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.
2013/12/17 03:53:34
Subject: Re:[POLL] Would you play in this comp system?
The biggest thing that you, as the creator of a modification system (comp, bannings, rules changes) should keep in mind when creating your system, is "What are the objectives of my system?"
A lot of the bad reception you're encountering is because your objectives for comp, and the objectives of many people creating comp systems, are not the objectives of a lot of competitively-minded players. Currently, what your comp is doing is reducing 'spamming' at all levels. You're penalizing people for taking multiples of the same kind of unit, or of 'overloading' certain FoC slots. This is not the current objective of many of the changes currently being thought about by TOs. The uproar over Escalation, Stronghold, and the Tau Dataslates is mostly because those units most typically do not lead to fun games, and if we have to take them out of the equation, we might as well deal with some of the current builds that also lead to un-fun games (2++ rerollables, potentially Buff Commander + Allies).
Most of the 'unfun' lists currently being considered for changes by the LVO for example, would not be hurt much, or at all by your current comp. If that is your intent, say so, because if your objective is to do what most TOs are trying to do right now, this system does a horrible job at it. If you're simply trying to reduce 'spamming' units, then this does an alright job at it, but this isn't the kind of tournament I'd want to participate in. I'd rather go to something that simply forbids Escalation (D-weapons at the very minimum), Stronghold (same), and the Tau Dataslate (this ruins FoC a lot more than three heldrakes does), makes 2+ rerolls a 2+/4+, and potentially reduces Allied shenanigans, because those can lead to games where neither player has a good, fun, and competitive game. Good, fun, and competitive games can still be had when armies take multiples of a single choice, or theme themselves in certain slots. If your objective is to prevent triple heldrake, then this does that, but it doesn't do what I'm looking for in a tournament right now.
2013/12/17 11:49:11
Subject: Re:[POLL] Would you play in this comp system?
Thariinye wrote:I would rather not play in this comp system.
The biggest thing that you, as the creator of a modification system (comp, bannings, rules changes) should keep in mind when creating your system, is "What are the objectives of my system?"
A lot of the bad reception you're encountering is because your objectives for comp, and the objectives of many people creating comp systems, are not the objectives of a lot of competitively-minded players. Currently, what your comp is doing is reducing 'spamming' at all levels. You're penalizing people for taking multiples of the same kind of unit, or of 'overloading' certain FoC slots. This is not the current objective of many of the changes currently being thought about by TOs. The uproar over Escalation, Stronghold, and the Tau Dataslates is mostly because those units most typically do not lead to fun games, and if we have to take them out of the equation, we might as well deal with some of the current builds that also lead to un-fun games (2++ rerollables, potentially Buff Commander + Allies).
Most of the 'unfun' lists currently being considered for changes by the LVO for example, would not be hurt much, or at all by your current comp. If that is your intent, say so, because if your objective is to do what most TOs are trying to do right now, this system does a horrible job at it. If you're simply trying to reduce 'spamming' units, then this does an alright job at it, but this isn't the kind of tournament I'd want to participate in. I'd rather go to something that simply forbids Escalation (D-weapons at the very minimum), Stronghold (same), and the Tau Dataslate (this ruins FoC a lot more than three heldrakes does), makes 2+ rerolls a 2+/4+, and potentially reduces Allied shenanigans, because those can lead to games where neither player has a good, fun, and competitive game. Good, fun, and competitive games can still be had when armies take multiples of a single choice, or theme themselves in certain slots. If your objective is to prevent triple heldrake, then this does that, but it doesn't do what I'm looking for in a tournament right now.
Thanks for the feedback. I think the cleaner way of stating my intent here is to acknowledge that this system is not stand alone, but is a supplement to other guidance. My local store is forbidding escalation, fortifications with a D weapon, and imposing a 2 army per faction cap as stock for all tournaments. Inside this idea, we are also looking at supplement comp as a way to increase variety in list design.
Matt1785 wrote:After doing some thinking, I can figure on a few ways that you could modify this to make it a bit stronger.
I think penalizing for the 0-3 maxes on the FOC is a bit strong, perhaps just penalizing for using more then 1 of the same unit in the slot. For instance...
