|
Post by tripp on Feb 16, 2006 14:24:31 GMT -5
I don't think 3 of either side would be so vindictive to knock someone's comp out of spite. I hope not at least. Maybe if you ding you have to explain why to a review board of the team captains and an outside judge? If a player can explain why is army is fair but the opponent just played against it poorly they can be given dispensation?
I like seeing characterful armies. 6 dreadnaut iron hands or necrons with a c'tann at big points values. Guard with 3 battle tanks if they are a heavy artillery company like the cadians. I love playing against zilla nids because 5-6 carnifexes on the table just looks cool.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 16, 2006 14:25:53 GMT -5
In a standard tourney, your suggested system would probably be fine. But in this case, I have to agree with Hagbard. You are so concerned about the players who can ding their opponent, but since this is being designed as one team against another, whats to keep the entire team from dinging us, or one person dinging all their aopponents simply because they are from Rochester. We like to believe we are all fair, but history has shown otherwise due to bad blood. And you are talking of how rubrics "Fellate marines and CSM" and then you talk about how the requirement of one full squad could hose them. So which is it, fellating or hosing. Oh yeah, and Rubrics hose tau, and yet a full squad could be achieved by 3 crisis suits. Or three Broadsides. Some requirements will be difficult for some armies, and the idea is to make it so that all armies have at least one requirement that isn't easy, and the rest be fair. I don't think it is too much to ask my opponent to have at least two full squads in their army, not to tool up too much, and as many troops as any other choice. Yes, some armies will find these difficult, but not so much so as to screw them over. And if you feel it does, you don't have to follow it. You would just lose a few points. We aren't making the rubric a requirement to eneter, simpy a way to score basics of comp. Personally, I think that in a Rt, a combination of our ideas is the way to go. But probably not in this case.
|
|
|
Post by tripp on Feb 16, 2006 15:11:55 GMT -5
Normal comp rules fellate sm, and do a good job on csm. certain rules hit them unfairly. I'm worried about a system like GW's where you score your opponent 1-10 on comp with no justification whatsoever so you can just use it as a case of how much do I want to kick them in the jimmy. The system I am putting up protects against unfair dinging. How does comp grade armored company, where leman russ battle tanks count as core? Is it a fair army? Why is a maxed squad more fair then one at half size? What is special about added models that make it more comp friendly? Does it really matter how much wargeer you put on a single model? Is more troops then heavies/elites/fast attack actually all that much more compy, if so why? My drop pod marines are probably the strongest army I own. It has more then 40% troops, more troops then other categories, it is fluffy, but it isn't all that fair and many opponents have claimed it is "cheesey" My sisters are up there with comp but they aren't remotly on the same powerlevel. 60 sisters in cars with a fistful of seraphim won't be able to touch the powerlevel of 4 tac squads deep striking with double special weapons and a pair of librarians with fury/fear. If you had to justify why your opponent's army was unfair with the pass/fail system then it drops the conspiracy theory problem, especially if it is wholly transparent.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 16, 2006 15:54:34 GMT -5
Thats great I don't play that army either. Like I said stop assuming that since I play an IW list, (better yet) Since I have IW in my screen name, That I play the nastiest version of that army out there. The point was that you thought it was a type of oxymoron for an IW player to argue comp, because you assumed I play a bad comp IW list. You have a bad thing for stereo typing. I never blamed you for IW's reputation but when you enforce the ignorant stereo types onto me before even seeing my army or knowing who I am thats where you start to get onto my bad side.
I said the following, and please note the "IF"
I have no problems with people having different ideas that cool. If we didn't then this would be a dull hobby. It was the comment about the IW and comp thing I particularly found distasteful. Lets not blow this out of proportion here. I'm not saying your opinions are flames because I, or someone else dislikes them. Lets focus on what the point was and not envelope the rest of the topic into this. The snide comment, about IW arguing comp.
