The death of comp.

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.

**Major Malfunction**

Observation: It seems that comp advocates want to allow for broader participation in events. Seems like the power list advocates want to call comp advocates pussies and tell them to suck it up. Why the hate on comp? Just sort of comes across as Nerd Rage to me.

You know... in Golf they have handicaps. In drag racing you have dial ins and bracket racing. It's not unprecedented that competitors of differing skill levels or equipment capabilities compete in the same event with some sort of leveling mechanism. Maybe there should be a national ranking system or some such that tracks players and assigns them a handicap based on their winning records. Then you could have the WAAC guys bringing their biggest and baddest to the table and have newbs not afraid of getting crushed with no hope of anything near success. I mean after all every power list advocate out there says they will still fail in the hands of an inferior player, right? So if it's not the list it's the player that needs the comp. If it's no challenge for a seasoned vet to play a first time tourney goer, how about spotting him points?

**Black Blow Fly**

The problem with comp is as follows:

No one can write an extensive set of guidelines for fairly judging all armies

Some players will use it to ding others for whatever reason

G

**Mannahnin**

”Mad Dok Grotsnik” wrote:'Comp Scoring is fundamentally flawed, as it simply introduces another level of metagame to be exploited, further reducing the emphasis on how one plays in favour of what one takes'

40k Codices are fundamentally flawed for use in tournament play, in large part due to internal and cross-codex imbalances. Comp scoring introduces another level to the tournament metagame to compensate for this fact, thus giving play skill greater importance relative to army list strength, and giving a material incentive to use less powerful (or less obviously powerful) armies.

Green Blow Fly wrote:No one can write an extensive set of guidelines for fairly judging all armies

Applies only to checklist comp. And you can do a pretty good job with it if you work hard enough:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/113472.page

Green Blow Fly wrote:Some players will use it to ding others for whatever reason

Only applies to player-judged. Not a factor for judge-scored (either subjective or checklist version).

**Mannahnin**

Centurian99 wrote: #1) Any objective universal comp list can be abused.

And then tweaked. Comp can evolve organically if overlooked power lists come to light. “Stealth Cheese” is not a bad thing; if competitive players are encouraged to find new builds which still win reliably, but are more interesting and more enjoyable to play against, that’s a net good.

Centurian99 wrote: #2) Any subjective comp scoring is fundamentally unfair.

The current codex system is fundamentally unbalanced. If you have a good event organizer whose judgment is better than the designers, is it unreasonable to substitute his judgment on lists? You advocate “better missions.” Well, when you write new missions you’re substituting your design for GW’s, in the interest of a better, fairer game. It’s largely same thing, just implemented in a different area of the game.
]

**chaplaingrabthar**

Mannahnin wrote:And you can do a pretty good job with it if you work hard enough:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/113472.page

Following that link, I found this as the comp checklist

An army scores based on the following list, with a maximum of 22 points. Each Yes answer is worth 2 points, except for questions 7, 9 and 11, which are each worth 4. At the end of the third round each player will also vote for his favorite army of the three he played against. Each vote an army gets is worth an additional 2 points, for a total maximum of 26 points. All questions are cumulative.

1. Does the army have no more than one of any given HQ unit?
2. Does the army have more than two Troops units?
3. Does the army have no more than three of the SAME Troops unit?
4. Does the army have no more than two Troops units with the same unit upgrades?
5. Does the army have no more than two of the same unit with the same upgrades in any other category?
6. Does the army have EITHER no Elite units or one Elite unit?
7. Does the army have at least two Elite units but no more than two of the same Elite unit?
8. Does the army have EITHER no Fast Attack units or one Fast Attack unit?
9. Does the army have at least two Fast Attack units but no more than two of the same Fast Attack unit?
10. Does the army have EITHER no Heavy Support units or one Heavy Support unit?
11. Does the army have at least two Heavy Support units but no more than two of the same Heavy Support unit?
12. Judge’s discretion (2-4pts)- Is this army particularly well themed and interesting in a way that doesn’t already earn it the maximum 22 points?

Looking at that with my (fairly fluffy, nono-powergamed Tau army)
I would get a check for 1 & 2, but not for 3. (I play all Tau, no Kroot, so I only have one Troop unit to choose from), I think it'd fail 4 as well, depends on whether transports/vehicle upgrades apply here.
I would get 5, only having the 2 railheads. I would fail 6 & 7, as would [nearly] every Tau army because they need there Elite Crisis suits to compete. I would get point 8 for my Pathfinders. Not get 9. (Tau non-Pathfinder fast attack choices suck) I would not get 10, but would get 11 (2 Railheads & a Broadside squad). 12 I'd probably not get.

