Switch Theme:

Tournament Composition and you!  [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
Fresh-Faced New User





Orkeosaurus wrote:Honestly, the biggest problem with the old comp system is that it's become somewhat obsolete; at one time it was the elite choices and tooled up characters that won the games, but it's increasingly becoming an issue of powerful troops; massive amounts of nob bikers, battle sisters, boys, plaguemarines, etc.

Penalizing people for spending a lot of points on, say, their grandmaster seems kind of unfair when another player can bring a whole bunch of Battle Sisters with no comp penalty while probably being a better choice overall.
I agree with this, Orkeosaurus.

I think anyone who disagrees with this doesn't have any idea what they're talking about!
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

"How desperate would someone have to be to make a user just to agree with them?"

   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Minnesota

JohnHwangDD wrote:"How desperate would someone have to be to make a user just to agree with them?"
I don't know, but I think you posted in the wrong thread.

This is the comp scores thread, you should be posting in that crazy "sock puppets" thread.

Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I dunno.

It seems like we're gonna be overrun by sock puppets here!

   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







JohnHwangDD wrote:
You have:
- max HQ which costs you 2 points
- no Fast
- no Heavy
- no Elite+Fast+Heavy
- dupe Troops

Next!


Ah, I misunderstood the rules. Having said that Snikkrot is not an HQ. And you're biasing the list against armies that have a limited number of selections in any given type.

So now that I understand the rules, here's another one that breaks your system:

Fateweaver
Optionally, Any herald
Flamers
Bloodcrushers
Bloodletters
Daemonettes
Plaguebearers
Horrors
Nurglings
Any FA unit
Soul Grinder or Daemon Prince to flavor.

Max points, simply because the CD codex has five different troop selections, and because Heralds only count as half a HQ slot.

Or of course there's chaos - six different type of troop selections. Yep Chaos Space Marines need to be helped as much as Chaos Daemons do.

You're not a "competitive" player, John. At least, so you've claimed. If you're not competitive, than why care about limiting power builds?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 03:28:50


"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Florida

JohnHwangDD wrote:First off, I think that any "modern" (i.e. 40k5) comp system should do away with any percentage calculations. Percentages are a carryover from 2E, in which we built armies based on percentages.

A modern comp system should focus on FOC choices and the variety of choices taken, for example:
[] 3+ Troops
[] More Troops than any other category
[] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[] No dupe entries
("no-dupe" applies to entry name, not options)

But comp shouldn't be a restriction or requirement, simply an option. A player can field a bad-comp army, but should be penalized for doing so.

Personally, as Comp is a 0-10 scale, I'd convert it into a percentage and then multiply the Battle score by the Comp ratio. So if you score 5/10 on Comp, then you only count 50% of your Battle points.


Welcome to bland JohnDD 40k he knows and loves where all the armies look the same and poor poor Tau get hosed on comp and in battle as well. Necrons have as much choice as Dark Eldar. I dont even want to consider guard under these restrictions. The current system would fail and armies that have limited choices in their codex suffer with battle modifiers that you introduced.

You know DD, it reminds me of playing Street Fighter 2 where my Younger brother would get thrashed and then tells me not to use Ryu or Ken, next I beat him with Chun-li and he then tells me not to use special moves. I just jump kick him all the time and then tells me no jump kicks to the point he finally beats me with his rules. After all that is taken away, you got just a very bland, very boring style of play. Your version of 40k might as well be called checkers. I got a set in my basement for ya.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 04:46:42


Comparing tournament records is another form of e-peen measuring.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





whidbey

I like taking bizarro lists that handicap myself enough. I really don't need another layer of handicap tacked on.
should a chaos monsters list be punished by comp?
2 demon princes
3 dread
3 defilers
1 greater demon
2 units of spawns
troops to fill
this lists gets zero
why?
why should you punish this fun list?

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Centurian99 wrote: you're biasing the list against armies that have a limited number of selections in any given type.

Max points, simply because the CD codex has five different troop selections, and because Heralds only count as half a HQ slot.

You're not a "competitive" player, John. At least, so you've claimed. If you're not competitive, than why care about limiting power builds?

I presume that GW intended for certain armies to be limited or weak in certain areas, so forcing players to take non-optimal units helps to emphasizes the full nature of each list. When players only take the "best" units, as opposed to some mix of of the "best", "good", and "bad" units then that presents a fuller, more representative picture of each army as it was designed.

I have no idea what you mean by "half a HQ slot". If a Herald is a HQ entry, then it's a 2nd HQ, so it's max HQ slots used. As for the Troops, perhaps the notion would be to ignore duplicate Troops. It's a minor modification that apparently could make a number of people happy.

