Switch Theme:

Lets talk 40k Comp. Seriously.  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut





 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play



GW themselves would never do that as it would cut the value of those books down massively. I'm certain that there are those people out there who would still happily buy them, but the amount of who wouldn't would be too much of a loss for GW to voluntarily give up. I doubt we would see the ITC do it either due to their affiliation with GW. If the ITC was doing something to hurt GWs profit GW would want to put a stop to that.

 
   
Made in us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play

The problem is that for a very large portion of players making something narrative-only is the same as making it unplayable. The cause and justification for that situation can be discussed endlessly but at the end of the day if it isn't matched-play legal most players won't be able to use it.


Or... They can work on not being so pathetically small minded and expand their horizons to more than just tournament play.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play


Why should those only be narrative play? Why would you restrict someone on using Incubi that aren't super garbage?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play


Why should those only be narrative play? Why would you restrict someone on using Incubi that aren't super garbage?



Because feth deldar?
I dunno what else.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 oni wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play

The problem is that for a very large portion of players making something narrative-only is the same as making it unplayable. The cause and justification for that situation can be discussed endlessly but at the end of the day if it isn't matched-play legal most players won't be able to use it.


Or... They can work on not being so pathetically small minded and expand their horizons to more than just tournament play.
I am sure your productive attitude will work wonders when applied to changing the competitive cultural values of the US.

"Putting a statement in quotations makes it seem more legitimate."
--Bette R. Withname

Imagine three people with the same set of values but radically different emotional states, each of them believes their position is more valid than the other two, they all post using the same account, and your job is to make it coherent. 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Frankfurt (Germany)

 oni wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play

The problem is that for a very large portion of players making something narrative-only is the same as making it unplayable. The cause and justification for that situation can be discussed endlessly but at the end of the day if it isn't matched-play legal most players won't be able to use it.


Or... They can work on not being so pathetically small minded and expand their horizons to more than just tournament play.


I believe the Tournament Discussion Subforum is the correct place to discuss things based upon their merits for tournament play.
I'll also note that this thread is not the correct place to debate the merits and demerits of tournament play versus casual play, I don't believe.
There is a thread to hate on tournament play. It's like one or two below this one in the subforum listing :-)

I still think comp adjusted "live" via winrates, TwIP relative to participation in Field is possibly the best way to adjust powerlevels across armies without banning some rules. :-)

I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body! 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 oni wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play

The problem is that for a very large portion of players making something narrative-only is the same as making it unplayable. The cause and justification for that situation can be discussed endlessly but at the end of the day if it isn't matched-play legal most players won't be able to use it.


Or... They can work on not being so pathetically small minded and expand their horizons to more than just tournament play.


Three points:

1. This is the Tournament Discussions sub-forum. If you don't want to discuss tournament play you're in the wrong place.
2. Balanced rules help everyone, including narrative players. Having better balance between units and armies allows for many more options to be viable, making narrative games better because you don't have to worry so much about your carefully crafted scenario being screwed over by horrible imbalances between units.
3. Your assertion that the three things above are just for narrative play is unfounded. There is nothing to indicate those rules are meant only for narrative play.

Bonus fourth point: perhaps the small-minded person here is the one calling other people pathetic for not liking what they like?
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
 oni wrote:
Stop using Narrative Play rules in Matched Play and Tournament Hammer would be a good first start.

Vigilus = Narrative play
Psychic Awakening = Narrative play
Forge World =Narrative play

The problem is that for a very large portion of players making something narrative-only is the same as making it unplayable. The cause and justification for that situation can be discussed endlessly but at the end of the day if it isn't matched-play legal most players won't be able to use it.
This is pretty valid. Anything not usable in matched play might as well not exist for the majority, doubly so for the competitive crowd. So limiting anything to Open/Narrative play is stupid.

