BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21
    Librarian
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lantzkev View Post
    Going to speak just to the tau side of things...

    lol on the "named forgeworld riptides" none are named. If you mean the riptide variants... meh calling em 3 pts is ridiculous, likewise assigning ANY point value to broadsides is idiotic. Actually this whole point system for stuff is just ridiculous.

    Hell the points for void shields and sky ray is just silly, "hey I hate armies that need a gunline to have protection, I'll do something to help nerf that"
    Limiting Dreadknights? what is this sillyness.

    The whole thing just strikes me as an overcomplicated rational to list comp, when you can just simply say "none of this, or max of this"

    Keep it simple, just say what you don't want to see spammed and go on. If you think having kaldor and three dreadknights is too much, just limit it rather than this point system of "well you can take three dreadknights, but you can't then take anything else, even a champ that's your chapters go to main man of doom"
    Just telling your players for your tournament, "don't spam" will only generate questions. Tournament players need things spelled out for them so they know what's OK and what's not OK before they dump a bunch of cash on new models to pwn the scene. Having a points system like this will help that, but I think it needs to be a bit more exhaustive, and with more playtesting involved.

    Honestly, I'd think a lot could be solved if the FOC chart was changed to 2 HQ, 4 Troops, 2 Elites, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support. You then can spend a 'point' to extend one of those slots to it's full capacity (like spend a point to get 3 Heavy Support), though these points are calculated at the end and make up part of your comp score.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrBored View Post
    Just telling your players for your tournament, "don't spam" will only generate questions. Tournament players need things spelled out for them so they know what's OK and what's not OK before they dump a bunch of cash on new models to pwn the scene. Having a points system like this will help that, but I think it needs to be a bit more exhaustive, and with more playtesting involved.

    Honestly, I'd think a lot could be solved if the FOC chart was changed to 2 HQ, 4 Troops, 2 Elites, 2 Fast Attack, 2 Heavy Support. You then can spend a 'point' to extend one of those slots to it's full capacity (like spend a point to get 3 Heavy Support), though these points are calculated at the end and make up part of your comp score.
    You'll find more milage in my opinion taking a few key elements of rules that make things ridiculous and altering it, IE change invisibility to allow flamer templates to hit... or barrage weapons that don't need los or whatever you find you prefer.

    Limiting force org is another way too, although I suggest to be careful with that, alot of armies can get great milage out of a CAD detachment, but others at certain points find themselves wasting points on worthless crap, because they have no other options to spend points on.

  3. #23
    First-Captain
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    The North, UK
    Posts
    1,627

    Default

    Competitive players want systems that can be abused because they they can abuse the system and not be called out on it.

    Asking them to be decent human beings and not dickheads is the key. If anyone doesn't like it, they can find another game to play. The rule book supports this.

  4. #24
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Undertaking private security operations somewhere in the Human Sphere
    Posts
    5,884

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Path Walker View Post
    Competitive players want systems that can be abused because they they can abuse the system and not be called out on it.

    Asking them to be decent human beings and not dickheads is the key. If anyone doesn't like it, they can find another game to play. The rule book supports this.



    For those actually interested in finding out what a comp system looks like (one that is both extensively playtested and updated)

    Please feel free to read the australian version here

    [url]http://www.australasianteamchallenge.com/Other/CompSystemWarhammer40k.pdf[/url]

    Mission Statement
    Comp carries with it several systemic problems that cause quite a lot of aggravation within the 40k
    community.
    The three main problems we have identified are as follows.

    1. Weather its Panel or Peer comp, judges will sometimes get it wrong. Players get annoyed when
    try their best to make fair lists to play at a comp event and get stung unreasonably on comp.

    2. Panel, Peer and even the comp system that follows are unavoidably subjective.
    Our opinions of how good or bad units or lists are can only be based on our own experiences
    which differ sometimes greatly between person to person.

    3. Because of both of these phenomenon, it can be nearly impossible for players to guess what
    their comp score will be. Very often players give up on trying to make balanced and fair lists
    because of this and will sometimes instead bring a list far too hard for a comp event.
    Unfortunately the player that plays balanced list feels like a sucker when they don't get a decent
    comp score and get trampled by one of these hard lists all the same.

    The aim of this system is to remove the guessing game about comp by making everything as
    transparent as possible. That way there will be no nasty surprises at the end of the event to upset people
    and hopefully players wont give up on building fair and balanced comp armies.
    We cant ever get rid of the subjectivity of comp but we can minimize it by tapping into the experience
    and opinions of the best cross section of the community as we can.
    A small committee will take feedback from the community to help guide their decisions on how best to
    tweak the system every few months and after every new release. This will serve to keep the system
    current and hopefully over time slowly improve to better balance the meta.
    Simplicity is important so that the system remains easy to use and easy to identify if a player has made
    a mistake. For this reason we will endeavor to keep the number of rules to a minimum.
    Our consortium will host tournaments using this system and we are happy for you to use it for your
    own tournaments if you wish.

    We ask only that you give us feedback on how the system functioned at your event so that we can use
    that information for continued improvements.

    Thank you.
    yup, THOSE guys are really just trying to rofl stomp newbs so or some stupid **** right pathwalker you septic sack o ****
    Last edited by daboarder; 03-13-2015 at 04:02 PM.
    Morbid Angels:http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?7100-Morbid-angel-WIP
    I probably come across as a bit of an ***, don't worry I just cannot abide stupid.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •