Page 3 of 4

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:48 pm
by Inquisitor_Malice
Again, as with all systems - comp just readjusts the balance of power. It's a failed system and they will continue to fail simply because of that fact.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:07 pm
by doc
Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Again, as with all systems - comp just readjusts the balance of power. It's a failed system and they will continue to fail simply because of that fact.

I have to disagree somewhat.
Comp enourages "balance" in the army - it does not force or readadjust it.
Composition, like Painting, should be used to recognize the part of the HOBBY that is background related. Would you suggest taking painting scores out like the UK has?
Not having composition, or painting, does a disservice to the richness of the 40K universe.
As with all soft scoring, you can chosse NOT to participate in that function and go with the WAAC (or bring a 3-colour army) combination. That is fine - that is what the Best General Award is for.

In the past 3 years (and I blame Ard Boyz squarely for this) we (the gaming community) have moved away from the fun aspect of our hobby (painting, collecting, reading, writing) and we now emphasize the winning over everything else. Hell, Sportsmanship has even been down graded to a monkey checklist!

I think AdeptiCon could take the lead in bring balance back.

Unless the "powers that be" at GW "make" you go the UK way next year to qualify to be on the Circuit.....

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 2:13 pm
by Elthniar
doc wrote:I have to disagree somewhat.
Comp enourages "balance" in the army - it does not force or readadjust it.
Composition, like Painting, should be used to recognize the part of the HOBBY that is background related. Would you suggest taking painting scores out like the UK has?
Not having composition, or painting, does a disservice to the richness of the 40K universe.
As with all soft scoring, you can chosse NOT to participate in that function and go with the WAAC (or bring a 3-colour army) combination. That is fine - that is what the Best General Award is for.

In the past 3 years (and I blame Ard Boyz squarely for this) we (the gaming community) have moved away from the fun aspect of our hobby (painting, collecting, reading, writing) and we now emphasize the winning over everything else. Hell, Sportsmanship has even been down graded to a monkey checklist!

I think AdeptiCon could take the lead in bring balance back.

Unless the "powers that be" at GW "make" you go the UK way next year to qualify to be on the Circuit.....


I am going to agree with the good doc here. Playing an army that is consistent with the established background is as essential a part of the hobby as painting or conversions or anything else. Will I complain if comp is removed? Probably not, it wouldn't be worth my time. Is the current system flawed? You bet it is. But that does not mean that army composition is not a part of the hobby. The Gladiator and "Ard Boyz exist for a reason, let's not let the Team Tournament and Championships become the same thing.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:11 pm
by Turtle
but who's to say that what somebody brings isn't part of the fluff and flavor of the universe?

I can see an ork warboss and his 2 bodyguards full of ork nobz (after all who better to guard a warboss than nobz) all on bikes, cause if the warboss is on a bike how else are the nobz going to keep up and if he gets a big noisy bike that goes fast then i'm pretty sure the nobz will want one too. I'm pretty sure each nob is going to have different weapons and gear too, since there will individual preferences on how to kill things,and maybe gear is hard to come by, one nob may like a big smashy claw while another may like a snazzy gun that makes lots of noise, while another may like to club people with a banner pole dedicated to his gods.

and how else are the boyz going to keep up with the nobz and boss, well i guess they have to ride in trukks or battlewagons otherwise the killing will be over before they have a chance to get there, and if their boss and nobz tell them to go faster who are they to argue?


Or maybe some great chaos lord in the eye of terror, has decreed that his war coven of sorcerers go to battle. and to bless the event they have made sacrifices to the great god slaanesh, who in his infinite mercy has granted favors and power to the sorcerer coven in the form of psychic abilities, and slaanash has decreed that they go out and make every one submit to his will. ie lash of submission

problem with people crying foul at this not following the fluff or that not following the fluff, is that the person who's using nob bikers or dual lash is just not following THEIR fluff, you can come up with any sort of fluff reason for any combination of units abilities or powers, because in the end everything in a codex IS fluffy or it wouldn't be in the game

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:26 pm
by doc
Turtle wrote:because in the end everything in a codex IS fluffy or it wouldn't be in the game


you include C'tan in that assessment? :P

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 4:31 pm
by Turtle
yep, I do include c'tan in that assessment since they are the gods of a particular race, and as is their right as gods they choos to take a more personal role in their races affairs. Instead of a more indirect role like the chaos gods do, since the chaos gods just give out thier power to people willy nilly. the necron gods like to take a first hand approach.

How could you even consider c'tan unfluffy? they are the necron gods, they have their place in the story of the necrons, and in the 40k universe, just because what they do on the table some might consider unfair doesn't make them any less fluffy, than something else.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:11 pm
by doc
they are fluffy - but so is the Emperor, Horus, Custodies, Sanguinius, Guilliman, Exterminatus, Gork, Mork, gargants, Craftworlds.... [long list of non-gaming entries in the books]
Does not mean they really have a place on the table-top!
GW stepped on "the" line with C'tan IMHO.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 5:45 pm
by Turtle
so how does the fact that gw doesn't make models and rules for every single character or object or vehicle in the universe make c'tan any less fluffy and relate to comp?

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:54 pm
by Generalissimo_Fred
doc wrote:they are fluffy - but so is the Emperor, Horus, Custodies, Sanguinius, Guilliman, Exterminatus, Gork, Mork, gargants, Craftworlds.... [long list of non-gaming entries in the books]
Does not mean they really have a place on the table-top!
GW stepped on "the" line with C'tan IMHO.



Wait a minute. The Nightbringer is all over the fluff and is sitting with Necrons on a temple as they slaughter IG in a picture in their codex. In one breath you say the army must be in the book and in another you say the unit, pictured in the book with an army, is not fluffy? Let's leave it alone that C'Tan are extremely expensive, don't help Necrons survive a phase out (easiest way to kill a Necron army) and rather simple to kill by most armies.

Please I want someone to give me a specific set of Comp rules we can follow. Don't tell us to put comp in a tournament unless you also tell us how to do it. Give us the rules. I dare anyone to tell us because there is no comp system in the world that can't be broken. Never was and never will be. Tell us the system, please.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:01 pm
by Generalissimo_Fred
and this is from someone who would love to see a comp system that is fair. I wouuld love to force the potential enemy lists into a tight package to eliminate the variables I might face in a tournament. It might be a nefarious reason, but I'd still like a comp system.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:14 pm
by Generalissimo_Fred
Generalissimo_Fred wrote:
doc wrote:they are fluffy - but so is the Emperor, Horus, Custodies, Sanguinius, Guilliman, Exterminatus, Gork, Mork, gargants, Craftworlds.... [long list of non-gaming entries in the books]
Does not mean they really have a place on the table-top!
GW stepped on "the" line with C'tan IMHO.



Wait a minute. The Nightbringer is all over the fluff and is sitting with Necrons on a temple as they slaughter IG in a picture in their codex. In one breath you say the army must be in the book and in another you say the unit, pictured in the book with an army, is not fluffy? Let's leave it alone that C'Tan are extremely expensive, don't help Necrons survive a phase out (easiest way to kill a Necron army) and rather simple to kill by most armies.

Please I want someone to give me a specific set of Comp rules we can follow. Don't tell us to put comp in a tournament unless you also tell us how to do it. Give us the rules. I dare anyone to tell us because there is no comp system in the world that can't be broken. Never was and never will be. Tell us the system, please.



Can I quote myself? I just did. :shock:

I saw the comp system you mentioned in the other thread and responded in there.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:15 pm
by doc
Generalissimo_Fred wrote: Wait a minute. The Nightbringer is all over the fluff and is sitting with Necrons on a temple as they slaughter IG in a picture in their codex. In one breath you say the army must be in the book and in another you say the unit, pictured in the book with an army, is not fluffy?


No!
I'm saying those uber-units have a place in the fluff hut not on the table.

Please I want someone to give me a specific set of Comp rules we can follow. Don't tell us to put comp in a tournament unless you also tell us how to do it. Give us the rules. I dare anyone to tell us because there is no comp system in the world that can't be broken. Never was and never will be. Tell us the system, please.


I'd love to see it too - there are a few out there, but none are perfect.

It also comes down to player mentality. Are we into winning (AAC) - or are we embracing the hobby?

Don't put all the blame on the system/organizers, players also have to take their share of it!

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 8:44 pm
by Generalissimo_Fred
Ah the 'hobby' argument. It implies the true 'hobbiest' is one who paints, plays nice and takes depowered units. When there are many, many, many 'hobbiest' who paint great, play very nice and still take powerful combinations on the tabletop. We argue that we are the true 'hobbiest' since we embrace all three phases of the game. Painting, Sportsmanship and Battle, the three catagories of all tournaments. We don't only do 2 out of 3.

As for the C'Tan. One mans uber-unit is another mans expensive, weak unit which leads to defeat more often than not. That distinction is what is argued and why any comp system is inherently flawed.

I'm still looking for a good comp system though, thanks for the Astro comp system. It is very interesting.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:46 pm
by doc
Generalissimo_Fred wrote:Ah the 'hobby' argument. It implies the true 'hobbiest' is one who paints, plays nice and takes depowered units.


I find the power gamers make this argument the most! :wink:
I'll give you an example that "proves" the counter to thsi point - Mr Parker. Paints well, plays fair, has fun (he was laughing at getting tabled - twice IIRC - anyway!) but build HARD armies.

So no, "hobbiests" don't have to bring under powered armies....

PostPosted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:51 pm
by Huoshini
Serious suggestion INC:


With both points being valid, eliminating comp and supporting it, why don't we simply make everyone happy. We could keep the army comp for your opponent but we only limit it to a small amount of points.

1 Point- Your opponents army was over 9000-tarded

2 Points- Your opponent played a fair and competative army without going over the top

3-Points- Fluffy AND I stomped the crap out of it. This is the best army comp ever.



Now with such a large amount of points in the adepticon system, I'm sure that a possible 9 or 12 for some tourneys won't make a gigantic gouge in your total (like 1-25) nor will it set you over so many that have done just as well as you in the tournament. It's so few points that it MAY make a diffrence when it comes to the wire and thats pretty much it.


Take it or leave it :P