|
|
Post by Wolf Lord Snorville on Dec 3, 2009 11:41:44 GMT -5
Just for the record, I am not a fan of a comp system that scores 3 units of gun drones the same way it scores 3 units of obliterators.
|
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Dec 3, 2009 12:37:21 GMT -5
Just for the record, I am not a fan of a comp system that scores 3 units of gun drones the same way it scores 3 units of obliterators. What about 3 squads of obliterators to 3 squads of Blood Crushers? Comparing Gun Drones to Obliterators to Blood Crushers is comparing Fast Attack to Heavy to Elites. Should Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support be weighted differently? |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 3, 2009 15:09:29 GMT -5
If you're gonna do it at all, it should be based on the relevant Codex and how the army itself works.
Heavy Support is a lot more valuable to tank heavy Guard than say, Drop Podding marines or cav-heavy Daemons. Orks and Eldar can do just fine without Fast Attack, but IG and marines love them.
Having one system apply to everything does not affect each army equally, giving certain ones advantages not just in game terms, but in how they can score overall.
For example, Necrons and Tau have garbage Troops, so forcing them to field more just to score decently in comp hurts them a lot more than Orks or Chaos, who have pretty awesome Troops.
|
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Dec 3, 2009 15:47:40 GMT -5
The codices are not balanced. Necron and Tau get hosed on relative power level in troops compared to other armies (in my subjective opinion). But as soon as we start ranking codices in the comp system, it becomes subjective. It sucks to be an army with crappy codex, but us trying to un-suckify a codex in the comp system makes the system subjective.
As far as some armies preferring more of a specific type of usnit in a force org slot, I think the astronomi-con system does ok addressing this:
1st Heavy free, 2nd = -1, 3rd = -2
1st Elite free, 2nd = -1, 3rd = -2
1st Fast free, 2nd = -1, 3rd = -2
3 Troops Free, 4th = -1, 5th = -2
If your army is stronger with lots of troops (Drop Marines), having more hurt you. If your army is stronger with lots of heavy support (Oblits), having more hurt you.
|
|
Iron Warrior
Moderator 
The Iron
Iron Within! Iron Without!
Posts: 2,573
|
Post by Iron Warrior on Dec 3, 2009 15:55:40 GMT -5
funny you should say that because if you read a little further down it say: So If you want to try and make a "Hunt the Fallen" Theme as it looks like thats whats -trying- to be portrayed....Wheres the Interogator Chaplain? Anyways...this is off the point of the topic. My apologies. Chumby: Ok? Then why try and defend your army so ferverantly? Thanks for your answers. 1,3,5 say alot about how you game. To keep this short, becuase this really isnt the topic at hand. your #5 answer could read like this: It's got 30 models that are Fearless, 2+/5+ save and can have Fists, Lighting claws, Thunderhammers, Storm sheilds power weapons, few if any vehicles, bnut I could take them, is heavily reliant on T5, 3+/2+ save, turbo boosting, teleport hommer, bikers to handle any sort of armor, and has no templates, but could if I so choose to. The Term "Deathraven" I cannot find this term in the codex.  I know its not in there. I play a Deathwing army so I sympathize with you on its capabilities. Yes I wish Belial was a better character, but I play the army to have fun and it is an army that puts my skills to the test every time I play with it. Some of my answers to those questions I gave you revolve around, and I think Courtney and some other will agree with me on this: -Is it a fun army to play AND (and is very important) to play against? -Will this army challange me or do I rely on one tactic to win? -Is this a -Typical- of a <codex or specialty list> army? -Does it abide with the already established fluff? Anyways, nice chatting with you. Didnt mean to side track you all. |
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 3, 2009 17:31:28 GMT -5
jdubb: Any comp system is going to be arbitrary and subjective by its very nature, if we must have one, I'd like it to at least try and be fair to everyone, even erring on the side of the weaker armies. I would much prefer a system that encourages "fluffy" and themed armies rather than discourages what somebody thinks is a powerlist. @iron Warrior: I'm defending my army because I actually want to be able to use it. If the proposed "no 2 named characters" ban goes off, I'm SOL and have to totally restructure what I've got or just make a new one. If I bring just Belial, I may as well use Space Wolves since they get better and cheaper Termies and updated wargear. If I bring just Sammael, I may as well use Codex marines and get cheaper bikes and better wargear. Deathraven is pretty much the only incentive to keep using the DA book. Hell, smurfs and pups get Mortis Dreadnoughts and Dark Angels are the ones who invented them! It all goes back to the arbitrary thing. In theory, the system proposed is made to give weaker, fluffy armies a chance against powerbuilds. Then why does my weaker, fluffy army get totally banned? It's not even close to a Vulkan meltafest, Mechdar, or any of the really mean stuff. I break it out because I like DA fluff, I like having a unique army, and because I like my DA models. To answer your questions: 1) I certainly enjoy playing it, it's a very small army with a good deal of mobility and potential to get in somebody's face real quick. I've never played against a similar army, but I haven't had any complaints yet. 2) Definitely a challenge. It's only a handful of models saddled with some pretty poor special rules and paying a hefty premium for them (woo hoo, Fearless Bikes  ). DWA is a gimmick, and pretty easy to counter, so I quit using it. 3) Typical of a DW/RW combined force. 4) Yeppers. It's a good chat, but I fear it may be going OT. Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Dec 3, 2009 21:41:08 GMT -5
when you say things like "if I can't have ravenwing as troops, I might as well just use logan and space wolf terminators"... it kinda re-enforces the idea that your only playing the list because its powerful... if you liked the theme of the dark angels army, you wouldn't suggest that you should just play another army because its more powerful.
Ron's deathwing army... for example. Always places quite well, yet its all deathwing, and uses a variety of weapons. He makes it work. you can too.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 3, 2009 22:12:07 GMT -5
Deathwing/Ravenwing = powerful. That's like the 2nd time I've heard that and it's even funnier this time.
I've got it because it's unique, the only unique build DA have left. If a fluffy list is banned and bombed on comp, then I'll just field a powerful list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horst on Dec 4, 2009 1:01:16 GMT -5
ok... whatever. we just need a comp system. I just saw this post on dakkadakka... www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/268313.page#1160180read that army list. can any of you say its even remotely balanced? Without comp, we will see nothing but this kind of garbage at our tournaments. Whatever you do, make a comp system. a flawed attempt is better than no attempt, because it at least shows we tried. to control the cheddar flow. |
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Dec 4, 2009 5:40:36 GMT -5
Agreed. That is an ugly list. By the astronomi-con system, that list runs -6.
In thinking about this, I think additional negatives could easily be added to the system.
For example, to cut down on unit SPAM, add an additional -1 of each duplicate unit choice outside the first row of allowed items - duplicate being determined by a major heading in the codex army list and not counting transports. So, this list would be at an additional -4 (2 duplicate veterans choices after the initial 3 allowed, 1 duplicate vendetta, 1 duplicate Russ. This drops this list to a -10.
Interesting... This would penalize someone for overloading on one slot in the force chart, but if you did it by taking (for instance) 3 elites that were ogryns, PSB and ratlings, you wouldn't be double hit.
Another possible enhancement would be the old bonus that if you have more troops than all other slots combined, that you get a +1 bonus.
I really think this is a pretty workable system with a few local-flavor enhancements.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 4, 2009 7:35:43 GMT -5
ok... whatever. we just need a comp system. I just saw this post on dakkadakka... www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/268313.page#1160180read that army list. can any of you say its even remotely balanced? Without comp, we will see nothing but this kind of garbage at our tournaments. Whatever you do, make a comp system. a flawed attempt is better than no attempt, because it at least shows we tried. to control the cheddar flow. Really? Long range firepower is down to 2 AV12 vehicles and some multi-lasers, 1 pie plate for the entire army, heavy reliance on meltas firing out of Chimeras (fire from the back hatch either reducing range or exposing vulnerable side armor), 1 Bane Wolf, 1 Exec with no bubble wrap (must be static, gets assaulted, gets dead). It's not terrible, but it's definitely not the best you can bring. I'd like to see something like it, it would be an interesting challenge. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Getting limited by soft scoring removes your capability to deal with hard lists. Rather than try and think about how to stop an above par mech list, one would just shut down and bomb it on soft scores, removing the challenge without having to actually face it. Then you call the person running it a bad person for shattering your perfect little microcosm. Stagnation ftl. |
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Dec 4, 2009 8:07:51 GMT -5
It is an ugly list in a lot of ways - repetition, ap1 spam, etc. And it is certainly not and all-comers list. Green Tide would munch this to death. I wouldn't refuse to play it like random-coward on dakka-dakka. I agree - it would be an interesting challenge to face.
By your own admission, this is an above-par mech list. Above par means that all things being equal, this list should win more than average, because par is average, right? I agree that we shouldn't ban people from bringing a list like this. But my opinion is still that it should have consequences that are strong enough to encourage some thought without taking the player out of contention. Am I confident enough in my skill and my army to take a hit on comp for a better chance to win matches? That to me is the balance we need in a comp system.
In the spirit of brainstorming, what if we add the comp score to the battle points every round? In that way, comp effects standings, which affects pairings and affects best general. If everyone comps equally, it has a zero effect. If you take a hard list (assuming that the comp system is good), you'll need to make up for that hit in battlepoints by getting more points in your matches.
|
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Dec 4, 2009 15:09:20 GMT -5
Green Tide would have a big problems with such a list. Footslogging boyz have difficulty nailing armor and assuming every vehicle has a heavy flamer they can shock them around and BBQ them fairly easily. Green Tide is one dimensional, so a balanced army run properly can beat it. This IG army, while suboptimal, it fairly well balanced and can take on a wide variety of armies and do well provided it's run well.
Army lists aren't as important as you seem to think, they're merely an extension of generalship. A good player with a suboptimal list will beat the noob with the netbuild.
|
|
jdubb
Sergeant
oh yeah
Posts: 490
|
Post by jdubb on Dec 4, 2009 15:43:32 GMT -5
Army lists aren't as important as you seem to think, they're merely an extension of generalship. A good player with a suboptimal list will beat the noob with the netbuild. Who wins when a good player with a suboptimal list plays a good player with a netbuild? |
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Dec 4, 2009 15:43:40 GMT -5
It is an fugly list and shows zero in creativity period.
Why are we discussing lists here in the first place? Let's get back on topic here as to the 2010 GT and things relating to it. Comp was one of those topics but the breakdown of lists should be posted in another thread please.
Well said Steve, we do need a system to help control builds like this since most people don't enjoy playing them in competitions where soft scoring is present. Please keep the suggestions flowing.
If we stick to our preliminary plan of partial judge based comp/ partial player based comp, are there any decent suggestions how we should implement this. Should it be off a matrix or should it have some subjective questions like " Did you feel this was OTT." or something similar. Let's here some ideas...
|
|
I know its not in there. 
). DWA is a gimmick, and pretty easy to counter, so I quit using it.
