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.

Polonius wrote:Go through every codex, and assign a value to each unit. Multiple the value of each unit by it's cost, add it all, divide by the size of the army and that is your armies rough power level. As time goes on, and it becomes more refined, certain unit combos might be seperated (so tactical marines with melta, combi-melta, multi-melta and razorback score higher than the same with flamer, missile launcher, and rhino).

How is the size of the army defined here? Is it the number of separate units in the army?

Points value. So, an army with 100pts of value 5, 400pts of value 6, and 500pts of value 3 would have a total value of 500+2400+1500=4400, divided by 1000 for a comp rating of 4.4.

@Polonius: How does the PV rating factor repetition?

That is, most stuff, taken singly, isn't a big deal, especially if the category isn't maxxed out. That is, 1 unit of TH&SS Termies isn't something that anybody would care about.

But synergy and linkage (LR Crusader & the Special Character) turn that on its head. Now, it's a combination problem that amplifies the Termies power considerably. What was a "2" unit now is a "4" unit.

Same thing with the flamer dude - if you don't max his linkage combos, he's a "1" or "2".

It seems to me that your proposal would be exceedingly complex if it were to capture the details of what you suggest.

And even then, there's subjectivity in the rating from 1 to 5 (or 6, or whatever your maximum is).

Really, it's like the now-abandoned WPS system for WFB.

What's a comp score?

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: How does the PV rating factor repetition?

That is, most stuff, taken singly, isn't a big deal, especially if the category isn't maxxed out. That is, 1 unit of TH&SS Termies isn't something that anybody would care about.

But synergy and linkage (LR Crusader & the Special Character) turn that on its head. Now, it's a combination problem that amplifies the Termies power considerably. What was a "2" unit now is a "4" unit.

Same thing with the flamer dude - if you don't max his linkage combos, he's a "1" or "2".

It seems to me that your proposal would be exceedingly complex if it were to capture the details of what you suggest.

And even then, there's subjectivity in the rating from 1 to 5 (or 6, or whatever your maximum is).

Really, it's like the now-abandoned WPS system for WFB.

Well, I think repetition is pretty easy to factor in. For non troops, it's pretty easy to come up with scores for the first, second, and third choice taken, for troops a simply rate increase could be included.

As for synergy, it's actually easier than you think. I mean, you only take a LRC or LRR if you have something worth transporting, right? Now, for relatively low cost units like Vulkan that make large chunks of the army better, you can either rate him very highly or simply add a notation that he adds an additional value to certain units.

I'm not saying it would be easy, I'm saying it would be fair. As for the actual values, simply have a ton of input from tournament goers, and keep adding up lists to see what you can break.

Polonius:

I think that the problem with your system is that the assignation 'values' to units is essentially arbitrary. And that just shifts the problem of how to define army composition rating to how to define the composition value of each unit.

Easy? The level of complexity proposed is such that I don't think it's even possible.

And I definitely don't think it'd be fair, due to non-uniformity of players and winners. Non-winners can easily over-penalize winners.

Nurglitch wrote:Polonius:

I think that the problem with your system is that the assignation 'values' to units is essentially arbitrary. And that just shifts the problem of how to define army composition rating to how to define the composition value of each unit.

Well, don't you more or less disagree with the notion that any unit is more powerful than another? Of course it'd be arbitrary for you. No offense, but for nearly everybody else, it's a matter of execution, not theory.

I mean, the easiest possible way would be to simply split the field three ways: low, middle, high. I like a 1-10 system, but that's probably false accuracy, 1-5 is probably better.

I can't see opening up the rating to the general public, but I think any healthy sized pool of, say, a few dozen tournament players could come up with something that works. You can quibble about the details, but I think that there's more debate or discussion on the extent to which units are better than one another, not always which units are better.

The advantage to this is that it is a mechanical test that involves no discretion by the end user: simply plug and chug.

Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:

[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy

Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name

If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think any healthy sized pool of, say, a few dozen tournament players could come up with something that works.

The advantage to this is that it is a mechanical test that involves no discretion by the end user: simply plug and chug.

I dunno. Even a 5-point scale is tough for people to make those kinds of decisions on, especially to make the kinds of fine-grained separations and weightings required.

