simply having a good list will win you games then you can't have played much of this game.

It's a game of dice, so while you can make lists to improve statistical probabilities, it's still a game of chance. The dice and how you react plays just as much of a part in the game as what you bring to the table and the strategy that goes into using it.

It's not cheating. It's damned idiotic to think that way.

BYE

Redbeard wrote:They're supposed to take their own list. If they can make it powerful, that's good for them. But copying the list-du-jour off the internet isn't their own list.

Strawman. I think very few of the top players copy-paste a list off of the 'net. Like someone learning to paint better, they will however, take ideas off of other people's lists. Not to mention that building powerful lists is not all that difficult if you are a decent player.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Redbeard wrote:They're cheating

Ok, no, stop. That's fuggin' slowed. Having someone help you make a list is not 'cheating' in any sense of the word. Not in the slightest.

Having a good list does not win you games. It helps, but lists do not play themselves. If you honestly believe that simply having a good list will win you games then you can't have played much of this game.

It's a game of dice, so while you can make lists to improve statistical probabilities, it's still a game of chance. The dice and how you react plays just as much of a part in the game as what you bring to the table and the strategy that goes into using it.

It's not cheating. It's damned idiotic to think that way.

BYE

I've always found that comp systems that are designed to "level the playing field" fail because the reasons that many have mentioned: they change the metagame rather than leveling it. That being said, I find that spreading army list ideas over the internet is only good for the hobby, as when everyone is making equally good army lists, that is what truly levels the playing field. People who don't like "netlisting" are only hoping to take advantage of the ignorance of other players, rather than seeking a real challenge against gamers of equal skill, with equally strong army lists.

Of course, I don't find many of the "super-units" or "super-builds" on the internet to really be as overwhelming as people claim them to be, having knowledge and discussion of some of the challenges that can be presented by my opponent is only a good thing.

Redbeard wrote:They're cheating, as much as if they had someone stand next to them and tell them how to move their models.

That's ridiculous. Cheating means breaking the rules, not just doing something that Redbeard doesn't like.

They're supposed to make their own list.

Says who? Says where?

By your logic, shouldn't we close down the army list section of this board so that people stop getting illegal help making their lists?

Warmaster wrote:Okay so my take away from this is that everyone likes John's idea of comp more than mine

Nope- I much preferred yours as it shows more of an understanding of 5th ed.

I've got a crazy idea- ban HQ slots.

No eldrad
No lash
No scoring nobs
No Ghazz/KFFs
No vulkan
Reamed Nidzilla

Not necessarily 100% balanced (so what), but it does seem to chop down the current bigdogs. Add in a combination of Warmasters initial idea to taste.

Note that this is based around 1500pts- I know nothing of competition at higher points levels.

If you ban HQs you also make nob biker lists more fair as the squads would not be scoring any more... I kinda like this idea

Edit- Oh crap you already mentioned that... anyways good idea.

Banning HQ seems a bit extreme...

The really funny thing is this:

This year, Greg (Inquisitor Malice) and I are running the AdeptiCon 40K Gladiator, on paper probably the most unbalanced and cutthroat tournament out there. It's been running for six years now, and out of those six years, while the armies were definitely tweaked, none were the "auto-win" armies that went in highly favored, and only two had significant ForgeWorld inclusion (A Trygon, which IMNSHO, barely counts, and Angrath). Regardless, all the armies were relatively troop-heavy

The "secret" is simple: design better missions. I can't say for certain, but my gut feeling is that the AdeptiCon mission structure (Primary/Secondary/Tertiary/Bonus Objectives) makes it very, very difficult for one-trick-pony armies to achieve all the objectives. While it takes a competitive force, you also need a flexible force.

An additional benefit of having more than one objective in missions is that you give players more ways to feel like they're accomplishing something. It may become obvious that the primary objective is out of reach by turn 3 or 4, but you can still gun for the secondary or tertiary objectives, or work to deny them to your opponent.

Rather than create a rigid, inflexible, and ultimately Epic Fail Comp category that really just makes new lists the "broken" lists, its much better to "gently coerce" players into creating different lists.

