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.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Is it?

Or would a "proper" Speed Freekz army have Biker Boyz and Trukk Boyz and so on, rather than *just* Nob Bikers?

why is yours more correct? I'm sure you could stick a trukk mob or two in to a nob bike one. but you havent explained or shown why yours is more correct.

I think giving points for Theme is utter nonsense.

I doubt there's any extreme setup where a moderately imaginative player can't write a piece of fluff to justify the theme.

The last time an argument about Nob Bikerz, Theme and Comp came up I gave the example of two Ork Nob Biker Lords who are both competing to be the biggest and baddest biker. So they make a deal to bring all their Bikers to a battle and the one who kills the most enemies will become the lead biker. Because they want to be biker lords they leave all their grots and trukks at home.

Lovely theme, very Orky, totally supported by fluff and justifies the two nob biker lord list without supporting grots or whatever.

The codexes aren't balanced and that isn't because GW very carefully wrote them not to be balanced to make people write themey army lists. It's because they slapped them together to sell some models. The evidence is all over the place.

Given the problems with comp scoring, it would be more reasonable to write tournament scenarios which reward balanced armies.

I think a tournament should be about who wins the most games and the margin by which they manage it. So I'm all for extreme lists in tourneys. If you want fluffy lists, play narrative campaigns with your friends.
I'm not even down with painting and sportsmanship being included- I'd say give a seperate prize for best painted, best sports and best general. And if some guy is a jerk, just deal with it socially. Don't have a pint with him afterwards.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The scaled FOC follows from the flawed presumption that that 40k armies must fit into neat little boxes. 40k does away with that notion entirely by throwing the FOC out the window in Apocalypse, doing away with the entire notion of comp in favor of Datasheets that allow players to theme their forces.

I missed this earlier...

You do realize that many of us old timers were playing biog stupid games LONG before Apocalypse came about right? GW just added some rules and flavor.....

The Green Git wrote:

skyth wrote:

The Green Git wrote: Where it's more important to ensure your opponent is having fun too than to make sure your list is top tier?

Quite frankly, if my opponent doesn't have fun because my list is too powerful, then they are being the bad sports and the one too focused on winning the game.

Riiiiiiiight.... "You should have fun no matter what kind of list I bring because that's how *I* have fun and if you don't like it then you're a bad sport."

You clearly missed the entire point of my post.

And you clearly missed the point of mine. My fun in the game is not determined by what my opponent brings. I'm not one of the people that plays the whole game in a sulking huff and then starts calling the other person names once the game is over.

I dunno...I think sportsmanship needs to stay. It doesn't need to be a huge amount of points, and should probably be a checklist and not just some arbitrary 0-10 chipmunk fest, but it is needed. There are enough people who can't be bothered to compete civilly that it is probably worth it. If we could put in cheating and behavior penalties or judges for every game like a professional sport, ok, I'd be fine with no sportsmanship, but I think the threat of TFG ruining peope's tournament experience is enough to make sportsmanship important (and clearly seperate from comp). But I guess thats a completely different discussion.

I was trying out an experimental list at leprecon, and got paddled by a very nice (by which I mean really hard) list in my first game and had an awesome time anyway. Just because I got schooled doesn't mean I can't have fun. It's all about attitude.

Edit: On cheating and really obnoxious players- they should just be disqualified. Seriously.

Euro (or at least UK tournaments) don't have Sport scoring either.

It works fine.

Sports scoring offers another opportunity for genuine TFGs and their friends to game the system.

For example, persuade your opponent to give you a 10, and you'll give him a 10. Or nail him with a 0 for beating you. Go as a team and collude in your scoring to nail the guys who are ahead of your team-mates.

In irish cons it varies wildly, as most are indy run. You can see anything from actual comp restrictions to sports scoring as a percentage of overall points to no sports at all. I prefer the last one. I've rarely come across a really bad TFG on the irish scene, most of the lads are sound.

I agree that sports on a 0-10 scale with no oversight is dumb (and common). Nothing is worse than having people use "sportsmanship" scores to knock you for comp, or even worse, to just game the system (bad sportsmen using sportsmanship scores to win...oh the irony)

Maybe I'll just try to find a nice irish or english tournament to play in when I'm there this summer and I'll see if every game is with TFG

of course, the odds of my wife murdering me because i'm trying to play warhammer on a vacation might be high.

Not many Irish cons during the summer anyhow .

Give us a shout if you're going to be in the Dublin area though, and if anything's coming up I'll let you know.
I'll just warn you that the cons don't tend to be brilliantly organised on the whole. Mostly run by college students. It's changing slowly, but it's nothing like Adepticon or the like.
UK might be better.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think giving points for Theme is utter nonsense.

I doubt there's any extreme setup where a moderately imaginative player can't write a piece of fluff to justify the theme.

The last time an argument about Nob Bikerz, Theme and Comp came up I gave the example of two Ork Nob Biker Lords who are both competing to be the biggest and baddest biker. So they make a deal to bring all their Bikers to a battle and the one who kills the most enemies will become the lead biker. Because they want to be biker lords they leave all their grots and trukks at home.

Lovely theme, very Orky, totally supported by fluff and justifies the two nob biker lord list without supporting grots or whatever.

The codexes aren't balanced and that isn't because GW very carefully wrote them not to be balanced to make people write themey army lists. It's because they slapped them together to sell some models. The evidence is all over the place.

Given the problems with comp scoring, it would be more reasonable to write tournament scenarios which reward balanced armies.

Emphasis mine.

This is something I, as a new 40k player, had been meaning to ask about. I've been a serious Starcraft player (and viewer) for a long time and while the last patch that affected balance came out in 2001 (I believe..) we have seen HUGE changes in balance despite this. Almost all because of maps.

For instance, when I started playing the game seriously (2002) Protoss was considered by almost everyone as the worst race in the game. Today? The last 3 major tournaments were all won by Protoss players.
(Brief aside, those who are unawares, there's a huge professional Starcraft scene in South Korea, with several dedicated TV stations showing games live every day of the week, and players literally getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all 3 races are well represented at the top, as well as lower ranks - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u_tBTS3CE8 an example)

Anyway, as a novice, I don't know exactly what type of scenario is favourable for Orks, and given that SC has 3 races while 40k has.. a whole lot of them, you will obviously come up with even more scenarios that are fine for half, but suck for the other half. Still, it's a venue I think should be explored (along with, perhaps, varying the game table size/having pre-set terrain - not all the same obviously - in whatever manner best helps the weaker armies and nerfs the strong, so as to bring everyone to a competitive equal point).

Kilkrazy wrote:I think giving points for Theme is utter nonsense.

I doubt there's any extreme setup where a moderately imaginative player can't write a piece of fluff to justify the theme.

I have to agree. If I run my Tau list with maxed out Broadside & Crisis suits, is that fluffy? If not, why not? It's a theme (MOAR SUITZ), it's also pretty ineffective. Soft scores are pointless in my opinion. They're just a way to penalize people for playing well, or for doing the math-hammer to get as strong a list as possible from their Codex. To me, neither of those things should be penalized.

I'm not a WAAC guy (the fact that Tau is my main army should give that away. I enjoy playing scenarios and fluffy games. I'd probably enjoy Apoc if I get into it, but I don't currently have the models, rules or time for that. However, if I'm in something that's describing itself as a tournament, I would expect everyone I'm playing to be trying to win. After all, we all like to win our games, right? I'm not worried about whether unit X is broken, I'm worried about whether I want to piant unit X, or if I want to assemble unit Y. My goal is to collect enough that I can field every combo the Tau Empire codex will let me (which is why magnet suits and turrets are mandatory in my army), and once that's done, build a second, more assault army for conttrats, and so I've always got an opposing army for a game if I have a friend round who wants to know what all the sci-fi robots are about.

