Millennium & Daboyz GT Comp question

[Iron Warrior]

Skyth, Im a bit confused as to why your posting again. We understand your view, you have explained it multiple times not only in this post but in others. I dont know what you consider Pillowhammer but the last time I saw you at a tournement was at the Ard Boyz 2 years ago when I faced you in the final round. The game wasnt all that memorable, I recall either beating you or drawing you, I know I didnt lose. But I brought a compful chaos list (as I dont build Ard Boyz lists) to the standards of what DaBoyz are for. And it gave you a run for your money and won me a top spot in the tournament.

So if my "pillowhammer" as you put it, list won or drew against your Ard boyz list, I think some people (you included) in this conversation should re-evaluate your definition of Pillowhammer when it pertains to DaBoyz. Because we arent push overs by any means. We challange ourselves to become better players. Not let our lists play the game for us.

As a side note and correct me if Im wrong but wasnt your only win in casual gaming with Daboyz to Tommy (whom we still mock to this day) and drove you to play that square base game? You dont have to answer that as im sure you going to say something like the rules set drove you away and you didnt like 5th edition or the codex.

Im sorry but im having a real hard time taking you seriously. How can you expect me to listen to someone give advice or input on something they havent played or experience in over 2 years? YOu still havent answered my question and this is the 3rd time I have asked you, but how many games of 5th edition have you acutally played...I think I know. Not enough or none. Im not saying your opinion matters less than anyone elses but for the volume of posts about the repeat of the same topic over and over again its becoming trying to hear you preech your way of playing upon others (whom dont agree with you) when you dont even play the game yourself.

And as a final comment, And I know this will come to you as a Shocker, Shuan and Jay share the majority view on comp and would score you the same or very similar to the way Courtney would, Doug and Tommy did (in the DaBoyz GT 2-3 years ago) or I would. Name and personality have nothing to do with a list. The list is being judged not the person. bring a fair list and youll get a good score, bring a waac list and youll get a poor one. end of story.

[Catachan Colonel]

Apr 21, 2010 21:02:20 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

lol, way to fail me. That's what I get for assuming the best of people.

Anyway, I hope you're joking about that whole "this is what the event actually is" part too. There's nothing competitive about a popularity contest, which is all comp ends up being.

Rather than whine about a so-called uber list, you could try and get better. I'd be happy to help

i thank you for assuming the best of me. I am sorry that i got so happy when i saw we has reached an agreement. I am sorry that you were disingenuous.

Lack of comp even in "Best general" does nothing to foster friendly competition all it does is turn a tournament into a bunch of WAAC - netlist- unfriendly armies seeing who can roll the best and then whining that there were missions that didnt let them set up or play the way they wanted. There is nothing to prove that comp ends up a popularity contest. Even our potentially least popular member skyth when scored by two people he does not trust only scores 4 points off the tournament champ, and 17 points above the bottom scores. That does not seem like a popularity contest result but an honest appraisal of a list.

Rather than whine about a so-called fluffy pillow list, you could try our competitive comp friendly approach and get better at it. Skyth found a way to do it at DaBOYZGT08, and so can you.

I'd be happy to help

[Garou24]

Chumbawumba, life isn't fair. It not an argument. Its a fact. Some of the personality comp issues you deceived do happen at tournaments. But the guys in the DaBoyz gaming group and those running the tournament are decently stand up guys. You are making a generalized blanket statement and applying it to a group of players you have to really met and applying to a tournament you have not attended. You can cry about comp that's fine. That's your playstyle which is fine. But don't complain about a tournament you have never been to or a group of players you have never met. (Myself and 6 other DaBoyz members where at millennium Tuesday night waiting to give you bits for missile launchers. Two of them were tournament organizers. None of us had any clue who you were and none of us had ever met you...so you obviously have not spent enough time gaming with our group to be able to make statements on our playstyle.)

I can tell you this. Go to the daboyz gt and play...or don't. It may not be "your preferred method of play" but I stand by the statement that you will have a lot of fun. And you will not find a more fair tournament.

Also you never appeared Tuesday night so I left at 8:30. Soleman and I have bits if you need them. Just let me know if you will be there next time. Its a 45 minute drive for me.....

[chumbalaya]

Sorry dude, I was there at around 7 and I got a game in with horst, didn't know folks were looking for me (maybe for a kicking or something ). I'll wear a sign next time

Catachan, I wasn't being disingenuous, I thought we had actually reached some kind of agreement. Then I got the "just kidding brah lol" and I was sad

I have no doubt that there are lots of good, even great, players here, going for so long and going to lots of events has got to leave you with something. I think that, though, that constant crutch can have you learn a certain way and limit your overall potential. Somebody with the same amount of experience without any sort of restrictions placed upon him would be a better overall player. Not a knock, just an observation. Like I've always said, player skill > list any time, but a good player with a good list is a great game waiting to happen.

No comp =/= WAAC. A game isn't unfun because of the lists involved (unless you are mad your opponent didn't dumb down for you, then that seems like your problem), it's because of the players. If you haven't had a problem with anybody, then removing comp would have the same effect. You can even match up fluffy bunnies with fluffy bunnies and uber cheesy powermonglers with each other. It's kinda silly to determine who's the best at playing that day when they aren't even allowed to play the full game, only the "approved" parts.

Everybody's human, even the folks running the event, and everybody has their own biases that can affect something like comp scoring. It's not a knock on anybody, just how things are. Any kind of comp scoring will, by its very nature, be subjective, inconsistent and open to abuse. You're right, I don't know the guys running it, so I won't be able to make an army that I know they'll like, gaming the comp system. Bummer, guess that puts me at a disadvantage, because I'm selfish enough to have a full time job and go to school.

So hey, like I said before, I'm gonna make the effort to get out to more events, meet up with y'all and see if I can't try and understand this particular view of things. Maybe we can discuss this IRL instead of the delightfully impersonal medium of the interwebs.

[hyv3mynd]

Wow, I'm sorry my simple questions have caused such heated discussions.

Here are my thoughts based on the few games I've played. I'll try and not use absolutes because the game is so diverse and dynamic.

GW has created an amazing strategy wargame. They have done a great job of keeping a vey loyal group of followers and hobbyists over several decades while still evolving their games and systems. They have created a fictional universe with limitless possibilities and great storylines for all armies and species that captivate our imagination.

One of the causes of the "comp/non-comp" argument stems from the diversity and dynamic differences in each army and codex. Each army invariably has unit choices that end up being "better" than others. Granted, this perception and/or reality is based on the local meta game and hobby group, but these generalizations are usually correct.

I'll use Tyranids as an example as it's the only army I play and codex I own. Two of our elite choices; lictor broods and pyrovore broods are widely viewed as "not good" or "less competative" choices. Lictors are 65pts each, are forced to deep strike, may not assault the same turn they arrive, and can be instakilled by anything str8+. Pyrovores are 45pts each for a heavy flamer unit with the same vulnerabilities to ID. Yes, they could be very good in certain game scenarios, but in the grand scheme of the 40k gaming community they will be unused. Instead, people are taking Zoanthropes with a str10 lance and 3+ invuln, hive guard with str8 shooting that doesn't require LoS and t6 3+ saves, and venomthropes that give all units within 6" cover and dangerous terrain. "Comp friendly" tyranid lists will typically have 1 of each of the later elite selections. "WAAC/competative" tyranid lists are moving towards 3 units of 3 hive guard due to their overall "betterness" based on the abundance of light armor mech lists that are doing so well in competative tournaments.

The same comparison can be made in every force selection category in the tyranid codex. An upgraded Carnifex at 200 points is almost never a better choice than a 200pt Trygon. Like I said earlier, there are exceptions but they are not in the majority of competative games which is what we are talking about here. Comp issues aren't a deciding factor in casual games between friends.

Since codex choices do play out to be "better" than others, "Comp" scoring was created to discourage people from always choosing the "best" units for their points. Such choices could be 3 units of Hive Guard as elites and 3 Trygons as heavies and 3 Tervigons as troops. Other lists I've seen include 6 Ironclad Dreads in a SM list, 3 units of Longfangs with ML's, 3 Ravagers for DE. Notice I didn't mention dedicated transports as I think they balance themselves out at the end of the day either with very low armor values or very high points costs.

Comp scoring is a preventative measure discouraging people from playing the "best" choices from their codex in triplicate in certain tournament circuits. If comp was thrown out alltogether, the game scene would eventually boil down to everyone playing the same 2 or 3 armies with certain choices in triplicate. IG would be all over with 6 chimeras, 3 vendettas, and 3 tanks or whatever. SM's would all have 6 razorbacks, 3 predators or 3 longfangs. BA would have 3 Baal's, 6 dreads. Orks would have 3-6 Battlewagons or 9 Kans/2 dreads.