I think having comp will hose the player that brings the nasty army that no one wants to play. Like the stereo typical IW list. I think these people are missing the point of the game. Both sides play to have fun, once the fun becomes one sided there is no reason to play anymore. Like it has been said many times before, having the game decided before any pieces are set onto the table is ridiculous
|
|
|
Post by tripp on Feb 16, 2006 16:46:26 GMT -5
On a side note, I am not speaking for my team. All opinions I express are my own. Things like the painting being enforced with only half the folks having painted armies is true but anything opinion based is my own, and does not reflect in one way or the other on the overall opinions of team Double Deuce (name chosen by majority vote for the syracuse team). Asking someone to talk like an adult is both patronizing and igniting of a flame party. Especially when the person you are asking is an adult. I do NOT want to go down this route.
|
|
Sanguinary
Sergeant
WOW, his son looks strangely like Shaun,
Posts: 341
|
Post by Sanguinary on Feb 16, 2006 22:28:39 GMT -5
I love lamp....
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 17, 2006 2:08:20 GMT -5
It prevents min/maxing to some degree. Take Alaitoc for example. (Note, and army I play) I fI didn't think of this, I could field 11 units that could give me rolls on the ranger disruption table and still have plenty of points for Wraithlords, starcannons, reapers, and all the other big bad things Eldar cna do.
Not really, but if you load up two characters then it gets a little frutrating trying to take out the Gods. Set a percentage limit such that an army could have one tooled out character or two slightly tooled characters.
First, notice that I never siad MORE. I said at least as many as any other choice. And once again, this pulls people from the min/maxing. I fyou are spending the points on basic troops, then you have to take them from somewhere, thus preventing you from taking bare minimum troops and maxing everything else. I think these armies are fine from time to time, but in a tournament environment, you are trying for balance. Also, notice I never said anything about a percentage on troops, or that the troops had to be maxed out. My marines would fail in the 40% category since all of my troops are scout squads. But I have three of them at least.
Three simple requirements to establish some basic balance among the armies. Can cheese still happen. Sure, but it can happen under most comp systems. I don't think any army would have trouble with these three points. Even Tau can pull this off since they seem to be the army you mention most often. They woldn't even suffer from it. And as I said, I like the idea of combining this idea with your Pass/Fail system. Judges can do a quick scan of the lists to check these, and the players can Pass/Fail opponents.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 17, 2006 13:39:19 GMT -5
For the sake of this endlessly going on back and forth I will digress.
I will however ask that you refrain from the stereo typing, it reflects badly on the game. Thank you.
|
|
5thstreet
Marine
Let's do that....Let's do exactly that!
Posts: 52
|
Post by 5thstreet on Feb 17, 2006 19:00:50 GMT -5
Sanguinary, are you just looking at things in the office and saying that you love them? The question of "comp" has been debated to death on every 40k board on the net. I'm kind of done with the issue at this point. Can we just agree on a format and play?
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 17, 2006 19:49:16 GMT -5
Has an official format be thrown out for open discussion yet? I think this was an discussion whether to include comp or not.
Comp has been argued to death, I will agree with you. But, so it seem, our clubs come from 2 diffrent and extreme views on the hobby/game: No painting, comp, sports vs Sports, full comp and fully painted.
Alot of Da Boyz do not like the tooled up armies, never have fun playing against them and dont see the point in playing a game thats ended before it starts. Honestly, do you want to see the 13 ass cannons, 20 star cannons, 9 oblit, 4 pie plate, whatever lists?
Hopefully SoB and Farseer can portray our (both teams) beliefs the way the game should be played and come to some sort of compromise.
|
|
5thstreet
Marine
Let's do that....Let's do exactly that!
Posts: 52
|
Post by 5thstreet on Feb 17, 2006 22:36:46 GMT -5
Has an official format be thrown out for open discussion yet? I think this was an discussion whether to include comp or not. I believe our team captains are working that out now. Last I heard was that our captain made a new proposal and was awaiting a response. ... But, so it seem, our clubs come from 2 diffrent and extreme views on the hobby/game: No painting, comp, sports vs Sports, full comp and fully painted. I have to disagree with you there. The only reason the no-comp/painting/sports format was suggested was because it kind of fit the whole rivalry thing that has been going on lately. Personally those parts of my game are much better than the win/loss part. Alot of Da Boyz do not like the tooled up armies, never have fun playing against them and dont see the point in playing a game thats ended before it starts. Honestly, do you want to see the 13 ass cannons, 20 star cannons, 9 oblit, 4 pie plate, whatever lists? A lot of us in syracuse feel the same way, but I was fully prepared to play in a no-holds-barred, steel-cage, death-match tournament. It could have been fun. Don't they have something like that at Adepticon? (gladiator or something?) I bet its a lot of fun. Hopefully SoB and Farseer can portray our (both teams) beliefs the way the game should be played and come to some sort of compromise. I'm sure they will, and I will gladly accept any format that is agreed upon. I can't wait.