Take Nob Bikers for instance. They've only shown up at one major (GT Baltimore), but the missions used at Baltimore (essentially, the missions out of the book) play very well to the Nob Biker army's strengths. Kill Points? Nob Biker armies offer up a 5 or 6. Capture and Control? They've got a resilent scoring unit to leave behind, while two heavy-hitters can put the pressure on your army. Seize Ground? probably the toughest, but if you spread out, then they can hit your isolated elements hard...if you castle up, you're giving 3 or 4 objectives to your opponent.

now consider this...what if you had a mission where both KP and holding objectives were important? All of a sudden, the nob bikers have more things to worry about than just getting stuck in. They've got to both rack up KPs, and be in a position to contest or hold objectives at the end of the game. I think you'd find that while the Nob Biker list is still strong (which it should be...those squads are 750+ pts each) its going to take a much better player to get maximum battle points out of the mission.

Make players want to field a different style of army list, through mission design, and you'll have happier players. Here's a little-known secret about most of us "powergamers." We want a challenge. We don't want to roll over opponents. But we don't want to feel like we have to dumb our game down either.

Centurian99 wrote:Make players want to field a different style of army list, through mission design, and you'll have happier players. Here's a little-known secret about most of us "powergamers." We want a challenge. We don't want to roll over opponents. But we don't want to feel like we have to dumb our game down either.

QFT

Comp requirements are usually unfair, but can sometimes result in a different game than your pcik up games becasue the composition changes(duh).

Similar to Centurians thought above, I have been pestering my local FLGS to start running more events rather than tournaments. My FLGS runs an average of one to two 40 tournaments each month. However it's a bit easy to predict which veteran players will be viaing for the top spot before the games even start. Give people a theme and a reason to change their list that is more solid than ... "people don't like it when you bring THAT list so we put comp on this tournament."

Also, tournaments are everywhere and DO bring out the competitive side of play. With events that focus on team play, or creating a story and doing your best to adhere to the story creates new challenges, promotes a slightly more relaxed atmostphere and a lot of inter-plaer communication such as suggestions on how best to accomplish the goals with the setup the story of the event has given etc. Like centurion mentioned we still want to play a good game that challenges us. Events that change the goals, missions, and the available forces to the players can be fun and are less geared at "don't bring those power lists" and more geared to "lets see what you can do when the story says your vehicles all got busted in the last battle. No vehicles round one, but reinforcements arrive on round two and you can choose to use a list with armored reinforcements(up to four heavy choices may be taken
) or a list with lighting strike reinforcements (up to four fast attack may be taken) etc.

Obviously any events have to be somewhat tailored to the local player base .. requireing noobs that just got their 1500 point space marine army to leave their land raiders and vindicaters at home shuts them out completly.

Anyway, I don't see comp used as anything but power a list breaker and as has already been mentioned, that just creates new imbalances resulting in what's the point?

Meph

A standard SM Codex army for 40k should be a demi company:

That's a joke, right? If that's how GW wanted the game to be played, they could have very easily made Tactical Squads 3+, Assault Squads 1+, and Dev squads 1+.

GW is a lot smarter than that. They *allow* more variety than that, but what is allowed isn't the same as what is desired.

I didn't realize that you had a pipeline to Jervis and the Dev team. What is desired is irrelevant. What is allowed is important.

I used to be in the 'comp' and 'powergamers are bad' camp, and then mauleed came along and showed me the light.

If GW wants a SM force to be a Company and some support units (a veteran/terminator squad, some scouts, a few tanks out of the armor, maybe a few dreads, maybe a unit or two from the reserve companies), then that should be the only legal force that I can field. FoW (at least first edition) did this. You had to get an HQ unit. Then for each platoon, you got a support platoon. GW could do something similar.

Mandatory: 1 HQ, 2 Tac, 1 Assault or Dev Squad
For each extra Tac Squad, you may add 1 assault or dev squad and one of the following: Terminators, Vets, Tanks, etc.

That they don't do that means that is not what they desire.

Wait, let me head this off - "But, dietrich, that's not representative of the fluff!"

My answer, "Depends what chapter. Crimson Fists have more scouts. Some Chapters don't have many devestators, like the Soul Drinkers, but have more assault squads. etc."

