8th ed comp

[boldo]

Okay it has been around a year and we have now seen what the tournament scene is like. In the interest of making some tournaments different from the 'ard boyz I think it is time to look at a comp system.

I have chosen to work on a pointed checklist though it might be best to use a victory point system where players get bonus or negative points based upon their comp.

Start with 20 pts
-1 for each spell in the army over 4
-1 for each additional casting or dispel dice you army could generate
-1 for each duplicate lord.
-1 for each fraction of 5% characters over 25%
-1 for each duplicate rare
-1 for each triplicate special
-1 for each placement less than 8 not counting characters
-1 for each full 5% of core less then 50%

Then some specific army modifiers and of course the power scroll is banned.

Boldo

[skyth]

Additional casting dice is really powerful. Extra dispel dice not as much. The magic is what unbalances, but shutting down the magic doesn't unbalance as much.

This system also doesn't address the armies that have really good core deathstars (Daemons).

Basically, any unit over 25 models of infantry (Or 6 monstrous infantry/15 Cav) should be penalized. I'm all for a ban of any unit of more than 350-400 points.

I'm not sure you need to hit character percentages any more, other than taking a penalty for taking a BSB (And a further penalty for having a ward save/regen/rerollable armor save on the BSB). Steadfast removes a lot of the issues with that. Personally, I think taking more/bigger units is generally better than taking characters in the new edition. There does need to be something to stop duplicate heros also.

As for the spells over 4, one level 4 caster with an extra spell is generally better than 5 level 1 casters. Kinda depends on the lore though.

Duplicate rares should be harder hit, with some rares counting as other rares in certain armies. Penalties should start with duplicates for specials.

I still think a hard comp system is better than a scored system.

[netter]

Apr 18, 2011 19:33:31 GMT -5 boldo said:

Start with 20 pts
-1 for each spell in the army over 4
-1 for each additional casting or dispel dice you army could generate
-1 for each duplicate lord.
-1 for each fraction of 5% characters over 25%
-1 for each duplicate rare
-1 for each triplicate special
-1 for each placement less than 8 not counting characters
-1 for each full 5% of core less then 50%

Then some specific army modifiers and of course the power scroll is banned.

Boldo

I think the timing is right to consider comp again, especially if you don’t like what you’ve seen.

I’m not sure why each spell over 4 needs a hit. For most lists, the money seems to be on making a minimal investment in wizards who try to hit home runs. Though 6 levels ensures you have ‘the mega-spell’ I don’t know that the magic phase is consistent enough to penalise on that basis. The extra level 2 wizard is fairly big point investment to get this, which is penalty enough. I would be okay with dropping the penalty to “-1 for having more than 4 spells in the army”, or something like that. The way I look at it, the single wizard lord is a more efficient use of points than having a level 4 and level 2. Winds of magic really level the playing field.

I am totally on board with the penalty for additional casting/dispel dice. This is where the magic phase can get broken. How are you planning to apply extra dice for slaan or night goblins (kind of extra) or power stones, etc., or would those be subject to specific modifiers?

Not liking the hit for characters. Some lists simply need the boost and others actually get better with fewer characters. This penalty will, quite frankly, put some lists beyond consideration. Ditto for the core penalty. It’s not that I’m altogether against a penalty for min/maxing, only it needs to be a penalty for extremes.

The placement number (deployments, right?) penalty is fine, in principle. I think the exact number might need to be geared to the size of game.

skyth, I'm not keen on penalising a non-magic BSB. They are almost a must for some lists and almost a waste in others. Why would you hit a list for that?

Netter

[skyth]

Apr 20, 2011 13:58:40 GMT -5 netter said:

skyth, I'm not keen on penalising a non-magic BSB. They are almost a must for some lists and almost a waste in others. Why would you hit a list for that?

I don't know any lists that taking a BSB doesn't make it more powerful. Especially when you're dealing with deathstars.

[netter]

It's not a question of the BSB simply adding value, it's how much value. I understand that a hard-hitting, points denial unit (deathstar, if you like) backed with a BSB is not exactly fluffy. It would be nice to find a balanced means of comp hitting that style combo. But how do you compare a non-magical wood elf BSB with the same BSB on a massive unit of chosen chaos warriors?