I'm not a competitive player any more, but that doesn't mean I can't have a certain theoretical interest in Comp. It's an interesting thought exercise.
____

thehod wrote:Welcome to bland JohnDD 40k he knows and loves where all the armies look the same and poor poor Tau get hosed on comp and in battle as well. Necrons have as much choice as Dark Eldar. I dont even want to consider guard under these restrictions. The current system would fail and armies that have limited choices in their codex suffer with battle modifiers that you introduced.

Your version of 40k might as well be called checkers.

IMO, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about, and you haven't got the slightest clue as to how the comp system I presented works. Bland isn't having several kinds of things on the board, doing a variety of different things - bland is having 3 kinds of things all doing essentially the same thing.

Presuming that we ignore duplicate Troops, which appears to be the biggest problem, then having limited Troops (or other) choices isn't any concern.

And of course, there aren't any "restrictions", as you'd be free to field a 0/10 army for fun - just don't expect to score top points.

As for Guard, I think they'd do fine:
1 HQ = Command Squad (100+)
1 Elite = Veterans (100)
5 Troops = Platoon (250+), AF (170), 3x Grenadiers (210)
1 Fast = Hellhound (130)
1 Heavy = Demolisher (190)
That's a 10/10 army that fits in as little as 1200 pts, with *plenty* of room to grow the Command Platoon or Infantry Platoon for 1500 pts. If playing 1850, you can add a 2nd Platoon and an Indirect Basilisk and still score 10/10. Is it the strongest Guard list? No. But it will score 100% of Battle. But then, Guard aren't a top tier army anyways.

Now you say CSM rocks under this, but Cult Marines are very expensive at 20-25 pts each, plus Champs and Upgrades. If you're playing 1500 pts, I think CSM are hard pressed to build a strong 10/10 army. At 1850, things open up, but dual lash (Prince & Sorc) is going to be maximum 8/10 from the max HQ, probably 7/10 or less.

I suggest you take a deeper look at how the proposed system works. It's really not nearly as limiting as you think.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Florida

Your comp system is limiting on what the player wants to bring to perform well at your hypothetical tournament.

Who are you to tell people how to play their army? The game designers tell us how to play our armies by making restrictions on what we can or cannot take.

The current comp system will make for bland gameplay as people who try to conform to your comp system so they can have a remote chance of winning.

Some armies such as Eldar and Tau rely on their non-troops to win their games. Dark Eldar will do poorly on comp since filling out troops will only take 700-800 points leaving them with no choice but to max out on HQ and only have 1 real viable HS and elites (not that you care much for DE). You admit the guard army you posted wouldnt be as good. Necrons too have little choice in their codex and would be forced to take all warriors for an 8/10 comp and have the most boring of games ever.

Your comp system would also make some fluffy armies take hits on their comp such as a sternguard list with Kantor or an Ironhands list that has maxed out elites and maxed out heavies and only 3 troops and a master of the forge. An all Nurgle Deamon army would score a 2-3 at best along with any single mark army. These armies have a theme built in them and yet would score little or nothing with the comp system while lash armies would score higher than the above mentioned armies.

A comp system is calling cheese in a passive aggressive way. Your system is flawed and can be exploited with some careful planning. I suggest you never run a tournament.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 07:22:06


Comparing tournament records is another form of e-peen measuring.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

skkipper wrote:I like taking bizarro lists that handicap myself enough. I really don't need another layer of handicap tacked on.

should a chaos monsters list be punished by comp?
2 demon princes (~250)
1 greater demon (100)
3 dread (270+)
troops to fill
2 units of spawns (160)
3 defilers (450)

this lists gets zero
why?
why should you punish this fun list?

If you're taking bizarro / "fun" lists, then you're not playing for top marks, you're playing just to play. Ergo, scoring doesn't matter so much - why do you care?

Just filling your "fun" stuff is around 1250 pts. In 1500, you can barely play with 2 minimum Troops.

Actually, yes, it should. As the Nidzilla guys showed, killing lots of MCs isn't easy, and they field no more than 8. You have effectively 9. How is that "fun" for your opponent?

OTOH, if you were to be monster-themed and high comp, then the army looks like this:
1 DP
1 GD
1 Dread
6 Troops
1 unit Spawns
1 Defiler
That's <600 pts in "fun" stuff, leaving 900 pts for you to field a full 6 Troops for full comp points.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





whidbey

you can still do a 4 land raider spam list and get 8/10 points.

any comp system out there. there will be lists that abuse it.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

thehod wrote:Your comp system is limiting on what the player wants to bring to perform well at your hypothetical tournament.

