|
|
Post by Norton on Feb 17, 2009 10:30:38 GMT -5
Another interesting comp idea... Something I ran across for the first time today, the 80/20 list. This is where the core of your army (80% of total points) is dictated for you and the remainder (20%) is up to you to create. So anyone playing say HE's would have the same basic 1600 point army to start, and then fill out the remaining 400 with wtvr they choose to flavor to taste in a 2000pt game. Has anyone had any experience playing a game / tourney with a similiar comp restriction? This would take a little of the flavor out of the wacky armies (i'm looking at you all-chariot chaos...) but still leave plenty of custimization up to the players. warhammer.org.uk/PhP/viewtopic.php?t=54367Here is a battle report where they mention using this setup. |
|
|
|
Post by Krusty (zack) on Feb 17, 2009 11:03:04 GMT -5
i cant imagine that being very fun to play...
not having that much choice in characters and core units can really screw how some people play...
like, with that O&G 80%, i would never have brought just 1 shaman, id take either 2 or none at all...
night goblin units would have banners, there would be a spirit totem in somewhere, etc...
while i can see if being effective for keeping games more balanced, i doint think id enjoy actually playing that
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Feb 17, 2009 12:51:32 GMT -5
I of course cant get to the link from here, but my first thought on this setup is it excludes alot of players. For example, an O&G player who has restricted his own normal army to a night goblin horde wont be able to play if the O&G list says you must play 2 units of orcs & and a boar chariot.
I assume magic items would come out of your 20% of customization? Not really leaving much points to customize after you dress the characters.
Might be alright to try it out, but would get really boring after a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Norton on Feb 17, 2009 14:31:51 GMT -5
I just really liked that someone came up with an alternate solution to comp scores. Take this skeleton army list and then flesh it out to taste. Combine this with no comp score at all.
Discussing comp is like discussing politics though. Nobody agrees other then discussing it sucks and no concensus will ever be reached.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Feb 18, 2009 13:51:54 GMT -5
After last sunday's experiment in player judged, opponent comp - expect the return of Boldo Checklist comp! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Norton on Feb 18, 2009 15:05:50 GMT -5
Why is that? Did the player judged comp get abused?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Feb 18, 2009 15:40:15 GMT -5
It was just a really basic 5 questionaire kinda thing, which each question answered with one of the 3 choices weak/average/strong. Even scored correctly, a brutal daemon list gets a pass on 2 or more of the Q (how was the opponents shooting, for example)
|
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 18, 2009 19:49:00 GMT -5
Well, an army with lots of Flamers has pretty brutal shooting  But I did like Boldo's comp system (Other than it wasn't explained very well at the January tournament)... |
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Feb 19, 2009 7:05:46 GMT -5
Same sheet, I believe.
|
|
boldo
Moderator 
The card carrying
Posts: 646 
|
Post by boldo on Feb 24, 2009 13:02:59 GMT -5
I used the same basic idea but a different sheet which was better written. It still required players to care and for them to fill it out objectively. It was interesting to see who different player thought about different things. it also produced a wide score variety which is good and I think it is the best way to do player judged comp but as the difference in score for some individuals was as much as 5 it seems like it is not the answer. I am still a fan of checklist. Nothing recently has changed that. I like this comp system of the 80% rule but I think it would be very poorly attended and that makes it a bad idea. Yes I think it would be fun but to do it right I think we would also have to do a lot of play testing to get balanced 80% and many of our players will just not have the stuff.
|
|
