Proposed DaBoyz GT 2010

[chumbalaya]

@iron Warrior: Of course it's a gimmick, and a pretty crappy one at that. That's not how I use it unless I can feasibly pull it off.

1.) Considering the DA book hypes up DW/RW so much and gave them a synergy they never had before, I'd say it's pretty dern fluffy.
2.) Skyth covered this one, the freakin' Codex told me to.
3.) I picked assault cannons cuz heavy flamers are too reliant on the DWA gimmick and if I want cyclones I'll use Space Wolves or Vanilla, DW only get 1 shot cyclones.
4.) I like the DA fluff, mostly the RW/DW bits, so I wanted an army that incorporated it.
5.) It's got 30 models that are Fearless and sub-par in combat, few if any vehicles, is heavily reliant on fragile bikers to handle any sort of armor, and has no templates.
6.) It would be a typical Deathraven list, there isn't much else I could use without totally gimping it.
7.) Because I want to still use the DA book, and this build is the only way to without having a superior and cheaper alternative in another marine book.

I don't care if it gets hit on comp (I'd laugh if somebody thought Dark Angels were OP), I just want to use it.

@sob: I have Sammy because I want the second Apothecary and scoring bikes, since walking termies towards objectives is so not a good idea. The DWA homer gimmick is a horrible way to use the army, it's like Drop Podding without any of the good bits. It's all too easy for your opponent to simply go into reserve or spread out bubblewrap to keep you from going anywhere and then you are at their mercy since everything comes in piecemeal. DWA lets half of the squads come in, rounded up, so if I was really keen on it I would bring an add number of squads, which I am not.

I'm befuddled that you would consider anything from the Dark Angels book bannable or even worth taking a comp hit over. And I still don't see how you can get anything broken from combining two expensive ICs in 1850, which ends up 1/5 to 1/4 of your army.

[MajorSoB]

Dec 2, 2009 17:42:26 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I'm befuddled that you would consider anything from the Dark Angels book bannable or even worth taking a comp hit over. And I still don't see how you can get anything broken from combining two expensive ICs in 1850, which ends up 1/5 to 1/4 of your army.

Please let's keep further discussions on this list in the thread that you posted it in, however to address this question I don't find your 2 character combo OTT, I clearly stated it wasn't. I am in agreement with you that you are sinking an awful lot of points into 2 characters that are meh at best. What we are attempting to prevent is other power combos where the two special characters combine in ways that make them way better than they would be used singularly. We have cited such examples throughout this post and in others and I do not wish to fan the flames by repeating them. You know what I am talking about my friend! ;D

[chumbalaya]

Who me? Never

Guess I can't use the Shaowsun and Aun'va uber army either, right?

[MajorSoB]

Dec 2, 2009 19:34:11 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

Guess I can't use the Shadowsun and Aun'va uber army either, right?

There is a fine line between uber and all out shenanigans and Aun'va crosses right over that line! It may not be great but any appearance of the Pope on a toilet gets style points from me! ;D

[chumbalaya]

Doing more thinking, how about this for a winners system, done up in % of overall loot.

Best Overall: Combination of painting, sports, comp and battle points. 30%
Best General: Battle points only 20%
Best Painted: Painting only 20%
Best Sportsman: Sports, player choice 20%
Miscellaneous: Best theme, bad luck award, etc 10%

Basically, everyone gets represented. Nobody can win 2 prizes at once. You've got pure battle points for competitive players, painting for painters, sports for suck ups ( ) and overall with an open playing field so anyone can win it. Best 2 or 3 of each category score or something like that.

Thoughts?

[MajorSoB]

Really that isnt a bad take on prize allocation. It will be considered. The only thing that I disagree with is Best General. This category should be scored Battle Points plus Comp since it is very easy to max Battle Points with a burly army and not as easy with a softer army. I would present to you the argument that someone who wins with a softer army is essentially a better player since the skill to babysit a OTT army as it walks over a weaker opponent is far less than someone who takes lemons an makes lemonade. Just my opinion...

[skyth]

When you are not judging comp on the raw power of the list, however, what is your rational for combining comp and battle for best general? Especially when I see some pretty burly lists get good comp scores.

[chumbalaya]

As a counter, why wouldn't the best general also bring the best tools for the job?

Army lists aren't everything, a better player will win out over a netbuild any day. You never see them take top spots, so why punish them more? It's typically newer players or those trying new armies who run such armies, so rather than punish them for trying to find a framework to build around, we should encourage them to play their best and learn how they can improve their army and their game. Imposing artificial limits creates a glass ceiling.

Incorporate all the soft stuff into overall and keep general pure battle points so everybody can have a chance at winning, even the guy who wants to play a competitive game with a strong army. It's a valid and enjoyable part of the hobby, so let them enjoy it. That's what we're all about, right?

Incorporating other stuff into best general would be like putting comp into painting scores, knocking people who painted "easy" models or those who don't have matching color schemes (even if they play Biel-Tan, Bretonnians or Orks, armies known for their variety of color).

[malice]

Dec 2, 2009 23:08:53 GMT -5 skyth said:

When you are not judging comp on the raw power of the list, however, what is your rational for combining comp and battle for best general? Especially when I see some pretty burly lists get good comp scores.

That's because no one is capable of providing a consistent definition of comp. Most people rate comp based on the perceived power of a list and 99+% have no clue what they are even doing with regards to rating power.

[jdubb]

One thing the daboyz group needs to balance is our own version of what's "right" with running a successful tournament. If our tournament is too far outside what the rest of the the tournament circuit is doing as far as comp, painting etc, then we run the risk of losing attendees.

Personally, here are my thoughts on the discussion so far:

• The comp system should be simple, not army-specific, and objective.
  
  
• The comp system should be published and finalized WELL before the event.
  
  
• Players should be able to easily figure out their comp score ahead of time.
  
  
• The system should judge comp and players should judge sportsmanship.
  
  
• Players should be rewarded for submitting an army list ahead of time and sticking to that list.
  
  
• The points for comp should be high enough that they cause someone who wants to win the day to think twice before bringing a poorly-comped list, but not so high that it dominates other categories.
  
  
• Comp should determine pairings.
  
  
• Best General should include comp, but the ratio of comp points to battle points should be set up so that comp will tip the balance between players with similar battle points.
  
  
• Nothing should be banned (banning 2 special characters is not the right solution). However, something like two named characters should cause a deduction on comp. Having a deduction in comp should effect pairings and points, making it harder to win the big prizes.
  
  

I love the Comp system that Astronomi-con is using:

www.mts.net/~xian/astronomi-con/websiteV2/rules/composition.htm

It's so clean, simple, objective, and easy to administer. Everyone starts with full points and infractions are subtracted from the total. It could be easily tweaked to meet our specific needs - like putting a 2nd special character in the -2 column. Have a look.

[jdubb]

Dec 3, 2009 7:17:23 GMT -5 malice said:

That's because no one is capable of providing a consistent definition of comp. Most people rate comp based on the perceived power of a list and 99+% have no clue what they are even doing with regards to rating power.

That's why the astronomi-con system is nice. It's purely based on selections in the force org chart.

We have to agree that the codices are not balanced. To me, the only thing that is apples-to-apples between lists is slots in the fore org chart.

[Horst]

meh, i'm not a fan of that system, because its too easy to game depending on the list.

for example... an iron hands marine list, packing 6 dreads (various types/weapons) would comp horribly.... but...

an eldar flying seer council list with 2x farseers and 20x warlocks on jetbikes would only get a -1.

[jdubb]

Agreed. But that's acceptable to me because I accept that every system has it's flaws, the codices are not balanced, and the other benefits of the system (ease of use, objectivity) outweigh the weaknesses (like your example).

I would rather have a system that is easy to understand and use than than leave it to the subjective decision of a judge.

My well-themed 1000 sons army from this last GT comps well in this system:

1 Sorceror Lord (HQ)
1 Daemon Prince (HQ)
1 Terminator squad (ELITE)
2 Thousand Sons Squad (TROOP)
2 Daemon Squads (don't count)
1 Raptors (FAST)

Comp score - 19.

Theme can comp well in this system. Had I finished painting the army, I would've been in the top 3rd with this list, which is right where I wanted to be. A fun, fluffy army that plays well, is unusual, and still wins a fair amount.

[skyth]

I have seen a WPS comp system for 40k, but it's a bit more obscure (And not as well recieved) as the Fantasy one.

[skyth]

Oh, and another point...If you use comp to determine pairings, there generally isn't a point in making it part of any score.

Assuming the point of comp is to balance powerful lists against less powerful lists, then theoretically everyone had equally hard fights and points should be determined by thier performance on the battlefield.

As an example: The guy who plays a 5 comp list fights against a 4, 5, and 6 comp list while the person that plays a 15 comp list plays against a 14, 15, and 16 comp list. Both had theoretically equally hard fights. Why should the person who scored the higher comp score quite a few more points for the tournament then?

Maybe use a comp differential for scoring? (Say for instance, you have a 14 comp. You fight 2 14 comp armies, a 10 comp, a 9 comp, and a 7 comp army. That would give you +16 points of comp differential). Use this while trying to keep the comp scores as close together as possible for pairings, but make sure the comp differential for any given game does not exceed the points difference between winning and losing.