The Dreaded Warhammer COMPOSTION topic [Archive]

Asandiril

02-05-2009, 01:30 PM

EDIT! - I found the various composition scoring files used over the years, including the GW one. I'm posting them below in seperate replies. Please either quote a specific post -OR- refer to the post number your reply concerns so we can keep track of ideas/input. Thanks! :D

So, it's being discussed in the forums, but it's high time it had a topic of its own:

How should we judge Army Composition?

What would you as players want to see in compostion scoring? Not asking "I want to see balance" or "I want to see every army judged the same," that'll occur anyways with Dale and I.
- What things do you want Judges to be looking for?
- What things do YOU look for when you set up across the table from an opponent you've never faced before?
- How do YOU rate things such as multiple selections of "hard" units or items?
- How do YOU rate concepts such as "magic heavy" or "firepower," even though it might be the lynchpin to the army in question?
- All cavalry?
- All goblin/orc/orge/troll/Chaos Warrior/>Chaos God< daemon?
- Multiple cannons in a Nuln-themed Empire list?
- Multiple Grail Knight units in a monastic-themed Bret' army?

We chat and rant and banter on here or at the store. But every time "the Powers That Be" ask for input (either here or at the events), we get a lot of replies but no real solid answers. Come on, players, put your dice where you money is. Dale and I can only do so much for the best interest of the community as a whole, so let us know what you'd like to see done for composition.

Asandiril

02-06-2009, 08:54 AM

ARMY COMPOSITION

[] Does the army have more CORE selections than any other single category? {this means actual army list CORE selections, as in the 3+ compulsory, not individual Core MODELS within the Core selection...}

[] Do CORE selections make up at least 40% of the total points of this army?

[] Have they not spent more than 25% of their total points on Specials or Rares? {this is not a total of both categories, but each individual category}

[] The regiments and characters have names, designations, etc.?

[] Has the player spent less than 20% of their total points on magic items/Gifts/Bloodline powers?

[] Do the CORE selections not fall into the min/max category? {meaning has the player not taken the minimum Core options at the least amount but maxed out the weapon/special options}

[] Is this list the same one being played?

[] Was the army list turned in on time and in the correct format?

[] Is the army list correct?

[] Plus one point if nine previous were received.

Asandiril

02-06-2009, 09:02 AM

ARMY SELECTION:
PLAYERS -
[] Does the army have more Core selections than any other single category?
An easy one to calculate. To score on this question, add up the number of Troop selections (they must have a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6). Is it more than any other single category (Lord, Heroes, Core, Special or Rare).
[] Do Core units make up at least 40% of the total points of this army?
This question is fairly easy yes-or-no mathematical calculation that should be already done on their army list.
[] Have they not spent more than 25% of their total points on rare or special selections?
Note this is not a total of all categories, but this is each individual category.
[] The regiments and characters have names, designations, etc?
This is a question about putting character and imagination into an army. Have you tried to create a specific army for example, the Empire, Elector Count Zargof of Kislevite, or the Undead Horde of Count Vladmir Correira? Not every model, hero, or regiment has to be named, but enough for you to feel the army is personalized and distinctive.
[] Have they spent no more than 10% on Magic Items, Knightly Virtues, Bloodlines etc… ?
Magic items, virtues bloodlines or special abilities .

JUDGES ONLY -
[] Do the Core selections fall into the minimum units needed category?
Minimum is defined as taking the minimum number of Core selections while taking the maximum selections from other areas (i.e. Heroes, Specials or Rare choices).
[] Is the list the same one being played?
Look at the table as he is playing, is the army list here the same as the one he is using?
[] Was the army list turned in on time and in the correct format?
Was the army list turned in during registration or did they have to go make a copy? Is it legible and in the correct format, laid out in a similar fashion as the GW RTT sheet?
[] Is the army list correct?
Do the math.
[] In your opinion does this list capture the spirit of the army being played?
This is an objective question for the judges. If playing an Orc army, does it capture the essence of waves and waves of Orc mobs? Or does the army list feel like the cream of the crop was only chosen or a specific tactic (“one trick pony”) was the thought behind this army.

Asandiril

02-06-2009, 09:13 AM

Army Theme Judging Criteria
Warhammer Rogue Trader Tournaments – Gamer’s Haven

Each check is worth 2 points. If they’ve only partially satisfied the criteria, but not ignored it, Judges may award 1pt at their discretion. If a player was completely ignorant of these criteria, for whatever reason, award them 5 flat points assuming they at least have an army list. If they are ever caught playing a force that does not match their list, or switching magic items mid-game, they automatically get 0 Theme points, and may even be Disqualified if the action is grievous enough.

[] Was their Army list turned in on time, properly presented, and completely correct?
Format should be typewritten, in tabular format, with no manual corrections of any sort. Those that must correct their list prior to the event, but otherwise meet standards, should receive 1 point.

[] Does the Army list have unit and character names, background details, or other additions to distinguish it from a flat, boring, standard list?
“Punny” names are okay, as long as they’re not TOO bad. However, Vampire Lords named “Bob” shouldn’t qualify, unless there’s a VERY clever backstory to go with that.

[] Does the Army list represent a well-rounded or classic force for the army being played?
Have they avoided min-maxing in favor of fielding a list that represents a typically “real” force, where Generals can’t always get three of every good unit. Overuse (3 selections, 2 if Rare) of a single, highly effective non-Core unit should generally not gain these points, unless the background supports it in a highly acceptable way. (One example – a Blood Dragon force with 3x Black Knight units). If it seems like a stretch, they don’t get the points. Also, if they included units that aren’t typically taken, or are viewed as ineffective, this may counterbalance otherwise min-maxed choices.

[] Has this player included innovative, imaginative, or extra special details in their army?
This includes “counts as” forces that don’t veer too far from WYSIWYG. Or fleshed out lists which include extra fiction, ongoing grudges, illustrations, fancy presentations, humor, or extra clever background. Simply put, did the player go the extra mile to put their army and background above average?

[] Is this Army list one of your Top 3 Favorites?

Rorschach

02-06-2009, 10:33 AM

I think I prefer the last list, even being so subjective... percentages make my teeth itch.

Asandiril

02-06-2009, 10:59 AM

I think I prefer the last list, even being so subjective... percentages make my teeth itch.
No personal bias withstanding, right?... ;) :D

I'm actually for percentages more than open composition. It makes EVERYONE fall into the same guidelines, thus more balance. If I know I have at least 40% Core, and my opponents all have the same minimum, then I know I won't be facing armies tweaked to be min/max.

Maybe dropping the percentages and going with "more Core/Troops" than any other individual category?

Rorschach

02-06-2009, 11:01 AM

What I find is some armies benefit from more Core than others... and Armies like High elves are quite specifically hosed.

-D

Orrlak

02-06-2009, 11:05 AM

I think the same about the percentages. Yuk! :( A good comment was made about some of this composition criteria being "political correctness" for warhammer.
I like the last list also accept for item 3 "Does the Army list represent a well-rounded or classic force for the army being played?" for the reasons stated earlier. If a player chooses to spend points in a certain manner, so be it. Let the powers that be (ie the GW gurus) make the determinations as to what is allowable. This is why I like campaigns and leauges where players have to live with choices made for thier armies.
How about replacing it with this item from list #2 ? "In your opinion does this list capture the spirit of the army being played?" I like this one because it does acccomplish the same but is clearly the "objective" opinion of the judge or judges and can be weighted accordingly.

Asandiril

02-06-2009, 11:32 AM

I've never been a fan of "opinion" based Judging. Anyone who knows John "Ogre" Baker up in Denver would know why (he HATES the Eldar in 40K...). And one Judge's opinion of what is balanced would be another's example of fromàge.

It's not necessarily political correctedness. If that was the case, then we'd be playing with the Swede or Aussie Comp rules, with their silly tiers and handicaps. What the aim here is to get an agreeable, workable, measure for all players to understand this is what you'll be judged on, what you can expect your opponents for the day to abide by as well. This is to get something for the organized tournaments, so that players who have never played each other can expect a level field.

So, what would YOU want to be judged on, the army book restrictions not withstanding?

What I find is some armies benefit from more Core than others... and Armies like High elves are quite specifically hosed.

-D
How so? Just because GW has given us a tweaked army guideline and stated that "all High Elf armies are about the specialist units"? Sorry, I don't buy it. I've played High Elves since 1990, and even now my list usually centers around 2-3 units of 20+ spears, 2 10-man archers, maybe a 20-man Lothern unit and then some hard infantry like White Lions or Swordmasters, backed up with a cav unit and maybe 2 bolt throwers. And I don't bother with a Lord, just a Commander, a BSB and 2 Lvl2 mages. And I win. Frequently. With more Core units than either Special or Rare.

Maybe it's practice, maybe it's tactics and strategy. But I've never once been told my armies were a bit on the min/max or cheddar side.

