Jump to content

Another comp thread


Guest Mr. Bigglesworth

Recommended Posts

Guest Mr. Bigglesworth

Since reading the results of the ambassador event. I come to the conclusion it's why 40k is not a game you can just say learn to play better. Comp is necessary to make an even playing ground. The debate becomes how and what changes are necessary. So from this event what are the key opportunities?

 

I hope to avoid digressing to ITC champoning, but still understanding ITC will be part of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree, although I generally avoid using the word "comp" in reference to that sort of thing because it carries a lot of connotations that many people (myself included) don't like. However, comp is exactly what it is- things like restricting certain Lords of War, detachment limits, etc, are forms of comp, albeit rather weak ones compared to the way it has often been used.

 

That said, however, I don't think actual comp scoring in the way many European tournaments or OFCC do it are good ideas. Ha ha, I have preempted the ITC flamewar by starting an OFCC flamewar in advance!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was using my phone and hence trying to get it as small as possible.

 

Also, to be clear, the Ambassador did have 'Comp' of a kind, certain things were restricted/removed from the event. It just happens that the comp made for one type of list to do very well. This is, unfortunately, what comp does, it moves the goalpost for who is the best. The goal of a good comp system is to move it so that that best isn't so far ahead of everyone else that people have a chance to compete.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another food for thought as it is being championed by a few podcasts and internet trolls -- bringing back player scored comp but otherwise letting things ride.  Not personally a fan but the spikeybits/veterans of the long war/BoLS guys bring it up all the time now -- so suspect it will get more and more lip service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another food for thought as it is being championed by a few podcasts and internet trolls -- bringing back player scored comp but otherwise letting things ride.  Not personally a fan but the spikeybits/veterans of the long war/BoLS guys bring it up all the time now -- so suspect it will get more and more lip service.

Ugh.

 

That doesn't solve anything. Best General will still be won by the person who wins the most games, but now we have the spectre of chipmunking soft scores again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to be a bit more fluffy than competitive.  I feel a lot of competitive lists are not fluffy.  I feel a lot of competitive lists I've played over the years are silly and against the spirit of the game.  

 

I also feel what I feel doesn't matter one bit, because it is subjective.  That's the problem with Comp, it will always be subjective.  

 

I'd also like to be able to play 40k "out of the box," but GW doesn't make that very plausible.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always play fluffy lists. :)

That's "furry", not "fluffy" ;)

 

On the OP, I think one of the big issues in 40K right now is that over the last 15 years or so, the baseline Units have remained at a fairly similar power level, but the strongest Units have been steadily climbing in power. As Pretre alluded to, this has vastly opened the spread not only between the worst and best lists commonly taken, but also between the best and even the second tier. It's also ended up adding in the possibility of a lot of "hard counter" matchups for anything much below the top level, where there just isn't really any point in actually playing out the Game. The goal for any sort of tournament restrictions should be to narrow that spread so that a greater percentage of what's allowed is actually useful, and to minimize the number of situations where the result is a foregone conclusion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the OP, I think one of the big issues in 40K right now is that over the last 15 years or so, the baseline Units have remained at a fairly similar power level, but the strongest Units have been steadily climbing in power.

 

Mmm, I'm not really sure I agree with this. A Tactical Marine nowadays has come down significantly in price- 13pts with Krak/Frag, compared to, what, 20pts back in the 2E/3E days? Above and beyond that, they have better special rules (Combat Tactics, Chapter Tactics) and more options (Drop Pod, improved Razorback, more heavy/specials.) Additionally, many of the "power" units of that era were unstoppable even by today's standards- you had whole ARMIES launching turn 1 assaults after shooting, HQs that could (and did) essentially solo the entire enemy force, and units that were not just functionally but literally immune to shooting and assaults.

 

6E/7E have certainly notched the power level of the game up, but I think that's largely due to allies and formations, much less the actual units themselves (although there are certainly some outliers.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I always liked about OFCC was that it said "You shall not pass" to certain things.  I kind of like a reality check.

 

But I also come from a considerably more unorthodox style of play by most accounts and i never tend to be on the wrong side of that equation so its easier for me to like it I guess.  I find position and timing to be weapons all their own and as a Tau player from day one I suppose I've had to have a pretty serious sense of humor in order to stop from crying at our close combat prowess and poor ld, which has been such a big part of the army for so long that you MUST embrace those ideas.  

