Switch Theme:

A new comp system that should be adopted by tournaments  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





So, with all the recent talk of composition scores, I have worked tirelessly on developing a solid comp system that will be fair for all codices and promote variety. I would hope people look into adopting this system for their tournaments. I personally believe it works very well and is simple for players to understand.

Anyways, on to the system.

Did the opponent take between 1-2 HQ choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Elite choices +1
Did the opponent take between 2-6 Troops choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Fast Attack choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Heavy support choices +1

Armies must score a total of 5 points to be allowed in any event using this comp system.

Suggestion? Or let me know what you think of it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 16:51:49


My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





Arlington, VA

Too subjective...

Check out my blog for bat reps and pics of my Ultramarine Honorguard (Counts as GK) Army!
Howlingmoon wrote:Good on you for finally realizing the scum that is tournament players, Warhammer would really be better off if those mongrels all left to play Warmachine with the rest of the anti-social miscreants.
combatmedic wrote:Im sure the only reason Japan lost WW2 was because the US failed disclose beforehand they had Tactical Nuke special rule.

 
   
Made in us
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor







Gornall wrote:Too subjective...


Agreed.

All Space Wolf/Chaos Demons players who picked 3 or 4 HQs as per their codex would be instantly disqualified.

THE HORUS HERESY: Emprah: Hours, go reconquer the galaxy so there can be a new golden age. Horus: But I should be Emprah, bawwwwww! Emprah: Magnus, stop it with the sorcery. Magnus: But I know what's best, bawwwwww! Emprah: Horus, tell Russ to bring Magnus to me because I said so. Horus: Emprah wants you to kill Magnus because he said so. Russ: Fine. Emprah's always right. Plus Ole Red has already been denounced as a traitor and I never liked him anyway. Russ: You're about to die, cyclops! Magnus: O noes! Tzeentch, I choose you! Bawwwww! Russ: Ah well. Now to go kill Horus. Russ: Rowboat, how have you not been doing anything? Guilliman: . . . I've been writing a book. Russ: Sigh. Let's go. Guilliman: And I fought the Word Bearers! Horus: Oh shi--Spess Puppies a'comin? Abbadon: And the Ultramarines, sir. Horus: Who? Anyway, this looks bad. *enter Sanguinis* What are you doing here? Come to join me? Sanguinius: *throws self on Horus's power claws* Alas, I am undone! When you play Castlevania, remember me! *enter Emprah* Emprah: Horus! So my favorite son killed my favorite daughter! Horus: What about the Lion? Emprah: Never liked her. Horus: No one does. Now prepare to die! *mortally wounds Emprah*Emprah: Au contraire, you dick. *kills Horus* Dorn: Okay, now I just plug this into this and . . . okay, it works! Emprah? Hellooooo? Jonson: I did nothing! Guilliman: I did more nothing that you! Jonson: Nuh-uh. I was the most worthless! Guilliman: Have you read my book? Dorn: No one likes that book. Khan: C'mon guys. It's not that bad. Dorn: I guess not. Russ: You all suck. Ima go bring the Emprah back to life.
DA:80-S+++G+++M++++B++I+Pw40k97#+D++++A++++/fWD199R+++T(S)DM+  
   
Made in us
Evil man of Carn Dûm





Chicago, IL

Timmah wrote:So, with all the recent talk of composition scores, I have worked tirelessly on developing a solid comp system that will be fair for all codices and promote variety. I would hope people look into adopting this system for their tournaments. I personally believe it works very well and is simple for players to understand.

Anyways, on to the system.

Did the opponent take between 0-2 HQ choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Elite choices +1
Did the opponent take between 2-6 Troops choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Fast Attack choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Heavy support choices +1

Armies must score a total of 5 points to be allowed in any event using this comp system.

Suggestion? Or let me know what you think of it.


OK - original post error fixed. Har. Har. I see what you did there. I like it!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 16:58:48


   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





Arlington, VA

He was making a funny...

