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.

SmoovKriminal wrote:Another thing people forget to realize is that if there is a small handful of common-power builds rotating in 40k tournaments, a smart player would make a list with that in mind and make counters for them. Most army lists have the ability to vary their equipment/selections just enough to make themselves effective vs. Nob Bikers or Lash. They aren't unstoppable, they just have a lot of "shock and awe" power against players bringing very balanced lists.

And this right here is how I got away with doing well with both Sisters and Eldar for a long time (back in mid 4th), because no one was playing them so no one metagamed against them. When 99% of the field is playing MEQ, you can get away with playing Wave Serpent/Star Cannon/Aspect lists and min/maxed faith point lists, because no one is running the tools to beat them. In fact, half the time, you get great comp scores doing it because no one has ever even seen a list like that. I managed to win LA Games day with Sisters (max battle and max comp) because no one had a clue how to deal with the army and it was tailored to face the exact power lists at the time, in fact. Unfortunately, there seems to be a dearth of army creativity these days. I, myself, used to run different lists to every event but now I maybe tweak one or two things and stick with the same crap. Part of that comes from bad codex design (there are really only two ways to play Eldar now and every slot has one best option) and the rest comes from having to be prepared for the same powerbuilds.

There is still variety out there, though. Hulksmash (I think he is Brad, who I played last weekend) SHOULD have beaten me with his GKs, which are a bad matchup for my flavor of Nidzilla. His list matched up very well against Orks and Dual Lash, as well. I have also seen some really interesting Mech Sisters lists pop up the last year too.

Wouldn't the real solution to this problem be to just ban the "broken" lists?

I know that some of you are going to say, "Well you ban the "Broken" lists then you have an all new set of "Broken" lists that take their place. I think that is true to some extent, but if you can eliminate extremes than you have made progress, no?

I'm talking about the seriously hated lists that most people agree are "Broken".

Like Dual Warboss&Nob Biker, NidZilla (Although, this may not be true anymore in 5th), Dual Lash-Oblit Spam, etc.etc.

Comp doesn't work , but you can mitigate problems by just not allowing certain "power gaming" lists.

I know... I know you still going to have a lower tiered level of "power gameyness" but still, you got to start somewhere.

GG

You'd then have to constitute what level those armies become broken at. Biker Nobz for instance. Do you just say you can't take 2 units. Do you say that you can take 2 units but only if half of them are equipped identically? and as for Lash/Oblit spam how many is to many? is one lash ok? or 4 obliterators? To be honest most people I've run into don't run the 2 lash 9 oblit lists. They run a variant. Gonna outlaw all the variants?

Oh, and i'm not gonna touch Nidzilla since it's not even close to a power build anymore (though you acknowledge that in your statement ).

This isn't an attack on you generalgrog. I just don't like being told I can't play a list (note I have a cross between Nidzilla/Horde Nids, don't play the others). And it's also a where does it stop. Internet hype could make any army sound dreadfully broken so what evidence would most people use to decide a list is broken? Public opinion? Just doesn't work for me

Hulky I hear ya.

And I didn't say that it would be easy to do. But in the end, it could very well come down to exactly what you described.

I.E. No Nob Biker lists with two warbosses and two biker units equipped diferently to take advantage of the wounding loophole.

I am more talking about specific tournamnet organizers discretionary decisions regarding what is allowed at their tourney. Not talking about an across the board ultimatum.

And I agree with your point about, wheather or not the list is "truly" broken, and agian that would come down to the individual tourney organizer. But I feel that NidZilla in 4th edition was definately broken. Or what about the iron warrior shooty broken lists from 3rd edition.

GG

I'll agree to the Iron Warriors, I played them for over a year straight (a record for me ) and I toned mine way down to not get smacked hard on comp and sportsmanship. I disagree with Nidzilla but then again I played orks mainly thru 4th and didn't have the same problem with them that most people seem to have had.

And it totally is up to the organizer. The main thing is to make sure that if you advertising it your letting people know. Nothing worse than driving for an hour to a tournement to find out your list isn't allowed

generalgrog wrote:Wouldn't the real solution to this problem be to just ban the "borken" lists?