It's because GW builds a Codex that covers more than one army list. The Codex: Space Marines covers strict Codex chapters, and ones with minor variances - more scouts, less scouts, no devs, lots of Dreads (like Ironhands), etc.

And that works for SM. What about Orks? I don't think Ghazkull has the Codex Orktares. (some Blood Axe might, but not Ghazkull). How do you 'fit' comp into an army, that by it's very nature, is more about the number of boyz some nobz and da boss can push around, then about fitting into a Order of Battle and TO&E?

GW wants to allow variety in army builds.

In different rules systems, some things benefit, and some don't. Every game has the problem of 'this' being the 'best' for the points. That's never going to change. What changes is what is the 'best' and how people deal with it. And I still say, that Nob Bikers will get phased out as people start fielding TH/SS terminators in every list, or when IG has so many tanks, that they're putting out enough templates to wipe out a unit in a turn, etc.

edited because I got the quotes all messed up. I bet you can guess which is C99 and which is JHDD's though......

Doctor Thunder wrote:
That's ridiculous. Cheating means breaking the rules, not just doing something that Redbeard doesn't like.

They're supposed to make their own list.

Says who? Says where?

Where does it say that I cannot have a friend stand next to me and comment on my choice of moves? Just saying...

I mean, obviously, when I say "that's cheating" I'm over-exaggerating for effect, but, if you're having a contest of skills between two people, and one of the skills involved is list building, and people aren't building their own lists, isn't the system flawed from the get-go?

skyth wrote:
Strawman. I think very few of the top players copy-paste a list off of the 'net. ... Not to mention that building powerful lists is not all that difficult if you are a decent player.

Who is talking about the top players? I think a vast number of non-top-players bring lists off the net because those lists give them a better chance to win some games. Top players will always be the ones pushing the edge on what is considered powerful. They'll come up with the new concepts. Mid-tier players will use what others have proven to be effective. And there are more mid-tier players than there are top players, so that is why your tournament games start to look alike.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ok, no, stop. That's fuggin' slowed. Having someone help you make a list is not 'cheating' in any sense of the word. Not in the slightest.

It's an exaggeration for effect. Nice to see that it got the effect.

Having a good list does not win you games. It helps, but lists do not play themselves. If you honestly believe that simply having a good list will win you games then you can't have played much of this game.

Having a good list doesn't ensure that you win any games. Having a bad list will ensure that you lose games. If you don't believe that, then you haven't played much of this game. Don't tell me that you've never gone to a tournament, or a pick-up game, and realized, before you deployed your army, that your opponent had no hope of winning. Even with the worst dice in the world, with them getting ridiculously lucky, there was no way they could beat you. I have. When you drop a land raider against a player who has no S8+ guns in their list. When you drop a horde army against someone with min-maxed anti-tank units.

I've seen players do this. Some of my regular gaming friends think of random concepts, and not at all about what their opponent might bring. When they get the matchup that they can't play against, that's just it, game over. But, at least the list they brought was something they thought up themselves.

Centurian99 wrote:
The "secret" is simple: design better missions.

Obviously, I don't know what the missions for the gladiator are this year. If they're like previous years, I wouldn't necessarily say they're better. One thing that has bothered me about the adepticon missions in years past, is that while GW missions clearly pay no attention to what the power builds are, (which, inevitably, means that they are the power builds), the adepticon missions have always been written with a 'screw you for taking this' mentality. I don't think writing missions that punish a player who brings a certain archetype is a better mission, I actually think it's worse, because inevitably many weaker, non-optimized lists get caught out as well. The classic "if you took a big model, you get screwed in the mission where you can't use it until turn 4" is a perfect example of this. Anyone with one of the big guns is essentially screwed for the whole event as the odds that you can get max battle points being down 500+ points for 3 turns is rough, and we all know you need to come close to max points each round. Is this mission better? Or should you really just say, "don't bring big stuff if you want to win".

No, I believe the "secret" is that we need better codexes. Not that we'll get them any time soon, that's not in GWs interest. If there were more appropriately costed units in every codex, you'd see more variety in what people brought. The problem is that the codex design is so bad that one or two golden apples float to the top of a pile of turds, and it's not surprising that everyone wants to use the golden apples and not the turds. There needs to be some standard pricing guidelines that make sense. FNP is a great example of something that's done so badly. It's the only thing in 40k that gives a second roll to save a guy. It adds a full 50% more survivability to a unit that has it (against most attacks). Taking a 500 point unit and adding 50% more to its survivability should result in a squad that costs 750 points, not 530. It's an effect that is just so much better than what it costs.