Da Boss wrote:I think a tournament should be about who wins the most games and the margin by which they manage it. So I'm all for extreme lists in tourneys. If you want fluffy lists, play narrative campaigns with your friends.
I'm not even down with painting and sportsmanship being included- I'd say give a seperate prize for best painted, best sports and best general. And if some guy is a jerk, just deal with it socially. Don't have a pint with him afterwards.

i agree with this fellow, armys should be painted with at least three colors (most tournaments do this) because painted armies are more fun to play with, but i dont think they should go into your tournament score.Golden Demons are a much better place to be a critic on whos models are the best.
and i think sportsmanship should stay just reduce the amount it is worth.just my opinion.

Here's a crazy idea: GW publishes an official list for competitive play for each army. Every SM army will look alike; every Necron Army will look alike, etc.
Now when everyone plays they will have a more controlled experience versus trying to whore out the system to wring maximum advantage of every upgrade, unit min-max, etc.

When you see that you're playing against an Ork army, you know you're getting x number of slugga boyz, etc. Other than who gets first turn and how the dice roll, the game should actually be closer to a real test of who plays the game better instead of what it is now.

If we were playing chess and my side can buy 6 bishops at 20 pts/apiece and you can buy 6 queens at 15 pts/apiece, odds are good that we're not going to have a real fair match---regardless of what the points say.

privateer4hire wrote:Here's a crazy idea: GW publishes an official list for competitive play for each army. Every SM army will look alike; every Necron Army will look alike, etc.
Now when everyone plays they will have a more controlled experience versus trying to whore out the system to wring maximum advantage of every upgrade, unit min-max, etc.

When you see that you're playing against an Ork army, you know you're getting x number of slugga boyz, etc. Other than who gets first turn and how the dice roll, the game should actually be closer to a real test of who plays the game better instead of what it is now.

If we were playing chess and my side can buy 6 bishops at 20 pts/apiece and you can buy 6 queens at 15 pts/apiece, odds are good that we're not going to have a real fair match---regardless of what the points say.

Certainly, that actually sounds like something that would be a lot of fun.

Of course, then you're going to have to deal with the heat from people who think you're ruining their game because you're stifling their creativity...

Besides that, though...might make an interesting tournament for a future AdeptiCon. Hmm...

It's not stifling creativity. The problem if they do that is how many style builds can you make just out of the marine codex? I'm a speed oriented player w/my orks and marines. Which means I focus on bikes and jump packs. They aren't power builds by any means (i don't use nob bikerz) but I still normally lose maybe 1 game a tournement with them. If they just gave me a single build I'd probably drop out of tournement play. I'd get bored way to fast

@JohnHwangDD

You've stated that GW intends for marine players to play battle companies or fractions of units representing battle companies. If this is true, why do they include HQs that alter the FoC in order to play units either in alternate slots, or to be capable of fielding more of those units?

You've stated many times that comp should be used to encourage "fluffy" armies, but you also state that you know what GW intends to be a fluffy army... I think that you're wrong. GW creates their codices to be able to field a very wide variety of armies, because that's what the fluff supports. Things are left intentionally open-ended because as GW has actually said before, their universe is a huge place that can incorporate a wide variety of different armies.

And now in this thread, you're changing your mind, and saying that fluff and comp are separate... despite what you've written in the past.

You like comp. I get that. I think that you're doing your argument a disfavor by simply writing whatever justification you feel at the time, without actually sticking to the concept (one that I don't agree with) that comp systems make for a more "fair" tournament experience.

skyth wrote:And you clearly missed the point of mine. My fun in the game is not determined by what my opponent brings. I'm not one of the people that plays the whole game in a sulking huff and then starts calling the other person names once the game is over.

So what does sulking and name calling have to do with bringing power lists? My suggestion was merely to be able to have a tournament where bringing the beat down lists wasn't the primary goal of the tournament. If you don't like a given style of play then you shouldn't go to that type of event.

