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.

I think your comp format sounds pretty fun! Obviously, this isn't something that would get picked up across the board, it's just something to have fun with. A tourney here or there in this style couldn't hurt. I for one would enjoy running a list like this against you brother!

@Mvbrandt & Breng77

So I'm not saying the names you keep mentioning (generally all from the east coast BTW) aren't good players. I will admit, even with [insert broken army] there will be other people with the same army trying to beat you. So at some point skill differentiates them from others in the same class of list.

But I absolutely believe it shows a very narrow view of the player base to think there are no other people who could challenge these "top performers" if given equal footing. That's just incorrect, more than a bit arrogant IMO, and maybe you guys should expand your group of contacts a bit.

Again and again, why can't we agree that a balanced game would alleviate this argument and make the game better? If we can agree on that, we can still disagree on how to achieve that balance. But balance should be something everyone is all in favor of.

*predicted next post* - But the game is balanced, more so than it's been in a long time.

To that I would say you are personally invested in the game as it is, and it's warping your perception. Perhaps it's not as unbalanced as it ever was (there were some dark times with Nidzilla and 3.5 Chaos) but its worse than it's been in recent memory.

And maybe it would help to define "balance". This is a bit academic (comes with being an academic) but I would classify types of balance this way.

Perceived Balance: A reasonably sized subset of factions of the highest power are able to compete amongst each other with a similar likelihood of success.

Relative Balance: Each faction has the same number of favorable and unfavorable match ups of roughly the same degree and prevalence.

Absolute Balance: Each faction has roughly an equal opportunity to win against any other faction.

I don't see even a perception of balance right now when 3 of 15 factions are clearly the top level peers.

I think we as a community should at the very least strive for relative balance. To tie this all back to the comp format discussion, if a comp system really did bring Relative Balance to the game I would be all for it. So far I haven't really seen one that does that, but it doesn't mean it's not out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IK Viper wrote:
We all agree that some armies are stronger based on their rules. If we want a competitive game we have to address this so everyone and every army comes in with the same oppertunity. We have lots of examples of this already stated in the thread, (car racing, swimming, golf, etc.) For a sport, or in this case a game, to be viewed as legitimate, steps are often needed to insure equality among all participants, thats all comp is trying to do. Why is this so terrible?

Its not terrible, and it's need for truly "competitive" activities.

I will agree with MVBRANDT and a few others that most of the systems created so far don't do an especially good job of it.

Some people don't like comp because of the philosophy, some people don't like it because of the details. I'm a details person.

But if the specifics did make the game more balanced/competitive etc, I would be all for it.

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

I don't think GW is very fantastic at game design. I do believe attempting to redesign or rebalance the game is BAD, because I think the result will be worse. Not only will it be widely derided and not widely accepted, but the pointmen who would need to implement it universally would not be able to ever agree on it. The major TOs of the country are not on the same page, and aren't likely to be; we all do our best to support each other, but nobody wants to be told or guided by a voting group of others on how they can run their event. It requires too much money (ref: again, t he $25k in net red building the NOVA into a professional event with all the trimmings ... most of us aren't interested in having our investment and long-term strategy taken away from us in a sense by the opinions of others).

Since the game is FAIRLY balanced now (with in my personal opinion a couple of 2+ re-rollable exceptions), and since ANY player good enough with a wide variety of codices can do well, it is beyond folly to try and push for some whack change that's not accepted, not universal, and simply sets a different ill-tested meta at different environments.

The suggestion of change is entirely academic and trivial, because there's no way to actually implement a truly better system. You aren't going to find anyone saying MORE BALANCED GAME IS BAD. I would hope that's obvious.

The heart of the issue is it's almost comically unrealistic to achieve or implement. Even in this thread, Brendan and I share clearly similar views, yet completely disagree on how to balance various units we think are OP, and even disagree on WHAT units we think are OP. It's a folly of an initiative.

But what do you do if you don't think the game is sufficiently balanced right now? What do you do if you want the game to grow competitively but think the ever shifting meta (a by product of imbalance) is a deterrent to growth?

Is it better to do nothing, or try something on a small scale and see if actual tournament attenders (and not internet pontificators such as ourselves) actually like the system?