A lot of lists already look like this, but Comp is the only thing preventing the game from devolving further. Yes, lists with no duplication at all CAN be competative, but not against lists with 3's/6's/9's. Not only does Comp give more diverse lists a chance to compete in the tournament scene, it gives GW a chance to sell the other half of the models they put so much time and effort into designing and writing history for. Most importantly at least to me, it gives us more entertaining games!

My most enjoyable games have ALL been with a "Comp friendly" list against a "Comp friendly" list. Yes, I know there are people like Cumbalaya who have fun trying to beat the power lists and that's fine. The fun I enjoy is with 12 totally different units on the table and using them in support and with synergy to create a dynamic and diverse game. It may be fun to shoot 15 ML's from your 3 longfang packs at your opponent's 6 chimeras and 3 vendettas, but to me and a many others it gets old and annoying when games like that are so often determined by who gets to shoot first. Thus, comp players are allowed to be competative and enjoy the full spectrum of GW products and fluff.

The last thing GW has provided is an environment to play both comp and non-comp/ardboyz styles. Independant retailers who sacrifice their time and venue to allow us to compete should be thanked and not criticized for their scoring methods.

My initial post was a simple question about how duplicate unit selections would effect my comp score in the local circuit and they were answered so thank you. I did not mean for the questions to create an aggressive discussion as to which is the right and which is the wrong way to make 40k lists and play them.

I think just about everyone has spoken their peace here so let's end the discussion here and enjoy all the torunaments in all of their various forms for what they are.

[jdubb]

Apr 22, 2010 10:53:54 GMT -5 @hyv3mynd said:

...Cumbalaya...

LOL

[chumbalaya]

[hyv3mynd]

Yeah, typos are a give when trying to make a post that long at work, sorry heh.

At least we got 2 responses out of that long ass thing without (intentional) personal attacks or flaming.

[Garou24]

Good post hivemind. Good thoughts and opinions. And I feel your pain...I had to type all my replies on my cell phone.

Without some comp our tournament might end up the same 3 lists over and over. Comp pushes the player to use a more diverse army. And that can make a player better plus it also is fun to fight 3 different space marine armies instead of 3 space marine armies by 3 players, but they are all the same.

Not everyone will agree as we can see by this thread, but that doesn't make everyone wrong either. There is no wrong way to play 40k....except cheating of course. Its just the local area tends to play more comp friendly games. I personally enjoy it and I love painting different units too much to just use the same static list over and over.

[chumbalaya]

Not everyone will agree as we can see by this thread, but that doesn't make everyone wrong either. There is no wrong way to play 40k....except cheating of course. Its just the local area tends to play more comp friendly games. I personally enjoy it and I love painting different units too much to just use the same static list over and over.

Agreed fully.

Now that I'm not on the run to work I can actually reply to ya hivey.

Don't be sorry about starting a discussion. It's nice to exercise the old noodle and see what other folks are talking about. Constructive discourse can bring about some really good ideas. Hell, I learned something and I'm gonna be putting it to use.

I disagree on the whole "comp promotes diversity thing." I think you'll find that the latest crop of 5th ed books promote diversity just by having so many good builds available. In the entirety of the Tyranid book, there's only a handful of units I would never use: Pyrovores, Biovores and flying Rippers. Everything else is viable in some way, depending on how you put it together. Same goes for SM (beyond LotD, Vanguard with packs, Suckarius, Honor Guard and TFCs you have lots of options, even these aren't totally terrible), SW (lol Ulrik, Blood Claws in any shape and Wolf Scouts), BA (DC Tycho, DC in general sadly, DS Land Raiders, Techmarines, Scouts), and IG (Ogryns, Rough Riders, Basilisks). Older books have less options available of course, but they can still make stuff work.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to use these marginal units, they can be fun some times. My problem comes from the method of promoting them, which is handicapping everything else, often unevenly or with a bend towards a particular army/build/style of play. Putting comp into overall and rewarding Theme while General is still just from BPs is a happy medium that gives everyone something to try for.

[Iron Warrior]

There is a wrong way to play 40k and thats sober....hic!


