|
Post by adsvampire on Jan 22, 2008 16:11:58 GMT -5
My army rules! Fear the HEs! Bwahahahahaha!
Use judged comp. Eyeball the lists and make a judgement call. It ain't perfect but its a whole lot simpler.
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 22, 2008 16:13:11 GMT -5
Dear Mr. SOB,
In the above tombkings list certain items were not written to save time. Tomb Prince have great weapons. Skeletons have full command, light armor shield. Tomb guard have command and there are about 125 points left for magic or a casket or whatever.
My demon army out of the chaos book scores a 9. Great unclean one, 5 units of plague bearers, nurgle chariot, furies, spawn, nurglings. If I play 4 units of 15 nurgle plaguebearers and drop the spawn which I put in for completeness I get a 7.
If you play a legion, it becomes more difficult to score low because the list includes command which I couldn't take and plagueriders and chariots. However, a nurgle demon legion is a far tougher army then demons out of the Chaos book (just look at the Grand Tournament stats) so I am not really concerned by the comp higher scores.
Finally if you add a catapult a lord and 2 magic items above list it goes to 13. BFD.
May your day be filled with ever expanding bliss.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 22, 2008 17:08:50 GMT -5
John, I do like the system but I am unsure that the whole issue of comp is being addressed by it. What is the reason for comp? In my mind it seeks to balance strong armies against weaker ones in a tournament environment. My whole issue with comp is that the army I routinely play seems unfairly targeted. last tournament I scored only one point higher than the whole High Elf Jebus special character army and I was playing a middle of the road Tomb Kings army. Couple that with the scenarios that often handcuff me further and I find myself asking why anyone would honestly play this game. I know this is the perspective that you and several of the regular Fantasy players have adopted but it frustrates anyone new who wants to play anything different than the standard armies that you like. I understand the whole points allotment perspective however it penalizes me when I have to pay points to make my army do what other do on there own ( like march for instance ). This doesn't seem fair and equitable to me. Again that is my opinion, your group seems to have theirs.
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 22, 2008 17:12:02 GMT -5
My army rules! Fear the HEs! Bwahahahahaha! Use judged comp. Eyeball the lists and make a judgement call. It ain't perfect but its a whole lot simpler. OMG did someone actually post something in the fantasy section that makes sense. (Pulling out my Bible...) Yep, that is definitely one of the signs of the Apocolypse!
|
|
|
Post by MallSecurity on Jan 22, 2008 18:09:19 GMT -5
My Empire Army scores ~14 depending on the Special choices; pretty neat system
We should try it at a Tourny sometime
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Jan 22, 2008 19:32:14 GMT -5
Doug - in this system You'd score easily 15-20 points better than Adam's Teclis HE list. And yes, judge comp is easier and better. But these comp posts are the only things that get the WHFB section talking!
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 22, 2008 19:49:20 GMT -5
Agreed John. Please understand, I do like the discussion and the concept but from where I sit it seems the execution is less that perfect presently.
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Jan 22, 2008 22:49:37 GMT -5
Adam,
We have talked a lot about judged comp but I think I would be harser than the checklist and this would lead to more complaining. I guess the real problem is I often see the checklist or Jason's as too generous. Now I have been to a number of tournament's with judged comp and it is okay but I feel it fails to reign in armies, and to make the players happy. Now I guess if I get the same set of players at this tournament perhaps I will go with something else but I am not sure this will work any better.
Boldo
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Jan 22, 2008 23:06:50 GMT -5
Okay I guess we need to cover some theoreticals. Comp hopes to balance armies so that ideally at the end of the tournament the armies comp is the inverse of the battle score. This said there are a few bias which I refuse to abandon. 1 Rarity means something. The majority of the army should be core and rares are rare. 2 Characters are powerful and make play easy and should have troops around them 3 Magic items are rare and wonderful heirlooms treasured through generations. 4 Maximizing an army to do just one thing incredibly is a bad thing 5 It should look like an army.
Now This does not always mean infantry but basically put down more than a few troop choices and some uber characters.
I have seen a number of your armies and they are not what I would call friendly. 3 liche priest and a Tomb King with a catapult, big unit of tomb guard with icon of rakaph, and a giant is fair from tame. It may be a far cry from the HE list but it is not friendly.
That said George mentioned something to me at the GT when he said the he does not get to play that much so in order to compete he needs to take an over the top army as this is a hard game. Perhaps that is the problem here your inexperience with the games makes it hard without a list which we penalize for you to win and that seems unfair and to be honest perhaps it is unfair.
Boldo
|
|
MajorSoB
Moderator
The oldest
THE GRUMPY OLD MAN!
Posts: 2,135
|
Post by MajorSoB on Jan 22, 2008 23:30:01 GMT -5
Fair criticisms for the most part.
1. I agree 2. I agree 3. I somewhat agree, meaning that magic is more intrinsic to some armies than others, therefore the idea of "one size fits all" doesn't necessarily apply. 4. I agree 5. I agree
It does seem we agree overall. I never claimed that my army is friendly but I also fail to see where it is at the same power level that it scores routinely at either. My army centers around troops, a general, and the support units that would keep the army alive (liche priests). Yes it does have a giant but the weakest a far weaker version than most other armies have. My army also has variety in it as well. I don't play any unit because I think it is over the top and should never be ignored (if I did I would take a casket). I do think my army looks cohesive and like you would expect a Tomb King army to appear. I admit that I do not play fantasy as often as 40K and you are correct in that observation, however I don't think I am totally nieve to the workings of the game either. Just my 2 cents...
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 23, 2008 6:06:45 GMT -5
Dear Mr. SOB,
* It is not like we haven't seen that army before.
* NO comp system is going to reward it.
* NO comp system is going to punish troops, 2-3 characters with few magic items, and a couple of warmachines dwarf or otherwise. aka a balance army
* Judged comp makes it much more subjective
* You don't have enough stuff to win most games, after turn 3 you will be attrited.
* Play my suggested list. 135 unbreakable troop win many games.
Have a nice day!
|
|
|
Post by johnboo on Jan 23, 2008 8:17:45 GMT -5
There really isnt a thing Boldo says that I disagree with either.
Problem is some armies are square pegs to fit into round hole (all inclusive blanket) checklists.
Ogres beastmen wood elves
Its not that the above *cant* be built to fit a blanket comp system like boldo's current one, its just that they have pretty much one build in order to even score decently - and usually dont play very competetively either. Other armies are inherently *compy* and play very well just as they are - Dwarfs, skaven, O&G, even brets, to name a few.
In all honesty, I just want good, fun, interesting, fair, games. Games are not fun when you are removing 2 units a turn from shooting or magic. Games are not fun when the opponent will not fight you. Facing 15 core chariots is not fun.
But I also dont think someone should get hit in their score because they fielded 45% core and the next guy fielded 50.001%. Hit the guy who took 2 units of 10 HE archers so he could get to all the good stuff. Hit the guy who brings archlector on popemobile w/speculum. Reward the guy who brings DE spearelves. Reward the guy for playing 2 big units of dwarf miners. Unfortunately, a blanket comp system wont always catch this. But judged comp will every time.
|
|
boldo
Moderator
The card carrying
Posts: 646
|
Post by boldo on Jan 23, 2008 10:34:48 GMT -5
Ogres Tyrant 2 butchers with skull mantle and bangstick 10 ogres second weapon FC 2 units of 5 Ironguts FC 20 Gnoblars 8 trappers 3 ogres Scraplauncher 5 lead beltchers Gorgers 20ish mine 15ish Jasons
Tyrant magic resistance 1 Brusier Warbanner 2 units of Ironguts with FC one with Runemaw 2 units of 5 Ogres FC 8 trappers 20 gnoblars Champion 2 units of 5 Leadbeltchers Rhinoxrider Mine 22ish Jasons 12ish
Tyrant Tenderizer 3 Butchers one with skull mantle one with banstick 3 units of Bulls with 2 hand weapons one with FC other with MUS and Champ 2 units of Ironguts FC 2 units of Ogres Music 3 yhetees 8 trappers Bull rhinox Gorger Mine 16 Jasons 22ish
How is it impossible to make different Ogre armies that score okay as I just did. Sure if you do not pay any attention to the rubrik the scores ar emuch worse (I took FC for it and made 2 leadbeltchers into one) but that does not seem like a big deal to me. I also think these lists are ranked in the correct order. Sure the 4 Scraplauncher, bull rhinox army gets hosed but shouldn't it? I ran a list like yours and got in 20ish. Should I do Wood Elves how about with a dragon in it
Lord on dragon with crystal mere and your choice of 50 pts of magic Noble BSB on steed with 45 pts of stuff spellsinger with 50pts of antimagic 2 untis of 15 glade duard 24 eternal guard 5 glade riders 2 untis of 12 dryads 3 warhawks 5 wardancers Mine is a 14 with a dragon! or drop the dragon and youcan make this list an 18. This is not like any Wood Elf army out there and scores fine. What am I doing wrong to make such varied lists that score fine?
Boldo
|
|
|
Post by druchiiannointed on Jan 23, 2008 13:00:21 GMT -5
i have a just an idea, what if we did the bank type of comp systems that locates about 15 points of the 25 points towards a list that applies to all armies ( a list that is agreed upon universally, i.e. flying terror causer minus 1 point) etc etc. and then you take the remaining 10 points that are comprised of a list that is army specific. therefor we are able to create a universal judgment system on what the group feels violate the nature of good army composition. then we can create comp lists for each army book targeting things that are "un-compy" and take away points for that. what happens is that we can create a fair way to both generalize comp that at the same time targets cheesy things in one army book without reducing the flavor of another.
just a thought
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Dude on Jan 23, 2008 13:27:17 GMT -5
In a set up like that, you could even give points back in the army specific section if you feel that a particular army does not fare well in the general section. For instance, if a specific army is supposed to be more elite type units, maybe give them back a point they would lose in the general section for the number of specials they take. Have to be careful about this, but it's another thought to throw in the mix.
|
|