On actual comp, I am old enough to remember when GW's official RTTs had comp and sportsmanship scores. They were... a great idea, done poorly. It was too easy to just be an ass and ding your opponent on comp and/or sportsmanship because they beat you. So an arbitrary score won't work. Having more restricted comp for tournaments might be interesting. I am of the mindset if GW won't balance right around tournaments (or when they try are at least 6 months behind the meta), then ITC needs to step up and do like they did in 7th: Fix the game for tournaments. ITC is already the de facto tournament standard. Have an expanded rules packet that is, in effect a "Competitive Play" subset of Matched Play with additional restrictions to reign in the most egregious offenders (e.g. maybe a cap on CP, or everyone gets the same amount of CP, things along those lines to help reel in the outliers). Sure, it's not 100% guaranteed that events will use them but going from what's gone on before, they will be adopted in the majority of places as the gospel, at least in the USA. So have ITC adjust the balance for their events, and things will likely IMHO fall into place as most tournaments that use ITC missions would adopt the ITC standards.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/11/20 13:17:35


- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






Home Base: Waconia, MN (Minneapolis)

I will say you do not want to just give everyone the same CP. It's a nice idea but terrible in practice.

What do you set it at? Why would people not just bring even more killy units if you drop the detachments that force you to bring trash? How do you find a happy ground where cp reliant armies (orks/admech/etc) aren't hammered because you gave extra cp to armies that don't need to build around it but it makes them better (sm/knights/etc).

40k is mostly fine. There are always outliers but truly the same group of people is generally found at the top of the leader board. Also the data in this is pre-IH faq. I'd be shocked to see the standard continue.

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
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

The issue, for the most part, is that you also tend to see the same armies/types of armies. Which is bad for the game overall because it makes too many things unviable for play. That's the real crux that needs to be changed. The competitive crowd doesn't care as much about that, because the "point" of playing competitive is to "solve the puzzle" as to what is the most efficient unit(s), not have as much as possible be useful in play.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





A lot of that is that most people simply don't play the game as much as they think about it. If you play a euro or any other game without significant randomization of the initial game state; you develop strategies and counter strategies and solutions beyond the list building phase. Most people never get this far though, and the people that do are playing so many games that they rapidly iterate and evolve the game environment at a pace that leaves most players simply following along.

This isn't to decry net decking. It's a completely valid way to keep up and lets the vast majority of players compete without being able to commit to a couple games a day. I think where people get in trouble with net decking is the assumption that its the only way the pieces go together. In truth, when you talk to players at the top of the podium about specifics in their list, you find that there's a lot of fairly arbitrary choices based on preference. There are key pieces, absolutely, but swapping a weapon here or there isn't what separates an undefeated list from the X-1's; its that the undefeated players probably played more games the week prior than they did at the actual tournament.

What I'm saying is; winning an event certainly proves a list works, but it doesn't disprove variety the way the playerbase reacts to it. If someone wins with 3 contemptors but you've only got 2 and a Leviathan or VenDread or something; give that a try before you run out and buy the models to copy the latest champion. It will probably be more than enough, particularly locally and honestly, by the time you get the list copied, you'll probably have to change it anyway. Having a good list matters, but for most people, they just need to get in more games.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Wayniac wrote:
The issue, for the most part, is that you also tend to see the same armies/types of armies. Which is bad for the game overall because it makes too many things unviable for play. That's the real crux that needs to be changed. The competitive crowd doesn't care as much about that, because the "point" of playing competitive is to "solve the puzzle" as to what is the most efficient unit(s), not have as much as possible be useful in play.


You know, if the game had more core mechanics, terrain interactions unit states,etc there would be a lot more place for some units and a lot more focus on the game itself rather then list Building.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

Not Online!!! wrote:
Wayniac wrote:
The issue, for the most part, is that you also tend to see the same armies/types of armies. Which is bad for the game overall because it makes too many things unviable for play. That's the real crux that needs to be changed. The competitive crowd doesn't care as much about that, because the "point" of playing competitive is to "solve the puzzle" as to what is the most efficient unit(s), not have as much as possible be useful in play.


You know, if the game had more core mechanics, terrain interactions unit states,etc there would be a lot more place for some units and a lot more focus on the game itself rather then list Building.
I certainly don't disagree. The fact there's so little interaction other than picking targets and rolling dice really limits the tactical depth of the game other than list building.

