Another comp thread

[pretre]

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.

Heh. If you expect me to immediately recall everything I've ever commented on, we're gonna have a bad time. :)

[Lord Hanaur]

Except, in this example, Eldar have lost nothing and the weaker codex has.

 

Also, armies send in just special forces all the time for some objectives. 40k is not just a representation of all-out full-frontage war.

You missed the point there but thats fine.  "lost" something isnt the goal of composition.  It is to reward people who go our of their way to represent their army as a whole vs. those who don't give one fig about how the army is ideally supposed to be.

 

Example:  Blood Angels.  REALLY should have a lot of Assault Squad type units generally, should probaby be some form of red paint.  It would be a bit disappointing to see a Blood angel bring three Land Raiders.  that's not REALLY what theyre about, but sure, they could.  Would seem strange for them to.

 

Example:  Black Legion army.  Would seem strange not to see a unit of the special terminators they get in the army when thats your primary detachment..  

 

Example:  Someone who uses Jain Zar in their Eldar army but seems to have no corresponding Aspect warriors in the army

 

I mean we can go on but ultimately there's all kinds of things we could talk about on composition.  Pretty broad topic.  It never...ever...goes anywhere but its fun to talk about.

[pretre]

Representing the army is BS though. Every army I play represents the fluff. Fluff is relative and irrelevant to army design.

 

- 3 Land Raiders in a BA army is a first company strike force. The veterans are riding out to defeat some enemy of the imperium where base BA would not be successful.

 

- Black Legion army where Abaddon decreed that the warband represented must repair a stain to their names; providing them with terminators is above them until they do.

 

- I don't know enough about Eldar fluff, but Jain Zar leads an embattled force of Guardians while her aspect race to catch up with her.

[pretre]

Pretty much any army you can put down on a table, we can come up with a good fluff justification for.

[Lord Hanaur]

Heh. If you expect me to immediately recall everything I've ever commented on, we're gonna have a bad time. :)

i dont EXPECT anything from you.  I am just stating a fact

[Lord Hanaur]

Representing the army is BS though. Every army I play represents the fluff. Fluff is relative and irrelevant to army design.

 

- 3 Land Raiders in a BA army is a first company strike force. The veterans are riding out to defeat some enemy of the imperium where base BA would not be successful.

 

- Black Legion army where Abaddon decreed that the warband represented must repair a stain to their names; providing them with terminators is above them until they do.

 

- I don't know enough about Eldar fluff, but Jain Zar leads an embattled force of Guardians while her aspect race to catch up with her.

So enough levels of justification is your answer?  why are you in this thread if you dont want comp?  If you have somethign to offer, offer it.  If youre just here to ne a negative nancy towards the legit question the poster asked well...

[Guest Mr. Bigglesworth]

What about a warmahorde setup where you bring 3 lists or have a set side bar?

[pretre]

So enough levels of justification is your answer?  why are you in this thread if you dont want comp?  If you have somethign to offer, offer it.  If youre just here to ne a negative nancy towards the legit question the poster asked well...

No, my answer is what I said it was. Fluff is an insufficient limiter to lists since any list can be fluff justified.

 

I am discussing the options being presented. I have, in fact, presented several comp options with their pros and cons. I have also shot down some because I think they are bad ideas. That is what a discussion is all about.

[pretre]

What about a warmahorde setup where you bring 3 lists or have a set side bar?

That doesn't address the 'some lists are bad and you should feel bad' idea. What if someone takes the following three lists:

- All Scatterbikes

- Wraithknights ho!

- Wraithguard accurate drop

Sidebar: Psychic denial

 

They are all three targeted to destroy certain lists and it only exacerbates the problem.

[pretre]

My preferred comp is:

- Eliminate the worst outliers to make the least amount of changes to level the field.

- Let the players build lists off of that with no further restrictions.

- As a player, assume that if something is allowed you will play against it.

- Don't impose your own hangups on other people.

[pretre]

I.e. If you don't like people who play deathstars or super heavies/GC at your event, just ban them. Be clear in your intentions and make them clear in the format of the event.

[WestRider]

My preferred comp is:

- Eliminate the worst outliers to make the least amount of changes to level the field.

- Let the players build lists off of that with no further restrictions.

- As a player, assume that if something is allowed you will play against it.

