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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/27 07:04:03
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Disguised Speculo
|
It's still a Strawman fallacy, regardless how used. Seriousness and obviousness are not well conveyed via Internet Posting, sir. You need a lot more emoticons and pauses, and use of italics, ellipses and such.
Only the practicality of the statement matters, not the technicality. Of course, I can imagine a grammar teacher would think otherwise... guess it must be a 'non-grammar teachers' thing.
Seriously though, I'd never use it. And I play Orks. Nobody would benefit more from this rule than a Green Tide player.
People get butthurt when GW nerfs various stuff in a codex update or an FAQ. It happens. I think of it as a utilitarian thing and quite frankly from a position of self awarded moral superiority - Eldar players who would exploit the Serpent and, IMO, ruin the game, can get butthurt while the rest of us benefit and I'd be ok with that.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/27 07:04:36
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/27 09:15:27
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
Brothererekose wrote: Dakkamite wrote:Its only a strawman fallacy if its a serious point and not an obvious jab at the implausibility of your comp system.
It's still a Strawman fallacy, regardless how used. Seriousness and obviousness are not well conveyed via Internet Posting, sir. You need a lot more emoticons and pauses, and use of italics, ellipses and such.
Dakkamite wrote:If a comp system craps all over so many other perfectly fine playstyles, then its irrepairably flawed IMO. Why ban 3+ trukks, 3+ rhinos etc when you can just say "cut the wave serpent spam you dicks"
As has been mentioned a few times ITT, we need a scalpel not a sledgehammer.
Because then the Eldar players would feel put upon, while the SM & ork owners snicker up their sleeves.
Fair-play for all, ya see.
And, no, I disagree, a scalpel slicing this codex here or that unit there, will have someone butt-hurt. And it's not a hammer. Poor analogy, IMHO. I say "a blanket" ... one Rule to Rule them all and in Darkness bind ... errr something.
Perhaps, it's more an American thing: You should not screw over one guy. That's discrimination. If you're going to pass a law screwing somebody, be fair; Screw 'em all.
Thus my (suggested) "blanket" limitations; no more than two units of any kind, except troops.
Anyone else to address, this, seriously, is it really that too horrible to try?

The issue with blanket limitations is that it is not fair for all some books have a much wider variety of good builds and choices than others. It also won't effect all players evenly so some people will still end up pissed... IMO if you are going to piss some people off you might as well try to effect each army equitably not equally.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/27 16:44:29
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Breng77 wrote:The issue with blanket limitations is that it is not fair for all some books have a much wider variety of good builds and choices than others.
Agreed. But I feel that the codex specific, unit specific targeting is too grossly prejudicial ... for reasons stated a couple posts above.
Remember, guys, if people think that one is being persecuted for whatever reason, it smacks of favorite and prejudice.
Not okay in my heart. I'll Copy&Paste from above:
"You should not screw over one guy. That's discrimination. If you're going to pass a law screwing somebody, be fair; Screw 'em all." Be fair.
Sure it will. Everyone is limited to 2 of a kind.
Breng77 wrote:so some people will still end up pissed... IMO if you are going to piss some people off you might as well try to effect each army equitably not equally.
That's the flaw. A comp system should not be, "Okay, we're going to hose (current "broken codex's") OverPowered issues, by banning them from today's RTT. So, unit X is out from book 1, and units Y and Z are not allowed from book 2. You may only have one Hellturkey, etc."
Breng, Dakamite, would you guys care to provide what sort of 'comp' limitations you *do* think are " equitable"?
I don't think it can be done, not without so much subjectivity as to be favoritism, and thus prejudicial, and (slippery slope) leading to (for 40k) a 'racist' like approach to hobbling a specific unit or codex.
|
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/27 18:51:35
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel
|
I think you would be far better off with a point style comp system and only allow so many points, the. Value different units in each codex (and multiples) based on perceived strength voted on by a committee.
So not all dedicated transports are treated the same a rhino is not equivalent to a wave serpent in any way.