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Well more terrain interactions and other mechanics would atleast broaden the unit variety if handled correctly.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

 oni wrote:
Or... They can work on not being so pathetically small minded and expand their horizons to more than just tournament play.

Independent Tournament Community.
It's in the middle of the title.

Not the Independent Cupcake Baking Community. Nor the Independent PB&J makers Community. I think that's why the ITC stays out of cupcake baking and PB&J competitions.

And the ITC stays out of narrative events (although, hey! There seems to be those at FrontlineGaming big GT events, along side the championship players. We share the bar, restroom and hall. Not one fight has broken out, and I would know, I've been to all the FLG events that have narrative *and* 'competitive' 40k, the LVOs, BAOs and SoCal Opens).

Why don't *you*, oni, form the:
Independent Narrative Community
?
I promise I won't be small minded and bad mouth your efforts: your community ruling, FAQs, narrative play protocols, etc.


"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





UK

40k is due a new edition, this always happens with bloat and rules creep its like the matrix when it needs to be reset.

Tournament players are always consistent in 40k, casuals normally jump on again in a new edition and slowly peter out as 'the meta' develops and its not 'fun' anymore because there is more of a time investment and financial investment in list writing and buying those models that they cba with.

It eventually gets to a point where there is so much bloat and armies in such a lop sided position it all restarts again.




This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/25 11:33:46


 
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





While people continue to pound the rectangluar peg that is 40k and AOS into the tournament hole that is round, you will continue to have issues. Not that I expect that to change, this discussion has been going strong since AOL chat rooms in the 90s, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

There is a narrative event coordinator organization called NEO, though largely they take tournament rules and just stick on a story to them and shy away from doing anything outside of the tournament box in terms of their events. I have spent the better part of 10 years after leaving the tournament circuit in 2009 running mostly pure narrative events that reflect the stories of the GW universe, and I found thats where GW games really shone. However, that also involved writing comp packets to keep the tournament filth out of my events, which was almost 10 years of me having to have very bitter wars with the guys wanting to club baby seals and that does take a lot out of you having to constantly fight on that hill to keep your event from just being Adepticon Tournament Clash with cool story (and negating most of the narrative lists along the way because they can't stand up to triple keeper of secrets or whatever the current tournament meta is)

I'll just say that if you are looking for a real tournament experience that involves skill and what not over list building and rolling a ton of dice, that you should seriously consider looking outside of the GW game universe.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/11/25 12:49:51


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 auticus wrote:
While people continue to pound the rectangluar peg that is 40k and AOS into the tournament hole that is round, you will continue to have issues. Not that I expect that to change, this discussion has been going strong since AOL chat rooms in the 90s, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

There is a narrative event coordinator organization called NEO, though largely they take tournament rules and just stick on a story to them and shy away from doing anything outside of the tournament box in terms of their events. I have spent the better part of 10 years after leaving the tournament circuit in 2009 running mostly pure narrative events that reflect the stories of the GW universe, and I found thats where GW games really shone. However, that also involved writing comp packets to keep the tournament filth out of my events, which was almost 10 years of me having to have very bitter wars with the guys wanting to club baby seals and that does take a lot out of you having to constantly fight on that hill to keep your event from just being Adepticon Tournament Clash with cool story (and negating most of the narrative lists along the way because they can't stand up to triple keeper of secrets or whatever the current tournament meta is)

I'll just say that if you are looking for a real tournament experience that involves skill and what not over list building and rolling a ton of dice, that you should seriously consider looking outside of the GW game universe.


So, in summary:
Paragraph one: Look at all of these people continually trying to fix GW games.
Paragraph two: Every time you tried to run a narrative campaign, you needed to do your own work to fix GW games, by telling people what they couldn't take. And you get to call them "tournament filth" when you disagree with what they want to take.
Paragraph three: Why on Earth would anyone want to play the games this company produces?

Note that the only real difference between the two situation is that comp is "A bunch of people sat down, had arguments, and agreed to a bunch of new rules" vs. "There's a few people exercising vague, undefined standards" for vetoes in a narrative setting. But in a narrative setting, any differences in treatment that two players might receive is something you're just supposed to shrug off because it's all "For the narrative, you're supposed to have fun, and not be concerned if you lose."

