boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Feb 14, 2007 19:22:11 GMT -5
At harrisburg I ran into a 40k comp discussion with a worksheet that looked like this
start with 25pts Troops Required troops choices not at max -1 ea each troop choice not at max -1ea
Unit choices 5 different unit options -1 4 different unit options -2 Total Hvy + Elt + Fast <= troop choices 0pts Total H+E+F<= troops x 2 -2 Total H+E+F<= troopsx3 -4 Total H+E+F> troopsx3 -6
Wargear Each character/vet upgrade monsterous creature with 51-75pts upgrades othere than weapons -1 76-99pts upgrades othere than weapons -2 100+pts upgrades othere than weapons -3
Allies 11-19% -1 20%+ -2 Vehicles if you have a vehicle or squadron with more than 50pts in upgrades on any one vehicle -1 each
Well what do people think. Where does this need to get work and how do we make this a bit meaner.
Boldo
|
|
|
Post by evilerik on Feb 14, 2007 19:42:00 GMT -5
i like the unit choices section and the wargear section. They seem pretty solid. i don't know about the troops scoring. It also seems like there should be some + components to this.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 14, 2007 20:03:16 GMT -5
I've played there. That system is increadibly broken and just screams 'Play Loyalist Space Marines'
I can (And have) made some pretty sick marine lists that break that system.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Feb 14, 2007 21:46:40 GMT -5
It looks like this comp list does not like eldar.
you would lose points for taking one falcon (to many upgrades)
and if you did a theme eldar jet bike army and had a farseer with jetbike with fortune you would get docked points.
I like Jason "Doc" comp list posted awhile back.
|
|
|
Post by MallSecurity on Feb 14, 2007 22:07:47 GMT -5
That list is very favorable to Loyalist Marines. Armies like Tyranids, Necrons, Orks and Chaos would get pounded for no real reason. I'm not sure its even a good core to base a comp system off of to be honest. Its core seems to be unbalanced. I'll try and pull up an alternative later tonight. Edit: Here is an Interesting One www.greatescapegames.com/ContestofChampions/40K/COC%20Comp%20Scoring.htm
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 15, 2007 12:32:19 GMT -5
That's still a comp system that basically says 'If Loyalist marines can't do it or it kills loyalist marines really well, it must be bad'.
I'll post one I saw that I like later. I'm at work now, so can't get to it.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 15, 2007 14:39:50 GMT -5
HQ:
-1 for HQ's chosen from the same slot. -1 additional for both HQ's having the same upgrades. -1 for both HQ's having identical retinues.
Troops:
-1 for each troop choice not at a)50% above minimum or b)Maximum c)Transport capacity or d)Sacred number. -1 for each choice above 3 from the same category (IE 4 Tactical squads is a -1, 5 Tactical squads is a -2) (Necrons and Iron Warriors exempt) -1 for each troop choice above 2 that has identical upgrades to another troops choice (IE if you have three tactical squads with a lascannon and a plasma gun (Regardless of numbers in each squad) you take a -1. 4 Tactical squads idenitcally armed is a -2. 4 Tactical squads, 2 with missile launcher/plasma guns and 2 with lascannon/plasma guns are no penalty).
Elite/Fast/Heavy:
-1 for each idenitcal choice (IE 2 Dev squads, 1 with missile launchers, 1 with heavy bolters is a -1. 3 Dev squads is a -2) -1 additional for each choice with the same upgrades (IE 2 Dev squads 1 with missile launchers, 1 with heavy bolters is No additional penalty 2 Dev squads with missiles is an additional -1. 3 Dev squads with missile launchers is a -2 additional.) -2 for each category maxed out. -1 for each category with no choices taken.
Note on units/choices.
Choices are individual names of units in the codex(Exception-Predator destructor and Predator Anhilator are identical choices. Land raider crusader and regular land raider are idenitcal choices)
Upgrades-Upgrades are anything a squad takes besides numbers and grenades. This can include weapons, Aspiring champions, or the equipment carried by an aspiring champion. Units that take no upgrades are not counted as having the same upgrades as anything else.
If choices are taken in seperate categories (For instance, 3 units of tyranid warriors. 1 in HQ, 1 in Elites, and 1 in Fast attack), they are not counted as identcal units. You only take a penalty if you have identical choices with the same FOC slot.
Now this is the more complicated one, and I'm not exactly sure how Guard is handled by it (Alot of squads in an infantry platoon possibly). There is a simpler one though
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 15, 2007 16:45:10 GMT -5
I like your link Matt, abd Skyth's suggestion isn't bad either.
Basically I am going to play what I want, and I expect that most players are as well. It would be nice however to have some hard guidelines like these so that you know what you are up against should you take an OTT army. I am also sure that no matter what we agree on that there will be armies that don't fint nicely in the scoring matrix, as well as people who will attempt to abuse it. Whatever the group decides on this is fine by me, I'm playing my 3 Falcon Eldar army so I should do OK anyways. ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 15, 2007 20:18:39 GMT -5
Any system that bases your points on troops choices being max size really rankles me to be honest. Considering Chaos has 20 man max size and Marine max size is 10, this is a screw Chaos thing.
