Re: Let's Talk About Comp as a Community

by Dice_Runt Tue May 10, 2011 9:55 am

The reason why i bring up California is because it is a part of the over all gaming community. I think for atlest Warhammer, not 40k, we should look at what is being done world wide. Hey if your going to use lists found on the net and pull ideas from other forums world wide why not ideas for events. that is all i am saying

Now 40k does have a power curve/sales curve with each new codex. the only time it did not have this is when 3rd was first released and all of the codex was printed in the main book. And you brought codex for fluff and painting. I am looking forward to Junes 40k tournament and checking out the missions that we will be using. My hat is off to max for making each event different thru missions!!! I think that is how 40k is some what balanced when you use missions.

Oh and the current chaos marine book does suck nuts.Then again Deamons and Legions(not released) where going to be allowed to mix with it. Some what like Witch hunters and Deamon hunters where allowed to mix with guard and marines. But at the last moment Deamons were created as a stand alone codex, then Gav thrope left cause of this.

Fuck i miss my old 3.5 book or hell even the 3rd ed book. I missing always get plus one to see who goes first and starting 12 inches way from my opponent. Alpha Legion the only way to say fuck you to a tank heavy army. 80 metla bombs is all i have to say!!!!!!!

Do i think that was a balanced army...hell the fuck no!!! But then again i was not the worst of it. The God books where the most crazy over the top ones there.

I think i went off subject but what ever...lol

by **rokassan** Tue May 10, 2011 1:29 pm

NurgleNick wrote:But does it really change things up?

For example, just because I netted 15 bonus points for comp., doesn't mean I needed those 15 to win. I could have been penalized 40, and still scraped by.

You know what needs to be done to change things up? Different missions, besides the Standard 3. And that's what we've been doing lately, and it pays dividends in the long run, once people realize the Standard 3 isn't in place. When you can no longer bank on your army being good if it can handle the Standard 3 from the BRB, you naturally have to build with flexibility in mind. Of course, there'll always be an army that tables you, because everyone has bad matchups, but the real balancing comes from the missions, and not from penalizing the guy who's smart enough to know that 3 squads of 15 Lootas is a better purchase than FlashGitz and Elite-Choice Nobz.

That's penalizing someone for knowing the difference between a Guinness, and a Natural Ice. That makes no one a better player, and that makes the better player have an easier time winning.

I repeat: If you want to make people change their lists, try using unusual missions, with victory scenarios that require more than brute force to win.

Last time I checked there are several books out there with new missions, Battle Missions, cities of death and planet strike. I agree with Nick. People seem resistant to these expansions. Apparently Nick is all but unbeatable in the standard missions why wouldnt you look for change. Nick you can table Max on a regular basis?

by **rokassan** Tue May 10, 2011 1:34 pm

Who's the sweaty Cop? I did well with the 3.5 Chaos codex. The new one is too static in your options...souless.

by Abaddon Tue May 10, 2011 11:33 pm

The guy with the doughnut stained shirt and the avatar of quite possibly the worst QB that ever played the game.

Of course if he would have stayed in his home state he might have gone on to win at least 4 or 5 Super Bowls with the Defense the Steelers had. Wink

by **rokassan** Wed May 11, 2011 6:37 am

Javier...the Cuban Steelers fan. Who's never lived in Pittsburgh.

by NurgleNick Thu May 12, 2011 2:25 am

This thread is now about football.

by aosol Thu May 12, 2011 11:40 am

1-7 at home. Go Dolphins!

by **rokassan** Thu May 12, 2011 1:00 pm

40k,40k,40k,40k,...is that better?

by NurgleNick Thu May 12, 2011 4:19 pm

Lol!

And no way can I table Max regularly -- we're pretty even. His IG is proving to be an issue for Dark Eldar to crack, though. I don't think comp. would save a tournament from those IG landing in 1st place.

They're a hammer. I definitely think 'Nids who have an easier time, though -- S6 AP5 at BS3 is a lot easier to shrug off for 45 Toughness 6 wounds than it is for AV10 open-topped skimmers.

by chef xenos Thu May 12, 2011 5:55 pm

NurgleNick wrote:

You know what needs to be done to change things up? Different missions, besides the Standard 3. And that's what we've been doing lately, and it pays dividends in the long run, once people realize the Standard 3 isn't in place. When you can no longer bank on your army being good if it can handle the Standard 3 from the BRB, you naturally have to build with flexibility in mind. Of course, there'll always be an army that tables you, because everyone has bad matchups, but the real balancing comes from the missions, and not from penalizing the guy who's smart enough to know that 3 squads of 15 Lootas is a better purchase than FlashGitz and Elite-Choice Nobz.

That's penalizing someone for knowing the difference between a Guinness, and a Natural Ice. That makes no one a better player, and that makes the better player have an easier time winning.

I repeat: If you want to make people change their lists, try using unusual missions, with victory scenarios that require more than brute force to win.

that was what i was trying to do when i ran the tourny and yet people bitched about that too nick

by Kyle Thu May 12, 2011 11:10 pm

Really, who bitched?

The folks on this board seemed fine. The only ones I can imagine whining are those who expect the standard 3 missions just so they can use local events as "training" for the big tounies.

by chef xenos Fri May 13, 2011 1:20 am

i heard a bit of bitching afterward but i'm not gonna bring about names.it was mostly saying how all the missions favored certian armies when i know for a fact it didnt cus i play tested them with almost every race

by NurgleNick Fri May 13, 2011 3:09 am

None of the missions really favored anyone. Your missions were cool, actually.

by **ShadowMaster** Fri May 13, 2011 5:56 am

Kyle wrote:Really, who bitched?

The folks on this board seemed fine. The only ones I can imagine whining are those who expect the standard 3 missions just so they can use local events as "training" for the big tounies.

You'd be surprised at how competitive the 40k group can be on tourney day.

by **Ovich** Fri May 13, 2011 9:27 am

You guys bring up a good point. A tournament organizer can't really win either way. If you try to use comp.. people get upset for all the reasons already mentioned. But when you try to install new and interesting scenarios, people get all pissed about that too. "that scenario favors static armies", " that scenario favors CC armies".. " the scenarios are to complicated, let's just stick to killing the other army " blab blah blah....

But you know what sometimes, people have a point ! I've made up new scenarios for some fantasy tourney's I've run and I can't say they were balanced. It's not like I ever play tested them or tried them out. I just said, hmmm.. this would be cool... it's more interesting than just killing the other guy... let's do it"... but the truth is, yeah, if an organizer is going to make up a bunch of scenarios, they could end up sucking ass and making it unbalanced for certain kinds of armies.

Max and Bill, you remember that tag team fantasy tournament I ran ? The last scenario awarded a good amount of points to however controlled the building in the middle of the board. Well obviously this favored armies like Elves and chaos because of their bad ass infantry. Max had to watch as Sam marched his swordmasters into the building and knew that their would be no way to dislodge them with skeletons or zombies. Game over. That tournament made Max leave warhammer fantasy, which wasn't my intent.

So shit like that happens and then people get pissed and then everyone says..... Ah lets just go back to the standard "kill the other side".

by Kyle Fri May 13, 2011 10:39 am

Then they bitch about the armies being unbalanced instead of the scenarios

by jspyd3rx Fri May 13, 2011 12:51 pm

When the scenarios are put up in advance, there really is no excuse to complain. Max has been good about this and John too. With the missions up early, you have no excuse to not prepare for them. At that point it's a "tough titties" situation.

by Abaddon Fri May 13, 2011 3:48 pm

I am not a big fan of putting up missions ahead of time. Without knowing what missions you are going to have, you force people to make more balanced armies. Besides its more fun when the scenarios are announced before each round.

by Kyle Fri May 13, 2011 6:33 pm

Nothing wrong with posting missions ahead of time, big flames of war events always post up the mission list so players can prepare their lists. Also its bad when you lose a mission because your army was not prepared for a unique situation... it's like if our army did a night mission but forgot to bring in night vision gear.

Having missions posted ahead of time lets people plan ahead and build unique lists for the event instead of cookie cutter all comer lists people make to tackle the basic three missions. If you didn't plan ahead and read the posted mission list, that would be your problem.

by NurgleNick Sat May 14, 2011 1:49 pm

Missions posted ahead of time makes sense to me, too -- people will make army alterations and play outside of the box, and can't really complain that the scenarios "favoured" anyone -- they had as much chance to prepare as anyone else. Heck, even an event as beatface as 'Ard Boyz posts their missions in advance.

by TheLimey Mon May 16, 2011 9:05 am

One fix for scenarios that could be seen to have a bias towards one side of the other is to have victory conditions that balance that out.

Victory conditions don't have to be mirror images of each other. It takes some work to get it 'balanced', but it is possible.

by **The Eldar Guy** Mon May 16, 2011 10:39 am

Normal missions aren't balanced anyway. Troops scoring? Kill points? Just release them ahead of time as previously said.

by TheLimey Mon May 16, 2011 10:45 am

But are the normal missions mirror victory conditions?

by Kyle Mon May 16, 2011 11:00 am

TheLimey wrote:But are the normal missions mirror victory conditions?

Pretty much, which is why they are popular for the hardcore tourny players, as anything that does not have symmetrical or mirrored victory conditions is often cited as "unbalanced". Unique missions often get shit from players as they will blame the mission for their loss Rolling Eyes

by Dice_Runt Mon May 16, 2011 3:22 pm

i think kill points in the dumpest idea for 40k. i believe the old system of points awarded to the player was better. It was more balanced as well.

For i feel the kill point system favors the more ellite armies (space marines)over the more horde like armys (IG)

for example: My space marine army has about 10 possible kill points while my gaurd have like 15 kill points. Yes with the gaurd you can form one big sqaud but that can bite you in the ass. you can still lose it to a sqaud of khorne troop with kharn leading the sqaud

I recall losing a game cause of kill points...i tabled the space marine player but due to the fact that i only got 6 kill points vs him getting 11 of mine. Due to the fact that he had 5 more kill points he won....we both where what the fuck. I still had 5 kill points on the table by the way

by Sponsored content