I know that some of you are going to say, "Well you ban the "Borken" lists then you have an all new set of "Borken" lists that take their place. I think that is true to some extent, but if you can eliminate extremes than you have made progress, no?

I'm talking about the seriously hated lists that most people agree are "Borken".

Like Dual Warboss&Nob Biker, NidZilla (Although, this may not be true anymore in 5th), Dual Lash-Oblit Spam, etc.etc.

Comp doesn't work , but you can mitigate problems by just not allowing certain "power gaming" lists.

I know... I know you still going to have a lower tiered level of "power gameyness" but still, you got to start somewhere.

GG

Fixed it for you.

Also, I agree. People seem to want comp to curb these high-end power lists, so why pussyfoot around with it?

Either ban outright or materially limit in some way (decreased battle points, increased point costs) the extremely powerful lists and chances are you'll do nothing at all to people who aren't specifically looking to make an extreme list.

Now you have more variety without stepping on too many toes or opening the tournament up for chipmunking.

I have mixed opinions about whether comp is really needed, but if I were to implement it, this is how I would go about it.

Some of the European countries make hard & fast restrictions like this. The European Warhammer championships have a fairly extensive list:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=51141

They've actually gone substantially farther. I know some tournaments in Europe have simpler lists- stuff like, "No duplicate Rare Choices, max of 2 duplicate Special".

I do agree that just banning certain “power” combos would be a relatively simple approach, and would avoid the chance of certain corner case armies running afoul of general Comp scoring. Simply saying something like- Lash is 0-1, 0-1 unit of Nobs may be mounted on bikes, Bloodcrushers are capped at 8 in a list, and Snikrot & Eldrad are banned, would probably put us in a bit of a friendlier place.

This would be more like the Magic: The Gathering approach.

I just tend to prefer a system which lets people play whatever list they want, while handicapping some of them on points, rather than a ban.

Hrm. That’s another thought- maybe replace the ban with a points handicap for taking those items. Maybe something like 10% of the maximum points available for the event.

Eldrad is good but not game breaking. Snikrot is the same thing. As for the other parts I could see creating a 0-1 but where does it end? Are you gonna 0-1 LR's? What about 0-1'ing certain Carnifex or Tyrant builds? Who decides what is broken?

Like I said earlier at the tournement I was at this last weekend a bog standard marine list owned a 24 Bloodcrusher demon army. So should we start 0-1'ing marines since they are obviously to good if they can take out such a large number of broken units?

It's more of a where does it end and in my opinion leads to more similar looking lists than we currently have.

That list of restrictions actually made me angry, which surprised me. I guess I don't like being told how to play especially when the restrictions are totally arbitrary like that.

Maybe GW should put out a balanced set of rules. I think the whole arguing over this topic is pointless, when in all truthfullness, it should be flaming GW for putting out trash rules.

Techboss wrote:Maybe GW should put out a balanced set of rules. I think the whole arguing over this topic is pointless, when in all truthfullness, it should be flaming GW for putting out trash rules.

Yeah, no one on dakka dakka ever has a bad word to say about GW and the rules thereof

That's what every other thread is for.

As a band-aid to the problem I think all you have to do is ban Nob bikers and Lash and that will help a lot. These 2 armies are such outriders of power that stopping them will make the other armies more competitive.

You can still make viable Ork and Chaos armies without these units, and make it a much more even playing field.

There will still be discrepancies of power between the codexes, but you don’t have a couple of power build dominating.

Hulksmash wrote:Eldrad is good but not game breaking. Snikrot is the same thing. As for the other parts I could see creating a 0-1 but where does it end? Are you gonna 0-1 LR's? What about 0-1'ing certain Carnifex or Tyrant builds? Who decides what is broken?

The tournament organizers decide. As with every other tournament out there. The organizers make the rules, and players vote with their feet. If they like the event, they attend. If they don’t, they don’t.

Hulksmash wrote:Like I said earlier at the tournement I was at this last weekend a bog standard marine list owned a 24 Bloodcrusher demon army. So should we start 0-1'ing marines since they are obviously to good if they can take out such a large number of broken units?

Come on, man. You’re smarter than this. I may have had a single Guardian Defender kill 30 spinegaunts one time. That doesn’t mean squat in terms of the big picture. Just because the SM player at your tournament was a great player, and/or had super-hot dice, or because the Daemons player was an idiot, and/or had terrible scatters, doesn’t mean all SM suddenly own all 24 Bloodcrusher armies.

Hulksmash wrote:It's more of a where does it end

It ends wherever people want it to. The tournament scene is constantly evolving. That’s part of what keeps it interesting. Scoring systems, missions, the exact weighting of painting/sports/comp/battle, the number of games played, etc. etc. If the events are fun, people keep attending them. If they’re not fun, they give that feedback to the organizers and the events change.

Hulksmash wrote:and in my opinion leads to more similar looking lists than we currently have.

I don’t think there’s any good reason to think that.

Blackmoor wrote:As a band-aid to the problem I think all you have to do is ban Nob bikers and Lash and that will help a lot. These 2 armies are such outriders of power that stopping them will make the other armies more competitive.

You can still make viable Ork and Chaos armies without these units, and make it a much more even playing field.

There will still be discrepancies of power between the codexes, but you don’t have a couple of power build dominating.

In the entire time of 40k that I have played, there has only ever been one thing I ever truely felt needed to be banned and that was the Siren Prince. Double Lash is nasty, but it is beatable. Nob Bikers, I am not so sure, because the armies I use have no problems tackling them but I never play Marine lists, so I have no basis of comparisson. The problem with the Ban Hammer is that it starts a never ending sequence of the mouth breathing masses whining about things they cannot (or will not adapt against to) defeat and before you know it we are all back to 99% vanilla marines, like it was in 3rd edition.

Nob Bikers are the direct fault of the wound allocation system, which should have remained as it was in 4th. Dual Lash is a result of really dumb playtesting backed up by really dumb FAQs. If the chaos book still had the legion system (ie no Plague Marines in your Slaanesh led list) in place, then it would be far less of an issue. If Lash worked more like the old "Titilating Delusions" spell from fantasy, and let the owning player move their troops to a spot selected by the chaos player, it would be just fine and still rather powerful. Take the rules manipulation aspects out of both units and they cease to be the source of butthurt they currently are.

And, honestly, I really think a lot of it is still metagame changes that most people have not adjusted to. People are not mechanizing enough, including hoods, and/or adapting their list to counter horde. Its like the bulk of the 40k players think you can just swap out all their plasmaguns for flamers and they are ready for 5th edition, which is just not the case. People who are resistant to changes in the metagame often are unable (or unwilling) to adapt, so their natural reaction is to go comp nazi. I know this because the same thing is happening in Fantasy right now, as well. In a year or two, with a couple more army books out the door, people will forget all about bitching about Orks and Lash lists and the butthurt of the month will be Guard and Crons, because that is how these things work.

Phazael wrote:And, honestly, I really think a lot of it is still metagame changes that most people have not adjusted to. People are not mechanizing enough, including hoods, and/or adapting their list to counter horde. Its like the bulk of the 40k players think you can just swap out all their plasmaguns for flamers and they are ready for 5th edition, which is just not the case. People who are resistant to changes in the metagame often are unable (or unwilling) to adapt, so their natural reaction is to go comp nazi. I know this because the same thing is happening in Fantasy right now, as well. In a year or two, with a couple more army books out the door, people will forget all about bitching about Orks and Lash lists and the butthurt of the month will be Guard and Crons, because that is how these things work.

This right here gets a big damn QFT. Lash, Crusher spam, and dual Nob Bikes are hard to beat if you don't prepare for them during your list building. The majority of people I see still play either 4th ed with flamers or battlebox lists and are amazed that they don't pwn. If you "know" you're going to be fighting this stuff, why aren't your troops in transports and why aren't you bulking up on the obvious counters? If you're a competitive player and still somehow losing to Nob Bikers, that's your fault entirely.