Its a bit like capitalism. If you think there's a market for your comp system, I say try an event and see if it works. If it does, it will grow, and you will have leverage to spread your ideas.

If people don't like it, they'll vote with their dollars and we'll all have our answer.

-edited for grammar

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
But what do you do if you don't think the game is sufficiently balanced right now? What do you do if you want the game to grow competitively but think the ever shifting meta (a by product of imbalance) is a deterrent to growth?

Is it better to do nothing, or try something on a small scale and see if actual tournament attenders (and not internet pontificators such as ourselves) actually like the system?

Its a bit like capitalism. If you think there's a market for your comp system, I say try an event and see if it works. If it does, it will grow, and you will have leverage to spread your ideas.

It people don't like it, they'll vote with their dollars and we'll all have our answer.

-edited for grammar

Well, that's the thing. I also am not incentivized by this, b/c with the arrival of Tau and Eldar, the NOVA sold more tickets to its GT than ever before. Counting people who pre-dropped and thus reopened slots, we sold something on the order of 280 GT tickets, had a wait list on Day 1, and had 230 people show up for Round 1. One of the things we do to help with the meta orients around terrain and mission design ... and there'll be more terrain that blocks LOS by a substantial margin next year. I don't think any GT presently has sufficient LOS-blocking terrain for 6th Edition, for instance.

Changing the rules of the fundamental game, however (as opposed to having more terrain, or tweaking missions ... both of which are more subtle and more widely accepted / testable), is not likely to help a massive event entirely dependent on its registrations advance itself. We do a lot MORE tweaking in things like the Narrative, where we're actually using something a little like comp (not the place here), and where it's as competitive as the player desires (pairings are related to that).

If you want to try a comp system at the local level, you can, but you're not likely to see widespread adoption is the thing. DaBoyz is wildly successful because of AND in spite of Comp (Depending on the attendee), but it hasn't ever caught fire among other organizers. Yada yada.

I'm a fan of Capitalism; if you want to try a comp system, by all means try and build one up. There's just 0 incentive for any of the big events to do so, and here's where you get the arguments of us ...

Part of the reason there's 0 incentive is that the game IS QUITE BALANCED RIGHT NOW, even though it could be MORE balanced. So I've got a game where good players do well, it's fairly balanced (aside, again in personal opinion, from a pair of 2+ re-rollable units), and registration / attendance is on the rise ... and you want me to risk that b/c of what will invariably be just a small group's opinion of what the game should be changed into?

The heart of the issue is it's almost comically unrealistic to achieve or implement. Even in this thread, Brendan and I share clearly similar views, yet completely disagree on how to balance various units we think are OP, and even disagree on WHAT units we think are OP. It's a folly of an initiative.

Agreed, I think what people think is unbalanced (short of maybe 2+ re-rollables, and some people may not even agree on that) is framed through their own experience.

I also agree that it is unreasonably difficult without an official governing body to implement any kind of balance changing mechanic on any type of large scale.

Furthermore, I feel it is unlikely that the product (assuming it is based in the GW game) will be any more balanced than what we have, it will simply be balanced differently. Unless you intend to fully rewrite the rules from the ground up.

As for the players and "equal footing argument" how many examples do you need of player taking non-top books and competing to show that it is possible. I'm certainly not saying no one else can compete. I'm saying if others are able to compete with "non-top" books...where are these other players that play these books and why can they not compete?

You ask for an unreasonable burden of proof for your side. We can only look at 128+ attendee tournaments since the release of Tau and Eldar....So that would be NOVA....ummmm.....Mike Provided evidence of lower tier books competing (Didn't Blood Angels Make Bracket 2 at NOVA)...so what I think we are missing is where are these player that could play if only there book could compete....where are their results from a time when there book could compete....and why if others can compete with these books are they incabable of doing so?

To answer balance....is the game balanced...no...has it ever been balanced....no...will it ever be balanced....no...will comp allow for balance...no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
But what do you do if you don't think the game is sufficiently balanced right now? What do you do if you want the game to grow competitively but think the ever shifting meta (a by product of imbalance) is a deterrent to growth?