Here's the issue with a blanket comp hit: an army that has multiple combat units and psychology tests needs the BSB as insurance against a rough combat round, especially with the number of attacks in 8th ed combat. It would be stupid not to. Further, for some armies it is the difference between the list being competitive and being rubbish (Empire, Orcs, Brets, Ogres, etc). These armies will happily take a small comp hit for their BSB because it's not worth showing up otherwise.
Is it fair to comp these BSBs when a demon or vamp player isn't giving up nearly as much for leaving their BSB at home? I don't see how that is a fair or reasonable comp hit.

Netter

[skyth]

If something makes an army more powerful, it should take a comp hit. BSB's make an army more powerful, thus should take a comp hit.

Daemons do get quite a bit of utility out of a BSB as well. However, you can put notes about a BSB for them (And VC/WE if neccessary) in the army specific parts of the comp system.

Wood elves are pretty low on the totem pole regardless and really shouldn't be worried too much about when designing a comp system...They just plain don't work under 8th edition rules to begin with.

[netter]

Let's just say I disagree on the BSB issue. If someone wants to show up with a fluffy wood elf list and happens to have a BSB I would consider it silly to comp hit that player. An ideal comp system should make that same WE list viable rather than simply leaving it by the wayside.

To penalise BSBs because 'if something makes an army more powerful, it should take a comp hit' means that everything in every book takes a comp hit.

Boldo, now that you've seen 8th for a bit, what exactly are you looking to encourage and discourage in general? I mostly like comp systems that encourage unit variety and penalise lists that require little or no tactical skill to win. I also like a comp system that levels the playing field between armies, even slightly.

Have you considered tiering the lists similar to the previous ETC approach? It's definitely not a perfect solution but it takes the micromanagement out of comping each list.

Netter

[compis4losers]

Isnt everyone missing something big here? The fantasy rulebook itself has comp rules in it. whyz create more comp rules? creating comp is basically just trying to find a way to favour certain armies or playing styles over others. this new edition makes for big units being a good thing. whyz try to pretend that never happen and bring the game back to 7th edition?


If people try to make those sort of tournaments, then when the people that play at those tournaments go to Ardboyz....


they get their butts spanked by people who know how to play the game and dont worry about what units they use. That is what just happened at the Ardboyz at Millenium that just passed, right? The people that win are the ones who do not limit themselves. I bet it was funny watching all those people get stomped on by those who know how to use all the tools at their disposal.


I guess that is why certain people win Ardboyz. Right?

[skyth]

Apr 20, 2011 21:56:21 GMT -5 netter said:

To penalise BSBs because 'if something makes an army more powerful, it should take a comp hit' means that everything in every book takes a comp hit.

So you don't think that, for the most part, an army with a BSB is significantly more powerful than an equal point army without one in 8th edition?

[netter]

Skyth, I understand your point; "for the most part" BSBs do boost armies.

What I'm suggesting, at least, is that a good comp system should not have a global penalty for a BSB choice and then have additional penalties on an army-by-army basis to correct for their relative value.

The other issue is how far you take the BSB point of penalising anything making a list better. If I take a 4+ ward on my general that's really good, should I take a comp hit? If I upgrade my grave guard to great weapons, that's good, do I take a hit? If I use night goblins, should I take a hit for nets or fanatics because they make the army better?

I think one way to tick off players who already take issue with comp is to have a system that hits everything remotely good.

I've always thought that comp should be applied lightly with broad guidelines rather than get into the minutiae of the lists; with possible exceptions for really, really ridiculous combos.

boldo, if you are going to do an arm-by-army comp breakdown, why bother having parameters for all armies? Are the army specific details only minor?

Netter

[boldo]

Well the hard boyz tournament had 3 people in it at Millenium so it seems that no other restrictions on lists is not really popular. It seems to me that the real problem is huge inequities of books. Old spell lists have their spells cost 4 or so less than the new lists, Loremaster is an awesome ability, and extra dice are too inexpensive in the older books. Further we have the problem that there is an a-list of magic items that everyone takes. I chose to to limit characters and core as they need to have some limit and think I might have to do a by army book. So far it seems the tournaments are dominated by VC, Lizardmen, and Dark Elves with no other army even close. All these armies dominate the magic phase and have problematic units wraiths, Hydra, temple guard. So I was just starting out the conversation.
Boldo

[compis4losers]

if dat hard boys tournament at millenum had only 3 people....dont that mean that none of those people will go the semi finals?

if there was only 3 people there and there are over 300 on daboyz website, dont that sound weird? so only 3 people felt that they coulda be good enuff to get into the semi finals? Wow that is not good. so maybz there is no good fantasy players at rochester. hard boyz is how GW determines who the best players are, right? well so much for rocester people goin to the finals, cause if they barely can squek by the prelimarnies, how iz dey gonna get through the semi finals and then win the finalz? see I told yuz diz is bad.

diz is what happenz when comp is used. people get used to soft scoring and handicaps, so that way they dunno know how to play. so when hard boyz comes along, there iz no ones who feel that they are good enuff to play there. dizz is why all da players need to play without comp so that way they can play in a regular tournament like harda boys. see so comp iz badda bad.

I rest miez case against da bad comp.

[Ranger Dude]

Apr 22, 2011 15:34:42 GMT -5 @compis4losers said:

if dat hard boys tournament at millenum had only 3 people....dont that mean that none of those people will go the semi finals?

if there was only 3 people there and there are over 300 on daboyz website, dont that sound weird? so only 3 people felt that they coulda be good enuff to get into the semi finals? Wow that is not good. so maybz there is no good fantasy players at rochester. hard boyz is how GW determines who the best players are, right? well so much for rocester people goin to the finals, cause if they barely can squek by the prelimarnies, how iz dey gonna get through the semi finals and then win the finalz? see I told yuz diz is bad.

diz is what happenz when comp is used. people get used to soft scoring and handicaps, so that way they dunno know how to play. so when hard boyz comes along, there iz no ones who feel that they are good enuff to play there. dizz is why all da players need to play without comp so that way they can play in a regular tournament like harda boys. see so comp iz badda bad.

I rest miez case against da bad comp.

Wow, this is just painful to read.

One of the big reasons fantasy tournaments get a small draw locally is because many of the local players don't play fantasy. And of those who do, many have a life outside of gaming, which often interferes with their ability to play.

I will also throw in my .02 on the BSB issue. I agree that there are some armies that can not function without one. I play all Goblins, and without a BSB, I struggle to stay in a fight. Even if I had more orks, the low leadership can be a problem. BSB helps this. So hitting BSBs definitely hurts some armies more than others. I'm all for comp, but not if it has hits that aren't balanced. The idea is to balance the rules a bit, and influence play style to local preference. Not debilitate certain armies so much you never see them.

[compis4losers]

Why diz painful 2 read? U speak englishh right? sooo why dere wasnt many peeps at the arboyz tournament at millenum waz cause dere aint many of them in the area? dont dat mean dat when the semi finalzz happenz, that it probably be some body not fromz rocester that gets 1st place? or second? or third?


I still think dis badda bad comp is at faultiness. if dey people in da area play no bad comp, then maybe more peeple play fantasy! dats woulds be good for all da boyz!

[boldo]

Dear compis4losers,
The top 2 fantasy players in America are from Rochester according to rankings HQ with 1 other player in the top 100 and another player going to Las Vegas, Rochester is arguably the toughest place to play fantasy in the Nation. In 7th ed there was a reliable respected comp system which helped balance the lists but when 8th ed came out this became obsolete. Also sales and tournament players at all levels are down since 8th ed came out. Now all tournaments are 'ard boyz so this is no longer special and has no particular draw. You are welcome to have what ever opinion you would like of comp but there are a lot of fantasy players in Rochester. If people are not attending 'ard Boyz tournaments perhaps they would attend a more balanced tournament? So I thought I would start this threat. Of course perhaps 8th ed is dead and 3 people is what we can expect at tournaments but I am not willing to accept this. So if you have nothing productive to add to this discussion please troll elsewhere but if you would like to help revive fantasy then please give some productive comments.

Boldo