Troops are 0-3 and then deduct.
Dire Avenger Squad x3: -0
Dire Avenger Squad x4: -1
Dire Avenger Squad x5: -2
As was stated before, I think a % system is hard to work in 40K since 40K isn't already worked with % like Fantasy. I think the HQ things work well, but just a suggestion.
Again, this is a solid starting point in my eyes, it just needs to be worked across the armies instead of a blanket comp. As was stated, different armies are strong in different ways. Don't necessarily destroy what's strong, but limit what is abusive... or do the best you can with input from players.
I think you're right on the percentages. I like the modification for troops. Thanks for the solid feedback.
The solution to Helldrakes (for example) is to specifically ban/modify/restrict Helldrakes, not to punish the DA player who brought "too many" of their awful flyers.
Very much this. A blanket comp sorta works on the assumption that 40k is only slightly broken, and that a few small broad fixes can deal with that. This isn't the case at all.
I'd rather go to something that simply forbids Escalation (D-weapons at the very minimum), Stronghold (same)
Before you go banning stronghold assault... have you *seen* the effect of void shields? Assault lists may actually have a chance now, just from this one damn fortification.
I'd rather go to something that simply forbids Escalation (D-weapons at the very minimum), Stronghold (same)
Before you go banning stronghold assault... have you *seen* the effect of void shields? Assault lists may actually have a chance now, just from this one damn fortification.
Agree. Non-Massive Fortifications are a valuable addition to the Meta.
"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.
I agree with the "It's the units that are unbalanced, not the FOC slots themselves" opinion. But I personally think your method is fine.
That being said, I had intended to attend your event back in August, but just couldn't make it down there from Dallas that weekend. I had a really kick ass DE list that wouldn't have gotten ANY points subtracted.
I've heard nothing but good things about you, and I fully intend to come to your next 2-day event, regardless of how you do your comp.
Cheers.
"It's bigger then all of us. Winston's in the air duct with a badger."
The solution to Helldrakes (for example) is to specifically ban/modify/restrict Helldrakes, not to punish the DA player who brought "too many" of their awful flyers.
Very much this. A blanket comp sorta works on the assumption that 40k is only slightly broken, and that a few small broad fixes can deal with that. This isn't the case at all.
I'd rather go to something that simply forbids Escalation (D-weapons at the very minimum), Stronghold (same)
Before you go banning stronghold assault... have you *seen* the effect of void shields? Assault lists may actually have a chance now, just from this one damn fortification.
I haven't seen void shields in action personally, but I'm actually mostly for their inclusion, cause assault, or rhino rush, or trukk rush, or whatever, might finally work if there's 3-9 extra AV12 HP to get through before you start losing mobility or dudes. It's Void Shields + Revenant Titan/C'tan that is the problem for me.
What I'm primarily against in Stronghold Assault is the same thing I'm against in Escalation -- the Apocalypse part. Anything with ranged D-weapons or AV15 is right out to me at this time. Even D-Melee weapons don't sit right with me. I'm much less opposed to some of the more regular super-heavies (e.g. Baneblade) although some of the options (Banehammer or Stormlord filled with Lascannon Heavy Weapons teams) are still a bit iffy.
'Standard 40k' is not really that viable for competitive play at this moment, and thus needs a bit of help to make into a moderately balanced competitive game that's better for everyone. I like that people are trying to address this.
PanzerLeader wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. I think the cleaner way of stating my intent here is to acknowledge that this system is not stand alone, but is a supplement to other guidance. My local store is forbidding escalation, fortifications with a D weapon, and imposing a 2 army per faction cap as stock for all tournaments. Inside this idea, we are also looking at supplement comp as a way to increase variety in list design.
Ah, if it's not stand-alone, then that's much better. As a part of a larger system with goals in mind, I think your system could work; I'm much less opposed to it then.
Just remember that there will always be armies that are more optimized for the system being run no matter what system you use, so a goal that I feel should be kept in mind is how good/fun/competitive are the games with those lists against other good lists, and to what extent those lists dominate lists that aren't fine-tuned for the format. If the optimized lists produce good games against optimized and non-optimized lists, and don't auto-win against non-optimized lists, then the format should help produce a fun and successful event.