So my tough, but non min-maxed Tau force could only score me a maximum of 12 (16 at Judge's discretion) out of 22 points. Does anybody honestly think that Tau have any incredibly over-cheesy builds in 5th? I'm not sure why it's Penalized that way. I'd imagine Necrons would fair even worse under such a checklist.

Comp is an un-needed crutch.

**Darth Fugly**

Centurian99 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:So what is Comp scoring for?

To try and discourage power builds.

Which leads to the reasons why its an Epic Failure:
#1) Any objective universal comp list can be abused.
#2) Any subjective comp scoring is fundamentally unfair.
As I said in the other thread, the best way to discourage so-called power builds (that still, BTW, fail in the hands of a weaker player) is through better missions.

See, I think this is the fundamental problem and why so many people seem to be against Comp.

Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

Comp should be used to encourage and open up alternative power builds for different races.

lambadomy wrote:...I also wonder how many WAAC players would sit and think about their 4 OTT armies that they own and figure out which list is most likely to still get those 10 comp points...

If the reason comp is included is to diversify the lists in the tournament, and those WAAC players start taking their alternative armies, then the Comp system hasn't failed, it has worked perfectly; the best general still wins by winning the most battle points, but everyone else (including TO) is happy because the tournament has had a far more diverse field.

**Janthkin**

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:And you can do a pretty good job with it if you work hard enough:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/113472.page

Following that link, I found this as the comp checklist

An army scores based on the following list, with a maximum of 22 points. Each Yes answer is worth 2 points, except for questions 7, 9 and 11, which are each worth 4. At the end of the third round each player will also vote for his favorite army of the three he played against. Each vote an army gets is worth an additional 2 points, for a total maximum of 26 points. All questions are cumulative.

1. Does the army have no more than one of any given HQ unit?
2. Does the army have more than two Troops units?
3. Does the army have no more than three of the SAME Troops unit?
4. Does the army have no more than two Troops units with the same unit upgrades?
5. Does the army have no more than two of the same unit with the same upgrades in any other category?
6. Does the army have EITHER no Elite units or one Elite unit?
7. Does the army have at least two Elite units but no more than two of the same Elite unit?
8. Does the army have EITHER no Fast Attack units or one Fast Attack unit?
9. Does the army have at least two Fast Attack units but no more than two of the same Fast Attack unit?
10. Does the army have EITHER no Heavy Support units or one Heavy Support unit?
11. Does the army have at least two Heavy Support units but no more than two of the same Heavy Support unit?
12. Judge’s discretion (2-4pts)- Is this army particularly well themed and interesting in a way that doesn’t already earn it the maximum 22 points?

Looking at that with my (fairly fluffy, nono-powergamed Tau army)
I would get a check for 1 & 2, but not for 3. (I play all Tau, no Kroot, so I only have one Troop unit to choose from), I think it'd fail 4 as well, depends on whether transports/vehicle upgrades apply here.
I would get 5, only having the 2 railheads. I would fail 6 & 7, as would [nearly] every Tau army because they need there Elite Crisis suits to compete. I would get point 8 for my Pathfinders. Not get 9. (Tau non-Pathfinder fast attack choices suck) I would not get 10, but would get 11 (2 Railheads & a Broadside squad). 12 I'd probably not get.

So my tough, but non min-maxed Tau force could only score me a maximum of 12 (16 at Judge's discretion) out of 22 points. Does anybody honestly think that Tau have any incredibly over-cheesy builds in 5th? I'm not sure why it's Penalized that way. I'd imagine Necrons would fair even worse under such a checklist.

Comp is an un-needed crutch.

The question isn't "How many comp points of out X does my army get?" It's "What is the average number of comp points all the armies in play will receive, and how does my comp score compare to that?"

Put another way: you don't need max comp points, and a "good" checklist should never award max comp points to a single army. Instead, different armies get their points in different places, with most armies falling into a fairly narrow range.

**lambadomy**

Comp checklists can be fine, but I'd prefer if it was possible to get max comp points without hitting every checkbox.

For example, maybe there are 14 different comp checks...but the max comp points is 10, and you only need 10/14 checked to get max points.

**generalgrog**

Darth Fugly wrote:
Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

I can't agree with this at all.

Any monkey can look at a codex and see what the best combos/ powerlists are. Also with the internet, any monkey can find out what the powerlists are.

GG

**ArbitorIan**

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:'Comp Scoring is fundamentally flawed, as it simply introduces another level of metagame to be exploited, further reducing the emphasis on how one plays in favour of what one takes'

Kinda...

Comp scoring is flawed, and does merely change the metagame so that what counts as a 'competitive list' is changed. However, the point of this is to change the metagame so that more lists count as competitive lists, sometimes by limiting the really really powerful ones.

So in a metagame where the most powerful armies involve (for example) Spamming Something Really Powerful (Nob bikers, Oblits, Land Raiders, whatever), we can introduce another set of rules that make fielding these armies unfavourable.

We then allow a greater range of builds to seriously compete in the tournament, thus making the tournament much more fun for everyone...(and more a test of generalship that a test of disposable income, predictable power building, etc...)

Darth Fugly wrote:Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

Sort of. Writing a good, balanced list is part of being a good general. But writing most of the power builds around at the minute doesn't exactly take list-building genius. You can either look on the interweb, or just followed the age old formula of figuring out the most powerful unit and taking three of them!!

I could never agree that someone fielding a dual-lash/oblit or nob biker army is some sort of list-building wizard, compared to, say, someone who fields a balanced and representative list which STILL manages to win loads of games...

**Centurian99**

The problem is that comp doesn't *add* more powerful lists, it *changes* what the power lists are.

Neither of which changes the fact that some people feel they should be able to field sub-optimal lists while having an equal chance of winning.

**Kilkrazy**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
whitedragon wrote:The "proof" is what GW puts in it's codicies. If it's in the book, that's what they wanted.

It's what they *allow*, not what they *encourage*. There's a difference.

If it's what they encourage, why aren't GW batreps and features filled with hard-as-nails armies?

Because the only purpose of WD batreps is to promote this month's new releases.

**Kilkrazy**

The Green Git wrote:Observation: It seems that comp advocates want to allow for broader participation in events. Seems like the power list advocates want to call comp advocates pussies and tell them to suck it up. Why the hate on comp? Just sort of comes across as Nerd Rage to me.

You know... in Golf they have handicaps. In drag racing you have dial ins and bracket racing. It's not unprecedented that competitors of differing skill levels or equipment capabilities compete in the same event with some sort of leveling mechanism. Maybe there should be a national ranking system or some such that tracks players and assigns them a handicap based on their winning records. Then you could have the WAAC guys bringing their biggest and baddest to the table and have newbs not afraid of getting crushed with no hope of anything near success. I mean after all every power list advocate out there says they will still fail in the hands of an inferior player, right? So if it's not the list it's the player that needs the comp. If it's no challenge for a seasoned vet to play a first time tourney goer, how about spotting him points?

Levelling is done through the tournament structure where the top players end up playing each other in later rounds. It doesn't need comp at all.

Everyone doesn't hate comp. A lot of people are like me who simply sees comp (and theme) as not working and being a waste of time and effort. I'm all for interesting armies, variety and so on, I just don't believe there is a comp system which can achieve it.

**lambadomy**

Centurian99 wrote:The problem is that comp doesn't *add* more powerful lists, it *changes* what the power lists are.

Neither of which changes the fact that some people feel they should be able to field sub-optimal lists while having an equal chance of winning.

While this is true, it isn't just about sub optimal lists, but sometimes sub optimal entire armies or codexes. I think there are many more sub-groups of gamers than just "fluffy/friendly" and "tournament hard core". One group wants to play competitively in tournaments, doesn't care so much about fluff/etc, but only has one or two painted armies. Rules changes and new codexes obviously will weaken or completely cripple some armies, and make others stronger. Sometimes people are using comp to help a wider group of sub optimal lists compete because not doing so isn't just rewarding hard core players, it's rewarding people with deeper pockets or more free time. Or people who can impressively paint a whole new daemon army in 8 days

.

Not saying this is good or bad, just postulating that it might be logical to think you can attract more players with more nicely painted armies if they can compete with something old or not the current power builds from the new codexes or things that were made more powerful by the new rules.

**Centurian99**

lambadomy wrote:
Not saying this is good or bad, just postulating that it might be logical to think you can attract more players with more nicely painted armies if they can compete with something old or not the current power builds from the new codexes or things that were made more powerful by the new rules.

And again, comp doesn't really do anything to fix that. A far, far, far better solution is to write better missions.

As I keep using as an example: The AdeptiCon Gladiator. #1 Rule: no whining. Anything goes (well, almost).

And here are the armies that won:
3rd Ed: Iron Warriors, Imperial Guard
4th Ed: World Eaters, Drop Pod Space Marines, Eldar (tri-falcon), Tyranids (non-Godzilla)

Hardly a collection of the dominant lists. 33/66 (with only IW & Eldar really "power" build) is pretty good, by my reckoning

Write better missions, publicize them (or drafts of them) ahead of time, and if you do it correctly, the list of strong armies will increase, without making either WAAC or fluffier competitive gamers complain (as much).

**lambadomy**

I'm not saying it works, I'm saying the intent is sometimes broader than just trying to limit power, and that the intentions are good. Good intentions don't make the rules actually good.

I'd be more interested in the overall rankings and how each army matched up than just what armies won (I know thats not available, just saying). There is plenty of room for the not-quite-most-powerful builds to win, in my opinion, in 4th and 5th edition (I have no 3rd edition or previous experience). There's little room for bad or fluff-at-all-costs (can we get FAAC as an abbrevation?

.

Anyway, we agree, I was just expanding on the reasons why people might want to field sub optimal lists and have a chance to win. And yes, missions are a far better way to do it than comp. But if you know the missions ahead of time you can still WAACs those too.

**fatal_GRACE**

While checklists aren't an effective means of comp scoring, I think some kind of comp score should be required, if only to encourage a wider variety of lists. I have spent the past few days building up a chaos army list, and reading alot of other army lists for inspiration, and at LEAST 4 out of 5 that I have looked at were some minor variation on the dual lash/oblit army.

To me, this was just depressing, and a little distasteful. The whole appeal of Chaos is the wild, well, chaos of it, and having an army list that shows up 80% of the time in or out of a tourney is just ridiculous. To me, this is just the most obvious example, but I'm sure the issue afflicts other races as well.

I don't think penalizing an army for having more than one of an elite/FA/HS unit is really fair, but power build aside, I don't want to go to a tourney and fight the same damn Dual Lash army 3 times.

**Phazael**

Hulksmash wrote:I've found the new system to seem to work well that they have developed for US GT's, Indy (Adepticon i think and Socal Slaughter) and GW ran. A simple, easily explained checklist system that combines all soft scores except for painting. Even painting now has a checklist so you can know how your probably going to do before showing up. Ex. is I'll probably pull a 25-30 out of 40 for painting this weekend but I know that going in. In big events chipmunking is easy to spot at the most you can get knocked by someone is just a few points. This means it's harder for a group to collude before on scoring before the tournement and while you can still "game" the system I find it's one of the better ways to go.

Example of SoCal Slaughters slightly modified soft score checklist.

The Pre-Game: These are the items an opponent can reasonably expect you to be prepared with, including being on time, having everything you need, and explaining you army
My opponent was on time (or early). 1 Point
My opponent had all the materials they needed to play (dice, templates, army 1 Point
list, rules for their army, rules for the game).
My opponent’s army list is easy to understand with conversions explained prior 1 Point
to the game or the list is completely WYSWIG.

Game Play - These items include courses of action your opponent took during the game or in deciding what to field in their army.

1) My opponent played their turns in a reasonable amount of time (taking in 1 Point
account time to plan strategy, and includes playing throughout all the phases)?
2) My opponent conducted measurements clearly and accurately for both model 1 Point
movement and shooting distances?
3) My opponent and I were able to solve all rules and games issues in a 1 Point
reasonable manner and my opponent did not dwell on unfavorable rulings.
4) My opponent built an army based on a theme relevant to the gaming universe. 1 Point
5) My opponent’s brought an army built for solid Tournament play as opposed to an 1 Point
army built with the sole idea of maximum point efficiency and the game winning
abilities of a few units.
6) My opponent’s army was built for a fun and challenging game, as opposed to an 1 Point
army designed to abuse loopholes in the rules.

Behaviors - These items include basic social skills (or lack thereof)
My opponent was of good humor and was not angry/grumbling/complaining/ 1 Point
upset/whining during the game?
My opponent was helpful in explaining correct rules and explaining how their 1 Point
army works?
Win or lose, my opponent played with a pleasant demeanor and if given the 1 Point
opportunity I would play them again.

Total Up to 12 Points which over the 5 games for the weekend makes for 60 points out of 200. So it's worth 30% of your points. More if you don't max out on battle points.

Just my opinion but I like it a lot.

That is indeed the Slaughter Checklist, at least the last update of it I saw. Thats a 40k adapted modification by Charlie Nichols (the main event organizer of the Slaughter in Space) of the one I used for our Fantasy Slaughter, which people seemed to really like as it allowed more variation in the scores. The other thing that we did with the Fantasy one (and will be doing with the 40k one) is have a judge committee of people not playing do blind comping of all armies (each guy gives a 1-5 score over martinis at the hotel the night before) and the first two round pairings are determined based on these comp scores (which have no other effect in the tourney). This means that the guys who come with soft lists at least get two good games and the hard asses play each other for the first two rounds, at least. After that, its all battle points. I think that is about as close to a perfect comp system as you will ever be able to achieve, but of course I devised it so I am biased. The main drawback is that it requires lists in advance or else you have latecommers playing each other.

But I maintain that comp is still dead and has been for years. The only way to control army composition on the scale and scope of the 40k playerbase is through constant rules balance adjustments (ala War Machine), but GW has no interest in this.

**gorgon**

Lots of good thoughts in this thread.

I used to be pro-comp, but the way the game's evolved, I don't know that it works or can even be salvaged. If I had to pick one, I'd pick judge-scored subjective, as Mannahnin described. If you've ever been on the wrong end of a rigid checklist when you're actually taking a *weaker* army, you'd know how I feel.

I agree that missions could change things for the better. But I've also played some GT missions that basically handed me a win before a miniature was placed on the table. I suspect the missions book will have some significant "what were they thinking" examples in it.

fatal_GRACE wrote: I have spent the past few days building up a chaos army list, and reading alot of other army lists for inspiration, and at LEAST 4 out of 5 that I have looked at were some minor variation on the dual lash/oblit army.

To me, this was just depressing, and a little distasteful. The whole appeal of Chaos is the wild, well, chaos of it, and having an army list that shows up 80% of the time in or out of a tourney is just ridiculous.

As others have said, this is how comp tries to address the failings of codices. I don't really blame a player taking a strong build like double lash/Oblit to a competition. I do think it's a sad state of affairs when *Chaos* has been reduced to a core build with other stuff sprinkled to taste around it.

The really appalling thing is how the guilty parties try to point the fingers at the players. If you're playing a game of one-on-one basketball with someone, would you choose to wear a set of work boots or Nikes?

I think some players take GW gaming FAR too seriously. Nothing about the hobby is chest-bump-worthy, IMO. But the studio staff must collectively not have a single competitive bone in their bodies. Which is weird, because most humans are at least a little competitive, as shown by things like sports and gambling. Not that anyone in the world is interested in either.

I don't like dumping on the GW studio. I like so much of what they do. But I really don't think I'll *ever* understand them.

**skyth**

Mannahnin wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Some players will use it to ding others for whatever reason

Only applies to player-judged. Not a factor for judge-scored (either subjective or checklist version).

Unless the judges don't like you for some reason or if, say, one of the players is one of the judge's son...Judges aren't impartial, just less likely to be extremely partial.

**Black Blow Fly**

If you have a set of rules to judge comp then people will figure out to max the scores and still power game.

G

Mannahnin wrote:
Centurian99 wrote: #1) Any objective universal comp list can be abused.

And then tweaked. Comp can evolve organically if overlooked power lists come to light. “Stealth Cheese” is not a bad thing; if competitive players are encouraged to find new builds which still win reliably, but are more interesting and more enjoyable to play against, that’s a net good.

Centurian99 wrote: #2) Any subjective comp scoring is fundamentally unfair.

The current codex system is fundamentally unbalanced. If you have a good event organizer whose judgment is better than the designers, is it unreasonable to substitute his judgment on lists? You advocate “better missions.” Well, when you write new missions you’re substituting your design for GW’s, in the interest of a better, fairer game. It’s largely same thing, just implemented in a different area of the game.
]

**Mannahnin**

chaplaingrabthar wrote:So my tough, but non min-maxed Tau force could only score me a maximum of 12 (16 at Judge's discretion) out of 22 points. Does anybody honestly think that Tau have any incredibly over-cheesy builds in 5th? I'm not sure why it's Penalized that way. .