Who are you to tell people how to play their army? The game designers tell us how to play our armies by making restrictions on what we can or cannot take.

The current comp system will make for bland gameplay as people who try to conform to your comp system so they can have a remote chance of winning.

Some armies such as Eldar and Tau rely on their non-troops to win their games. Dark Eldar will do poorly on comp since filling out troops will only take 700-800 points leaving them with no choice but to max out on HQ and only have 1 real viable HS and elites (not that you care much for DE). You admit the guard army you posted wouldnt be as good. Necrons too have little choice in their codex and would be forced to take all warriors for an 8/10 comp and have the most boring of games ever.

Your comp system would also make some fluffy armies take hits on their comp such as a sternguard list with Kantor or an Ironhands list that has maxed out elites and maxed out heavies and only 3 troops and a master of the forge. An all Nurgle Deamon army would score a 2-3 at best along with any single mark army. These armies have a theme built in them and yet would score little or nothing with the comp system while lash armies would score higher than the above mentioned armies.

A comp system is calling cheese in a passive aggressive way. Your system is flawed and can be exploited with some careful planning. I suggest you never run a tournament.

A "no comp" system is just as limiting (if not moreso) on what a player can bring if they want to do well at a tournament. How many top lists are fielding Possessed CSM, or Eldar Storm Guardians? How many top lists are packed with Vanguard SM or IG Ogryns & Commissars?

Did I say that you can't field dual-Lash triple-Oblit CSM? No, I make no such restriction. The only likelihood is that you won't score top marks, whereas a guy who brings something that is a bit more balanced and fun for the opponent to play against probably will.

I make no bones or apologies for shifting the scoring system. Tell me this: Why should 40k tournaments devolve into a contest to see who can create and pilot the most broken list? Why shouldn't 40k tournaments emphasize generalship of a mixture of units? Why can't there be hi-comp tournaments as well as no-comp tournaments?

Where did I ever say that an army must be 10/10? I said that 8+/10 would be typical. So those Eldar / Tau players would just have to make some smart or clever choices about what breaks they want to have. But the thing that you miss is that those Eldar / Tau / whomever probably aren't winning the tournament under no-comp, either. So it's not a big deal from that perspectve. However, rather than having to gear up with lots of non-Troops for power, in a lower-power environment, they might do just fine.

How does a pure Nurgle Daemon army not score a reasonable comp? I have:
GUO
Beasts
Nurglings / Plaguebearers
(converted Furies)
DP
That's 10/10. If I pull the Furies for no Fast, that's 8/10.

Dual-Lash triple Oblits??
2 Lash (--)
(elite)
4 Troops (-)
(fast)
3x Oblits (--)
With 7 non-Troops, the best score possible is 5/10, clearly worse than the purist Nurgle 8/10 or the Nurgle themed 10/10.

As for Theme, not all themes are good or balanced and deserving of Comp rewards. I think the old triple-oblit quad-pie Iron Warriors proved that pretty conclusively. Now one could score Theme separately from Comp, but that's a subjective thing, unlike the purely-objective checkbox Comp I have here.

As for being breakable, I don't doubt that to be the case. But what I put up appears to do an adequate job at clamping down on the obvious max-(good) / min-(required) / no-(bad) armies that annoy people to play against. And that's all that one can expect of any comp system.

As for "passive-aggressive", I don't know what your issues are, but IMO, I think you're taking things a bit too personally...

   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







JohnHwangDD wrote:
I presume that GW intended for certain armies to be limited or weak in certain areas, so forcing players to take non-optimal units helps to emphasizes the full nature of each list. When players only take the "best" units, as opposed to some mix of of the "best", "good", and "bad" units then that presents a fuller, more representative picture of each army as it was designed.


That's crap, with absolutely no evidence aside from your own feelings on the subject. The studio has created a way to construct armies...it's called the Codex. They've chosen not to use 0-1, 0-2, or other similar restrictions when they could have.

Who are you to say that your way of playing is better, or more correct?

That argument sound familiar?

Any comp system can be abused. Your system doesn't really resolve any problems - all it does is create new ones. On top of that, you screw armies that have limited selections in their codexes.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by "half a HQ slot". If a Herald is a HQ entry, then it's a 2nd HQ, so it's max HQ slots used.


Read the Chaos Daemons codex. Heralds are half an HQ slot, so Daemon players can take four of them, or two plus a Greater Daemon, etc. Yet another flaw in any universal comp structure - its almost impossible to fairly deal with the variety and breath of different codicies.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
As for the Troops, perhaps the notion would be to ignore duplicate Troops. It's a minor modification that apparently could make a number of people happy.


