As I’ve stated previously, power gamer me so happens to be roller derby me. I have to admit, power gamer me is a little scary.  Teri Fying, one might say.

Looks like you'd have to freehand the fishnets on these minis.

Read the rest of this entry »

Fifteeen  minutes can mean the world, particularly if it’s the last turn of a game. That last fifteen usually determines the outcome of the game, and that last 15 should be yours to control.

I say it over and over to people who play 40K: elect to go second whenever possible  (exception being that you’re facing an army you’re sure you’ll table by turn 3 but if that’s you, shame on you for playing a leafblower, Goatboy.)

Why?

Read the rest of this entry »

So if you haven’t yet heard, I’ve been skating with the Red Deer Roller Derby Association’s as freshmeat (derby’s name for total n00b).

Now if only I could montage my way up to boost my skating skills like in the movies, instead of having to grind them up like in WoW (non-referred) or RL.

Since I’ve started, I’ve hit a few practices, fallen more than a handful of of times, and sprained an ankle.

I still love it and I’m hoping to get better and faster on my skates. Sooner, preferably.

With all that said, I have to admit that being involved in derby has made me more sympathetic to power game-y listbuilders in 40K.

Read the rest of this entry »

So yesterday I had the pleasure of actually -playing-in a tournament; one I didn’t organize. I figured I needed to get more games of this edition in and I wanted to experiment with the models I had to see what kind of list I can build with them.

(A puny image - click for a bigger, better version.)

My list for this tournament (1800 points).

Shas’El with Flamer, Fusion Blaster & Blacksun Filter

Ethereal with 12 Honour Guard

Unit of 3 Stealth Suits (2 Burst Cannon & 1 Fusion Blaster) x 2

Sniper Drone Squad (2x 1 Spotter & 3 Sniper Drones acting independently)

Broadside Unit of 2 -Each with Target Lock, Smart Missiles & Advanced Stabilization System

Broadside Unit of 2 – 1 with Smart Missles, 1 with Plasma Rifles,  both with Target Lock & Advanced Stabilization System

12 man Firewarrior Squad carrying Pulse Rifles with EMPs & Photons x2

Kroot Carnivore Squad – 10 Kroot and 6 Hounds

Kroot Carnivore Squad 10 Kroot (with 1 shaper upgrade) and 6 Hounds

Pathfinder Unit (5 Markerlights, 3 Rail Rifles) with compulsory Devilfish

Can you believe I don’t own a Hammerhead in my current colour scheme? Craziness, I know.

Anyways, here a little rundown of what my day looked like.  Read the rest of this entry »

I will never run a tournament without composition.

Never.

And I think players who play in my events should be grateful for that.

I’m a Warhammer 40K event organizer and as an organizer I want to be proud of not only the winners of my events, but in the manner by which they win my events.

I want to ensure the top player at my events win because they’re the best generals, not because they have a list my 2-year-old daughter could win with (and yes, there are many, many builds that do that). I don’t want to reward guys who show up with m*therf*cker lists and steamroll their opponents. I don’t reward baby seal clubbers.

Which brings me to talking a little about optimization: as gamers, we have a tendency to optimize and make things efficient and effective. TOs are guilty of this too which is why I think checklist composition scoring has become the norm – it feels effective and efficient. Except it doesn’t respect what composition is intended to do. Checklist composition scoring  fights the meta game, imposes the values of the TO on players and can still be gamed. So really checklist composition is not effective, making it inefficient.

My comp scoring method is about friction. It’s not an easy process, nor is it particularly cut-and-dry. But I think that’s what makes players feel its fair. Here’s how I did it for my last event (which took over 4 1/2 hours):

Gather up several gamers, all of whom have won various prizes at various events.

Sitting around the table with me were gamers who have won Best Overalls, Best General, Best Painting and Best Sport. The diversity of outlook and play style is essential to fair scoring.

Each list must be evaluated within the landscape of lists at the tournament.

We looked over each list at least twice – once to see how each army was composed and once more to determine where within the landscape of armies any given list fell.

Army lists are scored blind to the general.

All armies were built and printed out in army builder so to look completely generic – nicknames provided by players were used instead of player names. We scored the lists on how it was composed and assumed all generals playing these lists were of the same caliber. With that assumption, we then lay each list out within the spectrum. If games would seem close, armies would be clustered in the same tier; if games looked as though it would be one-sided, armies would be placed in separate tiers.

Armies would be debated, if required.

Armies that seemed to fall between tiers were looked at for a third or fourth time. We’d debate and compare contentious lists to lists firmly entrenched within their own tier, and sort out where the closer game would be to determine which tier in-between lists would best fit.

After reviewing all the lists, go to bed.

This system takes a long time. Some lists didn’t get submitted on time, and thus were evaluated by e-mail later on. Composition scoring is a process, but I feel as though this system works for the types of events I like to run.

This system isn’t perfect, but its better than checklists, by far. It isn’t about the process as much as what the process outputs:  it takes into account the meta game – both regional and inherited online. It finds a balance within an event instead of trying to impose the values of tournament organizers on lists. It’s respectful to players and I think that’s key.

With all that said, how composition is used also obviously has impact – that may be a post for another day, but the composition scores we used slightly modified a player’s battle points, but significantly modified a players options during the pairing round (where we gave choice to players to either challenge an opponent or choose their table, which allowed them to change their game size).  Giving initiative to the player with the lowest win-loss record, and then within that bracket to the player with the best composition score significantly was a mechanic that allowed us not only to use composition as a big, punitive stick but also as a shiny, orange carrot. But that’s probably another post for another day.