Let's talk about SM Terminators as an example.

Terminators (in general)
- SB&PF Termies?
- - with HF?
- - - with Heavy Flamer and the Flamey Character
- - with AC?
- - with CML?
- LC Termies
- TH&SS Termies
- - with the Special Character Dude
- with Terminator Chaplain
- with Land Raider
- with Land Raider Crusader
- with Land Raider Redeemer

Ouch!

Because your system provides huge advantages to certain armies. Nercrons only have one troop, so they can either take 4 troops or less than 3 spammed units. Tau have no real anti-tank outside of heavy, and rarely take the field with less than max heavy.

Ironically, I think it helps marines more than anything, followed closely by IG and Eldar. Anything with more diverse codices. An army with two good troops choices will prosper under this system.

Who won the tourney? Did any of the better comped armies know the TOs?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Let's talk about SM Terminators as an example.
Ouch!

Terminators (in general)
- SB&PF Termies 3
- - with HF? 3 (the heavy flamer is
- - - with Heavy Flamer and the Flamey Character 3 (this boost can be included in the SC)
- - with AC? 3 (If you take the HF or no heavy, than you clearly have a cunning plan, but get no bonus)
- - with CML? 3
- LC Termies 4
- TH&SS Termies 4
- - with the Special Character Dude 5 (I think this would be a rare case of including a special rule, that it gets the bump if vulkan is included)
- with Terminator Chaplain 4 (this bonus is restricted to a unit, and thus can be included in the value of the chaplain)
- with Land Raider 4 (The LRC is a 5, because it's really good and is taken to transport good units.)
- with Land Raider Crusader 4
- with Land Raider Redeemer 4

It's really not that hard. I mean, we could get really fine toothed and start weighing for every option, but I'd rather see a broader diversity of units and archtypes rather than see, say, more Heavy Flamers or terminators or Eldar Rangers not upgraded to pathfinders. I see no problem assuming in most cases, the units will be properly and wisely outfitted.

If Tau end up taking their free point on Max Heavy, why is that so bad?

If Necrons end up using their free point on Spammed Warriors or <4 Troops, again, why is that such a big deal?

Either way, they're still scoring the full 5 points. The point is that they're not maximally powerful, just like everybody else.

Nor is the point that the system is perfect. All it intends to do is to clamp down on the worst abuses of non-Comp (i.e. Max Spammed Heavies and pure Repetition). The key point is that it is easily transparent to the player about how it does that.

I don't see why the player can't be forced into making some simple choices between power and comp points, nor do I see why those choices are "bad".

As for specific Codices, SM Scouts are kind of poor for their points, and I'd gladly give up the Spam point not to take them. IG and Eldar, aren't exactly powerhouse Codices, so how they'd "prosper" is only relative to being mid-pack today - that is, I think they'd stay the same. But Lash Chaos? Heavy penalties.

Ok, I see what you mean now by a free break. You only need to hit five of the six. I still think you could create some broken stuff there. I mean, it'll change the game, certainly, but I think it's still a "the rich get richer" style system.

Well, Eldar get a boost because they can grab singletons easier than any other army by adding things like Jetbikes, Rangers, Harlies, falcons, Vypers, or their specials.

IG Have two good troops choices, and with tank squadrons can bring plenty of pain there without maxing on heavies.

The other problem with your system is that it torpedoes some really interesting armies. Things like Deathwing would score nothing on there (assuming they took three land raiders, oh, they might get 4+ troops as well).

I'm not sure how that's such a problem.

Eldar wanting max 5/5 probably aren't much impacted at all, aside from choosing between 4+ Troops and 3 Elites. But then, they're not top tier right now. And even if this were under 4E rules, they'd be forced to choose between Tri-Falcon (Heavy) and the units within (Elite).

IG will still be points limited, after filling compulsories, and those Squadrons are very-much of a double-edged sword. Assuming you want a 5/5, there is a decision whether to take a (bad) Elite, limit Fast / Heavy options, or spend more points on T3 Sv5+ Troops.

It's not perfect, but then it doesn't purport to be. It merely places a small number of very basic choices in front of the player, choices that are relatively simple to evaluate when list building, for which the impact can be well-understood before walking into the event.