Okay...then you're just rewarding those armies that have solid, resilient, multi-purpose troops, at the expense of those that don't. Congratulations, you've just created a new problem! Well done.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not a competitive player any more, but that doesn't mean I can't have a certain theoretical interest in Comp. It's an interesting thought exercise.


That's one opinion. Another opinion is that comp is a way for less-skilled players to excuse their inability to win games, while somehow claiming the moral high ground for because they're playing "correctly" while us beardy gits abuse codexes to find the most effective ways to outfit and construct army lists. And to be honest, I'm sick of being accused of powergaming and of not wanting my opponents to have fun, simply because I construct and field strong armies. And I'm really sick of people who do so, trying to act like they're somehow morally superior because they field sub-optimal armies.

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with fielding a sub-optimal army. But if you're going to do so, don't try to claim that you're somehow playing a better game because of it, and don't penalize players who are playing legal armies that just happen to be better constructed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 07:52:25


"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

skkipper wrote:you can still do a 4 land raider spam list and get 8/10 points.

any comp system out there. there will be lists that abuse it.

Can you post the list and points value? That would be helpful so I could check the scoring.

I'm not necessarily bothered by 4 LRs or other lists scoring 8/10. The goal of the proposed comp system was to punish WAAC lists that depend on min-max listbuilding, and so far, I think it's more-or-less doing that. Is it perfect? Of course not. It's OK, and that's probably enough. Couple it with player-scored Theme and Judges bonuses, and it's probably no worse than anything else that does comp.

   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







Here's a 9/10 Land Raider Spam list

HQ: Brother-Captain
E: Ordo Malleus Inquisitor /w retinue in Land Raider
E: Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor /w retinue in Land Raider
T: Ordo Malleus =][= Stormtroopers
T: Grey Knights
T: Sisters of Battle
T: Ordo Hereticus =][= Stormtroopers
T: IG Armored Fist Squad
FA: Seraphim
HS: GK Land Raider
HS: GK Land Raider Crusader

You can squeeze that into 1750 points. If you drop to 8/10, you can make the list much more competitive.

[X] 3+ Troops
[X] More Troops than any other category
[] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[X] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[X] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[X] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[X] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[X] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[X] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[X] No dupe non-Troops

I'm not necessarily bothered by 4 LRs or other lists scoring 8/10. The goal of the proposed comp system was to punish WAAC lists that depend on min-max listbuilding, and so far, I think it's more-or-less doing that.


That's the whole major flaw in universal comp systems - it doesn't punish WAAC lists (which term, in and of itself is a way to make yourself morally superior to other players) but it simply creates new ones. To come up with a realistic comp system, you essentially have to re-write each individual codex.

"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Salt Lake City, Utah

You know, I remember a time when the ability to make a powerful list was one of the skills of the game. Something to be admired and sought-after.

When did we start calling white black, and black white?

If someone's models are not painted as well, they will not score as highly.

If someone's tactics are not very good, they will not score as highly.

If someone is not skilled enough to make a powerful list, they will not score as highly.

Man, that's the joy of Anime! To revel in the complete and utter wastefullness of making an unstoppable nuclear-powered combat andriod in the shape of a cute little girl, who has the ability to fall in love and wears an enormous bow in her hair.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Centurian99 wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
I presume that GW intended for certain armies to be limited or weak in certain areas, so forcing players to take non-optimal units helps to emphasizes the full nature of each list. When players only take the "best" units, as opposed to some mix of of the "best", "good", and "bad" units then that presents a fuller, more representative picture of each army as it was designed.

That's crap, with absolutely no evidence aside from your own feelings on the subject. The studio has created a way to construct armies...it's called the Codex. They've chosen not to use 0-1, 0-2, or other similar restrictions when they could have.

Who are you to say that your way of playing is better, or more correct?

Any comp system can be abused.

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

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

And while GW has Codices, they also expect players to exercise some restraint in listbuilding, hence TMIR. GW gives examples of such armies, and they even give a Fluff OOB in the SM case. A standard SM Codex army for 40k should be a demi company:
Company Command (w/ Razorback)
1 Dread
5 Tactical squads (w/ Rhinos)
1 Assault squad
1 Devastator squad (w/ Rhino)
Interestingly, this scores 10/10 under my comp system. Given that this Fluffy force is 10/10, whereas the Kantor Sternguard force isn't, I'd say that GW would probably agree that my system does a better job.

And once again (like a freakin' broken record), nobody would be forced to change their list. They just won't score full points. How is that a problem, again? Is the tournament about a total experience, or just winning? And once again, how does any given comp system preclude no-comp events from being held?