I think your prediction about the Guard codex especially should be absolutely true; when you're lashing+Oblitting 10 guys worth a collective 40 points dead, and then the other 290 men or 12 tanks or whatever erase your troops from the table in one shooting turn, the metagame will be forced to adapt.

Not mention that with the number of S8+ large blasts that Guard may be able to take, Nob bikers are going to have a hard time of it. I don't care if you turbo-boost, dropping 6+ S8 blasts on a bike squad will put the hurt on it big time.

Phazael wrote:Nob Bikers are the direct fault of the wound allocation system, which should have remained as it was in 4th. Dual Lash is a result of really dumb playtesting backed up by really dumb FAQs. If the chaos book still had the legion system (ie no Plague Marines in your Slaanesh led list) in place, then it would be far less of an issue. If Lash worked more like the old "Titilating Delusions" spell from fantasy, and let the owning player move their troops to a spot selected by the chaos player, it would be just fine and still rather powerful. Take the rules manipulation aspects out of both units and they cease to be the source of butthurt they currently are.

QFT.

I think the frustrating part with GW is that it's actually the small mistakes they make that mushroom and do all the damage.

Look at Tyranids. I think Phil Kelly's the best designer they have, but he made two mistakes in the Tyranid codex which synergized to create Nidzilla. First, he tried to put the emphasis back on synapse, but didn't boost Warriors enough to make them the defacto synapse unit that was now required. That quickly had players looking for a synapse workaround. And they found it with the Shock Troops rule, Elite Dakkafex and Nidzilla build, which not only avoided the need for Warriors or synapse but ended up being extremely strong. Two seemingly unrelated missteps ended up undoing everything he tried to do.

It's kind of amazing to consider that Nob bikers are winning GTs mostly because of a poorly-considered rule regarding wound allocation. Wound allocation!

And, honestly, I really think a lot of it is still metagame changes that most people have not adjusted to. People are not mechanizing enough, including hoods, and/or adapting their list to counter horde. Its like the bulk of the 40k players think you can just swap out all their plasmaguns for flamers and they are ready for 5th edition, which is just not the case.

I think there's some truth here too. Mannahnin owned my (non-optimized) Orks at Baltimore with double lash. The way my army was composed, it was pretty much a sitting duck for him, and it got ugly. But I've rejiggered the army to include some mounted stuff he can't move, along with more ranged firepower to throw at the lashers and oblits when they peek out to lash or shoot. I can't guarantee it'd make a difference, but I feel like I have a lot more in my toolbox now to deal with not only double lash but other things too.

Centurian99 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What is a Tournament trying to reward?
- WAAC wants to reward pure win-loss record and victory margin based almost entirely on Battle
- Comp wants to reward the overall play experience that one brings to the event
These are two totally different, and largely incompatible objectives.

I do not understand the sheer vehemence by the WAAC crowd against Comp. Nobody is planning to take away your WAAC events, so why should you protest Comp?

It's not like there's only one form of golf scoring or drag racing, so why must WAAC be the only way?

I love how you phrase it as WAAC, so that you can make it sound like the people who are fielding stronger armies are somehow morally deficient.

if winning isn't important, then why both putting a comp score together in the first place?

Excuse me, but where did I say that WAAC was "somehow morally deficient"?

I acknowledge that WAAC is a valid way to play. I *tolerate* it. I don't accept it as desirable for standard play, but that's very different from saying it's "bad". Perhaps you need to read with a bit more understanding for nuance. Because I have *never* argued anything as simplistic as "Comp == GOOD / WAAC == double-plus ungood". I have repeatedly argued that there should be Comp tournaments in addition to non-Comp tournaments, for variety's sake. So why you so dead set against variety?

First, that isn't an argument, so there isn't anything to acknowledge. Second, I (and others) have clearly stated that the reason for having Comp is to allow for a *different* set of winners playing a different sort of game.