Tournaments shouldn't change rules. They should only decide what rules to include and to not include. Heldrake's too powerful? Ban 'em. Strength D gettin' ya down? Ban anything that can take them (or if there's a choice to take them, ban the choice so that the unit that can get them must take something else).
I tend to have a very "let the dice fall where they may" approach, but if things are proving to be difficult, changing them just makes things worse.
What the heck is identical to a "net list"? People post hundreds of lists every day on the internet.
Also this comp system is bad. As others have said the way to go is to be very specific and Ban/restrict those broken parts you want to fix. Blanket comp like this I see all the time from TO's who are not actually competitive players themselfs. They don't actually know all the specific broken stuff in the system they just know that "there are these broken armies" and put up blanket rules that punish theme armies, and weak armies as much as the cheese.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/19 16:57:54
As some one who has played using this system I can tell you it is not "bad". It made for challenging fun tournament. It was one of the better events that I attended over the last few years.
2013/12/31 04:34:15
Subject: Re:Would you play in this 40K comp system?
I'm generally opposed to comp because I've yet to see a single system that does not harm balanced builds.
Penalising anyone for maxing out FOC slots other than troops does nothing to balance the game.
As a solely xenos player who owns and fields Necrons, Tau, Nids, Dark Eldar and a small force of Eldar as occasional allies, I'm hard-pressed to think of any army that wouldn't be penalised just for existing.
With Nids, seeing as how a Flyrant can range from 280 to 320 for a decently kitted out unit, that means I'm losing comp points merely for taking him. As I also favour maxing out fast attack (with Shrikes, Gargoyles and a Harpy) I would get docked again, even if I'm actually using varied units based around a theme, namely, an airborne list. To make matters even more contentious, what I normally use to support this fragile flying army is 6 biovores and a Trigon Prime, or even more comp penalties for a varied army. As so many of the MCs are still overcosted in the codex, all of your penalties are basically unavoidable and seem tailored towards stopping this particular codex, regarding of build type.
With Tau, though I sometimes use 1 Riptide, my Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy slots are always maxed out as that is where the main utility of the codex resides, at least for my play style.
With Necrons, I'm not affected at all by your comp system for my particular army builds. Ironically I don't care for playing Necrons enough to actually bring them to a tourney. lol
With Dark Eldar, I'd run into the same situation as with Nids. All of the utility for Dark Eldar is found outside of Troops. Elites and Heavy are always maxed out, though not with the usual triple Ravager setup. Being penalised for building with the tools of the codex seems unwarranted.
In short, while I find your system more open than most, it still seems that it neither prevents abuse nor does it encourage effective, efficient and varied list building, especially when Xenos armies are concerned.
Since I have played in Astro Toronto in 4 of the last 5 years, I voted yes...
I am pleased that at least you amended it such that FA, HS and Elite are all penalized equally, unlike the actual Astro comp, which hits elite harder than anyone for no reason I can fathom (and have said so to the organizers within their yahoo group). It also looks like you tweaked the initial thresholds for 1850, but not incremental increases, which remain at 10% of 1500. You should look at tweaking those ranges as well.
Also, FYI for those thinking that this supports marines/guard over others, 3 of the last 4 years in Toronto have been won by Xenos (my Orks twice, and Jon Ho's Tau most recently).
Like all comp systems, it simply shifts power from one build type to another. Their goal is to balanced armies with representation from each slot in a Codex that are capable of facing wildly divergent scenarios. Their secondary goal is to have fun, well-rounded armies present at a hobby event. Their slogan is "the tournament for people that don't like going to tournaments" so turning to their system for the average competitive gamer may not be the most logical solution...
Cheers,
Nate
^This is the most polite and grammatically pleasing post I have ever read...must be Canadian. I jest.
Back to the OP, If I were to attend said tourney, I would have a score of +19 for my CSM/Deamons army. It's not an uber-WAAC list by any means, but it's certainly playable, semi-fluffy, semi-competitive, and fun. I for one think that this is a good idea.
