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.

GB posted this on BolS: "So if you ran the biggest 40K event in the world, how would you make it more fun and fair?" I'm totally hijacking Goatboy's Q from BoLS.


After a bit of thought, many posts & threads read, and lotsa discussion with the other nerds over, heh, I like this one, Man-Barbies, I came up this as a comp system for a tourney. Well, it's a gel of many others' ideas and proposals:

HQ - 1 only (and none of that SW can have 2 per FoC, just *one* model)

Troops - the full 6 if you want

Elite, Fast Attack & Heavy Support - 4 total
- no more than two of one slot. And a restriction on, say an IG LeMan Russ 3 tank squadron. Nope! 'No 3 Plasma-Cutioners' or similar squadron. Make it so that an army cannot have more than one model in that fashion (allies can *NOT* bypass this). No three HellTurkeys, only 2 War Walkers with LasScatLock shenanigans, etc. This would include transport spam, that is, no more than two of one kind of transport. So, max,

Bob can only have two venoms for his DE. Two raiders, too.
Fran can only have two rhinos and (yes) two razorbacks for her (various) SM army
Mitch can only have two WaveSerpents for his Eldar
etc.

Allies? Only unit from one of each FoC. Two Troops? Cool.

Yes:

Codex: SM
HQ - Chapter Master
Troop - Scouts, 3 Tacticals (only two Drop Pods)
FA - Jumper marines
Elite - SternG in a Razorback
HS - LR Crusader

Blood Angel Ally
Mephiston
Tac - razor
FA - A two speeder squadron
Elite - Termies
HS - LR Crusader


So, do-able?

The major hole is the transport sanction. By nerfing annoying venom spam (I should know, I still own and had played 5 venoms for over a year) you really curtail the SM Drop Pod army. I'm not sure what to do about this, without getting army specific in this ... Comp "System" (that's gotta be an over glorification) , and that'd be bad because then players would cry that their dex got the short stick of prejudice.

"U screwed my armee. Yr a zeno h8r! Dick!!!"


So. Workable?

I think it workable but to many people would bitch about it. The 4 total for Elites/FA/ and Heavy seems a bit tight. I mean even as an ork player that means I can only take a battle wagon and one big gun squad. Those dont do good as singles and throwing more troops into the mix doesnt really help. I prefer a point based system.

I don't like the restrictions being based on FoC. Some armies have so many options in the elites, fast, heavy, and HQ that limiting them seems unfair. I would say, troops excepted, you can only duplicate a single choice per force org. That means for HQ no double Librarians or DPs etc. Another one would be no triple DPs but you can take 2 for a small negative to your comp score. This way you can't take 3 awesome Elites or Heavies but you can still take 2 of them for a small "fee".

This will just create more problems than it solves and the same people spamming certain units will figure out how to break the comped system.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This will just create more problems than it solves and the same people spamming certain units will figure out how to break the comped system.

So... Do nothing and have to play the same terrible Tau and Eldar lists all day long? The great part about a comp system that TOs control is that you can change it when somebody breaks it.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This will just create more problems than it solves

Other than the flaw I pointed out?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
and the same people spamming certain units will figure out how to break the comped system.

If a penalty/bonus element were added, as John suggested, then yeah, I could see TFG pushing the system.

But, I thought this was pretty air tight. Simple FoC restrictions, no points in scoring for this Comp "System". Maybe it's more of a Composition Limit a TO could apply to a tourney.

I do say do nothing, Comp just places unfair restrictions on players. In tau most of my Fast Attack and troops Suck. But my elites and heavy support are great. You will end up forcing me to take ore of those, and less of my good units. I say dont place stupid, arbitary restrictions on units that end up doing nothing but hamstringing armies.
Or better yet, your DE example. DE can only survive in their vehicles, they cannot survives out of them.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
... but you can take 2 for a small negative to your comp score. This way you can't take 3 awesome Elites or Heavies but you can still take 2 of them for a small "fee".

Oh, I wouldn't even bother with a negative/ penalty element. Just a simple FoC allowance. No voting or points to calculate. Done.

