Melta madneess

[plaguewolf]

But maybe all 40K-players in sweden should just move to england. I would do it :P

 

when they learn to drive on the right side of the road :(

[Nilsson]

Agree with you Natanael;

 

Move to GB and play warhammer!

 

And, yes. I'm the guy with 9-Tanks in my army. I' got comp 25, sucks. But, hell. I refuse to play by their rules. I make my own. :D

 

Though, I dislike the rules. I played with the worse Necron army I could imagine last tourny, got like 80-ish in komp, ended second after a stone-hard Imperial Fist force that beat evreyone. I came that high, almost only due to the komp bonus for having 80-ish komp.

 

However, the Imperial Fist guy, still one due to good scores. (20 points each game exept 17 the game he played me).

 

So, the komp list is good, though it sucks at the same time.

[Chucku]

I love meltaguns. Why? Well let's look at the other special weapons...

 

Plasmagun: I know there are those that love it but I hate them. For me, Gets Hot never work as statistically advertised - somehow I roll lots of 1's (especially when within 12") and flub my save. Then there's the fact that it's a Rapid Fire weapon - no shooting and charging unless I'm in TDA. Finally, it's sort of okay against transport vehicles but nothing like the Meltagun. FAIL

 

Flamer: I like these in combi-weapons on a Wolf Guard as I rarely have the opportunity to use a flamer from a unit more than once per game. It kills most low-T troops, swarms, etc but so do my Grey Hunters in melee. What my Grey Hunters have a hard time doing is hurting high T, low Armor Save opponents. Enter - the Meltagun.

 

So to me the winner = Meltagun

[the jeske]

I came that high, almost only due to the komp bonus for having 80-ish komp

so I someone made a list with more he would be end game winer against people who tabled their opponents. well I said it 8 years ago and I will say it again that doesnt make sense to me.

 

biker companies are fluffy for sm . each sm squad has a rhino . SW are know for their gearing for short range combat.

 

I play an EC water warriors list . 2 DPs 2x8 sonic naked units 1x5 man blast master camper 4 oblits and 2 rhinos. My composition score would be almost the same as a 1 lord 2 pms 2 zerker armies with same oblits . only my list would suck hard, while a pm zerker build could even ignore upgrades [asp champs on pms , fists on zerkers] and still be effective.

[Niiai]

the problem with that sweedish point system is that it is very very very unbalanced when it comes to the points. and people end up playing whatever the rule givers dictate.

[Jarl Kjaran Coldheart]

by veteran heavy i mean: usually 4 vet squads, 3 special weapons and then heavy weapon in a chimera back by 3-5 leman russ variants.

and it isnt "any less men" than platoons, except for the fact the imperial guard is (or was) supposed to be the massive hammer of the emperor, the grunts, dog soldiers, all that jazz.

its sad because my wolves are usually within 10 or so models of the guard list model count wise.

 

very boring to play against and it seems to be the only thing guard players in my neck of the woods field.

 

WLK

 

Only 1 person in my area plays IG WLK, fortunatley for players like me who love fluff, he frequently runs massive infantry platoons and as many Leman Russ' as we will let him field! Strangely enough it has become hammer type of army, its not pretty, its not fast, but god damnit if that thing hits you (by which i mean gets into rapid fire range), you are screwed!

 

that is awesome. we had a guy like that, but he started to focus on his war machine gaming more. now all we have is a rediculously high number of "elite veteran guard" armies running around.

 

WLK

[SamaNagol]

I think the irony is, if you took a load of Grey Hunters all with 2 meltaguns in, you wouldn't lose any comp score. There's no comp reduction for taking them.

[Natanael]

Well, the -2 for each GH squad, and then the -3 for each rhino you want them in, and then the additional vehicle score. But 6 squads like that is like -45 or something.

[Firedrake28]

Inform your tournament organizer(s) that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and they should immediately hand over their responsibilities to someone with some sense. That scoring system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen as far as 40K goes which is really saying something.

[Wildfire]

It makes me wonder how you'd do if you chose to field absolutely no models. No reduction in comp, your opponent automatically wins. Except in kill point missions, where you tie. What would comp do to that?

[Natanael]

Well, in our local tourneys you'd loose all objective points (-10) and tie in KP (+5) and then it would depend on his comp, but with maximum differance you'd get quite some points(+20-29. I dont know if you can get more then +20 here). So that would make the scores 15-25 or something like that, in your favour. That said, it would be illegal to "field" that kind of "army". :devil:

[Wildfire]

it would be illegal to "field" that kind of "army"

 

Now why is that illegal? Is there a rule somewhere that forces you to use all your points?

 

I do find it hysterical that I could win without owning a single model, a rule book, or even a die. Heck, I wouldn't even need to be able to communicate with my opponent! Makes me want to go enter tourneys in Sweden like that.

[LPetersson]

It makes me wonder how you'd do if you chose to field absolutely no models. No reduction in comp, your opponent automatically wins. Except in kill point missions, where you tie. What would comp do to that?

 

I'm pretty sure that annihilation is always a victory condition, and with no models on the table, the other player would automatically win, also in KP games.

He would just win by default as opposed to winning on KPs...

 

On the other hand, with such a tremendously retarded system, who knows what the organisers would do/say...

[Son of Khorne]

Inform your tournament organizer(s) that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and they should immediately hand over their responsibilities to someone with some sense. That scoring system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen as far as 40K goes which is really saying something.

 

I can inform you that Sweden is the European Champions in 40k (ETC). Many of the best players and members of the Swedish national team has been involved in this composition system. So even tough it's not perfect I think they have a clue about what they are doing. BTW who are you to say something like that?

[Steingrimr]

I'm not particularly experienced, but I already have some animosity for Meltas. In one game I played, the melta-packing GH missed every shot. And he was firing at orks.

The Multi-melta didn't fare much better.

[Niiai]

Last time I saw that list Jaws of the Wold wolf costed 25 points. Heck, all of the spycick powers costed points. That is just retardedly stupid. (And yes, ouer super psycer costed less than Jaws of the Wold Wolf.)

[wisdom like silence]

Inform your tournament organizer(s) that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and they should immediately hand over their responsibilities to someone with some sense. That scoring system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen as far as 40K goes which is really saying something.

 

I can inform you that Sweden is the European Champions in 40k (ETC). Many of the best players and members of the Swedish national team has been involved in this composition system. So even tough it's not perfect I think they have a clue about what they are doing. BTW who are you to say something like that?

All you need is a brain and an understanding of 40k to know that comp system is seriously out of whack. For instance, in the CSM bit, why are lascannons penalised in CSM squads and not meltas? Why are cyclone launchers universally penalised but not assault cannons? Why are razorbacks with multimeltas (or hell, heavy bolters) penalised more than twinlinked assault cannons?

 

It's definitely worth a laugh, but also definitely hilarious wrong.

[SamaNagol]

Do swedes come for the UK GT?

[LPetersson]

Inform your tournament organizer(s) that they have no idea what the hell they're doing and they should immediately hand over their responsibilities to someone with some sense. That scoring system is the dumbest thing I've ever seen as far as 40K goes which is really saying something.

 

I can inform you that Sweden is the European Champions in 40k (ETC). Many of the best players and members of the Swedish national team has been involved in this composition system. So even tough it's not perfect I think they have a clue about what they are doing. BTW who are you to say something like that?

 

Really?

Who are they and which tournaments did they take part in to win these accolades?

 

You can't say things like that without backing it up with some form of proof...

[Yazoo]

Really?

Who are they and which tournaments did they take part in to win these accolades?

 

You can't say things like that without backing it up with some form of proof...

 

 

Well. http://www.wh-etc.com/

 

 

I can understand how weird you think the comp system is, I did that aswell at first, but you dont know how it works, or how it affect the tournament.

I think it a good think to use, and for players who don´t like it, well, then don´t attend those tournaments. Arrange your own, or go to one who doesn´t use the comp.

[the jeske]

I did that aswell at first, but you dont know how it works, or how it affect the tournament.