Is this difficult sure, and it would need a lot of play testing and work if you wanted to do it, but if is far more fair and equitable than a blanket restriction that treats all books the same,
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/27 19:46:39
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I think the idea of not doing a better comp approach because you worry people will think you're being unfair (i.e. restricting wave serpents but not trukks) is a little silly. People are going to think you're being unfair in ALL cases, b/c our hobby is full of that type of outlook ... whether you DON'T have comp, have blanket comp, or have the scalpel of precise comp, you're still going to have people upset in ALL CASES. So ... don't take a weaker or less effective comp knowingly due to fear of what's going to happen no matter what.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 02:11:46
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Breng - I have received input on points based systems. Worth thinking about.
Brandt - Yeah. Yer damned, regardless of the approach, huh?
- - - -
Overall, a good discussion. Since *I* don't organize the tourneys at my FLGS or anywhere, this has been great as an academic discussion. At some point in the future, I might try and persuade some players to try it (or a point system that I've been sent).
Until then, I'll continue to play in unrestricted tourneys (which I've always been okay with). For the next one: KingFisher Taudar, with a WraithKnight, Wave Serpents. KingFisher being the MSS/C&CN IgnoresCover/TwinLinked team of four AP2 & AP1 (PR/ FB) Crisis Suits.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/28 02:17:21
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 02:24:21
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Disguised Speculo
|
Breng, Dakamite, would you guys care to provide what sort of 'comp' limitations you *do* think are "equitable"?
I have no idea, like I said I'm here to get comp ideas for an event I'm helping to run.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 02:59:58
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Brothererekose wrote:That's the flaw. A comp system should not be, "Okay, we're going to hose (current "broken codex's") OverPowered issues, by banning them from today's RTT. So, unit X is out from book 1, and units Y and Z are not allowed from book 2. You may only have one Hellturkey, etc."
No, that's exactly what a comp system should be. If unit X is a problem you deal with unit X specifically, you don't ban or restrict an entire category of units that includes X just so you can pretend that you aren't really targeting that specific unit. Otherwise you aren't fixing the problem. If Tau are better than Orks and you nerf both armies then Tau will still be better than Orks, except both players will be frustrated by the arbitrary comp rules they have to follow.
Note that this is how MTG does it: if there's a balance problem that is damaging competitive play to the point that something has to be done WOTC bans the bare minimum specific cards to fix it. What you're talking about is doing the equivalent of banning the entire set the problem card is in, and that's obviously insane.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/28 05:36:43
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 03:44:49
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Peregrine wrote:Brothererekose wrote:That's the flaw. A comp system should not be, "Okay, we're going to hose (current "broken codex's") OverPowered issues, by banning them from today's RTT. So, unit X is out from book 1, and units Y and Z are not allowed from book 2. You may only have one Hellturkey, etc."
No, that's exactly what a comp system should be. If unit X is a problem you deal with unit X specifically, you don't ban an entire category of units that includes X just so you can pretend that you aren't really targeting that specific unit.
There would be no banning of "entire category of units" ... just limiting them.
To 2 each.
Have you misread, that?  It is a comp system, to eliminate spam; Not to disallow certain units, so those that continue to espouse that approach, no thanks here.
Peregrine wrote:Otherwise you aren't fixing the problem. If Tau are better than Orks and you nerf both armies then Tau will still be better than Orks, except both players will be frustrated by the arbitrary comp rules they have to follow.
I can see that the comp *fix* of selective elimination would bring balance ... however, you run into subjectivity, and a greater degree of butt-hurt. Let's say the WraithKnight is player Bob's bane-of-existence. He hates WKs, and rails constantly about them as he can't seem to kill them. Fran's is a ChaosSM player and she snickers at the WK model as she moves her Daemon Prince with Black Mace onto the table. Fred the Venom-spam player snickers at WKs, too.
While Bob wil be happy if the WK was crossed out, Fran and Fred would shrug their shoulders and wonder What's the Big Deal? While WK owner Mitch is fuming.
My system (really just a 2 per typ unit Max) won't toss the WK out, just limit its use.
Peregrine wrote:Note that this is how MTG does it: if there's a balance problem that is damaging competitive play to the point that something has to be done WOTC bans the bare minimum specific cards to fix it. What you're talking about is doing the equivalent of banning the entire set the problem card is in, and that's obviously insane.
And M:tG is not remotely comparable to 40k. It is often brought up in thread discussions to compare to 40k, 40k tourneys and such, but the games are just sooo vastly different.
People play with several dozen of cards in a deck. In 40k, you have a dozen units. Taking out one broken card in M:tG is 1.667% of the 60 card deck. Taking out a HellTurkey or WraithKnight or MSS/C&CN Crisis Suit can be from 9% to 15% or more per 1500+ point list. Plus, WotC are a far superior entity for staying on top of FAQs and being involved in the tourney scene. GW is a turtle that laid her eggs, buried 'em, and headed off for the Gulf Stream leaving her rules and books to their own fate.
Not a comparable argument, Peregrine. Thanks for chiming in, though.
|
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 05:34:41
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
You're banning entire categories of lists though. And the previous post should say "ban or restrict".
Have you misread, that?  It is a comp system, to eliminate spam; Not to disallow certain units, so those that continue to espouse that approach, no thanks here.
You're defending comp as a way of improving balance, but all you do is eliminate spam. And spam has nothing to do with balance, which is why your approach will always fail.
I can see that the comp *fix* of selective elimination would bring balance ... however, you run into subjectivity, and a greater degree of butt-hurt. Let's say the WraithKnight is player Bob's bane-of-existence. He hates WKs, and rails constantly about them as he can't seem to kill them. Fran's is a ChaosSM player and she snickers at the WK model as she moves her Daemon Prince with Black Mace onto the table. Fred the Venom-spam player snickers at WKs, too.
While Bob wil be happy if the WK was crossed out, Fran and Fred would shrug their shoulders and wonder What's the Big Deal? While WK owner Mitch is fuming.
This is why comp decisions should be made by experienced players and only after indisputable levels of evidence establishing that there is a problem and something needs to be done for the overall health of the game. Some random guy whining about how overpowered Wraithknights are gets ignored just like every other random whiner.
My system (really just a 2 per typ unit Max) won't toss the WK out, just limit its use.
Why should it be limited? You still haven't established this.
And, more importantly, why should the IG player who wants to take three units of rough riders be forced to give one up so you can pretend to be "even" when you ban 3-Wraithknight/Riptide lists?
And M:tG is not remotely comparable to 40k. It is often brought up in thread discussions to compare to 40k, 40k tourneys and such, but the games are just sooo vastly different.
You're right. MTG's tournament rules are made by professional game designers and consistent across the world. 40k's tournament rules are often written by people who don't really understand what they're dong, which is the case here.
People play with several dozen of cards in a deck. In 40k, you have a dozen units. Taking out one broken card in M:tG is 1.667% of the 60 card deck. Taking out a HellTurkey or WraithKnight or MSS/C&CN Crisis Suit can be from 9% to 15% or more per 1500+ point list.
You have a deck of 60 cards, but if your deck uses a broken card you almost always take the maximum four copies, so it's really 6.66%. And then if you consider the fact that you've got about 25 lands in that deck banning a single card takes out 11.4% of your deck. So yes, they are equivalent.
Plus, WotC are a far superior entity for staying on top of FAQs and being involved in the tourney scene. GW is a turtle that laid her eggs, buried 'em, and headed off for the Gulf Stream leaving her rules and books to their own fate.
What does that have to do with anything? I'll strongly agree that GW sucks compared to WOTC, but that has nothing to do with whether comp should be based on solid evidence and do the bare minimum required to fix the game. A good 40k comp system might make more changes than a MTG banned list, but it should follow the same principles in deciding which changes to make.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/28 05:36:29
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 08:01:48
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade
|
Brothererekose wrote:There would be no banning of "entire category of units" ... just limiting them. To 2 each.