Phazael wrote:Well,

I am really torn on this one.

On the one hand, I have personally observed you (Blackmoor) game soft scores (hell, we still call chipmunking 'Getting Hernandezed' around here) and bring armies that are completely off the chain, dating back to the early days of 4th edition. Does the 18 model Tzeench list with a hald dozen bolts of change AND winds of chaos ring any bells? I have observed you quietly hop on every power trend with gleeful enthusiasm and bail on tournaments after losing one game. Granted, you have improved you have improved that attitude in the last year or so, but the reality is that you are personally one of those who contributed to the very problem you are soapboxing on.

On the other hand, you are exactly correct, which is one of the main reasons I made Fantasy my main game about four years ago (but the take no prisoners attitude has infected that game to a degree now, too), because my choices boiled down to: Play Stealth Cheese (Sisters of Battle, Guardian Heavy Eldar, ect), Play an army that I liked but was too good due to the current metagame (Eldar), or play a fluff list so that the competitive people could score easy round one wins against me. The problem has existed since about halfway through 4th, but the current wacky codexes and mission rules (kill points=worst design implementation ever) are just amplifying a pre-existing issue. For better or worse, the competitive game is dick punching adepticon levels of assclownery and ther simply is no going back without a major reset of all of the army books. A minor tweak (ala what 4th was to 3rd) could arrest a lot of the damage, but GW has all but buried its head in the sand to the competitive balance of the game.

No comp system will ever fix this, because as you know personally (both good and bad), comp systems can always be gamed and are nearly always subjective hitlists designed to gimp armies the TO does not personally like. So, let comp die. If everyone agress that cockwallet lists are the acceptable norm at tournaments (and only there), then the focus can move to where it should be, which is the rules balance. Sportsmanship needs to stay, however. I don't mind getting tabled in three turns by someone, but I really don't need them being a douche while they are doing it.

Your post has some valid points, but I don't see what you are trying to accomplish by trying to discredit Blackmoor in your first paragraph. That really lowers your credibility right out of the gate, especially when you throw out a bunch of petty accusations from left field. Is there some sort of personal score you are trying to settle with Blackmoor?

Dakka just wouldn't be Dakka without random vendettas.

Personally I thought that those "petty accusations" actually strengthened Blackmoor's original argument against comp scoring. If he was the kind of gamer who used to use comp scores to his own advantage, then for him to decide that those soft scores are not good for the hobby or the "tournament scene" after all shows character.

Phazael wrote:Well, I am really torn on this one.

On the one hand, I have personally observed you (Blackmoor) game soft scores (hell, we still call chipmunking 'Getting Hernandezed' around here) and bring armies that are completely off the chain, dating back to the early days of 4th edition

I don’t know what brought this on Q, but you are wrong on almost all counts. What was the last army I played against you about 3 years ago? Demonhunters…without even a land raider! (land raiders were crap in that edition anyways). So if my mighty Demonhunters are so “Of the chain” then I am guilty. And yes, I did mark you all the way down in the theme score in that game. You brought Wraithlords in your Alaitoc army and at the time the GW RTT scoring sheet said as an example of poor theme someone who brings wraithlords in an all infiltrating army. It ironically gave an example of your army as what should be scored poorly in theme, so yes I did mark that box.

I have never chipmunked anyone in my life. Like I was saying, I am a comp friendly player, and I did mark down WAAC armies. I took a lot of criticism from the WAAC players for doing so to the point where I said it was just not worth it anymore, and I just started to give everyone max scores. (there is an example of comp not working). As an example of this, I have played in the Southern California Games Workshop League for several seasons and they had a comp score from 0-3 but no one had ever given less then max points. It was not because people played fluffy armies, it was because no one ever gave someone a bad open comp score no matter how OTT some armies were (and there were some OTT armies). In this league you picked one army and you had to play it the whole season, and I had a game scheduled against Darrian13’s Black Legion against my mighty Demonhunters! (again me with my cheesy power builds). Darrian13 loaded up with about 22 lascannons, and the most anti-marine equipment you can think of. I barely managed a tie which I was very, very happy about! Then when it was time to score comp, I thought he tooled up a bit too much to beat me, and that many lascannons were way over the top so I thought I would take one point off of his comp score and give him only a 2 instead of a 3. You should have seen his reaction of him and all of his friends. They went ape-crap over this. That is how I got the reputation of being a poor sport, and chipmunking came from. From then on I was ostracized by his group of friends, and whenever I went to an RTT they would spread rumors about me and how I chipmunked.

Phazael wrote:. Does the 18 model Tzeench list with a half dozen bolts of change AND winds of chaos ring any bells? I have observed you quietly hop on every power trend with gleeful enthusiasm

I hopped on every power trend? I played Thousand Sons all through 3rd edition most of 4th. Not much of a power army. I did play a BoC spam list once to see how it did, and it did do well (this was mostly a response to Darrian13’s terminator AC spam list that he had been winning all of the RTTs and kicking my butt with). I played Godzilla Nids for about 6 months until it became too easy to win with and I retired them and I have not played them in over 3 years. I then switched to Eldar and I posted in the first post what I thought I held back on. You can find that army and all of my batreps for the LVGT below if you think that army was WAAC. I then I switch to a rather tame Witch Hunter army. I document all of my armies and games that I take to major tournaments, so if you think that those armies were really power builds, I do not know what to tell you. Competitive to be sure, but really power builds? I might be wrong but I don’t think so.

Phazael wrote: and bail on tournaments after losing one game.

Now that is a lie. I have only left one RTT early in my life and that was after game #2 down at the Battle Bunker. I had a date that night, and the RTT was going way late do to a huge argument. It was getting close to 5pm, and round #3 was nowhere on the horizon. Reecius (who posted earlier on this thread) had to go too, so we pulled out and they still had an even number of players. If I was the type to call it quits early I would have never shown up for day #2 at the Broadside Bash, driving to the airport, paying $13 to park, and play 2 games in a horrible venue, and instead spend the day with my friends in LA that I rarely get to see anymore. And I already knew that I was out of the running after losing in the first day too.

Phazael wrote: Granted, you have improved you have improved that attitude in the last year or so, but the reality is that you are personally one of those who contributed to the very problem you are soapboxing on.

LA was really a comp friendly town until Darrian and Matt started to show up with power builds. If I brought tough armies it was only in response to the power build up. My Eldar army was actually forged by losing many times to Darrian’s Godzilla list.

And although it seems like this post is trashing on Darrian13, but I kind of miss the big lug. He brought the toughest WAAC armies that he could find, and I played against him and his hard armies a lot and he made me a much better player. Now I have grown soft, and less skillful without him around anymore.

Here are a sampling of my armies. Judge for yourself is they are power builds:
2007 LVGT (I also took this army to Baltimore GT)
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/169568.page

2007 LA Gamesday
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/181782.page

2008 LVGT and Baltimore GT See sig below.

Phazael wrote:Does the 18 model Tzeench list with a half dozen bolts of change AND winds of chaos ring any bells?
and bail on tournaments after losing one game.

Looky what I found! A blast from that past from 9/3/2006

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/102103.page

This was my Batrep of the one and only appearance of that army where I took with all of the BoC (take a look at game #3 to see what I was up against), and not only that, but as a bonus you get Reecius and I talking about us having to leave the other RTT early!

Too bad the pictures are gone :(

willydstyle wrote:@JohnHwangDD

You've stated that GW intends for marine players to play battle companies or fractions of units representing battle companies. If this is true, why do they include HQs that alter the FoC in order to play units either in alternate slots, or to be capable of fielding more of those units?