Orrlak

02-06-2009, 12:29 PM

Asandiril

02-06-2009, 01:00 PM

These are mostly cut and paste from what has already been presented with a few comments:

[] Was their Army list turned in on time, properly presented, and completely correct? (according to the army book)
[] Does the Army list have unit and character names, background details, or other additions to distinguish it from a flat, boring, standard list? (Theme points)
[] Has this player included innovative, imaginative, or extra special details in their army? ( I am not concerned with what a player has as long as he can give a reason for it. Poor reason equals a poor score)
My only peeve with composition in an RTT is no special characters. Now this is personal because I have always built my armies without them. Example: I had an Orc army with three characters, all core choices and two giants and was tore up by a single beastman special character.
[] Is this Army list one of your Top 3 Favorites? (If players think an army in thier opinion is min/max then they can give it a low rating in the scoring)
EXCELLENT! This is what we're asking for: ideas and input from the player base, not just banter! But remember, this is for JUDGE criteria, not player/opponent judging. That will still be on the player result sheets (which may be getting tweaked, too).

I can understand you annoyance with Special Characters (was that Morghur that hosed you?). I don't think I've EVER used a single SC in any of my armies, and I currently have High Elves and Orcs & Goblins, and have owned/played Wood Elves, Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, Beastmen, Warriors of Chaos, Bretonnians and Empire. I have the SC models, but I use them as a character/Lord/Hero I built from the base list. Maybe that's something that could be placed in there, "does this army have a Special Character Lord; does this army have any Special Character Heroes?" and reduce points because of that?

Following is from the 2005 RTT guidebook
[] Battle points
[] Sportsmanship points
[] Theme points (does thier army have a story and history)
[] Appearence points

Bonus points awarded by players:
[] Favorite opponent
[] Best looking army
[] Favorite themed army
In all three of these a player can give low scores to an army he deems Min/max or who's composition he questions.
In the first portion, the only "player controlled" bits are the Sportsmanship and Theme, which are reported on the results sheet you give us Judges (how's that for gooder English!? :D) after your respective match. At the Haven, they usually just confirm the Love Fest you all are having and have the winner/loser scores so we can do pairings. Seriously, I've never seen a single player give another an absolute low score in Sport' and/or Theme. Some have initially then come back later and adjust up due to after-thought and actually talking to their opponent afterwards.

The Bonus pints are based on player votes, count only towards the three other players the voting player has fought against that day, and are on a exponentially sliding scale (more votes mean higher point bonuses, not a one for one; check out the RTT guidebook, the more rounds/players you play, the higher some of those bonuses go...). And even then, you're vote might only swing things by a point or two, where as getting Massacre results in Battle points and average/middling scores in the rest will still keep you high in contention for Overall. An all-party vote might be something we could look at, where the entire group of participants vote on their favorite painted and themed/composed armies, but this would add to the already large amount of time we've got set for the events (or remove from things like lunch breaks...).

One final idea: How about an RTT with a point limit of 500 pts and warband rules! Now lets see who wins!? Some of my most enjoyable games have been games of this scale due to the fact it took tactical application to win, not just having uber powerful regiment stomping units on the field.
But WFB is a game of STRATEGY, sweeping movements of large regiments, battle lines ebbing and flowing, reserves moving to fill gaps, flankers harrassing the enemies gaps. 40K is and always has been the GW game of TACTICS, since it represents a clash of skirmish-level forces (and Apocalypse brings 40K up to the strategic level of WFB).

A Warbands tournament could be/is fun, since you could get a lot of games in the 8 hours we usually set up for the RTE's. There's a topic like this over in the 40K forum, 40K in Forty Minutes (BTW - GW had rules for Warbands, too, was based off the 40K Patrol-type games, and was called Fantasy Battles in Forty Minutes before they settled on "Warbands"). Why not post a topic here in the WFB forum and get some player interest going, shoot for May as the event month?

YAY!, discussion! Dialogue! MORE, we need MORE! Get your mates to get on here and put in their two cents, put up their ideas of composition scoring! We can't make change unless everyone helps (shut it, Dale... ;) )

Orrlak

02-06-2009, 01:52 PM

Small clarification on the differences I was trying to communicate between stratagy and tactics. WFB and 40K with any amount of points are predominately tactical in nature. Tactics is how you win a battle today (now). Stratagy is what you do with that victory or defeat tomorrow (or later). America TACTICLY won the Vietnam war but STRATEGICLY lost it. :mad: This illistrates again why I enjoy campaigns. What have you gained when you win a victory but only have one battered regiment remaining? And having uber powerful regiments dosen't matter when they are on the wrong side of the map.:(

What was that quote about Hanible... He knew how to gain a victory but not what to do with it. He was great tactics but sucked at stategy.

Kylim

02-06-2009, 04:17 PM

DoomedToRepeatIt

02-07-2009, 11:28 AM

A little expansion here on what Kylim said. I always work around theme with all my armies; for my High Elves, they're from Caledor. To represent that, I like to include at least one dragon when I can and a big (8+) unit of Dragon Princes. Now, it's Caledor-thematic, but including power units like that could be construed as min/maxing. Granted, I reduce the impact of it by NOT taking Princes AND Lions AND Reavers AND chariots, etc, but most people don't see what's NOT on the table -- they just see a three-rank unit of Dragon Princes and start screaming about Velveeta.

This is why I think that army judging should be done face-to-face with the judge(s). For instance, during the Team 40K RTT a few weeks back, Dale did all the judging while everyone was at their lunch break. Instead, I would suggest that before combat even begins, the judge looks at each army individually and lets the player talk about his army. Make a three or five minute conversation about the army. Background, theme, how it was painted, whatever. That way, I could explain that I have a dragon and lots of DPs because my commander is a Caledoran noble descended from the Phoenix King Caledor himself, but he insulted Korhil, Captain of the White Lions in centuries past, which is why no Chracian units will follow him.

The reason why I suggest this is because I was watching Dale doing his lunchtime judging of my army at that team tourney. With my army list, I provided a line-and-box diagram showing the task organization of my army and a brief description of how I built and painted them. Now this is not a hit on Dale at all, but he barely glanced at those pages -- and I could have distilled that down to a three minute conversation with relative ease and still gotten my point across.

Rorschach

02-07-2009, 11:58 AM

How so? Just because GW has given us a tweaked army guideline and stated that "all High Elf armies are about the specialist units"? Sorry, I don't buy it. I've played High Elves since 1990, and even now my list usually centers around 2-3 units of 20+ spears, 2 10-man archers, maybe a 20-man Lothern unit and then some hard infantry like White Lions or Swordmasters, backed up with a cav unit and maybe 2 bolt throwers. And I don't bother with a Lord, just a Commander, a BSB and 2 Lvl2 mages. And I win. Frequently. With more Core units than either Special or Rare.

The current HE book is quite specifically designed to have fewer Core and more Special/Rare than the other armies. Yet standard Comp percentages would eliminate that whole aspect of the book. You can win with a vanilla "Citizen Levy" or Sea Guard HE army sure, but what if the theme you wanted was Cavalry? No Cav in Core now, sorry! (Not to mention Silver Helm blow now compared to DPs or the Foot elites for the pts).

Compare them to the awesome core troops available in Chaos, or worse, Vampire Counts, where you want the bulk of points anyways. Sure, you can still win by dint of tactics and strategy, but it becomes that much harder. I thought the point of the Comp is a leveled playing field, not to divide armies into "advanced players only" epicurean choices versus "easy to learn" more popular ones?

My general point(s) evolves to this:
1) Any percentage or "hard math" Comp ends up needing endless exceptions to keep balance against the way they design each army book. OR it ends up putting some armies (or types of army build) in the Tournament Ghetto, and we just stop seeing the same variety as before.

2) The Subjective Systems, whether done before or after games, have the obvious flaws of individual judgment.
-- Player Judging done before a game routinely underestimate some combos, and overestimate "at a glance" stuff. And adds more time to the day.
-- Player Judgment after a game routinely is swayed solely by what they failed to handle or account for during the game, not always the same as what is truly broken. I've seen two players rate the same army at opposite ends, merely because one had faced it before, and knew exactly what to do.
-- Judge based-Comp relies on one person's perception and experiences. And if there's no one to play a house army, often a very busy one person. (see next post)

I think I favor a mix of the two really...incorporate their strengths, and minimize weaknesses. Just not sure of the details yet, but these threads help.

And then there's option three..

3) Judging PANEL
This requires at least 5 people for a good spread of opinions. They would rate each army before the event, using either a blend of the above criterion, or another System like the Aussie and Europe one mentioned in another thread. This would have to happen BEFORE the event, because its fairly automatic that some of the five would be playing as well. So that means either the lists have a hard due date before the Tourney, or we take an HOUR before even starting to do Comp.

Plenty to consider...

Rorschach

02-07-2009, 12:25 PM

The reason why I suggest this is because I was watching Dale doing his lunchtime judging of my army at that team tourney. With my army list, I provided a line-and-box diagram showing the task organization of my army and a brief description of how I built and painted them. Now this is not a hit on Dale at all, but he barely glanced at those pages -- and I could have distilled that down to a three minute conversation with relative ease and still gotten my point across.

Jeez, and after I gave you points for that chart... ;) :D

Theme/Comp Judging usually ends up in three bandwidths:
1) Didn't bother = no points
2) Tried something, maybe some minimal background = middle/average pts
3) Did something extra = high to max pts, depending on "cool factor"

I try to read everything fluff that's turned in. But if I have to play the House Army, that makes it nearly impossible to do more than skim - it's fairly easy to get a quality read from that much though. And the points spread is not refined enough so that the quality of prose makes a huge difference. Extra work is obvious. Extra thought and good ideas jump out at you while skimming.
What a Judge does NOT want to get into is rating someone's writing ability against someone else's. Despite the fact we rate Painting ability against one another, people get even MORE touchy if you critique their writing abilities. And then it gets like grading papers, for a group of folks whose writing abilities range from 3rd Grade to Publishable Material.

And to be honest, Judges (and usually Opponents) don't want a BOOK to read. Extra stuff that's easy to read, like Order of Battle Charts, are generally awesome. A detailed page on how you "built and painted the army", while it may be cool in a quiet moment, in the frenzy of the day tends to come off like a "Let me tell you about my Character" moment. The context of the day does not allow appreciation. :D

About the only way to allow long and considered Comp/Theme Judging is to have a deadline for Army List Turn ins. In fact, this is REQUIRED if imposing an objective rating system such as percentages. From past experience, you'll get about 80% of lists in on time and correct; but 1 in 5 will be late, handwritten, non-existent, hard-to-read, with bad math, illegal, have many excuses, dog ate it, not the army they could get painted, no background, only background no list, sent to the wrong email, left at the desk but now its gone, "I'm from out of town and I don't know how to use mail or email", and "I changed my mind at the last minute".

Now those trends can be fought. And to my mind, doing a list and background right is a basic mark of Organization that every general should be held to. But the fact is that there will be repeat offenders who simply never learn, then drop out of the Tourney scene. Not to say that disqualifies the idea - just something to keep in mind.

Orrlak

02-07-2009, 01:14 PM

About the only way to allow long and considered Comp/Theme Judging is to have a deadline for Army List Turn ins. In fact, this is REQUIRED if imposing an objective rating system such as percentages. From past experience, you'll get about 80% of lists in on time and correct; but 1 in 5 will be late, handwritten, non-existent, hard-to-read, with bad math, illegal, have many excuses, dog ate it, not the army they could get painted, no background, only background no list, sent to the wrong email, left at the desk but now its gone, "I'm from out of town and I don't know how to use mail or email", and "I changed my mind at the last minute".

Now those trends can be fought. And to my mind, doing a list and background right is a basic mark of Organization that every general should be held to. But the fact is that there will be repeat offenders who simply never learn, then drop out of the Tourney scene. Not to say that disqualifies the idea - just something to keep in mind.

I understand not wanting to apply standards that seemingly will discourage and become a cause of individuals not participating however it has been my experience as a member of several "elite minded groups" who require "higher standards" that it actually increases both the numbers and quality of the membership. It just requires more time and skill to develope, that in my opinion the Event Organizers at Gamer's Haven possess. A question I would ask in reference to this is has an individual that gave one of the excuses listed above ever won or even done well in a RTT?

SUGGESTION: Any participant of an RTT over 2000 pts be held to the higher standards (with ample prior notice given) and that in between, have lower point tourneys (500 - 1500 pts armies or warbands) still open to all but with fewer requirements so that the "organizationally challenged" generals will not consider themselves intimidated.

Asandiril

02-09-2009, 01:27 PM

It just requires more time and skill to develope, that in my opinion the Event Organizers at Gamer's Haven possess. A question I would ask in reference to this is has an individual that gave one of the excuses listed above ever won or even done well in a RTT?
I'm glad I did a double-take before posting what I had originally. *Whew!* Sorry, bad last few weeks and I swear I saw "do not possess" up in there when you were actually giving a compliment. Thank you and mea culpa, I'll cut back on the caffeine... :o

So, as to the excuses player bit, yes, there have been very few instances of such a player taking Overall (in the past) and several of such a player taking one of the other awards (some have been recent). The issue is there isn't a Compostion scoring bit for we Judges anymore, and quite honestly if there had been several of the "excusers" might not have placed so high. Currently the only scoring criteria Judges have is Appearance/Painting. We have no input on Battle scores, Sportsmanship or Theme/Compostion; that's all been moved to the providence of the players with the current RTT packets downloadable from GW. Hence this topic: it's been asked that Judges take a more active roll in "judging."

Maybe bringing back the requirement of pre-submitted army lists will help in some cases?

SUGGESTION: Any participant of an RTT over 2000 pts be held to the higher standards (with ample prior notice given) and that in between, have lower point tourneys (500 - 1500 pts armies or warbands) still open to all but with fewer requirements so that the "organizationally challenged" generals will not consider themselves intimidated.
On paper, it sounds good to have players held to a certain standard. And in practice it could have some good effect. But the concern would be backlash from players all ready on the fringe, or those that feel they've already been forced out of participating by the stronger players, or even the stronger players stating we're doing this to punish them. The Haven wants to support all players, from newbies to veterans, and the RTEs are supposed to bring all players together for a day(s) of great games. Some use them to testbed their higher tournament-level armies, some to try out a new army entirely, some just to get out and play since they couldn't otherwise because of work/family/Life. But it has been noted that the recent events have become more competitive and less fun for all. This is not, and was never, the aim of the Haven "Rogue Trader Event" program.

Back when the RTTs/RTEs started, all that was passed out was a plaque/trophy for the Overall winner and scrolls for Best Painted/Best General/Best Sportsmanship, and those were extremely coveted. Maybe getting rid of the prizes, or scaling them back, would help tone down the over-competitivness? Maybe going back to trophies/plaques, in addition to some form of Composition scoring, would get the fun back into the RTEs?

Orrlak

02-09-2009, 05:40 PM

:cool:
Now there is the best suggestion I have heard yet! Have an RTE to bring all the players together to JUST HAVE FUN PLAYING!!

Let us ponder this development for a while...

Asandiril

02-09-2009, 05:44 PM

Here's a bit from over in "The Next Tournament" topic I'm trying to drag over here:

http://www.gamershavenco.com/forums/showthread.php?p=39435&posted=1#post39435

What came first, the army list or the theme? If a guy says "oh, my three cannons and two rocket batteries are cause it's a nuln list," but can't tell you one scrap of nuln fluff, then I'd call it cheesy, not fluffy. If, on the other hand, he's got multiple cannons AND multiple engineers (and knows a thing or two about Nuln)...well, that's not just fluffy, that's fluffy and balanced. The suckiness of engineers makes up for the cheesiness of the cannons...or is it acceptable to take only the advantageous "fluffy" units and still claim the fluff?

See, that ties into the whole theme/composition consideration. As a judge, if you hand me a few short paragraphs of fluff that show you are attempting a theme, your army is painted/modelled to represent said fluff, and your list has thought out names/designations and reflects the fluff through purchases and self-inflicted ommissions, then good on ya! and you'll score higher. If, on the other hand, you hand in just a list, maybe with some random names and it's pretty obvious you cherry-picked the choice units, then you're going to get docked.

To continue the example: a Nuln Cannon train. You have multiple engineer heroes, maybe one commander type, no Lords, no wizards; you have Handgunners and possibly one large unit of Swordsman or Halberdiers, and Free Company Militia as detachments; no Knights of any sort, some Outriders/pistoliers; cannons/mortars/helblasters/rockets represented = an obvious Nuln theme. No monstrous mounts, no magic, no Priests, no flagellants, no crossbows, no Knightly units, no Greatsworders. It's obvious you've taken a lot of shooting, but what you have can get mauled in HTH. You've got cannon, but no mages, so spells could rape you. But the sheer amount of blackpowder you're throwing out would compensate for those failings, you've hampered yourself balancewise to play a theme. As an experienced judge, I would see that choice you made and reward for theme/composition. But, if that list isn't accompanied by a well thought out bit of flavor text and equally well done unit names/designations, then I'm going to see the "cheese" for what it is and you'll score lower.

Great thoughts, let's take it over to the Dreaded WFB Compostion topic! :D

:cool:
Now there is the best suggestion I have heard yet! Have an RTE to bring all the players together to JUST HAVE FUN PLAYING!!

Let us ponder this development for a while...
I'm all for that. I actually don't mind just playing to play, for "bragging rights" as it were instead of a monetary/product prize. Some players don't, though, they need a carrot at the end of the stick. I'd like to see a return to the Wall of Fame in the back (it's there, partially, above the office window...).

Maybe something that should be considered come the War Council end of February/beginning of March?

Warmaster

02-10-2009, 11:07 AM

I say we just make all tournaments at the store 1,999. That'll take out the lord's and cut down on rare's and specials people can take.

Asandiril

02-10-2009, 12:23 PM

That's a possibility, too.

But, beyond changing the actual format, what considerations would you want to see in Composition judging? It was dropped from the games because we felt the lists were strong/balanced enough and we didn't need to "check players homework" anymore, the games had become mature enough. But in doing so, we dropped the scores for Composition and that had an impact on certain players' participation or what players were bringing to the events. We want to see the return of the fun of the earlier RTEs, the reduction of stress and we want all players to be able to feel they can sign-up and get what they feel are three great games, win or lose.

Orrlak

02-10-2009, 06:29 PM

Just read the 40k thread on the same topic and had an idea for simple composition scoring to help encourage "reasonable" choices in army compotition...
Minimum core choices in an army 0 pts
1 more than minimum 2 pts
2 more than minimum 4 pts
3 more than minimum 6 pts
4 more than minimum 8 pts

Get the picture? The amount of points for each catagory can be adjusted. I just used the ones shown for illistration. Would not this reward those who have many core choices without punishing those who want to just use minimums?

