Battleground Games Forum
Games Workshop => Warhammer 40K => Topic started by: Grimwulfe on January 28, 2014, 10:37:51 AM
-
I actually really like this system so far.. Discuss....
http://www.emphy.com/dino/LBKcompDoc.pdf
-
I like the idea of it. If there were a good process in place to keep it updated, react to new dominating thing quickly, etc, it could help to keep things fresh and at least make it so the same things wouldn't stay on top for long. And theoretically could boost "Sad armies" like orks, nids, sisters.
-
They've been talking about this a lot on the 11th company. I like the idea of it, but of course feel the urge to quibble with details?
Why are stormraven's penalized so much? My tau list gets 5 points, but 3 of those are just from taking markerlights. Centurion's aren't penalized, at all. Etc, just things like that.
-
So far I think the points are good my Eldar would score a 6 and my SW a 3 so both I think are represented well.
Overall I like it and think its a good way to move forward.
-
Actually, I was thinking about your list (because seriously, no offense, but it's nasty as hell) and I what satisfied me, to an extent, is that I think you'd score way higher than 3.
-
I like the idea of playing a 3 or 5 point tournament, I just don't think the points are all that balanced. I think my necron list I'm taking to templecon is a 12 and it's by no means the nastiest thing you'll see in the GT.
-
LOL my list overall doesn't have allot of the power units. I make use of non common models to give me the punch that is dirty.
Also with keeping the WG in only 2 squads I limit the bang and don't spread the love. My list is nasty in the first 2 rounds after that it dwindles hard. If I cant win the game in that short time it is a very uphill battle.
Now 1 caveat to that according to the comp system I field 11 pods if they keep the scoring for pods going then 11 would see me at 4 points instead of 3 which makes a bit more sense.
So for SW thats one change I would make keep the points going up for every 2 pods
-
I like the idea of it. If there were a good process in place to keep it updated, react to new dominating thing quickly, etc, it could help to keep things fresh and at least make it so the same things wouldn't stay on top for long. And theoretically could boost "Sad armies" like orks, nids, sisters.
Looks like they are updating this regularly it has been out for a bit and is up to date.
-
I'm at a 10 and my list is no where near the standard meta-spam.
-
I don't like it, mainly because it has traditional written all over it and traditional doesn't work (which is why there have been pissing matches about Comp for the entire several years I've been playing this game).
I would rather see players judge how good their opponents' lists were, and that information used to give a bonus or negative.
-
Right so lets say you do that. Person gets beat and it butt sore. He dogs you, now you have tpo deal with an average or lose out because you pissed off a child.
-
So, Troy, how many drop pods do you have? Like, 9 right?
I guess you get off cheap, cuz you have 2 wolfguard squads, which are in drop pods, plus the JOTWW counts as two drop pods, so that puts you up to like 12 drop pods, but the system caps out at 9 drop pods.
Bleh, so you kinda slip under the radar.
BTW, judging comp by simple opinion can be alright (it's not great), but scoring it prior to actually playing the game is absolutely critical.
I prefer an independant panel of jusdges scoring comp, honestly.
I even OK with some simple like -3 BP for playing Tau, etc.
-
I have 7 but yes there should be a incremental that doesn't cap. So by the comp system I have 11 pods but in reality only 7
-
It's interesting and certainly infinitely better than the daboyz"comp". My list clocked in at a 5
-
It seems bad that a particularly strong army might score a 3 and a not particularly strong army might score a 12.
Hearing that makes it VERY difficult to take seriously.
-
Here's the top 3 from the last 1850 we ran. Someone please post how many points each list is.
1st - Todd Silber (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-AzuwQYWKDLXzY4MC13XzA4YXM/edit?usp=sharing)
2nd - Alex Fennell (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-AzuwQYWKDLS2pkVXgzcWs4NWc/edit?usp=sharing)
3rd - Chris Scotti (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zSaDW4R3fVEnBJXbOZHWH3iEzNUpztoxxtZaTeM2I8/edit?usp=sharing)
-
I'm at a 10 and my list is no where near the standard meta-spam.
Lol wut?
-
Ya bill I had to laugh at that as well.
-
It seems bad that a particularly strong army might score a 3 and a not particularly strong army might score a 12.
Hearing that makes it VERY difficult to take seriously.
Things to remember here is that the Swiss aren't doing this system on paper. Going out on a limb here and assuming you are talkin about Pod Wolves (3) and Necrons (12). Is that while pod wolves are powerful and have a difficult to appreciate alpha strike they have extremely mobility and hard counter problems while Necrons have night scythes which keep very low point value units very safe and even against heavy anti air armies can fly on and off the board and drop troops on objectives last turn.
-
Here's the top 3 from the last 1850 we ran. Someone please post how many points each list is.
1st - Todd Silber (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-AzuwQYWKDLXzY4MC13XzA4YXM/edit?usp=sharing)
2nd - Alex Fennell (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-AzuwQYWKDLS2pkVXgzcWs4NWc/edit?usp=sharing)
3rd - Chris Scotti (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-AzuwQYWKDLekI4MVFXRmVFVkE/edit?usp=sharing)
Ok if im reading this correctly
Todd = 5 (which in my opinion is a tame build as it does not use broken seeker star)
Alex = 9
Chris = List is broken cant check.
-
After more careful review, my list only clocks in at 7-8.
-
Chris's is fixed.
-
Chris is 4 if Ravenwing banner != Devastation banner, otherwise he is a 5
-
Todd actually has a pretty balanced, non-cheesy list, by anyone's measure. Go Todd!
Jared, you're a cheese monkey, you know it, don't front.
My list, while Tau-Farisght, I've otherwise worked pretty hard to keep "balanced". I'm a little disappointed it hit 5, mostly on markerlights. But that's also not awful, so *shrug*.
-
Correct Chris is a 5
-
I think Todd got a 2 not a 4. He doesnt have screamers/exalted
-
Hes a 4 because the DP is 1 and he has 3 exalted rewards
-
Todd actually has a pretty balanced, non-cheesy list, by anyone's measure. Go Todd!
Jared, you're a cheese monkey, you know it, don't front.
My list, while Tau-Farisght, I've otherwise worked pretty hard to keep "balanced". I'm a little disappointed it hit 5, mostly on markerlights. But that's also not awful, so *shrug*.
Sorry, I don't take 3 Riptides and a Wraithknight on a Skyshield platform, or 4 Riptides and minimum troops. I don't run dual WK and 6 Wave Serpents. I don't run Jetstar or Seerstar. I don't spam 9 broadsides.
I could easily just sit back and have entirely unfun games if I wanted to run what is standard Meta Lists now.
-
Right so lets say you do that. Person gets beat and it butt sore. He dogs you, now you have tpo deal with an average or lose out because you pissed off a child.
But if he's butt sore, wouldn't what he give you be lower than the average anyway?
Besides. Only a fool would publish the differential. You give the winners in each category, no specifics. No one can complain if they only know the final score, and not how much it was or wasn't altered by their soft scores on comp. You tell people how much it can potentially change, of course, but there is no need to show, say, anything but your final total of battle points.
I feel it's critical it happen AFTER the game. I don't know if the guy was a slow or inexperienced player or a cheater before the game. The only people who would use after-game comp to screw someone are the same sort of people who it is going to intentionally be hamstringing anyway. It's not a realistic threat with the option to drop an anomalous result anyway.
If you do player scored comp before the game it hurts everyone -- for instance, a player in the vein of Mr. Prometheus would probably be low-balled even if the gameplay or list that day didn't merit it, merely on reputation. Similarly, you might see a guy with some Riptides and give him a zero only to find he's a super nice guy and you had a great game and his Riptides were the only good thing in his army.
Rubrics don't work. People only want rubrics so that they can still be a dick to their opponents but dance around the comp with their list and then act like they were a perfectly nice guy all day because the rubric said so.
I much prefer the player-friendly method. I would rather see tough lists but people not being jerks to one another, than average lists and everyone mad because they couldn't take what they wanted. Not to mention, you can make this additive, so no one ever gets a negative, only no added points.
-
Still figuring this out. I'm trying to figure out where my (Chris S.) 5 points come from. I get 1 for the Chapter master with 2+/3++, and another for the Allied unit with a Ravenwing Grenade Launcher....what are the other 3 points from, guessing I'm misunderstanding this a bit.
-
for every 5 models on biked with a grav gun 1 point you have 2 units
and the banner
-
i'm actually fairly impressed that they managed to hit basically everything in the new nids book that i actually want to play :P i think making the penalty for crones not include harpies is an obvious oversight, but overall it's not a bad first draft for a book that's been out less than a month.
the list i'm looking at running only clocks in at 3-4 points and the only point i really feel is even close to vital is the venomthrope.
-
Gotcha, missed the Grav guns. It's the Ravenwing Banner, not the Devastation Banner. So looks like 4 points. Thanks!
-
Got ya 4 is a good total.
-
It seems like in order to make it "comp" event you'd have to ask people to bring 2 points or less.
Basically all of the lists are 5 points or less!
-
Not really Chase most of the lists presented are actually fairly balanced lists. If you look at Alex's (who should of won the event) he scored a 9 with a broken seer star. An event set to 4-5 would actually be a fairly even event.
-
And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing. What's the point in that?
-
Yeah nobody would call Todd's winning list a "broken" or even a "typical" list. He must, you know, be good or something.
I think people might be confusing a couple issues here... by "Comp" we're only talking about Army COMPosition, right? Not sportsmanship or anything else. The only problem we're trying to address with this discussion (though not the only concern with thinking about in general!) is the inherent power imbalance between the 40k codexes, and between units within each codex.
-
And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing. What's the point in that?
Basically it looks like most people didn't take "Netlists" to this event, so yeah, a comp limit designed to prevent netlist spam wouldn't have had an overwhelming effect. If you applied the same rules to like the top 16 at a recent GT somewhere, you might see a lot more double digit scores.
-
Matt is correct is 9-10 people wouldnt change a thing that is great but that 1 person showing up with full on Seeker star or seer star would have to which in turn, make the game for that persons 3 opponents more enjoyable and not a complete and utter waste if you dont have the proper counters.
Comp system is only intended to curb the crazy shit and try to put armies on a equal footing. Some tweaks need to be made but overall this is a great start.
-
Take DaBoyz for example. It had a comp system. Crappy comp yes but a system. If you took Alans list who won the tourny and used this comp he would of scored a 12.
-
Anybody have the time to apply comp rules to the top 16 lists from DaBoyz?
-
And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing. What's the point in that?
Huh? Did I miss something, or are most lists like in the 4-8 range?
5 seems to rule out most of the "crazy cheese". 3 points I think is super-tight restrictions, but doable. I can't picture going less than that.
-
I don't know that it would accomplish much that wouldn't result in more headaches down the stretch.
If 9 of 10 people don't have to change what they're bringing to BG tournaments anyways, does an issue exist? Would a guy like Alex do much worse if I built his list by throwing darts at the 40k wall? If the vast majority of people that historically do well are in the 3-5 point range, "allowing" the "less skilled" players to bring the 12 point lists might help more than it hurts. Joe Blow New Guy doing well with a "super cheese" list is good for me, it's good for you guys, and most importantly it's good for him.
Is it a cool idea for a much larger event like a GT? Maybe, although I'm not 100% sure it's an awesome move.
I think this type of thing is a really cool launch point.
-
And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing. What's the point in that?
Huh? Did I miss something, or are most lists like in the 4-8 range?
You must have, yes.
-
I would be surprised if it was 9/10 the actual numbers would be far more telling. As for Joe schmo bringing a net list yes would be good for people like me who love challenges but what happens when joe schmo players another joe schmo and pushes his face making the game unfun for that joe schmo.
-
Came into thread expecting delicious candy fish.
Leaving disappointed.
On topic: I share Troy's concern.
-
When I read Grimwulfe's post I thought he meant, what do we think of it as a possible approach to all types of tourneys, not as a way to solve an issue with Battleground's tourneys only.
Battlegrounds doesn't suffer as badly from the netlist phenomenon as some places (especially large national tourneys) do.
-
I'm not sure that's any different than what might happen is Joe Schmo #2 plays any one of the more competitive guys.
The major difference is, and this is EXTREMELY important, that he can justify his loss again the "douchey net list" by saying to himself or his friends "that guy had a douchey net list, what was I supposed to do?"
People LOVE to place blame and generally dislike losing. If people can place blame on something other than themselves they will.
Having an event full of comped lists eliminates one more thing Joe Schmo #2 can place blame on.
Besides, it's probably cool for a new, active player to get smashed by a net list in one of his first events. Now he's got real world experience with which to complain on various message boards with. :) No more reading about X-star, Riptides, Taudar, etc... Now he can speak from experience like the cool kids!
Money well spent!
-
When I read Grimwulfe's post I thought he meant, what do we think of it as a possible approach to all types of tourneys, not as a way to solve an issue with Battleground's tourneys only.
Battlegrounds doesn't suffer as badly from the netlist phenomenon as some places (especially large national tourneys) do.
EXACTLY
-
It might be a good idea for some of the larger events to think about, but comp of any kind discourages some. I promise that all of these larger events want as many people to come out and play as possible, and I'm not sure many of them are going to be keen on adopting something like this, which reads like a major change, soon. (In practice it's apparently NOT a very large restriction.)
Small steps. It's cool. I'd be interested in seeing what might become of it.
-
I'm not sure that's any different than what might happen is Joe Schmo #2 plays any one of the more competitive guys.
The major difference is, and this is EXTREMELY important, that he can justify his loss again the "douchey net list" by saying to himself or his friends "that guy had a douchey net list, what was I supposed to do?"
People LOVE to place blame and generally dislike losing. If people can place blame on something other than themselves they will.
Having an event full of comped lists eliminates one more thing Joe Schmo #2 can place blame on.
Besides, it's probably cool for a new, active player to get smashed by a net list in one of his first events. Now he's got real world experience with which to complain on various message boards with. :) No more reading about X-star, Riptides, Taudar, etc... Now he can speak from experience like the cool kids!
Money well spent!
Hmm.... I get my ass kicked by the more competitive guys all the time, and I enjoy it more when it is a closer game, and I can see that the kickage was a result of in-game tactics, rather than a disparity in the tools we each brought to the fight.
-
Ya you may be right Chase in that regard. However the game forced the hands of the Fantasy community and I think up until this point 40K was never forced like they are now. The time is upon us to adapt or run the risk of making the issue worse and losing the new blood.
We shall see what the future holds. On that note however I would love to see this tested at least once locally to see how it really turns out in a live setting.
-
Would a guy like Alex do much worse if I built his list by throwing darts at the 40k wall?
Uh, yeah, I'd think so.. You could always ask Alex. There are times I feel when I've almost beaten him, so I certainly that would be easier if he had a crummy list.
List matters a lot, I think. That said, I don't know that this comp does a great job of punishing "good" lists, it seems like it more merely punishes "popular". Those are not at all synonymous. I like Hammerheads, personally find them more useful per point than broadsides, but they're aren't popular, so they weren't penalized.
It's worth asking, what do you want a comp system to do? Way I see it, there's a few options:
1) Balance out "Good lists". I.e. if you actively take a bad list, you're rewarded for it.
2) Create more diversity -- either by reducing spam (3 riptides, 7 wave serpents, whatever) and also by making sure we see more than one type of list....not everything einds up being jet seer all the time, or O'Vesa star
3) Some people just want to get rid of the "broken" things.....mostly deathstars of various types, atm.
I don't love #1, because to me, list building is a fun part of the game. Personally, I just want to see both more different codexes and more different builds within those codexes do well.
-
Even though I enjoy challenges playing schmoes running super powerful lists is not very fun and makes 40k very difficult to enjoy nor does it help either player or the hobby. Playing GK during their 5th ed. prime was probably one of the worst things for my 40k skill level and as soon as the codex balanced out in 6th it was literally almost like starting over and relearning the game.
Playing the power army you are very rarely on your heals, you hardly feel your mistakes because the codex covers them up, you can do the wrong thing and still win (right Jared the Galleria of Cheese? =P), and you very often don't leave a happy opponent behind no matter how good the game actually is. You are always dictating the game, forcing the opponents actions much more than they may be forcing yours etc.
I feel this Komp system has some very bright points and is a good starting point to introduce some balance to 40k.
-
I'm not opposed to limiting to like 3 points or something. 5 seems like it'd just be too much of the same around here.
Like, the last 1850 looked something like:
Todd - 2 (or 4, depending on how you read the exalted reward thing)
Alex - 9 or so (Eldar)
Chris - 4
Bill S - 4
Bill M - 7 (Eldar + SM)
Sam - 2 (let's pretend it's 5 because I don't know if Fateweaver or Be'Lakor have rewards or 4 mastery levels)
Troy - 3
Jason - 5
Matt B - 5
Stephen - 6 (maybe 7, because "1 Each Stormtalon after the first (including the first if more than one Flyer in the army)" doesn't make much sense. It would seem like having 2 Stormtalons would cost 2 because if you've got 2, you've also got more than 1 flyer.) (White Scars)
Seems tough to build a sick Eldar list without hitting 6.
Seems like SM bikes get punished a little too much.
It's tough to get 5 or 6 with CSM or Demons unless you legit spam FMCs or Helldrakes.
Seems easy to get over 5 as Tau.
Edit: John Walsh took Taudar with 3 Riptides and scored a 6, I believe. Not too bad. Although I don't know what does and doesn't have marker lights or if they're normally present on a list.
-
And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing. What's the point in that?
Huh? Did I miss something, or are most lists like in the 4-8 range?
You must have, yes.
4-8, right? ;)
-
People LOVE to place blame and generally dislike losing. If people can place blame on something other than themselves they will.
Having an event full of comped lists eliminates one more thing Joe Schmo #2 can place blame on.
And adds one of the all-time favorite things to blame..."The comp screwed me!" (Which isn't a far translation to "[This event/this event organizer] screwed me!", which is why I'm generally not a fan).
I don't go to comped events because I play Space Wolves and generally people still haven't calmed down about them. I don't even play a good list and usually see myself score pretty badly on most rubrics I've seen the past few years. So I just stopped. I'd rather an event reward better play than better or worse lists, but that's just my opinion.
-
It seems like you need to be pretty abusive to score more than a 7.
-
I'm not opposed to limiting to like 3 points or something. 5 seems like it'd just be too much of the same around here.
Like, the last 1850 looked something like:
Todd - 2 (or 4, depending on how you read the exalted reward thing)
Alex - 9 or so (Eldar)
Chris - 4
Bill S - 4
Bill M - 7 (Eldar + SM)
Sam - 2 (let's pretend it's 5 because I don't know if Fateweaver or Be'Lakor have rewards or 4 mastery levels)
Troy - 3
Jason - 5
Matt B - 5
Stephen - 6 (maybe 7, because "1 Each Stormtalon after the first (including the first if more than one Flyer in the army)" doesn't make much sense. It would seem like having 2 Stormtalons would cost 2 because if you've got 2, you've also got more than 1 flyer.) (White Scars)
Seems tough to build a sick Eldar list without hitting 6.
Seems like SM bikes get punished a little too much.
It's tough to get 5 or 6 with CSM or Demons unless you legit spam FMCs or Helldrakes.
Edit: John Walsh took Taudar with 3 Riptides and scored a 6, I believe. Not too bad.
So, I'm ok with setting a level that doesn't make TOO many people change their lists, or not that much. Particularly since despite the high level of play at BG, most people take fairly balanced lists. So just because most people are relatively behaving themselves on the list building end, that doesn't mean we need to be more stringent.
And to your point earlier, Chase, Alex obviously doesn't win just because of his lists. But generally speaking, I think it would be nice to not have to face 3 LR (or five!) or sure, 3 Stormravens, or 3 wraithknight, or whatever.
It's also worth noting that this comp system isn't usually just a cap -- it actually usually yields extra points. So a 5 point list fights a 1 point list and the 1 point list gets 4 extra battle points, or something.
-
I wonder what screamer star and jet council end up scoring on this. Like Chase said it's easier to score high for some codex vs others and granted some codexs are worse than others.
I'd do a tournament at BG with these restrictions but ya the only way to see some out of the box stuff is too impose a limit of around 3.
Good players will still come up with mean lists although it'll likely hurt attendance as say someone who only has a bike army couldn't go or wouldn't want to go.
The doubles at abington with only 6 teams (or 12 guys) is a CRAZY low. BG is after all a business and as such I suspect wants to do tournaments that appeal to the largest number of people to up the revenues and cover costs.
-
I like that it is essentially a bonus and not a negative. Additive is the way to go.
Internet hyperbole is a tough nut to crack when it comes to comp. You're definitely right that this much more lenient than most, though. I've had a couple of occasions where my default all comers list with no Thunderwolves and no Rune Priests had more than half its comp points deducted for having more than one (asynchronous) Grey Hunter squad.
-
I wonder what screamer star and jet council end up scoring on this. Like Chase said it's easier to score high for some codex vs others and granted some codexs are worse than others.
I'd do a tournament at BG with these restrictions but ya the only way to see some out of the box stuff is too impose a limit of around 3.
Good players will still come up with mean lists although it'll likely hurt attendance as say someone who only has a bike army couldn't go or wouldn't want to go.
The doubles at abington with only teams is a CRAZY low. BG is after all a business and as such I suspect wants to do tournaments that appeal to the largest number of people to up the revenues and cover costs.
CHAOS DAEMONS
1 Be´lakor, if no other FMC in the list.
1 Every 4th mastery level on Flying Monstrous Creature
1 Each Flying Monstrous Creature after the 1st
1 Each unit of Screamers after the first
1 2nd Exalted Reward (First if army includes a Flying Monstrous Creature)
1 Each Herald of Tzeentch/Lord of Change if army includes Screamers & Exalted Reward
1 Each unit of Flesh Hounds after the first
1 Each Soul Grinder after the second
1 Each unit of Seekers after the first.
1 Each Herald of Tzeentch with exalted locus after the 2nd
So, most lists have 4 heralds, and fateweaver, right? So that's 4 for the heralds, cuz you have screamers, 2 for fateweaver, because he is both a lord of change (he counts, right?) and mastery level 4.
So that's 6, and I assume you must have more FMCs, so it's probably more like 7-9. Probably some Loci and Exalted rewrds in there too.
-
I was listening to a podcast where they said,
Most tourneys in Sweden use this comp system, but there are still greater and lesser comped events, because different events will put the cap at a different number.
Like there are "5 point tournaments" (middle o the road), "8 point tournaments" (expect some more nastiness), "3 point tournaments" (a little more fluffy friendly).
-
Well, I'm not a fan of comp, but if there is something like this on the US side, it wouldn't be hard to adjust it to include the new material regularly.
To me the biggest fault with comp is it's subjectivity but if a consensus is reached it can become a standard and people can get acclimated to it, and it being convenient to change from place to place it'd be an idea candidate for a standard across the board.
I would never use it in my events but a standard existing is a good idea for all the places that do.
-
I have mixed feelings about comp of any kind. But that's just my initial feelings before trying it. That said, I think this would be fun either way to try out sometime.
-
Give the gamers a system, any system, and they will game it.
(http://www.stateofdigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/waynes-world-game-on.jpg)
-
That's true. But that rings similar to the argument made that "banning things or changing rules is useless, because some other thing will be the most powerful thing".
That's also true, yet it's also misleading, because while there will always be some "most powerful thing", it is totally possible reduce the delta.....the peaks and valley's CAN be smoothed out. Warmachine is pretty balanced, but still some things are more powerful than others, does that mean all the work (and play-testing, and errata's) that PP puts into balancing it was worthless? Of course not. Because whatever is "broken" in Warmachine is much less powerful in comparison to the "sucky" than it is in 40k, and this comparatively means that player choices (skill) have much more to do with the outcome of the game.
-
This is interesting, I like the victory points adjustment based on the komp difference idea. Maybe it's because my list sucks but it currently only scores a 1 and will be a 0 after I replace the stormraven with a land raider. Ive had some success with the list but most of my stuff is not komped, ie vindicators, dreadnoughts and razorbacks.
-
The Sisters w/IG allies and an Inquisitor list I last played gets a freakin' 7 using this comp. That is just hilarious.
It is headed along the right path, but definitely needs some adjustments. Blanket ally penalties are easy to whip up, but given the various force multipliers impact the game differently based on the force they are initially multiplying… the trickle-down effects from penalizing the "strongest" suck.
Fantasy comp systems have it easier as they do not need to deal with allies, but I feel there needs to be a more specific, targeted way to deal with allies.
-
I don't like it, mainly because it has traditional written all over it and traditional doesn't work (which is why there have been pissing matches about Comp for the entire several years I've been playing this game).
I would rather see players judge how good their opponents' lists were, and that information used to give a bonus or negative.
Worst idea ever. This has been tried several times of the years in many different game systems, it never works.
-
It seems bad that a particularly strong army might score a 3 and a not particularly strong army might score a 12.
Hearing that makes it VERY difficult to take seriously.
The comp tries to break "common builds" as much as rebalance the game. It forces you to make different choices to score well, and that promotes variety.
-
Right so lets say you do that. Person gets beat and it butt sore. He dogs you, now you have tpo deal with an average or lose out because you pissed off a child.
But if he's butt sore, wouldn't what he give you be lower than the average anyway?
Besides. Only a fool would publish the differential. You give the winners in each category, no specifics. No one can complain if they only know the final score, and not how much it was or wasn't altered by their soft scores on comp. You tell people how much it can potentially change, of course, but there is no need to show, say, anything but your final total of battle points.
I feel it's critical it happen AFTER the game. I don't know if the guy was a slow or inexperienced player or a cheater before the game. The only people who would use after-game comp to screw someone are the same sort of people who it is going to intentionally be hamstringing anyway. It's not a realistic threat with the option to drop an anomalous result anyway.
If you do player scored comp before the game it hurts everyone -- for instance, a player in the vein of Mr. Prometheus would probably be low-balled even if the gameplay or list that day didn't merit it, merely on reputation. Similarly, you might see a guy with some Riptides and give him a zero only to find he's a super nice guy and you had a great game and his Riptides were the only good thing in his army.
Rubrics don't work. People only want rubrics so that they can still be a dick to their opponents but dance around the comp with their list and then act like they were a perfectly nice guy all day because the rubric said so.
I much prefer the player-friendly method. I would rather see tough lists but people not being jerks to one another, than average lists and everyone mad because they couldn't take what they wanted. Not to mention, you can make this additive, so no one ever gets a negative, only no added points.
So your answer to people scoring it on butt hurt is just to hide it from the recipient? Good plan.
Rubrics are desired because it is transparent to everyone.
Also, can you please explain why i shouldn't act "like a nice guy" because I took a hard build? Shouldn't we always be "nice guys" while we are playing the game and be gentlemen?
-
And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing. What's the point in that?
There are multiple ways to use the comp chase.
limiting to a particular score is just one way.
The "Active comp" method works as follows.
I bring a 4 comp Nid list. I play against an 8 comp Eldar seerstar list. At the end of the game, we take the difference in score(4), and subtract it from the eldar list, and add it to mine. So If I lost 15-5, It is still a loss for me, but it is 11-9 instead.
-
Would a guy like Alex do much worse if I built his list by throwing darts at the 40k wall?
Uh, yeah, I'd think so.. You could always ask Alex. There are times I feel when I've almost beaten him, so I certainly that would be easier if he had a crummy list.
List matters a lot, I think. That said, I don't know that this comp does a great job of punishing "good" lists, it seems like it more merely punishes "popular". Those are not at all synonymous. I like Hammerheads, personally find them more useful per point than broadsides, but they're aren't popular, so they weren't penalized.
It's worth asking, what do you want a comp system to do? Way I see it, there's a few options:
1) Balance out "Good lists". I.e. if you actively take a bad list, you're rewarded for it.
2) Create more diversity -- either by reducing spam (3 riptides, 7 wave serpents, whatever) and also by making sure we see more than one type of list....not everything einds up being jet seer all the time, or O'Vesa star
3) Some people just want to get rid of the "broken" things.....mostly deathstars of various types, atm.
I don't love #1, because to me, list building is a fun part of the game. Personally, I just want to see both more different codexes and more different builds within those codexes do well.
Why is #1 bad? You have new paramaters, you can weigh the merits of how important something is to your in game success to how much it helps your comp score(and how important the comp score is to placing well).
Just a new variable. If anything it forces you to actually understand your codex better.
-
I do like the idea that, even if we can poke holes in things that seem undervalued or overvalued according to the comp (just as we can do with GW's assigned point values), at least the changing comp values will force DIFFERENT armies to emerge.
It seems like what Swedish komp punishes is KNOWN power builds. If you come up with a new power build that flies under the komb radar, you get an advantage (temporarily, until the Komp catches up). Seems fun.
-
It doesn't just work on "known power builds," it also prevents you from running army staples like any vehicles or assault units that don't suck goats for necrons. It's a place to start, I like the idea of a scale. Instead of just banning stuff or saying no dupes, it says you can have some really good stuff but each thing in your army can't be the don't least the most min/maxed.
-
It doesn't just work on "known power builds," it also prevents you from running army staples like any vehicles or assault units that don't suck goats for necrons. It's a place to start, I like the idea of a scale. Instead of just banning stuff or saying no dupes, it says you can have some really good stuff but each thing in your army can't be the don't least the most min/maxed.
it is never going to be perfect, but usually it gets better.
Necrons probably suffer from being considered the top army at one point, and it might not get re-evaluated down.
-
Would a guy like Alex do much worse if I built his list by throwing darts at the 40k wall?
Uh, yeah, I'd think so.. You could always ask Alex. There are times I feel when I've almost beaten him, so I certainly that would be easier if he had a crummy list.
List matters a lot, I think. That said, I don't know that this comp does a great job of punishing "good" lists, it seems like it more merely punishes "popular". Those are not at all synonymous. I like Hammerheads, personally find them more useful per point than broadsides, but they're aren't popular, so they weren't penalized.
It's worth asking, what do you want a comp system to do? Way I see it, there's a few options:
1) Balance out "Good lists". I.e. if you actively take a bad list, you're rewarded for it.
2) Create more diversity -- either by reducing spam (3 riptides, 7 wave serpents, whatever) and also by making sure we see more than one type of list....not everything einds up being jet seer all the time, or O'Vesa star
3) Some people just want to get rid of the "broken" things.....mostly deathstars of various types, atm.
I don't love #1, because to me, list building is a fun part of the game. Personally, I just want to see both more different codexes and more different builds within those codexes do well.
Why is #1 bad? You have new paramaters, you can weigh the merits of how important something is to your in game success to how much it helps your comp score(and how important the comp score is to placing well).
Just a new variable. If anything it forces you to actually understand your codex better.
#1 one can be bad, because some "good" builds are well within the fluff and theme of the army. Trying to drive you away from builds that match the theme of your army seems lame.
Tau is a good example -- Tau are meant to work with markerlights, obviously. Markerlights are very powerful, and most winning lists (outside of the O'Vesa star stuff) have markerlights, so this Comp system heavily penalized markerlights, so much so that 3 of the 5 points my list scored was just on the number of markerlights.
But, do you want to incentivise markerlight-less Tau armies? That'd be unfluffy as hell.
It's a little like if you penalized not just flyrants, but ANY hive tyrant for tyranids, or even worse, just penalized synapse. Are tyranid armies without synapse worse than bug armies with them? Well, yeah, obviously, but I don't think that means you should try to limit the # of synapse.
That's why nerfing "good" things shouldn't be the main consideration. I also don't want to make people take bad lists, I just want to see more variety of lists.
-
Who gives a flying fuck about how "fluffly" markerlights are?
If you start considering fluff in a comp system, it will not work.
You can only comp on tabletop effectiveness and need.
Comparing markerlights to needing synapse is a joke. Try for a few fucking seconds Matt to look at how it affects not matt bennett and see how it works for everything.
So it comps markerlights, so what? taking a -1 or -2 is no issue, almost every list probably does. Maybe you shouldn't take all the other awesome shit with it.
-
I don't post ever but I will let it be known I am not a fan of this system or any comp. I'll play a few events with this, but I will prefer to play in events without these restrictions.
Bill McFadden
-
Who gives a flying fuck about how "fluffly" markerlights are?
If you start considering fluff in a comp system, it will not work.
You can only comp on tabletop effectiveness and need.
Comparing markerlights to needing synapse is a joke. Try for a few fucking seconds Matt to look at how it affects not matt bennett and see how it works for everything.
So it comps markerlights, so what? taking a -1 or -2 is no issue, almost every list probably does. Maybe you shouldn't take all the other awesome shit with it.
Whoa, whoa. First of all, this has nothing to do with the fact I play Tau nor the fact you play tyranids.
Second of all, I care a great deal "how "fluffly" markerlights are?". I think for most comp systems what is "fluffy" is a huge part of it. Most of us what to see army compositions that reflect what we think the giant fantasy-in-space battles should look like. Like we'd all like to see an effective marine army that had maybe ONE Landraider, a couple rhinos, maybe a couple drop pods. But that's not what what we see.
-
Fluff is about as subjective as they get.
Case in point: Grey knight bikers.
Comp must not be subjective for it to be effective.
-
And it's extensible ... like you could add
14 for each Transcendent C'Tan
37 for each Revenant Titan except for the 4th and 7th
-
I'd agree with Keith, I don't like comp or support it in any way but if you have to go that route, you definitely can't consider fluff. For some armies fluff is definitely the way the power builds lean (5E GK, 5E SW, and early 6E Necrons were victims of this, for example). For others it hurts.
The most important part of this Komp system is that it basically gives people a way to rate the armies against each other army to army in terms of their actual (or at least, perceived) on-table effectiveness. if it only gives points for things which make your army stronger, than that is a good metric. (As soon as you add ways to shrink it back down people will just game it, it's definitely better additive).
So your answer to people scoring it on butt hurt is just to hide it from the recipient? Good plan.
Rubrics are desired because it is transparent to everyone.
Also, can you please explain why i shouldn't act "like a nice guy" because I took a hard build? Shouldn't we always be "nice guys" while we are playing the game and be gentlemen?
Nah, I don't mean to hide it. But it should be the tally shown, not a full breakdown. You don't want people to know exactly what they got from exactly who, in a player-voted environment...it just breeds contention. It is prone to being challenging from the more aggro types of guys (That is how Matt and I first crossed paths, actually).
Rubrics are a thing I don't like personally, but obviously they are a necessary thing a lot of the time. The reason I don't like rubrics is because they can be gamed and are always prejudiced. (Also, you can do player voting and still be transparent: I tell people up front how it works and that they can gain X more points by getting good marks on the player voted stuff. But it's clear BG and the national overall scene don't need to go that route so I'll stop talking about it. It's just, to me, the only person who it matters to how you are playing is the guy across the table).
As for being nice, well, let me put it to you this way: you ever play a game with a jerk? It sucks, no? Think back to it and think if it would have been any better if both you and he had weaker armies. Comp rubrics don't address this, they just deal with bad lists, not bad players or bad games. That's my angle, though, as a person who isn't looking to the bigger 40k scene.
I prefer the player rating experience, but I can see how a scoring mechanism like this would benefit BG in-game and in terms of rep.
-
I'd be willing to give this a shot at some point at a BG event. But I would not want it to be an "every tournament" sort of thing.
Luckily Chase has already stated a zillion times that there is going to be all kinds of events at BG over the next year so hopefully he will consider adding this to the list of event ideas.
-
As for being nice, well, let me put it to you this way: you ever play a game with a jerk? It sucks, no?
Fail to see what this has to do with my list. My list could also be pretty tame but a Rock to your Scissor. Why should that have anything to do with my army comp score?
-
Sportsmanship score and player-scored comp are in theory different things.....yet they almost never are, in practice.
-
Fluff is about as subjective as they get.
Case in point: Grey knight bikers.
Comp must not be subjective for it to be effective.
As far as I know, there is nothing fluffy at all about GK bikers. But knights & bikes are objectively awesome.
-
That is sort of my point. Comp puts overemphasis on list contents, and list contents aren't the reason people don't go to tournaments. People avoid tournaments because they are perceived to be full of assholes.
I know people who avoid entire events just because ONE person is entered in them, comp or no. And if you go with a gimpy list because of comp, what is to stop you from making up for it by being a slow-playing, rules-misquoting, mis-measuring piece of shit? Nada. Low sportsmanship? So what, if it doesn't affect your actual chances at victory of some kind?
A comp system comes with the inherent reassurance there will be less dickhead lists, but the dickheads who play those lists still get to come (and you get to listen to them whine all day right off rip because they couldn't bring their 4th Riptide that day).
All I was saying is I'd rather face a thousand bullshit lists than one bullshit player, and that comp rubrics do nothing to deal with that. You can't make a rubric that says like, "Was he nice? +1 point..." You know? A game with an asshole doesn't suddenly become good because the comp dented their list.
You need to rate the player, their sportsmanship, and their list in tandem to really get to the root of the problem.
-
I think it's cool that an above average number of people are discussing this topic.
Is it too early to talk about any sort of changes you guys might like or which lines need to be edited?
-
Well, it's pretty clear to me that any comp system penalizing Orks in any way is a complete and total joke.
If we run comp events, can we also hand out participatory trophies? I just want to win something so bad, I no longer care how I win it.
-
Well, it's pretty clear to me that any comp system penalizing Orks in any way is a complete and total joke.
If we run comp events, can we also hand out participatory trophies? I just want to win something so bad, I no longer care how I win it.
But, you have won my heart!
-
I think it's cool that an above average number of people are discussing this topic.
Is it too early to talk about any sort of changes you guys might like or which lines need to be edited?
I don't play in BG events much, but if it's any interest as a Space Wolf player, this is the first comp of any kind I've seen which I would actually still go to the event despite the comp. So from my book's perspective it seems pretty good.
I still don't think the Rune Priest is that good, but same difference, I guess. 8)
-
Well, it's pretty clear to me that any comp system penalizing Orks in any way is a complete and total joke.
but but but...we are soooooo overpowered in shoothammer 40k
-
I don't know that I would penalize mono-Orks, but taking meganobs in a trukk as allies can be super stupid. I might penalize that.
-
I don't know that I would penalize mono-Orks, but taking meganobs in a trukk as allies can be super stupid. I might penalize that.
Hey you leave my twenty-two meganobz alone.
-
I was just thinking about it some more this morning and it could also be that this specific comp doesn't bother me so much because I generally don't play min/maxed overpowered net lists.
I do not like the idea of penalizing anyone for taking something that is in their codex. Because at some point in the process of choosing what should or shouldn't get penalized the TO or whoever is writing up the comp system is going to choose based on their personal preferences whatever they may be.
Again - not saying I wouldn't play one or two events a year with some sort of comp system but I would not want it to become a standard thing.
-
You need to rate the player, their sportsmanship, and their list in tandem to really get to the root of the problem.
Yes, you do. This is exactly what I have been saying. At most GT events, sportsmanship can have a large effect on your placing, esp if you are not a good sport. Most one day events don't take sports into account.
Either way, any comp score, and sports score should be separate, even if most douches play douche lists.
-
I'd be willing to give this a shot at some point at a BG event. But I would not want it to be an "every tournament" sort of thing.
Luckily Chase has already stated a zillion times that there is going to be all kinds of events at BG over the next year so hopefully he will consider adding this to the list of event ideas.
I don't think it would be wise to declare any system to be an "every tournament" thing without trying it once first.
Who knows, if the overwhelming majority like this system, and who knows, maybe we see a totally different top 5 armies in the placing, I don't see why we wouldn't consider using it at most events.
Turns out, if everyone hates it, we will probably use it once and toss it.
Amazing.
-
Well, it's pretty clear to me that any comp system penalizing Orks in any way is a complete and total joke.
If we run comp events, can we also hand out participatory trophies? I just want to win something so bad, I no longer care how I win it.
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
-
That is sort of my point. Comp puts overemphasis on list contents, and list contents aren't the reason people don't go to tournaments. People avoid tournaments because they are perceived to be full of assholes.
I know people who avoid entire events just because ONE person is entered in them, comp or no. And if you go with a gimpy list because of comp, what is to stop you from making up for it by being a slow-playing, rules-misquoting, mis-measuring piece of shit? Nada. Low sportsmanship? So what, if it doesn't affect your actual chances at victory of some kind?
A comp system comes with the inherent reassurance there will be less dickhead lists, but the dickheads who play those lists still get to come (and you get to listen to them whine all day right off rip because they couldn't bring their 4th Riptide that day).
All I was saying is I'd rather face a thousand bullshit lists than one bullshit player, and that comp rubrics do nothing to deal with that. You can't make a rubric that says like, "Was he nice? +1 point..." You know? A game with an asshole doesn't suddenly become good because the comp dented their list.
You need to rate the player, their sportsmanship, and their list in tandem to really get to the root of the problem.
I think this is a separate issue and isn't on the same plane as a comp system. But valid points non the less. But honestly there is no way to curve the player all you can do is make it so that person cant go all douche mode with his list and attitude.
Chase,
I see no reason why we couldn't as a community work to make this better then it is. We may want to keep that separate however so it doesn't get lost in the mix of this pleasant thread so far.
Community,
I think we need to stop thinking of this comp as a penal system but as more of a point system to buy from. Assigning points to a specific army shouldn't been seen as a nerf or a penalization but more as a guide.
I also think that some armies maybe orcs and others and such should get bonus points which would bring it more in line with how fantasy does their comp. And give those weaker armies a better chance to compete.
-
I do not like the idea of penalizing anyone for taking something that is in their codex. Because at some point in the process of choosing what should or shouldn't get penalized the TO or whoever is writing up the comp system is going to choose based on their personal preferences whatever they may be.
Bullshit. Why assume that the people who spend a ton of time creating and updating this is based solely on "personal preference".
It is based on 3 things:
1)The math.
2) playtesting.
3) limiting "gimmicky" stuff.
Number 3 might be personal preference, but typically they try to limit incredibly powerful, low skill or dicey elements in the game.
When a new book first comes out, its comp is based only on the math. Then they do playtesting and try to break the book to see if anything from #3 reveals itself.
Lastly, it isn't about penalizing anyone, it is about leveling the playing field so that more codex's can participate, and so that players don't have to wait 3-7 years between when their army is good, or hope to win the "codex lottery" as tau and eldar have done recently.
I never, never understand people who take GW products as gospel. They make a beer and pretzel game. It is not suitable for competitive tournaments. Luckily, there are many huge fans who put in work to try to make it more suitable.
Even if swede comp were to become standard for BG events(unlikely, since so many of you already "know" it is bad), you can still play whatever you want on thursdays, or mondays, or non tournament saturdays. If you want to play the silly beer and pretzels game, no one is stopping you. But I'd like the events I spent 9-10 hours at to be a better competitive event than an "I spy" world championships.
-
That is sort of my point. Comp puts overemphasis on list contents, and list contents aren't the reason people don't go to tournaments. People avoid tournaments because they are perceived to be full of assholes.
I know people who avoid entire events just because ONE person is entered in them, comp or no. And if you go with a gimpy list because of comp, what is to stop you from making up for it by being a slow-playing, rules-misquoting, mis-measuring piece of shit? Nada. Low sportsmanship? So what, if it doesn't affect your actual chances at victory of some kind?
A comp system comes with the inherent reassurance there will be less dickhead lists, but the dickheads who play those lists still get to come (and you get to listen to them whine all day right off rip because they couldn't bring their 4th Riptide that day).
All I was saying is I'd rather face a thousand bullshit lists than one bullshit player, and that comp rubrics do nothing to deal with that. You can't make a rubric that says like, "Was he nice? +1 point..." You know? A game with an asshole doesn't suddenly become good because the comp dented their list.
You need to rate the player, their sportsmanship, and their list in tandem to really get to the root of the problem.
I think this is a separate issue and isn't on the same plane as a comp system. But valid points non the less. But honestly there is no way to curve the player all you can do is make it so that person cant go all douche mode with his list and attitude.
Chase,
I see no reason why we couldn't as a community work to make this better then it is. We may want to keep that separate however so it doesn't get lost in the mix of this pleasant thread so far.
Community,
I think we need to stop thinking of this comp as a penal system but as more of a point system to buy from. Assigning points to a specific army shouldn't been seen as a nerf or a penalization but more as a guide.
I also think that some armies maybe orcs and others and such should get bonus points which would bring it more in line with how fantasy does their comp. And give those weaker armies a better chance to compete.
My first thought on looking at comp as a point system is that there is already a point system built into 40k so why do/should we need another?
We have the Force Org Chart that already tells us how many of a certain unit type we can have and each unit is worth X amount of points.
-
My first thought on looking at comp as a point system is that there is already a point system built into 40k so why do/should we need another?
We have the Force Org Chart that already tells us how many of a certain unit type we can have and each unit is worth X amount of points.
Because the current point system is broken, and people want to compete in a fair and balanced game. But some people like to play overpowered armies and feel good about themselves so who are we to take that away from them and enjoy the game for ourselves.
-
I do not like the idea of penalizing anyone for taking something that is in their codex. Because at some point in the process of choosing what should or shouldn't get penalized the TO or whoever is writing up the comp system is going to choose based on their personal preferences whatever they may be.
Bullshit. Why assume that the people who spend a ton of time creating and updating this is based solely on "personal preference".
It is based on 3 things:
1)The math.
2) playtesting.
3) limiting "gimmicky" stuff.
Number 3 might be personal preference, but typically they try to limit incredibly powerful, low skill or dicey elements in the game.
When a new book first comes out, its comp is based only on the math. Then they do playtesting and try to break the book to see if anything from #3 reveals itself.
Lastly, it isn't about penalizing anyone, it is about leveling the playing field so that more codex's can participate, and so that players don't have to wait 3-7 years between when their army is good, or hope to win the "codex lottery" as tau and eldar have done recently.
I never, never understand people who take GW products as gospel. They make a beer and pretzel game. It is not suitable for competitive tournaments. Luckily, there are many huge fans who put in work to try to make it more suitable.
Even if swede comp were to become standard for BG events(unlikely, since so many of you already "know" it is bad), you can still play whatever you want on thursdays, or mondays, or non tournament saturdays. If you want to play the silly beer and pretzels game, no one is stopping you. But I'd like the events I spent 9-10 hours at to be a better competitive event than an "I spy" world championships.
When I talk about personal preference I was meaning #3. What one person thinks is gimmicky another wont.
Example: If someone doesn't like flyers then flyers get penalized. Taking the Storm Talon from the swedish comp - having more than 1 is gives you a point. But if you are taking 2 or 3 storm talons you aren't taking any other fast attack options as each takes up a slot. So if you want to play a list with 2 you get docked a point even though you aren't taking landspeeders or assault marines which may/maynot be just as powerful depending on your list. The FOC is already limiting your options by itself so I'm not sure this is needed.
The only way to make a 40k tournament 100% balanced is to force everyone to play the exact same list and get rid of all randomness(predetermined warlord traits and psychic powers, etc). This is not ever going to happen though for obvious reasons.
I'm not saying take GW as gospel...I'm okay with some minor adjustments here and there depending on the event (ex: allowing only books that BG sells) - and not saying I don't want to try this out eventually. But some of us do like to play with all the rules as they are written at events too. I'm not a big fan of comp because I don't want a situation to happen where standardized version of comp penalizes something in my army that i happen to like and I can't ever play it again. As long as BG keeps hosting diverse events then this shouldn't become a problem. I foresee that at somepoint BG will host an event with some sort of comp rules to try it out. That's cool. I'll give it a shot and play. I just don't want it to become a standard thing. Just my personal opinion.
-
I think it's worth a try and sounds interesting. If nothing else it may be useful when trying to schedule a game with someone you don't know. i.e. "I have a 0 - 1 list and am looking to play the same."
It's easy to armchair quarterback something, it's another to play it.
-
I think that is the real value in this system, even though I am against comp I am very much not against players being able to somewhat categorize themselves to better make matchups more on their level. The close matches are the most enjoyable ones.
I also think it should definitely not have any derogatory context, which is tough. You look right at the list of stuff, and someone will immediately be like "Oh that's bullshit that X is worth Y points." But you have to push through that.
I like this because rather than limiting you, it simply rates what you take and lets your organizer decide where to draw the line.
In my experience it is best to take things into account without a lot of preamble and back your system as much as possible. It's true -- you can talk about whether it'll work all day, and the guys who don't like it will swear it will never work and the guys who do like it will swear it's the only way forward. It is better just to do it, and back it. People always respect things more in practice than in theory.
-
We have the Force Org Chart that already tells us how many of a certain unit type we can have and each unit is worth X amount of points.
We used to have a Force Org Chart. Now only Tyranids do. ;D
-
My first thought on looking at comp as a point system is that there is already a point system built into 40k so why do/should we need another?
We have the Force Org Chart that already tells us how many of a certain unit type we can have and each unit is worth X amount of points.
The problem here is GW has stated quite plainly many times that point costs are spitballed and are only considered based on that codex. So, for example, the Heldrake is cheap because the other units have the potential to be kitted out to be ~300pts/unit. You compare it to another book and it makes no sense, but within the context of the single book it is (somewhat) more logical. 250 points of Guardsmen =/= a Land Raider, you know?
In a larger game, point costs are not really any way of telling things apart. The Riptide is expensive so it is prohibitive to some degree to spam the thing. But we don't objectively know how much of the on-table effectiveness the unit has from just its point cost -- it's also how easy or hard it is to use them in a way to affect the game in your favor.
This is what a comp system should rate, IMO. I'd assign every unit in each codex a number 0 to 3. 0's are "those" units that we never see because they are so bad, 1's are units that are decent, 2's are units that are above average, and 3's are units that even having one of can drastically affect the game. I might even whip something along these lines up just to see how it works out. After that you just do what was done in this thread: run power lists through it and see how the numbers come out.
You end up with a bigger number, but it gives you a scale. So people can say "I have a Level [whatever] list" and it will be clear what they are expecting from their opponents.
This also saves some trouble publishing results -- you can see what level a guy's army is right in the results, it will plausibly show what armies have problems (i.e. if the top tier is all guys with maxed out army comp you know there's a power issue, and can correct the scores next time, or if it is a spread, you can show once and for all that the strength of a list isn't worth being concerned about).
You could even use it to sort who will face who.
-
I don't think Keith's point is getting across clearly here with regards to penalize vs. looking at it as an organizational cost. You can still play what you like even if it is good. Applying this to my list from the last event was interesting. You can look at it as a "penalization", but you can still play the units that you like, pay the tax, it just limits you from taking all of the things that are great in the same list. This is not about not getting to play what you like, you can just not 5 or more of that caliber unit/combo etc. It is not a restriction on the units, only a limitation. It is about balancing, not neutering.
Those people playing books with that many great combos (Tau are the easy example, sorry to pick on them) need to diversify a bit. You can still take a couple of riptides and a buff commander and not go over the threshold. You just can't also taken another such combo on top of it like you can now.
One thing that might make this more palatable could be to allow for you to take bonuses instead of just penalization. Something that is themed doesn't take as much of a hit, for example the Dark Angels take a huge hit for pretty much all of the Ravenwing units. If there was also something that said if there are only Ravenwing units in the army, the penalties are reduced by 2. I'm using this as an example since I'm familiar with it, but allow for ways for each book to maybe mitigate the penalization for things they really want to work. X HQ units, or X number of troops.
-
I think it might be simpler to just change the lists to be less harsh on certain things. As soon as you introduce ways to get back points, it will just result in people gaming it. Also, people using units they hate just as a tax on units they like is probably more annoying than just saying you can only have so many of the things you like.
-
I think that's just it Astartes the comp system doesn't force you take units you don't like. The comp system just limits certain combos etc. Which promotes diversification.
I think the best way to do the curve is that that create a curve where certain armies get more points etc. Lets say Chase is running a tourny at 5 points. With the curve certain armies would get bonus points so they can be competitive. Like Orks for example maybe they can use 6 points or 7. Would that put them in line with a 5 point eldar list? Its possible but needs to be tested.
Overall the goal of comp is try and get each army on a SOMEWHAT level playing field. so the games are played against another human instead of what army they brought.
-
I think it might be simpler to just change the lists to be less harsh on certain things. As soon as you introduce ways to get back points, it will just result in people gaming it. Also, people using units they hate just as a tax on units they like is probably more annoying than just saying you can only have so many of the things you like.
That's fair, I hadn't thought of it that way.
-
I like stealth suits, but don't find them useful, currently. They're not --bad--, they're just not what my list needs right now. I would love to essentially be paid to use them. (though I'd markerlights to support them and apparently I pay through the nose for those)
-
One thing to consider is at what game points level the Swedish Komp is balanced for. If you're playing in an 1850, I think it overly penalizes some things that might be over the top in a 1k but not crazy in an 1850. Just to use Necrons as an example, penalizing each Nightscythe in a 1k is different than penalizing each one in an 1850. Fantasy is specific in their ETC that it is designed for 2400 point games. I think the Swedish Komp isn't a bad place to start, but if we choose to modify it we should do so specifically we an 1850 or whatever we deem standard game in mind.
-
I like stealth suits, but don't find them useful, currently. They're not --bad--, they're just not what my list needs right now. I would love to essentially be paid to use them. (though I'd markerlights to support them and apparently I pay through the nose for those)
Yeah, it would be pretty cool to have an excuse to pull some of the old models from last edition off the shelf for a tourney. At least some concession that makes it seem worthwhile to try it... Necron Destroyers anyone? C'Tan shards?
-
One thing to consider is at what game points level the Swedish Komp is balanced for. If you're playing in an 1850, I think it overly penalizes some things that might be over the top in a 1k but not crazy in an 1850. Just to use Necrons as an example, penalizing each Nightscythe in a 1k is different than penalizing each one in an 1850. Fantasy is specific in their ETC that it is designed for 2400 point games. I think the Swedish Komp isn't a bad place to start, but if we choose to modify it we should do so specifically we an 1850 or whatever we deem standard game in mind.
Very good point.
-
Well, wouldn't just take into consideration that for a certain "Komp level" you set the actual points higher for bigger games?
Maybe a 5 point limit for 1850 should be 7 for 2500.
I'm not sure, but I think they did state explicitly somewhere that these tables were balanced for 1850.
-
It doesn't mention anything about 1850 in the Komp pdf I have. My list has 8 points and I feel it's a fairly balanced 1850 for going mono-necrons. One model different and it would be 10 on their chart, so allowing 5 at 1850 or 7 at 2500 doesn't really fix the issue if the book lacks other things to run that aren't complete garbage. I'm all for an event using it as is with 0 or 3 points to try it out, but I do think we'll need to modify it to make it right for BG.
-
The best way to iron out any potential changes is to throw some various live peoples' actual lists at it, and see where they naturally fall in the numbers at a given point level. See what kind of a range you are dealing with as was done earlier in this thread, and address holes. Then just pick a number and stick with it. If people find it too strict, the next event can go up by a point or two until you find the sweet spot.
I don't play much at BG's events anymore so I don't know what exactly your ultimate goal is but if it's more list variety I'd start low. Maybe one night, have a few guys play at Komp 3 @ 1850 and see how it fits, and adjust.
Unrelated, but I think an implementation like this would help on the reputation side as well.
-
Reputation is not an issue. Telling someone to build their army one way or the other won't make someone less of a douchebag. I've played people with fluffy armies that sucked who were less fun than people bringing the hardest list they could. There are some entities that enjoy the game just as much as everyone else that many other people don't like playing with, and changing the army rules won't change that.
-
Which in turn has nothing to do with this discussion or a comp system :)
If we were to tweak this the 1 important thing is people to do it without being subjective or have an alternative motive. I think as a community we could do this and make this system better so we can at least TRY it as an experiment.
-
This discussion seems like it's going pretty well. It does open up a lot more options in terms of arranging games, etc.
Talking long term here... If we end up adopting it for most BG tournaments something that I have to consider is the impact it may or may not have on people buying models. Discouraging people from buying the stuff they might want, for any reason, is not something I'm interested in at all.
A guy being like, "I really want to buy that 2nd or 3rd Riptide but if I do it'll mess up my Komp. I guess I'll have to get stealth suits, that I don't really like or want, because it doesn't cost me a point." is terrible, especially long term. This also doesn't factor in that GW is making it harder and harder for BG to get (and make money on) less popular items.
Selling a dude 5+ Wave Serpents is something I like doing. That happens because they're good and help people win events. If what helps people win events is to use a unit of everything they already have, that's less than ideal.
Might it lead to people buying one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
-
g one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
On the flipside, how many Necron Destroyers have you sold recently? Tyranid pyrovores? Theoretically, people would still need to buy an 1850 point army, right? It's just that everyone wouldn't buy the SAME 1850 army.
-
Any comp system system will effect model sales. That's why I think BG should run 3k events with everything in, you'll probably sell more lords of war/fortifications and escalation/stronghold assault books that way. Or at least more regular stuff as people build up to 3k ;)
-
Lots of great and valid points presented by all. I do feel people are a bit more skeptical and looking at the "negative" side of a comp system as restrictive instead of looking at it as an aid to restoring game balance.
Since GW admittedly is not in the game design/balance business if we want to enjoy the hobby we need to take charge and make the game work best for us. A comp system may not work for some, any, or all BG events because we have a pretty standup community and most people dont like being "that guy".
-
g one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
On the flipside, how many Necron Destroyers have you sold recently? Tyranid pyrovores? Theoretically, people would still need to buy an 1850 point army, right? It's just that everyone wouldn't buy the SAME 1850 army.
This is basically exactly what I'm talking about. Encouraging people to buy "trash" units that they don't really want or likely already own because it "fits the komp" is not what I'm interested in. That's especially true when they'd much prefer to buy models that look cool and are "good" in multiples.
I feel like they'd just get by with what they have and not buy what they might otherwise want / like.
I worry that it's just the reality of the situation.
Would what you've mentioned happen? Sure. Will it happen as often as what I listed? Almost definitely not.
-
Any comp system system will effect model sales. That's why I think BG should run 3k events with everything in, you'll probably sell more lords of war/fortifications and escalation/stronghold assault books that way. Or at least more regular stuff as people build up to 3k ;)
Something like this is coming. Probably March. Probably Abington.
-
g one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
On the flipside, how many Necron Destroyers have you sold recently? Tyranid pyrovores? Theoretically, people would still need to buy an 1850 point army, right? It's just that everyone wouldn't buy the SAME 1850 army.
This is basically exactly what I'm talking about. Encouraging people to buy "trash" units that they don't really want or likely already own because it "fits the komp" is not what I'm interested in. That's especially true when they'd much prefer to buy models that look cool and are "good" in multiples.
I feel like they'd just get by with what they have and not buy what they might otherwise want / like.
I worry that it's just the reality of the situation.
Would what you've mentioned happen? Sure. Will it happen as often as what I listed? Almost definitely not.
Well, my take on it is that, given a really good comp system, those units wouldn't BE trash!
Both of the example units I mentioned (pyrovores and destroyers) have AMAZING models. I actually own 15 destroyers (they were good in 5th ed). I'm constantly rooting for a way to see them as something other than a waste of time. And I was rooting for Pyrovores to be good, there was even a time when I thought I was going to Templecon and was considering buying some Pyrovores to paint them up before the new codex came out, because "surely GW won't let them be horrible again". Thankfully caution won out.
-
Selling a dude 5+ Wave Serpents is something I like doing. That happens because they're good and help people win events. If what helps people win events is to use a unit of everything they already have, that's less than ideal.
Might it lead to people buying one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
As long as NEW content is coming out this will continue to be the norm. New models, updated rules etc will always prompt people to acquire new models to play them. I don't see comp hindering this as much as I see bad game balance turning people away entirely.
-
Mike, that sig is an A+
-
A guy being like, "I really want to buy that 2nd or 3rd Riptide but if I do it'll mess up my Komp. I guess I'll have to get stealth suits, that I don't really like or want, because it doesn't cost me a point." is terrible, especially long term. This also doesn't factor in that GW is making it harder and harder for BG to get (and make money on) less popular items.
Selling a dude 5+ Wave Serpents is something I like doing. That happens because they're good and help people win events. If what helps people win events is to use a unit of everything they already have, that's less than ideal.
Might it lead to people buying one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
What comp can do, is make the game more enjoyable for everyone, and then maybe you have 40 man 40k events again, rather that people getting fed up with the game and leaving it behind.
I will tell you now, I am much more interested in playing a comped version of 40k, rather than my close to 0 games of normal 40k in the last year. I doubt I am the only one.
You know what people love chase? Its buying the army that calls out to them in some way, for new people and hobbyists, this is usually 1)background and fluff and 2) the models themselves.
You know what people don't love chase? It's fielding an army from the book that interested them and finding out that they have almost no shot at winning games unless the 1) include the most effective allies or units they can (even if it isn't the story or models they like), or 2) Pick a new army and try again.
Having the game in a place where I can go play a game against anyone, and have some sort of balancing factor keep it a "winnable" or "competitive game", makes every army more usable and common.
Sure, you might not sell 5 waveserpents to someone, or lose out on selling the 3rd riptide to someone. But you might have people actually building armies that are currently on the shit heap.
When was the last time blood angels have been doing much? 3 years ago? Sure, they might be getting a new book soon, but that is 2.5 years of dead inventory and space where the army is just shit, and only the true fans of the army will buy it.
-
Selling a dude 5+ Wave Serpents is something I like doing. That happens because they're good and help people win events. If what helps people win events is to use a unit of everything they already have, that's less than ideal.
Might it lead to people buying one unit of this and one unit of that? Perhaps, but I don't really see it happening the same way people want 3+ Nightscythes, 2+ Riptides, 230480923402934709243 Broadsides, 5+ Waveserpents, 3+ units of Wraithguard, 3+ Warwalkers, 30+ Jetbikes, 30+ SM Bikes, 3+ FMCs, etc. etc.
As long as NEW content is coming out this will continue to be the norm. New models, updated rules etc will always prompt people to acquire new models to play them. I don't see comp hindering this as much as I see bad game balance turning people away entirely.
This is GW's model, sell shit right when it is new, then who fucking cares after that. Sounds like it is working great for them.
-
When was the last time blood angels have been doing much? 3 years ago? Sure, they might be getting a new book soon, but that is 2.5 years of dead inventory and space where the army is just shit, and only the true fans of the army will buy it.
I don't know if you know Brad, but he plays Blood Angels and is really good. He scored the most points and prize money in the 40k campaign last summer, and certainly stomped my ass more times then I'd like to admit.
-
This is true, Chase. There are a lot of opportunities to consider. I agree with Mike -- your problem isn't going to be selling kits. No players means no kits being sold anyway.
Now, I suppose the events don't make much profit. But they are zero overhead money for the store that doesn't involve tangling with GW, even if not a lot, and also a way for you to get money out of people who already own things. My Space Wolf army is huge, I have no need to buy more except the occasional conversion fodder piece. Why would a person like me ever set foot in your store except to attend an event?
I mean, the game is 25+ years old, there are probably a lot of guys in that boat, you know? I realize it's not profitable to cater to them, but it's also potential event money lost.
EDIT: Brad and I know each other very well and he is without a doubt an excellent player.
-
After reading the swedish komp list and comments, I had an idea.
What if a tournament were to use a army scoring system to rate the cheese factor or lack there of. Players can play what ever they want according to the tournament guidelines. Players submit their lists and the judges rate that list according to the komp system. Then players are matched up by cheese factor during the tourney. So a cheese factor say 9 plays against another CF 8,9,10 army. CF 1 playes a CF 0,1,2 army. Etc. this should lead to more close competitive games and every player could actually have a chance to win. So instead of trying to balance the game why not just balance the matches? What do you think?
-
The comp system will without a doubt have a butterfly effect..
Don't make me bust out my Christian Bale youtube rant video.. I swear I do it ;D
-
After reading the swedish komp list and comments, I had an idea.
What if a tournament were to use a army scoring system to rate the cheese factor or lack there of. Players can play what ever they want according to the tournament guidelines. Players submit their lists and the judges rate that list according to the komp system. Then players are matched up by cheese factor during the tourney. So a cheese factor say 9 plays against another CF 8,9,10 army. CF 1 playes a CF 0,1,2 army. Etc. this should lead to more close competitive games and every player could actually have a chance to win. So instead of trying to balance the game why not just balance the matches? What do you think?
imagine the scenario where two very strong players bring a 10 comp list and a 0 comp list. both players roflstomp their close to equal comp opponents to three max wins. they have equal scores, who wins the tournament? they have no chance to play each other because their comp scores are drastically different. in order to get proper tournament rankings you need to pair the best records together.
-
In balanced matches I doubt you would see total blowouts but for argument sake lets say there is a tie at the end of the tournament there woyld need to be a tiebreaker like best player choise score or most/best painted army or something.
-
you also run into the issue where, for example: 7 people play high comp, 5 players play middle, only 2 play low. in this case, someone from the high comp will (presumably) have to play one from the middle each round (putting one player at a distinct advantage) and the two at the low end will have to play players from the middle for both the second two rounds (again, putting them at a distinct disadvantage). in this case, you need something to balance out the disadvantage (like the suggested taking comp points difference and adding/subtracting to/from scores) and at that point, you might as well implement that over all games and match by win/loss record.
-
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
And it would be somehow unlike your knee-jerky reaction to adopt comp as your baby and proclaim this baby as the potential savior of 40k?
-
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
And it would be somehow unlike your knee-jerky reaction to adopt comp as your baby and proclaim this baby as the potential savior of 40k?
I didn't want to mention this, but I think it might lend a little perspective as to how this comes off to outsiders or casuals:
A player at my group mentioned wanting to attend a BG doubles event some months back. He asked me if I knew anything about Battleground Plainville, and what the 40k scene was like in their tournaments. Another of our people, one who played in a series of BG events at the time, spoke up before I could. He rolled his eyes and told the kid not to bother, because "It's just a bunch of Matt Bennetts Matt-Bennetting each other" down there.
Now, I know that's not true. But with posts like the above one, and many others I've seen in just the week I've been actively visiting, it's easy to see how that reputation could be formed in the public eye. The thing is I have been seeing more and more of this, lately. What is the deal? All this fighting can't be good for your respective playing groups, no?
-
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
And it would be somehow unlike your knee-jerky reaction to adopt comp as your baby and proclaim this baby as the potential savior of 40k?
I didn't want to mention this, but I think it might lend a little perspective as to how this comes off to outsiders or casuals:
A player at my group mentioned wanting to attend a BG doubles event some months back. He asked me if I knew anything about Battleground Plainville, and what the 40k scene was like in their tournaments. Another of our people, one who played in a series of BG events at the time, spoke up before I could. He rolled his eyes and told the kid not to bother, because "It's just a bunch of Matt Bennetts Matt-Bennetting each other" down there.
Now, I know that's not true. But with posts like the above one, and many others I've seen in just the week I've been actively visiting, it's easy to see how that reputation could be formed in the public eye. The thing is I have been seeing more and more of this, lately. What is the deal? All this fighting can't be good for your respective playing groups, no?
I think we cover this question in a few other threads. There is a very vocal group of people on the forums who have very strong opinions. I'm not going to rehash anything by repeating any of it here because so far this thread has been rather "bitchfest" free and I don't think we need to go back into any of that. Suffice it to say that the majority of the community in my opinion is actually a really great group of people who for the most part I have a great time hanging out with. Unfortunately the internet is a place where its really easy to complain about stuff and forums are a natural "forum" for that. One thing for people to keep in mind - people are always more likely to complain about stuff than give praise. So for every person who complains about stuff here there are probably a few who feel the opposite.
-
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
And it would be somehow unlike your knee-jerky reaction to adopt comp as your baby and proclaim this baby as the potential savior of 40k?
I didn't want to mention this, but I think it might lend a little perspective as to how this comes off to outsiders or casuals:
A player at my group mentioned wanting to attend a BG doubles event some months back. He asked me if I knew anything about Battleground Plainville, and what the 40k scene was like in their tournaments. Another of our people, one who played in a series of BG events at the time, spoke up before I could. He rolled his eyes and told the kid not to bother, because "It's just a bunch of Matt Bennetts Matt-Bennetting each other" down there.
Now, I know that's not true. But with posts like the above one, and many others I've seen in just the week I've been actively visiting, it's easy to see how that reputation could be formed in the public eye. The thing is I have been seeing more and more of this, lately. What is the deal? All this fighting can't be good for your respective playing groups, no?
This is something I have witnessed on multiple occasions in Abington.
-
Reality and outside perspective based on this forum are incredibly different. I have never had a bad time at a BG tournament in either store. The atmosphere and way that people treat each other that I have witnessed in person is actually well beyond expectations.
These forums have eroded into a disaster. There is a complete lack of respect, etiquette and common decency. While I'm entertained by much of this on a base level, it is a complete embarrassment to our community and doesn't at all reflect the behavior I see while at the store.
-
Reality and outside perspective based on this forum are incredibly different. I have never had a bad time at a BG tournament in either store. The atmosphere and way that people treat each other that I have witnessed in person is actually well beyond expectations.
These forums have eroded into a disaster. There is a complete lack of respect, etiquette and common decency. While I'm entertained by much of this on a base level, it is a complete embarrassment to our community and doesn't at all reflect the behavior I see while at the store.
I have had similarly positive experiences at BG in the past. However, what I remarked upon was said by people who played there often, and were not referring to the forum. Other things happen in the store that lend creedance to the remarks. I could list off perhaps dozens of stories like the one I mentioned earlier, where actual in-event experiences have led to this reputation; the forum stuff is only confirming it (and probably keeping away other people who enjoy the store but want to avoid the drama). I won't go into detail but it is part of why I turned up here the past couple of weeks.
I really think implementing some kind of comp would at least make it appear like the events are trying to curb dickish behavior -- right now between the occasional but well-recalled horror story and the forum snapcasing, it looks like a total free-for-all down there.
-
I really think implementing some kind of comp would at least make it appear like the events are trying to curb dickish behavior -- right now between the occasional but well-recalled horror story and the forum snapcasing, it looks like a total free-for-all down there.
I'm not really following you, what does "free for all" mean?
-
Reality and outside perspective based on this forum are incredibly different. I have never had a bad time at a BG tournament in either store. The atmosphere and way that people treat each other that I have witnessed in person is actually well beyond expectations.
These forums have eroded into a disaster. There is a complete lack of respect, etiquette and common decency. While I'm entertained by much of this on a base level, it is a complete embarrassment to our community and doesn't at all reflect the behavior I see while at the store.
I have had similarly positive experiences at BG in the past. However, what I remarked upon was said by people who played there often, and were not referring to the forum. Other things happen in the store that lend creedance to the remarks. I could list off perhaps dozens of stories like the one I mentioned earlier, where actual in-event experiences have led to this reputation; the forum stuff is only confirming it (and probably keeping away other people who enjoy the store but want to avoid the drama). I won't go into detail but it is part of why I turned up here the past couple of weeks.
I really think implementing some kind of comp would at least make it appear like the events are trying to curb dickish behavior -- right now between the occasional but well-recalled horror story and the forum snapcasing, it looks like a total free-for-all down there.
Interesting. I'm at the store pretty much every Thursday night and most tournaments and have yet to see anything but pleasant games and a good time.
-
I also don't see how implementing a comp system has anything to do with the people's behavior.
-
I really think implementing some kind of comp would at least make it appear like the events are trying to curb dickish behavior -- right now between the occasional but well-recalled horror story and the forum snapcasing, it looks like a total free-for-all down there.
I would like to state that Comp has nothing to do with dickish behavior that is a totally different thing and has nothing to do with Comp.
-
Yeah... not really sure what incidents are being hinted at here... I can't remember ever having had an actual unpleasant game at Battlegrounds. Even against "The Notorious Bennett"...
-
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
And it would be somehow unlike your knee-jerky reaction to adopt comp as your baby and proclaim this baby as the potential savior of 40k?
I haven't said anything of the sort. I've just explained how it works and the potential benefit. I haven't suggested anywhere that battleground adopt it. I am just trying to correct misconceptions about it and explain the pro's and con's.
Which is the more important thing at this stage.
-
I can make a thread for you, bill mcfadden and matt bennett and you guys can just be all knee-jerky and make proclamations to each other based on nothing.
And it would be somehow unlike your knee-jerky reaction to adopt comp as your baby and proclaim this baby as the potential savior of 40k?
I didn't want to mention this, but I think it might lend a little perspective as to how this comes off to outsiders or casuals:
A player at my group mentioned wanting to attend a BG doubles event some months back. He asked me if I knew anything about Battleground Plainville, and what the 40k scene was like in their tournaments. Another of our people, one who played in a series of BG events at the time, spoke up before I could. He rolled his eyes and told the kid not to bother, because "It's just a bunch of Matt Bennetts Matt-Bennetting each other" down there.
Now, I know that's not true. But with posts like the above one, and many others I've seen in just the week I've been actively visiting, it's easy to see how that reputation could be formed in the public eye. The thing is I have been seeing more and more of this, lately. What is the deal? All this fighting can't be good for your respective playing groups, no?
This may be one of the only times I ever do this but I am going to defend Matt in this case.
First it is coincidental that Matt has played two of the most powerful codex's in the past 4-5 years because he has OWNED those armies through the previous 4-5 years through which they where total garbage.
Secondly Matt tends to play and build his own unique lists but he is a smart enough guy to realize what units are good/great and which are bad. Thankfully he doesn't netlist and just spam cheese units but plays the units he likes as well as some of the chosen codex's best unit.
It is pretty shitty that people at one store will bad mouth people at another store because Plainville tends to house the more competitive crowd. I dont recall the last time I had a bad game due to the list I was playing against. I know ALL of the members of my club has gone out of our way to befriend newer players, teach newer players, and not freely slaughter them even in tournaments without extensive tips and points to go along side any mistakes made etc.
I am proud of the crowd at PVille (wut wut) and how open we are despite being a very competitive crowd.
-
The whole fucking benefit of a system like swede comp, is that plainville and abington people could all play what they want and have a decently balanced game.
-
I really think implementing some kind of comp would at least make it appear like the events are trying to curb dickish behavior -- right now between the occasional but well-recalled horror story and the forum snapcasing, it looks like a total free-for-all down there.
I would like to state that Comp has nothing to do with dickish behavior that is a totally different thing and has nothing to do with Comp.
Does it matter, if the store and the players seem to prefer to not address either?
It'd be less a game-changer and more a PR move. But I doubt anyone's interested in PR.
I'm not saying the few bad stories that have come to me are at all indicative of what actually happens there, but that doesn't matter -- it's what people think that affects their perception, not what is. I mean...I'm a stranger with the potential to introduce 60+ of my members to your store and its' events. Ask yourself: What do you want me to tell these people when they ask about Battleground?
Because right now, it's something like "Those guys fight with each other on their forum a lot. They have no rules for comp either, cause the store says it wants to sell as many Wave Serpents as it can."
That being said, it would be obviously useful to have a way to rate a lists' competitive levels, this Komp thing provides a canned solution for doing exactly that. Otherwise, ultra-competitive events with good payouts, no prerequisites, and no comp or punishment for misbehavior of any kind is a recipe for eventual disaster.
-
I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that likely aren't true. Try going to a BG event sometime and rate the store based on your experience.
As for sportsman, BG gives out a Player's Choice prize at each tournament usually equal to about 2nd place.
-
I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that likely aren't true. Try going to a BG event sometime and rate the store based on your experience.
As for sportsman, BG gives out a Player's Choice prize at each tournament usually equal to about 2nd place.
This
No one is saying the forums are not a mess, but AstartesXXVI mentioned seeing the mess and not willing to get into any details. Not usually in my nature to do so, but calling you out. What have you seen at which event or which Thursday 40k night have you seen to call this a "Free for All". The pride I take in the way that everyone has acted at every event I have been to and the pride we take in sportsmanship in person is personal. If you're not willing to discuss what you've seen it is not something that could (and would be addressed) by the regulars.
-
Tchoff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoff-tchoff will you please leave your wife for me. I can provide you with much boozahol!
-
This may be one of the only times I ever do this but I am going to defend Matt in this case.
First it is coincidental that Matt has played two of the most powerful codex's in the past 4-5 years because he has OWNED those armies through the previous 4-5 years through which they where total garbage.
Secondly Matt tends to play and build his own unique lists but he is a smart enough guy to realize what units are good/great and which are bad. Thankfully he doesn't netlist and just spam cheese units but plays the units he likes as well as some of the chosen codex's best unit.
It is pretty shitty that people at one store will bad mouth people at another store because Plainville tends to house the more competitive crowd. I dont recall the last time I had a bad game due to the list I was playing against. I know ALL of the members of my club has gone out of our way to befriend newer players, teach newer players, and not freely slaughter them even in tournaments without extensive tips and points to go along side any mistakes made etc.
I am proud of the crowd at PVille (wut wut) and how open we are despite being a very competitive crowd.
To a large extent I agree with you, even though Matt and I don't get along he is unfortunately the name people use when they mean the generalized "that guy" trope. People make mistakes, and if a guy gets a bad reputation, he'll never get to change if it's all anybody keeps throwing in his face. Unfortunately in my neck of the woods the name is associated with everything from arguments to tantrums to straight up cheating. Is it all true? I highly doubt it.
That being said, Matt also started swearing at someone here and in response to me saying it wasn't cool, he PMed me and proceeded to call me all sorts of things for mentioning my club at all here all this past week. That's the sort of behavior which is why he will probably never set foot in my club; I have to protect my people from that kind of thing, whether it's rare and justified or constant and looming. Either way, self-fulfilling at this point, because now I go back to my people with another Matt Bennett story that just refreshes any old negative stereotype on the poor dude.
-
I think you're making a lot of assumptions here that likely aren't true. Try going to a BG event sometime and rate the store based on your experience.
As for sportsman, BG gives out a Player's Choice prize at each tournament usually equal to about 2nd place.
This
No one is saying the forums are not a mess, but AstartesXXVI mentioned seeing the mess and not willing to get into any details. Not usually in my nature to do so, but calling you out. What have you seen at which event or which Thursday 40k night have you seen to call this a "Free for All". The pride I take in the way that everyone has acted at every event I have been to and the pride we take in sportsmanship in person is personal. If you're not willing to discuss what you've seen it is not something that could (and would be addressed) by the regulars.
Rob's right. Some of what I have heard probably ISN'T true. At least exaggerated, I'm sure. But my point is merely that these stories exist, for whatever reason.
There is bleedover even as far apart as we are. And one guy shows up with a bad story, it sticks in peoples' heads longer than "Yeah it was great" tends to. Now I don't buy any of these stories as being as bad as they were depicted, and I have had many good experiences at BG all around -- but I reiterate, my whole point is merely that these stories exist. If you want to know, I am typing the list now, but I will not post it publicly because despite what it may seem I want Battleground to succeed and don't buy into these tall tales (outside the ones I lived through myself, which were few and far between). PM me if you are that interested, and I'll send it to you.
The reason why I am considering this an issue the way I am is that a lot of my new players are hearing these stories and avoiding even OUR events, because they are just under the impression that this is just the kind of thing that people go to tournaments to do, and how all guys act at them. I am planning a tournament in March and I have to work AGAINST that (wrongful!) reputation, being blanket-applied to ALL tournaments.
You guys are the gold standard around here when it comes to events. Your tournaments being more accessible is nothing but good for all of us. Especially for new people who think tournaments are only for assholes.
-
This may be one of the only times I ever do this but I am going to defend Matt in this case.
First it is coincidental that Matt has played two of the most powerful codex's in the past 4-5 years because he has OWNED those armies through the previous 4-5 years through which they where total garbage.
Secondly Matt tends to play and build his own unique lists but he is a smart enough guy to realize what units are good/great and which are bad. Thankfully he doesn't netlist and just spam cheese units but plays the units he likes as well as some of the chosen codex's best unit.
It is pretty shitty that people at one store will bad mouth people at another store because Plainville tends to house the more competitive crowd. I dont recall the last time I had a bad game due to the list I was playing against. I know ALL of the members of my club has gone out of our way to befriend newer players, teach newer players, and not freely slaughter them even in tournaments without extensive tips and points to go along side any mistakes made etc.
I am proud of the crowd at PVille (wut wut) and how open we are despite being a very competitive crowd.
To a large extent I agree with you, even though Matt and I don't get along he is unfortunately the name people use when they mean the generalized "that guy" trope. People make mistakes, and if a guy gets a bad reputation, he'll never get to change if it's all anybody keeps throwing in his face. Unfortunately in my neck of the woods the name is associated with everything from arguments to tantrums to straight up cheating. Is it all true? I highly doubt it.
That being said, Matt also started swearing at someone here and in response to me saying it wasn't cool, he PMed me and proceeded to call me all sorts of things for mentioning my club at all here all this past week. That's the sort of behavior which is why he will probably never set foot in my club; I have to protect my people from that kind of thing, whether it's rare and justified or constant and looming. Either way, self-fulfilling at this point, because now I go back to my people with another Matt Bennett story that just refreshes any old negative stereotype on the poor dude.
All right, that's it.
1) I haven't posted in this thread since page 8
2) You brought up my name, and somehow I've been part of this conversation for 3 pages.
3) I most certainly did bitch you out via PM -- Because I thought you were being pompous, preachy, and condescending. I PM'd you because I wanted I didn't want to continue making a public scene of it, I just wanted you to stop. Well, so much for that!
4) You have spent many, many pages in this thread about comp talking about how BG has such a bad reputation, everything is better where you play, everything would be fine if we weren't all jerks, and how up at the battle bunker you need to protect "your people".
5) I don't even think any of this is true (well, except for everyone thinking I'm an A-hole, that's totally true) BG has a reputation for having a competitive scene -- which is totally deserved. I certainly think that can drive less-competitve people away....and that's also probably justified, no one enjoys being totally outclassed. But it's not a bad thing, in and of itself, in fact I think it's great. BG has basically never had trouble getting huge attendance for it's tournaments, and recent drop-offs almost certainly have everything to do with turbulence in 40k, and nothing to do with BG.
6) Hey please stop telling us how we do everything wrong and you do everything right -- that was why I PM'd you saying you were being pompous, condescending and other names. Feel free to tell me what a jerkhole I am -- preferably via IM.
7) I would really like to go back to discussing comp, now. (and not how comp relates BG's general righteousness, moral standing, and reputation)
8) It is worth remembering that whatever we do comp wise the driver should be that it makes better, or more fun, games. We all know that, I just think it's good to state it. We all have slightly different notions of what makes a fun game -- personally I think one of the big things is that player skill should have a maximum effect on the game outcome -- I think recent changes in 40k have very much made that less true. Base codex, gimmicky combos, and pure luck affect things far more than I think most of us would like.
-
Well said, Matt.
-
Just as an aside. I am a big fan of sportsmanship at events, with a meaningful(but not too substantial) impact.
But, what I don't want to see is my choice of list, so long as it is legal within the constraints of the event(points, books allowed, any comp or not, within the rules) have any bearing on the "sport" I am seen to be. Nor would I just anyone else by that standard.
Issues like, slow play, overly argumentative, bullying, name calling etc... Should affect a sportsmanship score, because it really should be about how we conduct ourselves and not because I took a second riptide or wraithknight.
Right now, At templecon, I use a pass/fail system. Where a fail needs to have an explaination of what behavior caused the failure. Multiple failures exponentially affect your score negatively, to the point of being removed.
Adding in a pass/fail sports at BG events with a similar vein could work. Could also implement a max failures per year/quarter/whatever, where you hit a 4th failure and you have to take a cooling off period for a while.
Just spitballing here. But again, nothing to do with a comp score.
-
I have heard of systems similar to Templecon's, they help take the numbers out of things which really removes a lot of the gaming that goes on with actual sportsmanship scores. The data is also very valuable, seeing consistent reasons for fails from people and all that. It's tough to do that with a list, though; no numerical component makes it harder to gauge. I guess the goal is key here -- is it a way for players and TOs to compare lists' power levels, or is it a way to score(or penalize) them in a tournament setting.
-
Ah, I suppose I'd better address this.
All right, that's it.
1) I haven't posted in this thread since page 8
2) You brought up my name, and somehow I've been part of this conversation for 3 pages.
So you've been reading it, then? You haven't set foot in the store we play out of for at least 3 years, and I haven't been in a BG event in over a year myself. So why do I fucking hear about you so much? That is probably the question you should ask.
3) I most certainly did bitch you out via PM -- Because I thought you were being pompous, preachy, and condescending. I PM'd you because I wanted I didn't want to continue making a public scene of it, I just wanted you to stop. Well, so much for that!
Well, as far as I can tell, I did stop. What am I supposed to do -- not refer to my club? My club being about to run events of its' own (and, by extension, BG's popular events) is the only reason I am even on this board right now. The same formula is applied to everything I do with that club -- look at what makes people unhappy in other situations and do my best to prevent it/facilitate its' opposite. Combined with the fact I'm hearing tall tales and rumors about things down there it was a clear thing to check out. I don't really care that it annoys you that I talk about my club, I am not lording it over anybody and just because you take it as such doesn't mean that is my intention. BG has a bigger community and the best and biggest events in the area BAR NONE and my club will never touch but a shred of that same popularity, and I know that. I say "my people" because that is what they are, I don't play at BG.
Don't get pissed at me because the closest thing you guys have to a sense of community is everyone talking shit about you. I say those things to make sure everyone knows I am here as a guest and that I have my own little bubble where we do things differently, elsewhere, and to take what I say with a grain of salt at their discretion.
4) You have spent many, many pages in this thread about comp talking about how BG has such a bad reputation, everything is better where you play, everything would be fine if we weren't all jerks, and how up at the battle bunker you need to protect "your people".
Not even close to true and completely subjective. No one here has been a jerk, show me where I've said as much. Even above, read what I wrote -- that you probably get a bad rap, and that have of the bad things I've heard are exaggeration. The point is that comp, as a feature, makes all that bullshit less likely. Aren't you tired of being called a bullshitter? Play in an event with comp and no one can say your list is bullshit, you match the comp, everyone elses is at the same level. it is not just a tool to actually level the playing field, but a tool to level peoples' perceptions of the playing field as well -- a PR tool, that will get more people coming in. This comp system FURTHER has the benefit of potentially allowing both casual and hardcore players to co-exist at BG. It is from all angles a good idea.
I protect my people from being treated like shit because THAT is the founding principle of Evil Dice, because when I started, I was treated like shit. No one told me how to paint, how to play, how to act, how tournaments and clubs worked, none of it. Openly mocked by guys, disrespected and bullied. So yeah -- I protect those people. My club is for people who like this game and don't want to put up with that bullshit. It's why I founded it and why I gave six years of my life to it and will give a hundred more if I have to. So if you want to put me on the cross for that, fine -- do it. My conscience is clear, I never came here to rub anything in your face.
5) I don't even think any of this is true (well, except for everyone thinking I'm an A-hole, that's totally true) BG has a reputation for having a competitive scene -- which is totally deserved. I certainly think that can drive less-competitve people away....and that's also probably justified, no one enjoys being totally outclassed. But it's not a bad thing, in and of itself, in fact I think it's great. BG has basically never had trouble getting huge attendance for it's tournaments, and recent drop-offs almost certainly have everything to do with turbulence in 40k, and nothing to do with BG.
Like I said to you in the PMs -- we're all playing the same game. Regardless, we're in agreement here. But rulings need to be made or you are going to always have two camps: comp vs no comp, double FOC vs 1999+1, super heavies vs. no super heavies. This comp system idea was a good way to at least let people put a number to it, so that they could all exist in the same homogenized scale.
6) Hey please stop telling us how we do everything wrong and you do everything right -- that was why I PM'd you saying you were being pompous, condescending and other names. Feel free to tell me what a jerkhole I am -- preferably via IM.
7) I would really like to go back to discussing comp, now. (and not how comp relates BG's general righteousness, moral standing, and reputation)
I never said any such thing, and would never -- Chase has been super friendly to me since day one and I would never disrespect the store. What we do up there works for our needs and BG is a very different environment both in size and audience. I'm a club, you guys represent a store. Obviously the same methods can't work. But for the sake of discussion, why wouldn't I bring them up? I already told you, I'm here to compare notes, and actually got a lot of valuable information from this thread (and how it was handled).
Still. Interesting to see. "That's it" eh? You're the dude coming at me! My last post was actually defending you. I wasn't even that annoyed when you PMed me, I get that you took how I was talking a particular way and were being defensive. But what the fuck, dude? If you want to nail ME to a cross for defending "my people" then you'd better get two sets of nails for you defending yours. But whatever. Get at me if you want to get at me. You don't even know what you're dealing with. Just make sure you don't ever show your face at my club again.
And the rest of you out there reading this. Yeah, you lot. Go ahead and stand around and watch, and nod in approval, like you weren't just telling this guy to go eat shit and die not 24 hours ago in other threads.
Look. I get it, I'm an outsider, my opinion doesn't matter much here, and I came off poorly. Regardless, I got all the information I need, and it is clear where I'm not welcome. So there is no need for me to stay around here and get peppered with this bullshit anymore. It's clear there is no point in continuing to communicate.
Thanks for reminding me why I started doing what I do, and why I need to keep doing it.
-
i'm gonna make a couple suggestions here:
first: let's just make a sportsmanship thread and go talk about things related to that there. comp and sportsmanship are entirely separate issues, at least from my perspective.
second: why don't we just start compiling data. so every time you play a game, whether it was expected to be a competitive match or just for fun (since the for fun games should give us nice perspective on where we're overcharging comp score for fairly casual lists), tally up each player's comp score and the results for the game (battle points would be best, but just if one player crushed the other or if the game was close would be enough) and post them in a thread here. then we can have some data to back up discussions of what to change to make the comp fit our environment.
-
....stuff.....
It doesn't seem productive to address any of that, but I feel like it proved my point. Suffice to say I don't much care what a bunch of people at a store I apparently haven't played at in 3 years (why the hell are you keeping count? I sure haven't been) think about me. Likewise, no, if you don't play at BG, it doesn't seem particularly cool for you to come around throwing your opinion on how things should be run.
Let's talk about comp.
I think we should have 1 tournament with this comp system pretty much as is. It's not perfect but it doesn't seem bad, either, and it has that nice "screws everyone" quality. Someone mentioned it comps Orks, but of course it does, it comps everything, and it actually seems really hard to make an ork list that scores very high, at least without doing all meganobz in battlewagons, or something.
-
The Nurgle Army I took to my last 1850 tournament comes out at a 2 :)
-
That's good, right? I don't recall it being over the top or anything.
-
Well, I hope it wasn't over the top given that I got no battle points, haha.
My round 1 opponent's white scars army scored a 9. The barber I went to during my bye round 2 scored a 5 (straight razor is 4 by itself). Round 3 opponent, Mike's deathstar army, only scored a 5, the SpiritStar is totally under the Komp's radar.
-
Yeah, but spirit star isn't seer council. I'd rather face that than troys drop pods.
-
I think we should have 1 tournament with this comp system pretty much as is.
that should give us a wealth of good data on how this comp fits in our environment.
-
For crying out loud both of you take it back to your PMs. No one wants either of your arguments, and we can certainly do without someone who doesn't play events or have any of their own first hand knowledge of real people in this community coming in and stirring the pot. You should hope we don't judge your whole club based on how you act as a "guest" here.
I'm generally well mannered. But if either of you act in person like you do here neither of you would be welcome where I play. Grow up and treat others within respect. We're freaking adults that play with plastic mans!
-
For crying out loud both of you take it back to your PMs. No one wants either of your arguments, and we can certainly do without someone who doesn't play events or have any of their own first hand knowledge of real people in this community coming in and stirring the pot. You should hope we don't judge your whole club based on how you act as a "guest" here.
I'm generally well mannered. But if either of you act in person like you do here neither of you would be welcome where I play. Grow up and treat others within respect. We're freaking adults that play with plastic mans!
This!
back to comp or not to comp, that is the question
-
Komp talk. Here's my take after reading what we have so far. I see it being successful in diversifying the lists people bring. I doubt given the talent we have that we'll see that much of a difference in the who's who in tops of the tourneys. Like anything else BG does I'm all for trying anything done some of the time.
I think the most successful way to go about it is to pick one topic at a time or codex at a time to review, discuss, and alter from the comp already posted. A survey at one of he other events to get input from those unlike my self are smart enough to stay off of the forum these days might be another good source for a direction to take this.
-
Here's the problem as I see it: loud voices are easy to hear.
When people react strongly and loudly (to other people, to rules changes, to comp systems, whatever), they set the tone of the entire discussion. We have a lot of people in this community who are very passionate about their hobbies. Those are the people that let me have the best job in the world. Those are the people that fascinate Chase, since he loves seeing someone hugely into the things that interest them. They are the people who have kept Battleground going for ten years, and who will keep us going and growing for years to come.
But opinions differ, and when passionate people disagree, things get loud. And then it'll start to look like arguments are the beginning and end of what goes on here.
The important thing to remember about the Battleground community, be it Abington, Plainville, or both together, is this: no one person speaks for all. We're a varied bunch. Ben is often the voice of the casual crowd, since he became the de facto spokesman for Thursday night 40k in Plainville. Matt is usually the devil's advocate, challenging the narrative to keep us examining what we do and why we do it. We have tournament players and fluff fanatics, gentlemen and dickwads.
And all of that is okay.
I don't speak for the community. I don't even speak for the store, really; that's up to Derek and Chase. But I want Battleground to be the place it's meant to be, a safe place where we can come together and revel in the stuff we love. That's what I see in the store every day I'm there, and it's largely what I see at the tournaments, too. Every event we run ends with people coming up to me and saying they had fun. Ideally, I'd love to see that same kind of environment reflected on the forums, as well.
I'm not going to tell everyone to stop being dicks on the Internet. It happens. But I would ask that everyone remember the logo and the name at the top of the page. Remember what this forum represents, out there in the real world. Discuss. Be passionate. Trade ideas as forcefully as you need to. But take care not to injure what brought us all together in the first place.
Thanks, dudes. Sorry for the digression.
-
Meganob army comes out to one point if I'm doing this right. So yeah it's pretty hard to make a high point Ork list. Also I really don't know why everyone says Painville is super competitive and serious. I've been going there almost every Thursday for over year and it consists mostly of friends who've known each other forever playing against each other, people showing newbs how to play and lending them models if need be, running increasingly sillier Ork armies, 2v2 and 3v3 lol fests, and more recently singing the occasional Bone Thugs 'n Harmony song.
-
Also, in case it matters. I like every 40k player I've ever met.
-
first: let's just make a sportsmanship thread and go talk about things related to that there. comp and sportsmanship are entirely separate issues, at least from my perspective.
Yup.
second: why don't we just start compiling data. so every time you play a game, whether it was expected to be a competitive match or just for fun (since the for fun games should give us nice perspective on where we're overcharging comp score for fairly casual lists), tally up each player's comp score and the results for the game (battle points would be best, but just if one player crushed the other or if the game was close would be enough) and post them in a thread here. then we can have some data to back up discussions of what to change to make the comp fit our environment.
I'm down if you guys are.
-
Meganob army comes out to one point if I'm doing this right. So yeah it's pretty hard to make a high point Ork list. Also I really don't know why everyone says Painville is super competitive and serious. I've been going there almost every Thursday for over year and it consists mostly of friends who've known each other forever playing against each other, people showing newbs how to play and lending them models if need be, running increasingly sillier Ork armies, 2v2 and 3v3 lol fests, and more recently singing the occasional Bone Thugs 'n Harmony song.
Man, I want to hang out on Thursdays and sing Bone Thugs 'n Harmony.
-
So Comp? That thing we were suppose to be talking about?
First: Disclaimer, my army has a comp score of 9. It's Tau+Eldar + Inquisition. I'm that guy.
Second: I'd play in a comp event and I think it can be good for the environment.
Here is why: the current lists lack diversity. Comp increases diversity. Diversity equals more fun lists.
Right now saw about 2 lists at the last tournament: Bikes and Tau-Tide.
I love my 3 Riptides with all their special rules but it'd be more fun to play something different with all those units I never take off the shelf because they aren't Riptides.
-Gundam John
ps, can we lay off the Bennett bashing? Yes we get it. Also it doesn't contribute to the discussion of how to make the most awesome gaming store even more awesome.
-Gundam John of the Greater Booze.
-
I'm going to split the highlander convo into it's own thread.
-
Every list I play(ed) seems to top out at 3 in this comp thing. Hell, even my DG which is essentially loads of plague marines and a nurgle lord, nurgle prince with wings is fine for this. My drop podding SM also seems to be pretty chill with it considering it's Carchardons with loads of tactical squads in pods.
If this is something that the community can agree on as a standard, I could see myself playing 40k again.
EDIT:
For a long time, 40k has required a certain understanding of you opponent's army in order to be a fun game (don't bring 2 flamer heldrakes if they don't have AA!"). This is a much more structured version of what had to be intuitive before. In a lot of ways, I really like where 40k is going as he imbalance is becoming even more apparent and now people are willing to address it.
-
So, we run a tournament with this system, what are we going to limit it to? I say 5, partly because in the interview I heard on the 11th company, that was what I heard as one of the commonly used #'s. Also, we're new to this, let's start off slow, but 5 should weed out some of the crazier stuff. We should also give bonus points for the comp differential, so there's still a benefit for having a lower score.
(And, yes, my basic list scores a 5 but that's not really why I'm suggesting this number -- I could shave it down to 3 easy enough)
-
I say 0. Lets test this system from the ground up.
-
hardcode dude.
But... I think that would actually take away from the fun. 0 means any unit that is comped is just banned, so a lot of currently popular models are just banned entirely. THAT I don't think is what Chase would be looking for :) Also, it takes away the decision, it's no longer "hmm, do I spend my comp point on this or that", there's no option because you can't even spend 1 point.
-
If the point is to get people to change their lists, why start with 5 when a number of lists are there already? I'm really curious to see what a field of 0-point lists looks like.
-
If the point is to get people to change their lists, why start with 5 when a number of lists are there already? I'm really curious to see what a field of 0-point lists looks like.
As Matt said 0 points would be rediculous and would probably drive down attendance as many popular units cause 1 comp point to even field one. 3 points would impact most lists, 0 Is nuts
But again let's remember a highlander only event would make several army types unplayable (DE, drop pods, SM bikes etc) and again might impact attendance.
I would imagine Chase is looking for an event that appeals to the masses after that disastrous 11 person tournament at Abington.
-
You mean the doubles? It was actually a lot of fun, I think there were a lot of factors at play for the lower turnout like a TempmeCon practice event at another store.
I think the point of highlander is it forces you to think outside the box. I wouldn't be interested in playing in a 5 point tournament, but if that's what people want then don't let me stop you. 3 might be alright, but 0 could be really fun. My reasons are mostly selfish, you can't run a necron army with only 5 points and my eldar aren't built/painted enough for a tournament.
-
If there's one positive to a system like this, it's that in theory you could dial it to taste. So a 1-point tournament could be casual while a 15-point tournament is everything-and-the-kitchen-sink competitive.
5 points would probably be a good testing ground. Of course too, we could assign the community a number and have players create the most broken lists they can within those confines. Game the system as hard as possible before even playing a game, and we might save some aggravation on game day!
-
I don't see how zero points makes any sense, completely unplayable for many people. Anything less than 3 looks too restrictive to be much fun.
Keep in mind that's there's supposed to benefits/penalties based upon varying comp scores. So even if you view 5 pts as "permissive" there's still a lot of benefit to playing a 2 or 3 point list.
-
5 points would probably be a good testing ground. Of course too, we could assign the community a number and have players create the most broken lists they can within those confines. Game the system as hard as possible before even playing a game, and we might save some aggravation on game day!
People, show me some stupid 5 point lists.
My gut reaction to running an event like this that "features" the "komp" rules would be to start at 3. At 5 the majority of people just take what they were going to play anyways. I feel like trying something different should actually involve trying something different... Unless we don't want anything that's too much different and are just looking to keep some "super cheese" stuff away.
-
At 5 the majority of people just take what they were going to play anyways.
Ya, maybe, but so? You're still weeding out the super cheese lists (and honestly BG isn't bad for this, but there are some) and as I've mentioned lower Komp point lists will still have an advantage. If like 60% of current lists past this test, then I think that's fine. You're still cutting out some of the nonsense and rewarding the fluffy (2-3 point) players.
I think you only see a few "net-lists" at BG, so I think it makes sense that most would pass that threshold.
-
I vote for 3 as an experiment to see how it would look. It would be quite a bit different than what we've been seeing. 5 point limit would basically amount to an enforcement that tourneys will continue to run at BG how they mostly have been already.
-
It seems like everyone agrees it should be either 3 or 5 points, so why don't we just setup a simple poll?
-
Or take average and a 4
-
INterestingly my "standard" list would score a 0. my model collection... likewise...
-
I would like to say I am proud of 98.5% of you all for keeping this post/discussion moving in a positive direction.
Respect and Honor
Troy
-
What's interesting to me is that my Drop Pod list *ALWAYS* scores at 2 or less. In *EVERY* other comp system I've seen, a drop pod army gets dinged really hard for being a drop pod army.
-
I would like to say I am proud of 98.5% of you all for keeping this post/discussion moving in a positive direction.
Respect and Honor
Troy
Oh yeah?! Well YOUR MOM... is a classy lady.
-
Imperial Knights, go!
-
Imperial Knights, go!
I think it's to early to make that call, need to see what else is in the codex or mini-dex.
If this ends up being a formation type deal then komp away
But if this ends up being a true codex or supplement I don't think you can penalize them too hard. There's pictures talking about using these as a primary detachment and saying you can take 3-6. If you HAVE to take 3 to be able to use them as a primary detachment you can't penalize them for that.
Half the reason for komp to make armies use other "less broken" units but if you HAVE to take 3 of them...
Need more info
-
1 21st scoring model with unit type bike and additional 1 for every 10 thereafter (31st, 41st etc.)*
Someone explain this Penalty to me please does this mean if I have 21 Scoring Models and 1 of them is a Bike or if I have 21 scoring models that are bikes?
-
You answered your own question. " Unit Type Bike"