Check out my blog for bat reps and pics of my Ultramarine Honorguard (Counts as GK) Army!
Howlingmoon wrote:Good on you for finally realizing the scum that is tournament players, Warhammer would really be better off if those mongrels all left to play Warmachine with the rest of the anti-social miscreants.
combatmedic wrote:Im sure the only reason Japan lost WW2 was because the US failed disclose beforehand they had Tactical Nuke special rule.

 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Matthias wrote:
Timmah wrote:So, with all the recent talk of composition scores, I have worked tirelessly on developing a solid comp system that will be fair for all codices and promote variety. I would hope people look into adopting this system for their tournaments. I personally believe it works very well and is simple for players to understand.

Anyways, on to the system.

Did the opponent take between 0-2 HQ choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Elite choices +1
Did the opponent take between 2-6 Troops choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Fast Attack choices +1
Did the opponent take between 0-3 Heavy support choices +1

Armies must score a total of 5 points to be allowed in any event using this comp system.

Suggestion? Or let me know what you think of it.


If 5 points are required, then you are forcing people play with a minimum of one selection from each slot in the Force Org and the 0-2/0-3 choices should read 1-2/1-3. I don't see people liking that at all. It changes your compulsory force org choices.


Actually the HQ should read 1-2 (or 1-4 for daemons/spacewolves) and all the rest are 0-3 meaning you don't need to take any from that slot to get the points.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

Quick look up! Oh....you missed it....

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

Matthias wrote:If 5 points are required, then you are forcing people play with a minimum of one selection from each slot in the Force Org and the 0-2/0-3 choices should read 1-2/1-3. I don't see people liking that at all. It changes your compulsory force org choices.


actually, he has 0 as a valid entry for the FA/Elite/HQ/Heavies slots so you don't need one in each. besides, he's being sarcastic. look in some of his previous posts in this forum and you'll see he's a "death to comp! hurr!!" person.

personally, i don't like your comp list because you're allowing ILLEGAL armies to get full comp scores. last i checked, HQs should be 1-2, not 0-2.

edit: ninja'd by the OP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 16:55:37


We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





I made a typing mistake and updated it warboss.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





The Battle Barge Buffet Line

so noted in my previous post. in your excitement about finding a comp system you like, your finger slipped. it's understandable.

We Munch for Macragge! FOR THE EMPRUH! Cheesesticks and Humus!
 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Sniper Drone





Iowa,US

Instead of calling it a comp system just change the force org for the tourney to:

HQ:1-2
Elietes:1-3
Troops:2-6
Fast attack: 1-3
Heavy Support 1-3

Since you NEED to have 5 points to enter this isnt a comp system this is a change to the force org chart with a different name. (no offense intended)

For the Greater Good, and for the Greater Firepower  
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





No, with my comp system, you can take 0 of a FoC slot and still get the +1 point.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran





Arlington, VA

Timmah... you must fail at conveying sarcasm...

Check out my blog for bat reps and pics of my Ultramarine Honorguard (Counts as GK) Army!
Howlingmoon wrote:Good on you for finally realizing the scum that is tournament players, Warhammer would really be better off if those mongrels all left to play Warmachine with the rest of the anti-social miscreants.
combatmedic wrote:Im sure the only reason Japan lost WW2 was because the US failed disclose beforehand they had Tactical Nuke special rule.

 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Its definitely not sarcasm. (and yes, apparently I do)

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

This is not comp. You get full points irregardless of what you take. So you think people should be awarded points for simply showing up to play? Why is that?

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





No, I think GW already does a fine job of making sure lists are varied and people don't just spam units and make unbalanced lists. (taking 2 of something isn't spamming it)

And that is all the comp we need.

And its universally known so you don't have to worry about getting screwed over because of comp.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

But you are advocating awarding points simply for showing up to play. Why is that?? Are you just trying to say you don't like comp???

G

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





You don't actually get the points, its just a point value to make sure your in the allowable comp limits.

