|
Post by tripp on Feb 14, 2006 14:37:13 GMT -5
Some of us have 6+ armies that fall in multiple game systems. I've a fully painted marines roster, but my chaos army including heavy conversion is a wip, my sisters of battle are a wip, i had and sold fully painted lizardmen and dwarf armies, my greenskins are about a 50% wip since every goblin model with a hand weapon was conversion work.
One of our new players converts something cool on every single model he has. That's right even bolter guys are tweaked to look like they have some personality. It's not like it is unprimed plastic and honestly I rank conversion work higher then someone spray painting their models red, inking them, and painting some gold trim to have fisherprice Khorne or boltgun with black ink for fisher price IW or blue and blue ink for fisherprice smurfs.
I'm seeing this as an adepticon gladiator event for bragging rights. If there needs to be hobbyist fellation then we can all bow down to Courtney since he's a great player, painter, and sportsman. On our side Ted is the king of the trifecta.
Still, what is there to say that you don't give your opponents all zeroes for soft scores to help your side win? We aren't going for a good time, we are going to win is a mentality that legitimatly exists. Soft scores are a way to ding your opponent just because you lost/want to win/he smells of elderberries/he is a witch.
I'm seeing this more as a showdown between Bruce Leroy and the Shogun of Harlem to answer the fundamental questions of Who's da meanest, who's da prettiest, who's da baddest mo-fo low-down around this town?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 14, 2006 14:43:28 GMT -5
As I said before, use the rubrics. No opponents scoring each other. No dinging. I sthis such a hard concept to grasp.
And no one is asking for the painting to be a huge factor. Simply make it A factor as it is a part of the hobby.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 14, 2006 19:19:27 GMT -5
I agree Gabe. I think bringing a legal army should be a minimum. Three colors is not asking too much. Heck, I have managed 2 1/2 armies in a year and a half, it shouldn't be too hard. Good point!
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 14, 2006 21:30:56 GMT -5
Yeah this looks like what I was hoping it would not turn into. Who can build the burliest, cheesiest nastiest army out there.
I DO NOT consider that fun. In my earlier years I used to do that, everyone does when they are first learning then they mature and begin to think that there is more to the game than beating your opponent.
I dont think all aspects of the game are coming into consideration here.
I DO NOT build armys like that, so what am I to do? Not participate? I would say the same about your non-painted people. I have serveral armys that are fully painted as does Chris C. fantasy, Mordhiem, LOTR, 40k and some others...thats not an excuse imo.
I strongly reccomend at the very least a Comp score and it should affect the final outcome of the games.
|
|
|
Post by tripp on Feb 15, 2006 10:11:42 GMT -5
Rubrics rubrics, blah blah blah. If you want to stiff your opponent, you will. This is a pride thing, so unless it is a neutral third party grading it it cannot be made fair. Comp isn't present in this year's GT circuit. Adeptecon's gladiator system maybe the closest rule set to what we should have.
Now why is an Iron Warrior player complaining about comp? No one in Syracuse plays siren demonbomb or even any real demon bomb varient be it lustwing or the other killer armies like dustwing/eleventybillionwarlock ulthwe/tigerius ultras. As of now with the painting thing being talked about there are a lot of solid tourney rosters being talked about but nothing ott. We don't need to stoop that low to win. However if it isn't a neutral third party grading it if it even exists then it is an opportunity for one team to spite the other.
I've seen the old rubrics, and unless you are playing marines they blow. Tau doesn't win with firewarriors and anyone who thinks they do are wrong. The old rubrics just fellate the people wanting to play marinehammer. Percentages make chaos/sm too good because they can do 40% troops and donkey stomp people while tau need every elite and heavy slot they can get because the army was designed by games development to be combined arms warfare.
Hell, run it like the sportsmanship from the gt circuit. The vote yes/no was this army fair. One no isn't worth anything, multiple it grows so say everyone starts with 20 comp points, one no and you are ok, 2 nos you get 10 comp points, 3 nos and you get 0 comp points. This encourages fair play while preventing the one asshat from dinging someone unfairly.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 15, 2006 13:50:34 GMT -5
I never said use the old Rubrics. It isn't that hard to make our own. And they don't have to be in depth. Just something to make sure comp and painting are accounted for. And yes...a third party should grade them. That's the point of a rubric. To let a third party quickly and fairly judge a number of items.
Personally, I never really cared for the percentages either. But I do prefer to see an army that has at least as many troops as any other selection. My marines fit this criteria, but would fail horribly if asked to go under the 40% rule. Having somewhat of a limit on character wargear isn't too much to ask either. At least a few maxed sized units would be nice since it restricts the ability to min max everything.
