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.

So looking at entering a 40k doubles tournament with a good friend of mine, and reading the players pack, this is the first time I have seen a comp score mentioned. Here is the example:

"I and a selection of people will judge the Comp Points of each Player’s army. An army that is considered nice and easy will score well, while an army considered to be a hard or nasty list will score low. Each Player will be given a score from 1 to 5. The result you are given is final and we don’t need to explain our result."

So, say I take my grey knights, will my army choice already make me score a 1, even if I take a nice balanced list (no max purifiers psyfleman etc) or should I look at going with a different army.

I will add now, we are going in this for fun, he will be taking a fluffy khorne list with khan etc, and I will take my grey knights, but not a really competitive build.

So I guess my point is, are tournaments not meant to be where players design the best list they can, why should a comp score be taken so much into account? Does it mean we have to take 'bad' lists in order to do well?

Just looking for general views/opinions

There should be a format listng for these type of tournaments listing everything they deduct points for, from spamming more than 1 FOC units besides troops, and points spent on wargear. You should try to contact the TO of the tournament with these questions as comp tournaments have both similar and different rulings. You can take Grey Knights, they shouldnt deduct you just for using an army you like.

Many COMPs have a rubric which tells you exact scoring.

Other comps are JUDGED which is basically a gut-check and often compared to your place in the pack, not individually the list.

This sounds like JUDGED comp so you may be at the whims of the judges biases.

And you feel the main focus of tourneys is "tournaments not meant to be where players design the best list they can"

That is only one way of having a tourney and lots of people don't agree. For there to be competition, there needs to be balance which the 40k metabase doesn't really have right now so many will disagree because bringing the best list limits the armies you can participate with. If they want everyone to participate they feel like putting in COMP rules. Some groups of players like it this way, and TOs often give the players what they want.

You can disagree with them, but many people feel like without COMP, events are unfun and unfair, especially people who have been running tourneys since 3rd edition when the game was widly broken and you could break the game by bringing a 'codex legal' list. Opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one. COMP debates will rage on, but it is the TO's call.

So you have the following options:
1. Try to take a GK list which is not a normal meta net-list and see if that helps.
2. Take a meta net-list and play to have fun and just accept there is comp and don't worry about it (most of us are not going to place top table anyways so who cares)
3. If you can't enjoy the format due to comp, don't play in the event.

Comp scoring is always a biased crap-shoot. Generally it's best to completely ignore comp concerns because, even if you dumb down your army, any scoring rubric will be so subjective that you might get a terrible score regardless. And as a Grey Knights player you'll probably be given a terrible score no matter what you field, so take the strongest army you can and hope for the best. The very fact that comp scoring is being used to begin with suggests that this tournament isn't a serious event, so just go and have fun since the results don't really mean much with regards to evaluating player skill.

Comp scores dont work, either you get chipmunked for winning or its some pompus council that might as well ban and restrict units but are too lazy to do so.

Ravenous D wrote:Comp scores dont work, either you get chipmunked for winning or its some pompus council that might as well ban and restrict units but are too lazy to do so.

Yeah, that's why Da Boyz tournament is so unsuccessful year after year.)

Comp doesn't work for everyone, and many people hate it. Doesn't mean it doesn't work for some groups, or some TO's. And arguing about how COMP doesn't work is stupid and runs page after page. Each person has a different idea in their head about what the dreaded COMP is, and we argue from different points of veiw.

Best thing for people to do is take a look at the event, talk to the TO. Then make a decision about whether you want to play or not. Bringing the arguement to Dakka doesn't solve your problem. Talking to the TO does.

I'm fine with COMP where everyone knows the matrix.

"The result you are given is final and we don’t need to explain our result."

The above is BS and I wouldn't play in their tournament.

Danny Internets wrote:Comp scoring is always a biased crap-shoot. Generally it's best to completely ignore comp concerns because, even if you dumb down your army, any scoring rubric will be so subjective that you might get a terrible score regardless. And as a Grey Knights player you'll probably be given a terrible score no matter what you field, so take the strongest army you can and hope for the best. The very fact that comp scoring is being used to begin with suggests that this tournament isn't a serious event, so just go and have fun since the results don't really mean much with regards to evaluating player skill.

This is my thoughts as well...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:

Ravenous D wrote:Comp scores dont work, either you get chipmunked for winning or its some pompus council that might as well ban and restrict units but are too lazy to do so.

Yeah, that's why Da Boyz tournament is so unsuccessful year after year.)

Comp doesn't work for everyone, and many people hate it. Doesn't mean it doesn't work for some groups, or some TO's. And arguing about how COMP doesn't work is stupid and runs page after page. Each person has a different idea in their head about what the dreaded COMP is, and we argue from different points of veiw.

Best thing for people to do is take a look at the event, talk to the TO. Then make a decision about whether you want to play or not. Bringing the arguement to Dakka doesn't solve your problem. Talking to the TO does.

Day boyz works cause they give you the scores AHEAD of time and give you the option to improve it and ways to improve it... but even then they will tell you the system is never perfect...

Someone may have this. A few years ago I saw a comp sheet from a Swedish gaming group. Actually it was more like a book as the detail for decutions was pretty large.

Comp can be an issue. Squash your opponent like a bug, even if he just had a bad game and you could get tanked out of spite.

Ask the TO about your list. I don't know how it is in NZ currently, but in a composition judged event in the US right now I would avoid taking GK. GK are pretty hated by players (and most judges are also players).

There is nothing wrong with a tournament judging composition, and there is nothing wrong with choosing not to play at a composition judged event. Having no hints as to what defines "good" composition as opposed to "bad" composition is pretty odd in my book, but that doesn't mean it is bad.

In short, your question has no correct answer. As a TO I don't use composition scoring, as a player I tend to dislike composition scoring (even though my armies are generally very fluffy and score well in composition), and as a community member I support organizers running events any way they see fit; if their idea is terrible their players will let them know, either by talking to them or not attending.

I'm not a fan of comp, and generally won't play in any tournament where the TO feels he or she can come up with better game balance than the play testers, not that I believe the game to be balanced, but rather that virtually anything somebody comes up with will likely be just as unbalanced. I won't say that comp doesn't work or doesn't have its place in some tournaments though. Some gaming groups may enjoy playing with comp. The best way to influence the group in your area is too talk about what kinds of tournaments work best for your meta (paint requirements, comp, sportsmanship, etc.). If many people don't enjoy the comp components then the TO will figure it out when there is a very low turnout for the events.

Of course you could always show up with a really nasty list and smash face against everyone who intentionally brought toned down lists, comp points be damned!

Danny Internets wrote: so just go and have fun since the results don't really mean much with regards to evaluating player skill.

In a game where uneven powered armies are made from books that are built for different rules editions and have uneven power levels overall even within the same edition... and are then subjected to the vagaries of dice rolls... no aspect of the experience means that much with regards to evaluating player skill. Comp is only a tiny portion of that when used in either case. If you want to truely evaluate skill, only attend tournies where everyone is using the exact same armies and the "rolls" are taken from predetermined matrices that both players are forced to use.

frgsinwntr wrote:
Day boyz works cause they give you the scores AHEAD of time and give you the option to improve it and ways to improve it... but even then they will tell you the system is never perfect...

And so is the base rules system it is being used with.

tuiman wrote:So looking at entering a 40k doubles tournament with a good friend of mine, and reading the players pack, this is the first time I have seen a comp score mentioned. Here is the example:

"I and a selection of people will judge the Comp Points of each Player’s army. An army that is considered nice and easy will score well, while an army considered to be a hard or nasty list will score low. Each Player will be given a score from 1 to 5. The result you are given is final and we don’t need to explain our result."

*snip*

Just looking for general views/opinions

Comp is generally used to overlay a subjective balance to a game where armies can vary incredibly in power level (even when composed of very similar models with similar costs.. like tactical marines vs grey hunters). Plenty of people on the internet hate it and are vocal about it but the average guy in the game store who generally occasionally attends local tournies tends to like it since they're not the ones bringing internet powerlists to tournies. It's best used in any case though when its an open system whose rules (as determined by the TO) are published prior to the event. What percentage of any overall score will be comp? What are the criteria you are either rewarded or penalized based on? If the purpose of the comp system is to encourage a wide variety of armies as well as somewhat balancing the playing field, not publishing those criteria ahead of time accomplishes nothing. You basically only have the stick and not the carrot.

On top of that, your TO sounds like a TFG as he's pretty much saying he will neither give any criteria nor respond to feedback regarding it. It's likely that this attitude will extend to the tourny itself from my albeit limited tourny experience. While I agree that arguing with the TO after a final desicion is made (even if incorrect) is poor form, this guy sounds like his "final" decisions will be based on his first thought with no debate or rules discussion allowed. There is always a chance that I'm wrong so try asking him to come up with the clear criteria (not just "-1 for a powerful list, -2 for REALLY powerful" BS that you doesn't help) that players can use ahead of time. Frame the discussion in terms of HIM getting what he wants (the lists/armies/whatever) in the tourney he is running without him having to deal with whining at the event, making his life easier and the day more fun for him. If he refuses then expect the list to be entirely subjective and severely biased towards the armies he's recently been defeated by (which likely includes GK as they're the current powerhouse army). If he does come out with the his scoring system, see if the "penalty" for taking a powerhouse army (or even your regular intended army) is worth making a change for or simply not going. Hope that helps.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Someone may have this. A few years ago I saw a comp sheet from a Swedish gaming group. Actually it was more like a book as the detail for decutions was pretty large.

Comp can be an issue. Squash your opponent like a bug, even if he just had a bad game and you could get tanked out of spite.

I must have gotten lucky with the gaming group in GF Montana. I recently won best general having tabled all three of my opponents. Well my second opponent had A termie Sergent left, but nothing else. We laughed and joked the whole game (I profusely apologized for UNBELIEVABLY good armor saving ) and he even made a point to tell me he had voted for me in the best sport category. My list for this 1700 point tourny?

Grandmaster w psycannon

2x 10 man grey knight termie squads w banner and psybolt ammo and several different types of weapons

Dread Knight w HPsycannon and Gpsilencer

2x psybolt assault cannon dreads w heavy bolter/ ndfist

I brought what was FAR from a broken list, and still had some people cry CHEEZE!!! XD SO I just set out to enjoy myself and look for epic moments in my games.

Hadn't noticed the OP was from NZ.

Absolutely go talk to the TO. Comp in NZ is much more accepted, and can be much harsher than anything we have used here in the states.

Danny Internets wrote: have fun since the results don't really mean much with regards to evaluating player skill.

See, I have been to FLGS who would say you just called the sky red with that statement. They question the skill it shows to show up with the top-tier netlists and how that is a true test of skill with such imbalance. They believe it regardless of what posturing on the internet says.

I am a fence-straddler on this issue because I remember when the game was unplayable without comp, and I also see how far we have come in 5th edition and basically all the codexes (except NIDS) since Iguard. I am capable of enjoying both formats. (probably because I am a xenos player and never have any grand illusions of making top tables ever so it doesn't impact me)

Personally, I think rubric COMP is fine if that is what the TO and people who attend his events want. I am not at all offended or have an issue with an additional set of guidelines put on armybuilding. While it can just become "how can I make the most killy list within these new rules." it does cause people to change their lists in my experience and you do see new combos and alternative builds which you simply would never see in the current META. It may not do anything for balance, but it shakes up the type of games which is fun sometimes.

There are plenty of events of both formats... if you really can't stand comp then find another tourney!

I agree if you don’t like the format there is enough events to play in. Comp is really no different then painting. Players won’t go to certain event because painting has too many points in the overall score.

Painting is subjective.

Comp is subjective.

We have been running comp at our events for last 6 years. I believe the best way to do this is with a rubric.

It is not perfect. It especially hurts older codeies because they only have one or two good builds.

I believe people hate comp events because they don’t like to be told what to bring to an event.

We feel as a good comp makes you a better player. With last year’s rubric at the DaBoyz GT it was not to balance the game, but force peopled to take units they would not typically take. So many people came up to me and said thank you for running comp because they did not have to play the same hold type of armies over and over again.

How many people are sick of playing the same grey knight army over and over again?

Jay_Daboyz wrote:
How many people are sick of playing the same grey knight army over and over again?

Not enough, since at least 50 of you are bringing Coteaz to Wargamescon.

Jay_Daboyz wrote:I agree if you don’t like the format there is enough events to play in. Comp is really no different then painting. Players won’t go to certain event because painting has too many points in the overall score.

Painting is subjective.

Comp is subjective.

We have been running comp at our events for last 6 years. I believe the best way to do this is with a rubric.

It is not perfect. It especially hurts older codeies because they only have one or two good builds.

I believe people hate comp events because they don’t like to be told what to bring to an event.

We feel as a good comp makes you a better player. With last year’s rubric at the DaBoyz GT it was not to balance the game, but force peopled to take units they would not typically take. So many people came up to me and said thank you for running comp because they did not have to play the same hold type of armies over and over again.

How many people are sick of playing the same grey knight army over and over again?

Good post.

I think comp has come a long way. Some of the early comp rubrics at the GW GTs were heavily biased toward certain armies and easily abused, IMO. They had me longing for the fully subjective comp of the very first USGTs, because although there was no clarity, at least there wasn't a system to game.

But since then I think TOs have become much, much smarter with their comp systems, and I wouldn't hesitate to play in a great comp tourney like DaBoyz. As Jay said, it can be a great change of pace even if no comp is usually your thing.

As I always say, there's 31 flavors on the GT circuit (if circuit is still the right word). Maybe some people only like Rocky Road, while others eat mint chocolate chip exclusively. But there are many more people who prefer one or the other, but enjoy other flavors from time to time. At least I know I fall in that category. That's why diversity in the circuit makes it stronger, IMO.

So to the OP, if you're not facing a large entrance fee, maybe it's worth giving it a try. You might get to play some armies that aren't cookie-cutter, and might have fun trying a few units you don't normally field. With subjective comp, you won't have to take a "bad" army per se. You can probably get a decent score just by cutting back on some spamming and swapping a few perceived "A" units for some perceived "B"s. It's not like top players tend to play cookie-cutters anyway. Often the top players will field a few things that aren't obviously good, but fill a certain role and fit their playstyle perfectly.

Thanks very much for the advsie so far, here are some more details.

So as I said, comp is scored 1 to 5 per player, for a total out of 10. Total points you can get in the whole tournament is 130 so its a very small %

The other point I would like to make is that "Teams will be matched up in the first round with similar comp scoring Teams."

My final point is that I can see why we have it, this will be a very 'low key' tournie, and it makes it fairer for everyone in it. But my main concern, is not having any idea how it is judged, I do not see how being scored on army, based on one persons opinion, is fair. He could have a thing against a certain army, and just judge it low, regardless of what units might be in it.

So, I will go. Its not to expensive, and having not bee in a major tournament yet, I will just go to gain some experience and have a good time. I will ask if I can have my list looked at, and maybe judged before, so I can try and changer it in a way that will effect my score.

I will take grey knights, but not a power build, if anything, at least I will know where I stand for future reference.

I dont really care about comp but be ready for all the hate that you will get if you are playing a spammy/(IMO) not as much fun to play against for the third time that tourney army.

If you bring one of the most powerful armys from the most powerful book (for the most part agreed upon) how can you say you want a good fight with a straight face. Its like a 6 foot dude fighting a four foot dude and saying its even. and no the four foot dude doesn't get a rock.



Als

The way my old local store used to do it, is that it was scored out of 5. You got 1 point if over 50% of your army was troops, and 1 point for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support if less than 25% of your army was comprised of these units.

Naturally, they loved my 4th Ed. Carnispam Tyranid army...

mikhaila wrote:Hadn't noticed the OP was from NZ.

Absolutely go talk to the TO. Comp in NZ is much more accepted, and can be much harsher than anything we have used here in the states.

In the past this was absolutely true, but it started to die out last year. This year only one event has had comp (out of 6+) so far (and that was player judged comp and therefore a complete joke), and afaik this is the only upcoming 40k tournament which has comp. It really just leaves Australia and some parts of Europe which are still holding on to really tough widespread comp scoring. Our Fantasy scene has also largely moved away from subjective comp and is using hard caps instead, which can be considered better or worse than comp depending on your POV.

Anyway the tournament in question is a Doubles Tournament with 1000pt armies + an extra 250pt single FOC choice (as a special unit with extra rules), it will probably be the second biggest tournament in terms of player numbers this year but its absolutely aimed at casual gamers and doesn't count towards qualification towards the NZ Masters. I should also point out that it allows Forgeworld (no super heavies) so you should instantly realise that its not going to be particularly balanced. Last year most people took all sorts of crazy armies and army combos and I expect the same this year. The comp scoring in this case has basically no effect on your overall position so the fact that the TO doesn't want to justify scores to people isn't really an issue. I think that line is mostly there to give him something to fall back on if someone is raging about their comp score, I know the TO and I expect he will give you a brief justification of your score if you aren't being a dick about it.

WaaaaghLord wrote:The way my old local store used to do it, is that it was scored out of 5. You got 1 point if over 50% of your army was troops, and 1 point for each of HQ, Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support if less than 25% of your army was comprised of these units.

Naturally, they loved my 4th Ed. Carnispam Tyranid army...

That was because troops were often inferior and the core rules had no valid reason to take them unlike now how only troops can take objectives which gives them value.

Also, most HQs had retinues and it was not uncommon to be able to make a 1000pt HQ. One of the big shifts for the 5th edition codexes was to make most HQs a single IC and his retinue a different force org unit.

In 3rd edition you could have a 60-model ork HQ single unit which would force all wounds to be taken on squigs due to majority rules at the time. As long as the unit had 10+ orks you were immune to any and all LD. You could have this unit footslog and then mop up any falling back units into MOB ups. Very broken and unfair, but so was almost every other codex in 3rd

Basically the comp of 3rd edition ended up being core rule concepts of 5th.

Powerguy wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Hadn't noticed the OP was from NZ.

Absolutely go talk to the TO. Comp in NZ is much more accepted, and can be much harsher than anything we have used here in the states.

In the past this was absolutely true, but it started to die out last year. This year only one event has had comp (out of 6+) so far (and that was player judged comp and therefore a complete joke), and afaik this is the only upcoming 40k tournament which has comp. It really just leaves Australia and some parts of Europe which are still holding on to really tough widespread comp scoring. Our Fantasy scene has also largely moved away from subjective comp and is using hard caps instead, which can be considered better or worse than comp depending on your POV.

Anyway the tournament in question is a Doubles Tournament with 1000pt armies + an extra 250pt single FOC choice (as a special unit with extra rules), it will probably be the second biggest tournament in terms of player numbers this year but its absolutely aimed at casual gamers and doesn't count towards qualification towards the NZ Masters. I should also point out that it allows Forgeworld (no super heavies) so you should instantly realise that its not going to be particularly balanced. Last year most people took all sorts of crazy armies and army combos and I expect the same this year. The comp scoring in this case has basically no effect on your overall position so the fact that the TO doesn't want to justify scores to people isn't really an issue. I think that line is mostly there to give him something to fall back on if someone is raging about their comp score, I know the TO and I expect he will give you a brief justification of your score if you aren't being a dick about it.

Thanks powerguy, are you entering this then?

I'm new to the tournament scene here in NZ, but you seem to know your stuff, if I have any queries in the future, I will know who to ask

I think I am just going to forget about the comp score part, just choose a list that will work well with my team mate, and go have some fun

tuiman wrote:So I guess my point is, are tournaments not meant to be where players design the best list they can, why should a comp score be taken so much into account? Does it mean we have to take 'bad' lists in order to do well?

You are, of course, meant to try your hardest to win. However, 40k is a game with thousands of different possible builds, only a few of which are really powerful. A lot of tournaments therefore only see multiple versions of the same few builds. Many people would say that playing the same Draigowing and Long Fang Space Wolves lists again and again over a weekend isn't much fun, and not very inclusive for anyone who doesn't own the right models.

In many ways, it's easier (in theory) to just remove the few offending lists, to level the playing field for everyone, and make the tournament more inclusive. In practice, it's quite hard to do this well.

Danny Internets wrote:Comp scoring is always a biased crap-shoot. Generally it's best to completely ignore comp concerns because, even if you dumb down your army, any scoring rubric will be so subjective that you might get a terrible score regardless.

While I agree it's difficult to come up with a balanced comp score, it's no more of a crap shoot than, say, writing your own missions. I could say that if any tournament changes any of the missions from the rulebook, they've changed the rules of the game, changed how the armies interact, and buffed some at the expense of others. And in a completely subjective way, based on their personal biases and preferences.

So would it not be easier just to say no special characters (draigowing) and no more than two of each unit outside troops (longfangs)?

Would that not be a fairer system as it is clearly black and white, with comp score I find it such a grey area, I can never tell what I will eactly be judged on.

tuiman wrote:

Thanks powerguy, are you entering this then?

I'm new to the tournament scene here in NZ, but you seem to know your stuff, if I have any queries in the future, I will know who to ask


I think I am just going to forget about the comp score part, just choose a list that will work well with my team mate, and go have some fun

Not sure at this stage, I'm probably going to be overloaded with uni work around that time so I can't be sure this far out. I also have to sort out someone from my club to play with/work out some silly combo since that's half the fun. The whole edition changeover issue is there as well and since this doesn't boost my ranking I'm not massively fussed if l can't go, I'll just sign up last minute if its going to work for me.

boost your ranking? so your a major player here on the NZ scene then? Sorry for my ignorance

You must teach me the ways to be a good player, any chance you could tell me what the meta is like here?

Yeah, Im hoping to go to call to arms in August, and they will use 6th, so I will have to change back to 5th again, oh well

ArbitorIan wrote:
While I agree it's difficult to come up with a balanced comp score, it's no more of a crap shoot than, say, writing your own missions. I could say that if any tournament changes any of the missions from the rulebook, they've changed the rules of the game, changed how the armies interact, and buffed some at the expense of others. And in a completely subjective way, based on their personal biases and preferences.

Is it ironic that the old 'ard boyz who was held up as the 'bring your hardest list and smash faces' tourney had some of the most random and biased missions ever seen in 5th edition? The one that impacted all units who could move over 6" in a single phase was mindblowingly absurd for competitive play. I have played in some tourneys which have missions designed to hand auto-losses to specific armies. That is way worse IMHO than COMP.

tuiman wrote:So would it not be easier just to say no special characters (draigowing) and no more than two of each unit outside troops (longfangs)?

Would that not be a fairer system as it is clearly black and white, with comp score I find it such a grey area, I can never tell what I will eactly be judged on.

Minor suggestion: Think of comp as a margin of error in the event. A few posters above already hit on paint / comp really being subjective. If you are trying to consider "tinkering" your possible comp score as you have concerns about having Grey Knights or Space Wolves, your probably going to have a low comp score anyway. Think of it this way: you have a low comp score which is reflective from a 1-5 range. So if 1 is the lowest, you have a 4 point window. How do you make this up? Pay attention to objectives during the game, opportunities to bonus points, etc.

I goto GT's fairly frequently. If the comp range is a 1 (low comp) 5 (high comp) you generally have a lot of 2-3 range lists, as when you goto a tournment, you should expect to play nasty stuff. Think of it from your opponents perspective. I don't play GK. However, I get darn sick of seeing spammed rifle dreads, min-max razor squads, etc. I've seen balanced GK lists do just fine against any army in the game. So the book will naturally have a lower comp then most Tyranid lists out there. That's just an example.

In the end, your paying for what your paying by walking into a tournment, just play what you want. Play fair, hard, and with sportsmanship and you will do fine. A possible comp rating of 1-5 likely will not matter much if you are a good opponent and pay attention to objectives and bonus points