Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im not a tournament type of player. And I read the battle reports and such often. I hear people talking about comp scores and they actually have something to do with winning. What the hell is a comp score? And what do you need to do to get a decent one?

A comp score :spits: is a composition rating by the other players, much like sportsmanship. You need a "fluffy, uncheesy" army to get one. Basically, anyone who loses rips the other player's comp. Anyone at the tournament who thinks that, say 2 Raiders in 1500 are "cheesy" will rip comp.

As you can tell, I hate the whole idea.

well, thats because 1500 points with 2 raiders IS cheesy ><

Basically, a good comp score will be given to an army that has almost no repetition in it, and some uncommonly used choices.

so if you play a marine list, if you play land speeder typhoons, whirlwinds, assault squads, things like that that aren't used all the time, you should get a comp score. If your taking 3 10 man tac squads, give all of them different loadouts... consider putting 1 in a razorback, instead of 3 rhinos. just mix it up.

for orks, don't take 6 30 man squads of shoota boyz... take a few truck boyz squads, a few slugga boyz squads, take something like kommandos, or stormboyz, things not always used.

Also, you can't take special characters that aren't in your army and get a good score. You can use lysander or vulkan, sure, but if you do your army better be painted to imperial fists or salamanders colors.

you get the idea....

There are other forms of comp. Some events have a separate judge to determine each lists comp score. Others have a check list, usually like "Does the list have at least one choice from each FOC slot?" Some places have even more complicated tiered systems and such. The TO should announce well in advance if there will be comp scoring and what form will be used for each event. So, there is no one way to get good comp, it depends on the particular criteria of the event, however a good deal of systems will downgrade spamming units. I have been to tournaments where I felt comp enhanced my experience by changing up my lists and the general gaming experience.

Most people that play in the tournaments at my local GW mark down 100% for Sportmanship and Composition... usually only those people that get *upset* (nice way to put it) about loosing mark down comp and sportsmanship...

I don't like people that mark down 100% for comp... the ONLY armies that should get perfect scores are wacky armies that aren't really a threat. A good, competitive army, with no repetition and one or two unusual unit choices should get ~80% comp.

a unit with nothing BUT wierd choices should get the 100%... if you wanna play an eldar army featuring a heavy focus on swooping hawks and shining spears, with guardian weapon batteries as heavy support, thats the kind of thing that would get a perfect comp score.

Comp = variety, not repetition.

Comp = Imposed morality.

^^
Exactly.

Comp=utter and complete bs. YMMV.

There are comp systems ranging from completely subjective appraisal to highly detailed mathematical models.

All can be gamed and all give inadvertent unfair advantages and disadvantages to particular armies.

Europe doesn't use Comp scores (or Sports scores.)

@KK: The notion that Comp is somehow "unfair" is what's BS. It's simply different, but the notion that different is inherently unfair is not something that one might readily argue.

Particularly looking at the WFB side of things, in which there is a very large skew in power between armies like Daemons and armies like Beasts.

The biggest European tournament I'm aware of (ETC) applies Comp rules to 40k by banning certain Special Characters, and by limiting WFB by applying points handicaps and limiting duplication of units.

They did this collaboratively and all parties were aware of the restrictions in place. If all parties agree to the changes in advance, then by no means can it be declared "unfair" in any way.

@JohnHwang: how many times are you going to waffle between it's for game balance/it's for fluff/it's just to mix things up, this round?

Comp scores judged by players and judges can be problematic. That being said I have always been intrigued by a different form of comp scoring. I seem to recall several years ago an old Dakka poster named Mauleed ran a tournment with a version of comp. He took every codex and rated each entry in some way, gave each entry a points value based on his idea of what was strong and what was weak. I'm not sure excactly how it worked, but I think the jist of it was to award points to players who took more units which were deemed 'subpar' in their tourney list.

For example the rating system would reward people who took possessed or spawn in their army list and while taking oblits wouldn't harm your score, you just wouldn't get as many points as someone who took a chaos spawn. This is a 5th edition example of course.

I have always been intrigued with this type of format. It could be done in one of two ways. Either assign every unit in every codex and points value, publish this list and on the day of the tournament add up the points of every list. Then award points to players (comp points I guess) in the inverse totals of all tournament players. Tiers would have to be set up to prevent a 30 person tournament from assigning 30pts to one list and 1 point to another which could seriously throw off the scores (or would it, if players knew ahead of time they wold work to present the army list with the lowest possible points in hopes of scoring the most comp points. This would only be an incentive if the comp points differential were high enough to affect the overall winner). A second way to do this would be to assign a max commp points for the tournament. Say 30pts of comp to each army. Then players would have to 'buy' their army list from the 30pts available to them and based on the cost of each unit in the codex they would come up with an army list. For example oblits are 7 points, csm's are 2 pts, DP'd are 5pts (+1 for a mark, +2 for a psychic power, +3 for wings, etc..).

Either way would take a lot of work to pull off, but the tournament play would be magical to behold if it could be pulled off right.

All that stuff is a distraction, I mean it seems like its about who impressed me with cool units and pretty smiles instead of wins.

willydstyle wrote:@JohnHwang: how many times are you going to waffle between it's for game balance/it's for fluff/it's just to mix things up, this round?

I have been pretty firm that:
- Comp is structural, can can be used to adjust balance to encourage variety.
- Theme is for Fluff

Perhaps you can read more carefully and understand the distinction that I'm making..

I've never witnessed comp scoring for 40K first hand, but all of the scoring systems which I've seen for 40K have been poorly thought out and/or apparently intended to give advantage to specific army composition styles whether or not those composition styles are feasible in all codices. Then again, there are the other events I've heard about where comp scoring is done in a completely opaque manner by one or more judges which leave the players no idea what criteria is being used for the scoring...

To be a complete arm chair event organizer, I'd prefer if an event just issued arbitrary list refusals or point handicaps rather than saying "Sure, you can play, but you won't win. If you want to take your abusive list and wreck other people's chances of winning, that's okay!"

The one and only problem with Comp scoring is that it is left up to the players to determine. Comp scoring is SUBJECTIVE.
It's like asking individual people, "What is good art?" "What is an attractive woman?" Or, "What is good music?"


Examples:

Horst wrote:Basically, a good comp score will be given to an army that has almost no repetition in it, and some uncommonly used choices.

Horst wrote:the ONLY armies that should get perfect scores are wacky armies that aren't really a threat. A good, competitive army, with no repetition and one or two unusual unit choices should get ~80% comp.

a unit with nothing BUT wierd choices should get the 100%... if you wanna play an eldar army featuring a heavy focus on swooping hawks and shining spears, with guardian weapon batteries as heavy support, thats the kind of thing that would get a perfect comp score.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp = variety, not repetition.

I disagree with all of this. Horst, while I applaud your conviction for using left-of-center units/choices, I think you have skewed the meaning of Comp Score too far to your extreme. Especially in the "army that is no threat to me gets perfect comp score" bit...
'Comp Score' is short for Composition Score.
Composition is:

dictionary.com wrote:Composition:
–noun
1. the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole.

3. manner of being composed; structure: This painting has an orderly composition.

mirriam-webster.com wrote:Composition:
2 a : the manner in which something is composed
b : general makeup <the changing ethnic composition of the city — Leonard Buder>
4 : a product of mixing or combining various elements or ingredients

In no way does the definition of composition reflect that you have to use elements that are seldom used or wholly unused. Why would a Swooping Hawk army of fail get a 100% Comp score over a Tactical Marine army based off of realism in military combat formations? I'll tell you why:

Because Comp Score is subjective.
While Horst may slap his Swooping Hawk/Guardian opponent with a big, fat 100% Comp Score, I would likely give him a seriously less than stellar score due to the fact that his composition for an ARMY IN BATTLE was terrible. Not because he didn't take the powerful "gimme" list choices for his army, but because he didn't bring elementes conducive to a successful combat force to a fight. An army with nothing but recon force-style units (read: small, lightly armed/armored, and fast) with grunt infantry as your anchoring element is what you call good composition?
Would it be smart, then, to send 3 10-man squads of Green Berets in Hum-Vees and a couple of Cobras into a battle with the Taliban with regular Army GI's for support? No tanks, no Arty, no mortars. Nothing but M240 SAWs and M4-infantry for your heavy support?


Subjective + people policing themselves = fail


The second problem with the current Comp Score (sportsmanship, too) is collusion. At almost every RTT I attended in the mid-late '90s, there was at least one player that said, "You give me perfect score and I'll give you perfect score". I've even had some check my paper or walk up with me to turn it in together. Several times I have had to ask a Judge to edit my score sheet for me after I turned it in.



There is no reason that the tourney organizers couldn't do a fair and impartial Comp Score. The only hurdle would be the Judge in charge of the score and his subjectiveness; what does he think is "good composition?" As long as the tourney information/flyer/signups/whatever are clear in what the Judges consider to be "comp-y" there should be no surprises.



Ghidorah

JohnHwangDD wrote:@KK: The notion that Comp is somehow "unfair" is what's BS. It's simply different, but the notion that different is inherently unfair is not something that one might readily argue.

Particularly looking at the WFB side of things, in which there is a very large skew in power between armies like Daemons and armies like Beasts.

The biggest European tournament I'm aware of (ETC) applies Comp rules to 40k by banning certain Special Characters, and by limiting WFB by applying points handicaps and limiting duplication of units.

They did this collaboratively and all parties were aware of the restrictions in place. If all parties agree to the changes in advance, then by no means can it be declared "unfair" in any way.

All the ones I have seen were unfair.

Comp is theoretically the basis of the codexes. The codexes are supposed to present lawful, fluffy, compy choices. We all recognise they are unbalanced.

Tournament comp is just an attempt to address the biases in the codexes.

This ETC comp of which you speak is a step in the direction that I and some other players have put forwards; if you must have comp, you need to rewrite the codexes or at least write specific balanced army lists for tournaments. It's also good that players were consulted beforehand.

That however is a council of perfection, hard to achieve in practice.

GW tournaments in Europe don't have comp.

Ghidorah wrote:The one and only problem with Comp scoring is that it is left up to the players to determine.

Ghidorah wrote:
The second problem...

Huh? What happened to one and only problem?? Just havin a laff, easy there.

Ghidorah wrote:with the current Comp Score (sportsmanship, too) is collusion. At almost every RTT I attended in the mid-late '90s, there was at least one player that said, "You give me perfect score and I'll give you perfect score". I've even had some check my paper or walk up with me to turn it in together. Several times I have had to ask a Judge to edit my score sheet for me after I turned it in.

There is no reason that the tourney organizers couldn't do a fair and impartial Comp Score. The only hurdle would be the Judge in charge of the score and his subjectiveness; what does he think is "good composition?" As long as the tourney information/flyer/signups/whatever are clear in what the Judges consider to be "comp-y" there should be no surprises.



Ghidorah

Actually, you forgot the third and only problem: jackassery. Very similar to collusion in some regards, jackassery being when someone gets hammered by you, and marks you down as a gakky sportsman for it. Hows that work? I beat you, so I automatically was an asshat? I think one of my British friends said it best when he said,"Wot?".
There are many variations on this theme.

That's an aspect of WAAC.

Yes, in any event where comp/sportsmanship is player scored, and calculates into the final score, you're going to have some players giving their opponents lower scores simply because it increases their chances to win overall.

Comp score is a subjective score that is used in combination with the sportsmanship score to penalize those who kick peoples teeth in and prevent them from winning a tournament outright. The larger the margin of victory, the more likely the player is to get marked down because the winning army is "cheesy".

Comp score is not always subjective. Sometimes a TO will have a "checklist" style comp, where he asserts his biases about what makes a "balanced" 40k army into a rules sheet. Armies that don't fit into the rules are penalized.

The one and only time I'm ok with comp, is when you have 2+ players at the end of a tournament with perfect records and you need to decide who is first place overall. Then the guy with the weakest army seems like a natural choice, he came in with a handicap and still tied for first with others.

My biggest gripe is the combination of Comp into some score that has anything to do with fluff, paint, opponent marks, what's fun to play against, etc... All of that has bearing on other player's enjoyment of a tournament, but it doesn't really have a place in determining who amongst these guys tied for first place deserves to be called the winner. It might be good to consider these things for best painted, or best sportsman.

willydstyle wrote:Comp score is not always subjective. Sometimes a TO will have a "checklist" style comp, where he asserts his biases about what makes a "balanced" 40k army into a rules sheet. Armies that don't fit into the rules are penalized.

That is still subjective (As in what is good/bad). The difference is that checklists tend to be open and honest about why things get certain comp scores.

Comp scores have traditionally been based on fluff. Like are his khorne units 8 man strong. But this fails horribly. Back in 3rd and early 4th, IW would come to a tourney with a perfectly themed army but it would be the cheesiest(if such a concept exists). 9 oblits and 4 pie plates.

So comp is a way for less skilled players or casual tyoe gamers to impose a handicap system for the better tournament gamers.

Its like when I play my brother in Street Fighter. After a while to make it "fair" I could no longer use Ken, the it expanded to Ryu and all shadow type characters. Then I couldnt use Blanka or Chung Lee. Finaly when I started spamming with Dalsim and he couldnt win, I just quit playing him. Comp is the same thing. If you cant beat Ken you try and outlaw him, or things like IW in 3rd, tri falcon in 4th and nob bikers in 5th.

@Darkness: I think you'll find that nob bikers aren't quite the powerhouse that everyone thought they were 6 months ago. They haven't been winning big tournaments any more.

And that points to yet another reason why comp is useless: what different people consider to be "overpowered" can vary heavily.

I think that biker-heavy Marine armies are very powerful. Others think that Mech Eldar is very powerful, others think that BW orks are very powerful, etc.

I agree on the nob bikers, but I felt it the best example to stand next to IW and tri Falcon Eldar

What often happens is a new codex is released and has one or two powerful surprise (non-obvious) builds in it.

Drop Pod SMs (in 4e)
Eldar Falcons.
Ork Nob Bikers.
Twin Lash Princes.
Multiple Obliterators.

Really clever players spot something through Maths Hammer and exploit it to win some tournaments.

The list quickly becomes widespread on the Internet and is copied by a larger number of not as clever players.

The really clever players think of a counter-ploy, which together with their tactical skill, can nail the list.

The counter-ploy becomes known on the Internet.