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.

You forgot the "etc." at the end Kilkrazy

Kilkrazy wrote:There are comp systems ranging from completely subjective appraisal to highly detailed mathematical models.

All can be gamed and all give inadvertent unfair advantages and disadvantages to particular armies.

Europe doesn't use Comp scores (or Sports scores.)

QFT. Those are my exact same sentiments.

grizgrin wrote:Actually, you forgot the third and only problem: jackassery. Very similar to collusion in some regards, jackassery being when someone gets hammered by you, and marks you down as a gakky sportsman for it. Hows that work? I beat you, so I automatically was an asshat? I think one of my British friends said it best when he said,"Wot?".
There are many variations on this theme.

so... why not score comp before the game and sportmanship/battlepoints after?

Moz wrote:The one and only time I'm ok with comp, is when you have 2+ players at the end of a tournament with perfect records and you need to decide who is first place overall. Then the guy with the weakest army seems like a natural choice, he came in with a handicap and still tied for first with others.

My biggest gripe is the combination of Comp into some score that has anything to do with fluff, paint, opponent marks, what's fun to play against, etc... All of that has bearing on other player's enjoyment of a tournament, but it doesn't really have a place in determining who amongst these guys tied for first place deserves to be called the winner. It might be good to consider these things for best painted, or best sportsman.

This kinda depends on the tournament.

GW have a history of running tournaments where the 'competition' is in ALL areas of the hobby. The idea is that the 'winner' of the tournament should be the best overall hobbyist, who not only can PLAY the game really well, but does it with a thematic, original, well-converted and beautifully painted army, and is pleasant to play against (doesn't take the game or the rules too seriously).

For this reason, scores like comp and sportsmanship exist, as well as points for painting. Because the tournament is intended to be a competition that's about ALL aspects of the 'GW Hobby'.

Of course, tournaments like Ard Boyz focus solely on ONE aspect of the hobby and don't care about anything else. Which is fine, as long as everyone knows that. Just like a painting tournament.

Most tournaments separate these competitions - with awards like Best General, Best Painted, Best Theme, Best Sportsman. However, as you seem to state in your post, Best General (the person who wins the most games) is usually considered 'winner of the Tournament' and elevated above the others.

If you want to have an event that promotes all aspects of the hobby, the Best General and Best Theme prizes have to be held in equal regard. Since this is very hard to achieve (since everyone spends their tournament day PLAYING games rather than painting and modelling), comp scores are an attempt to balance this.

EDIT

Regarding the comments about people who cheat - couldn't they use some sort of spreadsheet that would flag up any annoying player who continually gives 'low' comp scores? Surely that isn't too difficult to program???

I only recently started with the tournament aspect of 40K and were a little bit baffled by composition scores as well. I guess you could say we use a very intricate composition score here in Sweden, it's a formula designed by a voluntary commitee of sorts. The whole process is open to the public and after each revision they put it up on the official tournament forum (as official as an unofficial thing can be) for other players to comment. Like with most composition scores it is designed to balance the imbalances of GW's points system and refrain players from taking the cookie cutter lists like Chaos Marines 2-9 lineup and the like. Another important aspect of composition score is that it is generally used for the first match up in the tournament, allowing armies of roughly the same "hardness" or "softness" to face eachother.

It definately adds a whole new aspect to the hobby. Not only do you have to design the best army you can within a certain points limit, you have to keep a very close eye on your composition score as it is virtually impossible to win a tournament if you get a really bad composition score. This has led to the term "composition makeup" (not sure if that translates well into english) which essentially means that you by taking a few bad units which will give you good composition score (like Possessed or Spawn units) can still take a few really bad units but keep a decent composition score. Needless to say the best players are very good at spotting loop holes in the composition score and take advantage of them.

Not every tournament in Sweden uses this system but quite a few do, especially the larger ones although there are a few no-holds-bared tournaments as well. In general there will be some form of composition score, either this or a subjective composition score set by the people behind the tournament as they review the lists. I have never heard of composition score being set by the players themselves at the tournament.

For those interested you can find the latest version here: http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=719 (just click the attached file labeled "Kompmallen v5.4").

In general, well at least judging by the two tournaments I have visited so far, there's also a soft scores being used when determining the winner of a tournament. Painting directly affects the tournament score but sportsmanship does not.

As a last note I would like to add that I am personally neither for or against composition score, it's just another aspect of the game. I do find the discussing interesting however and wrote this because I thought it might interest others as an example of how it might work.
/bladerunner_35

willydstyle wrote:You forgot the "etc." at the end Kilkrazy

I could have said "ad infinitum".

We'll probably see a hot Space Wolves build in a month or two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bladerunner_35 wrote:...
...
...

I do find the discussing interesting however and wrote this because I thought it might interest others as an example of how it might work.
/bladerunner_35

I downloaded the document and had a quick look at how it works. It's rather interesting.

Each army has a starting level of KP (Komp Points) for instance Eldar start on 100 and Tau on 110.

Points are added or deducted depending on the units and wargear chosen. You have to get your final total to between 0 and maximum 100. The use of KP is left to the TO, presumably they could be used for a tie-breaker or added to your battle score each round, or something else.

