|
|
Post by fritzthedwarf on Mar 22, 2012 16:11:26 GMT -5
For nids vs DE the only way I see to have a decent fight is using reserve nids (which is what you are doing isn't Danny?) with a certain amount of shooting when the unit arrives or outflanking to threaten the edges since DE can zip away quickly out of CC range of most nid stuff, so things like devourer carnifex, devilgaunts, zoeys, ymgarl stealers, trygon, etc. Walking nids just get brutalized by DE long before they are in a position to do much (that is my experience vs Tom and Randy).
Tom, your examples certainly show a problem with the system - it is very difficult to make a comp system that does not have problems because each codex can have a variety of stronger and weaker builds which the system may not address, penalizing certain builds/styles whether they are competitive or not.
Good luck Ray, its a tough challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by danydaigle24 on Mar 22, 2012 20:41:08 GMT -5
Yep Its what Im doing Mark... so far its doing very well except Tom's GK
|
|
|
|
Post by Frosty the Pirate on Mar 22, 2012 21:06:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I've taken this on as a part of my "learning the ins and out of every codex before 6th" challenge. It's also very similar to the type of work I do (which I enjoy), problem solving with tons of special cases, exceptions to rules, etc etc.
Honestly, what I've come up with is working for the most part (I expected most people to score between 8 and 15, which is happening). The system is a overall a bit too harsh through and it seems to be punishing possibly a little too hard for things like maxing out FOC.
I may combine or annex some of the rules to prevent a single unit from dinging your score too many times, My goal is to have people starting with 20 and the average list seen around here to roll in at about 12-15, with the harsher ones closer to 8-10.
My goal is to use the comp scoring to determine a multiplier for bonus battle points, which would contribute another portion of overall score.
It's a tough challenge, but short of going out and buying/playing one of every army it's the best way I can see lots of lists and how different armies operate.
EDIT:
@ Tom, the Draigo Wing score was calculated before I stiffened up the penalties on super units. Hence why it scored 9. Some quick math in my head says the Draigo + Libby + 20 Pallies + 2 Dreads would get something like -14 right off the bat now.
|
|
nored
Scarab swarm
Posts: 11
|
Post by nored on Mar 23, 2012 7:17:06 GMT -5
Thousand Sons Chaos Marines that i normally run would end up with the following:
-1 vehicles (4 rhinos)
-2 Repeated Units (Oblits)
-4 Psyker outside HQ (4 aspiring sorcerers-must take for troop choice)
-1 max heavy
-2 more than 3 same unit choice (4 troops- themed list)
-8 4 units with +2 save (3 units of oblits, terminator squad)
-2 10x 8 strength (oblits and bolt of tzeentch psychic power)
grand total of -20: comp score: 0.
Depending on how you look at hound allocation it would be a further -8. each troop i use has an aspiring sorcerer and the thousand sons. so a wound would have to be allocated to the sorcerer if enough wounds were scored. Would be the same for a unit with a champion, hvy weapon trooper, special weapon trooper, reg trooper. I am assuming that you are meaning when wound allocation would affect each individual model like GK paladins can be setup for.
Norm
|
|
|
|
Post by thesanityassassin on Mar 23, 2012 7:47:18 GMT -5
Ow. That's certainly rough...I've played against Norm's Thousand Sons a few times, and they're a really nice list, certainly not worth a -20.
I really don't know about the repeated troops choice negatives right now. Some armies simply don't have options to take more, or else things like Kult of Speed (where you're losing a ton for multiple Trukks and a ton for multiple little Boyz units) really get pounded. Punishing people for maxing out Troops when armies like Space Marines and Orks have few choices seems a bit problematic.
Also, cursed Grey Knights throwing a wrench in everything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frosty the Pirate on Mar 23, 2012 8:12:45 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought I might be able to get away with putting the negative on units with a 2+, apparently not so. I was planning on switching that to a penalty for multi-wound units (with more than 1 model), but obilts also have multiple wounds. Their so close to a paladin statline it's going to be difficult to punish paladins without hitting obilt spam even harder.