It is the 3rd Millennium. For more than a hundred months Games Workshop has sat immobile on the Golden Throne of Nottingham. It is the foremost of wargames by the will of the neckbeards, and master of a million tabletops by the might of their inexhaustible wallets. It is a rotting carcass writhing invisibly with business strategies from the early Industrial Revolution Age. It is the Carrion Lord of the wargaming scene for whom a thousand veteran players are sacrificed every day, so that it may never truly die. Yet even in its deathless state, GW continues its eternal vigilance. Mighty battleforce starter-sets cross the online-store-infested miasma of the internet, the only route between distant countries, their way lit by a draconian retail trade-agreement, the legal manifestation of the GW's will. Vast armies of lawyers give battle in GW's name on uncounted websites. Greatest amongst its soldiers are the Guardians of the IP, the Legal Team, bio-engineered super-donkey-caves. Their comrades in arms are legion: the writing team and countless untested rulebooks, the ever vigilant redshirts, and the writers of White Dwarf, to name only a few. But for all their multitudes, they are barely enough to hold off the ever-present threat from other games, their own incompetence, Based Chinaman - and worse. To support Games Workshop in such times is to spend untold billions. It is to support the cruelest and most dickish company imaginable. These are the tales of those times. Forget the power of sales discounts and Warhammer Fantasy Battle, for so much has been dropped, never to be re-published again. Forget the promise of cheaper digital content and caring about the fanbase, for in the GW HQ there is only profit-seeking, Space Marines and Sigmarines. There is no fun amongst the hobby shops, only an eternity of raging and spending, and the laughter of former employees who left GW to join better companies.
I voted no for simply this.
It restricts me building hwat list I want good or bad.
I don't like being forced to build list even if most of my list would give me a full 20 points.
My local game store has a comp for the contest of champions which includes paint , comp, sportmanship. Yes its hard some time to come in with a perfect comp but when your doing a year long tourament it helps you in the long run. We do six games a year starting at 1250 and ending up at 2500, so you can see were comp is great for some low points game s and bad or good for higher points games....
and you let you know we usually have about 60 to 90 players for the first three games and then it tones down too 40 to 70 due to army size.....
Wow. Depends on the points. I don't know how many points this tourney is but at 2500 I have fielded every slot using the DE codex back at 'ard boyz. Some armies would have a harder time than others I think especially when some slot choices in say FA for example only have a single viable choice so you are forcing your self to take sub par units.
I think trasvi has a good point. Just would take a lot of upkeep to keep up with the codices.
If you dont short hand your list, Im not reading it.
Example: Assault Intercessors- x5 -Thunder hammer and plasma pistol on sgt.
or Assault Terminators 3xTH/SS, 2xLCs
For the love of God, GW, get rid of reroll mechanics. ALL OF THEM!
I would say no as well. Especially with the new Tyranid codex coming out, it will be VERY easy to spend a lot of points on their MCs.
As this comp system is, it simply penalizes people for taking multiples of things, which isn't necessarily the problem. Screamerstar doesn't rely on maxed out FOC slots. Seerstar doesn't either. And if I take allies? Comp points deducted. All of my lists except for Eldar use allies, and just for that I would lose quite a bit of points.
Comp systems reduce spam, and that's it. They ruin FMC spam, but not screamerstar. The Necron list posted earlier is a key example of one of the failings of this sort of thing, where taking three powerful units that are fairly cheap is fine but two rather bad unit results in a loss of points.
2013/12/31 17:31:11
Subject: Re:Would you play in this 40K comp system?
Here is my other problem with the whole concept. This is a relatively normal List for me. it is diverse and not broken, a lot would call it sub-par.