Basically the idea is to rebalance the codexes by imposing penalties for over-powered/undercosted units (Lash of Submission is a massive -25!) or bonuses for taking fluffy, crappy units like Vespids (+4.)

Since this is tailored to each individual codex and gets reviewed often, it should work a lot better than the mathematical "one size fits all" systems that have been proposed before.

Nice post bladerunnner_35! How long until your next one?

Its a distraction, we go from players to judges and critics which leads to unsportsman like conduct.

bladerunner_35 wrote:
For those interested you can find the latest version here: http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=719 (just click the attached file labeled "Kompmallen v5.4").
/bladerunner_35

How long did the thread on WarSeer complaining about this scoring system get, anyway?

Aside from the various technical issues (fiends of slaanesh can't even take an icon) and some really bizarre opinions (mandrakes and CSM steeds of Slaanesh are effective compared to marines, no bonus points for taking the Tau battle pope, etc.?!?), I still think that's a terrible comp score system because it fails to modify the score for the abusive combinations. It's not a terrible comp score system, as far as comp score systems go, but it's not particularly good, either.

That Swedish Komp Point system is very similar thematically to the Warhammer Fantasy one that tries to evaluate points spent per army, with command etc. To me, these things seem like way more effort than they're worth, and applying an 80-20 rule to them could do wonders to clean them up.

The Swedes are very liberal so this scoring system comes as no surprise to me. It doesn't really work and power gamers have come up with a plethora of work arounds to effectively counter game this system. To me it is far worse than an independently created FAQ.

grizgrin wrote:Huh? What happened to one and only problem??

D'OH! You got me! Good catch.



Ghidorah

Its basically a rating that opponents give you or will ding you on if they feel your list was too strong. stupid if you ask my. Its called a COMPETITION. What would pro sports be like if coaches didn't use their best players.

Also a non-"cheesy" army may still get dinged if you beat on your opponent too bad as it will SEEM like its too strong.

Wow 2 pages of answers lol. Thanks everyone, comp makes sense to me now.
I honestly see how it can be good and bad. Good because it makes you try to write a list that isnt just insane cheese. Bad because at the same time, it is a tournament and your pretty much there to win lol.

Comp is a way to try to bring parity to a wargame. The idea is great in theory but fails in application.

Comp will always be subjective with players/judges having some bias towards an army or if its a formula, some armies are better handicapped for comp than others. The GTs, a perfect comp army was a rhino rush black templars where as my competitive Dark Eldar had mid to low comp scores just trying to keep up with the black templar army.

Comp has proven not to work and should go the way of the do-do.

KingCracker wrote:Wow 2 pages of answers lol. Thanks everyone, comp makes sense to me now.
I honestly see how it can be good and bad. Good because it makes you try to write a list that isnt just insane cheese. Bad because at the same time, it is a tournament and your pretty much there to win lol.

This answer makes me think that you already had it in mind when you started the tread.

Composition is an effort to:
A) Mechanically encourage greater army variety and list variation
B) Compensate for army/unit imbalances
and sometimes also…
C) Reward armies which seem plausible/thematic/more representative of the fluff

Its historic problems have been due to a combination of factors:

When it’s left up to the players to score, there are often dangers of collusion or sour grapes scoring.
When it’s left up to a mechanical checklist, it often doesn’t fit well with one or more of the armies in play.
When you’re not sure what your exact objective is (out of the three things I named above, for example), or when the organizers fail to communicate clearly to the players what they’re trying to encourage, people get confused and score inconsistently.
And sometimes tournament organizers (including GW) have just written bad systems.

The basic idea is a solid one, and even when executed badly, usually has the positive effect of increasing the variety of army lists seen at tournaments which use it.

Fluffy or less-competitive gamers get a reward for their lists, and benefit from a (usually small) points bonus in the overall tournament scoring compared to players who use the well-known power lists from the internet. Other competitive gamers are encouraged to seek out or innovate new, less-known powerful combinations, or dilute their power builds with weaker units, which both make their armies more interesting to face and look at, and handicap themselves slightly in overall winning power.

The best and most effective systems I see in use nowadays are usually subjective, but involve experienced judges scoring submitted lists anonymously prior to the event. A current and popular trend is to use comp scores for pairing players in the tournament, at least in the early rounds, to give players more balanced opposition, and opponents who are on the same wavelength as they are for army design, and (ideally) help skill play a bigger role. The independent Crossroads GT, in New York, has just had its third year, and has one of the best systems. They’re still refining and improving it, but it’s done a very good job so far.

It has to be said if the codexes were better written comp would automatically be perfect because it wouldn't be possible to write cheesy or unfluffy lists.

I will certainly agree that good design can make comp unnecessary. This year was the first year I participated in ‘Ard Boyz, and it was also the year it was most interesting, in part because 5th edition’s redefinition of only Troops being Scoring Units effectively incorporates one classic comp element into the rules.

