|
Post by crimthaan on Jul 15, 2011 9:34:43 GMT -5
First and foremost please remember that this rubric is in its DRAFT stage, this is NOT the final version. We are hoping to get some positive feedback on the rubric so that we can get a final version put together. The rubric itself is out of 80 points, with a minimum score of 30 needed to play in the GT. An additional 20 points will be awarded at the judges discretion (with comp totaling 100 points, 80 from the rubric and 20 from the judges). Please look over the rubric and leave us some positive feedback here. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 15, 2011 10:24:34 GMT -5
As it stands now, I could design an ork list with: Biker warboss (only hq +10) Snikrot + kommandos (-10) 2 dedicated battlewagons 1 hvy battlewagon
And still get max points. Idk how limiting of a factor you want the rubric or comp score as a portion of the whole GT to be. Bonus points in the rubric make gaming the system easier by allowing people to make up for their cheese. I could make a silly Coteaz list with: Coteaz (-10, only hq +10) 4 henchmen units with different gear 2 chimeras Venerable rifleman Rifleman (+10 only hvy) 2 stormravens (-10)
Max points.
Idk how to fix it really. Just some easy ways to game the system off the top of my head.
|
|
|
Post by shaun on Jul 15, 2011 19:04:09 GMT -5
I agree. I liked the limit of three same troop selections regardless of wargear (with the exception for certain armies ie - necrons and templars).
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 15, 2011 19:27:24 GMT -5
I could make a 4 tervigon (1 hq and 3 troop) that scores full points with that rubric also.
|
|
robm
Marine
Posts: 63
|
Post by robm on Jul 15, 2011 19:39:58 GMT -5
What about Terminators in the Elite slot? Are Assault terms and Tac Terms considered the same for the -20?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Jul 15, 2011 21:41:45 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that not only can you game your cheese to still get full points, but you can achieve more than 80 points without trying too hard. (More bonuses than negatives.)
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jul 16, 2011 3:12:09 GMT -5
Having 20 ambiguous points floating around that the judges may or may not award is a horrible contradiction if your goal is a hard comp rubric. If you are set on having someone rate the army you should allow the players opponents to do so otherwise it gives off the appearance of home cooking and/or favoritism since you cannot attach any type of credible reasoning behind these points.
In my opinion rubrics are a bad idea in general since players just game the system and fit there broken lists into the loophole that they find in the rubric.
That being said I do not have the answer as to what the perfect comp system is either. Maybe this can work with a few tweeks, who knows.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Jul 16, 2011 8:14:19 GMT -5
Most comp rubrics have a section specific to each army. That might help quell a lot of the loopholes. The matrix, as presented, does seem to encourage diversity regardless of anything else which seems to be the main goal of comp in this area in my experience. You might want to add a bonus for not having any scoring units One thing I would suggest is going to Dakka, Warseer, and TWF and running the lists in the army section through the matrix and see if they have the results you want, and what minor tweaks can bring them up or down. Your system also encourages Death Stars. I'm not sure how big of a problem this is in 40k as opposed to Fantasy, but a huge squad of Nob Bikers and/or TWC might punch above their weight under this system. Like I said, this might not be a problem in 40k though. Might want to increase the third tier penalty to a -10 as opposed to a -5.
|
|
|
Post by crimthaan on Jul 16, 2011 8:43:48 GMT -5
Having 20 ambiguous points floating around that the judges may or may not award is a horrible contradiction if your goal is a hard comp rubric. If you are set on having someone rate the army you should allow the players opponents to do so otherwise it gives off the appearance of home cooking and/or favoritism since you cannot attach any type of credible reasoning behind these points. In my opinion rubrics are a bad idea in general since players just game the system and fit there broken lists into the loophole that they find in the rubric. That being said I do not have the answer as to what the perfect comp system is either. Maybe this can work with a few tweeks, who knows. The goal of the 20 points left to the judges is for us to still have leeway on certain lists. Obviously if someone makes a list similar to what Aaron has already suggested they will not be awarded those points. However, if someone was to take Sammiel to unlock a Ravenwing army, or Belial for Deathwing. Keep the comments coming guys, we really want to try and give this rubric a shot but we can only do that with your continued input.
|
|
|
Post by crimthaan on Jul 16, 2011 9:00:34 GMT -5
I'd like to point out that not only can you game your cheese to still get full points, but you can achieve more than 80 points without trying too hard. (More bonuses than negatives.) Would you suggest being more restrictive as far as troops go (negatives start at 3 troops regardless of wargear) for example? Also, taking away bonus points? robm - Tactical Terminators and Assault Terminators are two different units as they have their own separate entry in the codex. skyth - How do you suggest we try and encourage diversity? Again I'm going back to Shaun's example of making things a bit more restrictive, start taking points away a little bit sooner. Also, to be honest I'm not all too worried with DeathStar units. I can't say this with 100% certainty since I don't play fantasy but I think DS units are a bit more destructive for Fantasy than 40k. That VC GraveGuard unit with the Drakenfold banner or whatever is a NASTY unit. Sure, Nob Bikers and TWC are nasty too but they are a huge point investment and are bullet catchers. I've never had a problem with either of them to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by skyth on Jul 16, 2011 9:24:19 GMT -5
skyth - How do you suggest we try and encourage diversity? Again I'm going back to Shaun's example of making things a bit more restrictive, start taking points away a little bit sooner. Also, to be honest I'm not all too worried with DeathStar units. I can't say this with 100% certainty since I don't play fantasy but I think DS units are a bit more destructive for Fantasy than 40k. That VC GraveGuard unit with the Drakenfold banner or whatever is a NASTY unit. Sure, Nob Bikers and TWC are nasty too but they are a huge point investment and are bullet catchers. I've never had a problem with either of them to be honest. I bow to your better experience with the Death Star units. Like I said, I know they're nasty in Fantasy and I've heard a lot of complaints about TWC and Nob Bikers as being game breakers because of being death stars. And the rubric itself encourages variety...It was obviously designed to do that which matches the comp expectations in the area from my experience. Like I commented on earlier, a section for each army and bigger penalties for the tier 3 parts would help things and close loopholes. You might want to consider penalties for 'similar' units (For example...a unit of chosen with 4 plasma guns in a Rhino and a unit of Havocks with 4 plasma guns in a Rhino) or the same unit in different FoC slots (Terminators in a Deathwing army, Tervigons, Nobs, etc) Perhaps a lesser (Or no) penalty for SC's whose only purpose is to change the FoC (Belial for instance). I don't like special characters in general, but I really hate how GW has made SC's mandatory for certain armies. Perhaps reduce the penalties for dedicated transports, but put them back up for certain ones (For instance...-5 for 3 transports, -5 extra if any of them are razorbacks). Perhaps change dedicated transports to transports in general. I'm not as knowledgeable in 40k as I used to be, plus I have a different approach to comp than you do so I can't really offer any more specific suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by crimthaan on Jul 16, 2011 9:30:21 GMT -5
skyth - How do you suggest we try and encourage diversity? Again I'm going back to Shaun's example of making things a bit more restrictive, start taking points away a little bit sooner. Also, to be honest I'm not all too worried with DeathStar units. I can't say this with 100% certainty since I don't play fantasy but I think DS units are a bit more destructive for Fantasy than 40k. That VC GraveGuard unit with the Drakenfold banner or whatever is a NASTY unit. Sure, Nob Bikers and TWC are nasty too but they are a huge point investment and are bullet catchers. I've never had a problem with either of them to be honest. I bow to your better experience with the Death Star units. Like I said, I know they're nasty in Fantasy and I've heard a lot of complaints about TWC and Nob Bikers as being game breakers because of being death stars. And the rubric itself encourages variety...It was obviously designed to do that which matches the comp expectations in the area from my experience. Like I commented on earlier, a section for each army and bigger penalties for the tier 3 parts would help things and close loopholes. You might want to consider penalties for 'similar' units (For example...a unit of chosen with 4 plasma guns in a Rhino and a unit of Havocks with 4 plasma guns in a Rhino) or the same unit in different FoC slots (Terminators in a Deathwing army, Tervigons, Nobs, etc) Perhaps a lesser (Or no) penalty for SC's whose only purpose is to change the FoC (Belial for instance). I don't like special characters in general, but I really hate how GW has made SC's mandatory for certain armies. Perhaps reduce the penalties for dedicated transports, but put them back up for certain ones (For instance...-5 for 3 transports, -5 extra if any of them are razorbacks). Perhaps change dedicated transports to transports in general. I'm not as knowledgeable in 40k as I used to be, plus I have a different approach to comp than you do so I can't really offer any more specific suggestions. Thanks for the suggestions man, we really do appreciate them! Also, TWC/Nob Bikers CAN change a game, but I think they've been around for so long that most people know how to deal with them. Not saying they aren't nasty, just not a surprise to anyone anymore.
|
|
|
Post by hyv3mynd on Jul 16, 2011 9:52:45 GMT -5
I would take away all ability to gain points. Put everyone at 100 with no voluntary or judged bonuses.
I like the idea of penalizing min/max. Maybe -2 for each unit with a voluntary minimum models.
I would also ding voluntary wargear duplication within a unit, say -2 per also.
So 3 henchmen unit with 3 acolytes each and 3 meltas would be -10 for 3 identical troops (with coteaz and his -10), -6 for minimum squad sizes, -12 for 2 voluntary duplicate wargear in each unit.
Mech spam is being potentially penalized in several categories. If you don't penalize melta spam also, the game dynamics will change as penalized mech lists get annihilated by foot lists with melta spam.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Jul 16, 2011 11:05:20 GMT -5
I think you can neuter the Death star issue a bit if you work in percentages, like fantasy currently has, or like the old RTs.
I also like hyv3's idea about min sized squads. Although I would suggest limiting where you use it. Min sized troops are the real problem. I don't know too many people who would complain about min sized elites, fast, or heavy. Min troops free up point to jack up those other areas.
Doing some army specific tweaking might not be a bad idea, but it can make it cumbersome.
As for the judge points, how about instead of 20 discretionary points, give the judges the ability to override parts of the rubric for certain cases. Example: Johny gamer brings Belial and solid Deathwing army. He gets penalize for the SC, multiples of the same unit, limited variety, etc. The judges, seeing the solid theme, choose to override the SC penalty and lessen the repetition penalty.
Not really sure that would be much better. I think if you did something like that, the Rubric would have to be tougher to start off with. But it's an idea for you guys to work with.
|
|
|
Post by netter on Jul 16, 2011 11:21:37 GMT -5
I like the general approach. I like that it's basic and simple. The math doesn't work out, but that can be adjusted. I think a system that starts at the top or bottom of the scale and only adds or subtracts is best, but whatever.
I'm a big fan of the judges having a floating contribution to the comp score. Otherwise, generating the comp system will be a one way trip to the padded room and uncomfortable jacket. You can't make'em all happy all of the time. It's just there to smack the loophole seekers a little.
In a pinch, give a few examples of lists that score high using the basic rubric that get penalised, and why. This way, the judging is transparent enough without having a rubric. If people don't care to risk a penalty they can avoid building their lists 'that way.' If they approach that line they just take their chances.
Okay, now some more specific recommendations.
-penalties for multiple large sized units. Perhaps scale the penalty. -penalties for multiple min sized units.
And what's with the hate for special characters? Who would show up with a list full of special/named characters as an army?
netter
|
|