And yes, the wound allocation rule was suppose to be for units with no majority wargear kit. (So 10 marines with a flamer, sarge and ML are fine, but things like paladins take a hit)
I'll go over this with a comb this weekend and see what rules I mash together or if I can tweak some of the harsher rules.
|
|
nored
Scarab swarm
Posts: 11
|
Post by nored on Mar 23, 2012 8:32:15 GMT -5
I know that oblit spam does deserve to be dinged to a degree. My issue is that an oblit squad is capped at 3 models max (i run 3 squads of 2 in my current list) where paladins can be 10 (i believe). and they are being penalized the same. I wish i could take 10 oblits in a squad. ;D
I realize it can be very difficult to come up with a system that will work completely. I would like to commend you for tackling this topic. It is indeed a complex challenge to try and solve.
Norm
Possible solution to consider when i think of it:
-1 for unit with -2 save (1-5 models)
-2 for unit with -2 save (6+ models)
Hope you will consider this. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 23, 2012 9:03:24 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this help or not but... my experience with using comp (and really seeing it not affect what people brought in the end) led me to decide that the next 40k club championship tourney is 99.9% likely to not have comp even factor in... Astronomicon, forever using a comp system, finally decided this past year that there was absolutely no way to make a completely fair comp system, so dropped it altogether... from all reports I have seen since from the three Astro events that were run without comp, no real difference was seen... of course this is an event where the mentality of people going are to bring fun, competitive and themed lists rather than a nasty ard boyz list... The more I've thought about it since our event... did comp really change anything or reflect who was at the top? Well Matt's 20 comp list, which arguably should be the friendliest list at the even, still was able to perform well enough to net him 4th place overall (he's a great player who is very familiar with his codex so knows how to make it work) whereas some of the lowest scoring comp lists didn't place nearly as well... So what does that mean? if it's all "just bring grey knights and you auto-win" well grey knights would have won the tourney right? Or every major tourney going on since codex release. If it was "chaos daemons are the lowest tier army in 40k and are uncompetitive" why did Dany do so well, playing at the final table for the tourney win against Tommy? (yes Dany is also an excellent player as well)... Why did Dave's necrons (scoring well on comp) decimate all comers by how it wrecked mech - you know the thing comp penalizes in most cases? I used to think comp was necessary because GW made an unbalanced game where some armies just couldn't compete.... I kept thinking that even when tournament results didn't support it... if purifier spam rocks everyone's world (and trust me, in Tom's hands it certainly can!) why isn't it winning every major event? same with Draigo wing.... could it be that Tom is just a really skilled player and Grey Knights a very strong army (there's definitely no dispute that GK is a very powerful codex) so when you combine the two he nearly wins ard boyz? Or does that mean GK are an auto-win that must be hamstrung for the sake of all of our enjoyment? well not the enjoyment of the GK player of course... lol... here's another thought in my mostly meaningless rant... but once I start I can't stop (like Cartman singing "come sail away").... did the recent codex releases just change the game in ways that maybe haven't been adapted to yet? GK certainly stomped alot more when they first came out (but ask a well build IG army how scared they are of Draigo wing?)... Dave absolutely wrecked people at the tourney with his necrons... to the point where I started thinking of that codex as a game changer in how it deals with mech (perhaps reducing the importance of mech overall).... does that mean we start comping gauss or tesla... or anything with reanimation protocols... how about entropic strike? ....have we ever needed to comp our Saturday afternoon gaming? So in the end I came to the conclusion that I've been wrong, and reading the internet hype too much... (yes, there is a certain amount of irony posting that on a forum right?) I have come to believe, as the guys at Astro did... there's no real way to make a totally fair comp system... if you want to have a friendly tourney that's competitive and fun, you don't try to hamstrung everyone because Draigo beat up your C'tan (I use that example because recently Guy's Draigo totally spanked my star god... lol) If your attitude when organizing a tournament is that scenarios are going to encourage balanced lists, and the people attending are by and large all of our regular gaming buddies... you don't want the reputation anyways of being "that guy" who thought he was playing Ard Boyz and had the WAAC attitude... those things generally get sorted quick through sports scores and the like... of course you'd have to get people to be more honest about sports scores (try not filling it out while your opponent is watching you)... there'd be less 5's... really I'm sure that every opponent you faced at my tourney gave you the funnest game of warhammer of your life... but that might not always be the case  (and no that's NOT encouraging chimpmunking someone who beat up your little plastic dudes) So yeah, bottom line for me is that comp isn't all it's cracked up to be... there's always an exception, you can't be totally fair, and the lowest comp doesn't equal best general. And yes it took me a while to figure that out... I'm old |
|
|
|
Post by danydaigle24 on Mar 23, 2012 9:50:11 GMT -5
Wow Shannon you just convince me what a text!
|
|
|
|
Post by fritzthedwarf on Mar 23, 2012 10:18:08 GMT -5
I agree that comp is probably pointless especially in a tourney with wacky scenarios. And comp probably did not, IMO, really affect what people were bringing to a great degree. Certainly better players that know their army well, the other codexes and the rules will most likely do well in any environment by exploiting their strengths and minimizing their weaknesses. That is not saying there aren't some serious differences between dexes (or within dexes depending on the list in question) - there certainly are IMO. But whether comp can be useful at all in some tournament types is another issue. It might be, but with odd missions some lists will be hamstrung while others may not.
About sports scores: Noone should be chipmunking an opponents sportsmanship score because they lost or got tabled. It should be done simply regarding whether the opponent was a good sport, average or poor sport. And listing someone as a poor sport should have a requirement to explain the problem in case the TO needs to look into it.
Sportsmanship should also not be tied to whether the game was fun necessarily. I can play a game with a person who is a great sport and I enjoy having games with but did not enjoy a particular game if it was not fun. If people are to be honest not every game is fun - most should be but some may not that are not the fault of the opponent (and I'm not just talking about horribly bad dice rolls as we all get those from time to time).
For example if I'm playing one of the games and my opponent happens to be a SW player with a bunch of rune priests that all have Jaws and I have nids with a bunch of MCs (especially before GW finally re-ruled their stupid errata that prevented Shadow in the Warp from affecting psykers in vehicles) and his jaws causes lots of guys to be evaporated before they can do anything, he might be a good sport and he didn't write the dex and is entitled to bring whatever is legal for the tourney but the game may not be fun. Or the scenario might not be fun because a particular army is seriously hamstrung such that it was not fun to play. Do I have to lie that the game was fun because I know that it will screw with my opponents sports score? That shouldn't happen. All I'm saying is don't tie sportsmanship with whether a game was fun because they are not necessarily connected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 23, 2012 10:38:56 GMT -5
that is a good point Mark... sorry, fun shouldn't have been intermingled with sports in that example... it was only my bias where as long as my opponent is fun I generally have a fun game... even if I have to threaten my dice with microwave therapy to prevent any more ones!!!!
My only point is if you're facing a horrible player who takes a win at all cost list / attitude to try and crush all opposition... chances are this player will not exactly be the most enjoyable person to play... there's a mechanism for that with sports scores... there is also the option of having points assigned to rate your opponent's army, but that gets even more subjective...
And even with the basic scenarios from the book, the last big several tournies I've seen results from (3++ con for example had nids finish either 4th or 5th, I can't remember which), orks score consistently well... as do the 5th ed books (with the exception of sisters, which haven't placed in the top 10 in any major event I've seen - but hey that's not really a book now is it? lol) grey knights are usually in the top 10 (as are dark eldar, imperial guard, blood angels and necrons)... but not taking the majority of events... When you look at win/loss results from major tournies, it doesn't really support that a small minority of armies (ie: grey knights, wolves and dark eldar) are winning all the games....
|
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Mar 23, 2012 10:59:34 GMT -5
no comp at all yay laziness
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by BewareOfTom on Mar 23, 2012 11:15:01 GMT -5
no comp at all yay laziness ;D QTF  |
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Mar 23, 2012 11:19:29 GMT -5
no comp at all yay laziness ;D what does QTF stand for? Quoted for Truth Quake Team Fortress Quality Task Force Quadratic Transfer Function Quadrature Transmit Filter Quality Thin Films |
|
|
|
Post by BewareOfTom on Mar 23, 2012 11:20:52 GMT -5
but I dont care |
|