Quick note on an earlier post of yours- there are lots of events with comp in England, Ireland, and mainland Europe. And without. Some countries are famous for no-comp/filthy armies. Others are equally well-known for always using stiff comp systems. England has both.

Comp is socialism in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously though, I dont think comp should ever be used. Not because I play broken lists but because you either:

A. Shoot to win the tourney
B. Shoot to win best comp

Also comp is just imposed rules. I want to play by GW rules not someone elses. Its just an additional limitation beyond "HQ and 2 troops."

And to be honest and I mean no offense, but if you think 2 raiders in 1500 is cheesey you probably shouldn't be playing in tournaments anyway. They aren't for everyone. Some people like the brutality and corniness of it all. I do. I would love to walk up to a game table and see 6 medusas or 9 oblits. I would laugh at the silliness then play the epic game before me. I find humor in gross lists and I dont cry if I lose to one, I chalk it up to "oh gak shouldve brought that myself!"

Kilkrazy wrote:It has to be said if the codexes were better written comp would automatically be perfect because it wouldn't be possible to write cheesy or unfluffy lists.

The side effect would be that the options would likely be severely constrained, and it would be very hard to personalize an army.

"The side effect would be that the options would likely be severely constrained, and it would be very hard to personalize an army."

Based on?

Because of?

It's fun making statements without anything to qualify them or back them up.

Play styles differ, so scores will always be biased.

Where is my stick, I got a dead horse I need to go beat now.

Well I think he is saying in order to truly do that you would have wargear sections that read like the common magic items page in the Fantasy BRB....

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It has to be said if the codexes were better written comp would automatically be perfect because it wouldn't be possible to write cheesy or unfluffy lists.

The side effect would be that the options would likely be severely constrained, and it would be very hard to personalize an army.

Isn't it the point of comp to constrain options?

Kilkrazy wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It has to be said if the codexes were better written comp would automatically be perfect because it wouldn't be possible to write cheesy or unfluffy lists.

The side effect would be that the options would likely be severely constrained, and it would be very hard to personalize an army.

Isn't it the point of comp to constrain options?

Sure, it is.

But it sounded like you were asking for GW to basically force players to build off of pre-defined, pre-balanced TOE / OOBs.

Which is precisely what the Thorpian CSM book was specifically moving away from.

grizgrin wrote:Comp=utter and complete bs. YMMV.

It is there to reward people who are a joy to play and punish those who are not.

The problem is it can be abused. Soft scores should always be added in at the very end.

Comp, as has been stated, is a good idea. "hey, let's acknowledge that not all armies are fair and balanced, either codex by codex or build by build. Let's build in a system to rate armies based on their composition." The problem comes in when you look at hte difference between theme and power, and if comp is judging both should a player take a less thematic army to get better comp?

You also have the differences in codexes: you rarely see a competitive tau army without all three heavies filled. It's the only access to long range anti-tank they had. armies with good troops take more, armies with poor troops take the minimum.

It's a messy blend of handicap, theme, and pure whim that really makes it unworkable as a system.

Clay Williams wrote:Play styles differ, so scores will always be biased.

You can often do a statistical analysis after the fact to confirm whether Comp accurately handicapped. If Comp scores and Battles scores are negatively correlated, then it shows that the lower comp armies did indeed do better in battle. With the addition of comp-based pairings, Crossroads managed to achieve a 0 correlation between Battles scores and Comp scores this year. It can be done well.

http://www.crossroads-gt.com/2009results.html



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Comp, as has been stated, is a good idea. "hey, let's acknowledge that not all armies are fair and balanced, either codex by codex or build by build. Let's build in a system to rate armies based on their composition." The problem comes in when you look at hte difference between theme and power, and if comp is judging both should a player take a less thematic army to get better comp?

It's a messy blend of handicap, theme, and pure whim that really makes it unworkable as a system.

The fact that you haven’t seen it done well, or recognized it as such, does not mean that it cannot be done well.

As I identified before, failing to clearly state whether you’re trying to reward theme or handicap for weak armies is one of the ingredients in a recipe for failure. So when designing a system, know what your goal is. Shouldn’t be too hard.

At any rate, if part of the point is to encourage and help out weaker armies, even a bad Comp system tends to advance that purpose simply by existing.

Mannahnin wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Play styles differ, so scores will always be biased.

You can often do a statistical analysis after the fact to confirm whether Comp accurately handicapped. If Comp scores and Battles scores are negatively correlated, then it shows that the lower comp armies did indeed do better in battle. With the addition of comp-based pairings, Crossroads managed to achieve a 0 correlation between Battles scores and Comp scores this year. It can be done well.

http://www.crossroads-gt.com/2009results.html

I'm not sure I know what you're trying to say there. If there's no correlation between a good or bad comp scores and winning, then what's the point of having a comp score? Isn't that like being proud of the fact that the appearance score has no correlation to winning?!?

Well, Crossroads managed to BOTH encourage “compier” armies AND the comp scores assigned were accurate enough that with pairing by comp, comp and battle scores wound up without the usual negative correlation. If the pairings work so well, it’s debateable whether, at that point, you even NEED to give overall points for comp as well, but two desirable objectives were achieved.