Redbeard wrote:

skyth wrote:
Strawman. I think very few of the top players copy-paste a list off of the 'net. ... Not to mention that building powerful lists is not all that difficult if you are a decent player.

Who is talking about the top players? I think a vast number of non-top-players bring lists off the net because those lists give them a better chance to win some games. Top players will always be the ones pushing the edge on what is considered powerful. They'll come up with the new concepts. Mid-tier players will use what others have proven to be effective. And there are more mid-tier players than there are top players, so that is why your tournament games start to look alike.

I've played in tournaments in areas with the strong comp, holier-than-thou attitudes.

All the lists in that area just blur together...They are pretty much identical (Even the chaos lists looked a lot like the loyalist lists)

Redbeard wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:
The "secret" is simple: design better missions.

Obviously, I don't know what the missions for the gladiator are this year. If they're like previous years, I wouldn't necessarily say they're better. One thing that has bothered me about the adepticon missions in years past, is that while GW missions clearly pay no attention to what the power builds are, (which, inevitably, means that they are the power builds), the adepticon missions have always been written with a 'screw you for taking this' mentality. I don't think writing missions that punish a player who brings a certain archetype is a better mission, I actually think it's worse, because inevitably many weaker, non-optimized lists get caught out as well. The classic "if you took a big model, you get screwed in the mission where you can't use it until turn 4" is a perfect example of this. Anyone with one of the big guns is essentially screwed for the whole event as the odds that you can get max battle points being down 500+ points for 3 turns is rough, and we all know you need to come close to max points each round. Is this mission better? Or should you really just say, "don't bring big stuff if you want to win".

That's something Greg and I noted, and this year, the rule is that we as tournament organizers have no prejudices. We hate every army equally, and all are equally unfit to join the ranks of Gladiator champions.

Redbeard wrote:
No, I believe the "secret" is that we need better codexes. Not that we'll get them any time soon, that's not in GWs interest. If there were more appropriately costed units in every codex, you'd see more variety in what people brought. The problem is that the codex design is so bad that one or two golden apples float to the top of a pile of turds, and it's not surprising that everyone wants to use the golden apples and not the turds. There needs to be some standard pricing guidelines that make sense. FNP is a great example of something that's done so badly. It's the only thing in 40k that gives a second roll to save a guy. It adds a full 50% more survivability to a unit that has it (against most attacks). Taking a 500 point unit and adding 50% more to its survivability should result in a squad that costs 750 points, not 530. It's an effect that is just so much better than what it costs.

Yep. But I think it's be more likely for John to agree that Comp can't work than GW to put out better codexes.

Redbeard wrote:
It's an exaggeration for effect. Nice to see that it got the effect.

Now you are just back-pedaling. Exaggerating a false idea only makes it more false. Using a resource like the internet to improve your army list is not against the letter or the spirit of the rules. Indeed, it would be hypocritical for you to assert that it was, for you have asked for advice and given advice on army lists many times in this forum. Indeed, you are in charge of many articles specifically designed to help people improve their army lists.

Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

but, if you're having a contest of skills between two people, and one of the skills involved is list building, and people aren't building their own lists, isn't the system flawed from the get-go?

Not at all. It is a contest of what you bring to the tournament, regardless of how you achieved it. Just like with painting, you get points for how the models you brought look, regardless of how long it took or what methods you used to acheive it. If you spent 80 hours but it still looks terrible, you don't get as many points as if you spent 30 minutes and it looks great.

It is all about allocation of resources. Do you walk each brick across the yard one at a time or do you use a wheelbarrow to move them all at once? Same result, but different amounts of time and effort involved.

In tournaments, we score results, NOT method.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
It's an exaggeration for effect. Nice to see that it got the effect.

Now you are just back-pedaling. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

but, if you're having a contest of skills between two people, and one of the skills involved is list building, and people aren't building their own lists, isn't the system flawed from the get-go?

Not at all. It is a contest of what you bring to the tournament, regardless of how you achieved it. Just like with painting, you get points for how the models you brought look, regardless of how long it took or what methods you used to acheive it. If you spent 80 hours but it still looks terrible, you don't get as many points as if you spent 30 minutes and it looks great.

It is all about allocation of resources. Do you walk each brick across the yard one at a time or do you use a wheelbarrow to move them all at once? Same result, but different amounts of time and effort involved.

In tournaments, we score results, NOT method.

Just to be a devil's advocate, this would also mean that players who out-source their painting should be judged by how well the professional painted their army, rather than being left out of the painting contest entirely. Of course this does happen, but I think it should not.

It's difficult to see what can be done to prevent it.

Not scoring paint might help.

willydstyle wrote:

Just to be a devil's advocate, this would also mean that players who out-source their painting should be judged by how well the professional painted their army, rather than being left out of the painting contest entirely.

That depends on the rules of the tournament. If the rules allow outsourcing, then the models should receive full points. Grand Tournaments, for example, have restrictions in this area, while most RTT's do not.

Of course this does happen, but I think it should not.

I would rather play against a fully-painted army then another plastic-grey or primed-black army any and every day of the week. Banning outsourced armies just means fewer painted armies at the tournament, so I think it is a bad thing to restrict them.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
Now you are just back-pedaling. Just admit that you were wrong and move on.

What's your problem? Does it make you feel superior to tell other people that they're wrong? Just because you're too dense to realize that English is a language that isn't always literal doesn't mean that I'm backpedaling or that I'm wrong. For one thing, it's an opinion, which inherently cannot be right or wrong. Again, standard use of the language does not require that I preface every line I write with "in my opinion". That's an implied clause. For another thing, you still haven't given a good argument as to why it's not a good opinion, other than that it is impossible to know whether someone took an internet list or came up with something on their own.

Not at all. It is a contest of what you bring to the tournament, regardless of how you achieved it. Just like with painting, you get points for how the models you brought look, regardless of how long it took or what methods you used to acheive it. If you spent 80 hours but it still looks terrible, you don't get as many points as if you spent 30 minutes and it looks great.

Which only adds to my point. You say, regardless of how it was achieved. Does that include paying someone else to do your work for you? That's an issue that has never adequately been resolved. There are plenty of people who still believe that it is wrong for someone to get points for an army they didn't paint themselves. GW makes a policy of not giving painting awards to people who admit to paying for their paintjobs (again, the question of enforceability and honesty hasn't been solved). Therefore, it's obvious, and well-established, that in tournaments, we do not merely score results, we also score methods. The method of having someone else paint your army is not acceptable in many cases. And that one is not my opinion, that's a fact.

So, if it is wrong for someone else to do your prep work painting the army, why, on a philosophical level, do you believe that it is not wrong for someone else to do your prep work designing your army?

And, what about playing the army? I notice that rather than actually debate a valid question, you simply resort to calling me "wrong", but, would you have issue with a player who had someone help them play their army during a tournament? I haven't seen many tournament rules that expressly forbid this... In fact, doing a cursory glance over the rules for the adepticon events this year, I don't see anything that would prevent me from having a second general along side myself. Do you believe that this behaviour is also acceptable, under your theory of judging results and not methods?

Redbeard wrote:

For one thing, it's an opinion, which inherently cannot be right or wrong.

Sure it can. Who lied to you and told you that opinions cannot be wrong?

You claim it is wrong for people to use the internet to improve their army lists, but you yourself do that very thing on Dakka. All I have to do is click on your profile and I see several threads you have started asking for feedback.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is self-defeating and hypocritical. You will need to revise it if you wish it to be taken seriously.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
You claim it is wrong for people to use the internet to improve their army lists

You're illiterate.

I said it's wrong to copy lists from the internet, not to solicit feedback, not to discuss ideas, but to plagiarize someone else's work.

Furthermore, in order to have a discussion, someone has to take a side. I'm attempting to generate interesting debate. All you seem to want to do is pick a fight over semantics and call me names. Whatever dude, have a nice life, I hope you get over your female marine fetish. I've added you to my ignore list.

grizgrin wrote:Best comp concept right here:




Like that idea? Me too.

Agreed. Brilliant in its simplicity.