At least you're not arguing that no-comp isn't abusive, or less-abusive than my version...


Centurian99 wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by "half a HQ slot". If a Herald is a HQ entry, then it's a 2nd HQ, so it's max HQ slots used.

Read the Chaos Daemons codex. Heralds are half an HQ slot, so Daemon players can take four of them, or two plus a Greater Daemon, etc. Yet another flaw in any universal comp structure - its almost impossible to fairly deal with the variety and breath of different codicies.

OK, then I read it properly. Max HQ slots used. And if you play GW games, then I'm sure you're well aware that a minor "flaw" doesn't invalidate the system. After all, you're willing to gloss over an umpteen-page FAQ that significantly rebalances 40k and the Codices in many fundamental ways... I understand that it seriously screws themed Dark Angels, so clearly, we ought to invalidate Yakface's FAQ, right?


Centurian99 wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
As for the Troops, perhaps the notion would be to ignore duplicate Troops. It's a minor modification that apparently could make a number of people happy.

Okay...then you're just rewarding those armies that have solid, resilient, multi-purpose troops, at the expense of those that don't.

And this is different from things as the they currently stand today, how, exactly?
____

Centurian99 wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not a competitive player any more, but that doesn't mean I can't have a certain theoretical interest in Comp. It's an interesting thought exercise.

That's one opinion.

Another opinion is that comp is a way for less-skilled players to excuse their inability to win games, while somehow claiming the moral high ground for because they're playing "correctly" while us beardy gits abuse codexes to find the most effective ways to outfit and construct army lists. And to be honest, I'm sick of being accused of powergaming and of not wanting my opponents to have fun, simply because I construct and field strong armies. And I'm really sick of people who do so, trying to act like they're somehow morally superior because they field sub-optimal armies.

Don't get me wrong - there's nothing wrong with fielding a sub-optimal army. But if you're going to do so, don't try to claim that you're somehow playing a better game because of it, and don't penalize players who are playing legal armies that just happen to be better constructed.

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

And the fact of the matter is, if you're focused on trying to field the most effective way to outfit or construct army lists, then by definition, you're powergaming. Now if you were building your army because you had an interesting theme in mind, and thought it would be a fun challenge for your opponent, then that would be a different story, but that's not what you're doing, is it. Look, if you're a powergamer who doesn't care whether your opponent has fun - the least you can do is man up and admit it.

Having played competitively for many years, I know for a fact that a piloting strong list does not require as much generalship as a sub-optimal list. How you can get satisfaction from winning with a clearly superior list is somewhat beyond me. I actually have to ask if you can still win without the crutch of a power list, whether you actually have the generalship ability to play a weaker list and still win without a starting advantage. After all, if you have a strong list, and you win then you're not proving anything except the strength of the list.

And really, why should players who field Fluffy lists be penalized by a "no-comp" system? Can you explain that to me?

It seems to me that the best player is the one who can take a Fluffy, opponent-friendly list and win with it.


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

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Centurian99 wrote:Here's a 9/10 Land Raider Spam list

You can squeeze that into 1750 points. If you drop to 8/10, you can make the list much more competitive.

I'm not necessarily bothered by 4 LRs or other lists scoring 8/10. The goal of the proposed comp system was to punish WAAC lists that depend on min-max listbuilding, and so far, I think it's more-or-less doing that.

That's the whole major flaw in universal comp systems - it doesn't punish WAAC lists (which term, in and of itself is a way to make yourself morally superior to other players) but it simply creates new ones. To come up with a realistic comp system, you essentially have to re-write each individual codex.

I really don't see your 9/10 4 LR list as so bad. There's a lot of soft, squishy stuff there, too.

Re-writing each Codex isn't feasible at all. And I don't think it would produce "perfect" comp, either. Perfect comp simply isn't possible, re-write or not.
____

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

If someone's models are not painted as well, they will not score as highly.

If someone's tactics are not very good, they will not score as highly.

If someone is not skilled enough to make a powerful list, they will not score as highly.

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

I recall the categories to be Generalship, Sportsmanship, Painting, and Composition.

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

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Funny how you instantly equate "power builds" to "power gaming" John. More amusing how you're not responding to what Doc Thunder actually said, but simply strawmanning him out of existance.

Still folks he continues to reframe things, redefine things, and vilify anyone who disagrees with him so they become bad and he becomes the one on the moral high ground, arguing from a point of self righteous bulls**t.

I'm sorry, I can't be the only one to see it - he does it in every f***ing thread?