Asandiril

02-10-2009, 07:41 PM

True, a reward for going above/beyond is the aim of Composition scoring. We're all going to have the minimums, the books require it. But not everyone will see a reason to go further beyond those minimums.

WFB lends itself to "elite" armies because there isn't a reason for taking Core beyond the 2/3 minimum, whereas in 40K Troops are the only thing that can hold an objective (anything else can contest it). No troops, best you can shoot for is a draw... ever. WFB, it's all about the victory points, so kill enough expensive stuff and you can pull a Minor or Solid victory without much issue. For many, there aren't that many Core options to take, though by definition of "core" they should make up the bulk of your army. But most of us get stuck with the bells'n'whistles and look past the PBI once the minimums are met.

So, anyone have an idea of a WFB Composition score chart?

Garaz

02-11-2009, 08:13 PM

I don't necessarily agree. I've seen a number of WHFB scenarios that had objective markers or terrain capturing as the primary means of winning. If you publish that there will be no 'pitched battles' or straight duke it out kind of scenarios with a few extra vps for minor objectives. There are also scenarios that exist that limit the extremes of what people consider bad comp...Night fight, magic flux come to mind that punish gun lines or magic heavy armies.

Or create some variations....Have magic flux roll a d3, if it is a 1, then all magic items cease to work for the turn. Have a battle decided by terrain pieces controlled, this would push people to have either smaller (more beatable) elite units and/or more core (and cheaper) units. If you publish them ahead of time, people will have to take into consideration more than just how they can soup up the power of their army.

Garaz

02-11-2009, 09:23 PM

Found a link to a newer Warhammer Army Composition System than I have.

http://atlantis.sverok.net/WPS/RT_WPS_Comp.pdf

Asandiril

02-13-2009, 08:43 AM

Found a link to a newer Warhammer Army Composition System than I have.

http://atlantis.sverok.net/WPS/RT_WPS_Comp.pdf
See, that's the style of system we're trying to avoid. Just from a cursory glance, it hoses magic intensive armies (High Elves, new lizardmen, Daemons, Vampires) but awards dispel armies (Khorne Daemon, Dwarf). Also, you get penalized for taking a Lord choice in 2000+ points, that's not very fair. It's too formulaic and limits what the player might personally like in their army (ex: Wood Elves - maybe the don't have/want to buy Warhawks?, or they don't have an army from near the Eyries?, or it's a winter themed army and all the Forest Spirits are hibenating?).

I'm more inclined to prepublish the scenarios, and make a few that are more objective-based requiring Core units (10+ strength?) to hold/contest them. But I'm not a huge fan of math intensive charts thats weigh things differently per army and literally force players to play against their playstyle. The aim we're going for is a more a reward system for playing a balanced list, for having a thematic army, not a one-trick tournemant pony or the flavor of the month. And again, it's not ever really been a problem at the Haven, but with the influx of new players, the random "outside" player and the call for the return of the fourth scoring criteria (Compostion), we want something that's workable for everyone.

Orrlak

02-13-2009, 02:11 PM

Found a link to a newer Warhammer Army Composition System than I have.

http://atlantis.sverok.net/WPS/RT_WPS_Comp.pdf

It is interesting reading and we are putting through a few of our lists to see how they stand up. But the first sentance is already my favorite part "The system is quite simple to use." :p

Garaz

02-13-2009, 06:30 PM

It's too formulaic and limits what the player might personally like in their army

But I'm not a huge fan of math intensive charts thats weigh things differently per army and literally force players to play against their playstyle. The aim we're going for is a more a reward system for playing a balanced list, for having a thematic army, not a one-trick tournemant pony or the flavor of the month. And again, it's not ever really been a problem at the Haven, but with the influx of new players, the random "outside" player and the call for the return of the fourth scoring criteria (Compostion), we want something that's workable for everyone.

I didn't say I liked it, just that it was another system that was out there.

Funny thing is, from my viewpoint, as soon as you introduce any type of comp you are putting limits on what some people might personally like to have in their army and also potentially forcing players to play against their playstyle.

I think if you're going to introduce comp, it should be more of a comp/style/theme score with the determination being done by independent judges (not opponents). That way you could have it be subjective, if a person brings a well balanced army, but with no theme or any work on the unit/character names and back story, you could give them a high score. Likewise, if someone wants to bring the Nuln list or some other highly stilted list, but puts a lot of effort into the modelling/back story etc. you could give them a good score as well.

Just some rambling thoughts on a Friday night...

Garaz

02-13-2009, 06:32 PM

It is interesting reading and we are putting through a few of our lists to see how they stand up. But the first sentance is already my favorite part "The system is quite simple to use." :p

Believe it or not. It's easier to use than the old copy I have ;)

Asandiril

02-15-2009, 05:19 PM

Well, this weekend at the khan' gave a few of us some interesting insights into how other groups are handling composition. I've got to get with Dale and email Tony Scott to get copies of his scoring system. Over in the 40K topic there's probably going to be some scary developments - the tournament this weekend showed a scary side of tourney judging and comp I'd like to avoid at the Haven.

Rorschach

02-15-2009, 10:17 PM

I heard some scattered things this weekend, and I have some ideas to discuss. I'll have time tomorrow night to re-read these threads, and document what I scribbled down of my thoughts... I think there's always a way to make the games work right in a Tourney setting. It just takes some cleverness

Nil Desperandum!

Stronginthearm

02-16-2009, 10:14 AM

Ok I've looked and looked because frankly im embaressed to be asking this but what is RTT? I have the picture that it is somewhat like a standard tournament with added fluff but I cant seem to find an exact definition please help

Kylim

02-16-2009, 11:23 AM

RTT stands for Rogue Trader Tournament, these are tournaments put on by non-GW stores, but are part of the Rogue Trader network of independent stores selling GW products.

Stronginthearm

02-16-2009, 11:39 AM

O ok thanks

barontuman

02-17-2009, 09:24 AM

Hey guys,

I'm burried in school work at the moment, but was surfing the "ususal suspects" to get feedback on the tournament at Ghengis. I was shocked to see the number of players who wanted comp back, as well as the ability of people to finish their 6 turns. I was VERY happy so many people finished all their games.

Anyway, I'll be thoroughly reading the Comp threads in a few weeks for ideas, as honestly, I haven't seen a comp system that actually does what it's supposed to do!

I've posted the tournament results at

http://outrider.homeip.net/wfb_files/GhengisXXXWFB.html

For those that are interested.

Thanks to everyone to attended, and I hope you had fun!

Tony Scott

Asandiril

02-17-2009, 09:33 AM

You actually pre-empted me, Tony. I was going to email you and Kelly and see if anyone else in the Colorado region had comp scoring they could share. I've got to get an email out to Rob, too, for a copy of what he used for the 40K tourney.

It is a bit scary, this resurgance of composition scoring. And I was already thinking of extending the WFB rounds to 2.5 hours, giving players and extra 30 minutes to get all their turns in (40K can stay at 2 hours, though if we keep upping the points total it may need an extra 30 minutes, too).

Ranek7212

02-17-2009, 10:56 AM

Well it sure is nice to see that the springs players placed as high. Glad to see that.

barontuman

02-18-2009, 01:23 PM

Ok, so I made the time to read this complete thread, and I've got a few comments.

First, judge based scoring for large tournaments is just not feasible.
Given the number of people who showed up with hand printed army lists, I assume that some of those people would not have shown up because of a lack of army list. Is comp scoring important enough to cut participation down by 30%?

Player based scoring is always a sticky issue.

People tend to get "pity points" if they lose, or "blasted" if they win.

Do we want to encourage the height of competition or a butterfly trading hug fest?

Is it worth getting rolled over by an "unbeatable" army in order to encourage creativity?

GW does NOT write balanced army lists. It doesn't take a genius to build the "latest greatest cheese." It does however take a lot of money.

If someone comes up with a truely unique combo that happens to hose our particular army build is it fair to hurt their score?

If someone plays the "everybody knows that cheese build" from the internet don't they deserve to have their score reduced?

What if they are playing the cheese build from the previous edition? Do the get docked AND still lose their games?

As an organizer, I don't care about written fluff. I can justify ANYTHING if I write a cool enough story? No way. Some army builds are fun to play and others aren't.

We KNOW when we see it, when something is broken. How we deal with it is the problem. The trick to tournament play is playing an army that is "hard enough" but not so rediculous that it will turn newer players away from the hobby when they get rolled by it. That in my mind is the important distinction, and what we're trying to accomplish with comp.

The other way is simply saying "Sorry dude, please don't bring that garbage to my tournament again, OK?" But that would put a huge burden on the tournament organzier, and could get out of hand pretty easily.

Sorry for the rambling, but since SO many players asked for tougher Comp scoring at Ghengis, I've got to come up with something that's fun, fair, and easily accomplished. In the end, when we all talk about "that guys army" we know when we see the cheese. Now how do we go about putting that discussion into written questions that work in a tournament situation?

Tony

Asandiril

02-19-2009, 08:58 AM

You're hitting along the lines of some discussions I had during and now after the convention: if it's legal by the Army Book, then why should there be concerns for composition?

Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's the fair thing to do. Yes, when you go to a large tournament, you should bring your A-game and bring a decidely up-strengthed army; you're competing against a much larger player pool. So events like Genghis, GTs, the Indie circuit, that's understandable to have a strong/hard list since you don't know what you'll be facing and you need to go in with a fighting chance. No worries there, it's understood.

But what we're seeing is these hard lists are showing up in local, smaller events (we're talking 12-20 player participation) and the newer or not-so-experienced players are getting crushed because they build for fun and balance (something we're always showing to the newer players at the Haven) and end up getting matched up against a veteran (most, granted, do tone down their lists and/or playstyle, they still win, sometimes crush the newer player, but the game is FUN for the new guy AND they are taught things about the game or their army by the veteran... most of the time). Or they get set up against the "internet flavor of the week" and crushed, sometimes with no holds barred and nothing learned other than they hate that army/build/player and will cut back on their furture gameplay or even quit. And some players would say "Fine, let them quit or go away if they can't handle losing," which is wrong. The Haven sponsors events for everyone to play, not just for the hardcore or even the psychotically self-abusive (like myself :D, come on I lose... a LOT... but I still keep buying and playing more). There comes a point when the veterans and more experienced players have to step up and make the field equitable for eveyone. Not equal, we're not playing Chutes'n'Ladders or Candyland. Equitable, meaning everyone is held up to the same standards of judging, scoring and expectations of sportsmanship. What you do after that point decides what kind of player you are and where your scores and reputation will take you.

So, stepping off the soapbox yet again, it's become obvious Composition is a big thing with our region now, not just locally. Evidence was witnessed this past Genghis, some feelings were hurt, some egos bruised and some were given a boost they needed. But the biggest thing talked about was the return of a composition score and players actually discussed their view with their opponent when scoring (this refers to the 40K tournament and the open scoring Rob established for this convention). Were there problems? Yes. Were there issues in translation? Yes, at least one (the Fast Attack points bit in the second scenario... we should all READ more closely... heh). But was it fun and equitable? To that a huge "HELL YEAH!"

So, should Composition for small events (say up to around 20 players) be by the Judges, and larger (30+) be player scored? Should we focus more on subjective criteria ("Does the army have X ...") than objective ("In your opinion/Do you feel..."), or vice versa? I've got some rough ideas for a set of criteria that is about 66/33 subjective/objective, based off the old sets and some input from veterans this past weekend. I'll try and get it up in a few hours after spellchecking and tweaking.

I'm loving the posts, guys! This just goes to show it's not "just a local thing" like some stated. Unless by "local" you meant "the Front Range and nearby environs." ;)

Asandiril

02-19-2009, 10:50 AM

Here is the rough-out of the WFB Comp scoring. Again, shamelessly copied from TommySalami/Matt and not complete. Also, not the 66/33 ratio I stated, realized thee were still some that were percentage based and one that the ratios were just off which would penalize some armies.

GAMER’S HAVEN WARHAMMER FANTASY BATTLES COMPOSITION SCORE

1) Does this list have more Core selections than any other single category, excluding Heroes? This is any one category, not all of them added together. Ex: 4 Core and 3 Special, but not 3 Core and 3 Special.

2) Does this list have only the minimum Core while maximizing another category, excluding Heroes? Minimum is defined as taking the minimum number of Core selections according to the army book guidelines while taking the maximum selections from other areas (i.e. Specials or Rare choices).

3) Does this list have a maximum of one category in Special or Rare with full selections? I.e.: 4 Special or 2 Rare; but not 4 Special and 2 Rare.

4) Do the regiments have names or designations? This is as simple as “Risen Dead of Wissenland” or “Bloodtooth Mob.” Some thought should be put into the name/designation, so nothing like “Thane Sparky Thunderpants” or “Citizen Levy One.”

5)

6) In your opinion, does this army seek to maximize powerful combinations of units or abilities at the expense of a cohesive theme?

7) In your opinion, does this army attempt to take advantage of rules loopholes to gain a competitive edge?

8) In your opinion, are regiments chosen to support a theme or story; possibly at the expensive of more powerful choices?

9) If special characters are used, does the list accurately reflect an army that they would conceivably lead or be part of?

10) In your opinion, did the player attempt to create any sort of narrative to support the list selections, reflecting the WFB background of the army?

So, again, this is a TEMPLATE to start from. What would you see added/changed to make it more agreeable?

Garaz

02-20-2009, 12:35 AM

I was shocked to see the number of players who wanted comp back, as well as the ability of people to finish their 6 turns.

I think you'd see the number of folks finishing in 6 turns continue to be high if you keep offering the +1 point for finishing the game.

Garaz

02-20-2009, 12:39 AM

2) Does this list have only the minimum Core while maximizing another category, excluding Heroes? Minimum is defined as taking the minimum number of Core selections according to the army book guidelines while taking the maximum selections from other areas (i.e. Specials or Rare choices).

Does this mean that armies that have core that don't count toward the minimum (like Dire Wolves for VCs) get dinged for having, say 3 skelly units and 2 DW units and full up Specials? Meaning the army has 5 core, but only 3 that count toward the minimum.

Asandiril

02-20-2009, 09:14 AM

Does this mean that armies that have core that don't count toward the minimum (like Dire Wolves for VCs) get dinged for having, say 3 skelly units and 2 DW units and full up Specials? Meaning the army has 5 core, but only 3 that count toward the minimum.
That's something that can be reviewed, as there are only three armies I know of that have units with that stipulation: Beastmen, Chaos Warriors and Vampire Counts (and they're all the hound units...). I haven't had a chance to look over the Daemons of Chaos book, but I think Nurgling bases are/used to be Core and have/had the same rule. The reason behind the "does not count as a Core selection" clause is to prevent the "buy 3 REALLY cheap [insert] units as Core and then spend the rest on Characters, Specials and Rares" occurrence.

Ex.: As a judge, if you were to be playing a Von Carstein themed army, and had conversions, painting, flavor/fluff and unit designations to back it up (aka: Sylvanian names and heraldry), then I would score you as having good composition. But if you had a kabosh of vampires and bloodline powers, no real theme other than "what works," then I'd look more closely at your selections and score you appropriately.

Remember, this is going to be applied for the Hobby Tournaments, focusing on four factors of the GW game style: Sportsmanship, Painting, Composition and Battle. There will be awards for the four factors. And we're going to be rolling out a second type, the Gladiator Tournaments, where it's just Battle points that decide the winner just like the 'Ard Boyz events. This way, everyone gets to play in something more their style and the rules and guidelines will be known right up front. I know I don't like having "house rules" or "adjustments" made on the fly, and I don't want to see that done to our players.

barontuman

02-20-2009, 12:30 PM

I think you'd see the number of folks finishing in 6 turns continue to be high if you keep offering the +1 point for finishing the game.

Positive re-inforcement always works best! :) Nothing wrong with trying to get people to play the game to the finish IMO.

Orrlak

02-20-2009, 11:06 PM

:)
The direction of the development is taking looks good to me.

jasonhendo

02-22-2009, 11:39 AM

I really like the idea of Comp, but after playing tournaments at the Haven for the last year I don't know if it is needed... I don't think I've seen many lists show up that were broken. At Tacticon and Ghengis Con I want comp scores, because it is no holds barred as of now and some of the lists reek... I myself am more of a self regulator... if I win with Demons/Dark Elves it is to be expected, but if I take a tournament with a 6th edition book that is soft on shooting/magic that is quite an accomplishment. But Comp scoring would never stop me from showing up, and it is worth a shot. Also--Warhammer is a game where even if your list is hard,if you make bad decisions during the game you will lose.

Asandiril

02-22-2009, 01:57 PM

The Haven group, for the most part, do bring balanced list. Although for some reason we have an unearned reputation of being hardcore rules-lawyer broken-list players... And that's another good point you brought up: you're own decisions and your dice will dictate your fate, no matter the strength of your list.

Dale should be posting up a new version he discussed with me at the store Saturday evening. It ROCKS! I really like it and opens up the composition to more personal choice. You'll see and understand when he gets it up.

Lolepops

02-22-2009, 02:42 PM

Well, I think it is time for me to put some input up. I have only been playing Warhammer for about 7 months and I only have 1000 points of Lizardmen right now (damn life getting in the way). But I think Composition would have its place. Everyone I have played so far has brought balanced lists against me. I am having fun, and I think that is the most important thing to me. However, I also think Comp would balance out if a list was powerful as to who earns what rewards. But like always, I will just go with the flow.

Bob

Rorschach

02-25-2009, 07:54 PM

Hi all,

Here's the 1st trial draft for Composition and Theme score, based on what I've read here, heard on podcasts, and some of my own ideas.

Please post your thoughts. Please also note that only 9 of the 10 Criteria are counted. You can break any ONE without penalty. Desperate to have lots of Monsters, but otherwise Compliant? Fine. Want an all shooty army? Fine, if all else is in order. Jonesing to take 4 Special Characters...okay for that one criteria.

Here's the list as it would appear on the score sheet:

Composition and Theme Scoring

Check all that apply. 2 Points are scored per Check, but only total the best
7 out of the first 8 criteria. (In other words, you can break one criteria numbered 1-8 below for free, and #'s 9 and 10 are evaluated as is.)
Partial 1 pt Awards are allowed for special circumstances (Judges discretion).
If the list submitted for review does not match the one being played
(barring honest error), the player receives a ZERO for this score.

1) Does this list have MORE Core Selections than any other single category,
excluding Heroes? This is any one category, not all of them added together.
Ex: 4 Core and 3 Special, but not 3 Core and 3 Special.
If the Army Book allows less Core and/or more Special/Rare etc than normal
(currently only the High Elf Army book) then this category becomes "Does the
list have at least as many Core selections as any other Category?"

2) Does this list have no more than one Core unit at Minimum Size?
(Attachments do not count, nor do units that don't fulfill Core Minimums).
If the Army Book does not have any minimum sizes for Core units, these
points are granted automatically.

3) Does this list have no more than two (2) of the same Special category
selection? Any three selections of the same choice breaks this criteria,
regardless of unit size. Ex: If a High elf Player took 3 White Lion units,
even with one at 20 strong and the others at 12 each, they would not receive points for this criteria.

4) Does this list have no more than ONE (1) of the same Rare category
selection? EX: Taking two War Hydras would violate this, but taking one War Hydra and two Boltthrowers would not.

5) Does this list have no more than ONE Special Character, as a Lord or Hero
selection? EX: Taking both The Masque and Skulltaker would violate this.

6) Does this list have no more than ONE Monster, bought as a Mount for a
Lord or Hero, or chosen from the Rare selections?
This includes Giants, Shaggoths, or any construct like a Steam Tank. It also includes Monsters that come standard with a Special Character. Monsters bought as Special selections do not count. This criteria is extended to include Greater Daemons but not Daemon Princes.

7) Does the list have no more than 15% of the Tournament maximum points
devoted to Magic Items, or Abilities/Powers purchased for characters? This
includes Bretonnian Virtues, Slaan Disciplines, Gifts of Khaine, Vampire
powers, and Chaos Gifts, etc, but not Marks of Chaos. It does NOT include
the cost of Mounts, or the basic 25pts upgrade for a Battle Standard Bearer.
Ex: In a 2250pt match, no more than 337 pts could be spent on Magic Items,
etc.

8) Does the list have at least as many units without Ranged Weapons, as with
Ranged Weapons? Characters with Ranged Weapons do not count. EX: A High Elf Army with 2 Archer units, one unit of Reavers with Bows, and two
Boltthrowers would have to have at least 5 units with no Ranged weapons to
qualify for this criteria.

9) In your opinion, does this army attempt to take advantage of rules
loopholes, or maximize powerful combinations, to gain a competitive edge
(possibly at the expense of a cohesive theme)?

10) In your opinion, did the player attempt to create any sort of narrative
to support the list selections, reflecting the WFB background of the army?
If special characters are used, does the list accurately reflect an army
that they would conceivably lead or be part of? Do the regiments have
appropriate or humorous names, versus merely designations? In simpler terms, does the army list tell a cohesive and entertaining story?

Lolepops

02-25-2009, 09:46 PM

As I had stated, I don't play much at that size right now, since I only have 1000 points. That aside, I do like this idea so far for Comp. It is easy to understand and read and shows that a Balance list is well liked around here. I don't have ideas for changes since I haven't played in a tournament, but I do like the Comp set-up you have posted.

DoomedToRepeatIt

02-25-2009, 10:25 PM

Kylim

02-25-2009, 11:17 PM

One question I have about #7, is if upgrading magic levels say from 1-2 or 3-4 count for the character upgrades?

Warmaster

02-26-2009, 10:28 AM

My one issue with it is that is hoses High Elf bolt throwers, which lost their two-for-one-slot benefit when we picked up the extra Rare slots. And while completely reasonable, the no-more-than-one monster mount kicks my Caledor-theme two-dragon right in the hoop as well.

Sigh. Back to the drawing board.

And that there is a perfect example of why I don't like comp. Basically you are trying to curtail "power" lists but at the same time you neuter thematic lists.

I say Doomed go for it. Not all tournaments have comp and with this one you could take the multiple bolt throwers and the dragons and only lose 2 points (because you get to lose 2 points for free) so it won't be all that bad.

I think the missile weapons one is a kick in the nuts for a lot of armies. It un-necessarily hoses wood-elves like no ones business. Why are you limiting shooting but not magic?

I don't really think that comp list would stop a current "tournament" "power" list. It doesn't take into account excessive magic use. 337 points on magic items? If you buy a lord and 3 characters that's a maximum magic item allowance of 250pts? So you can max characters and magic items and still be well under.

VC horde spam is just fine. And most daemon lists with minimal tweaking would still get perfect comp or close to it.

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea but I just don't really think that comp list hits the area's that would actually hurt a power army and right now it's just hurting fluff/theme armies.

The no core units at minimum is kinda silly #2. I spend 50 points to add 1 model to each of my core units and I get points for that.

I like 9 and 10. And I like 3 & 4 except I would change 4 to be did they max out rare selections and are they all the same. This would allow a high elf player to take 2 bolt throwers, but keep people from spamming the 2 monsters as their rare choices.

Asandiril

02-26-2009, 12:12 PM

And that there is a perfect example of why I don't like comp. Basically you are trying to curtail "power" lists but at the same time you neuter thematic lists.

I say Doomed go for it. Not all tournaments have comp and with this one you could take the multiple bolt throwers and the dragons and only lose 2 points (because you get to lose 2 points for free) so it won't be all that bad.
I'm in the same boat, there. I'm taking two special Hero characters, I think, and I'll be losing 2 points. But a High Elf army with only one bolt thrower is either small points or has some other nasty trick up our sleeves. I myself never go with less than two BTs... and usually never more than that (unless I'm going against Charles' Warriors of Chaos...).

I think the missile weapons one is a kick in the nuts for a lot of armies. It un-necessarily hoses wood-elves like no ones business. Why are you limiting shooting but not magic?
But it really doesn't hose Wood Elves. It actually more limits Dwarfs and Empire, since last time we checked cannon, mortar, bolt throwers, stone throwers, rocket batteries, handgunners, crossbowmen, helblasters and flame cannon were all missile units. And Wood Elves have some fecking nasty HTH units. Most Woodies I've seen play have equal or less shooting, anyways, so it might be a moot point.

Now, the odd WE player that wants to run all shooting, they get to break one guideline for free. Meh :shrugs:

I don't really think that comp list would stop a current "tournament" "power" list. It doesn't take into account excessive magic use. 337 points on magic items? If you buy a lord and 3 characters that's a maximum magic item allowance of 250pts? So you can max characters and magic items and still be well under.
True. But there are units that can take magic now, and BSB have no limits on Magic Banners which can take them over their usual 50pt magic item restriction.

What would you suggest instead of a percentage?

VC horde spam is just fine. And most daemon lists with minimal tweaking would still get perfect comp or close to it.
Right there you made an admission it would affect a supposed "power list." But again, the focus is not to neuter anyone's army. We want to award players who like/prefer to build a balanced army, something thematic but not OTT. Yes, some tweaks are still needed, but we're getting close to something solid. In Doomed/Matt's case: a Caledoran High Elf army would have a Prince on a dragon and a Dragon Mage -OR- the Prince could be riding with the Dragon Princes on a steed if the Dragon Mage could only wake his mount and not the Prince's dragon. A loss of 2pts is acceptable to me for taking two or more bolt throwers, it's the only war machine HE (and DE) have. As a player and Judge, I'd have no problems with this as long as the player understood why they were losing 2pts.

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea but I just don't really think that comp list hits the area's that would actually hurt a power army and right now it's just hurting fluff/theme armies.
We know, Rich. You've always had good suggestions and counters, and your opinion is appreciated. So, using Dale's or my comp list as a basis, what would you see done?

The no core units at minimum is kinda silly #2. I spend 50 points to add 1 model to each of my core units and I get points for that.
But that's 50pts less on something like Magic or maxing out a Special or Rare slot. It may seem trivial, it may seem like bean-counting, but little nuances like that can force some changes to a list. At least in my experience as a High Elf player, it can. I usually go through 3-4 lists before I can get close to the idea I had for a force, then I have to play it and see if more tweakign is needed. Some players may not, either by experience or their army is solid.

I like 9 and 10. And I like 3 & 4 except I would change 4 to be did they max out rare selections and are they all the same. This would allow a high elf player to take 2 bolt throwers, but keep people from spamming the 2 monsters as their rare choices.
I'd tend to agree with your 3 & 4, since HE and DE only have 2 Rares to select from and the vast majority of either player tend to take at least 2 BTs. Wait, do Druchii scum still get the "two for one" slot option with their BTs?

Warmaster

02-26-2009, 12:32 PM

Asandiril

02-26-2009, 12:50 PM

7) Does the list have no more than 15% of the Tournament maximum points
devoted to Magic Items, or Abilities/Powers purchased for characters? This
includes Bretonnian Virtues, Slaan Disciplines, Gifts of Khaine, Vampire
powers, and Chaos Gifts, etc, but not Marks of Chaos. It does NOT include
the cost of Mounts, or the basic 25pts upgrade for a Battle Standard Bearer.
Ex: In a 2250pt match, no more than 337 pts could be spent on Magic Items,
etc.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but as far as I can tell #7 does not refer to magic banners bought for troops nor would it affect champions who can buy magic items since they are not technically characters. The only banner it would affect would be one bought for a bsb.
Ummm... last I checked (right now) magic banners for units are still Magic Items and bought from the Magic Items section of the army book. Are they not? #7 just asks "Does the list have no more than 15% of the Tournament maximum points devoted to Magic Items, or Abilities/Powers purchased for characters?," two seperate qualifiers.
1) does the list have no more than 15% devoted to Magic Items (wherever they are in the army, character or units);
2) does the list also have no more of that 15% devoted to Abilities/Powers of characters.

It looks like it's just asking about characters only, but there's that little comma between "Items" and "or" indicating two qualifications. So looks like Dale just needs to add "characters/units, drop the comma and it'll be clear.

:D

I thought high elves could get 3 rare slots? And yes dark elf repeating bolt throwers are still 2 for 1.
High Elves get FOUR slots, and we only have Great Eagles or Bolt Throwers for Rare selections, again one for one. So DE get Hydra and BTs, and still come out better with this comp list. But I'm OK with that, they need all the help they can get.

Warmaster

02-26-2009, 01:13 PM

I took that as the first and second part only being applied to characters, spell it out like you did right there and it's a lot better.

Right so in my re-written #4 a high elf player could take 2 bolt throwers and 2 great eagles and not take a comp hit. Actually he could get away with 3 bolt throwers but not 4.

Wehrmacht

02-26-2009, 01:26 PM

Garaz

02-26-2009, 07:55 PM

I actually like it, at least about as much as I'd like any comp. I especially like the 'opt out of 1' freedom. Just for grins I ran my Genghis Con Dwarf list through it and ended up meeting 7-8 of the 10 (depending on the judges interpretation of #9). Expanding it to 2,250, I could get 8 with a certainty but would have to change some things up to get 9.

I'm a dwarf player who generally doesn't like bringing a lot of shooting and I've been pretty successful doing it my way. I actually like playing the armies people consider hard to win with and looking for 'non-traditional' ways to bring them. Sometimes what I come up with would completely shatter these comp rules, some would do great. But if you know what you're likely to get ahead of time, you can do a risk/reward evaluation of your chances.

saldo

02-26-2009, 09:00 PM

I like the list as well. You get to decide before the tournament if you want to get those points or not. I think it will make for some really interesting lists.

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 06:52 AM

One question I have about #7, is if upgrading magic levels say from 1-2 or 3-4 count for the character upgrades?

No

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 06:55 AM

My one issue with it is that is hoses High Elf bolt throwers, which lost their two-for-one-slot benefit when we picked up the extra Rare slots.
High Elves give me all sorts of problems with this comp, as they need the most exceptions with their weird Army structure.
Assume High Elves get up to 3 of the same Special, and 2 of the same Rare. I'll amend the criteria and example.

As for 2 Dragons, that's definitely a power move, so will require you use your one allowed break.

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 07:08 AM

And that there is a perfect example of why I don't like comp. Basically you are trying to curtail "power" lists but at the same time you neuter thematic lists.

Once the right balance is struck (crafting Comp runes is extra tricky), the Thematic lists should not require more than one exception that they're being given. "Maximum Carnage" is not a Theme.

I think the missile weapons one is a kick in the nuts for a lot of armies. It un-necessarily hoses wood-elves like no ones business.

Playing an army that shoots you to death, regardless of maneuver, is boring. This says, "No, you can't play the "Shoot 2 units dead them hide" Wood Elves which is fine by me. If that's the only wood elf army someone wants to play, they don't need to do it in my tourneys.

Why are you limiting shooting but not magic?

I can't figure out a way to limit Magic per phase. Saying something like "Army generates no more than 10 power dice" needs so many exceptions for weird armies or one off items, I'm not sure how to word it.

It doesn't take into account excessive magic use. 337 points on magic items?

Would you do 10% or something else? I wanted to hit the Big Ticket items, or armies where they can layer on extra powers AND take a crapload of Banner magic.

VC horde spam is just fine. And most daemon lists with minimal tweaking would still get perfect comp or close to it.

How would you stop those issues specifically, without being "You play VC or Daemons - lose 4 pts"

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea but I just don't really think that comp list hits the area's that would actually hurt a power army and right now it's just hurting fluff/theme armies.

The no core units at minimum is kinda silly #2. I spend 50 points to add 1 model to each of my core units and I get points for that.
Those points add up...should I say Core must be at least 20% above medium size? It's there to stop the minimum sized, minimum amount Core armies.

did they max out rare selections and are they all the same.
I like that better than my HE exception...that'll be the basis for the new wording. And maybe I'll leave the 2 of a kind limit for Specials for HE, unless someone can think of a reason why not?

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 07:09 AM

And Wood Elves have some fecking nasty HTH units. Most Woodies I've seen play have equal or less shooting, anyways, so it might be a moot point.

Word.

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 07:13 AM

Maybe I'm misreading this, but as far as I can tell #7 does not refer to magic banners bought for troops nor would it affect champions who can buy magic items

My comma placement is correct, and those things are affected. I will reword to make it clearer for the grammatically challenged :D ;)

Orrlak

02-27-2009, 07:16 AM

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 07:17 AM

Here is my question reference naming units. I understand for the fluff and all and I like it but some units I think dont need names to add to the fluff. As long as they are included somehow in the overall fluff. If that makes any sense. Example would be some of the deamon units. They are summoned from the warp not from towns. Same goes for some VC units naming them I think takes away from the fluff instead of adding them in the overall fluff.
I would like"Summon the hounds from the black forest" vs the black forest hounds. Hope this makes sense.

Just about every unit has a leader, or at least was organized with a purpose in mind. If nothing else, name them for that, rather than Unit A, B, and C.
Instead it should be something like "Numbskull's 35th Spears" or "The Bridgeburners".
Stretch those creativity muscles!

Orrlak

02-27-2009, 07:46 AM

Just scored my list and got an 18. :D Kudos to you Dale for doing all this work! :eek: :eek: Whatever the final guidelines and rules are will be fine with me. I am coming to the RTT to play Warhammer with the list I LIKE. ;) If I get a high comp score great, if not, oh well. Either way I still get to play. :cool:
Josh and I will be there on the 4th to try out the lists we have been workig on. His Empire is really looking good! I have reworked (and rebuilt) my orcs and am eagerly awaiting the opportunity to see them deliver some stompings!!

Warmaster

02-27-2009, 09:31 AM

Once the right balance is struck (crafting Comp runes is extra tricky), the Thematic lists should not require more than one exception that they're being given. "Maximum Carnage" is not a Theme.

I'll give you a real easy one that I can't do under your comp rules. A Throgg Monstrous Horde army. Also an ogre army is going to have it tough. Also heaven forbid I actually try to take a mono-god fluffy daemon army. They only have one rare and one special and one core type for each, so those are all out. So abusive power combo here I come :D

Playing an army that shoots you to death, regardless of maneuver, is boring. This says, "No, you can't play the "Shoot 2 units dead them hide" Wood Elves which is fine by me. If that's the only wood elf army someone wants to play, they don't need to do it in my tourneys.

So 5 wood elf archer units, tree man, 1 unit of dryads, 1 unit of war dancers, 1 unit of tree kin, 1 unit of wild riders is a broken army? Note I'm counting the tree man as a ranged unit since he has a ranged attack. Or is he extempt because it's not actually a weapon? I guess I just think 50% is a bit high.

Also what about skaven with their weapon teams? If a warp fire thrower counts as a ranged unit.

I can't figure out a way to limit Magic per phase. Saying something like "Army generates no more than 10 power dice" needs so many exceptions for weird armies or one off items, I'm not sure how to word it.

It's a very tough one to do. Which is why I figured you didn'tput it in here. You got to limit power dice, but then you would also have to limit amount of dispell dice and scrolls.

Would you do 10% or something else? I wanted to hit the Big Ticket items, or armies where they can layer on extra powers AND take a crapload of Banner magic.

Making it include unit standards takes it a bit more in line. I might have made it a flat value instead of a percentage.

How would you stop those issues specifically, without being "You play VC or Daemons - lose 4 pts"

It's tough to do. If you look at most of the ones that win they actually would look pretty decent if it wasn't for the combo's and abilities of the units. One of the easiest ways to do it would be to require more than 3 core but that's going to royally hose some armies. You might be able to reduce it a bit by putting in a cap on points spent on characters.

So using the guidelines you have there I rated my Kislevite army list. I missed 3 out of the 8 comp scoring guidelines.

1. I have more than one core at minimum size (2 units of 5 horse archers) (unless you are saying that once you have filled the three core you can take as many minimum sized units as you want, I didn't know if your caveat was supposed to apply to things like chaos hounds or harpies which can never fulfill a core minimum or if it's literally not one of your 3 minimum core choices).
2. I have more than 2 of the same special selection. 3 units of gryphon legion.
3. I have more missile troops than none. 3 big blocks of kossars, 2 units of horse rider's and 3 units of gryphon legion.

So my kislevites, which can't fight there way out of a paper bag lost 4 points after their one for free (maybe 2). Not too bad but that army not getting max comp just by existing is like getting kicked square in the ****

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 01:19 PM

So using the guidelines you have there I rated my Kislevite army list. I missed 3 out of the 8 comp scoring guidelines.

1. I have more than one core at minimum size (2 units of 5 horse archers) (unless you are saying that once you have filled the three core you can take as many minimum sized units as you want, I didn't know if your caveat was supposed to apply to things like chaos hounds or harpies which can never fulfill a core minimum or if it's literally not one of your 3 minimum core choices).

I will clarify this in the reword, but it means Min sized units like Hounds or Harpies (that count as Core but not for filling Core slots) can have as many minimums as you want. Units that count as core slots can only have one at Min size. For your Horse Archers, simply make one a 6 rider unit and you're fine.

2. I have more than 2 of the same special selection. 3 units of gryphon legion.

According to
http://oz.games-workshop.com/games/warhammer/kislev/assets/KislevAlliesArmyList.pdf

Gryphon Legion is a 0-1 Choice. So how can you have 3 units? Two must be Winged Lancers instead.
Maybe the PDF I see is just the Allied Contingent one though. When I allowed Kislev, I assumed that plus the Special characters was it.

3. I have more missile troops than none. 3 big blocks of kossars, 2 units of horse rider's and 3 units of gryphon legion.

You chose a weird army that is essentially an incomplete list (i.e. one of the few with no useful foot troops without missile weapons). This one can be your one break-rule for free.

So my kislevites, which can't fight there way out of a paper bag lost 4 points after their one for free (maybe 2). Not too bad but that army not getting max comp just by existing is like getting kicked square in the ****

See above - do it right and your list is fine.

BTW, the negative tone doesn't help, and just makes me wonder why I bother. I'm trying to solve a problem here not make one. :cool: ;)

Asandiril

02-27-2009, 01:29 PM

Whoa!, Dale's having the same problem I had over in the 40K Comp post. Methinks we need to kibitz more, and there's some input I got from Rob last night that you should really consider.

IM me or email me. I *might* be a the store tomorrow, for the Paint Day. Either way, we might need to take a new tack on this project in the interim.

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 01:34 PM

Whoa!, Dale's having the same problem I had over in the 40K Comp post. Methinks we need to kibitz more, and there's some input I got from Rob last night that you should really consider.

Yeah, sorry if I come off snippy. I've got a cold, and I've been arguing with a Warmachine MkII basher over on the Podthrall forums. So my patience is pegging low for the "well I'm just screwed then." type of responses. :D

Warmaster

02-27-2009, 02:01 PM

Not trying to be negative. Just trying to point out concerns about the comp scoring.

My kislevites were an extreme example, but you will run into the same problems with other "extreme" theme lists.

I can't just add another horse archer, I only have 10 and gw doesn't sell them anymore :).

The Tzarina allows you to take more than one unit of gryphon legion. And if you are playing straight kislev you kinda have to since thats your only way to get a wizard.

My basic concern is that, from what I understand, comp was going to be introduced to try to cut down on power lists. With absolutely minimal tweaking most power lists are going to only be losing at most 4-6 points from the comp score, most can go even lower (I'm assuming here that they can never get 9 and 10). Is that really going to make that big of a difference in the games?

I can make extremly fluffy 20pd tzeentch lists, vampire summoning spam, vampire death star lists and not get hit by any of the comp stuff.

It does cut down on Stank/walter spam, thorek gunlines, empire gunlines, high elf dragon lists (to a point), dark elf monstrous creature spam. But I don't know if it's going to be enough of a penalty to really matter.

I have several armies that are perfectly fine in those comp guidelines, my beastmen and warriors of chaos are perfect no issues. The concerning one was that my VC was too!

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 02:28 PM

My basic concern is that, from what I understand, comp was going to be introduced to try to cut down on power lists. With absolutely minimal tweaking most power lists are going to only be losing at most 4-6 points from the comp score, most can go even lower (I'm assuming here that they can never get 9 and 10). Is that really going to make that big of a difference in the games?

I can make extremly fluffy 20pd tzeentch lists, vampire summoning spam, vampire death star lists and not get hit by any of the comp stuff.

Short of doing the Aussie penalty for merely playing VC, DE, or Daemons, any ideas how to do the cut down for that stuff? I'm working on the assumption that things are most broke when its two broke things in Combination. If I limit to one, not so bad, and players can tool their lists to deal with the other.

Power Dice is still a hassle, but the best I think I can do, and keep it simple, is to limit to no more than 10 power dice thrown per magic phase, period. Including Bonus dice, and bound items as 1-2 dice by level. But that;s suddenly imposing a meta-play constraint which goes beyond just a Comp Score.

It does cut down on Stank/walter spam

What the heck is that? ;)

But I don't know if it's going to be enough of a penalty to really matter.
Some players may say screw the 4 pts, and go for a bunch of 20-0 wins. But I do have some other things up my sleeve if that's the case:

1) Keep Player Comp rating as well - devised to be done during set-up, and tied to the master comp. There's another 3 pts per round, potentially.

2) Adjust scoring to the full scale, 20-0 / 19-1 / 18 -2 and so on. That tends to make even 2 pts hurt more.

BTW, if you're inclined to use your Kislevites, please try, whether teaming with Dwarves, etc, or on their own. I can even give you Special Dispensation on the Missile Troops thing (on the grounds you have No Other Choice), and allow a Chaos Marauder as a Champion stand-in for one Horse Archer (assuming you can't rustle anything up). I love the idea of abandoned armies getting play too much not to bend a little there.

-Dale

Warmaster

02-27-2009, 02:53 PM

Exactly. So you've basically now hit the wall that Rob O'Byrne and I hit :). How do you really limit the power lists. About the only thing I can think of to do it is to ban things from your tournaments, basically say things like No Bloodthirster with obsidian armor, no x, no y. The other thing to think about is putting a cap on the amount of points people can spend on their characters.

The simplest solution I could come up with all of this was to run tournaments at 1,999 points, it's amazing what you can do when you make it so people can't take lords and reduce the rare slots. It hoses over some of the leadership challenged armies like skaven and beastmen, but it really seemed to level the playing field.

I would suggest taking 9 and 10 off of the comp sheet and sticking those two on the player scored sheets.

Another interesting one I've heard about but not tried is making comp 1-10. You then use that as a percentage multiplier on battle points. So if you got 9 out of 10 you would only get 90% of the battle points possible.

You never did respond to my if it was kislevites stand alone or with others, now that I know it's okay I may just go back and do my Kislevites/dwarves thing or do a combined middenheimer/kislevite armty. It's not like I play in the tournies to win, so I don't really care about adjusting points, it would just be nice to be able to play with them, I spent a lot of time working on those models.

Rorschach

02-27-2009, 03:12 PM

You never did respond to my if it was kislevites stand alone or with others, now that I know it's okay I may just go back and do my Kislevites/dwarves thing or do a combined middenheimer/kislevite armty. It's not like I play in the tournies to win, so I don't really care about adjusting points, it would just be nice to be able to play with them, I spent a lot of time working on those models.

Yeah, it's been a bit crazy the past few weeks, so I missed that. Kislev is designed to field as Allies still, so compose away on that theme.

Thanks overall for the feedback. I may consider working the 10PD limit into Tourney Scenarios. It's a meta, but not like a flat rule that way.

Asandiril

02-27-2009, 03:13 PM

1999pts wouldn't hurt my High Elves very much, BTW...
:D

Just thought I'd throw that in the mix. LOL!

Warmaster

02-27-2009, 03:32 PM

I wouldn't do the PD limit, unless you are going to limit dispell scrolls and dispell dice also. Problem is that some armies need magic for use against big nasty griblies.

And stank/walter is an empire list that has 2 steam tanks and the war altar :)

Stronginthearm

02-27-2009, 03:52 PM

I agree on the not limiting the power dice, that seems to be a very complicated idea and would probably require quite a bit of testing before it was perfected

Asandiril

03-04-2009, 11:34 AM

So, with the whole hoopla over in the 40K thread, seems there's hurt feelings coming out about adding Comp back to any RTT. So, again, these were going to be for the Gamer's Haven Events. But, another thought has come up: quite honestly this was brought about for consideration by a very limited scope of players. Player's that do not particpate at the Haven more than a handful of times per year, mostly tournaments. Why are we putting ourselves through this for literally a handful of people; when the ones we should be focusing on are the ones who are there almost all the time, the ones playing on Wednesday nights, the ones doing their own huge battles or events on the weekends AT THE HAVEN, the ones who ploice their own and are the examples of balanced/fun armies? What about them, the vast majority?

So, we're going to sideline Comp for a littel while, try to figure out some way of recognize true theme attempts, and go from there. In the mean time, we're going to be doing a shiteload of big, fun COMMUNITY events, ones that involve the player base as a whole. If you want to partcipate, then jump in. We're talking Leagues, maybe a Haven World campaign (I've got a spare Old World map I can get laminated... some dry-erase markers and Bob's your uncle!...), Last Man Standing gladiator-style events, Monster Bashes, Hunt the Squig... you name it!

I want to thank everyone on this thread. You've shown me that the WFB crowd is definitely more mature, more open to ideas and more willing to work with a topic as touchy as Composition scoring. Your input and efforts will not go to waste, as I plan to contact some of you in the near future for input and help running a big event for the summer.

Thank you guys! :D