|
Post by johnboo on Feb 27, 2006 7:36:18 GMT -5
Maybe include these on the race specific checklists if you are still planning them. Pretty soon only Dwarfs will be able to get a perfect score! (JOKE! )
|
|
|
Post by grumgore on Feb 27, 2006 22:09:37 GMT -5
So what is the final verdict for the tournament this weekend? What system are you using?
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Feb 28, 2006 15:14:00 GMT -5
I think I am going to use this one and include additional minus list instead of a specific army list. thus I was wonder what people thought should also be included besides the things I listed. Or if you think this is a bad idea completely.
Thanks, boldo
|
|
|
Post by grumgore on Mar 2, 2006 14:48:26 GMT -5
Boldo: FYI, I will not be able to make the tournament this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by searsr on Apr 2, 2006 3:45:58 GMT -5
Hi all,
I know I am late to this discussion, but I thought that I would add my opinion.
The first thing that I think that any comp system should have is a mission of some sort. What exactly is this comp system trying to do? Is it punishing certain types of armies, or is it trying to enourage the authors preferred style of WHFB play? Is it trying to give the armies that are not as strong in tournament play a boost? Or is it something else. Clarifying what you are trying to accomplish may help to focus players on the areas that need fixing.
Generally, I don't think that this comp will change the armies that are usually the better tournament armies anyway. Skaven, Brettonnia and VC can still make very good armies that comp very highly. Whereas the elves are still near the bottom. If there was no intent to change this, then I don't like the comp system at all. IMO a comp system should be there to try and even out the armies a little. I don't think this one does.
On to the specifics, (my comments will be in italics.)
1 less than 25% characters
fine
2 less than 15% characters
fine
3 no lord
I think that this should be changed to no spell casting lord. If someone takes a lord they are more than likely going to miss #1 and 2 anyway, I don't think they should be triple penalised if they take a lord that can fight.
4 less than 10 casting or 7 dispel
fine
5 less than 7 casting or 5 dispel
I think that it should be 8 casting or 5 dispel. Having a magic phase with 7 PD isn't over the top, and certain armies really need magic to even things out a bit. Plus, taking enough wizards + items to generate 8 dice will probably make them miss #1 and 2.
6 less than 10% magic items
fine
7 less than 5% magic items
fine
8 no terror causers
fine
9 less than 4 shooting units
I don't think that str 3 shooting should be included in this question at all. The only str 3 shooting that is at all powerful is the skinks, and that isn't because of the strength. Plus, I will tackle the poison a little later.
10 less than 3 skirmishing units
fine
11 less than 3 cavalry units
fine, although I would classify anything on a cav base as cav, even skaven jezzails and wepaon teams. This would go towards balancing out skaven a little.
12 less than 3 artillery
fine
13 less than 3 chariots
fine
14 have a BSB
fine, although it might be better to make not having a BSB -1 in the general deductions below.
15 have at least 3 standards other than the BSB
fine
16 at least 3 core choices at 2 times minimum
this one I think should be 2 core choices at 2 times minimum. elite armies like elves are going to struggle to field a competitive army with 3 blocks of spearelves/corsairs, etc at 20+. Sure high elves could go with silverhelms, but then they start to run up against the cav question pretty quick. IMO, this does nothing to hinder the armies with cheap core, skaven, brettonnia, O&G, Empire, and Chaos, while those armies with expensive core get shafted trying to match this up. When combined with some of the questions below, it makes for either an effective low comp scoring elf army or a crappy high comp scoring elf army.
17 no more than 3 units armed and equipped the same
fine
18 no rare choices
would rather see this as a percentage, like 5% or something as I don't think that 113 points spent on rare units is going to push an army over the edge into OTT territory
19 less than 15% special
fine
20 fewer than 5 units which can strike at str5 or greater on the charge not counting champions in units.
another anti cav question. My thought is that str5 isn't that game breaking. Your basic str 5 knights, silverhelms, realms, knightly orders aren't that game breaking. Maybe change this to fewer than 6 units, which would allow for 2 characters and 3cav/chariots, which I don't think is overpowered. Or, up it to str6 and lower the threshold. If you go to str 6 it affects the units that have great weapons, and also the elite knights, grail, questing, inner circle and also heroes that pick a great weapon/lance.
21 no more than one flier
fine, although is this one unit or one flier model?
22 more than 55% core
fine
23 fewer than 3 units less than 1.5x minimum size not counting units without options for more models
I don't like this question for several reasons. First it destroys support choices, like archers, crossbows, etc. If I want to take 2 units of 10 archers, I shouldn't be penalised for it, archers aren't that good, and chances are I am going to get hit for having too many shooting units in addition. Second, it encourages people to increase the size of units that are special or rare, or not take them at all. Maybe this is the intent, but I think that decreasing variety so drastically is bad for the game. I only want 12 swordmasters, now I am being penalised however I take them. I think this question should be changed to penalise poison and killing blow. For example: 23 less than 3 units with either the poison or killing blow special rule
24 four or more units full command
Fine, but needs to be clarified as to what is full command? Minotaurs don't have the option for a musician, is full command for them a standard and a chapion? I think that full command should be classified for these purposes as taking all of the command options available for that unit.
25 no duplicate rare or special choices
Do 2-1 count as duplicates? I don't think they should.
The standard deductions for taking things looks OK.
Qualifications:
I think that cavalry should be all models that either are on a 25x50 base or are listed as cavalry in their special rules.
Casting dice I think that a Tomb king should be worth 3, and a Tomb Prince should be worth 1, liche priests are fine. Bound items are fine. Items that generate dice I think should count as the average number that they generate, not the maximum.
Tomb king chariots are fine
Shooting units also shouldn't include str 3 shooting oof any kind.
Artillery are fine
Skirmish is fine.
I know that my opinions may be a bit geared towards elves, but that is the army that I am most familiar with. I don't think that I could build a high elf army that would/could compete on an equal or close to equal level with most other armies with similar comp scores. So under this system I feel that my choices would be to bring a high scoring comp army and get kicked around for 5 games, or bring a low scoring comp army and get marked down but have a chance. I would rather bring a high comp scoring army that can compete with the other armies.
Ryan
|
|