Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
the uk gt this year went for total placings this year decided by generalship scores only. However some tourneys use composition scores, or strict composition guidelines that people must adhere to.

i can see the appeal in both systems in theory however my personal prefernce is for generalship i.e. winning games to take precedent.

My reasonings:
Giving armies a composition score is always going to be subjective. No matter how fair minded the judge of such a score thinks they are, it still mearly comes down that persons opinion. One player might like the idea of an all ranger/sniper army with eldar, whilst another would find that too be imbalanced. How many warlocks are unbalanced? where is the cut off? Does having Fear of the darkness on a libby mean the player should get points deducted, or only if they also have a bike or droppod into battle.
Along the same line of reasoning, giving a change to the actual composition that an army must forfill in order to legally compete, mearly changes the perameters within which an army can seem to be abused/powergamed etc... If for example you say an army must have 40% troops then armies with better troop choices mearly become more powerful. Whilst an army that wasn't broken in anyway but mearly themed could in theory become unuseable. Again list composition would then realistically have just changed a bit and it would still become for some, an attempt to break the parameters of the new rules.

On the other end of the scale though, i find it annoying that someone with little skill can take a "powerlist" and do well, or at least qualify. Secondly with new composition rules in place people do have to make there own list, rather than just copy a "Weblist"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Being in the U.S., I've played with army comp for years now. The current ruling isn't so bad that we've gotten. The biggest problem that really comes up is when a few people start purposefully zeroing their opponent's score (in secret) in order to help themselves or their friends/club members.

Comp is subjective, and for the most part, people tend to just give max scores with a few exceptions. I've seen the 7-9 Obliterator/4 pie plate army specifically take a hit. For the most part, I've not really seen the extreme army builds that is more common at the UKGT's. Personally, I'm fine with that. They seem to get several of the same cookie cutter armies placing high. Iron Warriors/Blood Angels/Old Ulthwe and Alaitoc. There have been some surprises with mech Eldar and Tau.

Currently, I have no real issues with the current army comp system. The one thing I do think needs to happen is the judge needs to scrutinize any zeros a person receives. If the person can constructively explain why he scored the way he did, so be it. This will help avoid the purposefully tanking of scores.

In a non comp enviornment, I've no real issue with it. I know what to expect and so be it. No room to complain if I get beat by an uber army.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
630 Posts
To be quite honest I can't be doing with comp scores like you say It's always going to be far too subjective giving advantages over certain players mainly due to someones personal opinion of 40k.
One excellent example Is the Yorkshire tournament that FLAME ON! attended and won last year with IW's, heres this year 'updated' :roll: rulepack:
http://leeds-nightowls.co.uk/wp-con...-open-2007-wfb-40k-tournament-pack-dec-06.doc

:lol:
I'll be taking a pretty dirty Armoured company list Just to show the fools that unless tested rigorously comp Just doesn't cut It!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
what ever breaks it makes it stronger ;) ive seen a few local tornaments and campaign weekends, that punish or limit SO CALLED powerarmies, but allow forgeworld stuff and armoured company. WFT!!!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
You forget, though, that Forgeworld specifically errs on the side of weakness to avoid these issues, and actually does do a fair bit of playtesting internally. Armoured Company just isn't as powerful as people make it out to be, and can be beaten without undue difficulty by any army that takes reasonable antivehicular precuations.


As for composition, I feel that it's a good idea, but each score must be accompanied by reasoning any score at odds with the others, say, a five amidst twos or vice versa should require a decent explanation. That's simple and should work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I generally like Comp scores because it adds its own thing to a tourney. You have to make a competitive list with 40% troops, and no more then 25% of any other one part of the FOC. I've gotten so used to it, all my lists (even ones not destined for tournies) typically fill out the comp scores well.

That said, I dislike how your opponent can rate the compisition of your list. How would they know that your fluff has the oldest teaching the youngest, hence the 6 dread list filled with scouts? I would agree with making the player defend the score he gives, though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
uberschveinen said:
You forget, though, that Forgeworld specifically errs on the side of weakness to avoid these issues, and actually does do a fair bit of playtesting internally. Armoured Company just isn't as powerful as people make it out to be, and can be beaten without undue difficulty by any army that takes reasonable antivehicular precuations.
EVERYTIME ive played someone who used forgeworld stuff except AC then the things they have used have been VERY overpowered. The Griffon with its inferno rounds[i think] the trygon? the massive nid sporemines etc....
AC are not That powerful but they are basically a coin flip army. If i am prepared to face them i will win easily, if i am not prepared to face them i will lose. Ive only played them once and totally slaughtered the army, but if anyone else at the games club had played the guy that week then he'd have slaughtered them
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
I'd say that's only the case with FLyers, which have strong restrictions at nearly every playing arena that does not have them as par for the course. Everything else I"ve found to be dealt with exacctly the same as normal units.

You should only fall victim to Forgeworld stuff in the manner you describe if you've hyperspecialised your army to specifically match everything from the codex you're about to face. If you've done this, getting destroyed by unexpected models is the price you pay, and as such they should be allowed. Again, with the exception of flyers, which can only be killed by a few models in any army.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Composition scores seem somewhat silly to me based on just the fact that I've never faced anything I considered "unbeatable" with a standard list. The only list I've ever seen, and totally balked at was Feral orks, but that had to do with GW's piss poor design of Mad Boyz.

I've taken on all sorts of "cheese" and have found none of it particularly hard to chew. I don't mean to sound like I'm bragging, but exactly what is it that people find so hard to beat these types of armies?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
432 Posts
Nowadays composition is sort of a relic. I used to be a firm believer in the 40% troops, blah, blah, blah thing. Now, not so much. The problem comes with someone who wants to do a great themed list that is still competitive. Sometimes you aren't going to hit your 40% troops limit, should they be desuaded from bringing a character-ful list because they aren't going to comp well? That shouldn't happen. There are too many specialized lists now in codex's, that you can't police it by comp. The US GT circuit this year will not have a composition score (according to Jeff Hall, the coordinator for the circuit), as he stated that it would be unfair for GW to tell someone they can't bring something that they print in thier books and I agree with them.

There are so many things that can neutralize "beardy" armies now with the advent of rending, and other things like that. 3 Wraithlord armies are now point sinks to a good seasoned vet on the other side of the table. Deathwing and Armored Companies can be decimated by a lot of things now. And I believe one is still rewarded for bringing a balanced list and won't deal with the "all or nothing" kind of games that one-trick pony lists suffer from.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,544 Posts
I'm a big fan of lots of Troops choices, but not to the point where a themed army loses its theme. For example, it's not cheesy (at least in my book) to have an Iron Warriors army that focuses the majority of its points in heavy support and elites (so long as they're obliterators, at any rate). However, I do find that a Blood Angels army with five man scout squads filling the Troops and as many jump packers as they can stuff into the army a bit lame, mostly because it's completely devoid of fluff. It's not like you're trying to model the 8th Company or anything, you're just trying to milk the Death Company and Furious Charge for all it's worth. This isn't the place for my ramblings about why the Blood Angels rules are amongst the most uncharacterful for a specific army in 40k, but the point stands that they're abused as opposed to taken and structured to a fluff-related theme.
 

·
Porn King!!!
Joined
·
8,137 Posts
Being in the U.S., I've played with army comp for years now. The current ruling isn't so bad that we've gotten. The biggest problem that really comes up is when a few people start purposefully zeroing their opponent's score (in secret) in order to help themselves or their friends/club members.
Bingo. I have only been in a few tournaments myself but in each one, this very problem has come up, usually from players who flat out suck at the game and get pissed when they lose. I personally think that comp should be scored by the judges, with the actual score being an average of at least 3 judges scores. Allowing the opponent you have just crushed utterly to judge your list comp is asking for a low score. And anyone who plays against one of these idiots is going to be completely out of the running for Overall, simply because someone they played was a whiney bitch.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
i even think if judges were to give comp scores you'd find it wouldn't be entirely fair as it just comes down to what they see. It wouldn't put me off playing a tourney with specific comp rules u needed to follow, but the idea of a comp score really doesn't sit well with me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
jigplums said:
i even think if judges were to give comp scores you'd find it wouldn't be entirely fair as it just comes down to what they see. It wouldn't put me off playing a tourney with specific comp rules u needed to follow, but the idea of a comp score really doesn't sit well with me
I agree. If they want to limit what they believe to be "cheese" they should simply disallow certain things or force certain percentages of points vs. force org. slots. A comp score is just going to be skewed by individual interpretation and thus is the worst option for "limiting cheese". Personally, I've never found any army list to be too difficult to overcome if you know how to beat it, save possibly an almost all Mad Boyz feral orks army.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top