Post by galorn on Nov 1, 2010 0:27:53 GMT -5
Since this thread has from my perspective mutated into a discussion ostensibly about Comp in 40k ( An issue that is multi layered and contentious to say the least)
for next year perhaps post the comp rubric that is being used to judge lists. List the Hard numbers that go along with "hits" So people can actually discuss the thing with some clarity.
That said. My take on Comp in 40k is as follows. Unlike 7th ed Fantasy, Armies in 40k tend to have fewer common elements that are "Broken" or "Cheesy." As a result "comp" is very subjective as to the person judging it, and penalizing one army for using a particular game mechanic may be less fair than another army from a different dex. This issue is especially bad with the older Dexes that have far less "viable" flexibility.
Not every army has lots of Monsterous Creatures (only armies that can fields alot of em to the best of my knowledge are Nids, and Demons)
AV13 spam is generally the province of the Power armor crowd (Mahreens, and Chaos Mahreens)
2+ armor spam (Deathwing Dark angels)
Ignoring "normal deployment" rules (Demons, Spacemarine drop pods). Massive hordes of bullet sponge mooks (Orcs, IG)
Pie plate spam (SM, BA, IG, CSM)
etc.
The one common thing that all Dex's have are Named characters. some are definitely more "broken" than others. But the issues revolving around special characters generally only become game breaking when there are more than one in an army. even the newest most wreck named special characters are not unmanageable. (although the BA Dex has two that come very close) the "Broken" level of special characters is drastically different between each Dex (newer Dex Named special characters generally equaling more broken and gross) so penalizing every army the same amount of "comp" for any particular Named special character is inherently unfair, if the goal is to "level the field" using "comp." ( for example Belial (Dark angels) in no way is as broken as Mephiston, Typhus, Abbadon etc.)
Creating a Comp rubric to "level the field" is fine but Unless you literally go Dex by Dex with a customized checklist as to whats choad worthy and state explicitly why a Unit/Option/combo is "bad comp" and how "bad" it is, and likewise list "good comp" Units/Options/combos. its hard for me as a player to understand why My army received the "comp" rating that it did.
now My army for example is a fairly "fluffy" (Heh that's such a useless term by the by) Nurgle chaos space marine list. I made a conscious decision to take units that I understood would have a good chance of lowering my "comp" based on the stated "comp" leveling in order to stay true to my armies fluff. (I got a comp score of 50)
Am I complaining? No absolutely not. I would have just appreciated a better breakdown of the "comp" score I received, so I could make a more informed decision as to what stuff to convert/paint and bring. (not relevant for this Year's GT at this point but for the future it would be nice.)
for next year perhaps post the comp rubric that is being used to judge lists. List the Hard numbers that go along with "hits" So people can actually discuss the thing with some clarity.
That said. My take on Comp in 40k is as follows. Unlike 7th ed Fantasy, Armies in 40k tend to have fewer common elements that are "Broken" or "Cheesy." As a result "comp" is very subjective as to the person judging it, and penalizing one army for using a particular game mechanic may be less fair than another army from a different dex. This issue is especially bad with the older Dexes that have far less "viable" flexibility.
Not every army has lots of Monsterous Creatures (only armies that can fields alot of em to the best of my knowledge are Nids, and Demons)
AV13 spam is generally the province of the Power armor crowd (Mahreens, and Chaos Mahreens)
2+ armor spam (Deathwing Dark angels)
Ignoring "normal deployment" rules (Demons, Spacemarine drop pods). Massive hordes of bullet sponge mooks (Orcs, IG)
Pie plate spam (SM, BA, IG, CSM)
etc.
The one common thing that all Dex's have are Named characters. some are definitely more "broken" than others. But the issues revolving around special characters generally only become game breaking when there are more than one in an army. even the newest most wreck named special characters are not unmanageable. (although the BA Dex has two that come very close) the "Broken" level of special characters is drastically different between each Dex (newer Dex Named special characters generally equaling more broken and gross) so penalizing every army the same amount of "comp" for any particular Named special character is inherently unfair, if the goal is to "level the field" using "comp." ( for example Belial (Dark angels) in no way is as broken as Mephiston, Typhus, Abbadon etc.)
Creating a Comp rubric to "level the field" is fine but Unless you literally go Dex by Dex with a customized checklist as to whats choad worthy and state explicitly why a Unit/Option/combo is "bad comp" and how "bad" it is, and likewise list "good comp" Units/Options/combos. its hard for me as a player to understand why My army received the "comp" rating that it did.
now My army for example is a fairly "fluffy" (Heh that's such a useless term by the by) Nurgle chaos space marine list. I made a conscious decision to take units that I understood would have a good chance of lowering my "comp" based on the stated "comp" leveling in order to stay true to my armies fluff. (I got a comp score of 50)
Am I complaining? No absolutely not. I would have just appreciated a better breakdown of the "comp" score I received, so I could make a more informed decision as to what stuff to convert/paint and bring. (not relevant for this Year's GT at this point but for the future it would be nice.)