The purpose to is to thin spam, and correspondingly, dilute more powerful builds.

Brothererekose wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This will just create more problems than it solves

Other than the flaw I pointed out?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
and the same people spamming certain units will figure out how to break the comped system.

If a penalty/bonus element were added, as John suggested, then yeah, I could see TFG pushing the system.

But, I thought this was pretty air tight. Simple FoC restrictions, no points in scoring for this Comp "System". Maybe it's more of a Composition Limit a TO could apply to a tourney.

The only problem with your comp format is the that the codices are not balanced based upon FoC choices so placing the limit based upon FoC isn't really fair to all the books. Some codices have huge and diverse Troops and Elites sections some don't. The system you're suggesting doesn't take the internal balance of each codex across the force org chart into account. While the only problem I see it is a huge problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
... but you can take 2 for a small negative to your comp score. This way you can't take 3 awesome Elites or Heavies but you can still take 2 of them for a small "fee".

Oh, I wouldn't even bother with a negative/ penalty element. Just a simple FoC allowance. No voting or points to calculate. Done.

The purpose to is to thin spam, and correspondingly, dilute more powerful builds.

But it doesn't reduce spam. You've placed no limitation on the number of troops choices which can then be spammed into oblivion by books with good troops options which will now be the dominant books under your format.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I do say do nothing, Comp just places unfair restrictions on players. In tau most of my Fast Attack and troops Suck. But my elites and heavy support are great. You will end up forcing me to take ore of those, and less of my good units. I say dont place stupid, arbitary restrictions on units that end up doing nothing but hamstringing armies.
Or better yet, your DE example. DE can only survive in their vehicles, they cannot survives out of them.

For a long time, the local tourney has had a simple Thumbs Up or Down vote for fav army. This year, the TO has explored different formatting.

Most of the tourneys haven't had any comp. Just Overall, Best General, Best PAint and Best Guy Who Enjoyed Getting Stomped with a Smile on His Face.

So, hsm, I doubt our local TO would adapt such a system for more than a month's trial.

I do agree, it *does* place restrictions. But, that's the point. The purpose to to dilute power lists and reduce spam.

I own, and thoroughly enjoy tau. I ran the Douche/Sight FarBag list, to great fun.

Although, like I stated, and you pointed out, Drop Pod lists and DE would get a thorough colonoscopy. ... ya know, none of the emoticons fits that comment.

Brothererekose wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I do say do nothing, Comp just places unfair restrictions on players. In tau most of my Fast Attack and troops Suck. But my elites and heavy support are great. You will end up forcing me to take ore of those, and less of my good units. I say dont place stupid, arbitary restrictions on units that end up doing nothing but hamstringing armies.
Or better yet, your DE example. DE can only survive in their vehicles, they cannot survives out of them.

For a long time, the local tourney has had a simple Thumbs Up or Down vote for fav army. This year, the TO has explored different formatting.

Most of the tourneys haven't had any comp. Just Overall, Best General, Best PAint and Best Guy Who Enjoyed Getting Stomped with a Smile on His Face.

So, hsm, I doubt our local TO would adapt such a system for more than a month's trial.

I do agree, it *does* place restrictions. But, that's the point. The purpose to to dilute power lists and reduce spam.

I own, and thoroughly enjoy tau. I ran the Douche/Sight FarBag list, to great fun.

Although, like I stated, and you pointed out, Drop Pod lists and DE would get a thorough colonoscopy. ... ya know, none of the emoticons fits that comment.

That's not true. This one fits.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This will just create more problems than it solves

Other than the flaw I pointed out?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
and the same people spamming certain units will figure out how to break the comped system.

If a penalty/bonus element were added, as John suggested, then yeah, I could see TFG pushing the system.

But, I thought this was pretty air tight. Simple FoC restrictions, no points in scoring for this Comp "System". Maybe it's more of a Composition Limit a TO could apply to a tourney.

The only problem with your comp format is the that the codices are not balanced based upon FoC choices so placing the limit based upon FoC isn't really fair to all the books. Some codices have huge and diverse Troops and Elites sections some don't. The system you're suggesting doesn't take the internal balance of each codex across the force org chart into account. While the only problem I see it is a huge problem.

