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.

 n0t_u wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
But it's epic and fun for the Eldar to shoot me off the table in three turns?

You're the one running on the assumption that casually tabling you and then listening to your endless whining is fun for the Eldar player.

Maybe the eldar players there are sadistic masochists.

The ones he plays with are. Most of us resent the association and want him to stop whining.

Youn wrote:
Oh, I agree... my list is weak for using PAGK. I am fixing that simply by not taking but 750 points of GKs. Their allies will be Red Hunters unit with 1 Techmarine with conversion beamer + 6 Thunderfire Cannons + 3 Vindicators.

That solves the issue.

Let me know how they play out. I've been looking long and hard at adding some Thunderfire cannons.

My GK list is Voldus, Terminators, Dreadknight as the base NSF. With a base allied detachment of SM, with Tigurius, Sniper Scouts, Centurion Devastators. This gives me ~350 (at 1500) and ~700 (at 1850) to work with. I usually alter it a bit based on what i'm facing. In my local meta I see, CSM, Guard, Tau, Eldar, BA (death company), BA (orbital), Tyranids, Orks, Admech, Daemons, Genestealers, and Necrons. So, I need to be adaptable.

I won't have them in until end of month as the models I am using are being shipped from Poland. I didn't feel like spending 65.00 a model. I figured 17.00 per cannon then buy a Techmarine for each was the way to go.

I expect everyone to bring their A Game. However, I on occasion run not good units (Tyberos and Asterion FTW) and I won't use any models I'm not happy with.

Breng77 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Then that's what they should cost. If don't price for optimal useage, you get 27 ppm scatterbikes. Then yes the best psychic powers should be very expensive. You should pay for power. Eldar, tau and marine battle companies don't pay for their power. And we see the results.

Or they could be costed different for each faction, especially if allies rules did not allow casting on allied units. As for Scatter bikes, that is an issue of making scatter lasers for bikes too cheap, and allowing too many. If they went back to 1 heavy weapon per 3 bikes it would fix that issue. Even then it is super hard to price for optimal usage because it assumes that playtesters will discover the optimal load out for each unit, and optimal list for those units. For things like book powers costing them is even harder because how do you cost for future releases? Further unless GW establishes a balance point (point level for optimal balance where the game is tested) it is even more difficult. Something broken at 2k may not even work at 1500, and something broken at 1500 may not mean as much at 2500. Malifaux for example is balanced around a 50 point game, that is the level that things are playtested for. At lower or higher points the balance starts to break down.

It would require price updates as well. At any rate, GW will never do any of this.

All this talk of costing psychic buffs gives me an idea. How about during list building you can put aside any number of points (probably in increments of 10 for simplicity, maybe changing for different armies) and put them into buying "buff/debuff/summon points," or "psi-value points." Each unit would have a psi-value score, with units that benefit more having higher scores. Each relevant power would have a multiplier depending on it's power level. In-game you have a pool of points that you bought. Whenever you cast a buff spell, you count up the total psi-value scores of all the effected models, multiply it by the power's multiplier, and subtract that many points from your pool. You can't cast a buff spell if it's psi-value point cost exceeds the points left in your pool. Debuffs would work similarly, could the affected model's scores, multiply accordingly, and subtract. That way psychic powers would be costed accordingly to how much force the power multiplies, and how much of a multiplier it is.

Or we could just accept that with the huge scope of models in the game the power level of psychic abilities can vary drastically, and cost them according to the mode unit power level, or the power level that the power will be cast on the most. This isn't "okay, half of the targetable units are Leman Russ variants, so we should cost it for Russes," but "we just rolled out our new Baneblade kit, rolled it into the codex, buffed it in this new edition, and most of the Baneblade formations include the guy that can cast it, we'd better balance for Baneblades." Or "this power is really good on that one unique relic tank, but you need a certain character in a certain detachment to take that tank and you can't take more than one, so we should balance it for the more ubiquitous, more generally powerful and more spammable razorback." (Made-up examples, of course.)

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
All this talk of costing psychic buffs gives me an idea. How about during list building you can put aside any number of points (probably in increments of 10 for simplicity, maybe changing for different armies) and put them into buying "buff/debuff/summon points," or "psi-value points." Each unit would have a psi-value score, with units that benefit more having higher scores. Each relevant power would have a multiplier depending on it's power level. In-game you have a pool of points that you bought. Whenever you cast a buff spell, you count up the total psi-value scores of all the effected models, multiply it by the power's multiplier, and subtract that many points from your pool. You can't cast a buff spell if it's psi-value point cost exceeds the points left in your pool. Debuffs would work similarly, could the affected model's scores, multiply accordingly, and subtract. That way psychic powers would be costed accordingly to how much force the power multiplies, and how much of a multiplier it is.

Or we could just accept that with the huge scope of models in the game the power level of psychic abilities can vary drastically, and cost them according to the mode unit power level, or the power level that the power will be cast on the most. This isn't "okay, half of the targetable units are Leman Russ variants, so we should cost it for Russes," but "we just rolled out our new Baneblade kit, rolled it into the codex, buffed it in this new edition, and most of the Baneblade formations include the guy that can cast it, we'd better balance for Baneblades." Or "this power is really good on that one unique relic tank, but you need a certain character in a certain detachment to take that tank and you can't take more than one, so we should balance it for the more ubiquitous, more generally powerful and more spammable razorback." (Made-up examples, of course.)

Look up Community Comp.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Look up Community Comp.

AKA "how not to balance a game". It's a useful resource if you're looking to learn from the mistakes that others have made in the past, but that's about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Look up Community Comp.

AKA "how not to balance a game". It's a useful resource if you're looking to learn from the mistakes that others have made in the past, but that's about it.

Seemed pretty good when I played it, what's your gripe?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think 40k is fun to play competitively. I think it is not well suited for it. I'd much rather play chess instead, which is suited very well for competitive play. Or go. Go is crazy.

That is what has always confused me about competitive 40K players. Anyone that cares about how well can win at 40K know that game is terrible for competition. Anyone that doesn't, would be far more impressed with the player's skill at chess or go, and you would be able to find players much more easily while saving tons of money.

I know there are some who like to state tabletop miniatures games like 40K aren't like board games, but I don't think the difference is as much as they make it out to be when you move toward competitive play as most options are greatly reduced as they terrible player choices (read: false choices). When I was playing other miniatures games far more competitively, I always felt like I was planing my actions out very much like I was playing chess. At very least, these players could pick a tabletop game that is cheaper and much better balanced to demonstrate ones skill at it.

That leaves me constantly thinking, those who play 40K super competitively (and don't care about the background much or at all) don't want the challenge of actual competitive games and/or face a much larger pool of stronger players like what you would find in chess and go communities. Basically, I can't help feeling (which I am sure is wrong for the most part) some WAAC competitive 40K players can't hack in real competitive games and want this pseudo-challege that gives the illusion of being good at a complicated (therefor sophisticated) game. Even though, it seems patently obvious to me how few actual difficult decisions (both list building and in game) a game of 40K actually contains.

I am sure that for most competitive players of 40K they have to at least like the idea of the setting to justify the cost though which I can totally understand. Still don't know why they wouldn't want to paint their models other than resale, physical inability or fear of screwing up though. I don't think I will ever comprehend the motivations of a super competitive 40K player as I started 40K after a bunch of other much better balanced miniatures games. I kinda like 40K because it is so unbalanced that there is no reason for me to be competitive in it (removing all temptation) and allow me to enjoy making pew-pew sounds with my dude-bros. However, it wouldn't hurt my gaming if 8th was a more streamlined better balanced game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Look up Community Comp.

AKA "how not to balance a game". It's a useful resource if you're looking to learn from the mistakes that others have made in the past, but that's about it.

Seemed pretty good when I played it, what's your gripe?

It seems to me a lot of the time Community Comp strays into, "We don't know/like how to handle a particular unit/tactic/strategy so it must be overpowered." territory and ban things that actually work perfectly fine or worst yet are the direct counter to some of the group's favorite stuff.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I don't think 40k is fun to play competitively. I think it is not well suited for it. I'd much rather play chess instead, which is suited very well for competitive play. Or go. Go is crazy.

That is what has always confused me about competitive 40K players. Anyone that cares about how well can win at 40K know that game is terrible for competition. Anyone that doesn't, would be far more impressed with the player's skill at chess or go, and you would be able to find players much more easily while saving tons of money.

I know there are some who like to state tabletop miniatures games like 40K aren't like board games, but I don't think the difference is as much as they make it out to be when you move toward competitive play as most options are greatly reduced as they terrible player choices (read: false choices). When I was playing other miniatures games far more competitively, I always felt like I was planing my actions out very much like I was playing chess. At very least, these players could pick a tabletop game that is cheaper and much better balanced to demonstrate ones skill at it.

That leaves me constantly thinking, those who play 40K super competitively (and don't care about the background much or at all) don't want the challenge of actual competitive games and/or face a much larger pool of stronger players like what you would find in chess and go communities. Basically, I can't help feeling (which I am sure is wrong for the most part) some WAAC competitive 40K players can't hack in real competitive games and want this pseudo-challege that gives the illusion of being good at a complicated (therefor sophisticated) game. Even though, it seems patently obvious to me how few actual difficult decisions (both list building and in game) a game of 40K actually contains.

I am sure that for most competitive players of 40K they have to at least like the idea of the setting to justify the cost though which I can totally understand. Still don't know why they wouldn't want to paint their models other than resale, physical inability or fear of screwing up though. I don't think I will ever comprehend the motivations of a super competitive 40K player as I started 40K after a bunch of other much better balanced miniatures games. I kinda like 40K because it is so unbalanced that there is no reason for me to be competitive in it (removing all temptation) and allow me to enjoy making pew-pew sounds with my dude-bros. However, it wouldn't hurt my gaming if 8th was a more streamlined better balanced game.

Pretty much this. While there definitely are "pseudo-challenge" seekers, it's also not all competitive 40k players.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Look up Community Comp.

AKA "how not to balance a game". It's a useful resource if you're looking to learn from the mistakes that others have made in the past, but that's about it.

THANK you. Aren't those the same dumbasses that put a limit on Ogryns?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Seemed pretty good when I played it, what's your gripe?

Two problems:

1) It's a comp system, which means it's inherently bad. Comp recognizes that certain things are unbalanced, but instead of fixing them so there's no more balance problem it allows you to use the unbalanced thing and penalizes your score at the end. So, if you're willing to say " this stupid " and bring the nastiest army you can legally build you'll win all your games, your opponents won't have any fun, and all you lose is the barely-relevant prize at the end.

2) It massively over-nerfs things that aren't a balance problem, significantly hurting list diversity unless you're willing to take score penalties to bring the army you like. It seems to assume that the target power level is "week-old newbie with their first battleforce army", and anything that could possibly give the newbie a problem needs a comp penalty. And when it's virtually impossible to build an army without having at least some degree of comp penalty you can massively simplify the system by removing penalties until the average army has zero penalty.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Seemed pretty good when I played it, what's your gripe?

Two problems:

1) It's a comp system, which means it's inherently bad. Comp recognizes that certain things are unbalanced, but instead of fixing them so there's no more balance problem it allows you to use the unbalanced thing and penalizes your score at the end. So, if you're willing to say " this stupid " and bring the nastiest army you can legally build you'll win all your games, your opponents won't have any fun, and all you lose is the barely-relevant prize at the end.

2) It massively over-nerfs things that aren't a balance problem, significantly hurting list diversity unless you're willing to take score penalties to bring the army you like. It seems to assume that the target power level is "week-old newbie with their first battleforce army", and anything that could possibly give the newbie a problem needs a comp penalty. And when it's virtually impossible to build an army without having at least some degree of comp penalty you can massively simplify the system by removing penalties until the average army has zero penalty.

Has it changed direction since I last played it or did you play it a long time before me?
The Community Comp I played had a stand alone point system - 12 points in an 1850 tournament - and point taxes on units, psychic disciplines and formations that were deemed overpowered. A player could take a Wraithknight and a couple of Windriders but since the tax hit certain things and hit certain things harder, spamming Scattbikes or Wraithknights without breaking points and being an illegal list was simply impossible. I could take TWC and Libby Conclave to make a small Wolf Star under the twelve points but getting Invisibility or Forewarning to make the Deathstar broke points.

Vehicles under the Ironwolves formation were taxed.
First turn deepstriking was taxed.
Each extra detachment after the first was taxed.
Anything in the Fast Attack slot of the codex was taxed.
Wulfen were taxed.
ICs were taxed.
Certain Characters were taxed again.
Iron Priests were also taxed again if they took a mount.
Heralds of the Great Wolf were taxed as ICs in spite of losing their IC status.
Vehicle armour could add up to a tax.
Long Fangs could add up to a tax.
Wolf Guard had a hefty tax which was odd - probably because they can take bikes or jump packs.
In spite of all that making a good list still wasn't impossible.

"Each extra detachment after the first was taxed."

Why? Some of the strongest builds are one detachment.

"Anything in the Fast Attack slot of the codex was taxed."

Why? Fast Attack isn't broken.

"Vehicle armour could add up to a tax."

Why? Land Raiders have crazy good armour. And suck.

 JNAProductions wrote:
"Each extra detachment after the first was taxed."

Why? Some of the strongest builds are one detachment.

Taking Allies and multiple detachments is how you make Deathstars and spam units, all armies and builds had parts that were taxed hard, units like the Thunderwolf Cavalry, certain Psychic disciplines like Invisibility or Electro Displacement and Formations like the Ironwolves.

Just grabbed the community comp pages try to explain it better.

"Anything in the Fast Attack slot of the codex was taxed."

Why? Fast Attack isn't broken.

Fast Attack is like Armour , it wasn't taxed outright, they got a model value that built up to a tax. Things like Assault Marines at the bottom - Things like TWC at the top. A squad of between four and six Thunderwolf Cavalry earned a point, then bagged another point just for being TWC.

"Vehicle armour could add up to a tax."

Why? Land Raiders have crazy good armour. And suck.

It'd stop someone bringing a spam list of Dreadnoughts in Drop Pods but I doubt you could even justify enough Land Raiders to get hit.

Some things didn't make a lot of sense at first glance, but became apparent when calculating if your list was legal under comp points.

Between being Fast Attack, vehicles in the Ironwolves formation and having armour values it made it impossible for me to use a lot of Land Speeders or Razorbacks with free upgrades.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Taking Allies and multiple detachments is how you make Deathstars and spam units, all armies and builds had parts that were taxed hard, units like the Thunderwolf Cavalry, certain Psychic disciplines like Invisibility or Electro Displacement and Formations like the Ironwolves.

And this is why the system is broken. It taxes all allies, not just the ones that produce death stars or spam. Blanket comp penalties on a whole category of stuff, applying to both the overpowered lists and the weak lists, is terrible game design. If I ally in some IG with ratlings and rough riders (and cheap HQ + troops to bring them) I shouldn't have to pay a multiple detachment tax for it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
Taking Allies and multiple detachments is how you make Deathstars and spam units, all armies and builds had parts that were taxed hard, units like the Thunderwolf Cavalry, certain Psychic disciplines like Invisibility or Electro Displacement and Formations like the Ironwolves.

And this is why the system is broken. It taxes all allies, not just the ones that produce death stars or spam. Blanket comp penalties on a whole category of stuff, applying to both the overpowered lists and the weak lists, is terrible game design. If I ally in some IG with ratlings and rough riders (and cheap HQ + troops to bring them) I shouldn't have to pay a multiple detachment tax for it.

It's entirely possible to build a rubbish list and still be over points, it's probably easier to build a decent one while staying under though, the system doesn't exist to insta buff your gear when you build a weak list, that's not its purpose.

As for the allies you've taken you'd be hit a terrifying one point for the second detachment, one point for the HQ and the Rough Riders didn't even make the Fast Attack taxation chart.
So for between 265 and maybe 500 points you've been comp point taxed a grand total of two points, you have ten left to work with.
Something like a Wraithknight puts your pool out five points on purchase, Wraithhost will set you back another two just for being Wraithhost.
From what the IG guys told me they rarely used ten points from the tax point pool - with the Triumverates available they might have more troubles.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's entirely possible to build a rubbish list and still be over points

Then the system is . Thanks for proving my point.

So for between 265 and maybe 500 points you've been comp point taxed a grand total of two points, you have ten left to work with.

And this is the problem. If even a terrible list is getting a 2-point penalty then it's time to start removing penalties from the system until the average list has a score of zero. When the effective zero point of your system is something greater than zero it should be a giant red flag that you have a bloated mess of rules that aren't accomplishing anything.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's entirely possible to build a rubbish list and still be over points

Then the system is . Thanks for proving my point.

So for between 265 and maybe 500 points you've been comp point taxed a grand total of two points, you have ten left to work with.

And this is the problem. If even a terrible list is getting a 2-point penalty then it's time to start removing penalties from the system until the average list has a score of zero. When the effective zero point of your system is something greater than zero it should be a giant red flag that you have a bloated mess of rules that aren't accomplishing anything.

It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

I hear chess doesn't have that issue.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

What you're saying is community Comp doesn't stand up to you being a smart arse so it doesn't work - that's hardly constructive. The Community Comp guys are being constructive, they update monthly at the very least.

If I was to build a list that had 14 CADs then complained that the system was broken because I'd already emptied my Comp Pool and couldn't purchase any HQs I'd expect to be called out for being an idiot.
As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
What you're saying is community Comp doesn't stand up to you being a smart arse so it doesn't work - that's hardly constructive.

Taking a detachment with rough riders and ratlings is hardly "being a smart arse", unless you want to argue that weak units should not be tolerated and comp can only handle an environment where everyone is playing the latest WAAC cheese. And in that case isn't that kind of contradicting the whole point of comp, the idea that even weak lists should be playable and balanced out by comp scores?

If I was to build a list that had 14 CADs then complained that the system was broken because I'd already emptied my Comp Pool and couldn't purchase any HQs I'd expect to be called out for being an idiot.

You'd expect it, but you'd have an entirely fair point. The obvious conclusion is that taking additional detachments is not inherently powerful, so there should not be a penalty simply for including them. Which has been my point from the beginning here: Community Comp fails because it applies blanket penalties for things instead of specific carefully-targeted penalties that only apply to the units/lists that are legitimate balance problems.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

Then it doesn't work fine. If the system can be so easily broken then it should be a giant red flag that its methods for evaluating a list are not accurate. An accurate evaluation system doesn't come to such obviously wrong conclusions, no matter what list you apply it to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
What you're saying is community Comp doesn't stand up to you being a smart arse so it doesn't work - that's hardly constructive.

Taking a detachment with rough riders and ratlings is hardly "being a smart arse", unless you want to argue that weak units should not be tolerated and comp can only handle an environment where everyone is playing the latest WAAC cheese. And in that case isn't that kind of contradicting the whole point of comp, the idea that even weak lists should be playable and balanced out by comp scores?

Taking them for no better reason than to get the tax IS being a smart arse as is taking weak units for the sole purpose of complaining. I'd go so far as to compare such an effort to a Magic the Gathering player who builds a deck of nothing but basic Mountains then complains about losing.

If I was to build a list that had 14 CADs then complained that the system was broken because I'd already emptied my Comp Pool and couldn't purchase any HQs I'd expect to be called out for being an idiot.

You'd expect it, but you'd have an entirely fair point. The obvious conclusion is that taking additional detachments is not inherently powerful, so there should not be a penalty simply for including them. Which has been my point from the beginning here: Community Comp fails because it applies blanket penalties for things instead of specific carefully-targeted penalties that only apply to the units/lists that are legitimate balance problems.

It actually does both. I saw you cut out what I said about extra taxes for units like Wraithknights, Windriders with Scatterlasers and TWC, good effort if you managed to not read it at the same time.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

Then it doesn't work fine. If the system can be so easily broken then it should be a giant red flag that its methods for evaluating a list are not accurate. An accurate evaluation system doesn't come to such obviously wrong conclusions, no matter what list you apply it to.

Every army is capable of building potentially tournament winning lists, that was the goal and from what I've seen, experienced and heard they were successful in that.
Foolproofing was never the goal so failing at it was never an issue.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

IOW, it does nothing that isn't done by the current system. At least the real one doesn't inflict penalties that don't make sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

IOW, it does nothing that isn't done by the current system. At least the real one doesn't inflict penalties that don't make sense.

Penalties like when GW releases FAQs and Codexes Nerfing units that you thought weren't powerful or useful to begin with? You mean penalties like that?

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

IOW, it does nothing that isn't done by the current system. At least the real one doesn't inflict penalties that don't make sense.

Penalties like when GW releases FAQs and Codexes Nerfing units that you thought weren't powerful or useful to begin with? You mean penalties like that?

Better than penalizing people because they used multiple copies of Rough Riders.

Your defense is bad and you should feel bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

IOW, it does nothing that isn't done by the current system. At least the real one doesn't inflict penalties that don't make sense.

Penalties like when GW releases FAQs and Codexes Nerfing units that you thought weren't powerful or useful to begin with? You mean penalties like that?

Better than penalizing people because they used multiple copies of Rough Riders.

Your defense is bad and you should feel bad.

They got penalised because they used multiple detachments. Three units of Rough Riders in a CAD won't cost you a point, trying to spam them by using multiple CADs will penalise you and it won't even be for the Rough Riders themselves.

 Lance845 wrote:
Body building often includes lifting weights on the stage do they not? Maybe I am wrong on that point. But I thought BB competitions was not simply about what muscles you have developed but also showing off your capabilities with said muscles. If not then no. BB would not be a sport. If yes, then yes, the displays of physical prowess would be physical exertion.

Gotta be honest, my interest in body building competitions is negligible.

Yeah see you are confusing two different things here...

Weight Lifting, Picking up heavy stuff.. These duders are built like a brick gak tank

Body Building, having big nice looking muscles... These duders wear a lot of bronzer and have very defined muscles

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
It's possible to build rubbish in any system that involves list building - does that mean you think list building as a concept is broken?

No, but that's not the point. Community Comp, like any other comp system, is not a list-building system. It's a list evaluation system. Its whole point is that you give it a list as input, and it returns a numerical evaluation of that list's strength. If you feed it a very weak list and it returns a non-zero penalty for that list then it's clear proof that the system is not evaluating lists correctly. Whatever its methods may be they can't possibly be correct, and any accurate scores it gives are purely by coincidence. IOW, it's a worthless system.

As long as you don't go out of your way to break the system the system works fine.

IOW, it does nothing that isn't done by the current system. At least the real one doesn't inflict penalties that don't make sense.

Penalties like when GW releases FAQs and Codexes Nerfing units that you thought weren't powerful or useful to begin with? You mean penalties like that?

Better than penalizing people because they used multiple copies of Rough Riders.

Your defense is bad and you should feel bad.

They got penalised because they used multiple detachments. Three units of Rough Riders in a CAD won't cost you a point, trying to spam them by using multiple CADs will penalise you and it won't even be for the Rough Riders themselves.

...Which shows you why the system is bad. It actually can penalize fluff armies. Wanna do lots of Terminators? Too bad!

At least in the actual game the only penalty is what happens in the game, rather than losing points and having a worse game. You're not fixing the issue. It's like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound, except the guy was shot in the arm and you put the bandaid on the knee.