I don't think that you're seeing that while limiting Riptides to two may sound great. Limiting an opposing player of his Codex's prefered method of dealing with them busts the balance even worse. How does limiting the Tau player to two Riptides equal the limitation enforced upon the Space Marine player who prefers to use Drop Pod squads to deal with them? Not only are they limited in the number they can take, they're also decreased in effectiveness by reducing the first turn DPA to one squad in a pod.
The soft scores will remain exactly that so long as they continue to carry little to no weight in the results of a tournament. You can't continue to run tournaments where games won/lost is the greatest deciding factor in who places/wins loot in the tournament. If composition, painting and good sportsmanship are what you're looking to have show up at your tourney tables, you can't keep giving the awards to the guys who show up with lists designed solely to win.
Divide the points EQUALLY across the Big Four categories of Generalship, Composition, Painting, Sportsmanship and I think you'll find that those lists that leave you "butthurt" will stop showing up altogether. Players can figure out how to game ANY system. So give them a system that encourages them to bring fully painted armies that are both fun to play and play against whilst not being a rude SoB who only cares about winning.
Limiting a player to two rhino's and two immolators to cart around his army of flamer armed Sisters isn't that system.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/28 08:02:34
A ton of armies and a terrain habit...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 08:18:08
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
dracpanzer wrote:Divide the points EQUALLY across the Big Four categories of Generalship, Composition, Painting, Sportsmanship and I think you'll find that those lists that leave you "butthurt" will stop showing up altogether.
Yeah, they'll stop showing up, along with everyone else. Soft scores are a terrible idea and don't belong anywhere near a competitive game. Composition really means "I arbitrarily give you a score based on how much I like your army", which inevitably leads to angry players who disagree with your assessment. Painting has nothing to do with list power, since even the most overpowered lists can be well painted, and really means "if you can afford to get your army pro painted you get extra points". And sportsmaship is the worst of them. Some players will automatically give zero points for sportsmanship because it gives them the best chance of winning the tournament, and others will give poor sportsmanship scores every time they lose (since their ego can't handle admitting they just got out-played it must be a WAAC list or TFG). The end result is your "winner" has nothing to do with who is best at playing the game and you might as well drop the ranking and prizes entirely and just have a "come play lots of 40k" day at your store.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 12:53:48
Subject: Re:Comp format?
|
 |
Stealthy Sanctus Slipping in His Blade
|
Peregrine wrote:Yeah, they'll stop showing up, along with everyone else. Soft scores are a terrible idea...
Although I'd agree with you in most tourney formats "soft scores" aren't what most players are looking for. Speaking to the meat of the thread, my point is that if you're going to include ANY soft scores in your LGS tourney then the only way to balance it, and create the no "butthurt" list the OP was speaking of, is to include all of them. Our LGS has done so, and the only players who have stopped showing up are exactly the ones who were the most guilty of bringing unpainted netlists with a craptastic farq you attitude. We don't pretend to be aiming for a GT style game, and certainly don't want too.
My point about comp, painting, and sportsmanship is that a TO can create a system that will force players to adhere to it if they have any intention of doing well. Those who want to adhere to the so-called "elite" mindset that winning is everything and painting, comp, and attitude have nothing to do with competition probably won't like it and can go somewhere else. Post up comp rules that do not exclude anything, but do reward diversity, the fielding of "terrible" units, and embracing the entirety of a list rather than the three units the internet tells you are the only ones to play. By all means play what you like, but know going in what "comp" points you'll get by your unit choices. It's up to the player to balance effectiveness on the table against an army score card.
Painting is judged primarily by the TO and staff, grading on completion, basing, theme and the like rather than strict artistic ability. Players only get to cast votes for "Best Painted" which is purely a separate category, once your army wins this honor, it is never again eligible to do so at any subsequent tourneys. You get no extra points for being "master painted" over "completely painted three colors and based" so it takes all the motives of the players out of it
We grade sportsmanship on a scale, least to most enjoyable game that you had during the tournament. Combine both players scores for each game and average them. You can lowball one opponent, if you're of a mind too, but the averaging of scores has generally kept this to a minimum. Usually, those players who stink up the table and tick each other off will suffer doubly so it behooves players to play nice.