Each book has *one* decent choice per FA, E and HS. Can you make the case for say, 4 books?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
... but you can take 2 for a small negative to your comp score. This way you can't take 3 awesome Elites or Heavies but you can still take 2 of them for a small "fee".

Oh, I wouldn't even bother with a negative/ penalty element. Just a simple FoC allowance. No voting or points to calculate. Done.

The purpose to is to thin spam, and correspondingly, dilute more powerful builds.

But it doesn't reduce spam. You've placed no limitation on the number of troops choices which can then be spammed into oblivion by books with good troops options which will now be the dominant books under your format.

Okay, well, reduction of the full 6 troops is easily done. Knock it down to 4 or 5. Still, could you cite a couple examples?

Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Brothererekose wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
This will just create more problems than it solves

Other than the flaw I pointed out?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
and the same people spamming certain units will figure out how to break the comped system.

If a penalty/bonus element were added, as John suggested, then yeah, I could see TFG pushing the system.

But, I thought this was pretty air tight. Simple FoC restrictions, no points in scoring for this Comp "System". Maybe it's more of a Composition Limit a TO could apply to a tourney.

The only problem with your comp format is the that the codices are not balanced based upon FoC choices so placing the limit based upon FoC isn't really fair to all the books. Some codices have huge and diverse Troops and Elites sections some don't. The system you're suggesting doesn't take the internal balance of each codex across the force org chart into account. While the only problem I see it is a huge problem.

Each book has *one* decent choice per FA, E and HS. Can you make the case for say, 4 books?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brothererekose wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
... but you can take 2 for a small negative to your comp score. This way you can't take 3 awesome Elites or Heavies but you can still take 2 of them for a small "fee".

Oh, I wouldn't even bother with a negative/ penalty element. Just a simple FoC allowance. No voting or points to calculate. Done.

The purpose to is to thin spam, and correspondingly, dilute more powerful builds.

But it doesn't reduce spam. You've placed no limitation on the number of troops choices which can then be spammed into oblivion by books with good troops options which will now be the dominant books under your format.

Okay, well, reduction of the full 6 troops is easily done. Knock it down to 4 or 5. Still, could you cite a couple examples?

Sure thing.

Necrons: HS Annihilation Barge, Doomscythe, Spyder. Fast Attack scarabs, wraiths.

CSM: Fast attack Spawn, Bikers, Heldrakes. Heavy support Havoks, Maulerfiends, Oblits.

Daemons: Elites Fiends and Beasts to a lesser extent. Fast Attack Hounds, screamers, drones, seekers. Heavy Support Soulgrinders and Daemon Princes.

Eldar: Elites Firedragons, wraith guard. Fast Attack Warp Spiders, Crimson Hunters. Heavy Support Fire Prism, War Walkers, Wraith Knights.

Space Marines: Elites Sternguard, TH/SS termites, Ironclads. Fast Attack Land Speeders, Bikes, Stormtalons, Assault Marines (no JP in dp with double flames running salamanders ). Heavy Support Devastators, Centurion Devastators, Thundefire Cannon, Hunter/Stalker.

To name a few. Armies with multiple good troops? Space Marines, Eldar, Daemons, IG, Necrons...

I'm confused. Are the citations above cases for where an army can still come up with a crushing TFG list? Even with the 4 units of FA, E or HS (but no more than two per) limit?

If yes, then sorry, I wasn't clear.

Could you make the case where one (or more) army is screwed by the restrictions? On the FA, E & HS front?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
To name a few. Armies with multiple good troops? Space Marines, Eldar, Daemons, IG, Necrons...

I don't see this as an issue. For the most part, you don't *need* more than one good troop choice and having 3 good choices just means less spam.

I musta missed something. Argumentation via forums leaves soo much out ...

This would not work well at all because it is not balanced between the various books at all.

For example I don't feel like it hurts Tau at all.

Oh I want 3 Elites and 3 Heavies...I'll ally with Farsight...look now I can take my Buff Commander, my etherial, 3 Riptides and 3 Broadside teams (or whatever)...oh and transport thing I don't care.

