|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 17, 2007 13:39:36 GMT -5
Umm, cheese good! Especially with a fine w(h)ine!!! ... But IW is right, good theme can certainly be cheesy in some folks eyes as he knows from playing a rock solid, themed Iron Warrior list and having to listen to opponent's cries of anguish. Wait until you see my idea of an a themed, totally mobile, but "cheese-filled" Grey Knights list tomorrow! And Dragon, I disagree with almost everything you said, but especially that anything in a Codex makes for a good army. Luckily, since this is my opinion, I also can't be wrong !
|
|
|
Post by ccourtney on Feb 17, 2007 23:19:50 GMT -5
Just a note on the rubics discussion; I'd love to see extra points in it for going out of your way to take the things you never see on the table. For example I played Orville at the last tournament and it was really cool to see a big mass of space wolf terminators. We have all these daemon hunter players, I've never seen a penitent engine on the table? I'd give huge points in comp to see one of those played (This is me throwing down the gauntlet you pansies) Almost every army has a unit or two that is never fielded. (Pariahs?...Vibro Cannon?... Posessed?... Space marine standard bearer?... Lootas?... just to name a few) Or even to see the big squads like the 20 man chaos marines...thats cool to play against. I understand that most of these units are not as "Point Efficient" as others (like taking 3 vibro cannons instead of a falcon)
I'm all for rewarding the players who bring this stuff with extra points in comp. The points they will most likely loose in battle points because they are not slaughtering there opponents with only the good units from the codex. Mostly because I'd much rather play that army. I know that most of the people who are reading this that have played for a few years can relate to the fact that as soon as your opponent tells you what codex he is playing you automatically know what 90% of his army is going to be without asking anything else.....it's the same units that the last 10 guys you played with the same race had.....
So if your working on those rubics see if ya can get that in there somewhere.....haven't seen a rubic yet that said +10 points for taking a full squad of dark eldar Scourges.
|
|
|
Post by ccourtney on Feb 17, 2007 23:23:11 GMT -5
On this note also; I'm bringing a 399point eldar troop choice unit sunday to gagg...just because i want to see it on the table.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Feb 18, 2007 7:38:34 GMT -5
it was really cool to see a big mass of space wolf terminators. If I ever play Wolves, you'll always see alot of terminators Ummm...Pentient Engine is from the Witch Hunters codex
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 18, 2007 9:51:30 GMT -5
I have to say that that is a cool idea. Hadn't even thought of it in passing, but I like it. And it's true. Most of the time you do know what you are up against just by being told the army choice. It's a rare opponent who will surprise you. That's one of the reasons I like playing Chris because most of his armies contain "One of everything" or at least close to it. It's a nice change of pace.
I would also like to see a reinforcement of theme. Something along the same lines as what Chris was talking about for the unused units. It's hard playing an all scouting Eldar ranger force. Harder now that I don't get disruption tables. I'm sure other people who play to a theme notice the same thing. Espescially since so many comp systems penalize people for taking so many of the same unit. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying give points to anyone with even a suggestion of a theme. I'm talking about those people who go out of their way to show a strong theme. Example would be Chris's Aspect warrior army, my ranger army, True Godzilla armies, a Jump troop heavy SM army, (More so than the one I play), etc. Deathwing would fit undert this as well.
I think all of this discussion boils down to the fact that we want to bring back the Hobby rather than just the game. If people are just in it for the game, play heroclix or something like that. No painting required. Just collect and play. 40k and Fantasy are about more than just the game, and I think GW has trayed away from that a bit. This is one case where I don't think it's really their fault though as it is a trend among much of the gaming population. It's a trend I don't like, and I think many of you would agree based on this thread. Sure, the occaisional game of WAAC is fun. But whats the point of scoring anything but battle points in such a game. The average tourney should be about the hobby, not just stomping your opponent.
Stepping off the soapbox now.
|
|
moz
Scout
John A.
Posts: 42
|
Post by moz on Feb 20, 2007 12:44:28 GMT -5
The way I see it, you first need to agree about what you expect your comp system to accomplish. I've seen a few objectives here:
-Even the playing field between armylists, so a winner could be determined between 2 players with identical battle scores based on who had the easier time earning that score.
-Coerce people into playing lists that agree with the 40k Fluff
-Coerce people into playing armies that are more fun to face (mixed assault/shooty, non-identical units)
-Coerce people into playing Space Marines. I don't know why this is ever an objective, but it seems to be the only purpose of some comp systems.
These are all pretty mutually exclusive to one another: if your aim is to 'even the playing field' for instance, but then you add some elements that reward/punish for fluff. Now you're no longer evening the field as a fluffy superstrong army will be on par with a nonfluffy weaker list.
It just hit me that you could tally all of these scores seperately though, with each counting towards a different category and all counting towards the full goal.
So you write one full comp rubric that makes you horny, and then you split out the elements that contribute to the objectives I mentioned above. Now you will give each player 4 mini-comp scores:
'Even the field' score will count towards battle points 'Adheres to fluff' will count towards painting 'Fun to face' will count towards sportsmanship 'Play Space Marines' will count for nothing, dammit!
The placement (not scores) in each category would determine the Overall winner, who would be exempted from placement in the individual categories.