Why do you think, Chamba, that by taking less than uber units/selections is a weakness? Think about this. Taking a less than optimal unit and learning to use its strengths to add to your win would be acutally learning to expand your strategic over view of the codex in a whole. Would that not be the challange in the game itself. Isntead of relying on your opponent to challange you why not take it upon yourself to challange yourself becuase lets face it not every player is top notch. I dont consider this a weakenss at all or much less a handicap. Its a clever way of making people challange themselves and to promote a friendly environment (which after all is what the game is about, Having fun in a friendly manner.)

You statement about each codex having diversity is correct, the -potnetial- is there. The problem arises when the codex gets into a persons hands. The player ultimately decides what list he wants to bring, the codex doenst force him to take only the optimal unit choices.

Heres the way I see it and most of Daboyz, I think do too. We want everyone to have fun. Thats the key factor here. We dont tell you or expect you to play like we do, we may encourage it or if asked let you know how we play. You dont have to accept it or even like it. But we pride ourselve in challanging one another by taking less than optimal lists and finding ways to win with them regardless (or in Orville terms Irregardless) of who our oppnent is be it the new person with a battle force or the WAAC lists. Since we are already accomstmed to playing like this we can pick up one of your Power lists and play your game any time you want (we may not like those type of game but we can do it) And here the neat thing. Since we already know how to play "pillow hammer lists" We will crush you with the WAAC one too. We just dont see any fun in doing so. So to us we ask ourselves...why? Whats the point? That was no fun.

The first weekend the Chaos codex came out my friend Doug asked to play a game with him and a friend. His son and I were chaos against him and his friends SMs. I took it as an oppotunity to see what kind of nastieness the new codex could do, Doug also asked me to. So I did, 2 Lash DP, Thousand sons, Defilers and vindicators a plenty. The game was one sided and I sat there discusted with that build. And I kept asking Doug, why? Why would GW even consider making stuff like this? that game was no fun for me, it held no challnge for me and I didnt feel proud becuase my tactics won the game, the d**n codex won the game for me, all I did was get to roll some dice. Thats not fun for me. Oh and just to point out, you could say that was me stepping "out of my comfort zone".

As far as I see it, challanging yourself is the only way you get better in anything (life included). I see our method and way of playing the game as a "better" way of playing the game. It does promote imo fun, diversity (because the player chose to be diverse), and a well rounded concept of the game including Being a good sport when you win or lose, Modeling and painting. All these factor into what the Game/Hobby is all about for us, not just List building and dice rollin'. Yes it is subjective, to the group of people in this assosiation we all see it similarly and that why we want to let people experience our way of playing. And so far people are liking it. Our GT attendaces grows every year and next year promises to be bigger and have more events in it. You have to admit, by the numbers, we are doing something right? Or dont...it doesnt matter to me.

[chumbalaya]

I would say then that if you're just fighting weaker units, you won't be as sharp as if you were going up against the really nasty stuff and learning how to use/stop it. Rather than lament at how awesome Lash is (it's not), why not encourage people to figure it out and beat it?

Lists aren't everything, but learning how to beat the feared netlists is a lot more useful than just ignoring them or using an out of game method to go against them.

If comp were gone, people would have to actually *think* about beating hard armies on the table as opposed to just tanking them on scores. Older armies, 3rd and 4th in particular, boiled down to 1 or 2 builds, but the newer Codices have a lot more than that. IG, SM, SW, BA, and nids have a ton of viable builds out there, explore them for a bit without your mental blocks and you'll be surprised.

I'm not arguing against painting, modelling, having fun or being a good sport. I'm arguing against arbitrary restrictions that have become redundant in light of GW's latest crop of well balanced, competitive, and diverse Codices.

[Soleman]

Apr 22, 2010 15:34:59 GMT -5 chumbalaya said:

I would say then that if you're just fighting weaker units, you won't be as sharp as if you were going up against the really nasty stuff and learning how to use/stop it. Rather than lament at how awesome Lash is (it's not), why not encourage people to figure it out and beat it?

I haven't said anything in this thread because most of Daboyz are doing just fine. Most of their opinions about the game are shared by me and most of the people associated with Daboyz.