Same with the space marine book, I'll just ally with myself and look really very little on restrictions I get

2HQ

0-8 troops

3 of 3 FOC slots and 1 of another, so I get hurt on transports...

Hurts Daemons tons If I want Heavy Daemon Princes I need a greater daemon HQ, you'll probably see Fateweaver in every Daemon build as the only HQ, because you cannot take multiple heralds so why bother. Guess I might as well run

Fateweaver
2 Princes
Allied CSM Prince
Heldrake...

Looks like lots of fun variety and balance there....

Oh and if I want triple drakes I'll ally with Black Legion done.

Unless you stipulate that you can only ever have 2 of the same unit period. Unless and I'm not sure if you are limiting armies to one unit of each type...which I don't think is very clear.

At which point you hurt armies with fewer selections (especially good Selections) quite a bit

Take sisters...so I only have 2 choices in each slot more or less, and not every one of them is good...

Sorry this does not fix the game, it just rebalances it and comps out legal army rules (what about command squads, 4 heralds in 1 slot etc.) It will create a meta where ever army looks the same because there is a lack of ability to create any variety.

Want to fix the meta you need to get rid of mass ignores cover (which you don't) and Re-rollable 2+ saves (which again you really don't)

Comp requires a council/subjective aspect unless all you want is to shift the bar of what the most powerful armies are. The game is already comped: for instance, you can never field more than six troops.

Even well planned comp systems like DaBoyz don't touch all the bases (ie, jetbike seer council, one of the most abusive lists right now, isn't touched on at all), but they insulate against broken lists via a council that docks for people who they perceive are still breaking the system.

If you want an objective system that will balance the game, it needs to target rules, not units.

IE:
When a unit fails a saving throw and is permitted a reroll, the reroll'ed target number may never be better than a 4+ (now you've brought screamer and jet stars back to more reasonable)

The Ignores Cover USR reduces cover saves to a 5+ that cannot be improved by any means.

Failed grounding tests may not be rerolled by any means.

Etc.

A few small tweaks to the base rules will prevent the overpowering or game changing/ignoring nature of "broken" builds, instead of using comp (changing the game just as dramatically) to simply reset the bar of what is and isn't a powerful army. By tweaking rules, you limit how powerful any army can become (as in the above examples where 2+/3+ rerollable saves have been eliminated, the ignores cover USR has been weakened, etc).


Reiteration that comp can work alright, but it requires application of things like DaBoyz's veteran comp council, etc, in addition to whatever arbitrary (even if well thought out) restrictions you apply.

Completely Agree with MVB on this one. If you want game balance you need to address broken rules/aspects of the game, not just retrict units.

I might change the rules differently than he does, but address the same problems. (Also redact heldrake FAQ, among a couple other possible changes)

But it goes a long way toward balancing the game.

Brothererekose wrote:
I'm confused. Are the citations above cases for where an army can still come up with a crushing TFG list? Even with the 4 units of FA, E or HS (but no more than two per) limit?

If yes, then sorry, I wasn't clear.

Could you make the case where one (or more) army is screwed by the restrictions? On the FA, E & HS front?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
To name a few. Armies with multiple good troops? Space Marines, Eldar, Daemons, IG, Necrons...

I don't see this as an issue. For the most part, you don't *need* more than one good troop choice and having 3 good choices just means less spam.

I musta missed something. Argumentation via forums leaves soo much out ...

The cited books and units were to show that the most powerful books, Tau excepted because I don't own that codex for reference, are unaffected by your comp system. Which means the most effected books would be those you're trying to comp back into viability. That's just counter productive.

Also MVB makes an excellent point.

Were I trying to fix balance (comp) the current meta I would start with the following.

1.) The Grimoir of true Names can only buff the “Daemon” (5+) invulnerable save.

2.) Serpent Shield – Change Ignores Cover to ignores Jink

3.)Markerlights- Change spend 2 charges to give shooting attack ignores cover to -1 cover for each light spent. In addition marker Lights cannot be fired in overwatch.