Or, put another way, you're so huge on varied missions, with only one set of comp rules (none) - so why can't one have varied comp rules as another way to add variety?
____

Mannahnin wrote:And you can do a pretty good job with it if you work hard enough:

1. Does the army have no more than one of any given HQ unit?

So no duplicate?

2. Does the army have more than two Troops units?
3. Does the army have no more than three of the SAME Troops unit?
4. Does the army have no more than two Troops units with the same unit upgrades?

OK, good to limit Troops spam.
I'm assuming Las/Plas, Las/Plas, ML/Plas Tacs with 3 Razors would score full points here.

5. Does the army have no more than two of the same unit with the same upgrades in any other category?

OK, so I can double up as much as I like, but not triple (max)? OK...


Now, this next section is where I think things go a little bit wrong. You give +2 for 0-1 Elite/Fast/Heavy, but +4 for 2-3 non-triple Elite/Fast/Heavy, then +0 for max same. If keeping the same definitions, the scores should be reversed at +4 for 0-1 Special and +2 for 2-3 Specials and +0 for max same. Otherwise, you simply encourage full points for taking max good stuff with one sub-optimal pick (e.g. 2x 3 Oblits + 5 Havocs or 2 Demolishers + 1 Russ)

6. Does the army have EITHER no Elite units or one Elite unit?
7. Does the army have at least two Elite units but no more than two of the same Elite unit?

8. Does the army have EITHER no Fast Attack units or one Fast Attack unit?
9. Does the army have at least two Fast Attack units but no more than two of the same Fast Attack unit?

10. Does the army have EITHER no Heavy Support units or one Heavy Support unit?
11. Does the army have at least two Heavy Support units but no more than two of the same Heavy Support unit?

So theoretically, you score max points for something that looks like this:
1(+1) HQ
2(+1) Elite
2(+1) Troops
2(+1) Fast
2(+1) Heavy
I don't really see how it penalizes any power build significantly... Maybe that was the intent?

[i]12. Judge’s discretion (2-4pts)- Is this army particularly well themed and interesting in a way that doesn’t already earn it the maximum 22 points? +4 points is a big chunk, but meh.

____

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp merely favors a *different* set of armies than "no comp". Nothing wrong with that.

Also, pretty much no point to that.

Aside from variety, which *is* the point.
____

OddJob. wrote:p.s. JonnyW changes his tack/opinion so often -otherwise known as contrdicting himself- that it was inevitable that I would eventually agree with something he's written.

How about you leave the attacks out, and refer to me properly?

"JohnH" or "JHDD" or "JohnHwangDD" would all be acceptable. "JonnyW" is NOT acceptable. It is insulting and impolite. Stop it.

It's obvious that comp is not dead based on the feedback in this thread. There are two sides of the coin:

Power gamers with WAAC armies that don't want to be penislized at tournies

Weak players that want to be able to ding the top players

G

Mannahnin wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Like I said earlier at the tournement I was at this last weekend a bog standard marine list owned a 24 Bloodcrusher demon army. So should we start 0-1'ing marines since they are obviously to good if they can take out such a large number of broken units?

Come on, man. You’re smarter than this. I may have had a single Guardian Defender kill 30 spinegaunts one time. That doesn’t mean squat in terms of the big picture. Just because the SM player at your tournament was a great player, and/or had super-hot dice, or because the Daemons player was an idiot, and/or had terrible scatters, doesn’t mean all SM suddenly own all 24 Bloodcrusher armies.

My arguement is just as solid as yours. Why do your observations of a list count more than mine. How many major tournements has the Bloodcrusher list won? Oh right, none. So how are they a powerbuild? Because people on the internet say they are. My experience in with them, in this tournement and in the Ard Boyz (opener and semi's) clearly show me that 24 Bloodcrushers aren't OTT. The guy who was fielding the Daemon Army is actually a very good player. The guy playing the space marines is too. The scatters were no worse than normal and neither side seemed to have hot dice (they were right beside me). The marine took what appears to be a mismash list until you play it and it comes together (and no TH/SS termies). 0-1'ing marines was just my example of how silly it can get and how fast. Funny though it's silly to 0-1 marines when it's fine to do it to other "broken" codexes. I just find the idea of actually telling someone that they can't play with a legal army ridiculous. I'm not even a powergamer and it annoys the hell out of me.