|
|
Sanguinary
Sergeant
WOW, his son looks strangely like Shaun,
Posts: 341
|
Post by Sanguinary on Feb 17, 2006 22:46:46 GMT -5
I love.... desk.
|
|
5thstreet
Marine
Let's do that....Let's do exactly that!
Posts: 52
|
Post by 5thstreet on Feb 17, 2006 22:52:51 GMT -5
Do you really love the desk, or are you just saying it because you saw it?
|
|
Sanguinary
Sergeant
WOW, his son looks strangely like Shaun,
Posts: 341
|
Post by Sanguinary on Feb 17, 2006 23:12:28 GMT -5
I love lamp! I love lamp.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 20, 2006 5:51:27 GMT -5
Just got a counter proposal from FarseerPrince and oddly enough it wsas similar to the issue we talked about. Tell me what you think.... Doug, Here is the new tourney proposal that The Double Deuce members approved today. I trust that this format will rectify the difficulties expressed by daboys with the previous attempt; it is basically a slightly modified version of the 2006 GT. I talked to Terry yesterday and he OKed GW Syracuse hosting the tourney. He is also willing to be the "outside" person responsible for scoring "Force Painting & Selection/character" as outlined in the 2006 GT materials. The proposal is as follows: 1. Three rounds 2. Point value: 1850 3. An errata/FAQ thread will be created on the main Syracuse board for the creation of "House Rules" for the tourney. This is an attempt to resolve acknowledged gray areas in the rules prior to the tourney. 4. Set round missions: Round 1 - Cleanse, Gamma Round 2 - Secure and Control, Omega Round 3 - Recon, Gamma 5. Standard tourney round pairings: 1st round random; 2nd and 3rd pairings based on similar records. Opponents will be from different teams, and any two opponents will not be matched twice. 6. Tourney scoring and armies allowed follows 2006 Grand Tournament outline: gamesday.us.games-workshop.com/GamesDay2006/assets/Marinehammer_GT_Rulespack_2006.pdfOnly minimal adjustments are required to this format. First is the multiplication of generalship score by 5/3 to adjust for the discrepancy between a 5 vs. a 3 round tourney. Round scoring is based on 1850 pts. instead of 1500 pts., therefore; Draw - plus/minus 185 victory pts. difference - 10 pts. each player Marginal victory - 186 to 925 victory pts. difference - 13 pts. winner, 7 pts. loser Major victory - 926 to 1480 victory pts. difference - 17 pts. winner, 3 pts. loser Victorious Slaughter - 1481 plus victory pts. difference - 20 pts. winner, 0 pts. loser. Theoretical total possible per player - 60 pts. (once again, this is multiplied by 5/3 to achieve the 100 pts. stated in the GT outline) Terry L. from GW Syracuse will be the person responsible for assessment of "Force Painting & Selection/character." 7. A grievance committee constructed of Terry L. and a member of each team will be present to assist in the resolution in any conflicts that may arise during the tourney. 8. Outcome of Tourney: Values for each player summed for each team. Team with greater total points wins tourney. Once again, I do not foresee any problems with this format: if it's good enough for a GT it should be good enough for our little shindig. On a side note, I discussed dates for the tourney with Terry when I saw him yesterday. Ultimately, this is something that the three of us will need to discuss/pm together. While the last weekend of the month initially looked OK for us, it now presents a problem for some of our players. This may require us to push the date back to the beginning of May. That's all I got for now. I look forward to your's and daboys' response. Chris N.
|
|