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.

Calling GW "professional game designers" seems like a stretch. More like professional miniatures salesmen.

But that doesn't make comp good, or a tournament organizers decisions on comp rules better than the GW rules.

Comp doesn't mean rewarding color-coordination, or saying "you lost all your games,but you're a winner anyway!". It just means the rules are changed. Sometimes they're changed in a dumb way, or maybe to you any change is a dumb change, but it isn't automatically anti-competitive. If someone made comp rules saying you had to take 2 of every force org chart, or couldn't take 3 of the same heavy support for any codex, or banned units that abused the wound allocation rules...well, I wouldn't like these rules, but NONE of those changes makes the game uncompetitive.

Unfortunately, as has been said, these changes are often used to try to make the game more fair for the fluffy bunnies. But it can also just be used to fix perceived problems with the game design, or change codex balance, or just make the game make more sense to the tournament organizer. This is absolutely no different than a TO creating their own special missions that punish or reward certain army types, intentionally or not. This is no different than replacing VPs with KPs, or always happening to end up with 5 objectives in the objective missions. It is a change from the basic rules, for better or for worse or just for different doesn't matter. It isn't just hand-holding for those too dumb or lazy to be "competitive".

The problem with this poll is that "composition" is such a dirty word, because it can constitute so many different types of changes, or judge measured comp instead of objective comp or straight up rules-changing comp. Not all of these are equal.

Reecius wrote:
Hahaha, good point! Hey guys, you scored more touchdowns, but you know what, these guys had such cool uniforms. Really color coordinated, and they were such nice guys that we are going to give them the win! But hey, thanks for coming out!

Well...Best Overall does this . Someone with a better record than you (W/L) can still 'lose' the Best Overall if their army is primed if the guy with a slightly worse W/L record has a stellar looking army. I think that's perfectly fine too.

However, I don't feel comp is the answer. Comp simply adjusts what units are best (By what fits within the comp restriction while retaining power on the table). I think to start though, everyone needs to establish what comp is trying to accomplish. When I hear comp, I'm assuming they are attempting to encourage a diverse selection of units/armies so their event is enriched. (Another PM/Oblit army...another RazorWolf army...I just played these!). Again though, I don't feel comp is the answer.

I've mentioned each time this subject came up but I think a "Theme" or "Unique" factor figured in would be fine. Essentially, a score that encourages people to convert and make armies unique. You can play whatever you want...but obviously my Chaos Noise Marine army is going to score well on the unique/theme scale while the PM/Oblit spam guy is going to struggle. Or maybe he won't struggle...because he really put some effort into making his army pop when placed next to similar armies?

So, TL;DR version;

Best Overall rewards Unique/Thematic Armies

Reecius wrote:The existing missions and rule books give what the game designers feel are fair and balanced restrictions to, as much as possible, make things even.

You laugh at 40K being a skill game. Why? The top players are the top players year after year after year. That isn't luck.

Luck is a large part of it, often the difference between winning and losing a tournament comes down to pairing and one or two tosses of the dice, but that is a matter of degree. It is rare to see a truly skilled player not finish well in a tournament when he or she played a good game but just had bad luck.

You are welcome to your opinion of course, but I have yet, in my 15 years of playing 40K, see a comp system that does ANYTHING but make the game less enjoyable.

I'm not saying that skill is not involved, I am saying that many times the top winner and the best player are not going to be the same thing. I feel the very nature of the rock-paper-scissors design and the dice put a little too much advantage/disadvantage into the game. I totally agree the same people end up at the top tables every year... but the same 'person' isn't winning every event because due to the nature of the system I think it is virtually impossible to do. Even the best players are going to be overcome by the randomness, and single-elimination events or single-day gaming with the 40k rule-set really doesn't address the imbalance and random impacts. Good players will always do well, but the BEST player can not always win. And most players I think realize this and accept this.

I think I am seeing the 'line' as people see it.

I can tell you some people straight up *DO* want an added extra layer because the game is not sold to them as a 'competitive gaming system'. It is sold to them as a miniature collection hobby. They want different looking models and buy what is cool and fun. They see 'events' and to them 'tournaments' are simply a place to get a full days worth of gaming in. It is not a place to go get thier face ground down to bonemeal because they did not buy and paint statistically superior models. The rules developers and even GW as a whole has never really accepted that the rules were written to be balanced or competitive, and up until 5th edition, all of the wonkyness of tourneys and the rules... Tourneys were simply a full day of gaming.

There are still people who want gaming events in the format of tournaments where they can get a full day of gaming without having thier skull caved in by an internet metalist and without being told what the definition of 'tournament' from the dictionary. And many people have been attending these 'tournaments' for years only now in the past few years to see the tournaments they used to enjoy become a totally different event.

I feel like there is a movement to scrub all soft scores from every aspect of the hobby and to make all tourneys only hard competitive events. I have to admit, while I am glad to see the competitive environment is flourishing, lots of people are seeing it as a highly negative environment even when it isn't. And it is very frustrating to try to be part of both types of communities and enjoy all aspects of the hobby without both sides thinking you are a horrible outsider invading thier territory with your 'soft scores' or your 'competitive WAAC' attitudes.

Both sides seem to be increasing in intolerance as they drift further apart and I really don't want to see the day when one side attempts to destroy the other or forces GW to by the nature of thier product. I can see why some people don't 'like' judged comp, but people also don't like other formats and it doesn't mean other people don't enjoy it.

The very nature that someone feels the need to make a thread based upon COMP yes or no is part of the problem and the intolerance out there.

Two Things:

MVBrandt wrote:Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames.