Yes tournement organizers have the right to do whatever they want for their tournies. It's theirs. And they'll change or not if/when people don't show up. But the idea of banning legal builds is silly. Especially when the "powerbuilds" (except for nob bikerz) haven't won a single Circuit event. Heck this year not even Nob Bikers have placed in the first 2 circuit events this year. I think it's funny how many people cry about these lists yet in the last 11 tournement games i've played in the last 3 weeks (1 GT, 2 RTT's) I haven't seen a single one of these do well (haven't even seen a 2 Nob Biker list). People are either a)gimping themselves due to worry about soft scores already or b)have learned that internet lists don't work to their play style and have changed the template to fit themselves.

My opinion, again

Mannahnin wrote:Some of the European countries make hard & fast restrictions like this. The European Warhammer championships have a fairly extensive list:

http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=51141

OK, I like the tiering, points, and VP adjustment to correct for the choice of army (strong / average / weak).

I also like the "counts as" clarifications. That's good.

But...
____

Ozymandias wrote:That list of restrictions actually made me angry, which surprised me. I guess I don't like being told how to play especially when the restrictions are totally arbitrary like that.

The restrictions aren't horrible, but they're just too binary. If each restriction break counted as an extra 100 / 200 / 300 / 400 pts spent, I think it would take care of itself.


IOW, for WFB, I'd suggest something like this:

2000 pts limit
-250 pts if playing Daemons / Vampire (give up 10% extra VP)
+250 pts if playing Dogs of War, Ogres, Orcs or Beasts (gain 10% extra VP)

-100 each Named Character
-200 each Special / Albion Character

-100 each DoW / RoR Core or Special in non-DoW army
-200 each DoW / RoR Rare or Hero or Lord in non-DoW army

-250 2 same Rares

-100 3 same Specials
-250 4 same Specials

+50 each non-magical Standard taken (max +250 pts)

and so on...

So, rather than having hard restrictions that you can't take something, you can take it, but it comes at a price that you would need to balance against. If you take a top-tier list, choosing VC or Daemons costs you 250 pts right off the bat. Then, if you double the rares, that's another 250 pts. Is your resulting 1500-pt Daemon list still able to win against a 2500 pt DoW list with max non-magical Standard bonus)?

That would be interesting.

JohnHwangDD wrote:IOW, for WFB, I'd suggest something like this:

2000 pts limit
-250 pts if playing Daemons / Vampire (give up 10% extra VP)
+250 pts if playing Dogs of War, Ogres, Orcs or Beasts (gain 10% extra VP)

2 thoughts:

1. How is 250 10% of 2,000pts?
2. Shouldn't Khemri be one of the +25o lists, they're generally acknowledged as one of the crappier lists. I also find it amusing that what used to be one of your armies (DoW) gets that boost.

I agree that just picking out power builds off the internet and saying 'these are overpowered, ban/gimp them' isn't really the way to go.

However, I think that the reason you may not see those armies is that they are expensive, or uninteresting, or difficult to model/build, or whatever.

Most people I meet and play with don't have very many armies. Maybe two, maybe three, maybe they're like me and only have one close-to-completed army and a pile of unassembled land raiders. They're definitely not about to go buy, build, and paint a whole new army just because it is powerful on paper. If it's a new unit in an army they already own, or an army that really excites them, maybe. But maybe not.

There are all sorts of people who participate in this hobby and play the games. While part of the hobby IS competition, pretty much every tournament has at the least sportsmanship and painting scores. It's just not about winning lots of games for a huge amount of gamers, even tournament gamers. They want to be competitive, but they don't want to have to work too hard at it. This doesn't mean they're putting together battleforce lists...but they may be playing guard with 22 kill points because hey, thats their army.

