PDA

View Full Version : Been Thinking A Lot About Comp Scores, Here's My Take. (Long)



Briohmar
09-04-2009, 10:49
OK, I have been reading all of the different takes on how to make a legitimate comp scoring system, and this whole thing was prompted by the recent cancellation of all Grand Tournaments. In the early days of the Grand tournaments, Army Comp was an essential part of the game. Comp scores were not really existant, because there were specific limitations you had to meet with your list to be able to play in the tournaments at all. I read through all of the "this is borken" "Cheesiest List" threads, and realize that it is possible to make a comp system, based on the older GT system, that could pretty well level the playing field in a tournament environment.

First Rule: No Special Characters. Not even named character upgrades.

Second rule: No more than 1/3 of your points may be spent on Characters. Now for a 2K game, I'm sure there is going to be a lot of complaint about this rule such as: "how can I make an effective army with only 666 points for characters?" The answer is simple. Take less c**p on them. This rule also includes magic items, gifts, abilities, and mounts. For all intents and purposes, this levels the field for almost all armies. If a Daemon player wants to take a greater Daemon, they do so at the expense of supporting characters. If a Vamp Lord is fully kitted, well, he'll just have to make do pretty much on his own, as he may only have one additional Vampire to help him run things. Tomb Kings will immediately be up in arms, but I can make a TK list with 4 characters, including a King with a little over 600 points. Ogres can squeeze a Tyrant, Bruiser and Butcher quite easily out of 666 points. High Elves can take their Star Dragon, but guess what, other characters are pretty much out. etc. I can go on with this, but all of the arguments pretty much come down to, I can't take a fully kitted complement of Cheese characters for only 660 points. Too bad.

Rule 3: Minimum of 1/4 Of Total Points Must Be Core. OK, I can hear the whining coming from a mile away on this one. The HE player says, but I only have to take two core units, OK, take only two core units, just make sure they total up to 500 points. The Daemon Player says, but then I have to take 3 larger blocks of lesser daemons, or four smaller ones, and I don't have any heralds to make them good, WAAAH! The Wood Elf Player has to consider just how many Dryads and Glade Guard he wants to use, and may even consider, gods forbid, throwing in some Eternal Guard. Yes! I know, there will still be a lot of min-maxing the lists, but if 500 points of core, plus 660 points of Characters, you're now down to 840 points for special and rare.

Rule 4: No more than two of any one Special Choice. I have considered this one as well, and I am willing to allow two for one choices as counting as a two for one choice. What this means is that yes, a Greenskin player can choose to field 4 spear chukkas, but this might be negotiable. If everyone else thinks the greenskins should be limited to two chukkas, so be it. Pretty much, this, mixed with the next rule is going to force players to make some really hard choices regarding their elites.

Rule 5: No More Than One Of Each Rare Choice. I see a lot of the but High Elves are allowed 4 rares, and they only have two to choose from. OK, I appreciate the dilemma, but I also know that the Warhammer Arms Race rose from the Ashes of the Phoenix King's Book. With the introduction of so many special rules, how could they not over-compensate for the VC and Daemons books. Again, the choice must be asked do we allow 2-for-1s to count as 1 or 2? This could hurt Chaos who want to take spawns, and Dark Elves who want two Bolt Throwers. I am leaning towards no two for ones as the intent of this system is to level the playing field. So a Dark elf player can opt to field 1 Bolt Thrower and 1 Hydra, and is now down to just over 600 points left for specials. The Empire player can take a tank and a Hellblaster, and is down to just over 500 left for specials, etc. Again, this list can go on and on, but I think I get the point across.

This set of rules brings Warhammer back to the forefront of a Warhammer game, or a Warhammer Tournament. It forces players to make some really hard choices about their armies, such as, do I take my Uber Lord, and nothing else, or do I take some lesser charcters, and try to do more with them. The core forces are now larger than the bare minimum three units of 10 Horrors, 3 units of 10 Skirmishing Skinks, 2 units of 10 Archers type lists you commonly see. The Special and Rare choices really do become rather special, and this is where the army is likely to sink or swim. If the lizard player wants to take two stegs and an ancient Steg, OK, more power to him, but guess what, he no longer has terradons, Salamanders, or Razordons to support his approach.

So you all be the judge, and tell me what you think.

EndlessBug
09-04-2009, 10:57
I really like it, you'll prob find that you might have to alter the restrictions a little but the whole concept seems sound. The only thing I'd remove is that HE and DE can't take 2 for 1 bolt throwers. You're effectively saying that those 2 armies are only allowed 1 war machine, as you've made the exception for the special choice 2 for 1's I think you have to be consistent with the rares. Remove that rule and I think you have a spot on concept!

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 11:11
Yeah, I'm still waffling on the two for one thing. Rest assured, when I become King General of all Warhammer, it shall be implemented uniformly, either as allowed or not allowed in both special and rare.

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 11:19
Far far too restrictive,

you might as well allow only one type of troop choice, thats only allowed to be kitted out in one way, fight against each other.

Diffrent armies work in totally diffrent way, 666 pts on characters for vampire counts is absurd, it makes it impossible to play 2/3 of thier builds, and this game should be about variety of list.

only one rare choice of each type for high elves ruins there ability to take 4 rares as they only have 2 diffrent choices.

etc etc

I am all for comp, but comp should not be restrictive in terms of units you can use, a decent comp system will let any player take any choice they want, be it soft or hard and then through a comp score or system bring them back to the competative mean.

Personally i think comp should be a combination of tiering the armies, and then either peer determined comp score for the rest of the score, or an organiser comp scoring everyones list.

Neither of these two methods are perfect, but as Wisnston Churchill said about democracy:
"its the worst form of goverment apart from all the other kinds"

Gazak Blacktoof
09-04-2009, 11:32
I'd suggest trying it out and attempting to break the system with a few games. You might find you need more restrictions or at least some targeted ones that single out particular "abuses" that slip through.

If you're aiming for fun and balanced games I'd throw something in to restrict gun lines to some extent. You can still fit 6 warmachiens including a tank into an army with empire and you can get 7 with dwarfs.

You can probably still make the best empire list as well even if this system hampers some of the other armies' better builds. Is that a problem? I don't know, you'll have to try it and find out, but they were a potent tournament force before the dominance of DE, VC and DoC began.

EDIT I understand you're tyring to make a simple system but unless those simple rules truly kneecap all of the hardest lists, you'll just shift the abuses from one army to another.

danny-d-b
09-04-2009, 11:38
you know what

easy way of fixing war hammer

only blocks of infantry 20+ big count as core or cavelry 10+ (ogers will have to have some other rule)

no more than 2 caracters in an unit

all armys must take a BSB, who can only take either a magic banner and mundane armour, or magic equipment and a normal banner (deamons and VC, the same rule applys, you take a magic banner, you can't take powers or deamonic gifts)

no multiple rares or special choises (you can get 2 for 1, but thats it)

so you could see 2 bolt throwers and a hydra

no special caracter- Full stop!

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 12:00
@ Tom, I don't see how you can say this: "you might as well allow only one type of troop choice, thats only allowed to be kitted out in one way, fight against each other." There most certainly is no restriction of this type. In point of fact, these restrictions encourage more variety, instead of less. Also, how can you say 666 points for Vampires is absurd? Can you make a viable, fun to play, and play against list with this limitation? The answer is yes, but the counter of course is that you can't make the 17+ power dice magical Vampire army of despair list, which really isn't fun to play with or against anyways.

@ Gazak. You are correct that I have kneecapped most, but not all, of the truly abusive builds. Maybe we should include no more than three of any one type of core unit, and no more than three war machines. I know that no matter how many rules you apply to a comp system, someone will find a way to min/max and abuse it, but by the same token, I don't think its fair to penalize someone overly because they want to play a specific army.

I was in Afghanistan when the Daemons of Chaos book was released. I ordered the book, and read it from cover to cover several times. I had this grand plan that when I finally got back to the world, I was going to build my all female Daemon army. This was from a purely aesthetic point of view. I wanted a beautifully painted and converted army, that would be totally in a single theme, and appear coherrent on the battlefield. When I finally did get home, I started work on the army, and I spent days upon days assembling, converting, and painting the models for my grand Female Daemon army. The army contains none of the truly abusive things in the book, and is built to be friendly but hard. However, I find that said army stands absolutely zero chance of winning a tournament, and because it is Daemons, will be overly penalized on top of the cheese label I get without adding anything cheesy.

I read the Shimmergloom thread and find that to be much more restrictive, and overly punishing of even the most benign of Daemon or VC lists, not to mention truly kneecaps the Tomb Kings, which I find to be humorous.

I see things about tiering the armies, so that Orcs and Ogres would get 2500 points, High Elves, Wood Elves, Bretoonnians, Empire, etc would get 2250 points and Daemons, VC and Dark Elves (and now potentially Lizardmen) get only 2000 points, and the only thing this system does is further encourage listhammer. I want to create something that returns us to playing a wargame on a tabletop, with lots of brilliantly painted miniatures, not an overly complex game of scissors. paper, rock.

Witchblade
09-04-2009, 12:24
I would not like to play using those restrictions... I like comp. scores, but this seems over the top to me.

Jonaer
09-04-2009, 12:25
I do see the merit of your suggestions. And its faults as well, of which many you pointed out yourself.

I'd gladly take more core units in my High Elf army, had their internal balance not been so very lacking in... Well, balance. Which begs the questions; If you're enforcing your own rules, why not rework the rules alltogether? Balanced armies would require no further restructions.

Just a thougth, obviously quite a lot harder to accomplish though. I'm just baffled by the fact that people invent and/or obey harsh composition rules that tend to favour certain armies while penalizings others yet strictly refuse to consider balancing the armies themselves.

Conotor
09-04-2009, 12:30
Why don't you go one step further and just prescribe everyone's army for them?

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 12:36
Its kind of funny that so many people are against this type of comping, whcih oddly enough comes closer to balancing the game than penalizing certain armies, while doing nothing to punish abusive builds in others. If you read the introduction to this post, you would notice where these rules came from. These were the rules for the US Grand Tournaments from 1998 (possibly even earlier) through 2004 (or was it 2005, I left for Europe in late 2004, so I am unsure which year they dropped all the restrictions.) I'm not suggesting something new or radical here, I'm suggesting we return to the rules that Games Workshop itself used to impose on players who played in their tournaments. You guys in the UK should like how unrestrictive these rules are, as the Warhammer Players Society, and UK GT crews had even stricter and nastier comp rules for their tournaments. Though, for some reason, here on the continent, none of those systems was ever really applied.

zak
09-04-2009, 12:41
I don't think this system is too restrictive at all. What is does is close off the abuse and allow for a game of tactics using movement and thought rather than as said before an over elaborate game of rock, paper and scissors. This is certainly the best comp' system I have seen so far.

Drongol
09-04-2009, 12:48
No.

Just no.

You are more than welcome to do whatever you'd like in your own tournaments, of course, but I am not going to be convinced that your needlessly-restrictive restrictions (I see what I did there, too) will somehow balance the game.

These restrictions will only lead to new abuses. It is far better to have some sort of scoring system in place for army composition than it is to just throw extra restrictions on the top of a list.

Like I said, you're welcome to do it, but I do not believe it would ever work. No system of balancing is going to be perfect, but just adding extra restrictions won't stop "power lists" from being used. It'll just change what the "power lists" are.

Drongol

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 12:56
You are, of course, right Drongol, it would never work. Just because it worked for 6 or 7 years, until they decided to drop them for unknown reasons, and now, four years later, they have realized just how much of a mistake it was to drop them, and are completely cancelling the tournaments because they are no longer a showcase of player ability, but instead a showcase of "this list is better than that list, so it wins." GTs have now become a predictable thing, without even playing the game, you know who will win based on whether they have scissors, paper or rock.

The Red Scourge
09-04-2009, 13:05
My VC hates this.

My WoC feels positive, but are undecided.

And my Wood Elves will really, really love this – and I mean really love this :)

Drongol
09-04-2009, 13:07
You are, of course, right Drongol, it would never work. Just because it worked for 6 or 7 years, until they decided to drop them for unknown reasons, and now, four years later, they have realized just how much of a mistake it was to drop them, and are completely cancelling the tournaments because they are no longer a showcase of player ability, but instead a showcase of "this list is better than that list, so it wins." GTs have now become a predictable thing, without even playing the game, you know who will win based on whether they have scissors, paper or rock.

Hyperbole much?

Saying "they worked" is rather facetious. It would be better to say that "They were considered acceptable by the community playing in a very limited number of tournaments." But hey, potato, potahto, right? I mean, they were obviously dropped for no reason whatsoever and not because they thought those guidelines weren't doing the job, am I right?

And really, claiming that everything would be magically fixed by adopting these restrictions is just as much a fallacy as believing that America's economy would be magically fixed because the people elected the Chosen One. It just doesn't work that way.

All you're attempting to do is to make people buy more models. There will still be power builds, and there will be armies that aren't worth bringing to a competition. Reducing some of the perceived excess will, perhaps, shift the balance around somewhat. It's possible that some of the "haves" will become "have nots" and vice versa.

That does not mean that this would ever come close to approximating a balanced field and needing strategery to win. That would require an actual rewrite of the army books.

Like I said, you're welcome to use whatever you'd like for your tournaments, but this will not work.

Drongol

nosferatu1001
09-04-2009, 13:08
You could go the other direction that a local club is trialling in their next big fantasy tournament - Army Scores.

This is less precise, as it relies on bands, and is also more work for the TO.

Essentially, Armies start of with a base Army score, depending on the relative strength of the army books. So Daemons are 300, Vamps and DE are 400, Lizards (empire...) are 500, and 600 for the truly weak armys like Ogres, O&G

You then apply a list derived modifier. A truly nasty list, with every broken combo with no thought to story is -300. Totally fluff driven, almost purposefully weak armies get +300, with more steps in between. An average powered army would therefore get their base scroe + 0, while broken daemons could be on 0.

For each game, determine VP as usual, however you then add the difference in Army Scores between the two players to the person with the higher Army scores VPs, and then determine the result. For example, Dirty Daemon with Army Score: 0 plays an Ogre guy with Army score +800. The Ogre player automatically adds 800VPs to their score, and this affects the result.

I don't like % rules, or no double rare rules, a i think you should be free to choose them - you just suffer an in game handicap for doing so.

Now, I'm not saying the above is perfect, and without a published olist of "broken" armies so you can see where you would fit it is soley TO opinion based and so not necess. consistent, but it still gives people freedom to model what they want. The system above would put me off as I couldnt include the army I want frm the book i want.

Penalise the player in game rather than before game!

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 13:11
And well they should Red Scourge. When this style of comp was the in-thing, Wood Elves were the (Let me re-do this THE top tier army) However, power levels have changed, and a restrictive Daemon, Dark Elf, or VC army would still have a solid chance of beating the woodies, it would really be a matter of who was the better tactician. Oops, there I've gone and said it. The heresy that I espouse, which is the best tactics should win a game, not the best list.

Drongol, rather unsurprisingly, these restrictions were dropped in the way before time, right around the Storm of Chaos, and at the same time as the edict of Special characters no longer needed opponents permission to be used. I can't help but wonder if there might be more than coincidence to this.

W0lf
09-04-2009, 13:19
way too restrictive.

Good comp systems dont stop you taking certain options, they just penalise you for it. Freedom ftw.

rabitshadow
09-04-2009, 13:55
Why do they have these systems anyway? Surely the armies should be balanced, so there would be no need for this.
And if the armies were balanced, to be able to create "cheese" would be a skill.
Effectively, all "cheese" is is a way of maximising the effectiveness of your army.
Oh and this is coming from a HE player who has no White Lions, SwordMasters or Repeater Bolt Throwers.

Gazak Blacktoof
09-04-2009, 14:03
The armies aren't balanced though, that's why comp systems are used.

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 14:12
listen im not arguing that this will work in balancing armies,

but then again so does lobotomizing people work in stoping them commiting crimes.

What you have to think about is what you end up with once you have lobotomised the game!

You will end up is all lists being, shooty but not too shooty, big units but not too big, this much magic but no more and no less. They all will turn into the same thing, hence my point about just having one type of troop, oversimplimifed as it was.

Plus i can still create super broken lists with these restrictions anyway, how about 2 massive units of terredon riders, thats pretty broken to me! especially if i cant take enough shooting to counteract this.

the reality is you cant create a simple restrictive comp method that dosent stop all "broken lists" in fact no system can ever stop a broken list being created. the only thing you can do is ensure that when someone brings a broken list that a comp system then handicaps them back to the average.

BLARGAG!!!
09-04-2009, 14:16
The armies aren't balanced though, that's why comp systems are used.

QFT. I actually like this comp system. I am saying this as someone who would have their army basically destroyed (not for the reasons you might think, I play a heavily themed Dwarven Slayer army, so I would need to find 2 new special choices).

to all of the people who think that this is too restrictive, think about it this way...

would you rather go to a tournie and, based upon the people that are showing up with particular armies, know that you can't win, no matter how hard you try, with the army that you brought. Or come and say "I have a decent shot at winning this thing regardless of what army I am bringing because there are some thing in place to level the playing field a bit"?

soots
09-04-2009, 14:17
You cant put on restrictions for characters, or for unit strength etc.

Each army has varying dependencies on things. Where a Chaos Warrior army can make do without a lord without too much of an issue. A VC list without a lord is extremely soft. And putting warmachine restrictions on some armies like Empire and others like Wood elves is completely irrelevant. Each army has to be tackled on its own merits

The best solution I can think of is we get a large panel of experienced players, and we mystery vote on things to nerf in priority of necessity. If everyones voting for Daemons, then you obviously know theyre unanimously OPed. Democracy at work :P

Tae
09-04-2009, 14:26
As mentioned previously, penalties good, restrictions bad.

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 14:27
just use the aussie system, its the best i have seen, and while its not perfect i cant come up with anything better.

Drongol
09-04-2009, 14:29
And well they should Red Scourge. When this style of comp was the in-thing, Wood Elves were the (Let me re-do this THE top tier army) However, power levels have changed, and a restrictive Daemon, Dark Elf, or VC army would still have a solid chance of beating the woodies, it would really be a matter of who was the better tactician. Oops, there I've gone and said it. The heresy that I espouse, which is the best tactics should win a game, not the best list.

Do you honestly not see the contradictory nature of this paragraph? You state that, with these restrictions in effect, there were top-tier armies (and, presumably a bottom-tier army as well), and then you turn around and state in the same paragraph that these unnecessary restrictions make the game about strategery.

You're claiming things both ways, and it doesn't fly.


Drongol, rather unsurprisingly, these restrictions were dropped in the way before time, right around the Storm of Chaos, and at the same time as the edict of Special characters no longer needed opponents permission to be used. I can't help but wonder if there might be more than coincidence to this.

You are more than welcome to wonder whatever you'd like. That said, it is typically best to look for the simplest explanation. Put simply, these restrictions were no longer desirable by the people organizing and playing at those tournaments in which they were put into effect, and as such, they were dropped.

Drongol

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 14:38
But what if the level of brokenness were reduced. Yes, there will still be somewhat abusive builds, but the deathstars will pretty much be eradicated, so will the point denial lists be erradicated (really who goes to a tournament to achieve a draw anyways? I have never understood that particular principle.) If we took Gazak's advice, and put the extra restriction on warmachines and shooters, then the gun lines would still exist, but way less effectively. The Bloodthirster of Tzeentch list: gone. The 20 Powerdice IoN and Dance Spam list: gone. The Karl Franz and 2 tanks list: Gone. The Thorek anvil gun line: gone. the 6 or 7 Stegadon list: not going to happen. The Dragons of Doom High Elves: gone. Give me one of the current: this is guaranteed to win a tournament lists currently on the market, and I'll tell you that its probably disallowed. Its not like those lists require anybody to use any tactics anyways. Hell, they didn't even have to think up the lists for themselves, just log on to the internet and copy someone else's work, then put it on the table and press autoplay. When tournaments, particularly Grand Tournaments, were about being the best player, there was a lot of challenge and a lot of fun, but now that its about who has the best pre-fabricated list, what specifically is the point in going? Which I would present is why the GTs have been canxed.

Makaber
09-04-2009, 14:51
I don't like limitations and composition systems, because they're so easy to work around. Thankfully, where I'm from they're not needed, because we have a healthy outlook on the game.

That out of the way, this, like every other rigid limitation system I've seen, severely penalises some armies, while barely affecting others. The 666 points on characters limitation is crippeling for a Tomb Kings army, where you absolutely need the full four characters to make it work, three of which will be wizard types. Furthermore, you'd be forced to spend 500 points on overpriced and largely useless Skeleton blocks, leaving very little to spare for the equally expensive "doers" of the list, the special and rare choices.

Also, restrictions such as these limit all armies equally. So the limitations on characters might prevent the all-singing all-dancing nearly-unbeatable Vampire Counts list. The same limitation would make it really hard to stand a chance against a Daemons list made under the same restrictions: The Daemon player would still be able to cram three units of Horrors, two units of Flesh Hounds, a large unit of Flamers, and a bunch of Heralds into the army, and whatever it was facing would be preveted from taking the characters it would need to get enough magic defense and hitting power to stand a chance against it.

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 14:53
well said makaber!

nosferatu1001
09-04-2009, 15:00
To second mine and others: don't punish people by restricting them from taking elements entirely, just penalise in the game if they take broken / bad combos. A system of reducing the effectiveness of some armies will definitely raise the power of others - welcome back to WE annoyance, for example. You are 2balancing" by lopping the knees off some armies, without addressing balance as a whole.

Whats the Australian system that was mentioned?

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 15:03
As for the Wood Elves, You are correct, and I laughingly mis-spoke. (I know, its hard to see someone chuckling on the internet.) The Wood Elves won a lot of tournaments, but it was because they were such a dificult army to use during this time frame, which was mostly pre-book release anyways. Only really tactical players could use Woodies effectively, and those that did, did really well. There were others, a lot of others who thought that just by taking Woodies they could win, and those players were slaughtered, usually to a man.

Drongol
09-04-2009, 15:13
As for the Wood Elves, You are correct, and I laughingly mis-spoke. (I know, its hard to see someone chuckling on the internet.) The Wood Elves won a lot of tournaments, but it was because they were such a dificult army to use during this time frame, which was mostly pre-book release anyways. Only really tactical players could use Woodies effectively, and those that did, did really well. There were others, a lot of others who thought that just by taking Woodies they could win, and those players were slaughtered, usually to a man.

Ah, I see. So Wood Elves weren't T1 because they were the best army under the restrictions, but because the people who played them were just that much better than everyone else. Gotcha.

I wish I played Wood Elves so I could be a better player than everyone else, too.

Drongol

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 15:24
check out the irrististable force website for more info on the aussie comp system,

but basically each army is split into tiers, then each list has a rating depending on how cheesy it is, this is either peer judged by other players in the tournament, or by a TO before the tournament starts.

This way people know what comp score they will be getting before they even play the first game, it also allows people to get feeback on thier lists and make alterations.

So with this method you can take whever you like but you wont get as many tornament points as someone who has a softer list than yours.

Peer review also helps with the fact that comp should not just be about whats hard and soft, it also addresses whats fun to play, ie a gun line is not that hard to play against, however its not that fun to play against, ditto all cav etc.

The good thing is that you can take whatever you like even the cheesiest lists, but you will have a hard time winning the tournament with all the penalties you get unless you completly masacre every oponent.

Special characters are still banned though - there all stupid in tournaments.

rtunian
09-04-2009, 15:35
what pisses me off is that it's up to the players to figure out a way to make the game balanced. game balance is the job of the game developers; how can these people hold their heads up? how can they have any pride at all in their work?

i like to think that they are just as disappointed, but helpless to act, because they are just carrying out the orders of the management... who are just carrying out the orders of the shareholders... who just want to sell minis. the game itself is an afterthought. the game, which singlehandedly sustained the minis industry, is not important enough to do right.

the special characters injection started it down a slippery slope... the arms race as someone put it above. now every army that comes out has to be even more ridiculous than the last... how can balance ever be achieved when it's a systematic 1-upping ???

imo, it's a damn convoluted money grab. what the wfb business model looks like to me: add new armies, break the balance, release a new rebalanced edition of all armies, add new armies, break the balance, release a new rebalanced edition of all armies, add new armies, break the balance, release a new rebalanced edition of all armies, and so on, and so forth. it's called planned obsolescence

yes, you do have to expand and grow and make changes to survive in business. no, you don't have to do it by selling promises to fix an intentionally broken game

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 15:35
So fine, nobody likes this version of comp rules. Nobody likes any other version of comp rules. Great, then Listhammer shall reign supreme, at least until GW makes balanced armies. Tournaments will cease, as there is no point in going to them anymore as only the same 5 or 6 lists will be present, and no tactics will be required.

I seem to recall the Aussie rules were the ones that gave extra points to lower tier armies, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

At any rate, this extra point benefit certainly encourages an Orc player to take the most broken list he can manage, especially since he gets 500 extra points. Sorcerer Lord, 2 Sorcerers and the BSB of I get 3 extra power dice. 6 Spear Chukkas, and 25 Black Orcs, 2 Doom Divers, or 2 Giants, or 1 of each, as no one is going to take trolls. The sad part is, at its most broken, and with 500 extra points, it still can't win. It might achieve a draw but there is no way that orcs and goblins can beat two STanks, especially not supported by a Popemobile or KF on Dragon. Who, by this system get an extra 250 points anyways. A Bloodthirster of Tzeentch will rip through the orc and gobbo grunts without even working up a sweat, not even taking into account the number of units that will flee in terror. The Dark elf cheap character with Ring of miscast will also wreak havoc on these poor greenskins. Even at 2500 points, they are at a serious disadvantage against the point and click armies.

If they started the game at +800 points as someone suggested, they just might pull off a draw, but in order to do so, they would not be allowed all of their casters, they would be limited on their warmachines, and on their Giants, so their optimal build at 2K would not net them many extra points after all, and they would still have no advantage in the end. This is just Greenskins. The Ogres are just as screwed, while all of the mid-tier armies remain mid-tier, and the four at the top remain at the top. what, specifically has anyone accomplished?

Master Stark
09-04-2009, 15:46
I don't even have to read the OPs post to know that I wouldn't play in an event with those rules.

They stink.

Why?

Because they don't let me build the army I want to build. They don't let me use my existing tournament army.

It's not a case of me choosing to bite the bullet and take a score hit because of my army, it's a case of being told I can't bring what I want.

And to boot, I'd bet London to a brick that it will take the 'WAAC' players about ten minutes to figure out the power lists that fit within the above framework, rendering the entire exercise pointless.

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 15:52
briomah, put the gun down mate and come back to the pack......

no need to go postal...

blackjack
09-04-2009, 15:54
Second rule: No more than 1/3 of your points may be spent on Characters.

Virtually impossible for Lizardmen to meet, a single hero on a steg will fill 2/3ds of the point limit.


Also your rules leaves loop holes that Daemons will drive trucks through. big horror blocks with hounds fiends and flamers will rape other armies restricted by these comp rules. Remember Daemons get huge power and dispell dice and powerfull spells from thier horrors as core choices...

Here is a rough Idea what you can get away with.

6 flesh hounds Lead by a khorn herald on a jugger, armor of k, firestorm blade.
6 flesh hounds lead by a khorne herald on jugger, armor of k, fire storm blade, BSB, banner of victory.
1 unit of 6 flamers

2 units of 6 furies
10 horrors
29 horrors with icon of sorc, Champ
10 horrors

Herald of Tz, power vortex.

An army like this will dominate other character restricted armies because It has massive magic superiority due to the fact that it's magic phase is powered by core.

tom1354788
09-04-2009, 16:11
At this point I think its time to admit that this idea was ill concieved, both unfair and unworkable, inefective and illogical, redundant and reprehensable.

its a blight on this forum, this community and to holy mother internet herself.

As well as being a shame on Briomah's family, its a embarresment to his friends and all who know him, and lest we want to debase ourselves further by giving credience to his mad ramblings through further discussion, I for one think that the most humane thing to do would be to provide a "mercy killing" to this topic, a proverbial bullet through the brain of this thoroughly reprehensable thread.

Lets all agree to forget this idea ever came up, wash it from our memories through drink, drugs or lobotomy, (whetever works for you) and go have a nice cup of tea instead!!

In all serious though, thanks Briomah for the idea, but I cant see any "restrictive" comp system ever being widly used, but its nice to see people spend time thinking of ways to improve the tournamenmt scene!

selone
09-04-2009, 17:06
I do applaud you in trying to make a comp system briohmar and yes atm certain armies are more likely to win than others. However I have to agree with W0lf that the best comp systems allow choice but just penalies 'harder' lists. Let it also be said no comp system will please everyone and there will always be harder armies with any comp list, but I do applaud you for trying and I think more discussion is a good, not bad thing.

Zoolander
09-04-2009, 17:56
I really like it as well. In fact, every one of my lists already tries to meet those goals. I fail with my TK, VC, and DoC lists on the character % sometimes but I try, and most of my armies make that. My only suggested change might be the 1/4 on core. Honestly, that number is very low. Every single one of my lists has 25% core if not much more. I would really like to see 50% core as a permanent list requirement, and that alone would end a lot of the problems, but that is just my small, humble opinion. :)

To make a truly fair and balanced comp system, as I've said in the Shimmergloom post, each army should realistically have their own comp system in addition to this. But that's a lot of work.

Gazak Blacktoof
09-04-2009, 18:03
50% of non-character points in core might be feasible, if a bit restirctive. 50% of total points is going to require a reassesment of what counts as core.

Briohmar
09-04-2009, 18:46
Well thank you Tom, The blight on the forum has, I see spawned some children. At least two other discussions have spawned, which is the best that one can hope for. I guess I just long for the good old days when Warhammer was about playing the game to the best of your ability. I think I spend too much time on the boards, as I read everyday how this is broken, that is undercosted, and the other is just wrong. And then you go to the Army list forum, and the very same people are all recommending that every player play exactly the same list, as only the optimal build will win a game. When all tournaments had restrictions, then everyone played with the lower level lists. Now that there is no limits, coupled with power creep and completely unbalanced books, there just is no way to play in a tournament for the fun of playing the game, or for the chance to see how you stack up against other good players.

This is why I am so vocal for this style. I just don't like losing to a list, instead of to a player who defeated me through cunning, guile and above all tactics.

Consider the thread closed.