Is it better to do nothing, or try something on a small scale and see if actual tournament attenders (and not internet pontificators such as ourselves) actually like the system?

Its a bit like capitalism. If you think there's a market for your comp system, I say try an event and see if it works. If it does, it will grow, and you will have leverage to spread your ideas.

If people don't like it, they'll vote with their dollars and we'll all have our answer.

-edited for grammar

I like Mike agree...if you think there is a market for it....put your own money where your mouth is and run a comped GT in your system and see if people like it...It is not impossible to do. The problem is that people always seem to want to shift that risk to others.

"It will work, so you front the money, and then if it doesn't work I have nothing to lose"

@ MVBRANDT

I totally get that perspective. And from what little I've seen I would say a lot of major TOs have the same sentiment.

But is NOVA growing because of competitive 40k, or is NOVA growing because of alternative 40k games and non 40k events?

I'm legitimately asking. My suspicion is a lot of the growth is in less competitive events, or competitive events of other game systems. My perception is adepticon is much the same. Sure the champs sell out in 4 hours, but they still only bring in 256 guys. And the team tournament IS for lack of a better word a semi-competitive event. Theme scoring and lots of other soft scores go directly into overall.

The other thing is, smaller GT may not be doing so hot as NOVA. There are a lot of reasons to go to a large convention other than competitive 40k. So associating overall con growth with the format of one tournament may not be 100% correct for a large con.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
@ MVBRANDT

I totally get that perspective. And from what little I've seen I would say a lot of major TOs have the same sentiment.

But is NOVA growing because of competitive 40k, or is NOVA growing because of alternative 40k games and non 40k events?

I'm legitimately asking. My suspicion is a lot of the growth is in less competitive events, or competitive events of other game systems. My perception is adepticon is much the same. Sure the champs sell out in 4 hours, but they still only bring in 256 guys. And the team tournament IS for lack of a better word a semi-competitive event. Theme scoring and lots of other soft scores go directly into overall.

The other thing is, smaller GT may not be doing so hot as NOVA. There are a lot of reasons to go to a large convention other than competitive 40k. So associating overall con growth with the format of one tournament may not be 100% correct for a large con.

NOVA's Overall Con growth went from over 500 to around 750 2012 - 2013. NOVA's GT growth went from (using those who showed up, rather than ticket sales) 208 in 2011 to 188 a month after 6th dropped in 2012 to 230 in 2013. I agree there are incentives to attend a Con one way or another, but we're drawing anecdotal conclusions either way. I'd rather not, and quote you con attendance, and state if the droves out there thought the game was bad, they would be attending for the other things the Con offered (like a highly popular, globally unique and well-attended Narrative event).

To answer balance....is the game balanced...no...has it ever been balanced....no...will it ever be balanced....no...will comp allow for balance...no.

If you truly believe this statement then competative 40k is a joke. It cannot be considered a competition as it is not fair. Comp is atleast an attempt to create a balanced system rather then simply saying there is no problem at all.

No one that has played 40k thinks that a Baal Predator with TLAC and Hvy. Bolter Sponsons is as good/ better then a kitted out Wave Serp. yet the WS is about the same points cost or cheaper, and carries troops, has a cover save, ignores cover with some of its shots, is twin-linked, causes pinning, can transfer pins into glances on a 2+, and is a Dedicated Trans.
Both are designed to be fast, put out dakka, and require alot of effort to remove. Someone please explain to me how the Baal Pred should be the same cost as a WS... No one can make that case. There are weaker and there are stronger books, We cannot knit pick everything that GW puts out at length, but say for example the Shield was only used as ... a shild. That would go a long way to making these 2 units balanced against one another.

I know this is a vaccum example and only ment to illistrate a point but you get the idea.

GW has chosen to write rules this way, in order to convert a narrative oriented game into a legitimate competitive game we need to adjust the rules to level the playing field.

I agree with MVBrandt about the relative balance of the game at present. I actually feel like any of the last 7 codexes can create a number of different armies/combos that function at a high level within competitive 40k. After that there's still solid armies in the other dexes, just people not playing them. I'm even willing to claim that, at this moment, 40k is the most balanced it has been since I started playing in 2006.