Seriously. The weakness comp systems face are:
1. It's a lot of work to produce one.
2. Once you've produced one, it's really hard to have any evidence that the comp system you just produced is better than the alternatives.
3. Because comp systems produce a different result than the un-comped system, it's unavoidable that it's going to reflect biases about how the game is supposed to be played.

But the comp system sure sounds a lot nicer than having to deal with one person decreeing "You, sir, are tournament trash and not welcome to submit that army to my game."
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





4. Because your system is balanced around changes the development team isn't testing with; changes made by the dev team are likely to wreck havoc with your system.
   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Or in a narrative casual campaign setting, everyone with a working pulse and who can read knows that triple keeper of secrets (as an example for today's AOS) is busted and no one wants to have to field the type of list that can deal with that and would rather that stay on the tournament table as opposed to it clubbing baby seals in a casual environment so if you are trying to create an event that is a casual campaign event, you need some form of "comp" or rules that keep that stuff out of the event to prevent it from running everyone over.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/26 02:09:43


GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Mississippi

How bout a 40k banned and restricted list. Would that even be possible?

More of a thought exercise than anything, but would that be better than comp.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





Mr.Church13 wrote:
How bout a 40k banned and restricted list. Would that even be possible?

More of a thought exercise than anything, but would that be better than comp.


I mean it could work, but considering how certain factions and lists only have 1-3 good units and their combinations, that might seriously cripple the workability of some factions competitively.
Imagine if you'd cut obliterators for exemple for CSM.
(CSM allready just exists for obliterators, terminators and the occaisional Lord discordant)

There are whole factions atm that only dispense 1 type of unit / especially in a soup allowed environment.
Even more criplling it might become if soup is disallowed, which would make CSM f.e. even more crippled then ti allready would be by not allowing soup itself.


So in short, so long internal (codex) balance and Internal (faction) balance is not solved there is no hope of external balanceability. imo atleast.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page

A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
_______________________________

Who would win:
10'000 + years of veterancy, or some raidy Boys?
Trick Question, of course it's the loyalists!

(Not Online in regards to the new Red Corsair battalion CP boost and 8th edition.) 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 LunarSol wrote:
Mr.Church13 wrote:

In my option only. I think the supplements need to be banned wholesale. It’s a crappy bandage to rip off but if you limit marines to the very well done vanilla codex I think you solve a huge chunk of their issues. Does it suck. Sure. But if you don’t do it most tournaments are just going to be marine showcases with little variety.


Much like Strategems, I'd wager the supplements will feel wholly underpowered in a few months once GW is done giving the supplement treatment to armies with better baseline stats.

aye that is the biggest fear. Even greater fear - they nerf marines then release more powerful codex supplements lol.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

Nah. It will be a soft reset then recomposition and repackage to appeal to new customers under the rubric that of course this is a company out for profit until the brand is spent on cheap opporunity and the bubble bursts with push fit orks for 99cents at every corner store

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/03 20:42:47


   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Well I like to complain BUT I've played since 4th and the reality is there have always been top tier armies and their composition tends to be redundant, and there have been bottom tier armies.
I will say the terrain rules need a SERIOUS overhaul from the weird, and gamey mechanics I've seen.
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'






 archont wrote:
Here's the Argument: Most Armies should have Field% and TWiP% be correlated strongly.

Actually, I think they shouldn't. The more popular your army, the harder it should be to win a tournament with because everyone will have prepared to defeat the most popular armies.

Here's a hypothetical example to illustrate: there are 16 players in a tournament. 15 of them play marines, 1 of them plays chaos daemons or something. Most of the marine players optimise their lists (and hone their play-style) to kill marines. A few of them field balanced lists which can handle a few different opponents. Maybe one or two even optimise against daemons. The daemon player optimises to kill marines. If all armies are equally good and the skill levels are close, the daemon player has a much better chance of winning than any given marine player. He is always going to go against an army he is optimised against, while the marine players will rarely do so. The few marine players who are prepared to handle a daemon list will lose to other marine players and may not even be matched against daemons.