I can give you a list of 1500 lists played for each army being offten played , more if I know what kind of modified scanarios are played.

with composition points in a tournament sceen it doesnt mean that [well for people that want to win tournaments and not those who just go with what they have painted] both the powerbuilds and the "fluffy"[fewer on negative points] exist at the same time . no it means that the only ones that are there are those who make it easier to have a better compostions points. I mean if the system was fair , why do armies start with different start composition score ? if the system allowed and enforced the play of many different builds , it should be the same . It isnt because the creators of the system are forcing certain builds on people and I dont think they are in anyway better , more fluffy or more fun to play against then what is played around the world.

 

 

To make an example . normally it is better to run 2 nurgle DPs , pms zerkers and oblits +some termicid for chaos with a mecha build . but taking fists pms and zerkers nets you a lot of negative points . unlike csm who have exactlly the same game play[and are actually better against eldar because of more bodies] , unlike pms they dont get - compostion for specials or the only hvy that can actually be played[the autocanon] . there is little difference between a 10 man csm squad with 2 plasmas and a 7 man naked 2 plasmas pm objective camper.[but one gives a lot more negative composition points] .

 

lets move one . termicid , the chaos anti tank unit along side oblits. you actually get fewer points for runing a 3 man termicid then a 5 man termis assault build [when one is good and the other one doesnt really work] . bogus , but lets move one. the termis even when run as termicid still do make negative composition , but considering the mecha hate [so fewer transports played] they are less needed and if someone wants to he cant take a 5 man raptor unit with 2 meltas and only get -1 for that [and the unit can have the same 3 shots with an asp champion with a combi] .

 

DPs. the chaos HQ. normally a nurgle DP with warp time . but 2x nurgle with warptime is -26 points. it is easier to get the same kill ratio with an undivided DP and no warp time. [but with wings no going around them].

 

 

hvy support . normally oblits , oblits all the way . but oblis in 2x2 are 15 points . it is easier to base the anti tank around melta csm and asp champion with combi meltas [for rhino squads and plasma+autocanons/plasma+plasma for the slogging ones] and instead run 6-8man havocks with auto canons .

 

for the troops section mecha hate or not half of the squads should still [troops not the havocks ] should probablly run .

[Grey Mage]

I dunno, it seems pretty self explanatory to me... its all in the PDF. So Yazoo, what am I missing?

 

Because Im sorry, -25 for Njal, OR - 30 for a normal Rune Priest with a Chooser, Jaws and Living Lightning? Who can only cast one power a turn?

 

Whoever compiled this is not only biased, but has no experiance as a game designer, or may be a moron.

[Egge]

I always think that the responses in an comp discussion is fun to watch but this time I'll give my thoughts on the matter. It will be interesting to see how many just make fun of this post. I'll first give my opinion on the discussion so far, then explain something about Swedish tournaments and then try to give some basics on how the comp-system is supposed to work.

 

First about the discussion in itself: I'll always find it tough to see people give an tournament-organizer the finger just because he's organizing a tournament in a style that he likes.

 

"Oh, my god! That organizer has built tables, terrain, fixed a place to game and give people a place to have fun and he's actually thinking he might have the right to dictate the rules for the tournament?! No way I'm going to give that kind of guy some respect!"

 

Then I like some funny parts where people has to have proof that swedes have won an tournament. I also like the fact that a lot of players think that that specific comp-system represents all the tournaments in Sweden. It doesn't. If you don't like a system, you can play in another tournament somewhere else another time. Though truth is that in my (subjective) opinion most of the large tournaments has some kind of comp-system. There a exceptions, of course, three large tournaments comes directly in to mind that lure 50-or-so gamers each year that doesn't have comp. Truth is, there are a high variation on the type of tournaments in Sweden and each represent some organizer's opinion on how to make an tournament most fun, this kind of thinking should be the same all around the world, I think. Chances are that most players will have a really good time playing in the different types of tournaments that Sweden has to offer, each forcing you to a different take on both army lists and gaming-style which I find really challenging and much more fun than having a standard that everybody has to follow.

 

There is no point of explaining a comp-system to any player that thinks that 40k is an 100% balanced game. I am the type of guy that thinks that some units are seen more on the gaming-table because they are more point effective than others. I also think there's a lot of people out there that agrees with me on this. I have also gotten the impression that a "fluffy" army is something thats very often changes as some units get better than others. Apparently a fluffy unit is most of the time the best unit in an army. There are a lot of players that don't think so but sadly there is some truth to this statement. Did you see more necron armies in 4:th ed 40k or 5:th? I think most have seen fewer lately.

 

On to the comp. First, a majority of comped tournament uses it as a tool to help pitching players against each other. A typical tournament has 5 games in store for everybody and first round is usually decided with comp. This means that the chances of facing off an opponent that has taken an extremely hard army is way less if you playing with a balanced army taken most for fun. The second round and forward usually uses a swiss system with the comp as a tie-breaker. In many tournaments the allowed difference between two armies that can be faced off increases with each round. So in the first few rounds chances are good you'll face off an opponent with roughly the same hardness in their army as you. If you like taking all the best units - you'll have to face the best units. If you take the less effective units you have to face an opponent that also likes units not based on their hardness. This system makes sure that there are fewer games where you face off an opponent that has a more competitive style. You like hard competition - you face hard competition. You like more friendly games where the units isn't as important you get that to, to a greater degree. I have found this makes you face more of the people with the same mindset.

 

In the comp system that got posted in this thread the point system is supposed to be between 0 and 100 points. The first design of the system was based on that a game should give 100 battle points. A comp 50 army that faces off and comp 30 army get half the points added to his battlepoints and the player with lower comp reduces his battle points in this game with half the difference. So if the battle points ends up (unmodified) 50-50 the player with lower comp get 40 and the player with higher comp get 60.

 

The system's basis is pretty good, actually (subjective opinion, of course :) ) as combined with the lottery-system above the difference isn't usually that great in the end but can make a difference. Most players face of some opponents with better comp and some with worse. It also has eliminated most of the must-have-to-stand-a-chance-unit. They can be used, of course, but is not necessary to win an comped tournament. Of course there's a lot of subjective matters on a comp-system and is of course not perfect. But the generall idea works rather well.

 

That was one system. Please don't make a mistake and think that this represents all the comped tournaments! In the end comp has become really popular in Sweden as people liked the idea that you can win, even if you're not playing the best codex' or with the best units. "Play what you like and win if you're good enough", is in my opinion much more fun and exciting than "If you play what you like and it's not the best units or combo, then you don't stand a chance".

 

There. Hoping this makes some of you guys out there at least acknowledge the fact that the comp-tournament organizers have a thought with the system and that you'll respect their work that gives people fun and exciting tournaments.

[Demonslayer]

That was one long read, It started out ok then it went blah blah blah blah.............

 

Until near the end that you don't need a power army to win, woohoo now if only I was good :lol:

[Grey Mage]

@Egge: Im not saying composition scores arent a good way to go, or that theyre inherently bad- Its just my personal opinion that the one weve been linked to makes little sense, and was not done through any kind of impartial analysis. The example I posted above is one of several that make no sense whatsoever.

 

And that is the danger of having a composition score- if the people crafting the system arent very careful, theyll fail to make a balanced system, wich in turn just further unbalances the game. Mathhammer isnt a good system nessecairily, as the real world and statistics arent always spot on and few people who produce these statistics will weigh all the potential variables. Going on an opinion based system, like the PDF weve been linked to, is worse- because then it only reflects balance from the point of veiw of a couple people who may no real knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of what they judge, but instead have to make a guess.

 

In most cases I would rather see a painting score, because that at least can be put down to cold hard facts- is every model in the army base coated or better? Do they all meet the 3-color standard? Are there alot of conversions? etc... wich is simultaneously more impartial and less abusable.

 

The best Comp systems Ive seen have based things around FOC slots, with particular units singled out only in extreme circumstances- not simply a gut reaction after less than a month of playing.

 

Because I saw that same PDF near the begining of December, and it doesnt look like they changed anything.