 IK Viper wrote:
but say for example the Shield was only used as ... a shild. That would go a long way to making these 2 units balanced against one another.

So, your getting into details of the system now and I think this is a good example of where things become impractically hard.

I agree with you philosophically, I don't think outright changing game mechanics is a viable option. That will prevent people from attending an event, unless you got all US tournaments to change all rules in the same way at the same time, which is never going to happen. The US tournaments can't all agree on fairly mundane FAQ answers, much less outright rules changes like this.

If you are trying to make a comp system for your own event, I personally wouldn't alter game mechanics and I wouldn't restrict what people bring. I would handicap/alter their overall points as a way to incentivise them to change lists.

Some people like the opposite, I think someone here mentioned they liked Da Boyz comp system because it did the opposite, it didn't adjust points but it limited what people can bring.

My favorite FLGS runs comped tournaments each month, and they take the approach I just advocated. Anyone can bring whatever they want, but their overall score, and therefore there likelihood of winning the top prize, is suitably diminished.

And since I have extensive experience with this kind of comp system, I will say a few things about it both good and bad.

Good
-Over time, it has encouraged variety. I myself have found an incredible amount of enjoyment taking less optimal units and trying to find places for them in my armies. I'm able to do that because I know I don't have to win every single game to stay in the running for overall. My decrease in power level is often made up for by an increase in comp score.
-The tournament community is laid back and friendly. Because players don't need to win every single game (if they comped well) the atmosphere is very low key and pleasant.
-I'm able to play with whatever army I want. If I want to play fluffy noise marines, if I work it right, within the comp system I still have roughly the same chance of winning overall as if I brought screamer star.
- In my experience, it has not turned people off of the event. And I know more than a few who come only because it is comped.

Bad
- The game is still not perfectly balanced. Within the comp system certain armies perform better than others. I'm well aware of the armies I could build to maximize my power within the system. But I don't do that mostly because I don't need to. I've found a level power within the system that brings me the best balance of enjoyment and tournament success.
-It does handicap some of our players when they go outside of our meta. This wouldn't be an issue is there was a nation wide system (which there won't be for a long time, if ever). And I still practice no holds bar 40k to compete at Adepticon, ATC, WGC and other regional GTs. But it's quite a shock for people who have "grown up" in our meta and then step outside it.

As a player who has been on both sides, and had fairly reasonably levels of success in both environments, I STRONGLY prefer the comped environment. I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the game, and I actually find I have more tactical, deep, and satisfying games with comp.

I will also say comp has to be practiced regularly, and for awhile for it's benefits to really be seen. Most of the people who come to us bring their more no holds bar lists for the first few tournament before they realize they would be more successful, and have a better time, with something a bit scaled back. For a GT that happens once a year, my prediction is you'll get a lot of people who bring their NHB armies and just live with the comp score.

 IK Viper wrote:
To answer balance....is the game balanced...no...has it ever been balanced....no...will it ever be balanced....no...will comp allow for balance...no.

If you truly believe this statement then competative 40k is a joke. It cannot be considered a competition as it is not fair. Comp is atleast an attempt to create a balanced system rather then simply saying there is no problem at all.

No one that has played 40k thinks that a Baal Predator with TLAC and Hvy. Bolter Sponsons is as good/ better then a kitted out Wave Serp. yet the WS is about the same points cost or cheaper, and carries troops, has a cover save, ignores cover with some of its shots, is twin-linked, causes pinning, can transfer pins into glances on a 2+, and is a Dedicated Trans.
Both are designed to be fast, put out dakka, and require alot of effort to remove. Someone please explain to me how the Baal Pred should be the same cost as a WS... No one can make that case. There are weaker and there are stronger books, We cannot knit pick everything that GW puts out at length, but say for example the Shield was only used as ... a shild. That would go a long way to making these 2 units balanced against one another.

I know this is a vaccum example and only ment to illistrate a point but you get the idea.

GW has chosen to write rules this way, in order to convert a narrative oriented game into a legitimate competitive game we need to adjust the rules to level the playing field.

The issue is this I need to buy a unit to get a wave serpent so that adds to the cost somewhat...competitive 40k if you feel in any way it can determine the best player ever will always be a joke, that is why you play for fun while competing.

Since we've got so many comp 'experts' gathered in the one place...

I'm helping run a small 500pt event in a month or so. Very much intended to be just a casual way for people to have a bunch of games. Just wondering how you guys would go about stopping min-maxed lists bringing maximum helltide screamerserpant from rearing their ugly heads?

I'm definitely comp friendly, but wondering if a gentleman's agreement (ie, "don't be a dick") rule could do the job just as well.

Someone also suggested 40k in 40 mins, but I don't know much about that.

Cheers to anyone who wants to help a guy out

 Dakkamite wrote:
Since we've got so many comp 'experts' gathered in the one place...

I'm helping run a small 500pt event in a month or so. Very much intended to be just a casual way for people to have a bunch of games. Just wondering how you guys would go about stopping min-maxed lists bringing maximum helltide screamerserpant from rearing their ugly heads?

I'm definitely comp friendly, but wondering if a gentleman's agreement (ie, "don't be a dick") rule could do the job just as well.

Someone also suggested 40k in 40 mins, but I don't know much about that.

Cheers to anyone who wants to help a guy out

So couple of things.

At 500 pts you need some sort of restrictions. The game is just crazy [i]unbalanced at such small points. Even people who don't mean to be a dick can stumble across ridiculously unfair builds.

Adepticon runs multiple 400 point "Combat Patrol" tournaments every year. They're generally lots of fun and relatively balanced. The game isn't well balanced at the points levels it was designed for, much less extreme values to either end. But the Combat Patrol rules help a lot.

You can get the 2013 rules here: www.adepticon.org/13rules/2013cp.pdf‎

I would suggest dropping your tournament to 400pts and just copying that format.

If you ever want to step up in points to full sized games and are still interested in comp, I'd be more than happy to let you know how my local store runs things. The down side of building a comp score into overall points is you kind of have to understand the whole tournament system to know why comp is significant and how it motivates people. And that's far from simple.

But I think our store (not mine, just the one I play at) has a pretty good thing going and I'm happy to share with any one that wants the details. Shoot me a PM and we can talk more.

Cheers man, someone did mention Combat Patrol but I forgot all about it. Will take a look.

I usually play larger than 500 and would def expand into that later, so any proven homerules are welcome in my book

 Dakkamite wrote:
I'm helping run a small 500pt event in a month or so. Very much intended to be just a casual way for people to have a bunch of games. Just wondering how you guys would go about stopping min-maxed lists bringing maximum helltide screamerserpant from rearing their ugly heads

You can't. You can ban the obvious worst offenders, but if you have the kind of TFG that brings Helldrakes to a 500 point casual tournament they're almost certainly going to find something you didn't expect and crush everyone. The only way to make it work is to have a group of players that respects the idea of a casual event and doesn't bring the most overpowered stuff when you say "please bring weaker lists".

 Dakkamite wrote:
Since we've got so many comp 'experts' gathered in the one place...

I'm helping run a small 500pt event in a month or so. Very much intended to be just a casual way for people to have a bunch of games. Just wondering how you guys would go about stopping min-maxed lists bringing maximum helltide screamerserpant from rearing their ugly heads?

I'm definitely comp friendly, but wondering if a gentleman's agreement (ie, "don't be a dick") rule could do the job just as well.

Someone also suggested 40k in 40 mins, but I don't know much about that.

Cheers to anyone who wants to help a guy out

Combat Patrol rules were long written before fliers. So, for 500 or 400 point games, I'd add a rule to nix fliers.

How about starting off restricted, and then people can unlock more Elite. HS or FA choices by paying the TO like 35 dollars a slot.

This way the organizer/FLGS cash in more, people who don't feel comfortable playing restricted lists don't have to, and last but not least, this is a rich boy hobby after all, and this system would keep the eBay dwellers away from the nice tables, making model theft and the like a non-issue.

 fishy bob wrote:
How about starting off restricted, and then people can unlock more Elite. HS or FA choices by paying the TO like 35 dollars a slot.