(Just like I follow him around to point it out).

BYE

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 08:52:19


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Longtime Dakkanaut







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


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

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


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

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And while GW has Codices, they also expect players to exercise some restraint in listbuilding, hence TMIR.


TMIR?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW gives examples of such armies, and they even give a Fluff OOB in the SM case. A standard SM Codex army for 40k should be a demi company:
Company Command (w/ Razorback)
1 Dread
5 Tactical squads (w/ Rhinos)
1 Assault squad
1 Devastator squad (w/ Rhino)
Interestingly, this scores 10/10 under my comp system. Given that this Fluffy force is 10/10, whereas the Kantor Sternguard force isn't, I'd say that GW would probably agree that my system does a better job.


That's a joke, right? If that's how GW wanted the game to be played, they could have very easily made Tactical Squads 3+, Assault Squads 1+, and Dev squads 1+. Oh look, they didn't. Why is that, I wonder?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And once again (like a freakin' broken record), nobody would be forced to change their list. They just won't score full points. How is that a problem, again? Is the tournament about a total experience, or just winning? And once again, how does any given comp system preclude no-comp events from being held?


What exactly is this "total experience" you speak of. Painting? Modeling? Thematic Armies? I saw a gorgeously painted Pedro Kantor Sternguard army at a tournament a few weeks ago...why should my opponent have been penalized because he didn't build an army to someone else's arbitrary comp system, when he followed all the rules in the codex, and obviously put hundreds of man-hours into ridiculous amounts of freehand details on his figs?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, then I read it properly. Max HQ slots used. And if you play GW games, then I'm sure you're well aware that a minor "flaw" doesn't invalidate the system. After all, you're willing to gloss over an umpteen-page FAQ that significantly rebalances 40k and the Codices in many fundamental ways... I understand that it seriously screws themed Dark Angels, so clearly, we ought to invalidate Yakface's FAQ, right?


Where I come from, 1.5 does not equal 2.

And when it comes to the INAT and DA, you might want to actually read it before making comments, because a lot of the complaints of DA players were addressed when we reviewed it.

A larger point, however, is that we could do that...because the INAT addresses questions for a specific army in light of that army's codex. Any universal comp system is Epic Fail, because it can't do that, or else its not Universal. You could probably come up with separate comp lists for each codex in the game...but then you're essentially re-writing the codex.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Centurian99 wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
As for the Troops, perhaps the notion would be to ignore duplicate Troops. It's a minor modification that apparently could make a number of people happy.

Okay...then you're just rewarding those armies that have solid, resilient, multi-purpose troops, at the expense of those that don't.

And this is different from things as the they currently stand today, how, exactly?


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


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


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

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And the fact of the matter is, if you're focused on trying to field the most effective way to outfit or construct army lists, then by definition, you're powergaming. Now if you were building your army because you had an interesting theme in mind, and thought it would be a fun challenge for your opponent, then that would be a different story, but that's not what you're doing, is it. Look, if you're a powergamer who doesn't care whether your opponent has fun - the least you can do is man up and admit it.


Never denied the fact that I'm a competive gamer. Just sick of non-competitive types feeling morally superior.

Because here's what it boils down to. Non-competitive gamers who really aren't playing to win, don't care if they win. So-called friendly-gamers who decry people who play power lists are really saying, "I want to win, I just don't want to have to deviate from my own limited vision of how the game is supposed to be played in order to win." To me, there's a small whiff of hypocrisy there.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Having played competitively for many years, I know for a fact that a piloting strong list does not require as much generalship as a sub-optimal list. How you can get satisfaction from winning with a clearly superior list is somewhat beyond me. I actually have to ask if you can still win without the crutch of a power list, whether you actually have the generalship ability to play a weaker list and still win without a starting advantage. After all, if you have a strong list, and you win then you're not proving anything except the strength of the list.


I have to laugh at that. Nice attempt to tar me, but although it really doesn't matter, here are the armies, I've played.

My first army was that powerhouse of 3rd edition...Dark Angels. Which eventually became a regular Deathwing and Ravenwing force. True power armies there. Winning with those armies was so easy and simple.
Then I built a Guard army. But not just any Guard army. I'm a powergamer, so of course I built...a Jungle Fighters army. Because taking a Catachan Veterans force to a GT was a guaranteed recipe for success.
Then I played Nids for a while, sold 'em, and decided to pick up Tau when they were released. Because we all know how overpowering Tau were in 3rd Edition.
After playing Tau, I decided I needed an even more overpowered army, so of course I built a Daemonhunters force.


When 4th Edition came around, I still used the Tau and Guard, but I thought I'd like a new challenge, so I played Night Lords, which we all know was the most broken of all the Chaos Space Marine lists in the Pete Haines codex. Yep, taking four fast attack choices was an auto-win in 4th Edition.
And then I went back to tyranids...well Stealer Shock became considered a power list. Why did that happen?
And now I'm playing Chaos Daemons, which we all knew, absolutely,positively, that they were going to rock the house. As soon as the codex came out, you could hear the cries: "Most broken list ever."

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And really, why should players who field Fluffy lists be penalized by a "no-comp" system? Can you explain that to me?

It seems to me that the best player is the one who can take a Fluffy, opponent-friendly list and win with it.


Maybe because that's the way that GW has written the codexes. Why should "fluffy, opponent friendly" (as if there was a widespread agreement on fluff, or what's opponent-friendly) get advantages over players who use equally-legal lists?

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


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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/02/19 09:06:42


"I was not making fun of you personally - I was heaping scorn on an inexcusably silly idea - a practice I shall always follow." - Lt. Colonel Dubois, Starship Troopers

Don't settle for the pewter horde! Visit http://www.bkarmypainting.com and find out how you can have a well-painted army quickly at a reasonable price. 
   
Made in gb
Apprehensive Inquisitorial Apprentice





Edinburgh

I have absolutely no issues with comp, as long as you accept it for what it is- changing the goalposts. Every legal list is subject to a certain degree of comp just by adhering to the codex and FoC. Currently under these rules there are certain winning codi (sp) and lists. If you change the rules there will be other winning codi and lists. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. Introducing a bit of a change is generally fun, especially if you play in a lot of no comp tournaments. It allows for new list optimisation and takes the net-lists out of the equation, making proper list construction a skill again.

At it's most base level this acceptance of what comp is makes devising the system so much easier. It could be as simple as changing the points level. Bottom line is that it doesn't have to be 100% balanced, just different.


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

....

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


I really couldn't disagree more.

To the first statement...What? They don't, they really don't and have often expressed that their checks and balances just don't take extreme lists into account. Orcs appear to be the most internally balanced codex, but thats just because they are so imbalanced externally (nob bikers asside ). Try playing competatively and this will become quickly apparant. If GW do such a good job of balance how can there be WAAC lists?

To the second comment... It's really apparant that you aren't a competative gamer Jonny. That is of course your perogative, but if you don't play with/against the big boys how do you know it is boring? I for one love WAAC tournament games, but can also relax into storyhammer if I need to. To an extent you limit your 40k experience by admonishing one side of the game.

--edit--
5th Ed completely invalidates oldskool comp based around troops. Turns out the armies with the best troops are the best in the game now...go figure.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Funny how you instantly equate "power builds" to "power gaming" John. More amusing how you're not responding to what Doc Thunder actually said, but simply strawmanning him out of existance.

Still folks he continues to reframe things, redefine things, and vilify anyone who disagrees with him so they become bad and he becomes the one on the moral high ground, arguing from a point of self righteous bulls**t.

I'm sorry, I can't be the only one to see it - he does it in every f***ing thread?

(Just like I follow him around to point it out).

BYE


Emphasis mine. I see it too. I just quoted everything so he could see it.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/02/19 10:09:50


Nothing says 'ecce homo' like a strong beard. 
   
Made in us
Junior Officer with Laspistol






The eye of terror.

Oddjob. wrote:5th Ed completely invalidates oldskool comp based around troops. Turns out the armies with the best troops are the best in the game now...go figure.


This is one of the big problems I have with comp systems. If people actually play with 5th ed missions (or something close at least) you end up with players who bring "balanced" armies because of the following:

Annihilation-style missions encourage players to bring big "fluffy" units rather than maxing out on small units with max-special-and-heavy-weapons.

Seize-Ground-style missions encourage players to bring lots of troops to have the best chance to control more objectives when the dust settles.

Capture and Control missions encourage players to bring a mix of mobile units and hardy static units to try to hold their own objective and capture their opponent's.

Couple these ideas with recent codex design trends (special/heavy weapon options reliant on number of models purchased in a unit) and you have an environment where comp isn't really needed.

In fact, the most abusive army lists are ones which break these "rules" by allowing non-troops units to be troops.

Why did the berzerker cross the road?
Gwar! wrote:Willydstyle has it correct
Gwar! wrote:Yup you're absolutely right

New to the game and can't win? Read this.

 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





JohnDD.

I find your comp-system really interesting. Can you give some examples of battlepoints-spread?
If you state something like "major victory" or "massacre", please define those.