As far as generalship goes, these points are generally the only ones where players are capable of changing their standings significantly. So the competition is certainly there to win. But with equal weighting, if they've gone off the deepend with their list, brought unpainted models, or tick off all their opponents (getting worst game from every opponent) then they won't do well no matter how many games they win. It behooves them to bring a fun list, paint their figs, and play nice. Hopefully then, all things being equal in the "soft scores", the games will be all that matters. But since they should be fun games against fun armies of painted figs, that's all great, right?
Although we enjoy it, probably isn't for everyone. But for those who are looking to avoid the "competitive over all else" which I believe the OP was hoping to avoid, it's certainly an alternative far more successful than a system that just says ban this or that because someone thinks its unfair. If you're looking to play in GT's against whatever netlist is running around breaking things that month, have fun being frustrated waiting for GW to give 40k a tourney balance fix. Since they don't think of it as a tourney game anymore, you might be waiting a long time.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/28 12:57:23
A ton of armies and a terrain habit...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/10/28 13:00:26
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Swift Swooping Hawk
|
I like the way the Bugeater GT does things for their tourney.
They have a few different categories.
They don't pretend to be a RTT.
Tim gives away awards for the top..
Painted
Sportsman..and BTW - if someone hands out a 1 or zero, judges investigate and both players are reminded of that scores like that aren't indicative of the real game and if another low score is handed out or received that player is asked to leave.
General - best record with highest battle points total
Sweepstakes - best TOTAL overall score of the tourney.
In 3 tournaments, I've only ever encountered one really WAAC list...necrons wraith and flyer spam...otherwise my opponents were all pretty fun guys to game with.
Its not really a matter of having to "nerf" or limit one guys list over another, in my mind its more about knowing what your getting into before going there.
In an RTT - we should expect some sort of comp system.
In a GT - don't expect a comp system
That's all, I'm not saying any one play style is better than another, just that players need to know what they are getting into and have the correct frame of mind in order to enjoy the day.
|
-3500+
-1850+
-2500+
-3500+
--3500+ |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/03 14:14:30
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Death-Dealing Devastator
Essex, UK
|
Comp can't really be looked at until most of the 6th ed books are out. Tau were meant to be stupidly broken with 9 Broadsides and Missile Drones.. that lasted about 6 weeks.
Eldar are broken with 6+ Wave Serpents.... But if they go second vs White Scars they will be ruined.
The meta shifts so quickly that something which may be broken in November will be old news come January. Who cares about Wraithwing now?
Making the effort to properly terrain up your boards helps incredibly against these 'Ignores Cover' spam armies. LoS blocking terrain is more important than any comp.
Because there will always be someone who can break comp with some broken and overpowered combination based on the current comped lists. And then people will need to comp those comped lists... and it will never end.
The reason why you need comp in Fantasy is twofold... gak is WAY more broken in Fantasy and having proper terrain doesn't really balance the game.
Although that being said, GW did mess up when blessings cannot be dispelled. And 2++ re-rollables shouldn't exist anywhere ever
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/03 18:40:57
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Irked Necron Immortal
Boston, Massachusetts
|
AlexRae wrote:
Although that being said, GW did mess up when blessings cannot be dispelled. And 2++ re-rollables shouldn't exist anywhere ever
This is my only real complaint about 6th ed. They're incredibly powerful and not available to every army.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/11/03 18:48:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/03 20:01:03
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
AlexRae wrote:Comp can't really be looked at until most of the 6th ed books are out.
Then comp can never be looked at... GW haven't managed to get every army updated for a single edition since 3rd.