This way the organizer/FLGS cash in more, people who don't feel comfortable playing restricted lists don't have to, and last but not least, this is a rich boy hobby after all, and this system would keep the eBay dwellers away from the nice tables, making model theft and the like a non-issue.

Is model theft actually that big a concern at the bigger GT's?

Not in any of the ones I've been at. I went to most of the events run by Frontline over the last 2 years, never had problem there, nor at Broadside bash. Lots of people look, and some touch (who are promptly asked to not). I just got back from the BFS and didn't have anything with that either, even though we had tons of people just coming in to see what was going on next to the ice rink.

Buying force org slots is just silly in my opinion. We already pay 60+ dollars for GTs, not to include transportation and lodging. All this would do is make people rage about "pay to win" stuff and make this a bigger deal. That would be like saying "Hey, let's make anyone with allies pay for two entries since he is playing with two armies." That is just ludicrous.

 fishy bob wrote:
How about starting off restricted, and then people can unlock more Elite. HS or FA choices by paying the TO like 35 dollars a slot.

This way the organizer/FLGS cash in more, people who don't feel comfortable playing restricted lists don't have to, and last but not least, this is a rich boy hobby after all, and this system would keep the eBay dwellers away from the nice tables, making model theft and the like a non-issue.

6 wave serpents/night scythes only needs troops slots..

schadenfreude wrote:6 wave serpents/night scythes only needs troops slots..

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComicallyMissingThePoint

Dude_I_Suck wrote:That would be like saying "Hey, let's make anyone with allies pay for two entries since he is playing with two armies." That is just ludicrous.

That's not ludicrous, that's brilliant. If I was a TO I would enforce that.

MVBrandt wrote:

 IK Viper wrote:
PS/Edit - To the community in general, stop trying to lump our already niche group into "type" buckets. They're always ... ALWAYS wrong. There really aren't any big groups of people who feel or even generally feel a certain way. Even among those who want comp ... there are as many who want to kick peoples' asses horribly in every game they possibly can but just don't want to have to conform to do it (guess what ... gonna have to conform to whatever the comp changes to the new hotness anyway) as there are comp lovers who just want to see more variety. There are no camps. It's why any change to the game by a TO won't be appealing to any one large group of foot-voters. They aren't unified, nobody really has the same reason for wanting comp, and nobody really has the same idea of what good comp would even be. Unless your event is already established as using it and running well REGARDLESS of it (i.e., DaBoyz), it's not going to do the already-strained pockets of a major TO any favors to swap to it. Having lost over $25k in personal money since starting the NOVA (and finally finishing this year without, at least, losing anymore), I can tell you I'm not eager to take giant steps backward just to take wild stabs at satisfying a disunified and argumentative fringe. AND YEAH, we are tuned into the internet. Where do you think we get most of our attendees from? They don't even hear about us from pawn-shop-Idaho where they game in the back with compy houserules. It's the guys on the web who show.

Thanks MVBrandt : you just supported my rant with those words!!!!

So some TO's are afraid to change things....

And BTW -- How do you LOSE money running a tournament ?? And if you lost 25k doing it, you might want to read the dictionary -- try the word INSANITY. Youll be enlightened!!

Most tournaments lose money especially at first....people will only pay so much, and you need prize support...terrain...a venue etc...

 schadenfreude wrote:
6 wave serpents/night scythes only needs troops slots..

That's what I addressed in the Original Post. With what I proposed, you would only get two of those transport types. You could have 6 troop units, but only two transports of one type for them, like two rhinos and two razorbacks. Or for DE, two venoms and two raiders.

As a DE player, I'd cry, but otherwise ....

Hey guys I played my first gt at bugeater gt one and got my ass handed to me I a lot. I was playing 4th ed tau and got trashed. Then bgt 3 I came back with the first triptide army to be seen in a gt. And to tell you the truth I brought it because year one I realized gets are mostly not for the overall gamer. They are for the 'ard boyz players. That is why I play tritide at gts. I learned my tactics playing against players that didn't care about comp or a fun game overall. So now that my tau can finally dish it back you are complaining? How exactly is that fair? And about most tournaments losing money first go the bugeater gt has made money its first three years. So my say is in gts you bought it, painted it, and modelled it you should be able to use it. So no comp. In RTTs comp should be in just because most of the time they are for the overall gamers and just to have fun.

That's what I addressed in the Original Post. With what I proposed, you would only get two of those transport types. You could have 6 troop units, but only two transports of one type for them, like two rhinos and two razorbacks. Or for DE, two venoms and two raiders.

As a DE player, I'd cry, but otherwise ....

Because all mech infantry lists are broken, amirite? Seems pretty naff to punish my Trukk boyz list because someone is abusing Eldar Wave Serpents.

 Dakkamite wrote:

That's what I addressed in the Original Post. With what I proposed, you would only get two of those transport types. You could have 6 troop units, but only two transports of one type for them, like two rhinos and two razorbacks. Or for DE, two venoms and two raiders.

As a DE player, I'd cry, but otherwise ....

Because all mech infantry lists are broken, amirite? Seems pretty naff to punish my Trukk boyz list because someone is abusing Eldar Wave Serpents.

"Because all mech infantry lists are broken, amirite?" No. Of course not. Let's skip the Strawman fallacies, eh?

"Pretty naff" - I'm guessing that 'naff' is a negative adjective. I teach grammar in Los Angeles and hadn't heard of the word naff. Urban Dictionary - British slang, describes something that is stupid, lame or unpalatable. Oh, there we go!

And yes, this is the 'bad' part of my composition proposal. It hurts Trukk armies, Rhino-Rush (Time Warp, back to the 90s!) and of course, DE.

Yeah, it does that seem that, comp systems put certain Codexes on punishment or builds. My proposal, specifically sodomizing DE and your ramshackle renegades from Mad Max, does hose them.

To all:
Still, the harm my system (or any Comp restrictions) does there, I think, also curbs abuses (heavily laden word there, too liberally swung, so take it easy on the reactions, eh? ) in other areas of spam and Trip-'Tides, triple HellTurkeys, etc.

So, pull back from your own army, your perspective of how this would affect what you play, and then think of the overall picture the whole forest, not just your tree.

Since I own and play Daemons, DE, eldar, tau, 'Nids (now sold), CSM and many of the SM codexes, it's not like I'm target specific. I'm just in hunt of a system, a set of rules, some guide-lines (adhered to) that might satisfy the ... (for lack of better terms) 'fluff' or non-competitive players, and also satisfy the competitive cut-throats, like me.

Its only a strawman fallacy if its a serious point and not an obvious jab at the implausibility of your comp system.

If a comp system craps all over so many other perfectly fine playstyles, then its irrepairably flawed IMO. Why ban 3+ trukks, 3+ rhinos etc when you can just say "cut the wave serpent spam you dicks"

As has been mentioned a few times ITT, we need a scalpel not a sledgehammer.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Its only a strawman fallacy if its a serious point and not an obvious jab at the implausibility of your comp system.

It's still a Strawman fallacy, regardless how used. Seriousness and obviousness are not well conveyed via Internet Posting, sir. You need a lot more emoticons and pauses, and use of italics, ellipses and such.

 Dakkamite wrote:
If a comp system craps all over so many other perfectly fine playstyles, then its irrepairably flawed IMO. Why ban 3+ trukks, 3+ rhinos etc when you can just say "cut the wave serpent spam you dicks"

As has been mentioned a few times ITT, we need a scalpel not a sledgehammer.

Because then the Eldar players would feel put upon, while the SM & ork owners snicker up their sleeves.

Fair-play for all, ya see.

And, no, I disagree, a scalpel slicing this codex here or that unit there, will have someone butt-hurt. And it's not a hammer. Poor analogy, IMHO. I say "a blanket" ... one Rule to Rule them all and in Darkness bind ... errr something.

Perhaps, it's more an American thing: You should not screw over one guy. That's discrimination. If you're going to pass a law screwing somebody, be fair; Screw 'em all.

Thus my (suggested) "blanket" limitations; no more than two units of any kind, except troops.

Anyone else to address, this, seriously, is it really that too horrible to try?