Assault Phase '07

[skyth]

As in it's too leniant, or too stringent?

[MajorSoB]

Ed,
I just reviewed your rubric and I am not suprised. I understand what you are attempting to do through your comp system, but the your scoring system favors troop based armies more than others. Armies like Word Bearers and most deamon bomb armies will score great due to there being the vast majority of points being taken in troops while other armies will not be as lucky. That being said, I like what you are doing by attempting to limit HQ, elite, fast attack, and heavy maxing. It does not suprize me in the least that you have recieved some complaints. Power gamers will not like your approach since the only way you can max out a special category is by linking it to theme, yes theme, and "cause they are good" is not a theme. I do believe it is fair and I should score well with this in mind, but if not, I am prepared for my 17 in comp.

[MajorSoB]

BTW Jay, your butt is finishing third in painting, right behind both me and Kemp, hell Brian might beat you as well, so how does fourth sound?

[jay]

As in it's too leniant, or too stringent?

I really don't care. I am just happy to be playing.

As for what Doug is saying, The Rubric is built around troops.

I am bringing a big ones army with min. troops. Its a theme army, but i know going in that i will be scored poorly. so what.

[MajorSoB]

Just the opposite, it should score OK because it has a theme. I does indicate that theme is the one modify that can excuse adhearance to the troop based rubric.

I only see this rubric being a problem with power gamers who want to play it "cause its in my codex so it should be legal".

[nycowboy]

here is what I posted on the other board:
"Ok, I notice people are getting a little upset about the comp. I just want to let everyone know the comp score is minimal in the whole thing. It only counts for the overall score.
1. The are actual point values assigned to each question; we left them out intentionally so people wouldn’t be tempted to break the system.
2. The goal of this system is to prevent the cookie cuter marines and daemon bomb armies, without completely removing them from people’s options.
3. The system is designed so it is very hard for you to get a perfect comp score; and that is fine. Most armies will receive between 15 and 20 pts. It is really hard to score under 10, you need to really try to do that.
4. You can still bring an army not based in troops and score well. Just so you know a little more then half the points are in the troops section, and about half of those points are in the first two questions in that section.

Follow that little advise and don't worry about the system no one will get tanked on comp unless they try."

also:
"I just spoke with one of the judges about your feelings towards the comp rubric, I discussed your concerns and such. What he explained to me and I agree with this is that the rubric for comp will be used as a guideline for scoring. Some of the questions don't work for all armies so we will modify them, as we need to for each list we come across where a rubric question my not be fairly worded such as when the min size of your units is the same as the maximum."

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

is the comp system online or only in the emailed rules packets?

[nycowboy]

here:
Army Composition Rubric
HQ:
1. Does the Army have only 1 HQ choice
a. If the army has two HQ’s are they different? (This means are they a Chaplin and a
librarian, not are they two Chaplains but one has a powerfist and the other a
thunderhammer)
2. Does the HQ selection and their wargear fit the theme of the army? (If the army has no
daemons in it why does it have a daemon prince?)

Elites:
3. Does the army have only 0-1 elite choice
a. If they have more then one elite choice does it fit the theme of the army?

Troops:
4. Does the army have at least 2-troop choice with at least 1.5 times the minimum number
of models allowed in the squad?
5. Are no more then 2 of the troop units equipped the same? (Again a unit of 8 men with
a vet. who has a powerfist does not make it different then a unit of 8 guys with a vet. who
has a thunderhammer)
6. Are at least 35% of the army’s points (647) spent on troops?
7. Are at least 60% of the total units in the army troop?

Fast Attack:
8. Does the army have only 0-1 fast attack choices
a. If they have more then one Fast Attack choice does it fit the theme of the army?

Heavy Support:
9. Does the army have only 0-1 Heavy Support choices
a. If they have more then one Heavy Support choice does it fit the theme of the army?
Last Question:
10. Is this army one of the top 3 armies you like to play against? (Only can give to 3
armies)

[doc]

quite an interesting scheme - I like the way it emphasizes THEME over balance (per se).
This is the scheme I came up with for my local events; GW Canada has a "fair" scoring scheme, so I adapted it to fit with that and the old RTT/GT scoring systems.
It has been received, by those playing, without complaint so far... maybe all my locals a spineless wimps!
forum.wcp-vancouver.com/viewtopic.php?p=26038#26038

[nycowboy]

I like your sheet. It has the same basic concept I feel. The only problem I have with it is the 50% of points spent on troop. Because while in small points games that my not be hard for any army, when you get up in points armies like Tau need to use every slot with maxed out squads to come close to making that 50% cut. I think at 2000pts they can only break 40% of the points.

[Brinan The Barbarian]

wow, my black legion scores really high on that list!

[Wolf Lord Snorville]

nycowboy said:

7. Are at least 60% of the total units in the army troop?

This is the only one I see that might be a problem in a general list. Some armies will be under this and others will be over this without it indicating the quality of an army list.

[nycowboy]

wolflord said:

nycowboy said:

7. Are at least 60% of the total units in the army troop?

This is the only one I see that might be a problem in a general list. Some armies will be under this and others will be over this without it indicating the quality of an army list.

It is a common question that I have seen on allot of comp sheets. I like it for its basicness and it those points that people need to look at and go am I going to go for it or will I am for a more power based list.

[MajorSoB]

I do like both scoring systems and what they are trying to accomplish. I think as long as theme is kept in mind when scoring most armies should be alright.

Doc, I did like your idea for the Hall of Heros sheets however I think your disclaimer on the player scoring sheet doesn't go far enough. I like that ther was wording that if either of the last to options were scored that a judges may approach that person, but I don't think that goes far enough. I think exceptionally high scores and unusually low scores should be open to review. I know we all hate people who chipmunk their opponents, but nothing is worse than the person who actively campaigns for "Best Sportsman" by giving max points accross the board to every opponent. Every GT I have played in at Toronto seems to have the random a-hole who underscores every opponent, but also the "nice guy" who loves everyone and maxes their opponents scores. I guess I am bitter cause I never seem to hook up and play the "nice guys", but seriously this end of the scoring spectrum needs to be monitored as much as the lowballing end.

[doc]

Major - completely agree with you on the points of high/low scoring...
I *would* like to address both issues, but the high scoring from "happy-happy, joy-joy" players, seems to have tailed off here a little (thank the gods), so my only real concern is low scores. And these can either come from chipmunking (if you want your head beaten in), or from a bad game. If is is chipmunking I will do something about it, ie tear a strip off the players involved. If results from a bad game, I want to know and be able to "watch" for a trend from that player. One guy is under my evil eye right now !
I'll keep your suggestion in my thoughts though as we move to improve the score system.