Battle for Planet OG - Part II - Sat September 10th

[rathstar]

Hi,

An interesting point to distinquish between fluffy and tough army lists.  No-one can deny my list didn't follow how the DE fight (as shown in both codexs and GW background), however no-one can deny it is not a strong list.

Other armies suffer the same issue that their "fluffy" army is also a strong build.

If what you (the OG community) want is to tone down the lists to even the playing field, and make games more interesting I suggest you go back to the dirty four that was used in a previous tournament.  The dirty four (judged by Ol, or a committee of non-entrants, based on army list strength) would only play each other in the first two rounds.  I heard (as I've never been to such a tournament) in other tournaments that have tried this that it encourages people to find the stealth cheese (a strong list to play that doesn't look too strong on paper) to avoid the dirty [whatever] while still having a strong list.  However I think it at once shows the intent of what types of armies are expected and doesn't subject the rest of the competitors to these top builds until game 3.

Any other ideas ?

Rathstar

PS. An interesting statistic is that there was a large gap between the top 4 and the rest of the field, and (I believe) all the top four got maximum points (and in most cases tabled their opponent) when then played someone outside the top 4:
I only dropped points against Toby who came 3rd
Toby only dropped poinst against me (1st) and Seb (2nd)
Seb (I believe) only dropped points against Toby (3rd)
James only dropped points against me (1st)
Should we all have been in the dirty four ?

[fatolaf]

There will be some (hopefully good) more missions that try to change the way people write their lists for the next Planet OG.
But just in case, I will be using Timmy comp as well (ie any lists deemed too harsh will be asked to change)

I dont mind hard lists at these events, just not net lists.. A couple of points to bear in mind of things I want to see at these events (and this will encourage owners of weaker armies to turn up) and to avoid being hit with the Timmy stick...

1) SPAM - simply, dont do it! Unless it's troops (and even then GK termies spam will be frowned on)

2) Suboptimal, try to include something (in the stronger books) that is not the 1+ choice, ie Ogryns from the IG book

3) WAAC, do not approach the list writing with this approach, think about what is fun for both you and your opponent and think about the missions without trying to break them through some uber combo in your codex...

I have 2 of the 3 missions written for Planet OG, pack up soon, (date is going to be Sat 15th October)

Ol

[fatolaf]

@ Rob - I would like to try avoid the dirty 4 practise (so to speak) and simply encourage self comping.
The DE book in your case has loads of options that don't involve multiple poison spitting transports, it's probably one of the most diverse books they have written in terms of choice

[Angelus Mortifer]

Just as an aside, I tailored my list to try and at least compete against the "Craig List", i.e. Large numbers of infantry, often in blocks above 10 models. Ironically, he couldn't play with his Orks, but Toby's IG was a pretty good equivalent, and I barely scraped that draw - only some remarkable fortune and better decision making would have given me "the chance" of a win personally speaking).

It's always going to be subjective (and therefore difficult to nail down), but at 1500pts, a lot of books/builds don't have enough boots and/or guns to deal with codices that can provide very cheap infantry en masse - whereby you can spend half your points on so many models, and still have plenty left over for the hard stuff. Marines of whatever flavour start at expensive from the first choice you make, mitigated by their durability... but that's often offset by weight of dice against you.

I'm not "crying" about anything ;) , just thinking out loud I guess. With fluff vs balance (and the intangible nature of that), maybe the only way to get as close to an even keel across the board is some sort of choice restriction in the end, but getting that to fit with every book is a mission all on it's own.

I think I was quite fortunate on the day in the end, even with my list, although I agree that the list helped me get out of, or alleviate, some situations. Drawing against Toby when a loss was probably likely; facing Necrons with my mobility in the last game (no offence Ian). The game with Chris was touch and go/touching cloth until about turn 3 when I finally got the upper hand.

The other problem is, if you run the tourney higher than 1500, some books just scale up far quicker/better than others - making the need for a balancing factor more important.

Knowledge of the game and books is also necessary if you're going to do a "higher power" pre-tourney assessment of lists, in order to understand just what a list truly does and what it's designed for. It's usually good to get several opinions to get to a point where there is a reasonable interpretation of capabilities... but again that's based on a fair proportion of subjectivity.

I dunno, my mind can't handle too much thinking sometimes :)

[fatolaf]

maybe the only way to get as close to an even keel across the board is some sort of choice restriction in the end, but getting that to fit with every book is a mission all on it's own.

Well simple comp like we have in our current campaign might appear.
ie: For every unit in a transport, you must have one on foot

Knowledge of the game and books is also necessary if you're going to do a "higher power" pre-tourney assessment of lists, in order to understand just what a list truly does and what it's designed for. It's usually good to get several opinions to get to a point where there is a reasonable interpretation of capabilities...

I have my panel of Cheese factor judges....

[rathstar]

@ Rob - The DE book in your case has loads of options that don't involve multiple poison spitting transports

So three poison transports (less than half my transports) was too much.  Ok, message received 

Taking on board the comments I was thinking of the following list:

Haemonoculus
Incubi in Raider
2 x Wyches in Raiders
Wracks in Raider
Wracks on foot
Beastmaster unit
Reavers
Razorwing
Ravager
Talos

Unfortunately I don't have any grotesques or hellions.  No Venoms, all different units outside troops (which have 2 sets of 2 troops). 4 units in transports, 4 non-vehicle units outside  Any better ?

Do I still get hit with the Timmy stick ?  I couldn't beat infantry spam before, this new list will find it even harder.  Knock down a few transports and watch toughness 3, 6+ armour save troops vainly walk accross the table :(

I may have to try Tau or Marines.

Rathstar

[Angelus Mortifer]

I'm asking this because I'm so rusty with the WFB rules having not played the game in years but, would I be right in thinking that creating some form of comp for that is far "easier" than trying to do the equivalent for 40k? If so, is that because the system and mechanics allow for better policing of stuff, i.e. No "X" magical item allowed, only a certain level of wizard etc?

For 40k, no Named Characters is an easy and obvious one. Beyond that, the variance of builds across the codices with types of builds, even types of individual unit, appear to be infinitely more uneven in some cases. Have you thought of actually doing an OG 40k comp like you've done for Fantasy?

This is the Comp that Pete and I played with Mon night (practice for me really):

http://www.daboyzgt.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ZECL9MNqa38%3d&tabid=77&mid=454

It's not meant to be a blanket system that makes everyone even, but the intent is to avoid net lists, heavy spam in certain areas and so on. It's not fool-proof but comp never is with the best will in the world.

It's designed for 1850 limits (the standard in the US), so whether it scales down well at lower points is also debatable. It might be a good starting point if you decide to implement something more tangible for the future.

N.B. The top part of the table works like this btw (as it can be confusing).

Everyone should aim to start their list from column 1, i.e. Your first choices should be 1 HQ, 3 TR, and one each from EL, FA, HV. However, if you add something from column 2 (like a second Heavy) before "maxing out" on the column 1 options, you take a 5pt hit for that choice on your comp score.

So, if I take 1 HQ, 1 each for FA, EL and HV but only 2 out of 3 TR requirements, my comp goes down if I take a further HQ, EL, FA, or HV before filling that third TR slot.

Your score starts at 80 and goes down depending on what you take, to a minimum of 30. Any score below that and you can't play. Final scores also make it simple to sort out first rounds, so two players with 30 scores (the toughest lists obviously) will end up facing against eachother at the start.

Just throwing it out there :)

[Steve H]

I still think my comp for the campaign solved a few of the issues Seb, although it was generic restrictions rather than looking at certain armies. There was significant timmy involved too...

Did you have any thoughts on it?

[rathstar]

Angelus: I think that system is good, but I think it does need the extra subjective points awarded by judges, as it's probably easy for some armies to break the system and the subjective points balance that.  I also noted that the system marks units not force organistion chart choices, so you'll have to increase the penalty list to cater for more than 6 troop units.

By the way my proposed list changes moved my score from -65 to +55.  My new penalties were -5 for a 3rd heavy support choice, and -20 for 4 dedicated transports.  My thoughts on which armies wold break the initial system scoring would be elite armies that don't need so many units, particularly vanilla marines who can combat squad, however the judged 30 points will cater for that.

Rathstar

[Meals]

Wow, you go actually work for a day and you miss all the fun.

Firstly, I have to say I don't think Robs Dark Eldar were that hard. Certainly no harder than 2 50 man rerolling stubborn guard blocks filled with Power Weapons/Fists. Its just that both are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum, and its very hard to account for both with one army. I myself took the punt that I wouldn't face too many vehicles and got it wrong. thats my fault and noone elses

Secondly, I liked that there was such massive diversity of lists. If we go out of the way to get rid of one or the other type of lists, I think that's a pretty disappointing way to go. Everyone has options to deal with Mass vehicle and everyone has options to deal with infantry heavy list, and MC heavy lists etc  god I hate the word spam). The challenge of trying to fit counters to it all in one list is what I love about 40k, and if you get rid of it, well that just sucks! God forbid people having to make tough decisions about what to include in their lists...

Also for what its worth, as far as I can tell, vehicle heavy lists have won all 3 40k tournies so far, yet no-one has bothered to increase the amount of anti-tank in their lists.... Metagame fail?

Thirdly, what are we trying to achieve in these tournies? If the idea is that everyone brings a little bit of everything, then tell the players that... Or is the idea that players bring lists they enjoy and we get the whole spectrum of list varieties?

You can do whatever you want with comp but honestly the best way to 'comp' things is to make the missions themselves deter people from bringing certain styles of lists.

If you don't want vehicle spam, make a mission that hits vehicle spam hard (KPs would be my bet for this) You can do the same for infantry spam with spread objectives (so you can pick off units as they have to spread out, and making only one objective per unit). This means that if I as player know that its gonna be really hard to win 1 mission with alot of vehicles, and the best I can do, unless I play very well or get lucky, is win 2/3 games and get relatively mid-table mediocrity ( and we all want to win to a certain extent) then I'm less likely to take alot of vehicles. If I still want to take vehicle spam knowing all this, then thats my choice as a player and I can't blame anyone else for that.

The same can be done for other types of 'bad' lists if you really must.

Anyway, as I'm gonna be selling my Daemons in November, I'm unlikely to play in anymore 40k tournies, so take my thoughts as you will.

Cheers,
James