2000 Pts - Space Wolves Roster
Spoiler:
Rune Priest in Power Armour, 150 pts (Bolt Pistol; Runic Weapon; Master of Runes; Psyker (Mastery Level 2); Warlord; 6E Psychic Disciplines: ; Biomancy; Divination; Telekinesis)
Long Fangs Pack, 165 pts (Close Combat Weapon x5; Heavy Bolter x1; Lascannon x2; Missile Launcher x2)
1x Pack Leader (Bolt Pistol; Close Combat Weapon)
Grey Hunters Pack, 210 pts (Bolt Pistol x8; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma Gun x2)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)
Grey Hunters Pack, 200 pts (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol x9; Boltgun x7; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma Gun x2; Power Maul)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield x1)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield x1)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Land Speeder Squadron, 270 pts (Land Speeder x3; Heavy Bolter x3; Typhoon Missile Launcher x3)
Wolf Priest in Power Armour, 110 pts (Bolt Pistol; Crozius Arcanum; Stealth; Saga of the Hunter)
Wolf Scouts Pack, 210 pts (Bolt Pistol x8; Plasma Pistol x2; Boltgun x8; Plasma Gun)
1x Wolf Scout w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun)
Wolf Lord in Power Armour, 205 pts (Belt of Russ; Thunderwolf Mount; Close Combat Weapon, Power Lance x1)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Wolf Guard Battle Leader in Power Armour, 180 pts (Thunderwolf Mount; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield x1; Saga of the Wolfkin)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Fenrisian Wolf Pack (x14), 128 pts
1x Cyberwolf
So MY score would be: My 4 HQs {Net Points: 645} nets me a total of -1-3 for a Total of -4 [-4] My 3 Elite Slots {Net Points 380} are a -1 and having a duplicate adds another -1 for a Total of -3 [-7] My Troops are less than required so that is another -1 [-8] My Fast Attack are over so there is another -1 [-9] (I could add another -1 by breaking the Land Speeders up, but I normally don’t to that.)
So this makes my score a 11 with a Diverse “Non-Competitive list”.
Anpu42 wrote: Here is my other problem with the whole concept. This is a relatively normal List for me. it is diverse and not broken, a lot would call it sub-par.
2000 Pts - Space Wolves Roster
Spoiler:
Rune Priest in Power Armour, 150 pts (Bolt Pistol; Runic Weapon; Master of Runes; Psyker (Mastery Level 2); Warlord; 6E Psychic Disciplines: ; Biomancy; Divination; Telekinesis)
Long Fangs Pack, 165 pts (Close Combat Weapon x5; Heavy Bolter x1; Lascannon x2; Missile Launcher x2)
1x Pack Leader (Bolt Pistol; Close Combat Weapon)
Grey Hunters Pack, 210 pts (Bolt Pistol x8; Boltgun x6; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma Gun x2)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Power Fist (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Power Fist)
Grey Hunters Pack, 200 pts (Wolf Standard; Bolt Pistol x9; Boltgun x7; Close Combat Weapon x8; Plasma Gun x2; Power Maul)
1x Grey Hunter w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun; Close Combat Weapon)
Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield x1)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Lone Wolf w/ Mark of the Wulfen, 85 pts (Power Armour; Mark of the Wulfen; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield x1)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Land Speeder Squadron, 270 pts (Land Speeder x3; Heavy Bolter x3; Typhoon Missile Launcher x3)
Wolf Priest in Power Armour, 110 pts (Bolt Pistol; Crozius Arcanum; Stealth; Saga of the Hunter)
Wolf Scouts Pack, 210 pts (Bolt Pistol x8; Plasma Pistol x2; Boltgun x8; Plasma Gun)
1x Wolf Scout w/ Mark of the Wulfen (Bolt Pistol; Boltgun)
Wolf Lord in Power Armour, 205 pts (Belt of Russ; Thunderwolf Mount; Close Combat Weapon, Power Lance x1)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Wolf Guard Battle Leader in Power Armour, 180 pts (Thunderwolf Mount; Close Combat Weapon; Storm Shield x1; Saga of the Wolfkin)
2x Fenrisian Wolf
Fenrisian Wolf Pack (x14), 128 pts
1x Cyberwolf
So MY score would be: My 4 HQs {Net Points: 645} nets me a total of -1-3 for a Total of -4 [-4] My 3 Elite Slots {Net Points 380} are a -1 and having a duplicate adds another -1 for a Total of -3 [-7] My Troops are less than required so that is another -1 [-8] My Fast Attack are over so there is another -1 [-9] (I could add another -1 by breaking the Land Speeders up, but I normally don’t to that.)
