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 de
Regular Dakkanaut





Frankfurt (Germany)

I don't know how you guys feel, but as far as I'm concerned, the Meta is going off the rails. Way off the rails.
Take a look at this; https://www.40kstats.com/1st-round-loss ; most factions somehow match their chances being in a tournament winning position with their percentage of the field.
Sure there's some outliers. Some underperform significantly. But one overperforms by an insane Margin.
And this is before taking into account the Faith and Fury rules addons previewed today.

Here's the Argument: Most Armies should have Field% and TWiP% be correlated strongly.
We have a huge dataset available now, which is being taken care of dilligently by some very great people working hard.

Of course it is clear that there is no perfect Solution. There is a Danger of Over-Correction, always if you start tampering with stuff;
and obviously it is way too big of a problem to formulate a catch all fair solution. But maybe the solution is to slowly approach normalization via adjustments.

One proposal might be, that if the baseline size of Armies is 2.000pts; then maybe overperforming Armies should be docked multiples of points according to overperformance;
and underperforming armies be added points in accordance with their sub par performance. A Solution to this cannot be approached in one single step. So maybe start with a small adjustment.

Astartes are 23% of the field and play for 45% of tournament wins? Lets have them start with 1.950 pts ( overperformance factor: 2 ; adjustment factor for overperformance: -25 ) for starters. Let adjustments run for 6 weeks, then check for approximation of Field% and Twip%. Maybe Increase Adjustment Factor. Maybe Decrease it.

Orks Underperform ~5% of field and 1.4% of TWiP. Lets have them start with 2.075pts ( underperformance factor: ~3 ; adjustment Factor +25 ) for starters. Let it run for 6 weeks, check for levelling of performance and adjust factors if necessary.


It's not huge Margins. But maybe it's a Start?
Is it permissible to even voice such an Idea?
Or have I now branded myself a heretic?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/04 02:07:09


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 pt
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




The core problem is that 40k isn't designed with a competitive focus. You need a "Competitive Play" format with a standardized points value, standardized terrain setup, and a limited unit palette that receives dynamic balance tweaks.

Treat regular no-limits 40k as the game it is (fun and fluffy) and heavily restrict competitive play so it's not in the position of introducing new content that upsets the meta so often. 40k's rules are designed to move models and generate interest. Of course players want to experiment with the new hotness but if you allow that these kinds of problems come with the territory.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Meh. Its functioned fine for decades, regardless of people complaining about it.


---
As to the statistical comp adjustments, that isn't something that will garner a lot of buy in. Its really fiddly, and people will treat it as an unfair punishment of their army and argue endlessly as to why other armies deserve penalties more than theirs.

And, to be honest, reasonably argue that some meta-list army in a tournament on the other side of the world isn't reflective of their list.

It's pretty much a non-starter of an idea.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 archont wrote:

I don't know how you guys feel, but as far as I'm concerned, the Meta is going off the rails. Way off the rails.
Take a look at this; https://www.40kstats.com/1st-round-loss ; most factions somehow match their chances being in a tournament winning position with their percentage of the field.
Sure there's some outliers. Some underperform significantly. But one overperforms by an insane Margin.
And this is before taking into account the Faith and Fury rules addons previewed today.

Here's the Argument: Most Armies should have Field% and TWiP% be correlated strongly.
We have a huge dataset available now, which is being taken care of dilligently by some very great people working hard.

Of course it is clear that there is no perfect Solution. There is a Danger of Over-Correction, always if you start tampering with stuff;
and obviously it is way too big of a problem to formulate a catch all fair solution. But maybe the solution is to slowly approach normalization via adjustments.

One proposal might be, that if the baseline size of Armies is 2.000pts; then maybe overperforming Armies should be docked multiples of points according to overperformance;
and underperforming armies be added points in accordance with their sub par performance. A Solution to this cannot be approached in one single step. So maybe start with a small adjustment.

Astartes are 23% of the field and play for 45% of tournament wins? Lets have them start with 1.950 pts ( overperformance factor: 2 ; adjustment factor for overperformance: -25 ) for starters. Let adjustments run for 6 weeks, then check for approximation of Field% and Twip%. Maybe Increase Adjustment Factor. Maybe Decrease it.

Orks Underperform ~5% of field and 1.4% of TWiP. Lets have them start with 2.075pts ( underperformance factor: ~3 ; adjustment Factor +25 ) for starters. Let it run for 6 weeks, check for levelling of performance and adjust factors if necessary.


