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.

I was thinking...Which I know, gets dangerous...

When you go to a tourney, you expect to see decent lists. TO's generally want to discourage people from bringing what they consider to be overpowered lists.

What about, instead of a comp score, do one of two things -

1) Require lists to be pre-submitted. If the TO deams the list to be too powerful, make the person re-submit a different list.

2) Have an ETC style list of what is not permitted (For instance, limit 2 duplicate units, Guard have a max of 4 Chimeras, etc etc etc)

Both ways would limit the whining about comp scores, etc...

Arbitrary rules about composition are still arbitrary.

My thoughts are that at least everyone is on the same page.

True, but the complaint against composition doesn't seem to be fairness, but arbitrariness. I had a similar proposal where the tournament organizers simply wrote the lists that would be used and players could choose from those available lists. At least among the people trying to shout it down the complaint seemed to be that list-building was a skill that people should develop, and not have limited by additional rules.

I saw an event with "objectively judged composition scoring", as in a judge walks around, and judges you 0-10 points for composition. Guy running mech eldar with eldrad and yriel gets 2 out of 10 points for comp. Guy running a fatecrusher army gets 9 out of 10 points. There is no objective comp system, its all arbitrary crap.

Comp, which I am a strong supporter of as a player and TO, is less about limiting a player's choices as it is about balancing the playing field. I see it kinda like a handicap in golf.

And when I do tournaments most of the points earned (or lost) to composition is clearly spelled out to the participants long before the first die it cast.

Out of curiosity, Dainty Twerp, what do you mean by "clearly spelled out"? Do you have an example?

Comp is for the weak.

I say it every time, and I will say it again. The codex is all we need to judge what is or is not legal.

The SoCal Slaughter has a system which I think is fair. They have a group judge each list's power level and then the first two rounds of the tournament you are paired with a similar army.

That way every type of player can come and expect to have a good time. After round 2, it is all skill and luck, but you are certain to at least get a game with similar armies for the majority of your games.

Outside of that, I do not believe that comp has a place in competitive play as it is too judgmental and arbitrary.

But we have beat the hell out of this horse, so not really anything new to see here.

Nurglitch, there are multiple different complaints. Some folks complain about unfairness, some about arbitrariness, some about other problems, and some about any given combination. Multiple folks on this board have expressed that they would be happy (or at least happier) with a comp system which was clearly laid out before the event in a manner which allowed them to predict their score.

Dainty Twerp wrote:Comp, which I am a strong supporter of as a player and TO, is less about limiting a player's choices as it is about balancing the playing field. I see it kinda like a handicap in golf.

And when I do tournaments most of the points earned (or lost) to composition is clearly spelled out to the participants long before the first die it cast.

So telling me that I can only take 200 points of Heavy Support as an IG player isn't limiting my choices?
Telling me that if I take any vehicles at all means a -10 to my score isn't limiting my choices?
Telling me that if all my units are in transports I'll lose points isn't limiting my choices?
Telling me that if I have HQ, Troops and Heavy but no Fast or Elite I'll lose points isn't limiting my choices?
Those are all examples of recent "Comp" tourneys in our area. Basically, if you as a TO tell me that I'll take negative points or lose points from a particular score for building a legal army list, then you are indeed limiting my choices to what YOU think is the right way to play that list. Be kinda like walking into a bar and me telling you that you're only allowed to drink a particular brand of beer or liquor, even tho there are dozens of others available on the shelf. And that's why I don't like it, cause I wanna drink what I wanna drink, and if it's legal, then I shouldn't be penalized for it.

Mondo, ETC-style comp (hard limits, like “No double Rare selections” in WH) is limiting choice. A comp system which awards less or more points but doesn’t actually forbid is not the same animal.

You can argue that you personally don’t want to take something which scores fewer points in comp, but IME in such events, competitive players usually either a) take whatever they want and let the chips fall where they may as far as Comp score goes, or b) try to build a slightly-toned-down version of their preferred power list which will get them a few more Comp points while maintaining the main strengths of the army. Both are valid approaches, and in neither is the player’s choice actually limited. In the latter they just have another challenge in the metagame, balancing strength of list and comp score, to maximize their chances of winning.

Right, they don't limit your choices, they just penalize you for building a legal list....... Same thing as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a fan of soft scores, but I have to agree that most comp systems are pretty arbitrary.

That being said, I don't mind Comp scores as long as the criteria for the scoring is made public well in advance. That gives me a chance to find a list I like that meets the requirements of the comp scoring while still allowing me to play an army that I enjoy and is competitive.

I just consider it an additional challenge to my ability as a player; good players should be able to compete with a wide variety of army lists. (Even ones they might consider to be "sub-optimal.")

40k isn't a competitive game. It's meant to drink tea and talk about the queen with. Many other games have had competitive circuits and not "needed" comp. Prove me otherwise, but GW games aren't built to a tournament level of quality. No amount of arbitrary or objective points is going to fix that.

All comp does is change around the power lists. I don't see whats so hard to see about this. Besides that, most comp events are created by people who play fantasy first.

And most of them think
Named HQ = Lord
Regular HQ = Hero
Elite/Fast attack = Special
Troop = Core
Heavy = Rare

I can't tell you how dumb this approach is. Sadly, like every single comp tournament I have ever saw follows something close to this.

Guess what, heavy support is not the best selection in every army. I don't understand what is so difficult to get about this.

So using the above comp (as almost all tournaments use a form of it) we have IG, SM, CSM, WH and DE being the major winners here. Why you ask? Because any of them can almost max on troops and still build a top tier army.

And armies like Tau, Eldar ect who have weak troops get royally screwed.

Please show me a comp tournament that doesn't use the above format or a variation of it. (I know you can't) Even ETC does it. (No named HQs - i.e. Lords are too powerful in fantasy, they must be in 40k too)

Timmah has the right of it for most comp lists I have seen.

I severely disagree with composition scores in 40k (Never played a fantasy tournament). While I like fluff lists & find them fun to play & play against I don't think people should be penalized for building a good list.

On duplicate units/limited units: Necrons.- One HQ choice (Excluding C'tan), One troop choice. Then there's Tau. One good HQ choice (Shas'el, Shas'o is too expensive & ethereals suck) One good Elite choice XV8 (I find stealth teams short ranged firepower cripples their usefulness. Two troops choices one of which is mandatory & not very customizable (Fire warriors)
Some armies are limited & by adding a comp score you can force that player to take god-awful units or be penalized for it, which is a bad idea.

On the TO stating whether a list is too-powerful: This is just ridiculous. Who's to the TO to judge the power of a list. You have to take the player into account. A power-list run by a poor player is doomed to fail. What if the tactics for a "crap" list make it exceptionally good. How about if the TO just doesn't see how great a list is & underestimates it (Like many people do with Stelek's lists) or overestimates a crap list.
This is just WAY too subject to the TO's personal bias. Remember how much QQ there was about (Insert new codex) being overpowered? Unless the TO is a super computer with a perfect algorithm for computing the power of a list I feel there can be no way to remove his persona bias which makes this a bad idea.

tl;dr - I disagree with both the OP's propositions as I see both of them as a "QQ I don't know how to beat that list so It shouldn't be allowed" --- Note: This is NOT a flame of the OP it is my general feeling on people who want comp scores, adapt or die.

don_mondo wrote:So telling me that I can only take 200 points of Heavy Support *snip* Telling me that if I have HQ, Troops and Heavy but no Fast or Elite I'll lose points isn't limiting my choices?

I don't support this kind of comp, at all. Please re-read my post.

Danny Internets wrote:Out of curiosity, Dainty Twerp, what do you mean by "clearly spelled out"? Do you have an example?

sure, I used almost the exact same thing at my local tourny recently...

http://www.daboyzgt.com/gt09/Final%20Comp.htm

Reecius wrote:Comp is for the weak.

The SoCal Slaughter has a system which I think is fair. They have a group judge each list's power level and then the first two rounds of the tournament you are paired with a similar army.

To your first statement I do not completely disagree. I just think that Comp can be used to balance out GW's skewed power levels to a limited extent. Part of the feedback from Adepticon is that everyone had basically the same armies. Same armies equal boring. By working to level the power builds with other builds you encourage other armies, not flavor of the week. (or in the past, the most recent codex)

And how was the SoCal Sla not a comp system if lists were judged? You just request that they don't effect final scores, which is a reasonable request...

I also agree with Timmah.

Comp would not be needed if the codexes actually were balanced.

To rebalance them properly with comp requires individual attention to each codex.

A "one size fits all" system penalises some army or other which happens to be weak in the area the comp system designer thinks needs to be bigged up.

Kilkrazy wrote:I also agree with Timmah.

Comp would not be needed if the codexes actually were balanced.

To rebalance them properly with comp requires individual attention to each codex.

A "one size fits all" system penalises some army or other which happens to be weak in the area the comp system designer thinks needs to be bigged up.

But right now, codices are pretty balanced. Outside of CSM, Necrons and GK, everything works pretty well. Necrons and GK both have rumored books on the horizon and I wouldn't be surprised if CSM was very far behind. (heck CSM right now does a good job of wrecking certain lists which keeps it competitive)

So basically right now, there are 2 bad armies that can technically compete with a good player behind them. In a couple months I feel like we will have some of the best balance we have ever had (provided GK and Necrons continue to follow the current codex trend).

And Tau.

They are a bad army that can compete with a good player handling them.

@twerp:

"In the Judge's Opinion the army was built based on the theme of the relevant gaming universe and supplied background for that army.
(as opposed to a force built purely for winning with little or no regard to that army’s established background)."

So people can't be creative and add to or play around with the strange hooks buried in the fluff without being considered on par with people who only use certain units for their abilities? I run a Nurgle-daemon army with very heavily converted Orks (completely WYSIWYG) making up the vast majority of it. I honestly think I shouldn't get penalized for being more creative than the guy who painted his space marines blue.

@Cannerus_The_Unbearable - that has no effect on how you may or may not model your army, and there is fluff to support Chaos Orks. (and even badly painted examples of them, too!)

It stops Mechanized Nurgle armies and things like that. Its pretty hard to not score that point.

and again, I didn't write those up, the great guys in Da Boyz out of Rochester did, I just like them enough to borrow and make my own.

Dainty Twerp wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:Out of curiosity, Dainty Twerp, what do you mean by "clearly spelled out"? Do you have an example?

sure, I used almost the exact same thing at my local tourny recently...

http://www.daboyzgt.com/gt09/Final%20Comp.htm

If this is your definition of clearly spelled out composition scoring -- I would hate to see comp that you felt was ambiguous.

Sorry if I don't need a book to tell me what I can and can't model or paint. I use the basis of Ork's general toughness to justify that if they got a disease of some kind they would keep on fighting. Maybe then, in their impaired state they just happen to follow the "even bigger green guys" back into the warp. Is it a terrible stretch form the existing fluff? I think not. Does it violate the spirit or 40k? Again, I think not. But I would lose a point because I didn't paint my space marines blue. That's more of a community-problem than a soft score one though, I suppose.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: But I would lose a point because I didn't paint my space marines blue. That's more of a community-problem than a soft score one though, I suppose.

Where do you get the idea that your modeling would cost you a point in composition?

please, re read my post and my answer to your first question directed at me.

Thanks.

I swear I read the word "no" in there before. Completely my bad (I thought you were throwing in a free jab at my potential painting too and was trying to keep the nerdrage in check ) I guess it still comes down to whether someone believes it's fluffy or not going by the RaW of the scoring sheet. I just don't think fluffiness should be there to be subjective in the first place, if that makes sense.

Kilkrazy wrote:And Tau.

They are a bad army that can compete with a good player handling them.

Please tell this to any of the competitive gamers I have played recently. I try to tell them this too and they laugh in my face.

(Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence, but its not like you provided any basis for your statement.)

Dainty Twerp wrote:

http://www.daboyzgt.com/gt09/Final%20Comp.htm

That is supposed to be clearly spelled out? You're kidding, right. Anything that repeats "In the judge's opinion" over and over is not clearly spelled out. Only the first two are actually objective criteria, all the others depend upon the judge to make a subjective evaluation.

More specifically, let me address one or two of them.

"There are more Troop Choices then any other single category? (HQ, Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support selections)"

I play IG, I use platoons. My two platoons run 850-1000+ points, depending on the level of the game. My three Heavy Support max out at 590 points, less depending on the level of the game. Yet I'm going to lose points because I spent more on troops than on Heavy? What, I should play MechVet spam so that I don't lose this point?

"Does your army have units that the Judge typically does not see in army lists?
(The examples are Chaos Raptors, Chaos Spawn, Witch Hunters Penitent Engines, and Marine Whirlwinds.)"

So, we gain or lose points based on what the local players around the judge use? Either post a complete list of what units, by army, will grant the bonus point or forget it. I shouldn't have to rely on a judge's subjective determination of what is and what isn't "typical".

Sorry, but this is a bad comp scoring system, as far too much of it is purely subjective and dependent upon the judge's opinion. It is a fine example, however, of exactly why I don't like comp.....

don_mondo wrote:Right, they don't limit your choices, they just penalize you for building a legal list....... Same thing as far as I'm concerned.

Mondo, if one operates from the idea that army lists are often of varying power levels (which is self-evident), than it follows that if a judge/system is good enough, they can gauge the varying power levels, and give a higher Comp score to a weaker list as a handicap.

40k is complex, and there are perfectly valid concerns which can be expressed reasonably about how well this works, and how arbitrary scoring rubrics which can be used objectively don’t tend to work well across different codices. But this is a different argument than claiming that your choice is being restricted or you are being penalized. If you want to call it that, than you should say a player choosing to use a weaker list is self-penalizing or self-restricting, and the point of the comp score at that point is to level the playing field somewhat, thus allowing a wider variety of lists to compete in the overall scoring.

IMO helping a wider variety of army to compete in an event is a good thing. I’d like to see more variety in tournament armies, personally, and I know I’m not alone in this.

I know perfectly well that many comp systems out there are badly designed, or don’t achieve the effect they’re looking for. And I’m happy that 40k is pretty much in its most balanced state right now that it’s been over the eleven years I’ve been playing. I would never have bothered trying ‘Ard Boyz in 3rd or 4th edition. It was just dumb. Comp is less common nowadays because the game is better. That’s a good thing. But it doesn’t mean the whole idea is pointless.

Timmah wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:And Tau.

They are a bad army that can compete with a good player handling them.

Please tell this to any of the competitive gamers I have played recently. I try to tell them this too and they laugh in my face.

(Yes, I know, anecdotal evidence, but its not like you provided any basis for your statement.)

Miljan Otovic gave me a solid game in R3 of the Adepticon Championships. And it wasn’t even mech tau.