Even if you do get the 5 points, everyone will get it universally, so it won't matter.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg







Green Blow Fly wrote:But you are advocating awarding points simply for showing up to play. Why is that?? Are you just trying to say you don't like comp???

G


Nothing gets by you.

Composition seems stupid. The game isn't really grossly unbalanced, and some upstart TO doesn't know how to enforce balance better than game designers. Composition is just a way for TOs to enforce their own vision of the game instead of just playing it as intended.

Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Ostrakon wrote:
Green Blow Fly wrote:But you are advocating awarding points simply for showing up to play. Why is that?? Are you just trying to say you don't like comp???

G


Nothing gets by you.

Composition seems stupid. The game isn't really grossly unbalanced, and some upstart TO doesn't know how to enforce balance better than game designers. Composition is just a way for TOs to enforce their own vision of the game instead of just playing it as intended.


HERESY!

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in ca
Decrepit Dakkanaut





So, no composition rules? Sure, why not?

It might also be something to contour the composition rules to the missions in play, to make them somewhat less arbitrary, so players get a composition score equal to the number of units that they brought for each kill-point game, or the number of Troop units that they brought for each objective-based game, or somesuch.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 19:16:29


 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth




Ostrakon wrote:Nothing gets by you.

Composition seems stupid. The game isn't really grossly unbalanced


Yes, it is. Try telling a Necron player matched against Terminator heavy SM that the game doesn't have balance issues. I could come up with more examples, using more recent codices, but I'm sure you could, too, if you wanted to.

Ostrakon wrote:and some upstart TO doesn't know how to enforce balance better than game designers.


Some TO's do, from appearances, have a better understanding of game balance than does GW.

Ostrakon wrote:Composition is just a way for TOs to enforce their own vision of the game instead of just playing it as intended.


GW, by their own words, has intended for 40K to be played for fun and not competitively, such as in a tournament. If we were to play 40K as per the stated intention of the game developers, there would be no need for TO's to make such judgment calls, because there would be no tournaments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 19:18:10


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Saldiven wrote:
Ostrakon wrote:Nothing gets by you.

Composition seems stupid. The game isn't really grossly unbalanced


Yes, it is. Try telling a Necron player matched against Terminator heavy SM that the game doesn't have balance issues. I could come up with more examples, using more recent codices, but I'm sure you could, too, if you wanted to.


You are correct, there is still 1 bad codex. So everyone should suffer until it gets redone. (I heard rumors that said later this year)

Saldiven wrote:
GW, by their own words, has intended for 40K to be played for fun and not competitively, such as in a tournament. If we were to play 40K as per the stated intention of the game developers, there would be no need for TO's to make such judgment calls, because there would be no tournaments.


That was like 3+ years ago. In fact, by their actions they have changed this stance since then.

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Fell Caller - Child of Bragg







As a Necron player who often has to play against Loganwing and Deathwing armies, I don't have too much of a problem with them. And I don't really build around having to deal with them either, you just gotta force them to roll a bunch of armor saves and eventually they'll fail some. And once their squad is softened up, finish the job with a C'Tan. That's what Destroyers and Immortals are for, right? Hell, if anything Necrons have an easier time dealing with assault termies since they can glide right through invuln saves with some units anyway.

I'm struggling to come up with something that a given army is simply incapable of dealing with. Everyone has their counters, and while the power levels of the game are hardly all in line with each other, there's no such thing as an unplayable army in 40k. Granted, I've lost more than a few games to phaseout, an outdated mechanic with really no excuse for existing anymore, but that in itself doesn't mean the game is horribly unbalanced.

The propensity to blame the game or GW or your codex for losing is the sign of a general who fails to be inventive. You might get caught against something you didn't prepare for and literally be unable to compensate, but that's your fault anyway if you didn't, say, bring any AP3 stuff and you're up against SM.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Timmah wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Ostrakon wrote:Nothing gets by you.