It's not huge Margins. But maybe it's a Start?
Is it permissible to even voice such an Idea?
Or have I now branded myself a heretic?
Aside from the many many traditional problem with Comp, 40k is currently way to dynamic for a comp system to be strictly workable. Every few weeks you get a new codex to shake things up. Every 6 months you get balance changes. Comp isn't going to keep up.

But aside from all that. The current problem is an obvious one and one that was very swiftly identified by the community. Space Marines are broken.
So instead of introducing an entire comp system to try and deal with imbalance and possibly make things were, we just deal with the problem of Space Marines being broken...
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Mississippi

Something will 100% have to be done to reign in marines in tournaments, at first I thought comp also, but after talking it over with a bunch of people I just don’t think that’s the way to go.

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.

*addendum* maybe tournaments need divisions like marine allowed and no marine divisions. At the very least that would allow other armies to win something and maybe they wouldn’t either join the horde or just quit altogether like most of our locals are doing.
   
Made in fi
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Voss wrote:
Meh. Its functioned fine for decades, regardless of people complaining about it.


---.


Regardless of how much people want to stick head to sand and pretend there's no issue 40k has never ever worked as balanced game. Nor will it as long as it's controlled by entity(gw) whose vested interest is to keep it unbalanced

https://middleagedstrategybattlegamers.home.blog/2019/11/29/tneva82-daemon-of-an-ancient-world/<- lotr painting blog

12 factions for Lord of The Rings
11772 pts(along with lots of unpainted unsorted stuff)
5265 pts
5150 pts
~3200 pts Knights

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I guess the crude response to go would be lies, damned lies and statistics... but what argument are you trying to draw from this data?

I mean okay - it looks like Marines are doing well. Which is not a huge surprise to anyone.
But since we can't see instances of mirror matches, what have we got?
First round - 106/266 losses = 40%.
Second round - 62/160 losses = 39%
Third round - 41/98 losses = 42%
Fourth round - 25/57 losses = 44%
Fifth round = 17/32 losses = 53%.

On the face of it is this crazy overpowered? Well its clearly "good" - and various other factions are losing 50% or more as a result in their early rounds. But at the same time, the number of examples of these factions is very low.

Dark Eldar for instance are all over the place.
First round: 31/61 losses =51%
Second Round: 12/30 losses =40%
Third Round: 6/18 losses =33%
Fourth Round: 7/12 losses =58%
Fifth Round: 4/5 losses =80%.

I'm not sure however what you can take from this relatively small number of games though. Nor is it obvious why DE become "better" providing you don't lose your first game.

Eldar are in an even stranger position.
First Round: 29/75 losses =38%
Second round: 24/46 losses =52%
Third round: 9/22 losses = 41%
Fourth Round: 11/13 losses = 85%.

Is there any reason to believe that Eldar are great in the first round, mediocre in the second, back to being great in the third and unplayably terrible by the fourth? What would explain that, beyond the random chance of a small number of data points?

I mean you may want to get to the point where all factions have a 50% win/loss rate at each stage - but such would surely only be measurable with lots and lots of datapoints. Not sub 100 instances of that specific faction being taken to a tournament.

There are also issues that I don't believe comps are the problem - its specific builds. Saying Marines should get less points harms the whole faction - when really the issue will be things like Centurions in certain chapters.

Although at the same time, if you set up your own tournament you can have any rules adjustments you like.
   
Made in ca
Trustworthy Shas'vre






One thing that's hard to factor is how many tournament players are hardcore meta chasers, and how many are filthy casuals there to have a good time.

Hard to draw conclusions from very messy data. You've got top tier meta chasers facing filthy casuals in the first few rounds of a tournament. Isolating the later rounds (4th and 5th) might give a better picture of what's actually going on.

   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




tneva82 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Meh. Its functioned fine for decades, regardless of people complaining about it.


---.


Regardless of how much people want to stick head to sand and pretend there's no issue 40k has never ever worked as balanced game. Nor will it as long as it's controlled by entity(gw) whose vested interest is to keep it unbalanced


Its been a competitive format for 30 odd years. Its currently a competitive format. It will continue to be a competitive format. Anyone taking the stance that it _can't be_ a competitive format is simply denying reality, and shouldn't be taken seriously.


Regardless of whether or not it is in a perfect state at the moment, people thread-crapping on any mention of competitive 40k are being absurd.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/16 19:06:54


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune




Regardless of the effort taken 40kstats is a joke from a scientific standpoint, statistics is an extremely complex rabbit hole to fall down. Bad statistics just create serious problems an misinterpretations that lead down a bad direction.
Two words destroy it "sample size."