To those that believe the standard GW 1-2, 0-3, 2-6, 0-3, 0-3 is fine; cool but please leave the rest of us to work in peace. Simply stating "codex is enough" or "comp is the crutch of the weak" is not constructive input. It is simply trolling and will be reported as such.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 11:32:56


-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in gb
Apprehensive Inquisitorial Apprentice





Edinburgh

JohnHwangDD wrote:Having played competitively for many years, I know for a fact that a piloting strong list does not require as much generalship as a sub-optimal list. How you can get satisfaction from winning with a clearly superior list is somewhat beyond me. I actually have to ask if you can still win without the crutch of a power list, whether you actually have the generalship ability to play a weaker list and still win without a starting advantage. After all, if you have a strong list, and you win then you're not proving anything except the strength of the list.


On rereading some of this thread this tid-bit jumped out at me. Completely and utterly false. Anyone in the running for a decent tournament knows that in the first round or two you might come up against a chump. So be it. But from that point on everyone has the big dog lists (of which there are many more variations than the interwebz would have you believe) and knows how to play them. Power lists are only a crutch if nobody else has one- if everybody does the game becomes infinately more tactical. Your sentiments suggest that you never really played competatively, just turned up.

I generally find poker to be a decent analogy to 40k. Just because you can't see the gambits and ploys that allow the same people to be at the final table doesn't mean that they aren't there, it just means that you have to raise your game before you will understand them.

This is all a bit OT- Though I do really like *Cents* first pass at comp way back in the first thread.

*Oops- I obviously meant warmasters original post.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 13:41:08


Nothing says 'ecce homo' like a strong beard. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






on board Terminus Est

To warmaster I would not take anything JohnWongDD say seriously. No one else here does.

D

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

http://greenblowfly.blogspot.com <- My 40k Blog! BA Tactics & Strategies!
 
   
Made in us
Sslimey Sslyth






Busy somewhere, airin' out the skin jobs.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Funny how you instantly equate "power builds" to "power gaming" John. More amusing how you're not responding to what Doc Thunder actually said, but simply strawmanning him out of existance.

Still folks he continues to reframe things, redefine things, and vilify anyone who disagrees with him so they become bad and he becomes the one on the moral high ground, arguing from a point of self righteous bulls**t.

I'm sorry, I can't be the only one to see it - he does it in every f***ing thread?

(Just like I follow him around to point it out).

BYE


My hero strikes again.

I have never failed to seize on 4+ in my life!

The best 40k page in the Universe
COMMORRAGH 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

grizgrin wrote:Best comp concept right here:




Like that idea? Me too.


Agreed. Or everyone plays the same exact list.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Which is the more powerful list?

10 Nob bikers w/ Warboss, all Nobz are unique for wound allocation

10 Nob bikers w/ Warboss, unit has Painboy, 3x Slugga + CCW, 3x Big Choppa, 3x Powerklaw (in other words, not making them all unique for wound allocation)

By force org, they're the same. By points, they're nearly the same (throw in a couple combi-skorchas and bosspoles). Clearly 1 is more powerful than 2. But not because of list building, because of wound allocation rules.

No game is perfect. If you go back to fourth edition wound allocation, the Vet Sgt w/ Powerfist is ALWAYS the last man standing (except for maybe the lascannon).

The problem isn't in the lists people bring, it's in the rules. Fix the rules. Write Jervis a letter.

In the dark future, there are skulls for everyone. But only the bad guys get spikes. And rivets for all, apparently welding was lost in the Dark Age of Technology. -from C.Borer 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





I believe the problem is in the people playing, not the rules.

Feeling an overwhelming anf completely irresistable desire to always field the strongest armylist at the exclusion (and this is really the more important part) of every other option?
Then I feel that you (generic "you") are the problem, not the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/19 14:15:31


-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in us
Fireknife Shas'el






Richmond, VA

Now, personally, I don't play in tournaments and I play to hang out and because I enjoy the fluff.

Having said that, I don't see the need for Comp scores. All they lead to is a different set of Power Builds dominating as the same people who build powerful lists in a no-comp environment are as likely to build powerful lists that fit whatever comp guidelines exists. Indeed this is what happened back in the early RTT's & GT's that had comp scores.

I have no problem playing powerful lists, either for or against. I play to have fun, and if my opponent has Twin-Lash triple Oblits, I'm going to have fun trying (and knowing my Tau, and my generalship, failing) to overcome such a powerful list. Honestly, As long as you aren't playing TFG, just man up and enjoy the chance to play the game for a couple of hours. If you get tabled, you get tabled. There's always another game, and if it's a friendly game, you can always tweak your list for next time.

 
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: