Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
This system looks fantastic! I'm very impressed and think this should be the future of 40k tournaments. GW's models and fluff are outstanding, but their codices have reached a point where the community have to come together and impose limitations.

Keep it up! :good:

edit: So the cumulative points system... if a land raider is 1 credit C2 then the first LR costs 1 credit, and the second costs 2 credits (1 X 2) for 3 credits total?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
its not 1x2 for cumulative its 1+2. the third one is 1+2+2

4th is 1+2+2+2 etc etc.



Hey are the comp rules going to be made into an excellent sheet or an app?
Great question.

We have a very skilled Web designer on our team who has grand plans of a Battle scribe type app. but a first step will be an online army building program that lets you write in your army with all the resources at your finger tips. you can submit your list online to your tournament organiser if they have registered thier event with us.

We dont just offer a comp system, handy cheat sheets, army list templates etc. We are about to release a full tournament organisers pack which is quite literally a basic shell for a players pack, mission pack, comp system, Score calculation system for runnning things on the day, score sheet proformers to be printed etc. Just everything a TO needs to run an event and all they have to do is fill in the blanks.
We offer the service to check over everyones lists to make sure they have the right comp scores calculated etc which saves TOS further time. The thing we get out of this deal is all the data from thier event. This means all the army lists, the final standings and all the round scores so we can analyse it using our handy dandy statistical tools and better improve the system.

Were always looking for new people to help out as well. There is a list as long as my arm of things to do, its an embarrassingly large ammount of work to get it to this point and maintain it. I have become quite obsessed lol.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,830 Posts
That you have tournament winning lists is simply changing the goalposts on a meta. I understand the sentiment, but having a rapidly changing meta doesn't actually balance a game, it just prevents people from gaming a system with experience too much. It's just another factor to take into account that they're having to juggle power over cost.

Something that's ironically the most important thing to tournament players.



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Vaz we arent rapidly changing the metagame and this system does not just move the goal posts. That idea is a common one that people notice when they are first introduced to the system.


We define a balanced metagame as one where all codexes can be used to make competitive armies and there is many possible competitive armies.
In addition the "best army" in a ballanced metagame is not very much more powerful than "second teir armies".

What Community comp does is lower the power level of the format enough that all codexes can make multiple competitive armies and it specifically targets powerfull builds and combinations so that the best army/s are not very much more powerfull than second teir armies.

This is different to say a highlander system where they Change the meta game rather than lowering the power level generally.
When doing this they aim at the more powerfull armies but in doing so they wound second teir armeis as well. in these systems the best army is still far more powerfull than second teir armies, they are just all different armies.


You must understand, i am "that guy" and so are most of the people on the community comp pannel. Breaking systems is what we do, we enjoy it and were good at it.
Myself i have been getting away with murder under the pannel comp system for years now. We made this system because we are watching 40k generally take a nose dive because of the series of massive mistakes GW have been making. players are leaving for x wing in droves and tournament attendance is dropping to the point where in several states in Australia (where im from) events arent even running.

We made this system to Fix whats wrong with 40k. They do everything right exept accurately written rules and ballance.
This system provides ballance not just a different metagame and it does this in part by providing a deliberately engineered "sweet spot" in the system.
I dont care who knows it because it doesnt change the systems efficacy but f you spend 5 or 6 credits you have the best chance to win a tournament. You get the most comp points for your army and the good players who try and win notice this.
Across the board the best players are playing 5s and 6s which is the softer end of the scale. We suggest that all players use an army that spends between 8 and 12 so the average player ends up with an army thats in fact inhearently more powerfull than the top players are using.

This contrbutes significantly to the effect i mentioned earlier where a newer or less capable general meets thier opponent on the table and can look across the board and think to themselves "well this might be a hard game, but i know i can deal with those units, That unit might be a bit scary but if i do x/y or z i can probbaly bring it down eventually and if i play well and get a bit lucky i might win"

thats what were looking for because thats when newer players have fun and are enticed to come back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
I think I was negatively impressed, but the more i look at the file, the more it grows on me. Still, it has its bad.spots, but i think it's better than the LVO tourney rules...also better than many other events...
Anyway i think that (just like Vaz said) most of the "balacing" comes from changing the meta, not with unit restriction but basically giving certain units an handicap in tourney points ('cause in the end, it's what the system does). Still, a better solution than most to "competitify" (it's not an actual word...) a "beer and pretzel" game system, where "that guy" shouldn't even be allowed to get near the table. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
I will..in some days :)
Real life is somewhat bitchy...

EDIT: i could begin with my CSM point of view. I feel that some units have been highly priced due to the possible abuse they imply, like Nurgle Spawns and Obliterators. However, those high pricings feels "in a vacuum" because the steep price for 3 nurgle obliterators (5 points!) is ridiculous, compared to what 5 points can buy in the same system. Also, nurgle oblits can be good, but should be taken in context. Example: they should cost more if deployed with fearless characters or if you include in your army a divination source. 3 oblits can be multiplied even with the presence of any fortification. I know, you already pay for the fort. or the divinator, but..a divinator with 3 common obliterators in to a fortification will cost waay less than said obliterators with MoNurgle... however, the divinator and oblits in fort. can be way more dangerous than the marked oblits.
This is just an example to say that even comcomp has its shenanigans and thus, partially, is just changing the meta.
Moreover, Havocs as C1...strongly disagree. Should be ruled that only certain equipment cause them to be C1 ( i guess massed autocannon is the problem here) but trust me, handycapping Havocs with plasmaguns in rhino...is truly unfair :)
Then, the +1 tax for each 55 models, is ok for some armies but not for others. I understand it's a way to keep people from spamming models, but since you already cover that in a precise way for each army (orks hordes are at a premius as do IG blobs...) why penalize even those who try to build an army tah can work with just some more models? You can't really compare 55 cultists (+1) to 55 boyz (at a +2 IIRC). Cultists should be +0 and then Ork boyz could be good at +2. Maybe i am wrong with some calculations here (and thius my reasoning is moot), please point that out if so.
Again i think you should penalize absurde power creeping alliances. Tau + Tyranids? power creep. CSM + knights? power creep. Eldar + Tau.. etc etc etc.. namely the two last level of alliance should be penalized. And this WILL penalize some armies more than others (xeno, more than imperium) but i've seen lots of absurde necron + orks, tau + tyranids and so on lists, used to abuse "that" OP unit. Also, more than 1 CAD should come at a premium. Who relies on the basics, should be rewarded. All this new "decurion" type of list, really make a dent in your system. But even Alliance and Dual CAD can be crippling, imo, when it comes to list balance.
So, maybe, dual cad +0.5 , Alliance +0.5 to +1.5, decurion type detachment from 0.5 to 2.0...just throwing numbers around to express an idea, if you understand what i mean.
Sorry, but my english is not perfect...can't express proper toughts besides kinky and creepy ones...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
Nurgle oblits are actually 2 credits for a unit of 3 actually. maybe ill have to have another look at the table and see if i can clarify it some more.

You actually have limited detachment options in CC. You will notice there is a page for detachemts which details it.
you cant have double CAD and we are debating now making the decurion style detachment take up all your detachments which will probably change in the next update in june.

The 55 models rule like all the rules there has a specific purpose. Marine equivilent armies rarely trigger 55 models and when they do its by a few models and they can almost always make a small tweak to dodge it.
horde armies find themselves making a small tweak around 110 models.
essentially what this rule does is to provide a soft pressure for armies to think about thier model count which helps to curb model spam a little.
It seems like a meaninless rule now but when and if you start making lists in the system it will make sense.

I havent figured out a way to make the system look like it works on first impressions but i think its actually a sign that its been done right.
So often these systems look snazzy in the begginning but it ends up being crap when you use it. This is kind of the opposite, looks like its full of holes now but when you use it you find out it is pretty solid
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
Nurgle oblits are actually 2 credits for a unit of 3 actually. maybe ill have to have another look at the table and see if i can clarify it some more.
mmh, i was reading the table in a stupid way it seems. My bad! Anyway, a personla feeling is that you should not tax the number of oblits, but the number of units. 3 single oblits are WAY more powerful than an unit of three (being forced to use all the same weapons, not being fearless, not benefiting from MSU etc.)

You actually have limited detachment options in CC. You will notice there is a page for detachemts which details it.
you cant have double CAD and we are debating now making the decurion style detachment take up all your detachments which will probably change in the next update in june.
Eh, i misreaded the Detachment explanations. Maybe you could make it a bit more "idiot-proof" (such as me :) ) with some examples. It means i can take 1 CAD, 1 Formation and 1 "small codex" formation? So, CSM CAD , Allied daemon and Helcult formation?

Great to hear you are working on "decurion style" shit. i'm curoius about the outcome...

Anyway, my point on penalizing extra-single CAD choices stand.

Also, thanks for the patience! Thats makes you credit!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
The tyranid limitation on shrikes and raveners seems a bit odd to me. Shrikes are okay and raveners are quite a weak unit so it seems strange to penalise someone taking lots of either type. I understand the credits you pay for even a large number of either creature is quite low, but I can't see the logic in taxing them at all.

mmh, i was reading the table in a stupid way it seems. My bad! Anyway, a personla feeling is that you should not tax the number of oblits, but the number of units. 3 single oblits are WAY more powerful than an unit of three (being forced to use all the same weapons, not being fearless, not benefiting from MSU etc.)
But by taking three singles you are using all heavy slots, so you're already limiting yourself in that sense. I really like the CSM limitations
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
One thing people have trouble with in the beginning is the concept of spending credits.
Everyone will spend some credits, we suggest between 8 and 12 on average for middle of the road armies.
Dont see a credit as a punitive measure, when you pay credits remember all the units your NOT paying for.

Also remember that these are targeted solutions for specific problem armies.
If you were to take a bunch of shrikes what you do is bring reasonably tough, fast combat units to the table. If an opponent has a ballanced army they are unlikley to have enough shooting to take out 36 wounds worth in the early part of the game so they are likley to make combat with still quite a few models and they have sucked all the shooting away from other targets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Hi All, another one of those "haven't posted over here in ages" fellas from Australia :)

I am one of the members of the Community Comp Team, and I can say with confidence that this system works. We spend a lot of time looking over what kind of lists are going to events, not to necessarily see who is winning the events, but to gauge a strength of lists in attendance. This is not just community comp events, some TO's who are running their own format (panel comp, peer comp, no comp, etc.) are letting us see the lists in attendance. From this we get to see the little 'tricks' that people use to get around certain credits. Some of these are really nifty and don't deserve to be 'hit', others we look at and decide it is worth re-evaluating a rule.
I find the best thing to do to learn how to use it, is simply grab your existing lists, so the last list you took to an event, and plug it through the system (if you want to post them either here, or over on our facebook page/forum/etc.) we are happy to take note. Offer ways of skimming a few credits with minimal tweaks, or alternatively taking the feedback on board and potentially making changes.
This system has been successful due to the number of people providing feedback. So for those who are pessimistic, write a list, see if you think it gets the score you think it deserves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
pretty much. But it is more than just a handicap. It puts restrictions on the 'top level' of the list. So the lists that just straight up smash face (we all know they exist) aren't allowed in the 'Standard' credit limit of 20 Credits. Basically the more credits you spend, the less of the Composition Score/Handicap the player receives.

It is designed to encourage players who are there to win the event to take 'medium strength' lists. Without stopping the people who are there just to have fun taking the list they want (unless it is just to heinous to see on the other side of the table).

Australia has had what we call a 'Panel Comp' system for years. So the army list gets submitted to an event organiser and they get a group of players to rate the list out of a number (usually 5). Community Comp as a system takes away the individual comp judges bias, as the scores are calculate with a team of 15+ people, of which we get community feedback on the numbers to make sure we are on the money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts
But by taking three singles you are using all heavy slots, so you're already limiting yourself in that sense. I really like the CSM limitations
True indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,694 Posts


This army is 7 points under comcomp system. This is ridiculous.
Any chance this will be fixed? (whit centurion formations, of course)
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top