If people are willing to switch armies a lot and try their best to win, this will eventually mean that the most popular armies become less popular in tournaments until they are rare enough that it isn't a disadvantage to play them. Since people aren't actually willing to swap armies that much, it means that marines should always be bottom-tier if their army list isn't overpowered.

If the most popular army is also the army most likely to win tournaments, that is a sign that the game is strongly unbalanced in their favour.

   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Frankfurt (Germany)

 Perfect Organism wrote:
 archont wrote:
Here's the Argument: Most Armies should have Field% and TWiP% be correlated strongly.

Actually, I think they shouldn't. The more popular your army, the harder it should be to win a tournament with because everyone will have prepared to defeat the most popular armies.

Here's a hypothetical example to illustrate: there are 16 players in a tournament. 15 of them play marines, 1 of them plays chaos daemons or something. Most of the marine players optimise their lists (and hone their play-style) to kill marines. A few of them field balanced lists which can handle a few different opponents. Maybe one or two even optimise against daemons. The daemon player optimises to kill marines. If all armies are equally good and the skill levels are close, the daemon player has a much better chance of winning than any given marine player. He is always going to go against an army he is optimised against, while the marine players will rarely do so. The few marine players who are prepared to handle a daemon list will lose to other marine players and may not even be matched against daemons.

If people are willing to switch armies a lot and try their best to win, this will eventually mean that the most popular armies become less popular in tournaments until they are rare enough that it isn't a disadvantage to play them. Since people aren't actually willing to swap armies that much, it means that marines should always be bottom-tier if their army list isn't overpowered.

If the most popular army is also the army most likely to win tournaments, that is a sign that the game is strongly unbalanced in their favour.



Thats an even darker View at the Data as it presents itself. You're correct, I think, and the cituation is possibly even worse than I initially assumed :-S

I'll also note that 4 or 5 Weekends have now passed since I opened this thread - Marines are still at 23% of the field and 45% of top tables in Winning Position. I don't think the trend has been broken in any way, sadly.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/05 02:55:21


I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body! 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Wayniac wrote:
The issue, for the most part, is that you also tend to see the same armies/types of armies. Which is bad for the game overall because it makes too many things unviable for play. That's the real crux that needs to be changed. The competitive crowd doesn't care as much about that, because the "point" of playing competitive is to "solve the puzzle" as to what is the most efficient unit(s), not have as much as possible be useful in play.


I am a relatively competitive player, and I certainly do care about the lack of diversity in competitive lists. I want to win with units I like, not the handful of stuff that's actually viable. As has already been said, GW games need more core mechanics so gameplay is about making decisions and bluffing/countering your opponent, not shuffling war dollies around the table while becoming increasingly inebriated.
   
Made in fr
Regular Dakkanaut




Richard siegler did it again with a very innovative Tau list. Riptides drones and commanders. I can’t understand why people complain about comp. that guy won using NO marine units :p
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

Blastaar wrote:
... shuffling war dollies around the table while becoming increasingly inebriated.


And that's exactly what I did at 40 player GT this weekend! I went 3 & 2, with ... heck I dunno *if* it is a Net list. I just put together stuff I like:

Black Heart - x2 archons, 3x5 kabs, 3x5 Haywire scourges, 1x3 DisCan Ravs,
Alaitoc - Farseer onna bike, footer farseer, 3x5 rangers, 1x8 DRx, 1x2 Hemlocks

And the beer did flow, heck! it was held at a bowling alley.


As far as the topic at hand, since my experience with 40k from 4e to now ... the codex creep (in breadth, power and complexity) in 8e is beyond even 6 & 7th edition's combined imaginings. Achieving a reasonable application of *composition scoring* across the game is something beyond any reach with the scope of what's available to play.

While it can be seriously discussed, list composition scoring really had its last chance of being applicable in 5th edition.

We might as well be discussing which traces are a better fit in a 4 horse team, horse shoe brands, leaf springs, wooden wheels banded with iron ... is a gig an appropriate date transport or a trap (trick question, one is pretty much the other) ?

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: