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.

Somone was asking in another thread (that is now locked) about tournament composition's and such. Here are a few I have seen over the years.

The original RT one was something like this

ARMY COMPOSITION

[] Does the army have more TROOPS selections than any other single category? {this means actual army list TROOP selections, as in the 2+ compulsory to 6 max, not individual Troops MODELS within the Troop selection...}

[] Do TROOPS selections make up at least 40% of the total points of this army?

[] Have they not spent more than 25% of their total points on Fast Attack, Heavy Support or Elites? {this is not a total of all three categories, but each individual category}

[] The units and characters have names, designations, etc.?

[] Has the player spent less than 20% of their total points on anything from the "Armory" page?

[] Do the TROOP selections not fall into the min/max category? {meaning has the player not taken the minimum Troops options at the least amount but maxed out the weapon/special options}

[] Is this list the same one being played?

[] Was the army list turned in on time and in the correct format?

[] Is the army list correct?

[] Plus one point if nine previous were received.

Heres another one I've seen (I think this one was RTT combined with GT):

ARMY SELECTION:
PLAYERS -
[] Does the army have more Troops than any other single category?
An easy one to calculate. To score on this question, add up the number of Troop selections (they must have a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6). Is it more than any other single category (HQ, Elites, Fast Attack, or Heavies). Note army lists like the Saim Hain wildriders count fast attack as Troops, these do count as Troops when calculating this score.
[] Do Troops selections make up at least 40% of the total points of this army?
This question is fairly easy yes-or-no mathematical calculation that should be already done on their army list.
[] Have they not spent more than 25% of their total points on Fast Attack, Heavy Support or Elites?
Note this is not a total of all categories, but this is each individual category.
[] The units and characters have names, designations, etc?
This is a question about putting character and imagination into an army. Have you tried to create a specific army for example, the Ultramarines, the fighting 54th from planet Zod, or the Hive Fleet Abominable? Not every model, hero, or squad has to be named, but enough for you to feel the army is personalized and distinctive.
[] Has the player spent less than 20% of their total points on anything from the “Armory” page?
Wargear and special equipment (This includes anything bought on the “armory” page or whatever the particular army call it) are a cool part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, but a player’s focus should be on his army, not just on specialty equipment! If the army contains less than 20 percent give the player points! This will include Vehicle Upgrades, Psychic powers for Eldar, Hard Wired systems for Tau, etc. The only Codex (currently) that has no “armory” page to date is Tyranids.

JUDGES ONLY -
[] Do the Troop selections not fall into the min/max category?
Min/Max is defined as taking the minimum number of Troop selections or minimum squad sizes while taking the maximum number of upgrades options (i.e. heavy weapons, special weapons, veteran sergeants and skills) or Fast Attack, Elites and Heavy Support choices.
[] Is the list the same one being played?
Look at the table as he is playing, is the army list here the same as the one he is using?
[] Was the army list turned in on time and in the correct format?
Was the army list turned in during registration or did they have to go make a copy? Is it legible and in the correct format, laid out in a similar fashion as the GW RTT sheet?
[] Is the army list correct?
Do the math.
[] In your opinion does this list capture the spirit of the army being played?
This is an objective question for the judges. If playing an Ork army, does it capture the essence of waves and waves of Ork mobs? Or does the army list feel like the cream of the crop was only chosen or a specific tactic (“one trick pony”) was the thought behind this army.

And another:
Army Theme Judging Criteria

Each check is worth 2 points. If they’ve only partially satisfied the criteria, but not ignored it, Judges may award 1pt at their discretion. If a player was completely ignorant of these criteria, for whatever reason, award them 5 flat points assuming they at least have an army list. If they are ever caught playing a force that does not match their list, or switching wargear mid-game, they automatically get 0 Theme points, and may even be Disqualified if the action is grievous enough.

[] Was their Army list turned in on time, properly presented, and completely correct?
Format should be typewritten, in tabular format, with no manual corrections of any sort. Those that must correct their list prior to the event, but otherwise meet standards, should receive 1 point.

