Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Sir_Prometheus on February 03, 2014, 11:35:03 AM
-
Referencing this thread here: http://www.battlegroundgames.com/forum/index.php?topic=7499.0
There seemed consensus of running the tournament at either a 3 or 5 point limit (3 is more restrictive). I will point out that some form of bonus points will be used, so if for instance, a player with a 4 point list plays a 2 point players, the player with the 2 point list gets 2 bonus points (or something like that), so at higher points, there's still advantages to playing a lower point list.
-
I voted for 3. I don't feel like 5 is quite enough to notice a difference in the lists people bring. I also feel that 0 would not be much fun at all for too many people. I feel the point of comp is to limit awesome units, not restrict them from play completely, but that is my take. Like anything else suggested four tournaments, I'd like to see this, some of the time, not all of it.
-
Where is the option for 4
-
I voted to try it at 3 points.
BUT
I want to preface this with I don't think we should have this comp as a standard thing at BG events. This is just to "try it out" and see what happens if Chase decides to at somepoint do a comp event.
-
i voted for 3, that being said can we change up the poll to include options for 0 and 4?
-
This is a hard thing to just say; I want this point value. If it is a GT I would say 5. For a 3 day event 3. That being said; you could do either for each event as well. It really comes down to local meta preference as well as what kind of tournament the TO wants to run.
-
Where is the option for 4
You're the only one who mentioned 4! And polls (like elections) work better if it's a binary choice. If a lot of people want 4, they can say that here, and we'll re-do it.
-
Im officially announcing my campaign for 4. I will start my speeches and site visit this coming week. I notified my speech writers to prepare for a serious and credulous campaign this voting season!
-
i voted for 3, that being said can we change up the poll to include options for 0 and 4?
Why 0? If all 4 were an option, which would you want? 0 seems completely unplayable.
So far that's two votes to at least be listing 4 pts as an option.
-
I say give everyone a chance to vote for what they want.
I vote a pol for 0-5
-
lol, stop complaining about the format of the poll. As noted already by thread starter, write in candidates are acceptable and he's tracking them, let's stay on target here!
-
I would like to vote for another vote within this vote to vote on the proper score.
-
I would like to vote for another vote within this vote to vote on the proper score.
You need to clarify that this vote is a write in vote in order for it to qualify under statute 5.1 of the BS forum regulation. Please resubmit using the proper forms in triplicate.
-
I would like to vote for another vote within this vote to vote on the proper score.
You need to clarify that this vote is a write in vote in order for it to qualify under statute 5.1 of the BS forum regulation. Please resubmit using the proper forms in triplicate.
I think we need to vote on this first
-
Im calling on a recount based on the illegitimacy of this voting for votes system...
-
Can we argue about arguing, while we're at it?
-
Dont Judge me Matt!!!
-
i voted for 3, that being said can we change up the poll to include options for 0 and 4?
Why 0? If all 4 were an option, which would you want? 0 seems completely unplayable.
So far that's two votes to at least be listing 4 pts as an option.
i agree 0 is ridiculous, i was just curious if anyone other than that one guy would actually vote for such a thing
-
I would vote for 0. If the komp system is balanced, 0 should create a field where all books are even just as much as 3 or 5.
-
I voted 3. 5 allows quite a bit and if your going to go this route IMO 3 is a better limiter.
-
Where's 347? This is ridiculous.
-
Where's 347? This is ridiculous.
Lol.
I would vote for 0. If the komp system is balanced, 0 should create a field where all books are even just as much as 3 or 5.
I'm not sure why you don't understand why 0 would be bad. Have you maybe not looked at the tables in much detail? Regardless, I do believe you are the only one who actually wants 0.
-
Where's 347? This is ridiculous.
Lol.
I would vote for 0. If the komp system is balanced, 0 should create a field where all books are even just as much as 3 or 5.
I'm not sure why you don't understand why 0 would be bad. Have you maybe not looked at the tables in much detail? Regardless, I do believe you are the only one who actually wants 0.
I don't understand how you can say komp is bad at 0, it should be even at every level. What's the point of komp at 5 if you don't have to change your list? It just makes the field easier for you. I think at komp 0, everybody would have to do a major overhaul of their lists which would really change the field. I voted for 3, I'd consider playing in a 3 event, but I have no interest in 5.
-
Where's 347? This is ridiculous.
Lol.
I would vote for 0. If the komp system is balanced, 0 should create a field where all books are even just as much as 3 or 5.
I'm not sure why you don't understand why 0 would be bad. Have you maybe not looked at the tables in much detail? Regardless, I do believe you are the only one who actually wants 0.
I don't understand how you can say komp is bad at 0, it should be even at every level. What's the point of komp at 5 if you don't have to change your list? It just makes the field easier for you. I think at komp 0, everybody would have to do a major overhaul of their lists which would really change the field. I voted for 3, I'd consider playing in a 3 event, but I have no interest in 5.
My belief that 0 is bad is based off certain entire units not being eligible at all and those are the units that are the most fun. No Stormravens, no Tigerius, no fortifcations, no helldrakes, or farseers, wraithknights, Draigo, no blob platoons, no necron flyers, runepriests, ethereals, riptides, venomthropes.
While I agree that most of these we want to see fewer of, I would argue that many of these units are the core reasons people play those factions. Many of these are what make the faction unique and drew people to that faction in the first place. The idea of komp is to allow for a limited amount of awesome, instead of spamming all of the awesome. 0 Komp is just saying everyone take units that don't impact the game...while I can see that as appealing as a laugh for a game. It is not something I would enjoy for more than one game.
-
What tharcil said. I don't see banning half of everything as desirable. I only have one riptide, for instance, but I do like having it. 0 comp for Tau would be no Riptides and barely and markerlights. Maybe you hate Tau and think that's cool, but every other army becomes weird and un fun.
don't understand how you can say komp is bad at 0, it should be even at every level.
No, it shouldn't? That's not stated anywhere. As people have pointed out, if you set the limit too high, there's no point. Likewise if you set it so low then it's too restrictive and no one is happy with their list. Do you really want to play with no nightscythes, at all?
-
At a zero comp event, here are some units that would just be banned...
Aegis Defense Line
Bastion
storm ravens
belakor
heldrakes
Farseers
wraithknights
riptides
coteaz..
etc etc..
This is DECREASING diversity by outright banning units. The whole point is to INCREASE diversity.
-
I don't anticipate hosting a 0 "Komp" event in the future.
If I were going to go in that sort of direction, I'd rather run a straight Highlander type of thing. I get the difference, but appreciate the similarities.
I voted 3.
Edit: I am surprised by the results.
-
I am like, SOOOOO outvoted. I'm alright with 3, though.
-
i say which ever allows the most diversity but allows some duplications.
BTW I accidently clicked 5 im for 3
-
So, I'm going to call it. We should run a tournament at 3 pts. (you're all WRONG, though!!!) (I'm kidding)
-
I don't 3 is a bad idea either. I imagine the format will most certainly make an impact at 3.