|
|
Post by johnboo on Mar 19, 2009 7:24:32 GMT -5
Good post, Tommy - Nicely put. It's exactly what Boldo is aiming for in this system.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Mar 19, 2009 7:46:37 GMT -5
Skyth - Comp really isnt just about power of lists. Its rather all encompassing including fairness, how fun a list is to play both with AND against, help reduce the boringness of seeing the exact same (power) builds, and yes, even encourage better play by acually being forced to use tactics rather than build the uber unstoppable character/unit/whatever to win all your games.
I miss the days where you built a fantasy army to represent a story or a faction found in the fluff instead of "d**n, that unit's broken - my army is going to take four of them!"
It pays off when you do it right, too. My Ironskin Tribe Ogres got an awesome comp score at Crossroads GT. The Judge was truly amazed that i would go through the trouble to give light armor to my bulls and field large "sub-optimal" units like Leadbelchers.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Mar 19, 2009 8:02:16 GMT -5
A comp system designed to screw over people who don't play the way you think the game 'should' be played is nothing more than bullying.
The only ethical comp system is one based purely on the power of the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Mar 19, 2009 9:03:24 GMT -5
Actually its all to keep out the riff-raff. ;D
Remember, there are those who think 15 powerdice & a bloodthirster is a proper way to play, also.
In all seriousness, no one is being bullied. Everyone is free to not follow the comp system. Or, dont like the rules of the tourney - dont play. Simple, really.
Or, heres a novel idea, build a list within the comp system and challenge themselves with a different style of play.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catachan Colonel on Mar 19, 2009 9:11:29 GMT -5
gotta disagree.
Anything that asks/forces someone to change their list from the one that they want to play can be called "bullying"
Comp should be about the ideal of a play style, and a pathetically weak army should be able to get bad comp just as much as a uber powerful one. Power of the lists or items in the lists should only be a part of comp.
Personally i think that heroes without a Magic weapon should give a ding on comp. Does it make those heroes more powerful ?Yup, but i cant see the army's equivalent of king Arthur saying "Excalibur?? Hell no!!! Its a rusty short sword for me!"
|
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Mar 19, 2009 9:16:54 GMT -5
But you have no problem tying comp into who wins Best General. Non-sequitor right there.
Like I said, the only ethical way of doing comp is purely on the power level of the list.
Anything else is meaningless at best.
And when your approach the game that people who don't play the way you play are bad people, then you are being a bully.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Mar 19, 2009 9:52:01 GMT -5
And when your approach the game that people who don't play the way you play are bad people, then you are being a bully. What the?  Where did "bad people" come from? |
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Mar 19, 2009 10:31:42 GMT -5
Basing a comp system on playing the 'right' way leads to people being labeled as playing the 'wrong' way, which leads to them being labeled as bad people.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Mar 19, 2009 11:44:54 GMT -5
Riiiiight.
|
|
boldo
Moderator 
The card carrying
Posts: 646 
|
Post by boldo on Mar 19, 2009 12:33:23 GMT -5
Hey it is only march is it getting a bit hot in here or what? Let's calm down a bit on this. I believe I have what I want out of this. The comp is going to be very similiar to what I have posted last I will get the final one up tomarow. I think that will sort out most of the questions. It will not be perfect and it is presently geared for a 1900 pt list which will not be penalized as much as people think. As for why I do this Skyth is right I would lile to make a system which handicaps armies and I feel this ranks most armies fairly well so I will go with it.
Boldo
|
|
|
|
Post by deraj on Mar 19, 2009 15:34:36 GMT -5
If I wanted core troops that stood a snowballs chance in hell, I would have large units. If I want small units running around harrassing the enemy with 1 or 2 large elite blocks, I think that is a good thing. Unfortunately, Boldo has already said it: "Wood elves and Beastmen do not play the same game as everyone else." If I did want to play with combat strong core, I wouldn't be playing wood elves, would I? Having large units would destroy my army.
Of course if it were 2000 I would have eternals as troops, and no, or almost no special choices. As it stands, I like 1 or 2 big blocks of them, what else am I going to put in a big block? Glade Guard? I like shooting with them and letting them die, why would I put them all in one unit. Dryads? I hate dryads, and I do not plan on using them. Glade riders are best in smaller units, and that is how I will use them. As it stands, I will have 4 troop units. Each will be at the minimum. I play by moving, not fighting. (When someone screws with that, that's when I'm screwed.... stupid penny.)
|
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Mar 20, 2009 6:14:31 GMT -5
I wouldnt include beastmen in this conversation. They fit very well into this system, only having to worry about if not adding banners is worth the comp hits.
True, the point total wont allow core eternal guard, but take 10 scouts and you're halfway there. Remember, you only need 2 core choices at 1900 pts, so only 2 have to be 2x.
|
|
|
|
Post by deraj on Mar 21, 2009 9:23:55 GMT -5
Yeah, but I do not want to pay 50 point just to make my unit a skirmishing one. Especially granting that they lose the glade guard long bows and I need at least as many regular glade guard as skirmishers.
|
|
Where did "bad people" come from? 
