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.
Dude the daemon list you posted is broken. it is just spamming the same two units (demonettes + Flesh Hounds w/ herald) in triplicate and happens to have a pink horror squad. I use a list like this in uncomped games and wreck face. Plus someone already posted the SoB army that is max comp but pretty much unplayable (and Penitent Engines are bad. They are slow, open-topped rhinos how can people not deal with them). These are both examples of this comp system failing to adequately balance their codexes.
I know you would rather believe im a noob or delusional when i say it works because it goes against your preconceived idea that comp is a waste of time and that because a system similar has failed before this one will suffer the same fate but it wouldn't have taken so well as it has in Australia if it wasnt at least better than other comp systems do.
No one here has accused you of being a noob or inexperienced. All I've seen are people posting criticisms of the comp system (if perhaps a bit too aggressively). If you're going to get defensive about it and just shut out everyone by saying "you're just have a bad first impression" then why are you even here?
Also just because a bunch of people are playing it doesn't mean you can't make it better. You should always be striving to fine tune any rules system.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/25 11:06:55
I know you would rather believe im a noob or delusional when i say it works because it goes against your preconceived idea that comp is a waste of time and that because a system similar has failed before this one will suffer the same fate but it wouldn't have taken so well as it has in Australia if it wasnt at least better than other comp systems do.
Victoria, 1 tournament in SA, Qld and the ACT - I would hardly call that taken so well.
Even on WargamerAU, there had been alot of discussion how the comp council says that they are looking for feedback, and when feedback is given its shut down as the council has 'better' ideas. Apparantly under the system; 55 Termagaunts are comped the same as 55 marines (but its ok, because you have an 'expert' Tyranid Player on the council who says that both horde and MC lists are OP.)
Banning the Stompa, but Imperial Knights are fine?
The Khorne Daemonpack is lol worthy - Khorne Spawn; yep - totally OP; better hit them a point.
Also; limiting the detachments/formations (ie 1 detachment and 1 formation, or two formations.) is abit overkill isnt it?
Ok. So just going to pause for a sec. as far as i am aware the US seem to be fairly anti comp. So i am not really surprised that there is negative feedback here. So i want to give you some stats.
In australia the tournament attendance has dropped significantly since 6th edition dropped and tournaments ran no comp. We had massive drop outs of players due to the arms race that is 40k. Regardless of if you like comp or dont like comp in australia players have stopped showing up to no comp events and the events running community comp have been increasing in numbers.
Biggest event in the state of South Australia called terracon had 75ish players at the end of 5th. Then 6th dropped and the scene began to die. It was 50ish players for the next 3 years. The TO for terracon ran community comp last year, we got great feedback and this year it has 100 players signed up. Players that are attending these events are enjoying it.
Canberra's biggest event runs community comp. And almost every event in victoria and south australia has been running community comp. Players are getting back into the game for a number of reasons.
1. Rightly or wrongly people know the score their army will get before they rock up.
2. Army variety has been amazing. Units that you never previously saw at events are being used.
3. BS armies arent in attendance.
Now we do ask for feedback and we do alter the system where appropriate based on feedback. We dont believe we are infallible. What becomes difficult though is when people new to the system pick a handful of units in a vacuum and not in context of armies.
What we are more interested in is what armies you feel are under costed. What armies do you believe are slipping under the community comp radar. The sisters of battle list deliberately tried to hit 20 comp credits and it was over costed. Paddlepop lion is serios about the $100 voucher. The first person to write a list that is UNDER costed by 6 credits or more then you will win a voucher. Anything less than that is hardly broken. It may require tweaks, but hardly broken.
basically in australia we use comp, in the US you dont. We tried not using it and our tournament scene died...
I'd ask if you realised that Vic is not the only place in Aus, but then, your statement speaks for itself. In Australia we use comp? Get over yourself mate.
Peregrine wrote: What, you don't like rolling dice to see how many dice you roll? Why are you such an anti-dice bigot?
Biggest event in the state of South Australia called terracon had 75ish players at the end of 5th. Then 6th dropped and the scene began to die. It was 50ish players for the next 3 years. The TO for terracon ran community comp last year, we got great feedback and this year it has 100 players signed up. Players that are attending these events are enjoying it.
My first big tournament in 5th had almost 200people playing. The same tournament in 7th, with eavily modified with missions, and rules changes and ETC-like comp system. Had under 60 players.
Or an even better example. Non comp WFB did not exist in europe. It was in fact a different game in many senses, with cut slots, banned stuff, spell changes, banned teclis etc.
And it still didn't stop WFB from being dead .
I want to add my 2 cents because I was originally really opposed to this system. In general, I think math comp is a dumb idea that doesn't work at all, it just changes what's filth. For that reason I was really down on community comp. Thought it was a terrible idea being implemented by a bunch of power gamers who didn't understand what comp was really about.
Recently I've done a complete 180 and think its a great idea. I don't play 40k much these days and so don't have my finger on the pulse of whats filth and what isn't anymore, so when I throw a list together I usually check out its CC score to see whether I've accidental created a monster.
Tournaments are starting to pick it up. GROTs is using it next weekend, and it works.
As difsta says, flawed or not, it's having the desired effect. List diversity is up, people aren't bringing filth and the comp system is transparent.
Is it perfect? Almost certainly not, but the team doing it have stuck by their guns and continue to tweak it and modify it to make it work based on their experiences.
I think it's important to note that nothing is costed in a vacuum, everything is considered in terms of combos, allies and all the filthy possibilities that go along with that.
Comp is only good for books like eldar or necron. where you have 6+ units to pick from. A necron player can take 2 units of immortals 2 of warriors 1 scyth , 1 barrge etc. What is a nid player suppose to do? take 1 tyrant ? why play nids at all then. But at least a nid player will still have non comp games to have fun. What about those with bad or weak armies like IG?
1 unit of vets , 1 wyvern . Can't even task a paskinator because it is hits comp like a hammer. At the same time the eldar player has to "hurt" his list by taking jetbikes, DAs and guardians for backfield.
Drasius wrote: I'd ask if you realised that Vic is not the only place in Aus, but then, your statement speaks for itself. In Australia we use comp? Get over yourself mate.
Lol. Not sure what state you are from. but name 1 state in australia which has successfully managed to keep a no comp tournament scene running without a drastic decline in tournament attendance outside of WA which has never really played comp tourneys.
Every state that has done it has had numbers drop. Every single one...
Victoria, 1 tournament in SA, Qld and the ACT - I would hardly call that taken so well.
Even on WargamerAU, there had been alot of discussion how the comp council says that they are looking for feedback, and when feedback is given its shut down as the council has 'better' ideas. Apparantly under the system; 55 Termagaunts are comped the same as 55 marines (but its ok, because you have an 'expert' Tyranid Player on the council who says that both horde and MC lists are OP.)
There are like 3 potatoes on WargamerAU with a chip on thier shoulder because they had some bad ideas that we didn't go with.
Truth is we have made dozens of changes to the system as a result of feedback from the community.
Its not called community comp for show. We recognise that no one person or small group of people can ever have enough experience to get it all right and so we are constantly probing the community for feedback
Also its almost every event in Victoria and south Australia not just 1 in SA.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Makumba wrote: Comp is only good for books like eldar or necron. where you have 6+ units to pick from. A necron player can take 2 units of immortals 2 of warriors 1 scyth , 1 barrge etc. What is a nid player suppose to do? take 1 tyrant ? why play nids at all then. But at least a nid player will still have non comp games to have fun. What about those with bad or weak armies like IG?
1 unit of vets , 1 wyvern . Can't even task a paskinator because it is hits comp like a hammer. At the same time the eldar player has to "hurt" his list by taking jetbikes, DAs and guardians for backfield.
The como stick doesn't really hit like a hammer, remember that average armies spend between 8 and 12.
Nids have heaps of options you just have think in terms of softer meta game. Tyranid warriors are viable in this Format
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/25 14:17:23
Back in the day Australia was all about comp; then the Hammer House successfully argues for no comp saying it will increase variety. Then net lists and overpowered filth starts to perminate the Tournament scene. Then the same guys who destroyed the tournament scene come up with a comp system that 'saves' all of Australia?
Please.
The tournament scene in Aus went fine with peer and panel comp previously.
ANU in the ACT increased its numbers when it went no comp but bounced unfair lists; but that's not because of the comp system. It's because 7th is a very fun game if you stop the slow lists from coming.
Community Comp is ok, but it's not the saving grace of the Tournament scene. Cancon Competitive , which ran the Community Comp had its lowest numbers in the past 10yrs
Paddlepop Lion wrote: You keep saying that we dont accurately score armies and then keep ignoring me when i say you need to actually try building armies to understand that it does in fact work.
And you keep saying "build some armies" as if it magically wipes away all of the examples of situations where your scoring method gives the wrong answer.
The game would be far better if we could band together as a community and re write the rules to fix them and everyone accept that new authority but that isnt going to ever happen. We all have our own different opinions of how the game should be and when someone makes a set of house rules then people generally find one thing they dislike from amongst them and get all angry and wont have a bar of it.
How is this any different from banding the community together to change the rules and add a comp system? Your approach has all of the same problems as doing it the right way, the only difference is that your approach doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
difsta wrote: What we are more interested in is what armies you feel are under costed. What armies do you believe are slipping under the community comp radar. The sisters of battle list deliberately tried to hit 20 comp credits and it was over costed. Paddlepop lion is serios about the $100 voucher. The first person to write a list that is UNDER costed by 6 credits or more then you will win a voucher. Anything less than that is hardly broken. It may require tweaks, but hardly broken.
And yet again you keep ignoring the fact that giving overpowered lists a score that is too low is only half of the problem. Giving weak lists a score that is way too high is an equally serious problem. It unfairly punishes people who bring weaker lists and become collateral damage of your obsession with making sure every powerful unit is penalized, and it proves that your method is completely broken. Let's make this nice and simple:
Consider a comp system as a black box. You put a list into the box, and out comes a number that represents the power of the list on a scale from 0 to infinite. It doesn't matter what is inside the box, all we care about is the final result. Now to test it we generate some lists, decide what their score should be, and put them into the box.
If the stuff in the black box is accurately evaluating lists then every list should get a score that matches the correct answer (+/- a small margin because opinions on list strength are kind of subjective). Every deliberately weak list should get a 0/20, every mid-level list should get around a 10/20, and every blatantly overpowered list should get at least a 20/20.
If the stuff in the black box isn't accurately evaluating lists then we should expect to see situations where the output from the box significantly diverges from the correct answer. It might sometimes give the correct answer by sheer luck despite a bad method (for example, by counting the number of red-painted models in the army), but because its evaluation is spectacularly wrong in some cases we know that something is wrong with its method. We might not be able to point to the exact reason (after all, it's a black box), but we know that we can't trust it.
Your comp system is clearly in the second case. We give it a list as input, and we get obviously wrong output. Therefore something is wrong with the method, and any accurate scores are merely the result of blind luck. And you don't get to use blind luck as "proof" that the system works.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/25 22:46:33
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.
Also, it might be interesting to add units and fun gear that actually lower the comp rating. This way we can see rare units and cool stuff more often!
For example, if you take a SAG big mek, substract -1 from your Comp.
If you take Possessed that are not part of formation, substract -1 for every 5 in a squad.
Its natural to come to this idea, most people do but theres a side effect that isnt intuitive.
When you have a big scary unit that your opponent really has to kill urgently they are distracted from attacking some less important units that might also be applying pressure.
Take for example a space marine assault squad with no weapons. Its not a good unit and the opponent can probably kill a few models and then cop a charge from it without a problem.
If you move up the field and run with this assasult squad at the same time as a big unit of Death company with jump packs, characthers and lots of power weapons and melta bombs the opponent really has to focus all thier fire on the death company.
So now rather than arriving to the opponent with the dregs of the death company, maybe its only a couple of models, the characters which look out sired all the wounds jump into the assault squad and make a charge against an important unit at full strength.
in this situation the assault squad was more valuable than it is on paper. If you give the army a credit for running this normally bad unit then they can use that credit to make the big scary unit bigger and more scary for the same comp score. So the army actually gets better for the same comp score.
This isnt obvious so dont feel like im shooting you down here.
To simulate the kind of positive effect of this without the down side we have left basic units that arent a problem free and costed more heavily the units which make mince meat of these bad units.
Stuff like Vespid or Chaos bikers or Shining spears or ork komandos etc etc are all better choices in community comp because the kinds of units they end up having to fight are generally less tough units. All of these units are much better in the format where 30 Tactical marines in rhinos is a decent choice.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: When you have a big scary unit that your opponent really has to kill urgently they are distracted from attacking some less important units that might also be applying pressure.
No, this is a fundamentally broken way of looking at the game. A weak unit might be able to do damage while your opponent is busy dealing with something else, but so would a second powerful unit. In fact, the second powerful unit would do more damage while your opponent is unable to deal with it. Regardless of what else is in your list taking the weak unit is still a weaker choice than taking a stronger alternative.
All of these units are much better in the format where 30 Tactical marines in rhinos is a decent choice.
No they aren't. They're still bad units and will still perform worse than the better alternatives people take in a no-comp game. The only difference is that now you have to decide if you're willing to put up with a terrible unit so that you don't have your shame score reduced. If you say "screw comp scoring, I'm here to win" those neglected units are still trash and will never appear in a list.
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.
Nids have heaps of options you just have think in terms of softer meta game. Tyranid warriors are viable in this Format
how, they are rather bad no matter what the opposing player brings. In fact the nid army is more or less build around delivering, protecting and buffing tyrants. Everything else in it is just a bonus. But am no nid player. I play IG and under the comp it doesn't work at all. It doesn't work under comp either, but with comp it gets even worse, because for some unexplainable reasons taking the medicore unit gets punished. At the same time this doesn't make the realy bad IG units good, worse in some cases trying to take them is punished, Can you explain why wyrd psykers are worth 1 point?
And you keep saying "build some armies" as if it magically wipes away all of the examples of situations where your scoring method gives the wrong answer.
But it actually does and you wont know unless you do it. We dont cost things in a vaccuume we do it in context of the armies they appear in. one thing might seem over costed but then the units that make them work or are compulsory choices in the army cost nothing so when you actually make the army it evens out.
How is this any different from banding the community together to change the rules and add a comp system? Your approach has all of the same problems as doing it the right way, the only difference is that your approach doesn't work.
because the actual game is played the same and the size of the army is still 1850 and with the small exception of the very very few units which are banned the choices players can make are the same. This is an overlay to a wildly unbalanced game that doesn't actually change the game just motivates players to chose to run medium strength armies that will be more inviting to newer players and augment the competitive element.
Consider a comp system as a black box. You put a list into the box, and out comes a number that represents the power of the list on a scale from 0 to infinite. It doesn't matter what is inside the box, all we care about is the final result. Now to test it we generate some lists, decide what their score should be, and put them into the box.
The point you make here is absolutely right. IF ALL you what you want is a black box to accurately score lists regardless of motivation or metagame then Community Comp is not for you.
This however it is not true to say that all CC is. The ultimate aim of it is balanced metagame and it doesn't attempt to go about it by ONLY being the black box. It takes the approach of using the motivations of players to guide them into ballanced and varied lists.
This misunderstanding might be where we are having this disagreement. Were not trying to make a perfect black box but take a more holistic approach to ballaning the game.
No, this is a fundamentally broken way of looking at the game. A weak unit might be able to do damage while your opponent is busy dealing with something else, but so would a second powerful unit. In fact, the second powerful unit would do more damage while your opponent is unable to deal with it. Regardless of what else is in your list taking the weak unit is still a weaker choice than taking a stronger alternative.
sorry you misunderstand me. Im saying that even a bad unit has its day and if you allow even a bad unit to do the one thing it can do competently then it will act like a decent or even good unit rather than a bad one.
No they aren't. They're still bad units and will still perform worse than the better alternatives people take in a no-comp game. The only difference is that now you have to decide if you're willing to put up with a terrible unit so that you don't have your shame score reduced. If you say "screw comp scoring, I'm here to win" those neglected units are still trash and will never appear in a list.
You really are looking at it completely backwards dude. A unit is only good or bad by its context. In a fight between stubborn, lasgun guarsdmen and tactical marines the tactical marines are good and the guardsmen are bad. In a fight between tac marines and a keeper of secrets the tac marines are bad and the KOS is good. In a fight between a KOS and stubborn guardsmen the KOS is bad and the guardsmen are good.
If you dont get this then theres no saving you unfortunately but this is the context in which we have been scoring things. No unit exists in a vacuum and so we score them in context. This is why you need to actually build armies to see how the system works.
one thing might seem over costed but then the units that make them work or are compulsory choices in the army cost nothing so when you actually make the army it evens out.
Is that why tanks, paskinators, wyverns batteries and priest in IG all cost comp points. Because all those units are compulsory for an IG list and even with them IG doesn't get anywhere near even vs necron or eldar or nids
how, they are rather bad no matter what the opposing player brings. In fact the nid army is more or less build around delivering, protecting and buffing tyrants. Everything else in it is just a bonus. But am no nid player. I play IG and under the comp it doesn't work at all. It doesn't work under comp either, but with comp it gets even worse, because for some unexplainable reasons taking the medicore unit gets punished. At the same time this doesn't make the realy bad IG units good, worse in some cases trying to take them is punished, Can you explain why wyrd psykers are worth 1 point?
Your ideas about tyranids stem from how they were before all thier recent updates and how they are under harder metagames.
These days nids are really just fine, theres less S8 now that missile launchers are bad and psyflemen are gone so tyranid warriors are much better than before. 1 or sometimes 2 flyrants will often find thier way into an army sure but they really dont need to. With formations like the skytyrant brood and the death leaper formation there is actuially quite a lot of variety between nid lists under CC.
A tyranid list recently won the Rampage tournament in Victoria. He did have a flyrant but it certainly wasnt he core of his list.
i really dont think guard are bad under CC either, a guard list won Victorian masters last year which was CC Wyverdane psykers are costed because of the deamon summoning ability and thier ability to force a power to go through the opponents deny dice.
Because they are brotherhood of psykers they can deal with taking multiple perils of the warp before they go down. Its been a while now since we reviewed guard so ill put wyverdanes on the discussion list for maybe changing to cost if you have over a certain ammount of warp charge.
Is that why tanks, paskinators, wyverns batteries and priest in IG all cost comp points. Because all those units are compulsory for an IG list and even with them IG doesn't get anywhere near even vs necron or eldar or nids
no all these things are costed because they are really good. Guard have access to a lot of differnt really good tools and the majority of the codex is free.
Nothing in the criticism we've been giving you requires building an army list under those rules, because all of your scores are independent of what else is in your army. If unit X has a comp penalty that is way too high then that's something independent of list building in general. If your choice of comp penalty is appropriate then you should be able to explain why the criticism is inaccurate instead of just saying "I'm right until proven otherwise, go figure out why you're wrong".
And let's not forget that when you were given an example list where your system fails spectacularly in evaluating it you had to hide behind excuses for why it wasn't the right kind of list (where "right kind of list" is apparently defined as "a list where my system works").
because the actual game is played the same
It's also played the same way if you change the point costs for unbalanced units. In fact, changing point costs is exactly what you're doing! Now instead of just having a single point cost a unit has two: its "traditional" point cost (out of 1850, for example), and its comp cost (out of 20).
The point you make here is absolutely right. IF ALL you what you want is a black box to accurately score lists regardless of motivation or metagame then Community Comp is not for you.
IOW, "if you want a comp system that works Community Comp is not for you". Accurate "black box" scoring is a basic requirement for a functioning comp system. If you can't pass this simple test then your system sucks.
Were not trying to make a perfect black box but take a more holistic approach to ballaning the game.
No, you're absolutely using the "black box" method, you're just doing a bad job of it. You aren't changing how the game works/improving rules/etc, you're just assigning each list a shame score and telling people to minimize their shame points or take a penalty on their tournament score. The only difference between your approach and a good "black box" system is that the functioning system motivates players based on accurate evaluations of list strength, while yours attempts to motivate them by throwing darts at a list of potential comp scores.
sorry you misunderstand me. Im saying that even a bad unit has its day and if you allow even a bad unit to do the one thing it can do competently then it will act like a decent or even good unit rather than a bad one.
That's also wrong. Bad units are bad units because they suck on average. Occasionally performing at an adequate level in perfect circumstances and/or with good dice luck doesn't change the fact that it's average performance is much worse. If you can't even understand basic game balance concepts like this then you have no business attempting to create a comp system.
If you dont get this then theres no saving you unfortunately but this is the context in which we have been scoring things. No unit exists in a vacuum and so we score them in context. This is why you need to actually build armies to see how the system works.
And yet again you admit that your system sucks. You claim that you can't evaluate units in isolation, but your system does exactly that. The only time your comp score considers what other units are on the table is when units get a cumulative penalty for taking multiple copies of the same unit. By assigning a fixed penalty to a unit regardless of circumstances you're very clearly stating that you believe that units do exist in a vacuum.
So now I'm starting to wonder: do you keep contradicting yourself because you really don't understand how game balance works, or because you're so desperate to defend your comp system that you'll make any argument that seems to "help" without paying attention to whether it contradicts your other claims?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/26 00:34:15
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.
Nothing in the criticism we've been giving you requires building an army list under those rules, because all of your scores are independent of what else is in your army. If unit X has a comp penalty that is way too high then that's something independent of list building in general. If your choice of comp penalty is appropriate then you should be able to explain why the criticism is inaccurate instead of just saying "I'm right until proven otherwise, go figure out why you're wrong".
This just istn true i can and will explain the costing for everything. I havent hidden behind anything, I said sometimes a unit SEEMS like its costed too highly but in context it is right not sometimes it IS costed to highly.
That's also wrong. Bad units are bad units because they suck on average. Occasionally performing at an adequate level in perfect circumstances and/or with good dice luck doesn't change the fact that it's average performance is much worse. If you can't even understand basic game balance concepts like this then you have no business attempting to create a comp system.
I dont know if we are just failing to communicate or if you cant grasp how all the units on the battlefield contribute to the relative power of each other unit.
If you cant get this idea it shows you arent able to understand the game well enough to actually discuss this constructively.
If you ever developed the want to better understand CC then feel free to ask but right now your actually just attacking it without knowing anything about the system.
You dont understand why but it works and works well. Players in victoria and SA are absolutely sold on it and the rest of australia is warming too it as well.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if the system sucked there wouldnt be so many people gorging on it right now.
Paddlepop Lion wrote: This just istn true i can and will explain the costing for everything. I havent hidden behind anything, I said sometimes a unit SEEMS like its costed too highly but in context it is right not sometimes it IS costed to highly.
Then why haven't you explained it when we've given you examples of bad costs? You've just said "it only seems that way, trust me" and refused to give any convincing explanations.
I dont know if we are just failing to communicate or if you cant grasp how all the units on the battlefield contribute to the relative power of each other unit.
No, you just don't understand what "bad unit" means. If a unit is effective (and I mean legitimately effective, not just "it doesn't suck quite as much") in combination with a second unit then it isn't a bad unit.
If you ever developed the want to better understand CC then feel free to ask but right now your actually just attacking it without knowing anything about the system.
I know all I need to know about it because it's right there in your rules document. It's really not a complicated system, it's just a badly designed one. I know it might be hard to believe, but there are reasons to dislike your work beyond "I haven't studied it enough to understand how awesome it is".
You dont understand why but it works and works well. Players in victoria and SA are absolutely sold on it and the rest of australia is warming too it as well.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if the system sucked there wouldnt be so many people gorging on it right now.
And there were comp-heavy tournaments back in 5th edition and earlier that had lots of players attending them. But comp was still broken, and eventually people finally realized it and stopped using comp scores. When I say that nothing about your system is new I really mean it.
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.
Community Comp is ok, but it's not the saving grace of the Tournament scene. Cancon Competitive , which ran the Community Comp had its lowest numbers in the past 10yrs
This isnt quite accurate Aeon.
Cancon used to be over 100 and by 2014 dropped to 56. 2015 Ran Community comp and had over 60 signed up, 56 ended up turning up. Next year we will get a picture of how well it has taken, this year the organiser received resounding praise from the attendants and according to him only player complain about anything.
Terracon used to hit 127 then by 2014 had dropped down to 54 in 2013. It ran Community comp in 2014 and got 52 but people loved it so much that it sold out this year at 100 players with quite a few on the reserve list.
As I see it, you've made two major mistakes in your comp system:
1. Coming to Dakka promoting a comp system.
2. See #1
Even those of us who liked comp back in the old days understand that it's just not a worthwhile pursuit anymore. 40K is too convoluted and the tournament culture has little tolerance for a third party telling them what they can or can't put in their army. Broken 40K is the new norm: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
the_Armyman wrote: As I see it, you've made two major mistakes in your comp system:
1. Coming to Dakka promoting a comp system.
2. See #1
Even those of us who liked comp back in the old days understand that it's just not a worthwhile pursuit anymore. 40K is too convoluted and the tournament culture has little tolerance for a third party telling them what they can or can't put in their army. Broken 40K is the new norm: it's not a bug, it's a feature.
LOL. +1
Now, seriously:
I went and read through the PDF. First of all, A+ for effort! I think it's pretty neat, and would not mind trying it.
In my mind, there are two barriers to its success. The first, and most important, is ubiquity; until enough people use it, it's hard for players to model their armies using a comp system if they want to be "competitive", unless the other person uses the same system. The second is that it's a little complex, probably too much so for the casual player, who doesn't have a crazy army anyhow.
And then even more laughs when the same arguments were made that have already been said elsewhere with this system... but apparently everyone except for the people in their circle is wrong.
I also find their boast about it taking off all over... The majority of the events in Vic and SA are ran by the same few people or their friends... same with most of the community comp system events that have happened.....
I also did laugh at their post of the FB page when they were boasting about putting a post on the BolS forum saying how great they are....
I get what they are trying to do.. but they are failing at it... Some things on the document are comped correctly other things seemed to be comped for the sake of comping...
I do belive paddlepop owes some people $100 (au so only 75 for you mericans )
HS:
Land Raider 250 4 Comp points
Land Raider 250 6 Comp points
Land Raider 250 8 Comp points
20/20 comp points used, all because Little Timmy happens to like Land Raiders because they are all awesome and stuff! And don't tell him he can't take four Land Raiders because his codex says he can and he really likes the models and that would make him cry! You wouldn't want to make Little Timmy cry now would you?
So yeah, aside from maybe an Ork list that brought absolutely zero Powerclaws, I don't see the above list winning against other hardcore 20/20 comp lists anytime at all (expect maybe my SoB list from earlier).
So there you have it, Little Timmy's list with the stuff he likes in it getting 20/20 on the comp list and losing terribly. But he even brought 30 Tacticals in Rhinos! How could he lose?!?
There is a fine line between genius and insanity and I colored it in with crayon.
I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
Desubot wrote: Why isnt Slut Wars: The Sexpocalypse a real game dammit.
"It's easier to change the rules than to get good at the game."
Sidstyler wrote: I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
These were last codex bikes.. but yes
Also apparently when making these costs they didn't/don't compare to other units from other lists.. because that is silly... >_>
They make up what they think is a 'even' tourney list and then comp off that... >_>
no all these things are costed because they are really good. Guard have access to a lot of differnt really good tools and the majority of the codex is free.
Could you list any corner stones of IG list that aren't a tank or that don't require a vehicles to be transported or a priest to sit inside the unit?
Or is good another word for narrative ?
I also find their boast about it taking off all over... The majority of the events in Vic and SA are ran by the same few people or their friends... same with most of the community comp system events that have happened.....
You have actually jsut made that up... honestly where do you get this from?
Josh diffy and i have run one event each using communty comp, i also ran a few crappy little leagues early on.
We added Eric (who runs terracon) to the group after he had a great success with it at terracon and became very enthusiastic about it.
Just off the top of my head in vic there has been
Rampage, the western smash now 2 years running, the Dog show, Orbital bombardment, Grot Riggers plus others are all events run not by someone on the council and while we know the TOs they arent close mates as you seem to suggest.
In SA i know of a guy Jesse thompson and someone called Ty both running events using community comp that we barely know and theres others i dont hear about.
Evil lamp you probably want to pick a better example because i could quite honestly beat people consistently with that list in the metagame that CC creates.
Its not so good that you would smash people well enough to justify spending that many credits on raiders but lists like that are bad for a comp Metagame. You actually want to discorrage that kind of army because its too polarising. Players who cant deal with land raiders probably get thier ass kicked pretty often and ones that kill them easily smash it off the table.
Our aim is to have a situation where a player can always look across the table and feel like they have at least a chance to win and ridiculous spam like this goes against that.
Could you list any corner stones of IG list that aren't a tank or that don't require a vehicles to be transported or a priest to sit inside the unit?
Or is good another word for narrative ?
I consider the blob squad to be that kind of unit. Doesnt require a priest (its a steal at 1 credit though to chuck one in)
I think Company command squads do jsut fine with a lascannon sittin in the backfield ordering a blob.
I think Sentinels are quite reasonable for the cost in comp
Primaris psykers are exclelent and fit really well in units for an ally.
Bullgryns and ogryns are pretty good in this metagame as well i think, add maybe a space marine charachter and some primaris psykers hoping for endurance and that unit is tough to move and hits reasonabhly hard. (hell get draigo in there for gate even)
I have spent more time combing over tournament lists than probably everyone reading this combined and it really doesnt seem to me that guard have a problem. Keep in mind you can have 3 chimera and 3 other tanks for free, you are likely to hit the 55 model rule once but you can easily run a blob with buffs and you have only hit that 1 credit so far. Throw in Pask and another punisher for 5 credits and Yarrik for your 7th and that list is honestly good for the CC meta
.
I just think it's funny that whoever came up with this comp system seems to think that 9 crisis suits are comparable to 44 Eldar jetbikes, since they're both 4 comp points. How?
OK it seems like thats off because suits are OKAAAY and bikes are awesome right? but make those two things work in an army. i can tell you as an experienced eldar player that 44 bikes is probably too many to manage efficiently. you need warlocks and warp charge to make them really good and some backup combat unit and some long range guns., Your probably pushing it for points and have too much of one kind of firepower.
9 suits is all sorts of different things in a tau army and can be used for heaps of differnt jobs. Maybe 1 or 2 of them are drop melta suits for example which are really handy for stuff like line breaker and tackling crappy scoring units with a flamer and a few gun drones.
the other 6 might be missile suits or plasma suits which do differnt jobes but all of them can take drones and marker lights arent hard to come by. You can add in a commander to one of those untis and suddenly all those 8 maker drones in one unit can fire at BS 5 so the second unit of 3 plasma suits can smash a unit a turn with BS 5 ignore cover and gun drones or something.
Not hard to make those suits do something big and keep in mind we are talking a comp metagame here.so the things they are fighting are alot softer than that of no comp.
Nice presentation, too.