Just some general ideas of what kind of gamers I'd say exist:

Power/skill gamers. Play tough lists. Have time/interest to build/paint what is toughest - enjoy the game, fluff, etc but see the beauty in a strong list. Maybe just have a lot of money to go buy new models, maybe know the models will pay for themselves (or at least return something) by helping to win a few tournaments.

Hobby/Skill gamers. Know the game well, play well, but maybe only have a couple of armies, or value the army type a little more than power. Don't have the time or inclination to build a power list unless it happens to also be their chosen army or definitely interesting to model. Overlaps with the first group, but not always.

Power/casual gamers: Look for strong net lists or think of good lists and build them. Maybe care about fluff, maybe don't. May or may not do well with the list - don't really play very much outside of tournaments, but like to feel like they're competitive when they do by ensuring a hard list.

Hobby/causal gamers: could run the gamut of hobby skill, but its a primary interest. Enjoy the games, and enjoy tournaments because they get to see lots of different armies and play a few games when they don't necessarily get to play a lot. Build armies they like the look/fluff of.

Etc, etc. This list isn't meant to be comprehensive or even that accurate. But i'd say the vast majority of players fit in the second and 4th group - they play casually with friends, may or may not have power lists to pull from. And RTTs and GD tournaments are full of them. Comp is aimed largely at increasing the enjoyment for these types of players, and/or attracting them to play in the tournament ($10 entry or $20 purchase). TOs should make the decision on comp depending on what will get them the best turnout, not on some kind of principle of is comp good or bad or dead.

As has been mentioned before, the top 10 tables tend to not look like the other 50 at a lot of big events.

heh... honestly. Play with what is fun for you. If you go to a tourny bring what ever you will have fun with. If its a power build, play it. If it's a soft build play it.

But if you're going to play a soft list and then cry when you lose and say you had no fun... you didn't bring a list you could have fun with did you?

I run over 40% troops and I run a bunch of different units. I got dinged at the GT for running 3 exorcists 3 seperate times. Now... is that a power build? No it's people moaning and complaining that they lost so bad after the game.

MY POINT: Bring what you will have fun with and don't try to force your opinion of fun on anyone else.

I think any tourney needs to ask itself a basic question: Do I want the top award to be to the best Gamer or the best Hobbyist?

Set up the scoring accordingly and publish beforehand.

Comp can run the gamut. And a local RTT we ran in the fall, we used something similar to the Adepticon TT comp:

Army was a balanced tourney force 0 pts
Army was built to be a powergaming list -3 pts

So, comp could lose you about -9 points in a tourney where the winner had 120 points. I think there was one person who marked -3 for anyone, and we the judges realized it was just because he thought Death Company was too good.

But, we gave the award to the Best Hobbyist. In fact, he had a 1-2 record, but 3 favorite opponent votes, and like 8 of 14 best appearance votes, plus max. sportsmanship and one of the best painting scores gave him a narrow win over the 3-0 best general who got good sportsmanship, mediocre painting, and no bonus points.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:IOW, for WFB, I'd suggest something like this:

2000 pts limit
-250 pts if playing Daemons / Vampire (give up 10% extra VP)
+250 pts if playing Dogs of War, Ogres, Orcs or Beasts (gain 10% extra VP)

1. How is 250 10% of 2,000pts?
2. Shouldn't Khemri be one of the +25o lists, they're generally acknowledged as one of the crappier lists. I also find it amusing that what used to be one of your armies (DoW) gets that boost.

1. It isn't - in addition to being down on points, Daemons / VPs only score 90% of their normal VPs.
2. Ask the Europeans - I just took their Tierings as-is.

That said, having an expensive (i.e. metal-heavy) "bottom-tier" army partly explains my relative disinterest in WFB compared to 40k.

sooo let me get this straight. Simply because they bring daemons they are marked down? What if they take a bad daemons list? you are penalizing them more??