4.)Vector Strike- Change Ignores cover to ignores jink

5.)Heldrake – redact 360 degree arc ruling. Heldrake has a 90 degree arc of sight, measured from the head.

6.)Change Fortune – Models in thisUnit may ignore a failed saves on a 4+

7.)Barrage – while cover is determined from the center of the blast, wounds are still removed from the model closest to the firing unit.

8.)Artillery – additional Crew do not benefit from the toughness of the gun.

9.)Hit and run is taken on the majority initiative of a squad.

10.)Tau Drones do not count as models for determining unit size.

Breng77 wrote:
Were I trying to fix balance (comp) the current meta I would start with the following.

1.) The Grimoir of true Names can only buff the “Daemon” (5+) invulnerable save.

2.) Serpent Shield – Change Ignores Cover to ignores Jink

3.)Markerlights- Change spend 2 charges to give shooting attack ignores cover to -1 cover for each light spent. In addition marker Lights cannot be fired in overwatch.

4.)Vector Strike- Change Ignores cover to ignores jink

5.)Heldrake – redact 360 degree arc ruling. Heldrake has a 90 degree arc of sight, measured from the head.

6.)Change Fortune – Models in thisUnit may ignore a failed saves on a 4+

7.)Barrage – while cover is determined from the center of the blast, wounds are still removed from the model closest to the firing unit.

8.)Artillery – additional Crew do not benefit from the toughness of the gun.

9.)Hit and run is taken on the majority initiative of a squad.

10.)Tau Drones do not count as models for determining unit size.

Rather than take this off course, I'd rather push further discussion here to either another thread or to PM. I think a lot of those aren't necessary for balance, and/or are too specific (also, tweaking the ignores cover on serpent shield and vector strike by almost completely eliminating the rules is probably a fail; whereas ignoring the issue of the Trick Commander's Ignore Cover is probably also a fail; it would be easier / simpler per above to simply have Ignores Cover reduce a cover save to an unmodifiable 5+ ... especially since things like Jink inherently avoid damage through evasion, not cover).

Wow the C word has been popping up a lot recently. I think Goatboys BoLS post hit home when he said he played an army that was unfun for him and his opponents.

Yes, all us tourney goers want to compete, but at the end of the day it's still a hobby. One hobbies become unfun, we tend to lose interest and move on.

While GW has done us huge favors over the past year with rapid codex, supplement, and model releases, the battle brother and supplement ally ability is turning the game into combo-hammer. More and more lists are coming up with ways to create immortal deathstars or ways to ignore core mechanics and remove models with unforeseen efficiency.

While I agree comp is a great tool to assist people in maintaining enjoyment of the hobby, I feel online discussions are mostly a bad idea. You draw out the comp haters and armchair generals who will take a hard line and defend it from their keyboard with unflinching rage.

This doesn't change the fact that gamers across the spectrum are having less fun because of the super competitive lists that are emerging. People have to realize at some point that they are hurting their hobby with the choices they are making.

Though I'm not "one of them" I live in the land of DaBoyz. We haven't had a judged comp event all year at our monthly events, yet none of the "big offender" lists have shown up. I haven't seen a single army with more than 1 riptide. The closest thing to a screamer star had 1 herald and no fateweaver. Not a single player has brought out a jetseer council. In fact I'm the closest "offender" with my unoptimized beast pack with a spiritseer, farseer on foot, and the baron. Never even seen a triple heldrake list, ATSKNF blob squad, or anything else the internet competitive scene has told us is good. Maybe that's not a big deal to you, but think about it. What kind of armies would you build and enjoy playing if you never had to fear the 2++ rerollable deathstars, o'vesa-star, jetseer-star, triple drake, triptide, or similar lists?

What's the point? We make our own meta. DaBoyz have ruled the region for so long that "netlists" haven't reared their ugly heads. For the most part, players show moderation and self censorship and respect the fun-level of themselves and their opponents.