 

So the original poster is asking what the key opportunities for comp scoring might be.  I absolutely don't disagree that chipmunking happened.  Certain members of this forum have flat out declared they give no better than a 7 to anyone on the 1-10 scale and now imagine that compounded by a TEAM of players who show up to an event!

 

But I have to think that a dispassionate outsider with the right experience could be asked to judge such a thing.  It is no more or less fair than a judge going over paint scores (highly subjective but ultimately fair because that person is not in fact in any way connected to the result of the matchups).

 

How about that idea?  Just relegate it to the TO like any paint judging would be.  A Rubric used to exist in a way.  33% troops, only one HQ if it was a named character and so on have all been used traditionally.  It's one way to do it anyways.

 

Just some thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So the original poster is asking what the key opportunities for comp scoring might be.  I absolutely don't disagree that chipmunking happened.  Certain members of this forum have flat out declared they give no better than a 7 to anyone on the 1-10 scale and now imagine that compounded by a TEAM of players who show up to an event!

 

But I have to think that a dispassionate outsider with the right experience could be asked to judge such a thing.  It is no more or less fair than a judge going over paint scores (highly subjective but ultimately fair because that person is not in fact in any way connected to the result of the matchups).

 

How about that idea?  Just relegate it to the TO like any paint judging would be.  A Rubric used to exist in a way.  33% troops, only one HQ if it was a named character and so on have all been used traditionally.  It's one way to do it anyways.

Not having all the players work by the same rubric (which is true if some players refuse to use the whole scale) is just as bad in its way as chipmunking.

 

Having one person do it is certainly one way to handle it, but why waste the time at the event then? Just ban what you want to ban; restrict what you want to restrict and save the TO or Comp Judge a lot of hassle at the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm, I'm not really sure I agree with this. A Tactical Marine nowadays has come down significantly in price- 13pts with Krak/Frag, compared to, what, 20pts back in the 2E/3E days? Above and beyond that, they have better special rules (Combat Tactics, Chapter Tactics) and more options (Drop Pod, improved Razorback, more heavy/specials.) Additionally, many of the "power" units of that era were unstoppable even by today's standards- you had whole ARMIES launching turn 1 assaults after shooting, HQs that could (and did) essentially solo the entire enemy force, and units that were not just functionally but literally immune to shooting and assaults.

 

6E/7E have certainly notched the power level of the game up, but I think that's largely due to allies and formations, much less the actual units themselves (although there are certainly some outliers.)

I'm going to have to think on this more. It is entirely possible that I'm biased by the areas I played in during 3rd, and my memories of the range of power levels available are thus not representative of the Game as a whole at that time.

 

(That said, I'm pretty sure HQs soloing Armies was mostly over by 3rd. Definitely a thing in 2nd, but other than a Siren Prince against an Army without a Psychic Hood, I can't think of anything in 3rd that would do that.)

 

I will make a more limited claim, which is that I think there are a number of Units that have largely fallen by the wayside due to remaining more or less the same while other things got better. Assault Squads and WraithLords come to mind immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Assault Squads have sucked for a long time now, no argument there. It's nice that Skyhammer makes them playable again, though.

 

Part of the problem is "legacy" rules- that is, units that GW has decided years ago have a very specific profile, loadout, cost, and role but that do not function (or never functioned) with those factors. The Godhammer Land Raider is a great example of this- it's been locked into its stats, armament, and cost for over a decade now and has never, ever been good during that time. If the conceptualization of the unit were more flexible (i.e. "basic heavy assault tank") and more things about it could change it might be made useful, but GW is so adamant about leaving things exactly as they were forever that the unit is essentially consigned to the scrapheap.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if we're going to have a thread that talks about possibilities, it does us little good to not do that.  So Pretre, I think a better question is "okay if we DID WANT composition, THEN how would we do it".

 

Answers to that question are going to help more.

 

So i offered a suggestion as to how one might approach it if we DID want composition.  I think it is subjective (duh), I think people will always complain but those are the necessary COSTS of a better time for the majority.  

