|
Post by Iron Dragon on Feb 24, 2006 13:18:02 GMT -5
hey shaun, relax man! i don't think anyone wants to see you throw your hands up and walk away, we are just trying to give you some input on what we think would help to make it a fair system.
again, i think everyone understands that you wouldn't be using this as an end all concrete system for every army. guard would need 2000pts in troops alone to satisfy it, and we understand you will have an objective view for grading comp.
it would be ridiculous to assume you wouldn't.
does GW make an army that this system would hose that you don't have in the back room?
we know. if we're being too harsh, tell us. besides, i thought you were going to take this thread with a grain of salt?
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Feb 24, 2006 16:10:47 GMT -5
You're right Dave, I should have taken it with a grain of salt. I was wrong there.
It still doesn't change the fact that if people want to create the system by arguing advantages and disadvantages and what should be and shouldn't be considered, then I'm not the right person. That is just a fact - I don't mean it to be harsh. I don't have the time or desire to "moderate" the discussion till eventually people settle on a system that may or may not be any better than the ones we've seen. I realize that the "commitee approach" to decision making could be beneficial and there is potential that a better pre-scored system could be created (although I'm sure that is the intention of most revisions in comp scoring). Its just I'm not the person to do it.
Believe me, it was not my intention to cause "Drama". This will proceed forward and the 40K GT will still be held. I have already discussed with Alex who should be the "manager".
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Feb 24, 2006 16:55:17 GMT -5
I have discussed the 40K GT with Alex and we are now looking to do the Set-up like this:
One person for paperwork One person for rules and assist paperwork two people for painting/comp
At present, painting is going to be by Chris & Jay. I don't think anyone can dispute that. Chris has agreed to do comp scoring while scoring the painting (perhaps Jay will also go along with this). The only score for painting and comp will come from Him(and Jay) - no Rubics or voting from opponents. He will elaborate on this himself in a future post. A detailed description of what is going to be looked for in comp will have to be written up. It is out of my hands and in his (unless he decides to bow out also.) We will also need to have someone for paperwork and rules questions. I am willing to volunteer to help with one or both of these.
It is open for someone to come up with a better system.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 24, 2006 17:05:06 GMT -5
My intent was not to insult you or your comp system. I was trying to point out that with a general system like that many armies slip through untouched and many cant really acomplish what is asked for.
If someone went out of thier way to get a perfect comp score should it be possible to do? If so, shouldnt all armies have the same possibility? One general system like previously posted, though simple and easy to do, will not address many of the issues players have against burly armies and find that certain aspect of the system hard to include in thier army (like 6 troops, 2 compulse at max and one from every other selction on the force org)
Comp with this community accounts for alot. and with 60 points for comp and battle was ?? 120? or was it 60 I cant recall...its half to 1/3 of your score wich could be mean the diffrence in winning a tournament. With such an influence that comp has on the tournament (which is good to see!) it should be possible, but diffacult to acheieve a full comp score. Currently its nye impossible with certain armies.
The SNS (Saint Norton System) that was created for fantasy seems to address the problems of burly armies, items too often taken or game breaking. That system can eaily be adapted to 40k. Where you have a general list for each army then a specific comp list for individual armies. If this is not the path you choose to follow then pehaps a more specific comp system where you could hone in on the issues that we see, as a community, as problems for the game.
I, and im sure anyone else, would be willing to offer help if we are needed.
|
|
|
Post by ccourtney on Feb 24, 2006 19:29:12 GMT -5
Comp scoring for the 40K side:
Follow these guidelines and you will score well:
1: Is this an army you would enjoy playing against.
2: Themed.
Jay and myself both believe that it really is that simple.
Yes we will be looking for min/max squads but we wont hold it against certain army's for not having them. We won't expect to see necron 20 man squads, Chaos 20 man squads, 10 man Wrathguard squads for Iyanden. If you have them it might get you an above average score, but we won't hold it against you. Six 5 man tacticals with heavy weapons, not so good.
Yes we will be looking to see how many heavy support choices you have. But more importantly what are they? Eldar army with 3 Falcons will score much lower than one with a D-cannon , Shadow Weaver , and Vibro-cannon Battery. There is nothing wrong with Iron warriors taking 4 Heavys, It just depends what they are, are they all the same, did they take 9 Obliterators to boot? Yes we will give you dibs if you only took 3 and they are different.
A Tyranid big ones army is not bad comp. One with 6 Carnifexes gunned to the teeth all with Venom Cannons becomes bad comp.
An army with only 2 Troop choices isn't bad comp. Deathwing showing up with 2 10 man Terminator squads is great.
Did you only take the best things in the codex? Or did you take the themed units even though they are not as effective? Like Sam-Hain and Swordwind showing up with Shinning Spears. Taking a chaplain to lead your Dark Angels on there hunt for the fallen (and leaving the Librarian at home) Iron warriors not taking a Daemon-Prince cause they don't like daemons = good.
In the end there are just too many different armies to make a generalized comp system. Having two judges discuss each army ultimately seems like the best way.
- Go out of your way to make a Themed fun army even at the expense of not taking just the best things in the codex. Make it a army people would go out of there way to get a game in with and you will score Very High.
- Make a Fun Themed army you would enjoy playing against and you will score Very well.
- Make a army filled with only the nastiest things in your codex, min/max squads, and Theme-less. Jay and I have no problem giving out Zero's.
I'm sure Jay will post some thoughts on Comp also.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 24, 2006 19:51:03 GMT -5
That is a comp system that I can agree with comfortably. I have faith in the judges to know what makes each army fluffy and where the burly-ness comes from and to take a look at wargear on army sheets.
This will be totally subjective based upon the army. No premade rubrics?
|
|
|
Post by jay on Feb 24, 2006 20:36:11 GMT -5
Man you guys really mad kemp mad! You know that he has 4 week old kid at home. He is not getting a lot of sleep. Well you guys really done it now Chris and i will be running the painting and comp. There will no rubrics, but I believe most know that only 2 troops squads (5 man with same equipment) is bad comp. Having a illegal army list will badly hurt you comp. It is going to be subjective. we are not shaft space wolves for having to take HQ. Or saim Hain for taking a lot of fast attacks. but for instance the saim Hain takes 6 squads of vypers with starcannons comp probably be zero. I am not afraid rip someone on comp in a tournament.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Feb 24, 2006 20:48:24 GMT -5
Hey, sorry that he is mad. But this wasnt the intent of the posts presented. There were opinions given that would have suggested that another comp system would have been better. If I or anyone else came off as a little too abrasive, its just the way we comminucate, nothing was ment by it. It doesnt appear that anyone went out of thier way to piss off shaun. Everything was presented in way where it shows the flaws of the system without being insulting. Other than giving him chocolates and flowers while posting it I dont think we could have been nicer. I went even so far as to point out the things I like in the system. Other systems were even recommended.
If you and Chris dont feel up to the task of takin on painting and comp then im sure Tommy, Norton or someone else is willing to help out.
So far the idea you and chris presented sounds ideal for our purposes.
|
|
|
Post by jhobin on Feb 27, 2006 13:25:33 GMT -5
I like it!
Its perfect for the way we use to (and some still do) build GT armies. It reminds me of the old days of GT. When you build your list you have to decide if the comp restricts your list and style of play and decide what to take a hit on.
It might be worth trying to dig up the old errata for the GT's in that day. I may have a copy. They counted sacred numbered squads as full sized. As for the multiple las/plas squads I think its meant to be las/plas, las/flamer, etc.
I prefered the old method to because when anyone had a complaint, the general response was suck it up and take the hit or change your list.
|
|