You’re not penalized. You’re given fewer points (under this checklist, which was, bear in mind, for 1500pt tournaments under 4th edition rules), if you have less variety of stuff in your army. This particular checklist was actually built to encourage variety/discourage repetition in lists.

Limiting yourself from Kroot is a personal choice. It does reduce the variety of stuff in your army, which does tend to make it a little more monotonous to play against. Transports & vehicle upgrades are clarified in the text immediately below the list. I’m surprised to see you miss 7, 9, AND 11. Those are worth 4 each. I’d be curious to see the actual list. Remember that you can also get up to 2 bonus points per opponent who votes you (at the end of the day) the coolest/compiest army list they faced. So if your list is on the softer end, you’re more likely to pick up some extra points there too.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:I'd imagine Necrons would fair even worse under such a checklist.

One of my tournaments was won by Necrons, with a deliberately unusual list, which scored the max possible of 28 on comp (full 22 plus all three opponents voted it the coolest army list they faced that day).

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/133277.page#133278

**Mannahnin**

Centurian99 wrote:
lambadomy wrote:
Not saying this is good or bad, just postulating that it might be logical to think you can attract more players with more nicely painted armies if they can compete with something old or not the current power builds from the new codexes or things that were made more powerful by the new rules.

And again, comp doesn't really do anything to fix that. A far, far, far better solution is to write better missions.

If Comp isn’t fixing it, it’s just badly designed and/or executed Comp. Just like Missions won’t fix anything if they’re bad missions.

Centurian99 wrote:[Write better missions, publicize them (or drafts of them) ahead of time, and if you do it correctly, the list of strong armies will increase, without making either WAAC or fluffier competitive gamers complain (as much).

How is writing new missions not changing the game? How is rebalancing via different missions qualitatively different than rebalancing via giving a small points advantage to softer armies? Either way you’re tweaking the rules of the game.

**SmoovKriminal**

chaplaingrabthar wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:And you can do a pretty good job with it if you work hard enough:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/113472.page

Following that link, I found this as the comp checklist

An army scores based on the following list, with a maximum of 22 points. Each Yes answer is worth 2 points, except for questions 7, 9 and 11, which are each worth 4. At the end of the third round each player will also vote for his favorite army of the three he played against. Each vote an army gets is worth an additional 2 points, for a total maximum of 26 points. All questions are cumulative.

1. Does the army have no more than one of any given HQ unit?
2. Does the army have more than two Troops units?
3. Does the army have no more than three of the SAME Troops unit?
4. Does the army have no more than two Troops units with the same unit upgrades?
5. Does the army have no more than two of the same unit with the same upgrades in any other category?
6. Does the army have EITHER no Elite units or one Elite unit?
7. Does the army have at least two Elite units but no more than two of the same Elite unit?
8. Does the army have EITHER no Fast Attack units or one Fast Attack unit?
9. Does the army have at least two Fast Attack units but no more than two of the same Fast Attack unit?
10. Does the army have EITHER no Heavy Support units or one Heavy Support unit?
11. Does the army have at least two Heavy Support units but no more than two of the same Heavy Support unit?
12. Judge’s discretion (2-4pts)- Is this army particularly well themed and interesting in a way that doesn’t already earn it the maximum 22 points?

Looking at that with my (fairly fluffy, nono-powergamed Tau army)
I would get a check for 1 & 2, but not for 3. (I play all Tau, no Kroot, so I only have one Troop unit to choose from), I think it'd fail 4 as well, depends on whether transports/vehicle upgrades apply here.
I would get 5, only having the 2 railheads. I would fail 6 & 7, as would [nearly] every Tau army because they need there Elite Crisis suits to compete. I would get point 8 for my Pathfinders. Not get 9. (Tau non-Pathfinder fast attack choices suck) I would not get 10, but would get 11 (2 Railheads & a Broadside squad). 12 I'd probably not get.

So my tough, but non min-maxed Tau force could only score me a maximum of 12 (16 at Judge's discretion) out of 22 points. Does anybody honestly think that Tau have any incredibly over-cheesy builds in 5th? I'm not sure why it's Penalized that way. I'd imagine Necrons would fair even worse under such a checklist.

Comp is an un-needed crutch.

I agree. There are simply armies out there that would get unfairly chipped for using what they were given, fluffy and balanced or otherwise..

generalgrog wrote:
Darth Fugly wrote:
Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

I can't agree with this at all.

Any monkey can look at a codex and see what the best combos/ powerlists are. Also with the internet, any monkey can find out what the powerlists are.

GG

Yes, any monkey could, but tournaments are used to see who the better tactician/player is, not who is the best list builder. Surely a monkey with a power-build would lose to an intelligent player with the same power-build.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:'Comp Scoring is fundamentally flawed, as it simply introduces another level of metagame to be exploited, further reducing the emphasis on how one plays in favour of what one takes'

Kinda...

Comp scoring is flawed, and does merely change the metagame so that what counts as a 'competitive list' is changed. However, the point of this is to change the metagame so that more lists count as competitive lists, sometimes by limiting the really really powerful ones.

So in a metagame where the most powerful armies involve (for example) Spamming Something Really Powerful (Nob bikers, Oblits, Land Raiders, whatever), we can introduce another set of rules that make fielding these armies unfavourable.

We then allow a greater range of builds to seriously compete in the tournament, thus making the tournament much more fun for everyone...(and more a test of generalship that a test of disposable income, predictable power building, etc...)

Darth Fugly wrote:Comp shouldn't be used to discourage power builds, because at the end of the day writing a powerful list is part of being a skillful tabletop general.

Sort of. Writing a good, balanced list is part of being a good general. But writing most of the power builds around at the minute doesn't exactly take list-building genius. You can either look on the interweb, or just followed the age old formula of figuring out the most powerful unit and taking three of them!!

I could never agree that someone fielding a dual-lash/oblit or nob biker army is some sort of list-building wizard, compared to, say, someone who fields a balanced and representative list which STILL manages to win loads of games...

Perhaps, but should people that take "effective" lists for winning be denied winning just because they made a powerful build? Perhaps composition scores should be reserved for composition based competitions, such as golden daemon or other painting/modeling tournaments. Sports teams don't get marked up or down in world tournaments for having a team representing the ethnic backgrounds of their nation/state or for having the the most colorful jerseys. Why should 40k tournaments attempting to determine the best tacticians be any different? Comp wouldn't even be necessary if GW made better codexes with options available for each force organization chart that were comparable in ability. Orks have biker nobs, while burna boys, tankbustas, mega armoed nobs and kommandos are comparably much crappier in competitive setting. Killpoints doesn't help either, as that even further push players to make armies that abuse powerful units that give away the same amount of KP or less than more basic, cheaper unit.

**Mannahnin**

skyth wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Some players will use it to ding others for whatever reason

Only applies to player-judged. Not a factor for judge-scored (either subjective or checklist version).

Unless the judges don't like you for some reason or if, say, one of the players is one of the judge's son...Judges aren't impartial, just less likely to be extremely partial.

If the organizer is not a good organizer, that’s a different issue.

If it’s a checklist system, there’s transparency, and you can check the numbers.

If it’s subjective judge scoring, you either trust the judge or you don’t. If you don’t, I recommend not attending his events. There are also process refinements which can be applied to reduce bias. For example, the GTs which use a panel of judges for pre-scoring take the players’ names off the lists before circulating them to the judges.

**SmoovKriminal**

Comp makes no sense from a tournament-competition standpoint. It's simply a system that encourages a wider variety of people to enter into GW endorsed events but has some counter-intuitive and unfair side effects--enough to be aggravating and annoying, but not enough for people to throw away the armies they've spent hundreds of dollars on. Welcome to the continuous, capitalistic circle jerk of GW.

Judges can bugger off with their subjective condemnations/praise on different army compositions, because whose to say what is a balanced, fluffy army. If an army can be reasonably explained, which you can do with even the most power-buildy of lists like nob bikers, nidzilla and dual lash chaos, than it shouldn't be knocked off for comp (but it will fail anyway due to the subjectivity of the matter.) People assume that armies that use a random assortment of non-synergistic, judge-sucking lists that are more eye candy than anything resembling a tactical military force are what GW sees as a "proper" list.

As far as leaving it to the players to judge, it is so easy for people to purposefully screw over another players record because they are either a) bitter b) understand that if they screw over their opponents comp score, it would logically increase their standings and/or c) can go into a tournament with friends/cohorts that add to this insane unfairness by agreeing to give each other perfect comp scores while screwing over other players. I don't want to go to a tournament only to see that I am getting scored by that "fat creepy over-competitive 35 year old guy with ego issues" or the "hyperactive 13 year old that plays ultramarines".

**sourclams**

Mannahnin wrote:
How is writing new missions not changing the game? How is rebalancing via different missions qualitatively different than rebalancing via giving a small points advantage to softer armies? Either way you’re tweaking the rules of the game.

I personally don't really see how writing new missions would change the fundamental nature of the game. I'm assuming, of course, that the new missions don't blatantly favor certain lists over others (4th ed Escalation, bogus scenarios like "Move all your units more than 6" every turn... +2 points").

The reason I feel this way, and I think many other players would concur, is because you still get to build whatever list you want to play. Most people that I know have a "core" that they like to maintain from list to list, like Lash+Oblits, Shrike+Assault Terminators, 2x Seer Council and 9x War Walkers, et cetera. Mission parameters may change the nature of how you play that list, or it may require you to optimize it in certain ways to have better odds of achieving the mission objective, but the core is still playable.

Composition, on the other hand, will penalize your core, either directly by telling you what you can or can't take, or indirectly by requiring points to be allocated away from the core. In a mission-centric structure, I can play whatever I want and my performance will determine how well I succeed. In a comp-centric structure, I can technically still play whatever I want, but there is no way to gain points back by performing better.

You can call this a handicap, ego check, cheese penalty, or whatever you like, but the reality is if I play what I want to play I get points taken away from me when I walk through the door.

**SmoovKriminal**

Another thing people forget to realize is that if there is a small handful of common-power builds rotating in 40k tournaments, a smart player would make a list with that in mind and make counters for them. Most army lists have the ability to vary their equipment/selections just enough to make themselves effective vs. Nob Bikers or Lash. They aren't unstoppable, they just have a lot of "shock and awe" power against players bringing very balanced lists.

**fatal_GRACE**

What it really comes down to, for me, is that the powerbuild lists really detract from the dynamic aspect of the game. If most ork players play nob bikers, and most chaos play dual lash armies, the game quickly grows static and repetitive. It really bothers me that if I play any list that can really be competitive in a tournament filled with identical power-builds, I would have to have something similar. After a very short amount of time, it would just be a circle-jerk, with everybody just trying to play the same list.

I can't imagine that the same dual lash army, for example, would be very fun to play anymore after playing it the same way over and over again, against the same army lists, over and over again.

Like I said before, it's not about the 'unfair' aspects of a hrd build vs a soft build, but about the lack of innovation present in its overuse.

sourclams wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
How is writing new missions not changing the game? How is rebalancing via different missions qualitatively different than rebalancing via giving a small points advantage to softer armies? Either way you’re tweaking the rules of the game.

I personally don't really see how writing new missions would change the fundamental nature of the game. I'm assuming, of course, that the new missions don't blatantly favor certain lists over others (4th ed Escalation, bogus scenarios like "Move all your units more than 6" every turn... +2 points").

The reason I feel this way, and I think many other players would concur, is because you still get to build whatever list you want to play. Most people that I know have a "core" that they like to maintain from list to list, like Lash+Oblits, Shrike+Assault Terminators, 2x Seer Council and 9x War Walkers, et cetera. Mission parameters may change the nature of how you play that list, or it may require you to optimize it in certain ways to have better odds of achieving the mission objective, but the core is still playable.

Composition, on the other hand, will penalize your core, either directly by telling you what you can or can't take, or indirectly by requiring points to be allocated away from the core. In a mission-centric structure, I can play whatever I want and my performance will determine how well I succeed. In a comp-centric structure, I can technically still play whatever I want, but there is no way to gain points back by performing better.

You can call this a handicap, ego check, cheese penalty, or whatever you like, but the reality is if I play what I want to play I get points taken away from me when I walk through the door.

The problem here is that as more people realize the value of these lists, everybody will utilize the same few cores. And then the game loses variation, and it's predictability is unsatisfying.

**Centurian99**

Mannahnin wrote:
If Comp isn’t fixing it, it’s just badly designed and/or executed Comp. Just like Missions won’t fix anything if they’re bad missions.

I've came to the belief that its impossible to design a universal checklist comp system that isn't ultimately epic fail at achieving its objectives. I have seen good missions that opened up the field to non-standard builds.

Mannahnin wrote:
How is writing new missions not changing the game? How is rebalancing via different missions qualitatively different than rebalancing via giving a small points advantage to softer armies? Either way you’re tweaking the rules of the game.

What sourclams said.