With the advent of 2012 it is timely to update Pete-Lite Comp for recent books.
The changes are very minor - more permissive for Wood Elves and the removal of all specific restrictions on Vampire Counts until we see how the book settles.
I thought about restrictions around Hellheart/Greedy Fist/Lore of Death in Ogre Kingdoms but I am not convinced that that particular combo is all conquering. It is being use at this weekend's UK Masters so it will be interesting to see the upshot. I think it comes with downsides but I'll see if I'm proved wrong. Should it cut a swathe through the UK's top players then it may need to be revisited.
Here are the current restrictions:
General Restrictions
• No Special Characters
• Max Power Dice usage of 12 in Magic Phase (as distinct from max of 12 dice in pool at any time)
• Army to have no more than four (4) potential template weapons
• Army to have a maximum of four (4) warmachines
• No more than two (2) of any Special choice
• No double Rare choice worth more than 70 points
• Only one item that automatically dispels a spell or potential takes/destroys a spell
Army Specific Restrictions
• Daemons of Chaos: No duplication of Daemonic Gifts
• Empire: Steam Tank is classed as Warmachine in terms of General Restrictions
• Lizardmen: Slaan may have maximum two of Focus of Mystery, Becalming Cogitation, Cupped Hands or Focused Rumination
• Skaven: Maximum of three Engineers
• Orcs & Goblins: Maximum of three Mangler Squigs and/or Pump Wagons total
• Wood Elves: May have two units of Waywatchers, ignoring General Restriction
Bretts get stuck with one Treb... Pretty harsh, as they really need two to reliably drop unit numbers so they can have a chance of breaking ranks. Not like they are breaking the world as is.
ReplyDeleteThats my only initial comment.
James
While it may sound odd, I have a suggestion for the magic dice. Perhaps limiting it to only being able to cast spells with 12 dice, but any generation over can be used as dispell dice in your own magic phase.
ReplyDeleteThe rares have pritty harsh restrictions in all honesty.
ReplyDeleteYou restrict armies like brets and TK to a single war machine this way, whilest othes like empire and skaven can max/min as much as they please. The hate people place on rares leads to imbalances, as some armies only answers to certain builds can only come from rare choices.
I cant understand the reasoning behind effectivly banning most double rares. Cant see why you wouldnt just ban the specific ones you dont want to see.
I really don't get this one "No double Rare choice worth more than 70 points", it stops a few obvious things such as double hellpits and hydra's, and excessive salamanders, but also stops a bunch of list choice's that seem reasonable, or are capped elsewhere (ie, warmachines that are rare choices).
ReplyDeleteSeems to be double monster stopper, but this also stops stuff like double giants, which in all honesty I see as soft. Several lists can get around this by mounting characters on monsters.
Hellpits, Hydra's and Salamaders should have restrictions on them.
Also, don't get this one
Lizardmen: Slaan may have maximum two of Focus of Mystery, Becalming Cogitation, Cupped Hands or Focused Rumination
Get your trying to stop the uber slann, but if someone wants to skink 500-600 points into their Slann, they better prey their magic works as otherwise they going to be in big trouble. Cupped Hands is a waste of 45 points (yes it has potential, but it's one use!). Focused Rumination is somewhat capped by the 12 power dice limit and Focus of Mystery is another waste of points, the 15 pt spell familiar is generally just as good (with a slight risk vs lore master). Becalming Cogitation is the bomb.
I agree, I don't want to see every slann I ever play packing all this, but I just can't see it working consistently, and if I run into the odd one, so be it, rather that than 4 Stegadons (at 2000 pts) or 5 at 2400 pts, which would be completly legal under these restrictions.
When I have previously posted the Pete-Lite Comp system I've generally put in a piece around the philosophy behind the system. I missed it this time so I'll reiterate it here.
ReplyDeleteThe system is not designed to be an all-encompassing comp system to level in my opinion all books to a level playing system.
It is designed to be generally very permissive and have few restrictions so as not to constrain people's choice of list build too much. What it is aimed at is removing most of the egregious builds as simply as possible.
To that end it has a small number of general restrictions and as few specific restrictions as I think I can get away with. This let's it sit as comfortably under half a page.
As new books are released more and more specific restrictions are going and the general restrictions tend to do the job - that a testimony to the improvement that GW have made.
I had looking at Hard Cap systems that are pages of restrictions and to be honest read as "Crimes Against Me" by the TO in question. Having a very light system allows people to plan their lists with minimal interference.
Hope that explains some of the philosophy.
Pete
P.S. Can I ask that those of you who do post comments under Anonymous tag your comment with your name so I can address specific replies to the right person more easily. There are a lot of good points but having three different postsers (?) make it hard to discuss if you are indistinguishable. Thanks
All in favor of the "lite" format over the alternatives.
ReplyDeleteHaving played under them several times, I can say I don't recall ever having to alter a list I wanted to play with to meet any of these restrictions. Either, means I have a pretty good feel for what is reasonable and/or they generally only affect the outliers, which is normamally the objective of comp restrictions.
What is the point in a comp system if it is not to attempt to level the playing field? Why not just go no comp instead? I personaly cannot see any point in taking peoples toys away if it is not to try and level the disparity between books.
ReplyDeleteBy not addressing each books composition you remove sometimes vital units that fill in gaps in an armys list which, whilest aleviating some horrendous builds in one army, seriously reduses the ability in others.
Take Tomb Kings for example. They rely on SSC as a high strength (magical) attack in an army that is almost purely strength 3 or 4. Comping them to have access to only one in comparison to armyies such as empire which are also heavily influenced by st3 and 4 builds, but have access to multiple high strength attacks without doubling up or taking rares (think cannons etc). Coupled with the common limit on archers to 45 (I do note your comp dosnt restrict archery), and you have completly removed a defensive build as an option, a build that is arguably a key component to TK handling alot of armys out there.
Simalarily the limits imposed on magic are more overly restrictive on TK than other armies. The no more than 12 PD affects TK more than most, TK being an army that relies on magic buffs to make it functional and try and mitigate the obvious weaknesses in the army. With this in place, you will never see a Hierotitan (as an example) as the +D3 bonus (or an average of +2 to the casting level), that which is the purpose of including the model, would only applies with very low WoM rolls, as the +D3 is technically a PD. Compare this to other armies that have a static bonus (VC new +2 to cast within 12" of Mortis Engine) which is basically the same bonus but worded differently, discriminates this type of build whilest allowing it for others.
I am happy to see unrestricted archer options in this comp system. Archery restrictions have no place in 8th edition, as they are a viable tactic (and for some armies, the only tactic) to combat tooled combat hoards so that they are more managable to deal with.
To many times I see hangovers from 7th permiating into peoples perspective of 8th. This has evolved into 8th edition tourneys being very one dimensional builds with some comp packs which leads to very unorgional builds and players just pushing wardollie deathstars around.
If you placed restrictions on Chaos Warriors, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, and Skaven to bring them in line with the new books, would any other army even need comp???
In summary, general restrictions are to broad and do not address the differences in play styles, and individual army books internal structure.
Tim J
People who say certain armies rely on certain models e.g. (double catapult TK, Bret) i think really need to factor in back up plans into there list.
ReplyDeleteSo what happens when they are not hitting / Misfire?
Game over??? Hand me a 20-0.
Well, my point was not that no double treb was an autoloss. More that you're removing an option that's hatdly broken in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, if you can't have two you may as well not bother with them in the first place. One will always be dead turn two (especially since there doesn't seem to be any comp on scout sizes) at the latest, and probably won't hit anything by that point. So this comp has effectively banned trebs for brets in my opinion. Death knell? No. But kinda unnecessary.
That said, I'm gonna be double comet spamming people with high elves when I get back to nz so it's not a big problem for me ;-)
James
@James...how can you double comet spam when only one caster can have the spell?
ReplyDeleteSeer Staff. If you choose the spell, it doesn't count when you roll for spells. Same happens with a Loremaster Slaan and a Skink Priest, etc.
ReplyDeleteJames
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRestrictions IMO are not the way forward IMO. Much prefer the Cancon http://www.hamptongc.com/content/cancon-2012-players-pack where 80pts are up for grabs in comp each army. It allows you to take what ever you like with only the fear of a 0 comp score or rejection/resubmitt to stop you from going OTT. I believe it works having attended 3 tournements using such a system in 8th ED.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that I don't mind any system as long as it's well thought out, explained and has no hidden traps.
Eeeek....I deleted my comment by mistake when I went to add to it. Grrr.
ReplyDeleteSean, I'm really puzzled that you think that subjective comp is better than hard caps. I used to love Panel comp but since the advent of 8th I think the balance of the game makes Hard Caps much superior. I've totally changed my stance.
There is no bitching post event. Australia is pretty much the only place that uses subjective comp these days and WAU forums are generally plagued with gripes after the event.
I like the surety of hard caps.
I think there needs to be an exemption to rare limitations for high elves. Their rare choices are not exactly diverse or particularly stellar.
ReplyDeleteI think a subjective comp is a backwards step. Hard caps are generally preferable. My only point I try to make is some armies are further effected by them than others.
ReplyDeleteLike has been mentioned before, bringing 2 catapults using TK example) brings some reliability than a single one. Limiting selection to one basically means its not worth bringing it due to the unreliability. One is far more vulnerable to enemy artillery, scouts, shooting, magic etc than 2.
I only compare it to the majority of other armies that can utilize multiple war machines and thier ability to bring "back up plans" by including more than one.
Blanket bans do not bring armies more in line with each other when the culprits requiring restriction are only from a few armies.
You use the example of 2 warp lightning cannons. Wouldnt that mean skaven will have to drop the orb, or the rocket, or plague catapult etc to fit dual ones in. If people really see a problem with this then add a further restriction to the one army rather than all armies.
I dont think many people will disagree that some armies like Brets, TK, woodies, or high elves are not overpowered.
Im not saying I dont like the comp system you propose, Im just saying it needs more work to address some imbalances it creates. It still forces many armies to a single play style, of which many are not well suited to
Tim
Understand your point Tim, I just don't agree that trying to achieve a perfectly level field based on an exhaustive list of specific restrictions is either a) achievable or b) likely to be more desirable than a limited set of general restrictions. I honestly think that the general restrictions with the limited specific achieve 90% of what you're keen to achieve.
ReplyDeleteObviously you have differing view but that makes the world.
Peter