Composition seems stupid. The game isn't really grossly unbalanced


Yes, it is. Try telling a Necron player matched against Terminator heavy SM that the game doesn't have balance issues. I could come up with more examples, using more recent codices, but I'm sure you could, too, if you wanted to.


You are correct, there is still 1 bad codex. So everyone should suffer until it gets redone. (I heard rumors that said later this year)


The Necron codex isn't even that bad. It's not terribly competitive and it's saddled with useless or redundant units, but it's more than possible to get a competent all-comers army out of the few good units they do have. I mean, a monolith-castling Necron player, especially at point levels where he can bring 2 or 3 'liths, is pretty difficult to phase out barring some grave mistakes or some reserve/outflank miracle rolls. And on the subjective side of things, I think the fluff is pretty damn cool.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 19:34:14


Over 350 points of painted Trolls and Cyriss 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth




Timmah wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Ostrakon wrote:Nothing gets by you.

Composition seems stupid. The game isn't really grossly unbalanced


Yes, it is. Try telling a Necron player matched against Terminator heavy SM that the game doesn't have balance issues. I could come up with more examples, using more recent codices, but I'm sure you could, too, if you wanted to.


You are correct, there is still 1 bad codex. So everyone should suffer until it gets redone. (I heard rumors that said later this year)

Saldiven wrote:
GW, by their own words, has intended for 40K to be played for fun and not competitively, such as in a tournament. If we were to play 40K as per the stated intention of the game developers, there would be no need for TO's to make such judgment calls, because there would be no tournaments.


That was like 3+ years ago. In fact, by their actions they have changed this stance since then.


What about the current Tyranids vs. Space Wolves? How 'bout Tau vs. just about anybody? Grey Knights vs. just about anybody?

What actions has GW taken to make you think they feel any differently? GT's and GD's are still few and far between as far as GW sponsored events are concerned. Atlanta, the economic hub of the Southeast, hasn't seen a GW sponsored event in....4+ years, I believe. In fact, I don't think there's been a GW event closer to the Southeast than Baltimore since the last Games Day here in 2006.

Their focus on competitive play surely isn't reflected in the rules writing or rules support. Within days of a new codex being released, there are more pages of questions about it than there are pages of rules in the codex. When a FAQ does come out (usually 60+ days later, if that quickly), they usually barely address the biggest rules questions the community has had about the codex. The most recent example of this is Codex: Space Wolves. The GW FAQ has 47 Q&A; the INAT has 65 Q&A (I believe GWAR!'s SW FAQ was equally lengthy). Also, both the INAT and Gwar! FAQs were out well before the GW FAQ came out, despite the fact that GW has people who draw a salary to write rules, and both of these fan FAQs were done pro bono. Even more egregious, look at how long it took GW to address the Deff Rolla in their FAQ for Codex: Orks.

Lastly, tournament play has not figured into their marketing. Their biggest sales pushes in recent years have all been for "fun" type games: Cities of Death, Apocalypse, and Planet Strike have been the big pushes over the last few years. This year, it's Battle Missions (or whatever it's called). None of this stuff is even remotely suitable to competitive gaming.

Since GW directly supports even fewer tournaments than they did in years past and they still barely pay lip service to writing a tight, cohesive rules set suitable for competitive play, I'm curious to know what actions of theirs lead you to believe they have a new, pro-tournament player stance.

[Edited for grammar]

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/03/08 19:50:14


 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Saldiven wrote:
What about the current Tyranids vs. Space Wolves? How 'bout Tau vs. just about anybody? Grey Knights vs. just about anybody?


Uh, Tau are amazing, GK has decent builds depending on points levels, and I have no idea what problem exists between tyranids and space wolves.


GW brought back the LVGT, and has set up a qualifier system for it. They have also gotten away from fluff driven codices and more towards competitive ones. CSM and Dark angels vs all the new ones.

The new FAQs are actually answering the correct questions. (not to mention the staff has is basically completely new)

My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

Timmah you never answered my questions.

If you are advocating CSM and DA are weaker than the other codices then this indicates it might be worth the effort to balance the playing field.

ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader





Green Blow Fly wrote:Timmah you never answered my questions.

If you are advocating CSM and DA are weaker than the other codices then this indicates it might be worth the effort to balance the playing field.


Sorry, I did not see your question the first time.

CSM and DA are both capable of putting out a top tier competitive list. You are just more limited with the options you can take. There are always going to be fluctuating power levels between the top lists and nothing will ever be 100% balanced.

However they are all close enough that they can bring something that could potentially win any given game provide they have a quality general.

Hope that clears up my opinion.

On a final note, does it suck that stuff like CSM only get 1-2 competitive builds and you can't use all the "fun" stuff? Sure. But at the moment there really are only about 3 codices like this, so why punish everyone when only a 5 people at a tournament might show up with these?

Besides, its a tournament, you should be bringing the most competitive stuff, not a fluff list. I break out all the fun Tau gear in apoc or casual games but when I go to a tournament, I bring my best list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 20:14:52


My 40k Theory Blog
 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

Wow, so much conversation for a joke post

You win for the day Timmah, it made me laugh!

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth




Timmah wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
What about the current Tyranids vs. Space Wolves? How 'bout Tau vs. just about anybody? Grey Knights vs. just about anybody?


Uh, Tau are amazing, GK has decent builds depending on points levels, and I have no idea what problem exists between tyranids and space wolves.


GW brought back the LVGT, and has set up a qualifier system for it. They have also gotten away from fluff driven codices and more towards competitive ones. CSM and Dark angels vs all the new ones.

The new FAQs are actually answering the correct questions. (not to mention the staff has is basically completely new)


Really? I guess that's why Tau, Necrons and Gray Knights are doing so well in the tournament circuit and the 'Ard Boys tourneys.

So, GW goes from 4+ GT's per year in North America to one GT in North America per year, and that's an improvement. Atlanta (for a single example) used to have a GT or GD just about every year. We haven't had one since 2006, and there is nothing scheduled for 2010. The qualifier system for the LVGT is almost entirely done as "prize support" for independent tournaments; GW doesn't really have to do anything for that. I'm not sure what you mean by "away from fluff driven codices and more towards competitive ones." All codices are still 75%+ fluff by number of pages. All of them are still rife with rules conflicts and poorly worded rules from the moment they come off of the press. While many have argued that some codices (like C:CSM) were a step back from their previous incarnation, I can't think of a single codex that was worthless at the time of its release (with the possible exception of Dark Angels). Virtually all codices are competitive when they are released. The problem is that it takes GW so incredibly long to update codices that older books become typically become less competitive as new books are released, and GW does nothing to address this issue until the old codex comes up in the "rotation." Also, "competitive" is a relative term; some codices will have multiple possible builds that can work in a competitive environment, while others might only have one or two builds that are competitive.

Answering the right questions? How long did it take to address the Deff Rolla? How about the initial response in the SW FAQ that Furious Charge and Counterattack stacked? All you have to do is spend an afternoon poking through YMDC to see that there are still glaring holes in the FAQ answers; even some holes that didn't even open up until the FAQ came out with a ruling one way or another. Heck, even the GW FAQ's have several with "thank you"s to Yakface; apparently, GW can't be bothered to research their own product enough to create their own FAQ, and use a fan based one as their template.

Anyway, I'm sorry for de-railing the thread away from composition. I, personally, don't care either way about composition scores at a tournament; if I know it's there, I'll account for it and consider that modification to my regular list to be an additional challenge to my playing skill if I wanna win. I'm not impressed by someone who can win consistently with a "highly tooled tournament list;" I'm more impressed with someone that can win with a variety of different lists. I just take umbrage at the idea that GW gives even as much as 10% of their time, effort, and thought to the competitive gamer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Timmah wrote:However they are all close enough that they can bring something that could potentially win any given game provide they have a quality general.


Sorry; hit a pet peeve.

We're not "generals." We're players.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/03/08 20:27:15


 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: