Millennium & Daboyz GT Comp question

[chumbalaya]

skyth, I don't think that would be helpful really. 40k isn't nearly as bad as Fantasy is at present, it's actually the best it's ever been. Arbitrary limits of any kind don't fix anything, all they do is change where the goalposts of awesomeness are.

Jan 11, 1974 14:04:50 GMT -5 Ranger Dude said:

First off, I have seen you repeatedly say "Get out of your comfort zone" and yet here you are arguing so you can stay in yours. Hypocrisy? Maybe.

Constructive. How about we like to see if you can still be a good general using what you refer to as "sub-par" lists. We want to see if you can still win without using the same three units over and over again. We find that if we discourage excessive duplication, and encourage using more than just a few pages of the codex, then we see more diverse armies. Most of us do not like going to a tourney and seeing nearly the same army for 2/3 or 3/5 rounds.

Also, as we like to encourage people of all skill levels at our tourneys, it is nice to limit the "tool" lists. Being a new player, and running into a list you stand no chance against can ruin your day, and possibly even drive you away. I've seen it happen. Experienced players have this problem too, but we can usually chalk it up to our own mistakes. I know I ran into this last year at the GT. I ran into a Chaos army that wrecked me. I know what mistake I made, and will not make it again. But if I had been new at this, I probably would have been extremely discouraged.

The best Generals are the ones who make the most out of what they have. The best stories from history come from armies taking sub-optimal units or conditions and pulling victory anyway. Are you so insecure in your ability that you can't take a handicap? I see your point of view about comp being a crutch. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. Now try to see ours. We want to challenge ourselves (and others) by seeing how well we can do while not using only the best.

Constructive enough for you?

Very constructive, thank you.

I don't have a problem playing handicap games really, I just prefer playing Warhammer instead of pillowhammer. The very essence of what I would call competition is getting constantly thrown out of that comfort zone and figuring out how to win anyway. If every list is predictably toothless, there isn't much challenge sadly.

If the best generals can still win using sub-par lists, why do they need a crutch?

Worried about diversity? 5th ed is doing your job for you, it seems. The latest crop of books written have an incredible amount of variety between viable builds. This isn't 3rd and 4th where only 1 or 2 units are good and everything else is garbage. That may be the case for outdated armies like Tau and Necrons, but Space Marines, IG, Tyranids, and so on all have tons of options and builds that are very much competitive. The only reason you'd see the same list over and over is if it's an older book (CSM spring to mind, lol Lash+PM+Oblits) or if you were facing folks running netlists, who are generally going to be either newer, more inexperienced players or the unimaginative sort. Player skill > list building, so that problem sorts itself out.

New players going into a tournament should expect a hard fight, but should never be discouraged from continuing. How much fun you have from a game is determined by the players themselves, not the armies they have. I don't think I've played any of you guys, but I'll bring my top shelf list and smack you silly, but I'm not going to take your lunch money or anything. I, gasp, want to have a good time playing dollies with some other nerd. I don't like coddling newbies with empty wins either. If you are a good sport, give them tips and advice, and really explain what's going on as you play, you'll help them a lot more than just handing them a win with no meaning behind it.

Some people are just going to be jerks no matter the venue, the best defense against it is to set a better example yourself. This isn't kindergarten, we don't need to coddle people, rather arm them with knowledge they can use on and off the table. If somebody is being a jerk, man up and call them on it. We're all adults here (mostly ), giving somebody a 1/5 isn't going to keep them from being a jerk. Some folks are just socially awkward, a straight talk can solve most problems. If they really are TFG, call a judge over and let them resolve it.

The Best Generals win Thermopylae was an amazing story, but if Leonidas had the choice to field Steam Tanks and laser cannons he would totally take 'em. Challenging yourself with a handicap is a good way to get new ideas flowing and improve yourself, but forcing it on everybody else doesn't seem as fair. Like I said, if you're such a good general, why do you need a crutch? I'm confident enough in my abilities to create a solid competitive army and use it effectively, maybe I'll handicap myself if things get too easy or I want to help out newbies or less experienced players.