So the guy who gets 3rd general, 1st painting, 2nd sports wins best overall and the guys who would've placed 4th general, 2nd painter, and 3rd sports players get bumped up.
Tangent over: that's one way to do comp that seems pretty fair to me. But regardless, think about your purpose/objective for including a comp score to begin with before you get so many criteria in the 'pot' that the score begins to lose meaning.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 20, 2007 13:16:10 GMT -5
I've never seen a penitent engine on the table There is good reason for that Chris (umm, they suck worse than DE raiders do). Personally, I own 6 of them and hope some day to field them in a radical witchhunter army. Chris, they are god aweful bad but if you want someday I will play and paint them just for you. Name the day.
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 20, 2007 13:27:02 GMT -5
Wow, well said moz! I think your idea would work. Now we just need the rubrics ...
|
|
moz
Scout
John A.
Posts: 42
|
Post by moz on Feb 20, 2007 15:17:13 GMT -5
With a split as I mentioned, I think a specific point by point rubric could be dropped entirely.
------------- 'Even the Field' (0-10 points) Bonus to battle: 0: This armylist is built to win and the faction was probably chosen to play this list. It is maximized in every fashion, relies heavily on gimmicks, and will probably stomp everything today. (Example, my bug list)
3: This armylist is very strong, with a few strong gimmicks, but a few weaknesses as well. I can imagine an army that would beat this one.
5: This army is a 'take all comers' kind of list. Lots of tough units, but no grand scheme for beating everything into the dirt.
8: This army lacks any really strong units and will have a difficult time beating most armies.
10: This army is ridiculously weak. I think they were intentionally trying to make a terrible list. I would be suprised if this person wins a single game.
------------- 'Fluff' (0-10) Bonus to painting: 0: No theme, period. Includes a lot of units that would never be found on the same planet, let alone in the same military organization by the fluff.
3: The choices at least come from the same armylist. No immediate blasphemous choices.
5: There is a theme. It is not immediately obvious, but after the player explained it, the theme makes sense.
8: This is a well themed list. I could imagine this army actually waging battle in the 40k universe.
10: This list is straight out of the fiction. It used an existing example within the fluff as a guide.
------------- 'Fun factor' (0-10) Bonus to sports 0: This list is miserable to play against. Every unit is exactly the same, even when it doesn't have to be. The entire list is either shooty or assault, no mix.
3: A snoozer, a lot of identical choices, no originality.
5: A decent list to play against, variation in choices, some creative units.
8: A fun list. No two units are the same, shooty and assaulty elements. Even some whimsical rare choices showed up.
10: This is going to kick ass! This army is crazy and should be a total blast to play against.
Done!
|
|
|
Post by Goldeagle on Feb 20, 2007 15:44:29 GMT -5
Whoever is listenening out there; Moz has the best idea about 40k comp I have heard about in ages. It totally avoids many problems inherent in typical comp rubrics. Other than a few possible tweaks (especially to the last group in my opinion, but other than making me wonder how to fix it, I don't have an counter ideas yet) we could use this now
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 20, 2007 16:13:14 GMT -5
I too think this idea has some real potential. I'm sure in time someone will find flaws with it and we can tweak it, but the basic principal is quite good, and he at least has a working prototype to start us off with. I'd say give it a shot in a small setting and go from there.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 20, 2007 17:31:37 GMT -5
I agree 100%. Comp should include everything mentioned, that way youcan still play your fluff and not get hosed 'cause it didn't fit neatly in the cookie cutter, marine friendly comp system we usually see. I think we should explore the comp system ranking the various aspects that we have discussed.
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Feb 20, 2007 18:30:44 GMT -5
After talking to people this weekend it seems that I have a different idea about what comp should be. I see comp as a handicap to your battle. If a player made 3 very different lists for an army and played the same people in a tournament with each list I feel that their battle plus comp should always be the same. As such fluff and theme should play no part in any comp system. It is just easier to win with some things and I want the comp to reflect this.
This said I also make a few basic assumptions like an army is made up of troopers, and an army should be able to deal with a variety of situations so should not be single function. These are hard sometimes to represent in a system and in some way following these rules makes for a better army but these are the assumptions I often build a comp system on.
Thanks, Boldo
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Feb 20, 2007 18:46:46 GMT -5
I do see your point Alex, but I respectfuly disagree. What comp should be is a handicapping system, agreed, but it should also reward people for playiing themed and fluffly armies as well. Fluff is the reasn that many of us play, paint, read the Black Library novels, and codexes, etc and should never be disregarded. If fluff is somehow left out, I believe we will see nothing but armies that are built "because it scores well and because its good". These armies are rarely fun to play and take the flavor out of the who 40K experience.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Feb 20, 2007 23:47:57 GMT -5
I have to agree with Doug here. The whole reason I got into this game is because I like the story and the history that goes along with the hobby. It's not just a game. It's not just modeling. It's not just storytelling/roleplaying. It's all of these things. By leaving any one part out, or minimizing it's effects, you are diminishing the hobby as a whole. Comp should be more than just a way to balance out the armies. That's why I like the suggested 3 part system. You have the battle booster which is the handicapper to balance armies. You have the painting booster which rewards the fluff players. And you have the sports booster which inhibits cheese players. You get it all. Good system in my eyes. Yeah, it needs development, but it's just a working idea so far.
|
|