My suggestion is this: Don't discuss it on dakka or BoLS or wherever. The comp discussion in these places actually does more harm than good. People will tell you you're stupid or comp is dumb or you're a bad person for suggesting such a thing. Discuss it on your local forums, blogs, or store sites. Talk it over with your peers and TO's. Lead by example and tone down your own lists first, and twist your friend's arms. Make it fun to see who can do the best with a "highlander list". Set the new trend yourself and don't let peer pressure or fear of losing lead you back to the un-fun immortal lists that table people in 3 turns.

Despite the comp hate, here is some interesting info: DaBoyz GT 2012 had no comp and brought in about 88 players. DaBoyz GT 2013 has comp (0-2 max, 4 flyers max, unique chars in primary or allied only, not both) and has more players already registered than last year with 4 weeks still to go. Andrew Gonyo, Tony Kopach, Justin Cook, and a slew of other GT finalists are already signed up. If that's not a shining endorsement of comp I don't know what is.

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Despite the comp hate, here is some interesting info: DaBoyz GT 2012 had no comp and brought in about 88 players. DaBoyz GT 2013 has comp (0-2 max, 4 flyers max, unique chars in primary or allied only, not both) and has more players already registered than last year with 4 weeks still to go. Andrew Gonyo, Tony Kopach, Justin Cook, and a slew of other GT finalists are already signed up. If that's not a shining endorsement of comp I don't know what is.

I would only say this is primarily a shining endorsement of DaBoyz, and the people it draws. Last year attendance was down for all the GT's a few months out, b/c of the arrival of 6th Edition. DaBoyz more or less runs an awesome show and they're awesome people (and I know you know this, I follow your blog's GT prep and post for DaBoyz each year to stare at your pretty models).

I'll reiterate also that all of those players will be bringing utterly broken, hyper competitive lists. I can tell you for sure, as I know several of them very personally. Breaking a different FOC is the same as breaking the standard FOC. If you want to see the game get a little more fun for *everyone*, adjust some of the rules and possibilities that unit combos and other things can accomplish, rather than simply giving elite players another way to break a system (Something they've proven quite good at). At DaBoyz each year they have comp, the winning list is always a hyper competitive and utterly broken list within the framework of the tournament itself, piloted by an elite player ... just like at every other tournament anywhere. So it accomplishes different LOOKING lists, but doesn't upturn the ability of top players to smash less-than-top players.

I DO think there's a broad sense of the game having some pretty difficult components to it right now to deal with, and the recent codices ARE ultra powerful, but unless you weaken the impact of rules like Ignores Cover, the ability of Screamers/Jetbike Seer Councils to get re-rollable 2+ saves (which most comp systems don't even touch), etc., you aren't going to actually see the game get any more fun for anyone but those playing Tau/Eldar/Daemons and running the strongest lists they can within the points/FOC allotments of the events they're attending.

PS - to build an admittedly strawman analogy, let's say the new Tyranid codex has a bunch of undercosted Warrior-level beasties with Eternal Warrior all across the board; if you're going to change the game of 40k one way or another, sometimes you may want to look at ... "let's modify how Eternal Warrior works for Nids" ... instead of "Only 3 Troops!" So I'm generally backing up the investigation of ways to help the game's present balance, but standing in fairly firm opposition to doing so with FOC modifications and overly general "Comp."

Yup, MVB has it right, my "screamer star" list I ran at BFS completely ignores (4-2) the DaBoyz comp rubirc...I repeated 1 unit I had 2 heralds of Tzeench, which would be allowed, everything else was non-spammed....still a hard list.

The real thing were talking about here is type of player at type of tournament.
Rouge Trader style tournaments are held to reward the OVERALL Hobbyist.
Grand Tournaments started out as the BIG RTT themed event. They have changed into what we have today because the players that like competitive gaming have nowhere to go since the 'ard Boyz tournaments went away. Those fellas have had their way in the tournament setting for years. TO's are afraid of the terrible tounges on the internet on forums just like this one...afraid that if they get a bad reputation no one will show to thier tournament.
They couldnt be further from the reality of the situation.
For every one 'ard boy style player, there are at least three RTT style players. Maybe we should just make sure that RTT's have Comp and GT's dont, wait a year and see how many internet blogs and sites like this trash or praise the TO's for their efforts...

Breng77 wrote:
Yup, MVB has it right, my "screamer star" list I ran at BFS completely ignores (4-2) the DaBoyz comp rubirc...I repeated 1 unit I had 2 heralds of Tzeench, which would be allowed, everything else was non-spammed....still a hard list.

But comp shouldn't be there to remove every "hard" list. Comp should, if done correctly, either remove or penalize the insane lists we have seen popping up.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
The real thing were talking about here is type of player at type of tournament.
Rouge Trader style tournaments are held to reward the OVERALL Hobbyist.
Grand Tournaments started out as the BIG RTT themed event. They have changed into what we have today because the players that like competitive gaming have nowhere to go since the 'ard Boyz tournaments went away. Those fellas have had their way in the tournament setting for years. TO's are afraid of the terrible tounges on the internet on forums just like this one...afraid that if they get a bad reputation no one will show to thier tournament.
They couldnt be further from the reality of the situation.
For every one 'ard boy style player, there are at least three RTT style players. Maybe we should just make sure that RTT's have Comp and GT's dont, wait a year and see how many internet blogs and sites like this trash or praise the TO's for their efforts...

This is full of wild conjecture and is highly inaccurate. I can't speak for every TO, but I'd be surprised if any of them are catering their formats specifically to competitive players. I certainly do not. And if we were afraid of terrible tongues on the internet, we wouldn't run events. People tear you a new one behind your back and to your face for every perceived fault, real or imaginary.

I will reiterate, comp does nothing to defray the effectiveness of highly competitive players. It can EASILY dump on more casual players who suddenly find even their "average" list isn't legal due to restrictions targeted at something else happening to impact them.

Regardless, the truth is there are always a few very good players in a local area, and local RTT's traditionally drew all the local player base. These days, the scene is dominated by national and international draw GT events that pull some of the best players from around the country or larger regions reliably ... whether it's the Battle for Salvation and Indy Open at the 50-60 person range, or AdeptiCon or NOVA at the 230-260 person range, these GTs are bringing far more top tier players than the more regional game days and local RTT's ever did. As a result, you've got a much higher concentration of people that - WHATEVER list they use - crush the average player pretty handily. This causes a natural arms race, and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Blaming it on some fanciful idea that TOS who give the vast majority of their prize support and attention to the "average" gamer are secretly in league with noisy asshats on internet forums is ... wasted energy at best.

You can easily prove this, too. Look at the army diversity from among just the LOCALS at NOVA, Feast of Blades, BFS, etc., on Torrent of FIre. You'll probably find a great deal more diversity in terms of army selection %'s from among the locals than you do from the events as a whole ... that's b/c all the people traveling tend to be more into the game, more intense about it, more into it, and often are better players (At least as a function of %), and so are part of the natural arms race. Local RTT's always drew the locals, so you can compare them to the "local only" distributions of today quite easily. It's really not about the formats. It's not like you won't see tons of Eldar, Tau, etc., bringing the most broken lists they can within the restrictions to DaBoyz or other comp events.

Reeling this back in ... I'll continue to advocate for investigating ways to change fundamental rules in such a way that you limit the ability of ANY list to gain too powerful a combo or damage output, while keeping the FOC/basic army building restrictions "vanilla" for the sake of average players, and the sake of peoples' pockets. MOST players who attend events are happy to bring the same rough army list they bring to everything else, or play with locally. MOST players don't invest hundreds or thousands of dollars in tweaking their army to the current meta. Comp can very readily encourage those latter players to yet again invest money in best breaking the format, but can ALSO require the average players to go out and spend money changing their "every day" army in order to fit it into a new FOC that was adjusted to target the powergamer (which it fails to effectively target), and incidentally leaves a bunch of average gamers in its wake.

The way I look at it is, if you were to make the painting and the sportsmanship scores worth 45% each, and placement in the tournament itself worth 10%, you would have one heck of a games weekend.

"Oh, your army men look fabulous! Would you like me to get you a coffee? Of course you can deep strike that Fortress of Redemption, what a lovely idea!"