I can understand why some people like comp, but I don't really like it. I say let people who want to challenge themselves go nuts with it, but I don't see much point to punishing newer players, people who just want to field their fluffy DW/RW army, or just people who want to bring their best and get it in return. With awards rewarding varying aspects of the hobby, from generalship to painting or everything combined, you can let everybody enjoy the game we all love however they like. I'm not saying we should drop everything and make this 'Ard Boyz, I just want an event that rewards every aspect of the hobby.

[Ranger Dude]

Apr 18, 2010 18:41:34 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I can understand why some people like comp, but I don't really like it. I say let people who want to challenge themselves go nuts with it, but I don't see much point to punishing newer players, people who just want to field their fluffy DW/RW army, or just people who want to bring their best and get it in return. With awards rewarding varying aspects of the hobby, from generalship to painting or everything combined, you can let everybody enjoy the game we all love however they like. I'm not saying we should drop everything and make this 'Ard Boyz, I just want an event that rewards every aspect of the hobby.

So don't play to the comp. Play what you want. We do reward everything. Overall encompassed everything, best appearance was painting, best opponent was comp and sports, and best general was *gasp* battle points. I know the guys who came in on top for best general last year had horrid comp scores. They came to win and made no bones about it. I came with a very themed list, and did very well on comp (although not as well as the judges thought I should since there was a player aspect to the score). The year before I came with a DW/RW list and scored reasonably well on comp.

Basically, what I'm saying is that you are doing a whole lot of griping with no basis for discussion. As you said, you haven't played us. Just because we have comp dos not mean we don't reward those who come to tool up their lists. We just don't let them control the tourney, and they certainly won't win overall, because they don't exemplify overall in our eyes.

Instead of harping on this over and over again, why don't you, as the minority in this area, step out of YOUR comfort zone first. You might be surprised to see we aren't as different in perspective as you think. And outside of tourneys, I doubt you'd have any trouble finding an opponent among us for any list. It's not the way we play. If we avoid you, it's not because of your list. I personally give every player at least three games before I start avoiding playing them, and it's never because they beat me. Some of the best games I've had involved me being tabled.

I'm not trying to be harsh here. I just hate to see people beating their heads against walls, especially when there is another option. As you've probably realized, there are a large number of us in this area who share a similar viewpoint. We aren't saying yours is wrong. We are just saying it's not ours, and as we are in the majority, ours is the way things are going to be in the area. If you want a tourney catering to your style, by all means, step up and run one. I know Alex would probably support you no matter what, as would others in the area. But, the majority of the tournaments in the area will be run using the viewpoint of the majority of people.

[chumbalaya]

Great, I wrote an awesome reply and it got eated by the dark gods.

Screw it, here's the short version.

You make a good point. I thought Best General was going to be BP + comp, hence my discontent. Not whining or griping, apologies if it came off that way, just want to have some good discussion. The past few posts have done that, so yay me.

I don't get huffy about what folks have to say online. I like to play games, with anybody. Haven't had the chance to meet all of you because you can't be bothered to conform to my schedule, you selfish pricks Maybe when things get less busy I can get out more.

I do like the idea of running a competitive event, but I have no idea where to start. So, I'll jump out of my comfort zone. I'm gonna try and hit up as many events as are around, at least until my surgery and rehab debilitates me. Comp or no, I'll give it a shot and use what I learn to help me make a solid event for everyone, not just the ones who agree with me.

Thanks for taking the time to make this a real discourse. I still don't much like the comp crutch, but I can see why others dig it.

[Iron Warrior]

Gabe, you have more patience than I.

[Horst]

A well comp'd army doesnt have to be a weak army.. thats a standard misconception.

I used this example a while back for chaos...

2x lash princes + 9x oblits are a good combination, and will score very low in comp.

the below list I would score fairly well in comp, however, and it has a similar theme:

Lash Prince
Lash Sorc
3x oblits
vindicator
defilier
at least 1 unit of slaanesh marked troops

boom, you still have lots of templates, and 2 lashes... but you have variety. Granted, the first list is stronger (more oblits = more anti-tank) but the second would be workable depending on your other choices.

You don't need to play a nutsty army list to comp well. Another example of a list i'd comp well...

Vulkan
2 Land Raider Redeemer w/ 5x hammer terminators
2-3 10 man tac squads in rhinos with multimeltas / flamers / meltas
no speeders / bikes

Salamanders fluff states that they have higher than average numbers of veterans (terminators), prefer thunder hammers when available, and use very few bikes / speeders because of the gravity of their homeworld. As such, this list would reflect that well. Many of the vulkan lists I see make extensive use of multimelta bikers, because of how awesome they are with his special rule... this is not fluffy, and you can make a strong list without it.



A well built list can be balanced, show good army composition, and be fluffy all at the same time. If you disregard fluff, sure you can make an army with a higher potential to kill things, but then why are you even playing warhammer? If you want a competitive game, play chess. The entire reason I play this game is to engage in battles that would make sense within the narrative context of the game. If salamanders employ very few bikers, then why in the Emperor's name would your army include 6 of them?

[chumbalaya]

I understand that you can game the comp system, but it doesn't look very consistent. If it's legal, go for it. I'm sure the Salamanders have a couple Bikes lying around. Vulkan synergizes with a list that can bring lots of melta/flamers up close, and Bikes excel at it.

I don't think much of that CSM list either, comp or no. Lash worked great when people didn't go nuts on armor or bring plenty of psychic defense.

If we've got these Codices full of options, why are some ok but some aren't? I like options, the more the better.

[Horst]

But you have plenty of options... within each individual marine chapter / ork clan / eldar craftworld.

You are free to choose which specific organization you want your army to represent. Within that restriction, there are some choices that are OK, and some that don't really represent the army you chose.

Your goal at a tournament that includes comp as a major component should be to best represent your specific armies majority force. Sure, the salamanders probably have a few bikes lying around... but they aren't going to use many of them... and they aren't common. Including 1 bike may be fluffy, but it won't help you.

And your right, very little is broken in 40k at the moment. I played against sean's tervigon spam list yesterday... powerful, yea, but after the game I thought of several things I could have done differently to help win that encounter. Same with most lists out there... there are usually ways to win. Because there are so many viable builds, is it really so much to ask that you build a list that makes sense (with regard to established fluff) within your given theme?

Lists that I do not like comp wise -
2x lash +9x oblit lists
chaos lists with multiple-god choices not led by an undivided leader
Guard lists with 2 company command squads
Guard lists with inquisitors as the ONLY daemonhunters unit
Nid lists with 3+ tervigons
Daemons lists where the HQ's god doesn't represent a majority of the troops
Marine lists that take multiple small tac squads to spam razorbacks
Marine lists that don't adhere to chapter fluff
Marine lists that take 2 captains / command squads
Space wolf lists that use 7+ TWC models
Space wolf lists that use 3-4 of the same HQ, with minor differences
Ork lists that use 10+ nob biker models
Ork lists that have 2 warbosses
Witchhunter lists that take mulitple small squads to take alot of immolators
Tau lists that take more than 5 broadsides
Necron lists that take a C'tan and 3 monoliths

the list goes on.

[chumbalaya]

Apr 19, 2010 14:26:51 GMT -5 Horst said:

But you have plenty of options... within each individual marine chapter / ork clan / eldar craftworld.

You are free to choose which specific organization you want your army to represent. Within that restriction, there are some choices that are OK, and some that don't really represent the army you chose.

Your goal at a tournament that includes comp as a major component should be to best represent your specific armies majority force. Sure, the salamanders probably have a few bikes lying around... but they aren't going to use many of them... and they aren't common. Including 1 bike may be fluffy, but it won't help you.

And your right, very little is broken in 40k at the moment. I played against sean's tervigon spam list yesterday... powerful, yea, but after the game I thought of several things I could have done differently to help win that encounter. Same with most lists out there... there are usually ways to win. Because there are so many viable builds, is it really so much to ask that you build a list that makes sense (with regard to established fluff) within your given theme?

The 40k universe is a big place, not every warzone is going to look exactly like your version of the fluff. It's a crazy place where anything goes. If GW gave us all the options with no restrictions, why isn't everything fluffy?

Lists that I do not like comp wise -

Lists I have no problem with.

2x lash +9x oblit lists

Members of the Obliterator Cult ensorcelled by servants of Slaanesh. They can be very persuasive.

chaos lists with multiple-god choices not led by an undivided leader

A game isn't the entire battle, just a small section. A bunch of Berzerkers wandered over to where the Plague Marines were hanging out, looking for fresh skulls. Or Tzeentch did it, cuz he's a thingy

Guard lists with 2 company command squads

2 understrength regiments joining together to finish their mission. Could make for some interesting friction as the 2 commanders try to shout orders over each other.

Guard lists with inquisitors as the ONLY daemonhunters unit

None can penetrate the inscrutable mind of an Inquisitor.

Nid lists with 3+ tervigons

The prey has attacked a Tyranid breeding ground. Tervigons wander around in the ships when everybody else is asleep, making them a good reaction force.

Daemons lists where the HQ's god doesn't represent a majority of the troops

It is impossible for mortals to decipher the true intent of the Dark Gods.

Marine lists that take multiple small tac squads to spam razorbacks

Understrength company retrofits their Rhinos to make up for the lack of manpower.

Marine lists that don't adhere to chapter fluff

Chapters by their very nature are meant to be independent, self-sufficient and supremely flexible. There's also 1000 of them spanning 10,000 years of history. In that period the Salamanders never fielded Bikes?

Marine lists that take 2 captains / command squads

Shrike and Khan's little fluff blurb in the Codex. 2 captains competing to earn a promotion. 2 understrength companies joining together to finish the job.

Space wolf lists that use 7+ TWC models

The hunt begins as the moon waxes strong. They are coming.

Space wolf lists that use 3-4 of the same HQ, with minor differences

But they're different, otherwise that would be illegal. Rune Priest Rolf always carries melta bombs ever since that horrible battle against a Defiler, while Fluffy wears the runic armor he forged himself, and Spot just loves his bolter too much to replace it as the only reminder of his lost brothers.

Ork lists that use 10+ nob biker models

Hellz Angelz, ya git!

Ork lists that have 2 warbosses

You call dat lousy rabble a Waagh!? Iz gonna show ya how its done, den I'll be givin you a right krumpin.
Megatrork has fallen, Deceptikorks follow me! Dis is a sad joke Starsnikk.

Witchhunter lists that take mulitple small squads to take alot of immolators

Understrength forces retrofit their Rhinos to make up for the lack of girlpower.

Tau lists that take more than 5 broadsides

The trap is sprung, Kauyon forces prepare to engage for the Greater Good.

Necron lists that take a C'tan and 3 monoliths

01101110001 (why the hell would you take a C'tan and 3 Monos? Isn't losing horribly punishment enough?)

the list goes on.

Indeed ;D

[Horst]

There are times I feel like i'm talking to a wall....

Yes, I understand you can rationalize ANYTHING in 40k... I was making a point that you should create a list based on the MAJORITY of your force

I was naming what I have seen done that DONT represent the majority.

[chumbalaya]

I used to be like that too. If it didn't strictly abide by the fluff it was horrible and deserving of retribution. Then I got out of 40k for a bit, came back and saw that it was kinda silly.

You pay for the models, you put them together and paint them, and you have a set points limit and Codex to work with. Why do we need any more restrictions? Like you said, anything can be justified fluffwise, so why is some fluff more right than others? I don't normally build rigidly fluff compliant armies, but I won't give somebody a hard time if they like it.

[Garou24]

Apr 19, 2010 18:25:34 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I don't normally build rigidly fluff compliant armies, but I won't give somebody a hard time if they like it.

Sounds like what you are doing in this thread...for 6 pages....
Many members have stated that the DaBoyz GT will be based on all aspects of the hobby. Why? Because that is the way the DaBoyz like to play and want people to associate DaBoys with well rounded players. Oh and since they DaBoyz are hosting, organizing and paying for this tournament...well that kinda gives them the right to decide how their tournament is played.

The GT overall winner will be based on all the different catagories, Battle, Comp, Painting and Sportsmanship. So if you would like to do well overall bring an army that will do well in all those catagories. If you want to bring your harder "competative" list then shoot for winning best general. Paint it well and win painting too.

Thats the type of image the GT organizers want to display of the local players. Players that build a solid, but not overpowering list. Players that can take their time to paint an army. Players that put their opponents thoughts and feelings first and are pleasent to game with and socialize with. While this might not fit ALL the players, it fits a MAJORITY of the players. And we want as many people to come and have a good time as possible.

So in order to assure that everyone can have a fun and fair time, they might have to limit things to try and keep things balanced. You say you would "love" to play against a super competative IG list. One filled with tank and melta spam, plenty of long range weapons and and pie plates for everyone! "Brign it on!" You say. Well thats great. I am glad you enjoy that game play. So I am 100% sure that you will just have a blast playing against that list. So thats game 1 of 5.... 4 more players will have to play against that list. I am not a mind reader, and I sure cannot tell the future, but I have a good feeling that most of the players that will be at the GT will not have a fun time against a list like that. Especially with their balanced and fluffy lists...because they read about the tournament and understand that the goal is for balanced and fluffy lists. So those players will have to sit through an aganizing game against that army and just get crushed. Its no fun for them to be out of the game on Turn 2 and have to sit and watch while others play. Especially when they adheared to the structure of the tournament with their lists. I have been on the receiving end of a beating like that in my first GT a couple years ago.

<Flashback time!!>
I remember eating AP 2 and AP 1 spam, rending and weapons that "Don't allow you to make and save, just get rid of those models" as my opponent said to me. For my first GT ever that was quite a blow to walk up to the table and ask the organizer's wife for a battle report sheet to fill out my points and score my opponent on sportsmanship. She turns to me and say "Oh no Honey, we won't be passing those out for another 45 minutes. Go play your game and we will drop them off at the tables." Then i have to tell her "No, my game is over. I was beaten, I need to fill mine out now." The look on her face... Then i got to sit for like another 90 minutes and watch everyone else play.

At least i knew that with comp/battle/painting/sports all being scored, that player that crushed me and ruined my day, would not be able to win the tournament. He may win fine in battle points for best general, but he was not going to take Overall Winner. And thats how it should be. Because the way he played was not the type of play that the DaBoyz practice.
<End of Flashback!>

I flip through this thread, and while you keep saying you are not whining or complaning etc, your just griping... I find it hard to beleive. If you wanted to gripe you would have posted on the first page about how you would like to see less impact from comp etc. And afterwards you would not keep posting about it. You would read the responses saying thats not how the tourney is run and this is the way things will be played. Then you would have gone.. "well darn ok, I just wanted to bring up my point of veiw". And then you would decide for yourself if you will be playing or not.
But instead you keep posting about it over and over. You keep saying "I think this" Or "I like this" or "I play this way"

It should be about "We" Because the tournament is there to provide to more people than just "chumbalaya". The more you post to try and disprove others, the more you make it worse.

Each post I see about you complaining about the GT and Comp is like a slap in the face of the GT organizers. You know...those guys putting their own money and time and effort into planning and running this GT. I feel bad that they have to come to the boards and see new posts showing interest in their GT, only to have to sift through pages of your ranting and crying about how they decided to host their tournament.

[Horst]

Everything garou said... though no list should be so thoroughly outclassed by a competitive list that a loss is inevitable. I tied for 4th in comp at the last DaBoyz GT (as a marine player) and came in 7th overall... out of 66 (if I had won my last matchup with a 40 or better, I'd have been in 1st... instead I drew the worst comp'd player there and was nearly tabled. nothing against sparks, he's a good guy and I made mistakes, but still). I played against people with very poor comp scores as well as those with very high ones... and enjoyed all of them.

high comp lists can be competitive... so if you wanna be competitive chumby, you can do good comp WHILE being competitive... its not hard to do. Nobody is forcing you to play an all footslogging daemonhunters list. However, some people want to, and while they will probably loose their games, even against friendlier lists, the idea is to give everyone a FUN game... because people WILL bring lists like that. I'd say that maybe half the attendance at DaBoyz GT were people who were newer, or not often tournament players. We don't all read stelek's blog (I do... interesting arguments, and i'm currently modifying one of his lists for 'ardboyz. Not afraid to tread in the cutthroat waters myself).

People like you (don't mean that in an offensive way) are the reason I suggested my comp match-making system on stelek's blog and in here a while back (probably an earlier post... i'll re-post it for your benefit)

Submit lists a week in advance of the tournament for all attending in order to be eligible for raffle prizes (still able to register same day, but no prizes raffle for you ><)... judges score comp before anything else. Match comp scores up... closest to closest (higher comp score is worse in this system... so a mech guard spammy list of doom is a 20, a foot daemonhunters list with 1 of everything is a 0).

after every round, add the total battle points to the comp score... continue using this sum to match players in subsequent rounds. The idea is if your playing a fluffy daemonhunters list, manage to squeak out a win vs a similar list, you don't just get placed in a winners bracket full of first round winners (many of whom include power gamers that wouldn't be fun to play against)... you get placed against someone in a similar situation, or someone with a power list who has no idea what their doing and got a 0 for battle points last round.

Let the comp score pair the cheese with the cheese, and the fluffy gamers with the fluffy gamers... eventually the two will cross, but not for the first game or two, when competition for the top spots heats up.

[chumbalaya]

Garou, I don't begrudge people for playing their way. What I do frown upon is emphasizing one over the other. I got into this thread because of the whole "people with hard lists should be demonized" nonsense. I understand that the GT encourages players who excel in all aspects and I fully support that. I don't necessarily agree all the way, but I see that most folks like it. All I'm looking for is making Best General all BP so we can get some good competition without having to game a subjective system or handicapping yourself.

I'm sorry you had a rough time, but are you sure it was the list that made you sadface? Lists aren't unfun, players are. Going in with a handicapped list, you kinda have to accept that you made concessions that weaken your list. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's a big problem I have with comp, it's a way to win without being a good player or just to take revenge on somebody who beat you fair and square.

I know I probably won't win overall, but I'd like to win Best General or anything non-Painting (I suck hardcore). I don't want to compromise competitiveness, so I accept I won't win overall and go for it.

I don't want to change the entire GT, I never said I did. All I want is to make it better by allowing more people to try for something they wouldn't normally be able to. I've said it before, I really do appreciate these guys running a big event locally. Criticism is not a slap in the face. I'm not just shouting at people, I'm offering another perspective, solutions, and a discussion that can hopefully give people some new ideas or at least the knowledge that there are other kinds of players out there.

Horst, I like that system you proposed. It's still got the same problems due to the subjective nature of comp, but it's a lot better than just dishing out bonus points for gaming the system well.

I know some armies can be competitive and "fluffy", but that isn't true for every army. That's a problem if somebody has, say Necrons or Tau. A fluffy Tau or Necron army is pretty terribad, so they either have to lose their games, take it in the shorts on comp, or play another army. I'd rather everybody have a fair shot.

[Catachan Colonel]

Apr 19, 2010 22:43:24 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I know some armies can be competitive and "fluffy", but that isn't true for every army. That's a problem if somebody has, say Necrons or Tau. A fluffy Tau or Necron army is pretty terribad, so they either have to lose their games, take it in the shorts on comp, or play another army. I'd rather everybody have a fair shot.

I can not speak for Necrons but i know this is blatantly wrong with tau. My strongest forces are both comp friendly and power house! A tau player would have no excuse for complaining about requirements of comp in a "Best General" category.

Additionally Tau are one of those armies that paint easy to look great so they will probably be competing in painting scores as well. (Looking at the scores the last few years all the tau armies scored good for painting and and comp.) The only time my Tau have failed me recently is when my dice went belly up. No army no matter how comp friendly or unfriendly will win games when your dice roll nothing but 2s! (I will get you Jeff after my tau have completed their time out. "Bad Tau! no rolling 1s and 2s")

[chumbalaya]

Would you mind sharing? The kind of Tau list I'm thinking of is maxing on Crisis suits with maybe 6 Fire Warriors cuz you're forced to field them.