Painting is even easier. Is the whole army painted with at least three colors. Are all the models based. Does it look like some effort was put into this process. Simple. Since we are not awarding prizes for these, that's all that's needed. You don't need to choose the best of them. Just make sure they are all of an appropriate standard.
The judging could be done by the two captains jointly. Go through all the armies and check off the rubrics. How simple can this get.
|
|
|
Post by tripp on Feb 15, 2006 15:33:40 GMT -5
We've been discussing it and the adepticon rubrics are pretty decent. Their comp doens't hose tau too badly since honestly firewarriors are the weakest link in a tau army. They get boned more then any other army since GW decided to give em asstacular troops. The painting of is the army painted, is it based, is it both, conversion work, characters standing out and squad or army markings all seem acceptable.
When I first decided comp was stupid it was when I noticed how tau has to have 3 elites, 3 heavies to be remotly playable while marines can do up 6 tac squads, an hq and still be tourney winning and neither is the more fair or unfair list. personal soap box moment but i think armies are either fair or unfair not compy or not because of things like this since demonbomb is a perfectly "compy" army to rubrics yet is somewhat like bringing a tac nuke to a knife fight.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 15, 2006 15:44:28 GMT -5
I happen to agree that the comp systems aren't perfect and can be manipulated. It is rather unfortunate too. That's why my suggestions were for simple things. But it should be considered. You can't just throw it our because you disagree. You just have to find a reasonable comprimise. Something that makes sure that at least certain criteria are meet. Obviously there will be people who can still make horrid armies and still be perfectly comp legal. And there are people who can make very fair and balanced armies and have them be hosed by the normal comp systems. I think what I proposed doesn't hose anyone. Troops equal any other selections (ie, if you have three heavies, you should have three troops...if you have two heavies and two elites, Two troops will still cover this rule.) percentage limit on wargear for HQs. This keeps you from seeing the two tooled out hqs running around with jack squat for other units. At least two full squads. This puts some limit on min maxing. No it won't stop it, but it will make it a little harder. Also notice I didn't say they had to be troop squads. Three crisis suits would cover this.
Haven't seen the Adepticon rubrics since I'm not going. If people like them, then use them, but remember that this is both teams. We need to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Feb 15, 2006 16:25:11 GMT -5
just as an additional note, Deamon Bomb is not all its cracked up to be. I have never lost as many games due to the army "failing" to perform. I've been playing the wordbearers for some time -(ie 3 gts) and have had my worst 3 finishes. Don't get me wrong, it can be very, very effective when things go your way. But there are going to be those games when they scatter poorly and/or don't even show up.
As far as the comp goes, my thoughts are that there ought to be minimal requirements such as must fill all 6 troop selections and no more than 2 of the same unit choice may be taken (if troops that have weapon or upgrade options - no more than 2 exactly the same). Again, these are just thoughts to try to limit the "uber gimmick armies" and promote fairness through variety. I think that this was originally meant to be a "best general" tournament- meaning - winning the games. This should be the focus with a forced "restraint" on army selection. Nobody wants to face the all assault cannon marines or Iron warriors with 9 oblits and 4 predators. I don't believe painting and sportsmanship were the original intention of the tournament. As a side note, if someone is being a "douche-asshat" during the tournament, it should be the clubs responsibility to put him in his place. What needs to be done is have the representative of each club "negotiate" it out, set the rules and then "LETS GET IT ON!!!!!!"
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Feb 15, 2006 19:00:28 GMT -5
As far as the comp goes, my thoughts are that there ought to be minimal requirements such as must fill all 6 troop selections and no more than 2 of the same unit choice may be taken (if troops that have weapon or upgrade options - no more than 2 exactly the same). That outta be real tough on a word bearers army shaun!
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 15, 2006 20:00:54 GMT -5
Is there a reason why I shouldnt be? Your assuming I play the 9 oblits 4 pie plates minned out troops. Sorry to dissapoint you but I dont play that army tripp. Its the other IW players that give players like myself a bad name. Hell, I wasnt even thinking of playing them. I was going to play my Orks for this little tourney.
Now that we got that established, how about you get your head out of your ass, stop assuming things and talk to us like an adult. If you cannot handle that then please let Farseer Prince speak for your team as he was appointed by your club to speak for you.
|
|
|
Post by tripp on Feb 16, 2006 11:11:13 GMT -5
IW, in the dirtiest IW lists have plenty of troops since 6 man csm squads with las/plas are great. 109 points for a bs4 lascannon at leadership 9 is something to drool over. I'd argue for 6 oblits instead of 9 because this way your opponent has to kill both to reduce the squad below scoring or to recieve any victory points at all for the unit. Great for VP denial.
I am talking to you like an adult. IW is one of the armies with the dirtiest repuations in the hobby. If you don't like that it isn't so much my fault. Notice that y'all post on our boards so I see no reason not to post over here. Opinions that differ from your aren't flames they are opinions and we are all entitled to them. You'll see in all my posts over here that I'm explaining things such as why comp hoses tau, why comp fellates csm and sm, why comp itself is flawed. I'm not coming over here and flaming. I include a lot of sarcasm and humor in the posts because dry posts are really boring. If you can't maintain a sense of humor about the hobby something is wrong since it is a really nerdy hobby. Forbid that we laugh about something.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 16, 2006 11:48:25 GMT -5
I think his problem was the fact that you assumed his IWs were the same as everyone elses. If you had ever played him, you would know that IW is one of the fairest guys around. Just because an army can be abused, doesn't mean it will be. It's not the sarcasm we mind, it's the assumptions. And a simple comp system wouldn't hose anyone. Notice I said SIMPLE. Every time I have put up my suggestions, you have blazed right on about how comp hoses Eldar. If you had read the suggestion, which your replies imply you don't, then you would see noone gets hosed and we are all on somewhat similar footing. Your inability to accept compromise is a problem. I know that Tau need their non-troop choices to do well, and this comp system allows for that. This is the point that was made about inteligent arguments. My reply is directly to your objections, where as your objections are based on assumptions from past experience, not on my replies. Go back, read my suggestion for comp, and come back with an intelligent reply directly to the suggestion rather than "comp is bad, ditch it".
|
|
|
Post by tripp on Feb 16, 2006 13:46:51 GMT -5
I posted what I thought a good comp system was. Each player mark was my opponent's army fair. If they think yes then awesome, no then it is marked. One no doesn't cost anything, two nos is half points and three nos full points removed.
Simple, elegant, one opponent dinging you won't hurt you but if 2 opponents think you bring a cheese head army you get docked and if all your opponents say your army isn't fair then you shouldn't get any points.
I don't like arbitrary requirements like "one full squad" since it only helps marines. Yeah, 6 stealth suits is a full squad but for chaos that means either the dreaded unit of 3 oblits or you have to take a 20 strong squad of csm/demons. Every arbitrary rule dings some army unfairly. Making it a judge of was my opponent's army fair yes/no there is no rubric that hoses someone. Fairness is like porn, we know what it is when we see it. It doesn't need a hard and fast definition.
You come back with but we need something like one full squad to force someone to follow good comp rules and I read it as you are missing my point. There is no magic rule to make armies fair. Armies are fair or they are not. Sanguinary's 18 asscannon army list isn't very fair. When does it become fair though? 9 assault cannons doesn't bother me so much, since my opponent is trying to win the game I'm not going to knock them for bringing a good quantity of a decent gun. For chaos bring your tooled out demon prince but don't bring your tooled beserker glaive prince, your blood thirster, 18 bloodletters and 3 defilers. By making it yes/no armies can be judged by how they actually play. I've seen armies on paper that look really dirty end up being very fair in game play. This is what I'm trying to get across.
|
|
Hagbard The Mighty
Sergeant
The cheesiest
In 40k if something is off, it can easily be explained in-universe as being because the Warp did it.
Posts: 223
|
Post by Hagbard The Mighty on Feb 16, 2006 13:58:35 GMT -5
Tripp,
I agree with you idea in theory. But in reality it's suscpetible to one tragic flaw - human sabatoge or the perception of conspiracy. There is nothing stopping each of our teams from ganging up on one or two players from the other side reagrdless of the army list. with your system, it would be very easy for your team to target one of our players before we even show up. Likewise, we could do that same.
Or, say one of your players gets 3 dings from our side (honest ones, not a consipracy). But your team feels the guys lists was fair - what's to stop your team from calling it a conspiracy?
The reality is there is still some bad blood out there and the above scenario could very easily happen and make things worse.
Some simple rubrics don't hose anyone or really help anyone. I play eldar and could easily make the most of simple standards (i need two full units? ok! lets see how your 10 marines do against a 20 man squad of defenders with catapults, a starcannon and a warlock - it'll be a fun shooting match if that;s all that were on the board)
|
|