Army composition scores are a cop out to impose some semblance of 'fairness' on a player by ignoring the faults of the system design.

Unless every army at a tourney is a space marine army, then army composition is unfair by default and should be eradicated entirely from the tourney mindset.

Warmaster wrote:but this is not:
1 HQ
6 Troops

So you want to penalize a player for bringing SCORING units to a tournament ?... Erm...

Doctor Thunder wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:making a powerful list isn't difficult in the internet age.

You keep talking about it like it is a bad thing, but you have yet to argue why it is a bad thing.

If people are not supposed to take powerful lists to a tournament, then what are they supposed to take?

Where are you getting the idea that I'm saying it is "a bad thing"? You seem to think that a powerful list is important, but I don't think it's even necessary or desirable for the sort of tournament that I envision. And, as we can't see the process of making, only the result of what is made, I don't think that it should be a priority or something that needs rewarding.

As we're talking about Comp, I think the notion is that people are supposed to bring well-balanced and "fair" lists.

A smart player does not bring an underpowered list to a contest of lists and skills.

That is only valid to the extent that the contest is measured the way you want to measure it. As there isn't only one way to measure, a "strong" list isn't necessary.

An excellent tournament army will score very high battle points when fielded by a skilled player.

Sure. But if we focus on the excellence of the generalship rather than the excellence of the list, then that is a different thing. For example, if we look at History, how many of the great Generals had the best lists? If the Confederacy under Lee had the same list, or even the same points, as Grant then things would have turned out very differently.

If we're not going to reward excellence, then what do we reward?

I'm not saying we don't reward excellence, I'm saying that we should be more specific about what sort of excellence we choose to reward. You choose to reward a different form of excellence than I do. I don't think you're bad for it. It's just not how I'd choose to do it.

In your case, Comp is the difference between spamming 3 units of TH/SS Termies and Theming them with boobs.

Nice jab

Huh? How was that a jab? I thought it was a pretty good illustration of the difference between Comp (what one takes) and Theme (how it is flavored).


Anyhow, I think we disagree to the point that you simply can't accept that that I think there could be other / different valid (or even better) ways of playing and scoring. IMO, it's unfortunate that you can't accept we have a legitimate disagreement.

thehod wrote: @John I apologize if you misunderstood my message as me personally attacking. I did not meant to do that. I used to be a strong proponent for comp until I saw in one tournament it did little else other than benefit armies with superior troop choices while the weaker armies had poor troop choices. You do have a point without comp restrictions that most of those armies still are not as well off. Still I know your trying to make a tournament system that gives non-optimization a bonus but sadly a uniform system cannot work as well unless you break it down by codex and rate comp on a per army basis. Personally I think much of my frustration in discussing topics with you is I feel like sometimes I am talking to a brick wall.

Peace, Godbless.

Hiya!

I don't think you were attacking, just disagreeing, so I don't think you have anything to apologize over. We're all good.

As with anything, the devil's in the details, and comp is no exception. I completely agree that a comp system can give undesirable results, and that comp will necessarily shift the balance of units and armies. I don't see anything wrong with that at all. For the most part, it's just different, not better, nor worse.

For me, I'm looking at comp mostly as a theoretical construct. Remember that I'm no longer playing tournaments, so this doesn't affect me at all. So the strong reactions are a bit mystifying to me. You could perhaps look at my proposal as a question of how far one might shift the balance before it becomes excessively intrusive. Or a question as to what sorts of features are desirable / undesirable in trying to measure and manage power from a mechanical perspective. Or a question as to how well a universal checkbox system can work if one chooses to implement one. Regardless, it is implicit that comp would apply in some flavor or other with some sort of impact relative to Battle.

I've seen the old WFB comp system that tried to rate comp by army and unit and combination of units. I think it failed pretty badly, but at least they tried to do things at the level of detail that as you suggest. After a couple years, they gave up and went to a universal system.

WRT "brick wall", I apologize if you feel that way. Sorry. I this is somewhat inherent when you have fundamental disagreements, it's not like either of us are likely to change the other's mind by convincing the other. So ultimately, either, we agree to disagree like gentlemen, or someone just gives up and walks away.

Anyhow, all good, hope you have a great weekend.