The idea of having stats doesn't even work for 40k. A combination of event formats statistics is totality worthless outside it's very narrow scope.
This is compounded by there is so many moving parts in this system. FAQS/HouseRules/Mistakes. Events/timing/region.

It's not as simple as real world things that you can have a reasonable expectation / controlled environment.

The idea that you decrease point is stupid, this should be fairly obvious by now the current points system does not equally measure the strength of units/datasheets GW keep stacking free rules, not in addition to the fact that units/datasheets performance changes based on faction rules.

Simply put there is no overarching value for anything in the mess that is the codex system and or + supplement/campaign books.
GW have been winging it ever since the beginning of time. Just because faction A beats faction Z, now doesn't mean anything...in the scheme of time.
You could argue GW actually intend this to be the case. A fully functional system that is balanced does not need more content to be produced. Adding more would either result in bloat or power creep. The game state is constantly in flux so the players have to constantly buy models/new armies etc.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/11/16 21:16:41


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I'm for banning use of the Super Doctrines as necessary. GW was high when they came up with that idea.

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 us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Does this data take into account that some people play what they like and not what is most likely to win?
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune




 CKO wrote:
Does this data take into account that some people play what they like and not what is most likely to win?


People who don't maximise the strength of an army or lists are the most effected by balance. Bad balance leads to feelbads or group isolation. Top players have enough disposable income to buy whatever is good.
   
Made in us
Scuttling Genestealer





philadelphia

Voss wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Voss wrote:
Meh. Its functioned fine for decades, regardless of people complaining about it.


---.


Regardless of how much people want to stick head to sand and pretend there's no issue 40k has never ever worked as balanced game. Nor will it as long as it's controlled by entity(gw) whose vested interest is to keep it unbalanced


Its been a competitive format for 30 odd years. Its currently a competitive format. It will continue to be a competitive format. Anyone taking the stance that it _can't be_ a competitive format is simply denying reality, and shouldn't be taken seriously.


Regardless of whether or not it is in a perfect state at the moment, people thread-crapping on any mention of competitive 40k are being absurd.


Anything can be competitive but that doesn't mean it can't also be brain dead and low engagement by comparison to other games. If I get thousands of competitive Candy Land players together we can take it seriously and hold tournaments, but it would still be an awful competitive vehicle just like 40k.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

oops, wrong thread

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/17 21:56:12


 
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 cuda1179 wrote:
Can we all agree though that the most over-hyped tank of the war is by far the T-34? I often see it praised as the end-all, be-all of WWII. Honestly though, in many areas it totally sucked.

It was what it needed to be, which was easy to produce and be used by untrained crews and have a field life expectancy calculated in days, not weeks or months.

Wrong thread.


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





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.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 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.


Are you assuming massive powercreep on all levels then?

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





Not Online!!! wrote:
 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.


Are you assuming massive powercreep on all levels then?


At the moment, it wouldn't surprise me. At the same time the Sisters codex doesn't have nearly as crazy of a bonus for going faction pure, so it might be an aberration that will need to be nerfed back in line. Of course, Sisters could also just be the new Grey Knights. Regardless, it feels to a degree we're in 8th 2nd edition right now.
   
Made in ch
Revered Rogue Psyker





 LunarSol wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 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.


Are you assuming massive powercreep on all levels then?


At the moment, it wouldn't surprise me. At the same time the Sisters codex doesn't have nearly as crazy of a bonus for going faction pure, so it might be an aberration that will need to be nerfed back in line. Of course, Sisters could also just be the new Grey Knights. Regardless, it feels to a degree we're in 8th 2nd edition right now.


I guess so.
But it is eregious when marines stand out that way this extremely.

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 gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






Mr.Church13 wrote:
Something will 100% have to be done to reign in marines in tournaments, at first I thought comp also, but after talking it over with a bunch of people I just don’t think that’s the way to go.

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.

*addendum* maybe tournaments need divisions like marine allowed and no marine divisions. At the very least that would allow other armies to win something and maybe they wouldn’t either join the horde or just quit altogether like most of our locals are doing.


Why?

No seriously why?

Because as far as I can tell it boils down to “I should not lose to marines”, “beating no hope mediocre marine armies is how rank so high” and “But goddamit I spent a fortune on this cheesy meta list I will not lose to the noob army.

Seriously just in 8th a handful of armies have dominated tournaments for months at a time with less whining than this but for some reason marines are good for a couple of weeks and a section of the community completely lose there gak unlike anything I have ever seen before. I have never seen this much vitriol about an army before going back even to 5th the spiritual home of cheese.