I like the idea I got from NYCowboy that has comp based on 50% more than min rather than a max. That is more fair to everyone.
Any system that bases on wargear amounts annoys me too. Loyalists have so much stuff built into thier base characters (And it's ALOT cheaper to give them vet skills than Chaos) whereas Chaos has to pay for anything, including marks. Especially since it's part of Chaos's flavor to have better/upgraded characters, etc than loyalists.
Comp based on % of troops doesn't work as a balancing act. Some troops (IE Marines) are ALOT better/more efficient than other armies troops (Necrons and Tau for instance).
I will note that under the system mallsecurity suggested, it is impossible for Tyranids, Deathwing, or Cult Chaos to get perfect comp. Any system where it's impossible for certain armies to get perfect comp is a bad system.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 15, 2007 20:22:22 GMT -5
And just thought of another thing-How good a comp system is depends on how much it is worth. At the Harrisburg one, comp is worth more than battle (Actually, comp+sports, but 90% of people grade sports by comp anyways even though it's cheating) All the soft scores shouldn't add up to more than battle points in any event, and probably should be less than battle points.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 15, 2007 22:10:15 GMT -5
There isn't a perfect scoring system.The inability for Deathwing ( umm, now an illegal army in the new DA book ), Nids and Cults inability to score perfectly is not a good reason to scrap a scoring system. I agree that comp, sportmanship and battle should all factor in to give you an overall score, but it is tough to balance all these factors. The current US GT standards have made sportmanship and comp a joke, check the scores, it all comes down to battle, and only armies capable of scoring crushing defeats have any chance of winning overall. I don't like the system that ranks sportmanship and comp as 90% either, hell what's the point in playing the games under that system. Hopefully a good balance can be achieved factoring in all these score, but don't fixate on the arguement that "Since my army can't score perfect it must be broken". Take your lumps in comp then go out and beat some butt in your games. Just my two cents...
EDIT- Deathwing is legal now with special character Belial, my bad.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 16, 2007 11:08:00 GMT -5
True, no comp system is perfect. 95% of the ones I've seen penalize you for doing something Space Marines can't. I also will have to disagree in the strongest possible way about certain armies not being able to get perfect comp being a good thing. Any time when you are penalized based on your army rather than your list it is a bad thing, and that is what it means when certain armies can't get perfect comp. (With the possible exception of armored company ) People would be screaming about the system being horrible if it penalized armies that had high percentage of units that had And They Shall Know No Fear, or had a 3+ save. This is the same thing. As for other scores being part of the overall, fine. The biggest problem is that people cheat on giving soft scores. I know some people that either give full points or no points, with nothing in between. I know some people that dock painting and sports scores for composition. I know some people that just give max scores all the time. All of this renders any opponent-based scoring as meaningless. This creates a bigger problem when they are such a high part of the overall scoring that it doesn't matter if you win or lose your games. When you're competing in a tournament, having most things outside of your control means that 'best overall' doesn't mean anything other than you played the right people.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 16, 2007 13:24:36 GMT -5
But if we are looking at scoring rubrics for comp, you won't be scored by your opponents. The whole point of a rubric is to take the scoring out of the players hands. If you do rubrics for comp and painting, then the only score decided by the players is sportsmanship, and that's as it should be. Yeah, people cheat. Deal with it. That will be true no matter what we set up. The idea is to watch for it. If someone consistently gives crappy sports scores, the judges should be catching it.
BTW, I like the system Boldo was working on for Fantasy. You have a basic core comp system, and then army specific comp systems. It's more work, but if done right, I think it could render the best results.
|
|
|
Post by dragons3 on Feb 16, 2007 13:30:46 GMT -5
I'm not playing Tyranids because they get a raw deal in comp, so I switched to Iron Warriors so I wouldn't get hosed on comp. So now what little painting I got done just covers what I'm playing, which is Iron Warriors traits list. So I get hosed on ELITES for having 2 squads of 2 Obliterators, I guess I should play 5, then I won't get penalized. I have 4 heavy support choices all different, I guess Iron Warrior aren't Iron Warriors, just bad Spacemarines that say Chaos. OK you win, I'll play KHORNE, "WITH A DAEMON PRINCE, BLOODTHURSTER, BLOODLETTERS and an array of everything else, I should have a perfect comp. score. I agree with Doug, (choke, choke, choke), I'm playing what I want! "COMP. IS THE MOST POPULAR TOPIC, AND EVERYONE MAKES A BIAS TO WHAT THEY ARE PLAYING, ACCEPT ME OF COURSE"CIAO, HAVE A NICE DAY!
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 16, 2007 15:21:40 GMT -5
BTW, I like the system Boldo was working on for Fantasy. You have a basic core comp system, and then army specific comp systems. It's more work, but if done right, I think it could render the best results. True, that's the best comp system...One that's made for each army individually. However, it is alot more work, and the biggest problem is making it fair. Not everyone sees comp in the same way...Some use it to reward 'themed' armies. Others to punish powerful armies. Some things are fine to one person, and OOT to the other.
|
|