So with the new (and correct, finally :P ) Deff Rolla ruling, I redesigned my friend Ragnar's Ork list. It's now:
Ghazghkull
225
Mek, KFF
85
15 Burnas
225
Nob Biker Unit:
Nob, Bike, Painboy, Cybork
80
Nob, Bike, PK, Cybork, Waagh! Banner
90
Nob, Bike, PK, Shoota/Skorcha, Cybork
80
Nob, Bike, Cybork, Ammo Runt
53
Nob, Bike, Shoota/Skorcha, Cybork
55
Stikkbombs
5
17 Boyz, Nob, PK
139
11 Boyz, Nob, PK, Trukk, Red, Plank, Ram
151
11 Boyz, Nob, PK, Trukk, Red, Plank, Ram
151
11 Boyz, Nob, PK, Trukk, Red, Plank, Ram
151
Battlewagon, Red, Plank, Klaw, Big Shoota, Rolla
130
Battlewagon, Red, Plank, Klaw, Big Shoota, Rolla
130
1750
Ghaz rides with the Burnas, the Mek goes with the Boyz.
The Nob Bikerz are there to do what they do best-munch through half an army or soak up equivalent firepower. They're also good for late-game objective grabs. Just need to stay out of LoS of PBSs :P
Battlewagons run over things, boyz hop out, kill things. Simple.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 4, 2010
What is Comp?
Comp, usually short for composition, is one of the most polarizing terms in competitive 40K play and environments. Comp is usually taken to signify elements of theme (how tightly the army conforms to the “background”). The “powergamer” stereotypically despises the whole idea of “composition” because of the simple fact that armies that do not tightly conform to the “background” materials are often more powerful in the game. The “casual gamer” brings a themed army that tightly conforms to the “background” materials, but is often less powerful.
Now comp taken as “theme” has some horrible problems. The most obvious of these problems is the simple fact that people’s views on how tightly a certain army build conforms to the “background” material differ. Therefore, consistency in scoring is a practical impossibility. Furthermore, two opponents whose views differ will often lead to unhappiness with the score given by said opponent. For example, a player running a Raider Rush build might play someone who believes that 2 Land Raiders in a non-Apoc game does not line up with the “background”. The second player will give the other player an artificially low score because of their beliefs. This kind of inconsistency is detrimental to competitive play because it introduces a variable non-dependent upon player ability into an environment that is supposed to test player ability.
Another problem with comp as theme is the timing of its scoring. Most tournaments with comp scoring have players score their opponent’s army after the game finishes. The composition and sportsmanship scores are often kept secret to the opponent, the idea being that people will be less inclined to judge others honestly if they have to give their opponent the news that they are an ass face-to-face. The problem here is sore losers. Someone who did not like the loss that the other player just handed them will often dramatically underscore their opponent’s comp.
A third problem with comp as theme is that it decreases the equivalency of high-level play. When players try to compensate for the beliefs of others by making a “softer” army (one that is easier to defeat, has more weaknesses, etc.), they are artificially limiting the tools that they would otherwise have to try for victory. If all the players make such armies, then the level of play decreases and the players who want to challenge themselves are unhappy because of these artificial limitations. If several people decide to ignore the comp score (seeing as how it is usually less than 10% of the overall score) and just bring the best armies they can, they’ll beat all the people who limited themselves. Those people will then be upset that the winners “didn’t play by the rules” and violated the social norm for a better outcome. Both of these are bad in an environment where competition and a striving for victory are supposed to be the motivation for players.
So comp as theme is a broken idea. It’s easily shown by the fact that comp is such a highly contended topic.
Then what should comp be? Comp should be taken to be a scalar for the “competetiveness”, or ability to win in an all-comers environment of a particular army. If comp is to be player scored, it should be done before the game to prevent “sore loser syndrome”. A baseline army should be established before the event and players should be asked what they think about their opponent’s army. For example:
Given an all-comers environment, do you think that your opponent’s army is (pick one):
Way stronger than
Stronger than
About the same as
Weaker than
Far weaker than
the following:
…army list…
Points would then be assigned to each value and scoring would proceed.
Now player-scored comp scoring still has problems. If the two opponents know and do not like each other, scores will still be artificially low. Furthermore, players who are not very skilled at judging the relative power of two armies will assign incorrect, and often artificially low, scores. As another point, local gaming groups or teams of players can coordinate to lower the scores of players who are not part of the group or team.
What about judge-scored comp? Where one or multiple judges sit down with all the army lists before the event and assign comp scores? This has fewer problems than player-scored comp (no “sore-loser syndrome”). But all the other problems from above apply. A judge who dislikes a player can lower their scores. Judges are not omniscient and can make mistakes about relative power levels. And a group of local judges can decide to arbitrarily dock everyone they don’t know to give their buddies an advantage.
So comp contributing to overall score, while in theory a lovely balancer for high-level play, often turns out to be a nightmare in practice, leading to hurt feelings and a substandard event.
Then what place does comp have in high-level play? Some people argue that it has none. However, comp is very useful for setting initial pairings in tournaments. If pairing is random, a “powergamer” can run up against a “casual player” round 1 or round 2. This often produces a tabling and unhappiness on both sides. However, if comp is scored before the event and players with equivalent comp scores are paired up, then a higher level of equivalency of play will emerge. Furthermore, this minimizes the amount that scoring errors will contribute to the final overall scores.
So the use that comp has is pairings-and this fulfills the idea behind comp, to lend to an equivalence of play in competitive environments.
Now comp taken as “theme” has some horrible problems. The most obvious of these problems is the simple fact that people’s views on how tightly a certain army build conforms to the “background” material differ. Therefore, consistency in scoring is a practical impossibility. Furthermore, two opponents whose views differ will often lead to unhappiness with the score given by said opponent. For example, a player running a Raider Rush build might play someone who believes that 2 Land Raiders in a non-Apoc game does not line up with the “background”. The second player will give the other player an artificially low score because of their beliefs. This kind of inconsistency is detrimental to competitive play because it introduces a variable non-dependent upon player ability into an environment that is supposed to test player ability.
Another problem with comp as theme is the timing of its scoring. Most tournaments with comp scoring have players score their opponent’s army after the game finishes. The composition and sportsmanship scores are often kept secret to the opponent, the idea being that people will be less inclined to judge others honestly if they have to give their opponent the news that they are an ass face-to-face. The problem here is sore losers. Someone who did not like the loss that the other player just handed them will often dramatically underscore their opponent’s comp.
A third problem with comp as theme is that it decreases the equivalency of high-level play. When players try to compensate for the beliefs of others by making a “softer” army (one that is easier to defeat, has more weaknesses, etc.), they are artificially limiting the tools that they would otherwise have to try for victory. If all the players make such armies, then the level of play decreases and the players who want to challenge themselves are unhappy because of these artificial limitations. If several people decide to ignore the comp score (seeing as how it is usually less than 10% of the overall score) and just bring the best armies they can, they’ll beat all the people who limited themselves. Those people will then be upset that the winners “didn’t play by the rules” and violated the social norm for a better outcome. Both of these are bad in an environment where competition and a striving for victory are supposed to be the motivation for players.
So comp as theme is a broken idea. It’s easily shown by the fact that comp is such a highly contended topic.
Then what should comp be? Comp should be taken to be a scalar for the “competetiveness”, or ability to win in an all-comers environment of a particular army. If comp is to be player scored, it should be done before the game to prevent “sore loser syndrome”. A baseline army should be established before the event and players should be asked what they think about their opponent’s army. For example:
Given an all-comers environment, do you think that your opponent’s army is (pick one):
Way stronger than
Stronger than
About the same as
Weaker than
Far weaker than
the following:
…army list…
Points would then be assigned to each value and scoring would proceed.
Now player-scored comp scoring still has problems. If the two opponents know and do not like each other, scores will still be artificially low. Furthermore, players who are not very skilled at judging the relative power of two armies will assign incorrect, and often artificially low, scores. As another point, local gaming groups or teams of players can coordinate to lower the scores of players who are not part of the group or team.
What about judge-scored comp? Where one or multiple judges sit down with all the army lists before the event and assign comp scores? This has fewer problems than player-scored comp (no “sore-loser syndrome”). But all the other problems from above apply. A judge who dislikes a player can lower their scores. Judges are not omniscient and can make mistakes about relative power levels. And a group of local judges can decide to arbitrarily dock everyone they don’t know to give their buddies an advantage.
So comp contributing to overall score, while in theory a lovely balancer for high-level play, often turns out to be a nightmare in practice, leading to hurt feelings and a substandard event.
Then what place does comp have in high-level play? Some people argue that it has none. However, comp is very useful for setting initial pairings in tournaments. If pairing is random, a “powergamer” can run up against a “casual player” round 1 or round 2. This often produces a tabling and unhappiness on both sides. However, if comp is scored before the event and players with equivalent comp scores are paired up, then a higher level of equivalency of play will emerge. Furthermore, this minimizes the amount that scoring errors will contribute to the final overall scores.
So the use that comp has is pairings-and this fulfills the idea behind comp, to lend to an equivalence of play in competitive environments.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Boston Brawl
Yeah, I haven't posted anything for a while. Maybe if the 2 people who read this blog commented some I'd have more to say :P
Anyway, I'm going to take a minute here and plug The Boston Brawl. It's a 2000 point 40K GT in Boston on May 15th and 16th. It's not on the circuit this year, but I'm going to be in attendance and it looks like it's going to be a cool event. So if you live in the NE and want to learn more, check it out at bostonbrawl.com
Anyway, I'm going to take a minute here and plug The Boston Brawl. It's a 2000 point 40K GT in Boston on May 15th and 16th. It's not on the circuit this year, but I'm going to be in attendance and it looks like it's going to be a cool event. So if you live in the NE and want to learn more, check it out at bostonbrawl.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)