I have not followed much after IH dropped and caused mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together and elder to lose a few tournaments, but the statistics from the 1st weekend of results suggested that the ranting about the super doctrines was as expected bollocks as well over 70% of the marine armies choose to give them up to take other detachments.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/19 15:18:17


Your last point is especially laughable and comical, because not only the 7th ed Valkyrie shown dumber things (like being able to throw the troopers without parachutes out of its hatches, no harm done) - Irbis 
   
Made in de
Regular Dakkanaut





Frankfurt (Germany)

SeanDrake wrote:
Mr.Church13 wrote:
Something will 100% have to be done to reign in marines in tournaments, at first I thought comp also, but after talking it over with a bunch of people I just don’t think that’s the way to go.

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.

*addendum* maybe tournaments need divisions like marine allowed and no marine divisions. At the very least that would allow other armies to win something and maybe they wouldn’t either join the horde or just quit altogether like most of our locals are doing.


Why?

No seriously why?

Because as far as I can tell it boils down to “I should not lose to marines”, “beating no hope mediocre marine armies is how rank so high” and “But goddamit I spent a fortune on this cheesy meta list I will not lose to the noob army.

Seriously just in 8th a handful of armies have dominated tournaments for months at a time with less whining than this but for some reason marines are good for a couple of weeks and a section of the community completely lose there gak unlike anything I have ever seen before. I have never seen this much vitriol about an army before going back even to 5th the spiritual home of cheese.

I have not followed much after IH dropped and caused mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together and elder to lose a few tournaments, but the statistics from the 1st weekend of results suggested that the ranting about the super doctrines was as expected bollocks as well over 70% of the marine armies choose to give them up to take other detachments.


If you think Eldar have continuously been winning tournaments, or even been top3 tournament winners, you need to seriously educate yourself.
Under this tag on BOLS there is a weekly write up for which army is being played how often, and which armies are winning the most tournaments:
https://www.belloflostsouls.net/category/best-coast-pairings
the most recent entry in the weekly series is this one; https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2019/11/40k-top-list-of-the-week-november-13th-tau-sept-reigns-supreme.html ;
Eldar are on place #5 ; and this is where they have been more or less for the entire year, continuously outperformed by Imperium (which had a 22 week consecutive top spot!), sometimes Tau, sometimes Knights etc pp., rarely climbing to top3, sometimes dropping to top 6 or 7.

If you fail to understand that it is bad to have one out of four players be playing Marines, and One out of Two participants in every tournament finals Game be Space Marines, I don't think I can help you.
If you fail to understand that no army overperforms by more than like 20% relative to their field participation, but Marines outperform their participation by almost 100%; I don't know how skewed the Numbers need to be, before the penny drops for you :-)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/11/19 17:32:53


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
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Alternative: before sending them to the printers, GW gives a new codex to a group of experienced players before going on their lunch break, the players return the codex after the break having made changes. Balance statistics improve 80%.

"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 pt
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




GW does playtest, however the playtesters and even rules writers aren't the ultimate authority on what gets released.

If this seems hard to understand, do a little research on the 7th edition Wraithknight!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






Chillicothe, OH

Yoyoyo wrote:
The core problem is that 40k isn't designed with a competitive focus. You need a "Competitive Play" format with a standardized points value, standardized terrain setup, and a limited unit palette that receives dynamic balance tweaks.

Treat regular no-limits 40k as the game it is (fun and fluffy) and heavily restrict competitive play so it's not in the position of introducing new content that upsets the meta so often. 40k's rules are designed to move models and generate interest. Of course players want to experiment with the new hotness but if you allow that these kinds of problems come with the territory.


Yeah... thats why they have rules stacked upon rules.... to make them “less competitive”.

My Painting Blog, UPDATED!

Armies in 8th:
Minotaurs: 1-0-0
Thousand Sons: 15-3

 
   
Made in pt
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Interesting remark. Is the essence of "competitive 40k" about building the strongest army available, or is it about demonstrating better tactics on the tabletop between two perfectly balanced ones?

There may be some differences of opinion there.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Yoyoyo wrote:
Interesting remark. Is the essence of "competitive 40k" about building the strongest army available, or is it about demonstrating better tactics on the tabletop between two perfectly balanced ones?

There may be some differences of opinion there.


When both players are trying to make the best army they can, it becomes more the latter. In the wild, the former can have a lot of say in the matter.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






Yoyoyo wrote:
GW does playtest, however the playtesters and even rules writers aren't the ultimate authority on what gets released.

If this seems hard to understand, do a little research on the 7th edition Wraithknight!
Note how in my idea the changes are actually made...

"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 us
Scarred Ultramarine Tyrannic War Veteran






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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/19 20:45:36


 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






 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.

"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. 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: