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.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

They got penalised because they used multiple detachments. Three units of Rough Riders in a CAD won't cost you a point, trying to spam them by using multiple CADs will penalise you and it won't even be for the Rough Riders themselves.

In the end Community Comp is a bad system, that heavily penalizes anyone that doesn't conform to the writers idea of a good list

I personally prefer the ITC format if you need to comp..

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Taking them for no better reason than to get the tax IS being a smart arse as is taking weak units for the sole purpose of complaining.

Intent is irrelevant, all that matters is the list. It doesn't matter if you're taking rough riders to prove a point about the comp system, or because you think some allied cavalry would be a cool addition to your space marines, the comp system should evaluate that as a weak choice and not penalize it. If your comp system penalizes it then the comp system's method of evaluating list strength is broken.

I'd go so far as to compare such an effort to a Magic the Gathering player who builds a deck of nothing but basic Mountains then complains about losing.

No, it's not comparable at all. I know the rough rider list is likely to lose a lot, but that's not the point. The issue is that Community Comp assigns it a higher comp penalty than it should have, because it fails to evaluate list strength accurately. It would be like if you had MTG comp, and the all-mountain deck was rated as a top-tier competitive deck with the maximum score penalty.

It actually does both. I saw you cut out what I said about extra taxes for units like Wraithknights, Windriders with Scatterlasers and TWC, good effort if you managed to not read it at the same time.

I cut it out because it has nothing to do with my point. Obviously Community Comp penalizes the obvious balance problems, it's trivially easy to do that if you accept that comp is a good idea (it isn't). The issue is that Community Comp also penalizes a lot of other stuff that shouldn't be penalized.

Foolproofing was never the goal so failing at it was never an issue.

Then the system sucks, period.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
They got penalised because they used multiple detachments. Three units of Rough Riders in a CAD won't cost you a point, trying to spam them by using multiple CADs will penalise you and it won't even be for the Rough Riders themselves.

Which just proves my point about the system being broken: you get a score penalty for including multiple detachments (and multiple fast attack units) even though those "extra" detachments are not improving the strength of your list. It is indisputably assigning an incorrect score to the list, because its evaluation method is completely broken.

You want to spam useless units to prove a useless point.
Nothing wrong with the system, fault lies with you for spamming.

Too bad there isn't an abbreviation for Lose At All Cost.

I think you're both going too extreme here.

Dakka Wolf, there are things wrong with the system. They unfairly tax units that have no right being taxed, because they suck.

But, Peregrine, the system does somewhat work. It's far from perfect, but it helps solve the balance issues at least a little.

 JNAProductions wrote:

But, Peregrine, the system does somewhat work. It's far from perfect, but it helps solve the balance issues at least a little.

The only 'working' the CC system did was try and force a meta shift away from net lists... but its main failing is that if you don't build to what they think is strong your list is usually terribly overcosted.

It also directly penalizes you for buying unit A, because it has potential when you are using unit B.. even though you may well have no intention of having unit B in your list

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Nothing wrong with the system, fault lies with you for spamming.

IOW, "anyone who likes rough riders and takes 'too many' of them deserves to lose". I thought the whole point with comp is to fix balance issues like this. Isn't this a concession that the system utterly fails at accomplishing its goal?

And, again, the question here is not whether the rough rider spam list is a good list. Of course it isn't. But a comp system that works correctly should assign the rough rider spam list a comp score of zero, as is appropriate for the lowest tier of list power. It should recognize that, while the list has "spam" and multiple detachments, those detachments are not contributing any meaningful increase in power level and should not be penalized. Community Comp fails to do so, and evaluates the incredibly weak list at some non-zero score. Therefore Community Comp is a broken system that should not be used.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
You want to spam useless units to prove a useless point.
Nothing wrong with the system, fault lies with you for spamming.

Too bad there isn't an abbreviation for Lose At All Cost.

No real army is 1 of each unit. Same should go for the game. You take what's thematic and coherent. At the same time you optimize it.

Comp does not allow that.