[] Does the Army list have unit and character names, background details, or other additions to distinguish it from a flat, boring, standard list?
Some armies may not be suited to proper names (i.e. Necrons), but background stories or clever list embellishments may fulfill this criterion instead.

[] Does the Army list represent a well-rounded or classic force for the army being played?
Have they avoided min-maxing in favor of fielding a list that represents a typically “real” force, where Generals can’t always get three of every good unit. Overuse (3 selections) of a single, highly effective non-Troop unit should not gain this criteria, unless it represents that Army’s feature strength (i.e 3x Raptors in Night Lords, 3x Dreadnoughts in Iron Hands, 3 x Leman Russ in a Guard army). Also, if they included units that aren’t typically taken, or are viewed as ineffective, this may counterbalance otherwise min-maxed choices.

[] Has this player included innovative, imaginative, or extra special details in their army?
This includes “counts as” forces that don’t veer too far from WYSIWYG. Or fleshed out lists which include extra fiction, ongoing grudges, illustrations, fancy presentations, humor, or extra clever background. Simply put, did the player go the extra mile to put their army and background above average?

[] Is this Army list one of your Top 3 Favorites?

So lets dig them all out and take a look at them and discuss pro's, and con's. I personally don't like any of those above compositions.

Another question is what exactly does comp mean to the player. First I would like to say that comp and theme are two completely different things. And usually having comp will affect peoples abilities to do a theme.

So I'll start off with my opinion of composition. To me a balanced composition army is one that utilizes all aspects of the force org chart. So in my minds eye to have a balanced comp army it should have fast attack, elite, troops, hq, and heavy support. This is why I say that comp impedes theme. Deathwing, ravenwing, iyanden wraith armies are all thematic, all cool, but I wouldn't rate them high as a balanced composition army. Now what is everyone elses definition of a balanced composition army?

So then how would I build comp into a tournament? One of the stores in southern colorado has been discussing this very topic, wanting to introduce two different tournament types. A gladiator tournament, and a more hobby/comp driven tournament so that everyone can play in the types of tournaments they would like to.

This was my suggestion for a comp friendly tournament for them to think about since I didn't really like any of those above scoring criteria.
Everyone starts with their obligatory HQ and 2 troops. You can then add up to 1 troop, 1 fast attack, 1 elite or 1 heavy support. You cannot add a 2nd of any of those or another hq until you add 1 of all of those slots. Once you have filled in one from each force org type you can add a second. You cannot have 2 of the same HQ type.

So for example this would be legal:
1 HQ
3 Troops
1 Elite
1 Heavy Support
1 Fast Attack

but this is not:
1 HQ
6 Troops

So what does changing the game like this do. First it ruins the "theme" of some people's armies. Deathwing can't field termies, dreads, and land raiders. A Sam haim windrider host can't do all troops and fast attack. I'm sure there is a multitude of other theme's that are not unfair or beardy at all that would get hit by this. It's also drastically altering the basic rules of the game. So for the people that dislike the INAT faq they should probably dislike this as well.

The question is does this solve the main reason of comp. To exclude beardy lists from competition and encourage a more balanced list. At a quick glance it removes a lot of the top abusers and you would definitely see very different structed themes but I'm sure there are still abusable combo's out there. So if people want to hammer it by all means do so.

The last question would be. So you've decided to include comp. What percentage of the total points should it be? Or should it be standard. I have a feeling that if you are going to go down the comp route you can't actually just dock people points for not doing it, because you will still get the people that just want to enter the tournament to beat down other people. So I think you would have to enforce it and say no deviation from the comp rules.

Please note that this is put up as an example comp rule for a tournament. I haven't tried it out, I'm not sure if I would want to try it out. But it definitely seems interesting.

So what is everyone elses opinion on composition, and if you think it should be in a tournament, how would you score it?

You would remove the lists that are "dominating" elsewhere and create new lists that would be dominating under these conditions instead.

It is very very hard, not to say impossible to impose your own limitations to the complete game without messing up the balance somewhere else. In Sweden for some reason the comp crowd is rather big but it still gets pretty much the same results when the conditions are determined beforehand, people abuse the things that are allowed. While when using a total softscore system you usually get bias involved(from either the judge or the people you played, depending on who puts the score down) or at least accusations of it. I have still to see any working system that uses composition scores, doubt I will. GW havent manages to make their system balanced to start with. (they dont even try anymore)

So for example this would be legal:
1 HQ
3 Troops
1 Elite
1 Heavy Support
1 Fast Attack

so
1 warboss
1 nob biker squad as elite
1 nob biker squad as troops
2 units of gretchin or orks.
def copta
zap gun
unit of lootas

see perfect comp

basicly any comp system makes new best broken lists.

But I would contend that the list you posted skipper is no where near as nasty as 2 nob biker squads as troops.

For kp missions you've added in 2 very easy to get kp's in the copta and gun. And only one biker squad counts as troops which cuts back on the lists ability to hold objectives. You also don't get the extra warboss for spreading around insta death wounds.

I'm not saying it isn't a tough list, just not as tough as the standard tournament build.

I do agree no matter what comp scoring you come up with people will bend it to the max. So if you were going to do comp what would you do, instead of just trying to shoot holes in mine

First off, I think that any "modern" (i.e. 40k5) comp system should do away with any percentage calculations. Percentages are a carryover from 2E, in which we built armies based on percentages.

A modern comp system should focus on FOC choices and the variety of choices taken, for example:
[] 3+ Troops
[] More Troops than any other category
[] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[] No dupe non-Troops
("no-dupe" applies to entry name, not options)

But comp shouldn't be a restriction or requirement, simply an option. A player can field a bad-comp army, but should be penalized for doing so.

Personally, as Comp is a 0-10 scale, I'd convert it into a percentage and then multiply the Battle score by the Comp ratio. So if you score 5/10 on Comp, then you only count 50% of your Battle points.
____

updated: "no dupe entries" to "no dupe non-Troops" to not penalize SM, Necrons, DE, and other limited-Troops armies...

skkipper wrote:basicly any comp system makes new best broken lists.

That is precisely the point. A comp system attempts to take the edge off of the most broken lists and encourage less-broken lists.

skkipper wrote:1 warboss
1 nob biker squad as elite
1 nob biker squad as troops
1 units gretchin
1 units orks.
def copta
zap gun
unit of lootas

[+] 3+ Troops
[+] More Troops than any other category
[-] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[+] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[+] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[+] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[+] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[+] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[+] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[+] No dupe entries

That's 9/10, so you'd score 90% of your Battle points with this army. Not bad!

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Personally, as Comp is a 0-10 scale, I'd convert it into a percentage and then multiply the Battle score by the Comp ratio. So if you score 5/10 on Comp, then you only count 50% of your Battle points.

That's a very interesting idea on how to adjust battle score based on comp! I'll have to play around with some number's and see what it comes up as. That I think is one of the biggest problems is trying to figure out how to adjust someones points for comps. But maybe instead of going negative it might be better to make it a positive. So basically instead of incurring a negative modifier, you incure a positive modifier for matching the comp guidlines. So someone with perfect comp could get 150% of total possible battle points.

Doing this means the comp rules will have to be extremley clear cut and not allow any room for subjectivity.

Nah.

If you field 0 Comp, you get zero Battle points.
If you field 10/10 Comp, you get full Battle points.

How is that not fair?
____

Also, assume that Comp is as above - something that each player knows going into the event.

the comp system I suggest is

1-2 hq's
0-3 elites
2-6 troops
0-3 fast attack
0-3 heavy

any comp scoring does little to increase the enjoyment of the games. you want to have fun make top tables really bizarre. nob bikers on a all difficult terrian table wouldn't be fun.

Best comp concept right here:




Like that idea? Me too.

Oh, yeah, assuming a "tournament" 2 Nob Bikers army with 2 Warbosses, I get...

[-] 3+ Troops
[-] More Troops than any other category
[-] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[?] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[-] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[?] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[?] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[?] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[-] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[-] No dupe entries

Max Dupe HQ costs 3 possible Comp points (HQ, Max, Dupe), and Min Troops costs another 3 possible Comp points (non-Min, more Troops, most Troops), so the player can have max 4/10 Comp, and therefore going to score, at most 40% of their Battle points. He'll probably win out, but will 40% be enough against the other list scoring 90%?

And as the opponent, which would you rather face?

Decisions, decisions...

so the list of 9 penitant engines and 9 death cult assasins with 2 inquistor lords, really needs to be punished.

Actually, yeah. It's boring.

Seriously, the point can't be made with 1 Lord, 3 DC Assassins, 3 Penitent Engines and something else simply for variety's sake?

comp systems all favor marines.
they have good troops and a wide range of useful choices in other slots.

last year I played a 32 man chaos terminator list.
so 2 chaos sorcerer in terminator armour
3 squads of ten terminators
2 small squads of troops

not a uberlist by any stretch but it would made pretty much useless under most comp systems

but my list this year
sorcerer with lash
demon prince with lash
4 squads of berzerkers
2 squads of obliterators
dreadnaught
squad of raptors
scores well and it is a much meaner list

JohnHwangDD wrote:
A modern comp system should focus on FOC choices and the variety of choices taken, for example:
[] 3+ Troops
[] More Troops than any other category
[] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[] No dupe entries
("no-dupe" applies to entry name, not options)

Okay.

Warboss with toys
5-6 squads of Boyz, 30 men each, with nobs
15 lootas
Snikkrot and his sneaky gits.

Full comp points. Must be a fun, fluffy, army to play against. Where do I sign up.

Comp is silly, counterproductive, and ultimately fails at its goals. Any universal comp system is also biased and favors certain codexes over other codex, and essentially changes the game from Warhammer 40K to (insert local venue here) 40k.

If you're going to play apoc style, play apoc style. If you want to play competitively, don't complain when your opponent is more competitive than you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, yeah. It's boring.

Seriously, the point can't be made with 1 Lord, 3 DC Assassins, 3 Penitent Engines and something else simply for variety's sake?

If your criteria is 'it's boring' rather than 'it's powerful' then you have no business having the Best General (Or battle points in general) determined by comp scoring. This includes the the one above where how many troops you have determines what your score is. Troops-based comp doesn't work to determine what is powerful, and in fact it tends to encourage more boring lists. (The real reason Troops aren't taken - They are often the most boring units in a list)

I wouldn't be so sure of that having favoritism - Marines are expensive, so I'm not so worried.

Here is an army I once saw at a GW RTT back in 3rd edition:

Fleshtearers (using the old IA list rules):

Chaplain/jump pack
6x (9 tactical Marines & naked sergeant - rhino)
2x Vindicator

The DC was 15 strong when I played him plus he had four power fists in that unit. He got a perfect score for comp.

G

Centurian99 wrote:
Warboss with toys
Snikkrot and his sneaky gits.
15 lootas
5-6 squads of Boyz, 30 men each, with nobs

Full comp points. Must be a fun, fluffy, army to play against.

You do NOT have full Comp:
[+] 3+ Troops (5)
[+] More Troops than any other category (5>2)
[+] More Troops than all non-Troops combined (5>3)
[-] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy (no FA/HS)
[+] Non-max, no-dupe HQ (boss)
[+] Non-max, no-dupe Elite (2)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Fast (0)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy (0)
[+] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[+] No dupe non-Troops

I re-score that at 7/10.
____

Re-scored based on corrections.

Green Blow Fly wrote:
Chaplain/jump pack
6x (9 tactical Marines & naked sergeant - rhino)
2x Vindicator

I score it as 5/10:
[+] 3+ Troops (6)
[+] More Troops than any other category (6 > 2)
[+] More Troops than all non-Troops combined (6 > 3)
[-] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy (1+ Hvy)
[+] Non-max, no-dupe HQ (Chap)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Elite (not taken)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Fast (not taken)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy (2 Vindis)
[+] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy (1 / 0 / 0 / 2 OK)
[-] No dupe non-Troops (dupe Vindis)
____

corrected score

skkipper wrote:l
sorcerer with lash
demon prince with lash
4 squads of berzerkers
squad of raptors
2 squads of obliterators
dreadnaught

[+] 3+ Troops (4)
[+] More Troops than any other category (4>3)
[-] More Troops than all non-Troops combined (4<6)
[-] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy (no Elite)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe HQ (max)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Elite (not taken)
[+] Non-max, no-dupe Fast (1 Raptors)
[-] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy (max, 2 Oblits)
[-] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy (max Hvy)
[-] No dupe entries (dupe Zerks & Oblits)

3/10
____

So far skipper's initial Ork variety list is doing quite well...