In all seriousness, I think that it would be a fun setup.

SBG wrote:
The way I look at it is, if you were to make the painting and the sportsmanship scores worth 45% each, and placement in the tournament itself worth 10%, you would have one heck of a games weekend.

"Oh, your army men look fabulous! Would you like me to get you a coffee? Of course you can deep strike that Fortress of Redemption, what a lovely idea!"

In all seriousness, I think that it would be a fun setup.

While that's fairly extreme, there's already a popularized format being used at numerous GT's where one of two scoring sets are used for placement in the tournament itself - 50% appearance / 50% competitive, and 33% appearance, 33% sportsmanship, 33% competitive.
Part of the problem is the "Internets" places an enormous amount of attention not on "look at those gorgeous armies that finished near the top of army judging at that big GT," but instead on "WHO WON ALL THEIR GAMES AND WHAT WAS THEIR LIST?" Both things should be rewarded AT the tournament, among many other things, and most of the big GT's do just that (Which is why players come back to them, they grow in popularity, etc.), but prospective attendees most especially see a response electronically that seems to imply the ONLY focus is on the guys who are curbstomping people. It's a web culture we could all afford to work on changing ... and certainly in a balanced way. It is just as unacceptable to gak on people who like to play to win ... as it is to gak on more casual players. All styles of play and enjoyment of our hobby deserve to be given their just due .... and certainly you can do all of that within the same events.

Not even when WHFB was completely and totally broken in 7th edition did major tournaments outright ban people from taking too much of something in their list. For those unfamiliar with the 7th ed WHFB meta Deamons and Vampire counts made up about 90% of the armies in a competitive tournament, and most of it was deamons. Even then GTs didn't ban spam in their comp systems, they instead had a numerical score for comp and included all soft scores including comp into the final score.

6th ed 40k has the most diverse and healthy meta that I can ever remember 40k having, and my memory goes back to 2nd edition.

That being said I like the idea of a comprehensive 7th ed WHFB style comp system, but only for the sole purpose of determining 1st day match ups. All players in the same W-L-D bracket use comp to determine who plays who until the 2nd day of a GT then Swiss or whatever.

When I say individualized I mean really individualized. A few examples.

Too many wave serpents/night scythes and the penalty gets harsher and harsher the more it's spammed

Too many Tzeench heralds in an army that has screamers and the penalty gets harsher and harsher as the number of psyker levels grows. Increases more if fateweaver is included.

Tau buff commander takes a hit, and a harsher hit if battle brother allies is included. Take an even larger hit if there is a 300+ point allied dakka unit

Allied DA librarian in an IG list comp hit, larger if he brings the PFG. Take another hit proportional to the most expensive IG unit he can buff so a triple leman russ executioner squad would be a larger hit than a pair of basilisks.

Have a Dlord no problem no comp hit. Take MSS and sep weave it's a comp hit. Include a unit of wraiths, mss, and sep weave take a bigger comp hit.

Crappy, unpopular, or rarely seen units such as vespids, penal legion, warp talons, sanguinary guard, tomb blades, generate positive comp.

Go to town and knock yourself out. As long as comp only determines round 1 match ups it's all good. Just don't tell players that they can not bring their army or include comp in the final score.

I think the major problem with 6th is that it is pretty much fairly balanced across the board, with some glaring exceptions. And those exceptions are so bad that they're not only not fun to play against if you get steamrolled, but also not fun to play against if you win. Playing against a Screamerstar sucks. Apart from the moment when the Daemon player realizes that his unbeatable army is about to lose the game, the 150-180 minutes you spend on the game feel like a chore.

So, for comp, I argue that we drop the whole constitutional mindset. Everyone seems to always have approached comp in the way of not specifically nerfing the problematic builds, but clearly intending to. And that always has one of two consequences (or sometimes both): failure (i.e., the top build avoids comp) or unintended consequences (like screwing over some guy's cool but completely uncompetitive army).

I say stop beating around the bush and remove the unfun units/builds, and accept the fact that some builds are still going to be superior, but at least not to the point where they just act like a black hole, sucking up all the fun.