|
Post by blackmoor on Aug 18, 2010 13:53:29 GMT -5
I was looking through your examples of well comped armies and basically it had armies that did not have much repetition in them.
And then read about theme scoring and I find that in most well themed armies there is a lot of repetition.
Aren’t these (for the most part) going to be exclusive?
For an example: let’s say that I wanted to play a Demons of Chaos army, but I wanted to build it around the theme of Tzeentch demons. I am limiting my choices to Tzeentch demons only which would impact the effectiveness of my army (which is a byproduct of a good theme) but I would have a lot of repetition in my army because theme narrow my choices. Take troops for an example would all be horrors, elites would be flamers, fast attack would be screamers, etc.
If I was building an Eldar army around the theme of Saim-Hann then I would take a ton of Jetbikes.
So how do you reconcile theme and comp?
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 15:11:38 GMT -5
I was looking through your examples of well comped armies and basically it had armies that did not have much repetition in them. And then read about theme scoring and I find that in most well themed armies there is a lot of repetition. Aren’t these (for the most part) going to be exclusive? For an example: let’s say that I wanted to play a Demons of Chaos army, but I wanted to build it around the theme of Tzeentch demons. I am limiting my choices to Tzeentch demons only which would impact the effectiveness of my army (which is a byproduct of a good theme) but I would have a lot of repetition in my army because theme narrow my choices. Take troops for an example would all be horrors, elites would be flamers, fast attack would be screamers, etc. If I was building an Eldar army around the theme of Saim-Hann then I would take a ton of Jetbikes. So how do you reconcile theme and comp? I try to answer this the best I can. Theme and Composition will be look at independently. They have a lot of associations with them to each other, but we going to be splitting them. Comp will be part of the overall scoring and theme will not be. Theme is stand alone award. For composition we are going to look at the power of the army. Here are some criteria: Codex power or codex creep. For instance space wolves is a top tier codex there is going to have a hard time getting top composition points. For armies like Necrons or Tau it going to be easier. For example a tough Tau army is not even to compare to a tough Space wolves list. The goal here is the top tier codex should pick these points up in battle. Spam. This is usually the most negative of the three. Even taking three squads of chaos spawn will be look down upon, but not as much as taking 5 land raiders for blood angles or three squads of long fangs with 5 missle launchers in each. Usally in the troops selections spam is a lot more acceptable especially if you have no choice. Special/Unique/Named Characters. Some are worst then others. Taken one is acceptable. Two is a no no and mostly you will score very low in composition. Some special characters add color and might add some points. An example of this is Inquisitor Lord Karamazov. Characters will be look upon case by case bases Taking all jetbacks would score do average to above averge, depending what is else in the army. Elder jetbikes are not an over powered unit. Most units in a Tzeenth army are not typically in a deamon army. Taking a theme tzeenth army will them and also comp good. This is what you have to figure out. If you win all 5 games and your comp sucks you will most likely win the event, but at the same token if you take a great comp army and lose three or more games you will most likely not win. This is where you have to balance things out. I love the Nova Open, but I think the top six armies were: blood angles Space wolves Space wolves Space Wolves Space Wolves Orks We don’t want this and I only think the orks got there because the player playing them was a very good player. The better player should win, not the better army. In my option not every army is created equal.
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Aug 18, 2010 19:12:15 GMT -5
Jay, are you insinuating that people who play SW or BA are not good players? Kinda harsh, no? If you had done some research, you'd see that every army in the top 8 was different. My army was a foot Loganwing, Stelek's was a hybrid mech/shooty/cav army (with wolf scouts ), and Tony's was an aggressive mech army with 1 cav unit. It's not our fault that the newer books offer a lot more options for making distinct, competitive armies. Tau and Necrons have 1 good build each, SW or BA have them in the double digits.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 18, 2010 20:07:23 GMT -5
Jay, are you insinuating that people who play SW or BA are not good players? Kinda harsh, no? If you had done some research, you'd see that every army in the top 8 was different. My army was a foot Loganwing, Stelek's was a hybrid mech/shooty/cav army (with wolf scouts ), and Tony's was an aggressive mech army with 1 cav unit. It's not our fault that the newer books offer a lot more options for making distinct, competitive armies. Tau and Necrons have 1 good build each, SW or BA have them in the double digits. no not insulting. at the Nova all top 6 players had to be good to be where they got. You either had to go 4-0 or 3-1. But if you put two evenly match players together and one guy is playing Space Wolves and one is playing Necrons, who would you put your money on? All i am saying the newer codies are typically make better armies. This not true across the board, but you said yourself that SW and BA have a lot of good builds. Here Mike's post copied from Dakka. Which armies had the winning records For the number crunching types in terms of Day 1 Results ...
Short-hand, organized alphabetically
Black Templars: 1-3 Blood Angels: 29-27 Chaos Space Marines: 11-21 Daemons of Chaos: 9-3 Dark Angels: 3-5 Daemon HunterS: 0-4 Eldar: 13-15 Imperial Guard: 25-23 Necron: 1-3 Orks: 16-12 Space Wolves: 32-12 Tau: 7-9 Vanilla Marines: 22-22 Witch Hunters: 4-4
Black Templars went 1-3, 1 army
14 Blood Angels went a combined 29-27, with a single 4-0, 5 x 3-1, 3 x 2-2, 4 x 1-3, 1 x 0-4
8 Chaos Space Marines went a combined 11-21, with a single 3-1, 3 x 2-2, 2 x 1-3, 2 x 0-4
3 Daemons of Chaos went a combined 9-3, with all three going 3-1
2 Dark Angels went a combined 3-5, with a 2-2 and a 1-3
1 Daemon Hunter went 0-4
7 Eldar went a combined 13-15, with a single 3-1, 4 x 2-2, and 2 x 1-3
12 Imperial Guard (originally miscounted as 11) went a combined 25-23, with 4 x 3-1, 5 x 2-2, 3 x 1-3
1 Necron went 1-3
7 Orks went a combined 16-12, with 1 x 4-0, 2 x 3-1, 2 x 2-2, 2 x 1-3
11 Space Wolves went a combined 32-12, with 3 x 4-0, 4 x 3-1, 4 x 2-2
4 Tau went a combined 7-9, with 3 x 2-2 and 1 x 1-3
3 Tyranid went a combined 3-9, with 1 each at 2-2, 1-3, 0-4
12 Vanilla Marines went a combined 22-22, with 2 x 3-1, 7 x 2-2, 2 x 1-3, 1 x 0-4
2 Witch Hunters went 3-1 and 1-3 respectivelySW, BA, Deamons, IG and orks. Do only good players (generals) only play better armies? Maybe. but as you can see the more powerfull codies have more wins. This is no disrespect to players of the Nova and Mike. I personally thought it was a great event. We need more people like "Mike" to think outside the box. I thing his event will make other TO's make there own events better.
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Aug 18, 2010 21:42:42 GMT -5
I would say that newer armies (SW, IG, BA, SM, nids) have more options to create good armies while older armies like Necrons are limping by with a handful. If you pit 2 good players with a competitive Necron and SW army against each other, it's gonna be a toss up. Problems arise when the Necron player wants to play something other than 15 Destroyers. The SW player can bring a ton of different builds, each distinct while still competitive, while the Necrons are stuck with 15 Destroyers or lose.
The reason you see more new armies is because they can field so many different armies. All the SW armies I saw were different in playstyle and unit composition. Somebody else had a Loganwing, but his used Drop Pods while mine was foot and shooty. Then it's just simple understanding of statistics to realize that more SW = more SW in the finals.
I don't see any good reason to arbitrarily punish players for using a Codex they like. I can't play my army as SM, BA or even DA, so I use Wolves. It's not the fault of the player using SW that GW screwed over Necrons by not updating them.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2010 11:19:43 GMT -5
I don't see any good reason to arbitrarily punish players for using a Codex they like. I can't play my army as SM, BA or even DA, so I use Wolves. It's not the fault of the player using SW that GW screwed over Necrons by not updating them. I don't think we are punishing SW for being a good army, but giving a army like necrons a fighting chance with some of there other alternate builds.
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Aug 19, 2010 19:01:14 GMT -5
Chumbalya I am personally not the biggest fan of comp, however look at what Jay is trying to explain to you. Comp will not lose or win the event for you. However it will make you think about what you chose to play in order to balance out your list.
Most new armies are predictably better simply because people need to learn to play against them. Once everyone figures out the power of the list then things tend to balance out again. SW are a dex that has an almost cult following and DE will be the same way (no pun intended hehe). But power gamers will play new dex's simply to win. That is not what the Boyz GT is about. It is about having fun and not playing an ard boyz style event. Think of it as hobby play.
|
|
|
Post by evil_red_orks on Aug 19, 2010 19:19:59 GMT -5
Also what Jay is saying is that a necron or dark eldar player deserves a little more credit and maybe some bonus comp points for having the balls to play an older, outdated army with limited choices.
Lets be honest here, we ALL know that the guard, wolves and blood angels got a HUGE boost. Those are the better elite armies now.
I DON'T think that people playing those armies should be punished, HOWEVER I do think that people playing the older, sucky codex's DESERVE a slightly increased comp score or bonus points elsewhere.
In the end, play what u want, all of us know that comp is graded heavily.
Something else to think about is... how many new players have been atrracted to the new more elite codex's. That may elso explain the reason why we see these armies so much.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Aug 19, 2010 19:20:56 GMT -5
Comp will not lose or win the event for you. Gotta disagree with the possibilities here. So here's my theory hammer because I'm still stewing over the comp/non-comp results from Boldos 8/1 tourney. A very non-comp player (great sport, great painter) brings a nearly optimized tourney list (30/120 comp score) and scores an average of 35bp's over 5 games for a total of 175bp's. A very comp player (great sport, great painter) brings a very compy list (95/120) and earns an average of 25bp per game over 5 games for a total of 125bp's. Assuming sports and painting are even: Non-comp player (won more games) scores 175+30= 205 Comp player scores 125+95 = 220 So in fact, yes "comp won or lost you the tourney". Also, keep in mind that max BP's including all 3 objectives and 3 tactical bonus is 48 per game. In this scenario, non-comp player scores an average of 35 per game which could be 5 moderate victories. Comp player scores an average of 25 per game or 52% of max which could be 5 draws. Now you have an undefeated player losing to a player with 0 "wins". Because of comp. Yeah it's not likely, but possible. Norton went 3-0 at boldos and wasn't in the top 3... Please note I didn't attack comp and have no intent of startiong the comp war. It's a major part of the GT and I'm fine with that. Just stating that the "comp won't win or lose the tourney" statement is not true.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Aug 19, 2010 19:41:15 GMT -5
I for one support theme not being a part of the comp score
|
|
|
Post by fishboy on Aug 19, 2010 20:19:37 GMT -5
In your example Comp made a difference but the players ability to use a more comp based army and still win enough points for a total victory won the tourny. That is like saying my paint score won an event because I was painted and my opponents were primered. It was the total of all and not one catagory.
If the player with a high comp came in lower overall then the poor comp opponent would that mean that comp lost the event for him. No, he did not play the list he brought well enough to win overall.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Aug 19, 2010 20:25:32 GMT -5
Except, in my theory hammer, the comp players earns 5 "draws" and the non-comp player earns 5 "wins". Yet you say the players ability to use a more comp based army and still win enough points for a total victory won the tourny. If DaBoyz are fine with a player who draws 5 times winning the GT, thats fine. Just as long as all the paying players know this. Also, since "Best General" is now BP+Comp, you can use my theory hammer for the same scenario. I'd totally get a shirt made that said "I won Best General with 5 draws!".
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2010 20:28:56 GMT -5
I for one support theme not being a part of the comp score Good because the theme judging will be seperate award. Battle Composition Sportsmanship Painting Early list turn in. All of the above will win and lose the event for you. If you choose to play with three color min for painting you better do good in everything else, because of the guy next to you scored better in painting and he also has similar comp and battle points. If you choose to get a lower comp score and expect to win 5 games that is up to you. If you choose a better comp scoring army, and figure you can win 4 games. This is what each player needs to figure out. It is part of the strategy of our event. The good news is that we are going to pre-judge lists for composition for our event. We are not going to give you a hard number, but a range. We will also suggest how to make it better. We hope this will take some of the subjectively out of it. We are only going to be doing this for registered players. Sorry, but we believe this is a lot of work (but worth it to make a good event) and we don’t want to be doing this for people sending us on a wild goose chase. We will review lists twice for a single person. I hope to have the final information on pre-judging on the GT site in the few days.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Aug 19, 2010 20:45:51 GMT -5
Except, in my theory hammer, the comp players earns 5 "draws" and the non-comp player earns 5 "wins". Yet you say the players ability to use a more comp based army and still win enough points for a total victory won the tourny. If DaBoyz are fine with a player who draws 5 times winning the GT, thats fine. Just as long as all the paying players know this. Also, since "Best General" is now BP+Comp, you can use my theory hammer for the same scenario. I'd totally get a shirt made that said "I won Best General with 5 draws!". I am the TO and i glad to be one. Not all of the DaBoyz agree with the system in place, so i am puting this on my shoulders. Some DaBoyz love Comp and there are otheres hate it, but we all meet on the same common ground. the GT started with COMP and that is why we carry on the torch. To get back to what i see to happen out of the event is that the person that takes no comp army and win 5 games can not win the event. But at the same time if a person loses three games they should also not win the event. This is one reason we are running the primers. I am free next tuesday night. You want to get a game in? I can be at MG around 5:30. How does sound? I will bring my sisters with guard allies if you want to get a game in.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Aug 19, 2010 22:24:21 GMT -5
I'd love to play you Jay. I'd like to see how may rounds I can go against an Ardboyz finalist and nationally ranked player.
Tuesday is ugly for me this coming week. The wife's car is going to the shop and she's taking mine since I can walk to work. I cannot walk to MG tho!
If you want to drive up to Irondequoit we can throw down in the man cave.
I am free Weds and Thurs nights too (with car).
|
|