Let me ask you this: Is a person a better General if they can build a net list to beat another net list, or would you say that the better general would be the guy who can take a comp friendly build and beat a net list with... wait for it..... superior tactics. I can tell you that several of the guys here can do that, no bones about it. So don't think that they're just crutching along by having comp in their tourneys. Hell, several of them play in multiple tournaments across the country or at least the northeast. I'm sure not all of the tourneys they play in score comp with the same purpose in mind that we do, but I'd wager that they're playing comp friendly lists (except maybe for a 'ardboys event).

Bottom line to me is this: You are in the minority here. This is how the Daboyz GT has been run and will (hopefully) always be run. This is how the majority of us want it to be run. You can come out and play (and I hope you do) understanding that comp will be used, or stay home and wait for another 'Ardboys event where it wont. Bring whatever you like to the tourney, no one will complain. Just be prepared for the comp score and don't complain when you get it, you knew the rules going in.

Like Travis said, organize and run a tournament the way you want it to be run if you so choose, but don't expect to come here and bully your way of playing into our tournament.

You've said your piece, several times, in several different ways. Others folks have said theirs in several different ways, but it doesn't change the way the tournament is being run. I see no need to drag this thread out any further.

[Ranger Dude]

Chumba, we do not restrict you from taking any unit. There is no unit in the game we are not willing to see in a list. We are not a fan of duplication. The big reason for this is we like to see variety. I think Hyvmind put it very well when he pointed out that so many nid lists are going to all hiveguard all the time. Yes, the "potential" for many good lists is in the codex. But, people aren't using them. Too often you see a bunch of nearly the same lists deing discussed and run.

If you really think we are crutching ourselves, try us. I'd pit Courtney with any of his "one of everything" armies against just about anyone. Jay and Shaun know their armies inside out, and Tommy has a devious tactical mind. That's just to name a few. We play comp friendly armies. If a tourney had no comp, we'd likely still play a comp friendly list because it's what we do. We use comp in our tournies because we like to share our way of doing things with others. We're not saying your way is wrong. We are saying our way is "right for us". We are well aware of how your way works. Most of us have stepped out of our comfort zone on more than one occaision, both by facing the uber lists and by playing them. But, it's not who we are, and having tried it, it's not who we want to be. It's not that we are unaware of your opinions. It's not that we haven't tried out your way. It's simply a matter of this is the way WE want to play. And, as is evidenced by the number of people replying to you, WE are the majority in this area. That means that the way we like to play is going to be the way we run things most of the time.

An while Tommy's post about how we do things was sarcastic, it wasn't a "just kidding" sort of thing. That is exactly how we run things, AND YOU AGREED WITH IT! Then you found out he was being sarcastic, and suddenly it's not right anymore? It's still how we do things. Nothing he said has changed. We try to cater to ALL aspects and all gamers. MAybe not in the way they would like in an IDEAL situation, but we give everyone something. And yes, we do favor the things we like, but that's true of ANY group. IF I moved to an area where no comp was the standard, I'd deal with it. I'd still play MY way, but I would not try to badger my way onto the group. You want to play a "more competetive" list, go right ahead. We aren't stopping you. And if you think we are gimping ourselves by playing to comp, then your lists should be able to beat ours more often, which means your battle points should be able to make up the loss in comp, espescially since battle points are worth so much more. But you might find yourself surprised. You might find our "gimped" lists aren't as toothless as you think. Our pillowhammer lists may just beat you more than you expect.

You are entitled to your opinion. We have ours. You are not likely to change ours. Ask Skythe. He's been trying for a few years now. You are welcome to play your way, or play our way. Makes no difference to us.

[chumbalaya]

Good God, I'm not bullying anybody. I'm not advocating chaing the entire format of the tournament, cheating, being a jerk, curb-stomping noobs, or murdering puppies. Why can't we have a simple discussion without pointless trolling? Oh right, internet.

If the compy player can totally pwn the netlist, why does he need the extra handicap from comp? Player > list, so what's the problem?

We agree on a lot of things here; we're really arguing over minutiae. I don't get why it's such a big deal. Comp + BP is not competitive, and I like competitive, ergo my unlike for comp.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zesL7BIWaOM

That's where this is going. I'm sure you guys are all a hoot to hang and game with and I'm looking forward to meeting (and beating ) you all. But this whole thing here ain't workin'. I've said my piece and I'll be happy to clarify anything for you, but I'd say that just about wraps it up.

Peace