So this makes my score a 11 with a Diverse “Non-Competitive list”.
Just as an FYI, Astro runs this comp system with only 1500pts lists.
It's starting to look like formations could gain some acceptance with Cypher and his infiltrating chosen... Which is yet another way to manipulate the FOC. Comp systems are so dated. To people newer to the game I have asked they all said it makes no sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/01 00:28:15
Anpu42 wrote: My other Question is:
What exactly is it trying to accomplish?
For me, comp is used to set the tone and expectations for an event. I don't think you use it to try and "rebalance" the game. You use it to promote the unique aspects of your tourney and make sure everyone is on the same page. Every event that says "no escalation" is already using a comp system. The expectations set by that one is "no super heavies will be present."
Anpu42 wrote: My other Question is:
What exactly is it trying to accomplish?
For me, comp is used to set the tone and expectations for an event. I don't think you use it to try and "rebalance" the game. You use it to promote the unique aspects of your tourney and make sure everyone is on the same page. Every event that says "no escalation" is already using a comp system. The expectations set by that one is "no super heavies will be present."
That is once of the better answers I have ever gotten here, what wrong with you???
Out local group uses this FOC Modification:
HQ: 1
Elites: 1
Troops: 2 (Sometimes 1 per 500 points)
Fast Attack: 1
Heavy Support: 1
It has worked real well for creating a good mix in our games.
Anpu42 wrote: My other Question is:
What exactly is it trying to accomplish?
For me, comp is used to set the tone and expectations for an event. I don't think you use it to try and "rebalance" the game. You use it to promote the unique aspects of your tourney and make sure everyone is on the same page. Every event that says "no escalation" is already using a comp system. The expectations set by that one is "no super heavies will be present."
Rebalancing 6th Ed is like eating soup with a butter knife.
My club just banned Flyers, Snap-fire & any codex written my Matt Ward.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/09 04:43:22
I think it is an improvement over a non-comped tournament.
My main problem with 40k at this point is that it allows for extremely powerful builds that take away the suspense during the actual games. Too many games nowadays result in fairly dull scenarios on the table top. Unfortunately this is due to a failure in the design of units/interaction of rules (2+ reroll saves, mono-dimensional builds like "themed flyer" armies, allied IC to units) and none of these are dealt with in the proposed comp as even those it will hurts will still be possible, just with a penalty.
You can still be paired up against them and have an terrible game, only you will get some points back because they had some penalties. And most of the current non-fun builds can get away with a minimum on penalties while retaining the element that most hurt the fun you can have on the table.
While I don't think your solution fixes my main problems I do find it a positive thing that there is at least some discussion on how to make 40k playable again. I know there is a large group that is of the opinion that there are no issues, but I hope in the coming period tournaments will also be made for the group that does believe the current rules are too big of a mess to play without comp. And discussions like this will certainly help in that regard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/10 19:16:03
Yes, I'd play in it. Any limitations brought in by TOs spice up the game by encouraging people to use their mind and knowledge to build lists instead of well known builds presented on the internet.
Yes, people can still build lists that are powerful....but at least most of them had to work for it this time.
Farseer Faenyin 7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)
Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds)
Peregines criticism that it is a uniform system applied to wildly variable army lists is why this comp system and many similar to it in the past have caused as many if not more problems than they solve.
40k tournaments are in dire need of comp or adjustment or whatever you want to call it because there are serious issues of imbalance and bloating. The trick is to avoid unintentionally penalizing armies or hindering armies that shouldnt be affected and that is not easy.
Personally I would) :
cut down the bloat first by allowing only codex units, disallowing fortifications, escalation and allies.
Use a uniform terrain set up for every table.
Make the victory conditions objective based and do away with the ridiculous kill point rule.
I would require more thinking and less mindless pew pew for players to win,
if there's 3-9 extra AV12 
I jest.
Farseer Faenyin 
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc) 
5000 pts
2000
2000