What a great system!

sourclams wrote:

Phazael wrote:And, honestly, I really think a lot of it is still metagame changes that most people have not adjusted to. People are not mechanizing enough, including hoods, and/or adapting their list to counter horde. Its like the bulk of the 40k players think you can just swap out all their plasmaguns for flamers and they are ready for 5th edition, which is just not the case. People who are resistant to changes in the metagame often are unable (or unwilling) to adapt, so their natural reaction is to go comp nazi. I know this because the same thing is happening in Fantasy right now, as well. In a year or two, with a couple more army books out the door, people will forget all about bitching about Orks and Lash lists and the butthurt of the month will be Guard and Crons, because that is how these things work.

This right here gets a big damn QFT. Lash, Crusher spam, and dual Nob Bikes are hard to beat if you don't prepare for them during your list building. The majority of people I see still play either 4th ed with flamers or battlebox lists and are amazed that they don't pwn. If you "know" you're going to be fighting this stuff, why aren't your troops in transports and why aren't you bulking up on the obvious counters? If you're a competitive player and still somehow losing to Nob Bikers, that's your fault entirely.

I think your prediction about the Guard codex especially should be absolutely true; when you're lashing+Oblitting 10 guys worth a collective 40 points dead, and then the other 290 men or 12 tanks or whatever erase your troops from the table in one shooting turn, the metagame will be forced to adapt.

gorgon wrote:

Phazael wrote:Nob Bikers are the direct fault of the wound allocation system, which should have remained as it was in 4th. Dual Lash is a result of really dumb playtesting backed up by really dumb FAQs. If the chaos book still had the legion system (ie no Plague Marines in your Slaanesh led list) in place, then it would be far less of an issue. If Lash worked more like the old "Titilating Delusions" spell from fantasy, and let the owning player move their troops to a spot selected by the chaos player, it would be just fine and still rather powerful. Take the rules manipulation aspects out of both units and they cease to be the source of butthurt they currently are.

QFT.

I think the frustrating part with GW is that it's actually the small mistakes they make that mushroom and do all the damage.

Look at Tyranids. I think Phil Kelly's the best designer they have, but he made two mistakes in the Tyranid codex which synergized to create Nidzilla. First, he tried to put the emphasis back on synapse, but didn't boost Warriors enough to make them the defacto synapse unit that was now required. That quickly had players looking for a synapse workaround. And they found it with the Shock Troops rule, Elite Dakkafex and Nidzilla build, which not only avoided the need for Warriors or synapse but ended up being extremely strong. Two seemingly unrelated missteps ended up undoing everything he tried to do.

It's kind of amazing to consider that Nob bikers are winning GTs mostly because of a poorly-considered rule regarding wound allocation. Wound allocation!

And, honestly, I really think a lot of it is still metagame changes that most people have not adjusted to. People are not mechanizing enough, including hoods, and/or adapting their list to counter horde. Its like the bulk of the 40k players think you can just swap out all their plasmaguns for flamers and they are ready for 5th edition, which is just not the case.

I think there's some truth here too. Mannahnin owned my (non-optimized) Orks at Baltimore with double lash. The way my army was composed, it was pretty much a sitting duck for him, and it got ugly. But I've rejiggered the army to include some mounted stuff he can't move, along with more ranged firepower to throw at the lashers and oblits when they peek out to lash or shoot. I can't guarantee it'd make a difference, but I feel like I have a lot more in my toolbox now to deal with not only double lash but other things too.

Gorgon, look at the first quote. NOB BIKERSE ARE NOT THAT HARD TO KILL. The WAC really doesn't make them that hard to kill, they have the same weaknesses as ever and still die hard to templates, ordnance, meltas, plasmas, lascannons, krak missiles, venom cannons, barbed stranglers, particle whip, heavy gauss, tyrants (implant attack anyone?), carnifex, wraithlords, firedragons, bright/darklances, etc etc etc etc. You just aren't prepared for them, and there have been many competitive players in this topic alone that express that nob bikers just aren't that hard to take down when you are prepared for them as well as other top tier lists. They catch newbs by surprise and certain poor army builds by surprise too. I for one think that the current WAC rules, nobs included, are FAR superior than mixed armor or mixed toughness. They sucked ass and were just a lazy, unrealistic way of streamlining the game for chillens.