 

T.O.'s cannot make everyone happy.  Can't be done.  We get paid Zero dollars and Zero cents for what we do.  So there's a DEFINITE point at which a T.O. has to blank out the noise, make the decision and go so people can get to the list building.  At some point someone has ot make the actual DECISION.   And once you're actually playing, all this posturing and worrying fades away nd the reality of the battle takes center stage anyways so we spend an AWFUL lot of time worrying about small things.

 

What you WILL see when you introduce composition is at least an attempt not to be penalized by composition.  You will see LESS people lying to themselves, over time, about the power level of the list they bring (if power is the issue) or the lack of a story (in the case of the general structure/fluff being the focus).  Every T.O. will care to varying degrees about both and that will influence the meta strongly, as players get the feel for how their lists are graded.  Someone will complain about that too because munchkin gamers live in a fantasy world where they believe gaming should somehow all be one way and one way only so you can plug and play your uber power list list and the meta will always reward it the same.  That's just not realistic.  Its a fantasy.  Even the ITC knows that and tells T.O.'s to change it as they feel they need to.

 

Cant eliminate unpleasant people.  Munchkins (power gamers) are here to stay.  You can make it less rewarding, though.  Composition does that.  Imperfectly, yes.  With ripple effects, yes.  But by and large, I'm okay with that because nothing we do lacks some kind of ripple.

 

Example Rubric items for discussion?

 

1Pt:  Army has at least 25% of its points spent on troops.

1pt.  Army has been painted appropriate colors for its storyline.

1pt  Army Has no more than one named character

3pt  Army utilizes at least twelve different unit entries.

2pt  Army utilizes at least ten different unit entries.

1pt  Army utilizes at least 8 different unit entries.

 

 

Just quickj ideas i\I had sitting here.  I havent fleshed them out and Im sure theres more people could add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to make a Militarum or Adepta Sororitas list that can compete and do well on those guidelines in a no-allies format. Ouch.

 

At least I get the first three! Maybe, depending on points level.

 

My whole point is 'What is your goal?'.

- If you want to eliminate the worst parts of 40k, just go with ITC, don't reinvent the wheel.

- If you want to make some fluffy happy 40k, just go with list grading pre-event like OFCC and stick to it so that people can't bring hard lists.

- If you want to make everything covered by a rubric, good luck. Most rubrics don't take into account the difference between good codexes and lacking codexes (for example, the above rubric that LH posted). In the end the lacking codexes get hammered and the good codexes get hammered, but the good codexes have more options to still be good. The lacking codexes just end up lower than they were before.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if we're going to have a thread that talks about possibilities, it does us little good to not do that.  So Pretre, I think a better question is "okay if we DID WANT composition, THEN how would we do it".

 

Answers to that question are going to help more.

 

So i offered a suggestion as to how one might approach it if we DID want composition.  I think it is subjective (duh), I think people will always complain but those are the necessary COSTS of a better time for the majority.  

 

T.O.'s cannot make everyone happy.  Can't be done.  We get paid Zero dollars and Zero cents for what we do.  So there's a DEFINITE point at which a T.O. has to blank out the noise, make the decision and go so people can get to the list building.  At some point someone has ot make the actual DECISION.   And once you're actually playing, all this posturing and worrying fades away nd the reality of the battle takes center stage anyways so we spend an AWFUL lot of time worrying about small things.

 

What you WILL see when you introduce composition is at least an attempt not to be penalized by composition.  You will see LESS people lying to themselves, over time, about the power level of the list they bring (if power is the issue) or the lack of a story (in the case of the general structure/fluff being the focus).  Every T.O. will care to varying degrees about both and that will influence the meta strongly, as players get the feel for how their lists are graded.  Someone will complain about that too because munchkin gamers live in a fantasy world where they believe gaming should somehow all be one way and one way only so you can plug and play your uber power list list and the meta will always reward it the same.  That's just not realistic.  Its a fantasy.  Even the ITC knows that and tells T.O.'s to change it as they feel they need to.

 

Cant eliminate unpleasant people.  Munchkins (power gamers) are here to stay.  You can make it less rewarding, though.  Composition does that.  Imperfectly, yes.  With ripple effects, yes.  But by and large, I'm okay with that because nothing we do lacks some kind of ripple.

 

Example Rubric items for discussion?

 

1Pt:  Army has at least 25% of its points spent on troops.

1pt.  Army has been painted appropriate colors for its storyline.

1pt  Army Has no more than one named character

3pt  Army utilizes at least twelve different unit entries.

2pt  Army utilizes at least ten different unit entries.

1pt  Army utilizes at least 8 different unit entries.

 

 

Just quickj ideas i\I had sitting here.  I havent fleshed them out and Im sure theres more people could add.

 

You do realize that just because an army has some % of troops that that has little to no real effect on balance across lists right? If an Eldar list took +25% of scatter bikes, and a Tyranid list took +25% of ANY of their troops and they get the SAME credit that that is no where approaching fair right? %'s of battlefield roles are not an effective comp. Note the period.

 

Named characters are not even remotely created equal. A blanket negative on them is so much an outdated concept... smh

 

If all codices had a large variety of good entries, then these other things would be good, but in reality you're only rewarding the already powerful armies because they all have a large variety of good units to choose from. You're only further punishing the books with very few good choices. This is not going to balance the lists across an event, it's only going to reward points to the ones like Eldar, Necrons, and SM that have a large variety of strong choices. These armies don't need any more help!

 

I'm not saying some form of artificial balance isn't needed, but the ones you're suggesting are not going to have the desired effect.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example Rubric items for discussion?

 

1Pt:  Army has at least 25% of its points spent on troops.

1pt.  Army has been painted appropriate colors for its storyline.

1pt  Army Has no more than one named character

3pt  Army utilizes at least twelve different unit entries.

2pt  Army utilizes at least ten different unit entries.

1pt  Army utilizes at least 8 different unit entries.

 

ELDAR COMBINED ARMS

1 Farseer (Bike)

5 Wraithguard (D-Scythes)

4x3 Windriders (Scatter Lasers)

2x1 Shadow Weaver

1 Wraithknight (Scatter Laser)

DARK ELDAR ALLIED

1 Archon (Webway Portal, Armor of Spite)

5 Kabalite Warriors

1 Khymera

ASPECT HOST

5 Warp Spiders (Exarch)

5 Warp Spiders (Exarch)

6 Swooping Hawks (Exarch)

 

It's certainly not the absolute best possible list you could do under those guidelines, but it's an easy start and probably a clear violation of what you "want" lists to be. 1500pts, scores five-of-six on comp (and in an 1850 or 2000pt version could score 6/6 while adding even more powerful stuff with trivial ease.)

 

 

The fundamental problem with a comp system is that any system you use (i.e. an explicit rubric) will be eminently breakable by anyone who tries to do that sort of thing. Systems like the Swedish Comp one are dozens of pages of values and subsystems and notations and still allow for intensely broken lists; contrawise, if you use a purely subjective comp system (i.e. one that is peer-, panel-, or judge-scored) you suffer at the whims of whoever is doing the scoring and whatever biases they have. OFCC has had particular problems with this the last several years, as things like tournament-winning White Scars and Necron lists got through LRC completely unchanged and played absolute havoc with the field.

 

In theory, if you had a sufficiently-advanced scoring rubric you could eliminate the problems on that end... but in order to do that, it would have to be as complex as the 40K system itself (and written by someone who knew the system well enough to do that.) Similarly, if you had a sufficiently-talented staff of list scorers you could theoretically review and score lists in such a way as to balance the field perfectly- but getting anyone to agree on what that means is more unlikely that waking up to find that you'd been elected Queen of One Billion Dollars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comp rarely accomplishes what it sets out to do, as already stated, it just moves the goalposts of what is the most points efficient.  

 

Comp systems like ITC just alter the meta.  Instead of superfriends death star armies being the end-all, be-all, you have more of a variety of top tier forces, but there's still a drastic difference between say, my Ork list and a list like inControl's Mechanicum force.  

 

I find that two types of people really want list restrictions:  people who want to win, but don't want to worry about list writing; and people who want to play close games that are very competitive.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Try to make a Militarum or Adepta Sororitas list that can compete and do well on those guidelines in a no-allies format. Ouch.

 

At least I get the first three! Maybe, depending on points level.

 

My whole point is 'What is your goal?'.

- If you want to eliminate the worst parts of 40k, just go with ITC, don't reinvent the wheel.

- If you want to make some fluffy happy 40k, just go with list grading pre-event like OFCC and stick to it so that people can't bring hard lists.

- If you want to make everything covered by a rubric, good luck. Most rubrics don't take into account the difference between good codexes and lacking codexes (for example, the above rubric that LH posted). In the end the lacking codexes get hammered and the good codexes get hammered, but the good codexes have more options to still be good. The lacking codexes just end up lower than they were before.

I said clearly what the goal was:  less power gaming.  I also said what the premise was clearly:  they we should assume for THIS thread that we DO want comp and in that light, think about the problem.

 

ITC is ONE answer and you should mention it as ONE answer or possibility.  But it knows it isnt THE answer which is why IT allows for changing it freely.

 

Pre-listing is one answer.  Legit suggestion there also.  I think its not as open as I'd like it to be  You want people to know WHY you said no without opening a big debate.  so it comes with some land mines but it definitely avoids the nasty surprise the day of.  But then it also means you have to have preregistrations and all those mechanisms take time and so...  for smaller events it could be done but Im not 100% sure its practical?  maybe?

 

My Sisters of Battle took one of everything inthe codex and won two tournaments in a row.  LITERALLY taking one of everything.  So no, not really a good example.  But the rubric isnt forcing you to adhere to every single rule per se.  Its not a huge ding if you have less variety, but it is one.

 

I never said to "rubric everything".  But the discussion IS about comp so Im making suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Sisters of Battle took one of everything inthe codex and won two tournaments in a row.  LITERALLY taking one of everything.  So no, not really a good example.  But the rubric isnt forcing you to adhere to every single rule per se.  Its not a huge ding if you have less variety, but it is one.

 

And my grots killed a tooled up chaos lord and his squad in H2H. Doesn't mean it a likely event.

And I'd love to see your 'one of everything from the SOB codex' list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that just because an army has some % of troops that that has little to no real effect on balance across lists right? If an Eldar list took +25% of scatter bikes, and a Tyranid list took +25% of ANY of their troops and they get the SAME credit that that is no where approaching fair right? %'s of battlefield roles are not an effective comp. Note the period.

 

Named characters are not even remotely created equal. A blanket negative on them is so much an outdated concept... smh

 

If all codices had a large variety of good entries, then these other things would be good, but in reality you're only rewarding the already powerful armies because they all have a large variety of good units to choose from. You're only further punishing the books with very few good choices. This is not going to balance the lists across an event, it's only going to reward points to the ones like Eldar, Necrons, and SM that have a large variety of strong choices. These armies don't need any more help!

 

I'm not saying some form of artificial balance isn't needed, but the ones you're suggesting are not going to have the desired effect.

What I understand is that we're throwing out ideas.  

 

Scatter bikes are good but 500 points of them in a 2K list is still going to mean a pretty fair investment.  no taking 2 units of 3 and calling it a day as some do or could do.  I also think that 3 units of 6 Scatterbijs are 500 points on their own, but throw off 54 STR 6 shots at full strength, so I get the argument.  On the other hand they probably would have done that anyways in their list whereas other armies might NOT spend anything on troops in theirs.  So some things we put into composition rulings will not always change a persons tendencies but they are there to alter the tendencies of those who invest nothing.  How realistic would you find it if someone simply refused to send anything BUT their special forces in?  "we took the runway by prachute, now what?...  Im sorry you wntt US to form a war front and WHAT from behind enemy lines with no supply train?"  Lol.

 

Anywho, just ideas.  Im not overly invested in any one of them.  I just think we need to stimulate the convo, not do the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my grots killed a tooled up chaos lord and his squad in H2H. Doesn't mean it a likely event.

And I'd love to see your 'one of everything from the SOB codex' list.

I posted it here and you commented on it.  So youve seen it before.  And I beat Greg Swekis Space Wolves (who just took second at the ambassadorial Tournament)  in at the top table for the first win and immediately after won the next tournament against Eldar if memory serves, although its been a while so I'd have to find some way to undig that thread.

 

It was the list that used a Command squad which spawned quite the long thread about the usefulnesss/lack thereof of the Command unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...