- Don't impose your own hangups on other people.

Pretty much this. If it were up to me, I'd shave the top down a bit further from where ITC puts it, but not by too much, I don't think.

[Lord Hanaur]

What about a warmahorde setup where you bring 3 lists or have a set side bar?

Thats kind of interesting.  Sidebars are something I only experienced a couple times really early on at the beginning of 4th edition.  then they went away and never came bck.  but that's an interesting idea.   Its list tailoring, essentially which i am not as big a fan of really but in 1850, you could have a core 1500 tht cannot change and then a 350 that could?  

[pretre]

Thats kind of interesting.  Sidebars are something I only experienced a couple times really early on at the beginning of 4th edition.  then they went away and never came bck.  but that's an interesting idea.   Its list tailoring, essentially which i am not as big a fan of really but in 1850, you could have a core 1500 tht cannot change and then a 350 that could?  

I don't mind the concept of sidebars; I just don't think it will solve the comp problem, just exacerbate it.

[Lord Hanaur]

I think theorizing doom and gloom isn't an argument.  =)

 

It's actually being DONE currently as an answer.  The problem that it solves is that it makes a list that would normally not function too well against CERTAIN builds functional, which then makes the field competitive.  The other guy cant change the core of his list so it makes you think about that core quite a bit.  

 

The downside is obvious too:  see lots of transports, have a melta sidebr.  otherwise:  High STr is the rule of the day.  And it doesnt in the end stop you from having a broken combo.  It just means you have TWO!

 

So i can see that argument also.  I guess that opens the discussion up to whether sidebars would have comp nd if they would, then we are back to square one with universal comp with no need for sidebars.  

 

hmm.  So would the side bar have to REPLACE part of the list?  Or would you have a core and two potential sidebars potentially?

[pretre]

I think theorizing doom and gloom isn't an argument.  =)

 

It's actually being DONE currently as an answer.  The problem that it solves is that it makes a list that would normally not function too well against CERTAIN builds functional, which then makes the field competitive.  The other guy cant change the core of his list so it makes you think about that core quite a bit.  

 

The downside is obvious too:  see lots of transports, have a melta sidebr.  otherwise:  High STr is the rule of the day.  And it doesnt in the end stop you from having a broken combo.  It just means you have TWO!

 

So i can see that argument also.  I guess that opens the discussion up to whether sidebars would have comp nd if they would, then we are back to square one with universal comp with no need for sidebars.  

 

hmm.  So would the side bar have to REPLACE part of the list?  Or would you have a core and two potential sidebars potentially?

Either way, we come back to the core problem:

 

Eldar 1500 pts

Wraithknight or 2

Scatterbikes

Other stuff

 

Sidebar:

- Psychic defense

- Anti-Deathstar Wraithguard

- More scatterbikes for transport spam or infantry spam

 

vs

SOB 1500

Standard SOB list with Repressors, Doms, Exos, etc

 

Sidebar:

- Umm...

 

The Eldar book has more tools for dealing with more armies. When you give them a sidebar, you give them even more tools than their points value indicates. For a book with less options like SOB (or chaos or whatever), they don't magically get more, better options. They just get another 350 points.

 

Crafting comp or adding tools is hard when some books have naturally better tools than others.

 

As to your other questions, I like sidebars as additions and not replacements.

[WestRider]

Sidebars are also really obnoxious logistically. You need bigger Display Boards, everyone takes up more room in the venue, it's harder to transport (both to the event and from table to table). It works fine in MtG and Warmahordes, where the stuff you need is far more compact, but at modern 40K event sizes, it's a pretty serious hassle.

[pretre]

Sidebars are also really obnoxious logistically. You need bigger Display Boards, everyone takes up more room in the venue, it's harder to transport (both to the event and from table to table). It works fine in MtG and Warmahordes, where the stuff you need is far more compact, but at modern 40K event sizes, it's a pretty serious hassle.

It also makes a little side game of trying to analyze which option your opponent will take and then plan accordingly.

[AbusePuppy]

Sidebars also add an addition money investment for anyone wanting to play in a tournament (and they start fairly expensive already), not to mention the complexity and potential rules hassles involved with sorting out exactly how they work and ensuring everyone understands.

[fluger]

I think the most comprehensive and fair "comp" system would be a computerized system that would work in conjunction with a major tournament circuit like ITC.  

 

The first step is setting up data collection, make all the tournament organizers who want to use the format be required to upload lists to some kind of program that can tally unit types.

 

Then, at the end of every half year, tally up the total number of uses of every unit and apply that number to an algorithm.  Basically, determine which units are the most used and which are the least or never used in the format.  Depending on several factors, then issue an errata that lowers or raises the points costs of units based on usage.  

 

So, everyone is using Rhinos now thanks to Battle Company?  Rhinos are now 10 ppm more.  No one brought Ogryns?  Ogryns are now 15 pts cheaper.

 

Rinse and repeat each 6 months and let the community dictate points values.  At a certain point, even terribad units like Wyches will become too cheap to ignore and will start to tip towards being broken.  Conversely, if everyone is still taking scatterbikes. they'll get so expensive that they won't be the bargain they are now.  

 

Basically, let usage do the balancing for you, the real legwork is coming up with a fair algorithm and getting buy in on data entry and having a program that could keep track of all the data in a useful way.

[pretre]

I like that one a lot, but... It would be a bitch for people like you who like to play the same army a lot and for people who don't have extensive collections. Having to make a whole new army every 6 months or pay the penalty is pretty bad for folks with just a small collection.

[InfestedKerrigan]

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.

 

 

I get Two Points with my Knights!  Period!

[fluger]

I like that one a lot, but... It would be a bitch for people like you who like to play the same army a lot and for people who don't have extensive collections. Having to make a whole new army every 6 months or pay the penalty is pretty bad for folks with just a small collection.

Sure, no system is perfect, but that's a REALLY small price to pay.  

 

For instance, you wouldn't HAVE to use the bonus points if you are using an underutilized army, and, if you're playing a more popular army, you'd have fewer points and would have to bring fewer models.  It doesn't really FORCE anyone to buy models.

 

Being forced to change my list every 6 months WOULD be sad though...

[Lord Hanaur]

I think the most comprehensive and fair "comp" system would be a computerized system that would work in conjunction with a major tournament circuit like ITC.  

 

The first step is setting up data collection, make all the tournament organizers who want to use the format be required to upload lists to some kind of program that can tally unit types.

 

Then, at the end of every half year, tally up the total number of uses of every unit and apply that number to an algorithm.  Basically, determine which units are the most used and which are the least or never used in the format.  Depending on several factors, then issue an errata that lowers or raises the points costs of units based on usage.  

 

So, everyone is using Rhinos now thanks to Battle Company?  Rhinos are now 10 ppm more.  No one brought Ogryns?  Ogryns are now 15 pts cheaper.

 

Rinse and repeat each 6 months and let the community dictate points values.  At a certain point, even terribad units like Wyches will become too cheap to ignore and will start to tip towards being broken.  Conversely, if everyone is still taking scatterbikes. they'll get so expensive that they won't be the bargain they are now.  

 

Basically, let usage do the balancing for you, the real legwork is coming up with a fair algorithm and getting buy in on data entry and having a program that could keep track of all the data in a useful way.

How do you resolve the rhino cost upgrade for people who actually just use a few and arent abusing it?  

 

So theres that.  the usage thing, which you mentioned before in another thread would require TWO data points.  Not just usage but I think the more relevant thing seems to be Formations specifically.

 

There is a synergy you cant account for there in pure usage details.  So how would you account for that?  I assume most people do not play with scarab swarms like i did this year and so scarabs might not be so numerous.  So tjhey get a points reduction.  But the reason why people dont do it is, they simply cant afford to.  Pure and simple, i own 48 of the buggers and you gotta own that many to really pull that kinda army off.  Most simply will never reach that volume in their collection.

 

So usage is kind of a "first alert" type of thing.  I could see it used that way.  For example, the ones being used with terrifying frequency would then be the focus of more in depth looks but would not themselves trigger any direct change.

[WestRider]

Yeah, metagame issues like dollar cost really start to be a factor in a system like that.

 

A more limited version might work, if you maybe only tweaked the top and bottom 5%, and maybe did some polling of people using a given Army to look at reasons for not taking certain Units that were falling in that bottom 5% to see if outside issues were more of a thing there than in-Game problems.