The rest of you are basically all at 3/10 or 4/10, which makes sense, as your lists are designed for a comparable level of competitiveness.

IMHO comp is just a new set of 1-2, 2-6, 0-3, 0-3,0-3.

The force org is the restrictions set for games, and comp is a new set of restrictions, usually tighter ones. So it doesnt really make any sense to me personally. I never understood why tournies took the basic force org and changed it. Like others have said it just makes the game more bland. If it aint broke dont fix it.

But Im the type that thinks if its legal its legal, and just sports painting and battle would be fine with me. If a 22 ork biker (or whatever flavor of "cheese" you prefer) list wins then good for him. There is no list that can be made with the existing force org that is a guaranteed win by a LONG shot.

I don't see the problem with changing the game from Warhammer 40K to (insert local venue here) 40K. If you feel that 40K is broken as a tournament game, and you want to try to fix it when you run your tournament, go ahead. People often do this by trying to create missions that (hopefully) try to create new, fair, interesting games...or sometimes they create missions to try to hose certain power lists. Creating a comp system is another way to do it, and its fine. I'm not in love with JHDD's comp checklist, but it's not bad either.

Yes, you'll create some other new abusive armies in the weaker environment, but that doesn't make your goals bad or wrong, and you may very well even out the playing field and make things more fun for everyone. Not everyone has the time and money to go and buy/model/paint armies from the newer, better codexes (Orks and Daemons being good examples of newer+better, imo...SM maybe not) but that shouldn't necessarily bar them from being competitive in the tournament. When you do it like JHDD is doing it you get a better chance of avoiding any power armies because you're forcing a TON of diversity int he lists, and you get a BIG penalty for violating it (even one or two points off is a big handycap since it's 10 or 20% of your battle points).

That being said, some codexes just get reamed by these rules. Some have nothing but crappy FA units, or only two troops choices so how do you non-dupe troops and get 3+? Do Space Wolves automatically lose a point for having max HQ? Etc. But it's a decent start, and there's really no reasonable argument for saying that just using the base Force Org charts and Codexes is the only correct or realistic way to run a tournament and call it 40k. Should you also only use the rulebook missions? Not every tournament needs to be the 'Ard boyz, and we're already putting up with Sportsmanship + Painting being half the score anyway, to reflect the complete hobby - maybe restricted list building reflects that to some people too.

How about:
HQ:
Farsight+7 samurai

Troops:
2x 6 FW squads in Devilfish
1x 8 Gue'va

Elites:
1x 2 crisis suits

FA:
6 pathfinders in devilfish

HS:
2x broadsides, 2 shield drones (one squad)
1x Railhead

This is as close to 10/10 as I can get, since Tau won't even have the option to not dupe troops and have three with farsight.

JohnHwangDD wrote:A modern comp system should focus on FOC choices and the variety of choices taken, for example:
[] 3+ Troops
[] More Troops than any other category
[] More Troops than all non-Troops combined
[] 1+ Elite, 1+ Fast, *and* 1+ Heavy
[] Non-max, no-dupe HQ
[] Non-max, no-dupe Elite
[] Non-max, no-dupe Fast
[] Non-max, no-dupe Heavy
[] No max HQ, max Elite, max Fast, *nor* max Heavy
[] No dupe entries

Given people are trying to poke holes at the sample Comp system I cobbled together, I think it's worth spending a moment to discuss what it's trying to do and why it does what it does.

In general, this is trying to encourage a GW-style batrep army. If you look at GW batreps, they rarely have duplicates, except when absolutely necessary due to army list constraints, and even then, those dupes tend to be Troops (GW likes Troops). GW tries to maximize variety, which has the pleasant side effect of showcasing the maximum number of types of models (for sales purposes).

So I start with Troops, which would be non-minimum, and preferably the bulk of things. I award points for having non-max, non-duplicative HQ, Elite, Fast, and Heavy. And then I award bonus points for the full variety, no (non-Troop) max, and no duplicates.

If you are shooting for max 10 points, you must take:
1 HQ
1 Elite
5 Troops (5 different flavors)
1 Fast
1 Heavy

If you want a second Elite, Fast, or Heavy, you will need a 6th flavor of Troops.

In general, I think an 8 or 9 is a good target to shoot for, as not all armies have enough Troops options to allow for 5 or 6 different Troops.

What defines a "flavor" of troops here? How many armies even have 4 different troops choices, much less 5 or 6?

Orks? Two, plus extras you can get for certain HQs

Tau? Two, unless you use non-codex units

Dark Eldar? Daemonhunters? Necrons? (Hah)

Anyway I like the other ideas, no problem. Got to work on the non-spamming troops, it just doesnt seem to work or eliminates whole codexes.

GMMStudios wrote:IMHO comp is just a new set of 1-2, 2-6, 0-3, 0-3,0-3.

The force org is the restrictions set for games, and comp is a new set of restrictions, usually tighter ones.

It depends on how the Comp system works. I don't like restrictive Comp that mandates certain builds - players can play like what they like. But I don't think that they should be rewarded for taking the easy road of min-max armies, either.
____

lambadomy wrote:I'm not in love with JHDD's comp checklist, but it's not bad either.

When you do it like JHDD is doing it you get a better chance of avoiding any power armies because you're forcing a TON of diversity int he lists, and you get a BIG penalty for violating it (even one or two points off is a big handycap since it's 10 or 20% of your battle points).

That being said, some codexes just get reamed by these rules. Some have nothing but crappy FA units, or only two troops choices so how do you non-dupe troops and get 3+? Do Space Wolves automatically lose a point for having max HQ? Etc.

It's just a strawman that I threw together in 5 minutes, so it's definitely not perfect. Never will be, either. But it's not bad for point of discussion, as it seems to do an OK job of highlighting problem areas with lists that people might complain about. It's actually doing a better job than I would have expected.

I don't think I've seen anything else that links Comp to Battle as intimately as I've done it. Right now, Comp isn't a big deal, as the penalty for "bad" Comp is low. If Comp lacks teeth, then meh, who cares?

I don't think any Codex is totally hosed by them, although, there is usually a point or two that you're probably not going to be able to get. If you have bad FA, then you probably suck it up and field the cheapest option available just to get the comp points, this brings the power level down in your opponent's favor. Amusingly, Marines and Necrons are going to lose at least 1 point for needing duplicate Troops, but they should still take plenty of them for Comp purposes. Similarly, SW would probably lose the HQ point today, but as their Codex is pending revision, it probably won't work that way later.

Honestly, the biggest problem with the old comp system is that it's become somewhat obsolete; at one time it was the elite choices and tooled up characters that won the games, but it's increasingly becoming an issue of powerful troops; massive amounts of nob bikers, battle sisters, boys, plaguemarines, etc.

Penalizing people for spending a lot of points on, say, their grandmaster seems kind of unfair when another player can bring a whole bunch of Battle Sisters with no comp penalty while probably being a better choice overall.

lambadomy wrote:What defines a "flavor" of troops here?

How many armies even have 4 different troops choices, much less 5 or 6?

Got to work on the non-spamming troops, it just doesnt seem to work or eliminates whole codexes.

A "flavor" of Troops would be an army list entry that can be taken as Troops.

I don't know, and I don't think it matters so much - I wouldn't recommend requiring 10/10 Comp precisely for that reason.

But the idea that you lose a point for having duplicate Troops won't elimiinate an entire Codex. It just means you lose 1/10, which isn't so bad.

Even if you're playing CSM or Eldar, you have to choose between fielding many, varied "bad" Troops, or a narrower selection of "good" Troops.