boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Aug 31, 2010 10:57:57 GMT -5
I see I killed the thread under the GT but I would like to discuss the WFB pet peeve topic comp. I feel the new system is at least as abusive as before. The concept that some armies are softer or more friendly than other is still true. Sure the points do some balancing but excessive combinations and point denial are still the name of the game. So is while 2 RBT are fine is it really an equal army if one player removes a block of spear elves and replaces it with 2 more RBT giving them 4? Magic still has excesses due to powers of slanns and DE which allow them to use more than 12 dice and the elves can really get additional dice. Is the anvil any less strong now that almost all other armies are without a movement spell? It seems to me that allowing a player to take 8 chariots as core is not equal to the guy who takes 400pts of gors and 200 pts of ungors.
So what to do about this is the problem. I think as a rule taking 15% rare is less abusive than 25% and taking no duplicate specials obviously makes an army softer. I also think the same is true with characters. What do other people think.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Aug 31, 2010 14:35:05 GMT -5
I always think hard comp. Starting with limit of double characters, no tripple specials and no double rares (And this going for High Elves too). No special characters, no Book of Hoeth.
An army with 2 RBT's plus a block of Spear Elves is better than one with 4 RBT's I believe.
A scored system doesn't really work. It still has bad match ups and ignores strength of opposition.
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Sept 1, 2010 10:06:12 GMT -5
Uh, a comp system is already in place. Percentages and PD caps FTW.
Use missions out of the book instead of looking from the "Pitched Battle Mentality" and you'll see things balance out quite nicely.
|
|
|
Post by netter on Sept 1, 2010 16:00:09 GMT -5
Rather than debate the merits of comp versus non-comp I'll just throw in my sorta-kinda answer.
If you are looking to set up a scheme for comp, especially for general use, I would hold off unless it's something really simple. An involved comp system would probably fail to address abuses that have yet to be discovered. If it were me, I'd let the comp alone to encourage extremes for a short time, then I'd comp it.
Netter
|
|
|
Post by jay on Sept 1, 2010 18:31:49 GMT -5
Rather than debate the merits of comp versus non-comp I'll just throw in my sorta-kinda answer. If you are looking to set up a scheme for comp, especially for general use, I would hold off unless it's something really simple. An involved comp system would probably fail to address abuses that have yet to be discovered. If it were me, I'd let the comp alone to encourage extremes for a short time, then I'd comp it. Netter I believe that is why a lot of tournaments are not using comp untill 8th edition is well play tested.
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Sept 6, 2010 15:02:48 GMT -5
One of the problems with tournaments is player come to have fun and play a filthy army, get crushed and complain. One of the reasons for this is a lack of comp. Without comp the competitive players sit around think up ways to make there lists harder. Comp scales this back. It also convinces these players to take only 4 salamanders or 6 flamers instead of 6 salamanders and 12 flamers. This is true of any comp system that at all. Sure if there is a known system they might try to game it but even here fewer will try this. Finally the argument that we can not know what is good, what is broken and what is bad so we should not have comp is really an insult to all our intelligence. If we have played a even half a dozen games then we can figure it our with at least 95% accuracy. Lets give us credit and assume we are not stupid. If you do not like comp fine but attend a few tournaments with and without comp and you will see the merits of comp.
I believe if we can not get a good rubric for comp then the best choice is for it to be judged and this is easy enough to do with a few good players.
|
|
|
Post by netter on Sept 6, 2010 15:55:37 GMT -5
Just to put it out there, I’ll be attending the 40k event for the GT so feel free to disregard my opinions. My love of fantasy draws me to the conversation. Hopefully, I inspire constructive debate. I certainly intended no offense in my suggestion. I’m generally in favour of composition for all of the usually reasons.
My only concern is what system is used. Are you looking to modify the GW percentages and leave it at that? Are you considering any changes to the maximum number of duplicate choices per slot? Are there any race specific changes?
I would hate to show up at a tournament and find that the comp limits holding back my army are merely boosting another. I know that composition systems, in their infancy, can be works in progress but I think it’s important to be patient. Anecdotal and theoretical lists that deserve comp hits are great targets. The trouble is with the ‘unidentified’ cheese slipping through (which improves nothing in the experience had by their opponents).
If I were attending the event I would have no issue with judged comp. I would suggest a general set of guidelines as a baseline and go from there. The advantage of a guideline is that it keeps someone from torpedoing your tournament score with a baseless comp hit. Maybe comp could be judged before the game, as well?
Again, apologies for any offense.
My random thoughts, Netter
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Sept 6, 2010 16:05:53 GMT -5
Netter the idea is not to prevent people from playing something but to reward with some tournament bonus people who play softer or harder to win with lists.
boldo
|
|
|
Post by netter on Sept 6, 2010 16:49:07 GMT -5
My concern with a 'reward' system is that it essentially acts as a potential comp hit (if you fail to get it), especially if it is significant at all.
Regardless of whether the comp sets pre-defined limits on what will be allowed into the tournament or is simply used as a balancing tool the outcome is similar. The power-gamers will abuse their lists as much as possible within the confines of the system unless the comp hit outweighs the 'on-field' advantage of their specific cheese. This is an inherent issue with any comp system, but not a reason to forgo them altogether. I'm just worried about the timing of a comp system at this point in 8th.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, the constructive element of the post! Boldo, in response to the initial post, I would be more concerned with the use of duplication than raw percentages for any given category.
Chumbalaya, the book scenarios are not tournament worthy. The 'balance' they create is situational and arbitrary, if you call crushing one sides chances 'balance.' I wouldn't attend a tournament using rulebook scenarios if it were held in my basement.
Netter
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Sept 6, 2010 17:55:38 GMT -5
Netter the idea is not to prevent people from playing something but to reward with some tournament bonus people who play softer or harder to win with lists. boldo First off, a reward for a soft list is the same as a penalty for a hard list. And it's a lie if you are not trying to influence the list that people take...That is definitely trying to prevent people from playing something. The biggest problem, that constantly gets ignored, is the issue of a raw 'comp score'. If you are trying to balance the tournament, that doesn't achieve that result at all. All it does is slant the overall results towards someone who plays an army that you think is the right way to play. The reason it doesn't work as a balance factor is because it totally ignores what each person opponent uses. Two people who play against lists that are equally powerful to thier own with the same results should have an equal tournament score. One shouldn't score higher in the tournament just because you like the playstyle of thier list better.
|
|
|
Post by mrclean on Sept 18, 2010 21:58:51 GMT -5
Hey Guys,
I say we let this GT go with the rules in the book, and learn from any problems for next year. We can deal with all the problems as the come up and strive to fix and improve them for the next time! I still don't think its too horrible with the percentages on core, special, and rare units. Special and rare units are tough, but, that means you could be setting yourself up for weaknesses in your army if you go too heavy in any one area! So, let's hash it out at the GT, I will keep a detailed book on all problems and discrepancies at the Gt and Post my findings and then we as a group can agree on any changes!
Pete
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Sept 22, 2010 13:33:36 GMT -5
The system is very similiar to the construction rules under 5th ed. and anyone playing at that time will remember the comp abuses. Even GW admitted it by opening the first every comp discussion by have comp at tournaments to deal with it. I do not see why the new construction rules are comp fair. No one seems to address this they all argue that it will be hard and we can not figure it out. No comp means the top players build the hardest thing possible which they have been doing already. They have a advantage over the average player and will take the most broken thing available. With any comp system this is mitigated and I do not understand why that is not desirable. Finally I am going to the crossroads tournament this weekend and it does not have comp. I will let you know the stupid stuff that showed up.
Boldo
|
|
|
Post by netter on Sept 22, 2010 13:59:56 GMT -5
Boldo,
I don't think that people (mostly) are concerned with how difficult a comp system will be to arrange. I think the issue is the timing of such a system. The opinion, which I share, seems to be that it is too soon.
Perhaps a thread should be started specifically to discuss the details of a comp system. I'm sure that constructive ideas in that format wouldn't hurt.
Netter
|
|
|
Post by chumbalaya on Sept 22, 2010 14:10:28 GMT -5
Didn't Jervis himself say no to comp just recently? At least, no comp until the system is adequately tested. 8th is not 7th or 5th or any other previous edition, you can't take old biases from previous systems and try to apply them here until 8th and its impact on the army books is better understood. Best way to do it? Bend it as far as you can until it breaks (if it even does, GW's been doing a lot better with balance in ruleset and between books). A big event like the GT would be great for getting information, lots of people from all over coming together with different views, ideas and styles of play.
Besides, all any comp system does is punish the obvious stuff and changes the goalposts of what is the best. Smart players are going to break any system, so why waste the effort alienating people?
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Sept 22, 2010 23:52:45 GMT -5
Jervis didnt say no to comp, if you read Standard Bearer either last month or the recent WD, he outlines why he used comp in the tournament he ran.
The underlying problem is two fold the way I see it. #1, GW does not make balanced gaming systems and has no desire to do so. GW is in the business to sell its product and will do it anyway that it can, if that means codex creep, so be it. Both Warhammer and 40k are definitely unbalanced. #2, The new 8th edition of Fantasy has not existed long enough for anyone to be familiar enough to judge comp or come up with a system. Yes, I am positive that some power gamers are feverishly working on way to break the system, and no matter what type of soft or hard comp system that is introduced I can guarantee there will be a group of azzhats that will seek to exploit it. So...
Why don't you just quit bickering about it and play in the tournament. Like Pete has said he will take notes and next year there will be a years worth of playtesting to see what is in need of correction. Until then play the game as written and try to have fun.
|
|