It's kind of like the difference between the current tax code and a flat tax. Or SFB vs BFG. Simplicity is something of a virtue in and of itself.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:

[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy

Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name

Armies with good troops: SM, IG, Eldar, Orks, Chaos, Witchhunters, Daemons, Dark Eldar,
Armies with two good troops (to avoid spamming troops): Chaos, IG, Eldar, Chaos
Armies with a good Fast Attack: Necrons, SM, IG, Witchhunters, Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau
Armies that do well absent three Heavies: SM, Chaos, IG, Necrons, Witchhunters, Daemons, Dark Eldar, Eldar

Since not maxing on elite and fast is easy, a max list only really needs four others. We'll save singletons for last, so we need lists that can do three of the following four: four troops, nothing spammed, an elite and a fast, and non-max heavies. The best armies for that are:
IG, SM, Chaos, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Witch Hunters

Of those, they all can take singletons. Necrons simply can't take enough troops while avoiding the spam penalty, Tau are really restricted in terms of build (can't spam suits, must take a fast, can't take three hammerheads, must take four troops, must take kroot, etc.), Daemonhunters are totally boned, as are Dark Angels.

I guess I fundamentally oppose any comp system that punishes people that play weak codices.

What if it's sexy punishment?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm not sure how that's such a problem.

Eldar wanting max 5/5 probably aren't much impacted at all, aside from choosing between 4+ Troops and 3 Elites. But then, they're not top tier right now. And even if this were under 4E rules, they'd be forced to choose between Tri-Falcon (Heavy) and the units within (Elite).

IG will still be points limited, after filling compulsories, and those Squadrons are very-much of a double-edged sword. Assuming you want a 5/5, there is a decision whether to take a (bad) Elite, limit Fast / Heavy options, or spend more points on T3 Sv5+ Troops.

It's not perfect, but then it doesn't purport to be. It merely places a small number of very basic choices in front of the player, choices that are relatively simple to evaluate when list building, for which the impact can be well-understood before walking into the event.

It's kind of like the difference between the current tax code and a flat tax. Or SFB vs BFG. Simplicity is something of a virtue in and of itself.

Well, much like the flat tax, simplicity has value, but is it worth grotesque unfairness?

Here's a quick IG list:

CCS, Stand, Melta x3, PP 105
Chimera 55
Marbo 65

PCS, 4xFlamer 50
Chimera 55
AC/PG 75
AC/PG 75

Vets, 3x Melta 100
Chimera 55

Vets, 3x Melta 100
Valk 100

PCS, 4xFlamer 50
Chimera 55
AC/PG 75
AC/PG 75
Executioner 230
Executioner 230
LRBT x2 300

1850

Don't forget, Marbo is a 65pt unit that's both a singleton and an elite. The valk is my fast, I have four troops, nothing spammed, and three heavies as my freebie.

If marines are more your style, you can take:
Vulkan
8 TH/SS termies
7 TH/SS termies
10 Tacticals, melta, MM, Rhino
10 Tacticals, melta, MM, Rhino
MM speeder
MM Speeder
LR Crusader
LR Redeemer

That's max points.

Why would you punish an army for repeating FOC?

Aren't armies meant to be standardized?

edit: Thanks for the clarification on the 2nd edition style codex. I never played 2nd
edition, but I bought various army books as reading material. When 3rd edition rolled
around I thought of it as force organization as well.

Polonius wrote:Well, don't you more or less disagree with the notion that any unit is more powerful than another? Of course it'd be arbitrary for you. No offense, but for nearly everybody else, it's a matter of execution, not theory.

I'm sorry, but it appears that I've somehow managed to give you a very misleading idea about what I think. Please let me try to explain. I disagree with the notion that any unit is more powerful than another of the same points value, because different units have different uses, and to simply say that one unit is more powerful than another is to ignore the conditions which validate that judgment. The power of units can only be judged according to the conditions of their use, and assigning some general power rating or ranking is a lossy abstraction.

Warhammer 40,000 already has a misleading and lossy abstraction for measuring the value of units, called points. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because assigning absolute values would detract from the fun of figuring where and how 200pts of unit x is better than 200pts of unit y. But it would be nice if ~(200x = 200y), so that the values of x and y weren't sometimes so opaque, and hence easier to evaluate for the purposes of competition.

Moreover of course this is a matter of execution, the whole problem is about how to implement a composition system that's more accurate than a points system but less arbitrary than a weighted points system, and still user-friendly. The accuracy that your system offers simply increases the input of arbitrary value into the system. This is because you're building your house on sand, on the assumption that some units can be better than other units of the same points value in some abstract general sense, rather than in the specific ways in which a player can employ them.

Of course, such situation-specific valuation would require a fair bit of abstract algebra, and that's not terribly user-friendly, although your mileage may vary and a variety of mileage is the problem at hand.

@Polonius: I don't see what's obviously wrong with either list.

I always have and always will despise the very concept of comp scores.

The idea that you are being penalized for taking a perfectly legal army just pisses me off in principal.

If something is not allowed, then dont allow it, if its allowed then its allowed and dont penalize me for it.

If you as the TO have some kind of problem with repetition in a list ( despite the fact that this is a war game and that is how wars are fought) then dont allow it. Just say, you are not allowed to bring more than one of any single heavy support choice. Or you must bring a minumum of 4 troop choices, whatever. It solves nothing to just make random decisions on what makes a "more compy" list and penalize anyone who does not follow those arbitrary guidelines. At the very least any comp critera should be very clearly published in advance, what happend to the OPs friend is not just wrong its flat out corruption as far as I am concerned. If you are going to make that kind of rating then you damn well better let people know what is expected before hand.

sigh, I could go on but its pointless.

I will say that a recent local tournment I went to was at least honest about it. The TO said "Im rating everyone on comp based on how hard to beat I think your army is, its totally subjective and is basically a handicap to try and balance out list building with playing skill."

I don't agree with that either but at least I respect that more than this random idea that some things that are legal and allowed in the codex are somehow less Compy than others.

May the Holy Inquisition purge all comp nazis with the beautiful fires of holy prometheum.

The comp at KublaCon was standard RT comp. 40% troops, no more than 25% in any other category, no more than 10% in wargear, etc.

Kublacon is usually an outstanding regional tournament. This year's event was run by a new group of people, and while Im sure they thought they were doing the best they could, there have been scores of complaints about the judging overall. Id love to hear their perspective on things, but from what I saw it was terrible. A friend's chaos army (gorgeous, btw) was given a mediocre paint score partially because it contained Slaanesh, Khorne, and Nurgle models - the army composition and paint score were linked in the judge's explanation, and the score suffered because those 3 gods did not like working together in the fluff. The fact that fluff is completely outdated was besides the point, I assume. I also saw the tyranid player above catch flak for not being a good army in the judges eyes.

Dont blame the con or the tourney itself. This lies squarely on the judges.

Hokkaido23 wrote:The comp at KublaCon was standard RT comp. 40% troops, no more than 25% in any other category, no more than 10% in wargear, etc.

Kublacon is usually an outstanding regional tournament. This year's event was run by a new group of people, and while Im sure they thought they were doing the best they could, there have been scores of complaints about the judging overall. Id love to hear their perspective on things, but from what I saw it was terrible. A friend's chaos army (gorgeous, btw) was given a mediocre paint score partially because it contained Slaanesh, Khorne, and Nurgle models - the army composition and paint score were linked in the judge's explanation, and the score suffered because those 3 gods did not like working together in the fluff. The fact that fluff is completely outdated was besides the point, I assume. I also saw the tyranid player above catch flak for not being a good army in the judges eyes.

Dont blame the con or the tourney itself. This lies squarely on the judges.

I can totally accept the comp standards posted, again dont agree with the concept, but at least its clear what should have been expected. Of course its pretty outdated now since most of the new books dont have wargear to any extent, but anyway.

I think the example of what happened with the judges at Kublacon is a perfect example of what is wrong with soft scores in general, they are so totally subjective and it just takes a couple people who are locked into a local FLGS mindset to come up with some bizzare rulings that make perfect sense to them but everyone else just looks at and shakes thier heads.

The tournament was won by an Ultramarines army consisting of tac squads, Marneus Calgar, and twin dreads. That player, in addition to getting good draws (which is essential to winning a tournament) is a very good player who is also at the top of the local scene, so props to him - he deserved the win, after a math error screwed him out of first place in 2006.

To bigtmac68, thats exactly what happened. The judges, who happen to be players as well in the NorCal scene, imposed their idea of the fluff on comp and paint scores. Since some people didnt adhere to that, and why would they, they were given correspondingly lower scores for what seems like no reason.

Im fine with RT comp, since if theres going to be a comp system ts almost always the least restrictive. But since missions require troops to win and we come to play with fancy toys that blow things up, why should we have comp at all? A subjective judge on top of that is redundantly bad.

Hokkaido23 wrote:is a very good player who is also at the top of the local scene

This is the problem I have as he may have had access to the comp they were using while those from outside the local scene do not. If you are going to have comp in a tourney you need to give everyone a fair chance at seeing what it is, not just those that happen to live near the TO.

In addition it seems like the TOs ruined the tourney for a number of people. I'm curious if those that weren't local or part of the local scene were the ones that were "poo-pooed"
EDIT: Hey it's answered here!

Hokkaido23 wrote:
To bigtmac68, thats exactly what happened. The judges, who happen to be players as well in the NorCal scene, imposed their idea of the fluff on comp and paint scores. Since some people didnt adhere to that, and why would they, they were given correspondingly lower scores for what seems like no reason.

Then this is the problem and unfair to the other players and give a huge advantage to the local players in terms of comp and the other relative categories if they didn't lete everyone know beforehand. I'd have called shenanigans and probably never go back as long as that group was running the event.

I've used comp before in tournies I've run but never as part of the overall score but as a way to set up 1st round pairings.

I can say from experience that the Sacramento "scene" is extremely cliquish and the local players will often tank outsider's soft scores at the "Contest of Champions" Sacramento tournament series.

I HATE comp systems.

What is the number one thing you hear people complain about with a tournament? Comp scores.

Drop them already.

They are totally arbitrary.

The one and ONLY fair and universally accepted way to judge an army is this: Legal / Not Legal.

That is a simple, binary issue. If it is allowed in the codex then it is legal and anyone else can take their opinion and shove it.

As they used to say around these parts when I was a Dakka noob, instead of complaining that someone kicked your ass, play better.

Comp systems are for the weak.

Bahkara wrote:This is the problem I have as he may have had access to the comp they were using while those from outside the local scene do not. If you are going to have comp in a tourney you need to give everyone a fair chance at seeing what it is, not just those that happen to live near the TO.

In addition it seems like the TOs ruined the tourney for a number of people. I'm curious if those that weren't local or part of the local scene were the ones that were "poo-pooed"

The tournament and its rules used were advertised on the Kublacon website months in advance. Everyone had the same access to them, plus its RT comp so its been around forever. Hardly a surprise. Furthermore, the SF/East Bay gaming area and the Sacramento gaming area are completely separate. Players know of each other, they play each other sparingly at local tournaments, but thats about it. The winning player is from my local area, which is completely separate from SF/East Bay.

Bahkara wrote:Then this is the problem and unfair to the other players and give a huge advantage to the local players in terms of comp and the other relative categories if they didn't lete everyone know beforehand. I'd have called shenanigans and probably never go back as long as that group was running the event.

I've used comp before in tournies I've run but never as part of the overall score but as a way to set up 1st round pairings.

Again, the player that won is not close to the organizers, I dont believe. Lets not jump to wild conclusions, they come from different areas of the state. Despite it being one of the only events in Northern California, Im considering not going back either as long as its run by this group of people but we take what we can get, you know?

willydstyle wrote:I can say from experience that the Sacramento "scene" is extremely cliquish and the local players will often tank outsider's soft scores at the "Contest of Champions" Sacramento tournament series.

Why put it in quotation marks? Are you implying that its not a scene? And im sure it can seem cliquish to those outside the percieved clique. Im also sure its the same as other game store cultures around the world.

To steer the conversation back on topic, I think the fault lies less with the actual comp system and its associated evils and more with the specific group of judges in this instance.

Personally I find a lot of comp just bizarre.

The FOC allows 3 heavy, 3 fast, etc. But you get penalized for taking 3 heavies?

Either the FOC stands or the tournament needs a revised FOC.

Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?