The change in the meta will slow down as GW's release schedule does.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/04 04:05:03
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Death-Dealing Devastator
|
The Comp system needs to be managed and run by TOs that have a pair. The idea that any system can possibly make the game balanced is a pipe dream. GW is in business to sell models and they seem to be doing that. They have the strategy of making a new release powerful and thus make people want to buy them, lots of them. I remember getting into MTG and finding out that you needed tons of money to buy the OP cards in order to compete. They came up with booster draft and that made it fair again. Their sets are balanced and when a new set comes out the last is dropped. I believe GW will never change their business plan so the TOs have the task of finding RTT systems that attract players. I am lucky because my FLG, GE, is run by a TO that is willing to take risks. He is running a cool event about every two or so months, mixed with competive RTTs and fluff RTTs (thank you Travis). I really don't think players need to worry about the systems, just go to the ones that are fun, tell the TOs what you like at the event and hope they listen to wwhat works and toss what is just manturms.
One thing I will do in they next RTT that I am in is to go to the TO and say what I think about the lists that I faced. I remember going to a event were me opponent actually said he just needed this one psychic power out of six, but he got to roll three powers and re roll any one he want and re roll doubles. He then bragged that he got it, I had no chance of winning,but I did making him work for it. I am sure that the next time I see that list I will ask the TO to toss the guy. I did give him a thumbs down and a zero on sportsmanship. I asked him if he was having any fun playing his list and he just shrugged. He ended up losing because he fail to get his 2+ re-rollable save. I just don't understand those gamers, but I do know they are out their and their are a lot of them.
The point should be to bring a fun list and have fun in the games. I think the pressure is on the TO to make cool boards, fun scenarios, and competive formats. We players will just bitch and moan, rarely making any constructive comments. Probably because we have never had to run events and have no clue what it takes. I know about 4 armies pretty well, two more half as well, and the rest I just trust my opponents arn't robbing me blind. We all make mistakes, so I am not talking about that.
To the OP. Casey, I really don't think we need a system at GE. We just need to inform Travis as to the kinds of things we want to do and let his good judgement prevail. I asked for a low point RTT and I got one, several times. We got our fluff tourney so I figure we are in heaven at GE.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/04 04:08:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/04 05:00:50
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
sgtpjbarker wrote:To the OP. Casey, I really don't think we need a system at GE. ...
[snip!]
... so I figure we are in heaven at GE.
I agree. I have no issues with our TO's handling of things, comp-wise, mission-wise or otherwise.
This thread's premise was mostly one thing, an academic exercise, not something I was going to shop to Travis for the tourneys.
*I* might adapt a 2 unit limit for pick up games, for when I know I'm in a casual match up with a baby seal.
|
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/23 01:16:33
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
Lost Carcosa
|
The comp system there change/improve at all since I was in the area? I figure 6th would have pushed some changes?
|
Standing in the light, I see only darkness. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/23 01:57:42
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Marius Xerxes wrote:
The comp system there change/improve at all since I was in the area? I figure 6th would have pushed some changes?
19 days isn't too long for Thread- Necromancy, but MX, why not give ArtFlvrd a PM?
I think this horse was, otherwise, long and well flogged.
|
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/23 16:18:26
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Unhealthy Competition With Other Legions
Lost Carcosa
|
Brothererekose wrote: Marius Xerxes wrote:
The comp system there change/improve at all since I was in the area? I figure 6th would have pushed some changes?
19 days isn't too long for Thread- Necromancy, but MX, why not give ArtFlvrd a PM?
I think this horse was, otherwise, long and well flogged.

Probably the same reason I didn't contact him by phone and ask (we know one another irl). I just didn't think about it, nor look at the date of the last post. Feel free to report me to a mod if I have offended the forum gods, and let them do the lashings if necessary.
|
Standing in the light, I see only darkness. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/11/23 17:28:42
Subject: Comp format?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Marius Xerxes wrote:
Probably the same reason I didn't contact him by phone and ask (we know one another irl). I just didn't think about it, nor look at the date of the last post. Feel free to report me to a mod if I have offended the forum gods, and let them do the lashings if necessary.
Not necessary in the least, reporting or lashing.
|
"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.
"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013
Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic |
|
 |
 |
|