PDA

View Full Version : Why does all comps score Sucks ?



Akuma
29-05-2008, 10:05
Do thay - is telling you that you must use some guide lines in order to balance things further such a bad idea ? do you use some ? have beeing using or simply dispise of such idea ?

post here

Ganymede
29-05-2008, 13:27
Personally, I prefer systems that penalise the placement for overblown armies as opposed to systems that limit army design. People spend lots of time, cash, and effort to build their armies and I would be loathe to tell them that they couldn't field their models that are normally legal. On the other hand, I would gladly penalise their overall score for such an army.

lilljonas
29-05-2008, 13:45
Do thay - is telling you that you must use some guide lines in order to balance things further such a bad idea ? do you use some ? have beeing using or simply dispise of such idea ?

post here

The weakness of arbitrary guidelines is that they always hurt some army lists worse than others. No matter how you do it, some armies are better fit to manage with the restrictions than others. Further limiting special and rare choices, something a lot of comp systems do, will hurt armies with crappy cores while brets will happily keep lancing away, etc. It'll never be "fair", something that is usually the pursuit of those making comp systems, as it often introduces new imbalances while stopping old imbalances.

A peer based comp sounds better in theory, but then a lot of people have irrational fear of some units/combinations/entire armies, that makes these comps ripe for misuse too.

ZeroTwentythree
29-05-2008, 14:12
I agree with pretty much everything lilljonas has said.

I'm not terribly fond of most comp systems, either peer judged or the ones based on some set of "comp rules" applying universally.

Like many other people, I'm not fond of facing gunlines, multi-STanks, or certain other types of armies. But:

a) Not everybody likes or dislikes the same type of gameplay.
b) Attempting to limit even a few select army builds inevitably ends up penalizing many many other (frequently reasonable) army builds.

BloodiedSword
29-05-2008, 15:35
Well, obviously composition scores are meaningless in friendly games - (what are you going to do, "Well that was a fun game but you broke composition so therefore you lose at having fun"?).

That only leaves unfriendly games, where the aim is to achieve some kind of astral balance between the forces that just doesn't exist when every unit has a fixed points cost.

E.g. 1 Empire Crossbowman vs 1 WE Wardancer at 30" distance - clearly the Crossbowman will win most of the time, therefore should be worth more points.

40 Empire Crossbowmen in 1 unit vs 40 WE Wardancers in 1 unit at 30" distance - this time you expect the Wardancers to win most of the time, and therefore the Wardancers should be worth more points.

What about Dispel scrolls/dice? Usually these are some of the most valuable items in the game, but against certain armies are worthless. Or how about light scouting troops that are worth their weight in gold against armies like Chaos, but a waste of time against say Undead or Lizardmen?

Never mind the fact that how valuable units are depends massively on what other units are taken in the army. There's just no way to balance every unit against every other unit in every quantity, and that is where the bulk of imbalance in WH comes from IMO.

Trying to fix this by adding composition scores is like trying fix a broken table at a restaurant by propping it up with people's food - you look stupid, the table is still broken, and everyone is pissed at you because you ruined their food.

EDIT: Yes, in this analogy, people would rather eat their food (play games of Warhammer) on the broken table (the current imperfect rules) than have some meddling third party **** all over everything.

EvC
29-05-2008, 15:41
They're very silly, and almost always have dumb loopholes. I was reading the comp scoring on a tournment a guy from Carpe Noctem attended... loads of thought had been put into it, to stop really silly armies. Stuff like bonus points for having just one spellcaster. Except that special characters were allowed. So a Teclis army? Great? Lord Kroak? Even better! Thorek? Why not! The player himself took Mannfred von Carstein (fully tooled) and Konrad von Carstein, plus just as much core as was needed, and got he highest score. And every army he played was still cheesed up, only in a different way. All that effort, and all they achieved was shifting the goalposts.

SPYDER68
29-05-2008, 15:50
Somone giving an army comp rating to someone is the stupidist thing to have in a tourney, youll have sore people who are... I dont like VC im giving you a low comp score since i think that army is cheesy.

BloodiedSword
29-05-2008, 15:52
What EvC said. Furthermore, even if you do somehow create a composition system that cuts out all "cheesy" armies, what you will inevitably be left with is a system where there is so little variation in what is actually legal that, even if it is balanced, it will be boring as hell to play.

It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

SPYDER68
29-05-2008, 16:04
Composition wouldnt be a bad thing, like must have 40% troops at least then a max on Hq's etc.

But then armies like high elves with their blocks of first strike spearmen that fight in 3 ranks would own people even more along with other units in the game.

Tarian
29-05-2008, 17:11
Composition wouldnt be a bad thing, like must have 40% troops at least then a max on Hq's etc.

But then armies like high elves with their blocks of first strike spearmen that fight in 3 ranks would own people even more along with other units in the game.

Off topic, but why do people hate HE spears so much? Against anything even remotely hard, they'll bounce off with their lousy S3 hits.

Back on topic, I think that composition has to come from the player base, not from moderators. If there's a rule set, there will be people finding holes and trying to break it.

Running a mini-campaign with restrictions proved to be a pain for composition... and there were only 250 pts!

winkypinky
29-05-2008, 20:49
I am of the oppinion that they are one of the worst ideas ever.
(In tournaments, and I hate comp scores even more)

They just create a different set of rules to power play under. The good (power, in your oppinion) gamers wil just make the most powerfull lists they can under the new rules.
This also leads to that normal players can not predict in any way what the "power" lists at the tournament will be. Since its a lot harder to predict what that will be good unless you but some testing into it and think about the new possibilities of the restrictions. And find out which armies they hinder the most and which armies they leave virtually unaffected, and there will always be some. And then you are almost 95% of the way to being a good (power again in your oppinion) gamer. (If you tailor your list after the new enviorment.)

winkypinky
29-05-2008, 20:51
But then armies like high elves with their blocks of first strike spearmen that fight in 3 ranks would own people even more along with other units in the game.

The day that you make your first flank charge, you will realise how wrong what you just said was.

Durloth
29-05-2008, 21:00
I really like comp. Of course there`s always loopholes and ways to abuse it, but it (coupled with different scenarios) keeps armies varied and removes some of the most extreme ones. The most usual comp-system here in Norway is max 9 PD, max two of the same special-choice and no duplicate rares. No named caracters and no DoW unless the army fielded is a pure DoW army.

I`ve found that I usually have more fun at turneys with these (or other kinds of) restrictions than at the ones without.

EvC
30-05-2008, 00:00
Composition wouldnt be a bad thing, like must have 40% troops at least then a max on Hq's etc.

Then Lizardmen players just bring 80 Skinks along... as I said, it's shifting the boundaries, but not limiting the cheese.

Kahadras
30-05-2008, 00:12
Comp is a waste of time IMHO. The idea of a tournmament is to win and as poeple have pointed out different people have different views on composition making it hard to create a balanced and fair system. Better to just drop the whole idea and ignore competitive tournaments if you don't particularly want to come first.

A 'meet and play' idea might be a good way to offer a 'tournament style' situation for people who are more interested in background and compersition. No awards, no leader board, no first place, simply come along and get matched up with people you've never played before and just have a relaxed game.

Kahadras

Gralph!?!
30-05-2008, 00:21
the way i see it, i would have a look at how balanced an army book is, then figure out what is the average amount of points spent in certain armies then figure out hw to point it then stick into an excel sheet or something stating how many points each thing costs (so total characters cost, total core costs, total specials and total rare. then according tosaid study then it will give you the score but that is a pretty tall order but it is a good way to do it as it will allow you to check the list to make sure it is legal and also give it a good comp score.

lilljonas
30-05-2008, 00:38
I really like comp. Of course there`s always loopholes and ways to abuse it, but it (coupled with different scenarios) keeps armies varied and removes some of the most extreme ones. The most usual comp-system here in Norway is max 9 PD, max two of the same special-choice and no duplicate rares. No named caracters and no DoW unless the army fielded is a pure DoW army.

I`ve found that I usually have more fun at turneys with these (or other kinds of) restrictions than at the ones without.

There is a very good lesson in this: comp is more reasonable the less rules there are. Sometimes I see these lists with a couple of dozen rules trying to cover EVERYTHING, only providing more loopholes. They also become more and more unfair, especially when things like percentages spent on heroes, specials and such enters play. An Empire player can cruise by strict point limits on heroes, but how do other armies cope? It just comes off as OCD and you can often see the creator's personal bias shining through like a frickin' lighthouse. "I hate bretonnian lances so my superb and fair comp rules will completely cripple them! Moahahaha!"

Finnigan2004
30-05-2008, 02:23
Then Lizardmen players just bring 80 Skinks along... as I said, it's shifting the boundaries, but not limiting the cheese.

Or dropping down 6 lances of Brettonian knights (gotta love having both knights errant and knights of the realm in core).

The problem with comp is that I have never seen an objective system that balanced any better than the regular game. I have never seen a subjective system that ended up coming out fair to all armies and having all players walk away happy.

If it doesn't balance, that means that it's just an attempt by people to have others play the game "their way". This is fine, if you want to have a tournament with some like minded friends, but I know that I have stayed away from tournaments that have extremely tough comp scores. This is not because I like particularly cheesy armies, it's because I have no time for the politicking, whining, and complaining that too often accompany such tournies.