boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Comp
Apr 21, 2008 16:44:58 GMT -5
Post by boldo on Apr 21, 2008 16:44:58 GMT -5
I would liek to open a new discussion of comp and I would liek to start with Jason's system:
Lord 1 Point Each level of wizard 1 pt magic items 1 Point each Magic items worth 50 or more pts 1pt Mounted characters (not horse) 1 Point terror mount 1 point special character 1 point core, special, rare < 1.5 size (if possible) 1 point not having full command (if possible) 1 point special unit 1 point duplicate special unit 1pt rare unit 2 points duplicate rare unti 2pts dogs of war 1 point core that can't be bigger like chariots 1 point war machine 1 point non ridden terror causer 1 point
I would also like to add some bonuses by army Dwarf Anvil of Doom 2pt Second unit of thunderers 1pts Slayers -1pt Flame cannon -2pts Runesmith 1pt Runelord 2pts Rune of Challenge 1 pt
Empire War Altar 1pt Steam tank 1pt Outriders 1pt Warrior priest 1pt Arch lictor 2pts Van Hortsman Speculum 1pt
Any other ideas for these aor other armies?
Boldo
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 21, 2008 20:58:32 GMT -5
Post by Ranger Dude on Apr 21, 2008 20:58:32 GMT -5
Mounted characters (not horse) 1 Point Horses are not the only basic mount. Wolves and boars coe to mind readily.
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 6:57:31 GMT -5
Post by johnboo on Apr 22, 2008 6:57:31 GMT -5
Just to be clear - is this reducing from a bank of total amount of points? (say, 25?)
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 7:07:37 GMT -5
Post by johnboo on Apr 22, 2008 7:07:37 GMT -5
So, my Daboyz HE army clocks in at a 35Nothing like paying 8 points for 2 repeater bolt throwers... Crossroads Ogres = 25 New Slaanesh-only daemons - 23 (We have a winnah!)
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 7:27:58 GMT -5
Post by johnboo on Apr 22, 2008 7:27:58 GMT -5
I think I have found a flaw/anomoly.
Because you are using a point for practically everything - smaller high-point elite armies seem to score much better.
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 7:31:27 GMT -5
Post by adsvampire on Apr 22, 2008 7:31:27 GMT -5
Paper based comp doesn't work. Stop beating your heads against a wall and just eye-ball the army lists .
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 10:49:40 GMT -5
Post by Norton on Apr 22, 2008 10:49:40 GMT -5
Nay-sayers have historically had a 100% accuracy when predicting the end of the world.
I appreciate your constructive comments as always.
Back to John's comments though, some more clarification on the scoring would be helpful. Like is this just add up each point you got and high equals beardy?
Seems like a decent start, of course individual lists for each army would be needed. Sry i don't have enough time to pound out some right now.
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 11:31:48 GMT -5
Post by adsvampire on Apr 22, 2008 11:31:48 GMT -5
Isn't this the 50 bazzilionth attempt on this forum to create an all encompassing comp system? Each and every one of them has had blatant holes or ways to break them ... or they clearly favor dwarves above all else ... actually I think they ALL favored dwarves. I think most people can easily grasp the concept that 2 stanks and a waraltar with 4 cannons is bad comp and an army made of dwarves is always great comp . You know, Einstein tried very hard to "discover" the all-encompassing equation to everything in the universe ... and failed. I just seriously do not understand the whole "paper-based comp" obsession.
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 13:54:07 GMT -5
Post by skyth on Apr 22, 2008 13:54:07 GMT -5
Lizard list I have clocks in at a 24 unless I miss my guess.
Oldblood on Carnousaur w/ Scimitar, Aura of Quetzl, Enchanted shield.
Scar Vet on Cold one w/Venom and Glyph necklace
Skink Priest (Diadem)
Jungle Swarm (2 bases)
2x13 Skinks
2x15 Saurus (+1 Dispel, immune to psych, full command)
6 Chameleon Skinks (Stalker)
5xSaurus Cav (Full Command, Blessed Totem)
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 17:02:32 GMT -5
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 22, 2008 17:02:32 GMT -5
In recent years science has made a lot of progress in the everything theory that Einstein first envisioned however fair and balanced paper Fantasy paper comp however remains elusive.
I couldn't agree more that paper comp tends to only appeal to power gamers who seek to exploit loopholes in the systems so they can bring burly armies while everyone else plays somewhat fair armies. Paper fantasy comp also appeals to the people designing the system and usually results in their particular pet armies scoring well while others tend not to.
I LIKE fantasy, yes like it, but what keeps me away from playing this game more locally is the insistance on paper comp which always leaves the army I play high and dry and down points even before it even hits the table. This "fair and balanced" system usually scores my army along side the multiple treeman list or the high elf list Teclis list. Boy I wish my army played as good as either list, hey it must, since it always get smited by these comp systems.
I would love to play this game more often but I dont see that happening as long as unbalanced paper systems seem to be the norm.
Why do I think this, let's see...
According to the proposed point system... -The Anvil is equal in value to a liche priest? 2 points equals a wizard that casts with 2 dice. ( God I wish my liche priest could cant an unstoppable rune a turn!) -A lord (Tomb King) without any wargear options is equal to a steam tank? 1 point equals 1 point. (Naked Tomb Kings kill as much as steam tanks!) -Dwarf cannons are only 1 point but in order to take a SSC I pay 2 points for the first and 3 more points for the second (5 points for my only war machine options) while 3 cannons only cost 5 points? ( Love getting the 7+ saves that I routinely get against steam cannons! SSC give saves to most armies.) -One dispel scroll is worth what Teclis, Karl Franz, or Thorek is worth? 1 point equals 1 point. (Can I make that trade, I would gladly drop a scroll or two for one of these characters!)
I am not complaining just for the sake of complaining, rather I am challenging the judge of the next tournament to have a guideline for good comp coupled with a scoring system where the judge scores this using his/her experience and actually uses their brain. Score the army as a whole not just a collection of individual units. It can be coupled with player scored comp if you feel you have mature and responsible players who can score comp based on the players army and not the results of their game. I guess the only downside I see to this suggestion would be that it forces the judge to think and risks alienating the power gamers who routinely build uber armies within the paper comp rules.
Just my opinion, feel free to disregard it...
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 17:30:15 GMT -5
Post by skyth on Apr 22, 2008 17:30:15 GMT -5
-A lord (Tomb King) without any wargear options is equal to a steam tank? 1 point equals 1 point. (Naked Tomb Kings kill as much as steam tanks!) Steam Tanks are worth 3 points under this system. Assuming they are all Lords, they are worth 2 points. On one hand, you complain about the judge's biases influencing the paper comp system, but then you want them to be able to use their biases to score on a whim...Sorry, I'd rather know the biases how much they are worth. The idea of what is a 'fair and balanced list' is about as flexible as Fox News' 'Fair and Balanced' reporting...
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 19:55:14 GMT -5
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 22, 2008 19:55:14 GMT -5
Sorry, I'd rather know the biases how much they are worth. ...then play fantasy under this system, the way I look at it that solves a lot of problems! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Comp
Apr 22, 2008 23:11:07 GMT -5
Post by boldo on Apr 22, 2008 23:11:07 GMT -5
Judge comp is fine I guess but it fails under three different things comp should do. First it has little to no affect on the armies people take. As they can not tell what their comp should be so why make changes, after all you can not even tell if a particular change would help your comp or not. Thus it provides neither deterance for hard lists nor assistance to make a softer list. Second it has a home flavor bias. Not that the judges are unfair but that the local players have talked to the judges and know what they feel is fair comp and what is not. They can also get some reasonable idea of how to fluff their comp. Finally it tends to lead to more complaining during the tournament. If you know the comp in advance then you can show up or not but for the majority of the players they do not feel they got the comp they deserved and even if they are gripping about 1 or 2 pts they complain. With paper comp all the complaining happens first and then is over.
Doug first get your math right, although perhaps this is confusing is a legit complaint. Second there is already one comp system out there and it is the point system of the game. a Steam Tank is 300 pts and a naked lord is say 150. So the real question is not about about which is better but what is better for the points.
Now I also like the idea of skipping comp and playing an army switch tournament. 4 games two with the army you bring and 2 with your opponent's army. Then comp is irreleveant. Of course we have enough trouble getting people to come to our tournaments. Perhaps I should run them all as hard boyz, but wait that tournament only drew 11 people of which only 1 played in the Da Boyz. So the local community seems split on what they want to play in and I am unsure what they want. Until I figure out what would bring out the players in Rochester at least comp discussions generate posts.
Boldo
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Comp
Apr 23, 2008 9:14:35 GMT -5
Post by MajorSoB on Apr 23, 2008 9:14:35 GMT -5
Fair enough reply Alex. I am open to suggestions and ideas, and I do feel discussions like this are good. I will agree that whatever the way you decide to do comp people tend to bring what they like regardless. We understand that and I believe a fair comp system places the hard armies on par with average armies. I just havent seen where a comp checklist does this well since every time I seem to apply it to my list it puts me even or below armies I would struggle to be competitive against. I would have more faith in a judge scoring me from his experience. Like I expected, this does not appeal to the power gamers or the players who feel breaking your comp system is there God given duty (thanks for proving my point Mike!). I don't know what the solutions are but I would be open to more ideas. Yes, the army swap idea sounds like fun, we have thought of doing this in 40K, maybe this summer?
|
|
|
Comp
Apr 23, 2008 16:22:13 GMT -5
Post by skyth on Apr 23, 2008 16:22:13 GMT -5
Actually, I don't try to break it except to show flaws so those flaws can be corrected. The list I posted is an actual list I've used that gets hammered for comp where I don't think it should *shrugs*
What I do do is try to find an army that scores well that I enjoy playing. I did that for DaBoyz GT. You could say that I 'broke' your comp system the same way I 'break' codified ones. Most of the armies that score well for comp in 40k are boring as hell to play and play against.
From what I understand about army power level in Fantasy is that there is less of a divide than in 40k between army power levels.
|
|