You've stated many times that comp should be used to encourage "fluffy" armies, but you also state that you know what GW intends to be a fluffy army...

And now in this thread, you're changing your mind, and saying that fluff and comp are separate... despite what you've written in the past.

You like comp.

Yes, it's crystal clear, from the Fluff, that GW intends for players to field things that approximate Battle Companies in some fashion. Yes, they allow deviance from that. I don't see why GW must be rigid in demanding that players field the Battle Companies that they encourge, nor why GW must restrict all options to only those which support a Battle Company and nothing else. Allowing for some variation from the ideal in no way invalidates the strength of the ideal.

Yes, Comp should be used to encourage "fluffy" armies, and GW gives ample examples of such armies in their batreps and such. The players choose not to field such armies again, in no way invalidates, that those are the sorts of armies that they use by example. GW could choose to field and feature "hard" armies, but they choose not to do so by default. Given the consistency which GW fields and features "wunza" armies, that is clearly a deliberate choice on GW's part.

No, I haven't changed my mind in the least. I think that Comp should be objectively scored via checklist, and Theme should be subjectively scored by your opponent. As I believe I stated earlier, Comp is *what* you take, and Theme is *why* you take it or *how* it looks. Something like that. The point is that they are different but related.

I think it's bunk if you need to make up a story about how 2 Warbosses agree to work together and have competing Nob Biker mobs. You take 2 biker bosses and 2 nob biker units because they are rock hard and win more than ordinary bikers or nobs on foot, much less Grots of any flavor. If you're going to be a WAAC player, at least have the damn stones to admit it to your opponent and the TO, and take your lumps in theme and comp like a man. Don't pussy out and pretend that your army is well-themed. But hey, if you can get your opponent to agree that you're well-themed, then more power two you.

And finally, I think that Comp is a good idea and should be implemented at all tournaments. It's easier to win with max Pie, with dual Lash and so on. So Battle scoring should be adjusted as a handicapping method to account for that.

Just because my position isn't as simple as you'd like to stereotype it, that's not my problem. You disagree, fine. We disagree. Comp is simply an opinion, and reasonable people can disagree on it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yes, it's crystal clear, from the Fluff, that GW intends for players to field things that approximate Battle Companies in some fashion. Yes, they allow deviance from that. I don't see why GW must be rigid in demanding that players field the Battle Companies that they encourge, nor why GW must restrict all options to only those which support a Battle Company and nothing else. Allowing for some variation from the ideal in no way invalidates the strength of the ideal.

A completely unsupported assertion for which you've never presented any credible evidence.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, Comp should be used to encourage "fluffy" armies, and GW gives ample examples of such armies in their batreps and such. The players choose not to field such armies again, in no way invalidates, that those are the sorts of armies that they use by example. GW could choose to field and feature "hard" armies, but they choose not to do so by default. Given the consistency which GW fields and features "wunza" armies, that is clearly a deliberate choice on GW's part.

Or, as has been said by me and many others, GW features armies in batreps for the purposes of selling models, because when it comes down to it, they simply don't care what we play with as long as we're buying models.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Just because my position isn't as simple as you'd like to stereotype it, that's not my problem. You disagree, fine. We disagree. Comp is simply an opinion, and reasonable people can disagree on it.

Everyone can have an opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

Why is it that GW does not use Comp in its European tournaments to encourage fluffy armies?

I guess GW is like God. They only give us army lists with lots of options (free will) as a temptation to see if we'll stray from the righteous path.

Also, there was no edition before 5th. Any evidence you see otherwise is just a test of your faith.

[/sarcasm]

Allan your eldar army was cool but for 4th edition I thought it was pretty much WAAC. Two holo falcons versus just mean you could take other effective choices such as dark reapers. You had all the usual components - Eldrad, Avatar, Harlies, etc. I have no problem with the list having played against it and lost but I thinking you are deluding yourself if you think it was tame compared to other WAAC eldar lists from that era when eldar was top tiered.

G