|
Post by warmasterprimus on Nov 19, 2010 8:39:02 GMT -5
Chumby,
I think that we both just used the same points to argue two sides of the issue. I think that's fine. I think that the only point we really disagree on is if comp is a relic. I just see it as another way to play the game, and I'm happy with it.
|
|
sinistermind
Sergeant
Dice, the perfect example of a love/hate relationship
Posts: 315
|
Post by sinistermind on Nov 19, 2010 11:24:03 GMT -5
short and simple, ill play in either type of tourny because i know what im getting into ahead of time and ill decide if i wanna follow comp or take a points hit.
but my own opinion on the matter is comp is a limit on an aspect of the game itself... list building. regardless if the list building is in the interest of better battle strategy/effectiveness(what real war is about, and it IS a WAR simulating GAME) or the interest of theme/appearance/favorites.... theres a reason the units are in the codex with the options they have and that there is a force org. chart
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Nov 19, 2010 12:04:31 GMT -5
In a non-comp environment, nobody is forced to bring or leave anything. If you want to use the army with Pyrovores and Old One Eye, you're more than welcome to. In an ideal event, you would still be rewarded by stuff like Best Theme, Painting, Sports, Ren Man and the like while the competitive types can go for the wins.
In a comp environment, you can't bring whatever you want and get rewarded for it. Best General is 50% comp.
That's the big difference. The fewer restrictions you have, the wider you cast the net.
I'm really sorry that a Necron army with Pariahs and massed Warriors has a hard time beating an optimized mech IG army, but that isn't the IG player's fault is it? So why punish him?
|
|
|
Post by professor on Nov 19, 2010 12:18:47 GMT -5
You can always bring whatever army you like, you will be rewarded for playing a hard list in battle points, that reward is just not as significant as in a non comp event because you are penalized with a comp hit for it. What is more interesting (in my opinion) is that comp places restrictions and limitations on list building. These are CHALLENGES for list builders.
Building a well scoring comp list that is effective requires both more creativity to build and to play effectively. Sometimes adding restrictions actually increases the freedom of the list builder.
I am not blaming people with a more powerful codex. Instead, I believe comp scoring create unique and interesting army building and tactical challenges. The event as a whole is richer for its existence.
|
|
|
Post by jhobin on Nov 19, 2010 12:31:12 GMT -5
When they came for comp, I remained silent; I don't play comp armies.
When they came for painting, I remained silent; I only paint the 3 color standard.
When they came for Sportsmanship, I did not speak out; I play to win.
When they came for Overall, I remained silent; I play for victories.
When they came for Best General, there was no one left to speak out.
|
|
Timbo
Sergeant
Posts: 175
|
Post by Timbo on Nov 19, 2010 13:00:28 GMT -5
When they came for comp, I remained silent; I don't play comp armies. When they came for painting, I remained silent; I only paint the 3 color standard. When they came for Sportsmanship, I did not speak out; I play to win. When they came for Overall, I remained silent; I play for victories. When they came for Best General, there was no one left to speak out. From this, I can deduce that people that like to paint are, in fact, trade unionists.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Nov 19, 2010 13:00:39 GMT -5
Chumby buddy I think we should drop it at this point. We've discussed the topic and all its views in repetition.
Travis threw us a huge bone with next years tourny schedule.
If any changes or decisions are made by the council, I'm sure they will reflect the survey results of those who attended.
|
|
|
Post by darkwynn on Nov 19, 2010 14:24:38 GMT -5
First of all I want to say Jay and the guys ran a great event and it was a lot of fun. Boards and terrain was awesome and it’s impressive to see how much the community does with the terrain boards. That being said and this is a discussion around comp and the issue with it. The main problem that a lot of people have with this that it’s not defined in any shape or form. It’s an intangible idea or concept that you can't touch. I understand that you have a council but even still with an average amount of numbers and then a statistical point shift afterwards to round out the bell curve you still have issues around certain list and builds. One thing that annoyed me was Goatboys list build for an example, to the comp rules it scored very well if not in the top 75% quartile. That list is a hidden power list though and very few people would understand that or even realize what it is till after they played him. This idea of a comp to create diversity within the army construction doesn't happen and really only creates hurt feelings between people and leaves everyone general confusion afterwards because nothing was defined. The execution of comp tried to shift the power bubble but only added confusion into the mix which doesn't help. For example I played an awesome player Nate Stevens and was probably one of the best games I had ever in my life and was an awesome opponent. His list consented of Nob bikers with a Warboss, 3 kill Kans, deff dread, 15 lootas, KFF mek , 60 boys, storm boys , and 3 kannons. It also scored high in comp but why? His list had three rock units, it had backfield fire support and it had units that people can't deal with. It was a solid army with no flaws but somehow just like Goatboys list it got pass through the comp phase and scored higher at least in my view it should have which therefore created that subjectivity that we talk about. The other problem I have is this negative connotation around special characters. If you don't like to have special characters or have a bad feeling about certain characters take them out or ban specific ones but let people know. Taking an unknown mythical number to a comp score because you took Shrike, PASK or some other low name never used Special character isn't really an idea of fun. You want Comp to be fun and you want people to bring out different list but the system is restricting people from taking list they want and pulling at people’s ability to have fun. I wanted to play Astorath because I like that character and he is one of the weakest characters in the Blood Angels book while also being one of the most expensive. After this tournament I honestly don't even want to play him or the army ever again because of the playing experience I had. Playing list that I don’t have the tools to even compete in some cases just feels like I have my hand tied behind my back while getting hit with a 2x4. The other thing I have noticed is with this comp idea or at least my perception is you’re taking these rocks, Scissors and paper game design idea and extending those bad beats even more. I played Kyle Oman who was fun and was great but Blood angels Vs Nids is a rough match up and with this comp list it made me specialize down the path which only made those types of bad beats even worst. He wasn't a bad player in any way shape or form but it’s not very fun when you can’t do anything about it and never make it to your opponent’s army because you didn't have the tools to do it. Comp is a great idea on paper and in theory but every time its executed it doesn’t mitigate and has the reverse effect that you are trying to accomplish. Nick Rose Darkwynn Douche of 40k and actually a really nice guy once you meet him. Ask Shaun
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Nov 19, 2010 15:23:19 GMT -5
Nick Rose Darkwynn Douche of 40k and actually a really nice guy once you meet him. Ask Shaun Don't forget remoseless kill-stealer in Reach, you bastard Sorry I missed you, bud, maybe next time.
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Nov 19, 2010 21:43:00 GMT -5
Good news is you do not have any bruises on your arms
|
|
|
Post by darkwynn on Nov 20, 2010 10:15:41 GMT -5
Good news is you do not have any bruises on your arms Haha this is true plus I got to drink it off so I was numbed to the effect a little bit
|
|
|
Post by professor on Nov 20, 2010 15:27:29 GMT -5
I agree with some of your sentiments on the execution of Comp and the general struggle to identify what it means. I do not think this means comp is a bad idea, but it needs three things...
1. An explicitly stated purpose (is it for 'fluff', is it to be 'representative of a codex', 'is it to discourage 'power builds').
2. Well defined criteria for assessment that can be uniformly applied across codex's
3. Strong execution with consistent appraisals
It is difficult to execute all three of these uniformly across the board, it is a qualitative judgement and rating/ranking that needs to be obvious to parties involved for example...
I was around for some of the discussion on special characters, this was something that was decided and I was aware of it. I do not know how aware others were of the restriction from outside the Rochester area.
In short, most people assume there is an inverse relationship between comp score and army list. What Goatboys list suggests to me is that this was not necessarily the case. In Da Boyz description it mentions that they scored armies well that were 'representative of their codex.'
Maybe it is in communicating this idea to players and perfectly executing it across the field where improvements can be made.
On a final note... I was the Sisters player you faced round 1 and even though you crushed me (free T Shirt cheers!), I think we probably should not have had similar comp scores. Your list was definitely more interesting/representative than mine which had 2x Canoness, 4x SoB Squads, 3x Immolator, 2x Exorcist.
I really think that with a well defined scope, concept and criteria for Comp it can be executed effectively. I have a background in engineering and we make these kinds of evaluations all the time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. An appeals process might not be unreasonable as well.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Nov 20, 2010 18:58:53 GMT -5
In short, most people assume there is an inverse relationship between comp score and army list. What Goatboys list suggests to me is that this was not necessarily the case. In Da Boyz description it mentions that they scored armies well that were 'representative of their codex.' Part of the issue that is brought up by this is that Best General award is rewarded for comp+battle. If the comp judging isn't determined by army power level, it's a bit disingenuous to base that award on comp score.
|
|
|
Post by darkwynn on Nov 20, 2010 19:36:56 GMT -5
I agree with some of your sentiments on the execution of Comp and the general struggle to identify what it means. I do not think this means comp is a bad idea, but it needs three things... 1. An explicitly stated purpose (is it for 'fluff', is it to be 'representative of a codex', 'is it to discourage 'power builds'). 2. Well defined criteria for assessment that can be uniformly applied across codex's 3. Strong execution with consistent appraisals It is difficult to execute all three of these uniformly across the board, it is a qualitative judgement and rating/ranking that needs to be obvious to parties involved for example... I was around for some of the discussion on special characters, this was something that was decided and I was aware of it. I do not know how aware others were of the restriction from outside the Rochester area. In short, most people assume there is an inverse relationship between comp score and army list. What Goatboys list suggests to me is that this was not necessarily the case. In Da Boyz description it mentions that they scored armies well that were 'representative of their codex.' Maybe it is in communicating this idea to players and perfectly executing it across the field where improvements can be made. On a final note... I was the Sisters player you faced round 1 and even though you crushed me (free T Shirt cheers!), I think we probably should not have had similar comp scores. Your list was definitely more interesting/representative than mine which had 2x Canoness, 4x SoB Squads, 3x Immolator, 2x Exorcist. I really think that with a well defined scope, concept and criteria for Comp it can be executed effectively. I have a background in engineering and we make these kinds of evaluations all the time with a reasonable degree of accuracy. An appeals process might not be unreasonable as well. We had a great game and I also agree if it wasn't for the mission I would have had a hard time taking on your list in any capacity. If we said played for devastation on the kill points and victory points I could safely say that there would be a good chance I would get rolled That being said its always the execution of comp that people have the problems with. Personally in my point of view I see your witch hunter list that is very competitive and could be played at a high level tournaments even such tournaments as Ard Boys. The rub though that is just my view vs. the view of others in your area. Its something you just can't define which becomes the problem especially for people coming from the outside unaware of the sub culture they are walking into. Biggest thing is if you run comp for next year just have a define score for it that people can understand and be aware of going into the tournament. Just be aware if you do that there will be people who will game that comp system you put out in front to take advantage of it as much as they can.
|
|
|
Post by professor on Nov 20, 2010 22:53:22 GMT -5
We had a great game and I also agree if it wasn't for the mission I would have had a hard time taking on your list in any capacity. If we said played for devastation on the kill points and victory points I could safely say that there would be a good chance I would get rolled I thought about that game an awful lot over the last week (I actually wrote it up for Dakka as a BatRep as well), and no matter what I could not think of a good way for me to actually win the mission. The only conclusion I could come to echoes exactly what you said...I should have just ignored the mission and tried to kill as much as possible. Either way, I learned more in that game than any other one I played at the GT. I tend to agree that a separation between Battle Points and Comp score for Best General would be a good solution.
|
|