I play Fantasy, having become rather sickened by WAAC 40k lists Unfortunately 8th edition means Fantasy is increasingly overloaded with

And number two, I'm not advocating a comp system that simply slaps extra points onto X list because it fit some arbitrary parameters better than Y list. Comp for me primarily means ensuring that first round / day pairings are done based on armies judged to be in the same tier, group, mindset, hardness, etc. This way the WAACers can go smash each other first day and the fluffy bunnies get to have some cuddles together, before Day 2 when it's battle points and all hell breaks loose. Comp means that everyone gets to have at least about half of their games vs opponents and armies of similar mindset, and the softer set don't need to be dissuaded from what ought to be a fun event for everybody. If there's a small part of the total points devoted to "theme" or something, than all the better.

I know that this kind of comment is met by "well don't go to a tournament, bunny-lover!" but I believe that tournaments based solely around winning - i.e. no soft scores of any kind - ought to be and are the minority. As some bleeding heart always says, there's a lot more to this hobby and this game than bashing the other guy's face in. (Not to say that isn't awesome too and clearly important, but 'Ard Boyz, the Adepticon Gladiator, and similar events are special for a reason.)

- Salvage

Composition harms new players and fluffy armies as much as the Über powergaming lists, especially when done in the typical "% restriction" manner.

I've yet to see a composition system that resulted in fewer powergaming builds (different ones yes, but just as many that were just as abusive within the context of the comp system) that did not also seriously harm new/fluff players or help them do better in any way.

I remember under the previous IG codex in 4th edition, my Grenadier army did terribly under most comp systems, but was also an absolutely terrible army, in terms of being able to compete (lol 4E mech IG).

@nkelsh
I hear what you are saying and I understand. The thing is though that tournaments have ALWAYS had WAAC types. The nature of gaming and gamers (in general) is to look through the rules to find ways to make powerful armies while others look for ways to adhere to the awesome background material that we all love.

I remember tournaments in 2nd edition that were obscene. All wolf guard space wolves each with a cyclone and an assault cannon, harlequins, chaos, etc. The cries of cheese were just as loud then.

It wasn't just all the good old days where everyone got along and everything was fluff oriented. The two different types of gamers still existed back then as they do now.

What we are seeing now is an upsurge in the competitive gamers seeking to actively organize and streamline tournament play.

I agree with you that intolerance seems to be on the rise but I believe that is a reaction to the fact that tournaments are becoming more and more geared towards competitive gaming (as they should be, IMO).

The thing is though, that the competitive gamers are the guys going to the tournaments. They are the ones who come out, shell out money and actually attend most of the events. The casual gamers are the guys who may go to the local RTT's and an occasional local GT and they get, as you put it, run over by the serious tournament gamers. But as the regular attendees are the guys who take tournaments seriously, why should tournaments not appeal to them? It only makes sense to do so as they are the ones who financially make tournaments possible.

Where do you find a happy medium? The thing is, there really isn't one. One type of guy loves the competition and practices his skills, seeking to find ways to improve, talking and brainstorming on the net to find new advantages.

The casual gamer plays in a local group with lists that develop organically based off of gaming in a small circle of friends, what they read in the fluff or see in the codexes. The casual gamer doesn't practice, doesn't spend hours surfing the net looking for new and better tactics and when he meets the serious gamer, the outcome is almost certain and crushing.

It's hard to appease both types of players as their skill and knowledge levels are so disparate. No one likes to get destroyed in a game, especially not when it's by tactics and list ideas that are totally foreign to you and that don't seem like they fit the back ground material. You may be the best guy in your local, but in the wider world of the tournament gamer, you're a small fish.

I think the best solution is to run two types of events or to have two types of games at a tournament setting, like BoLS did.

Have "hobby" events for the casual/fluff player who only wants to play games that are on a level in which he or she has a chance to win or where winning isn't the main focus, but that also appeals to their idea of the game as a representation of a rich back story. These can be mega battles, narrative campaigns run in a single day, etc. Market these events as a non-competitive event. Or even have a newbie tournament (or meta-tournament within the larger tournament) where people can come and play other gamers of a similar skill level. That way they can learn without feeling like they are getting corn holed.

Then, let the tournament players have their tournaments. These events are run under the assumption that 40K is a game with mechanics and that the rules are only loose approximations of reality and statistical probability. Everything is run as a competitive exercise and these events are marketed as such.

That way everyone knows what to expect and no one gets their feelings hurt.

@Boss Slavage
You played 7th Fantasy because 5th 40K was out of wack? Wow. I could barely stand 7th ed Fantasy because it was SO out of balance. I played in a few tournaments and the big three in Fantasy were so much more powerful than everyone else it was a joke. When I went to a tournament and 35% of the armies were Daemons, 25%Dark Elves and 25% Vamps, I knew things were screwed up.

Is 8th actually worse? That astounds me. 7th wasn't even fun for me because the system was so screwed up. I beat the pants off every army that wasn't Daemons with my Woodies and Daemons tabled me every single time, even if the other guy was new (not that I was an expert).

MVBrandt wrote:
Honestly if you don't LIKE 40k, there are dozens if not hundreds of other wargames. When people get tired of playing Monopoly by the rules they pull out Pictionary, or whatever. They don't re-write Monopoly and get in internet fights over it.

But Mike, having a hotel on park place and boardwalk is just too damn broke in Monopoly. It needs a nerf.


btw comp is basically a tool used by casual gamers to win their games.

Reecius wrote:I would love to see a tournament with missions straight out of the book too as I think they are very balanced. However, in a large tournament you need degrees of victory in order to stratify the players in reasonable number of games. So, you have to add in victory conditions, it is simply unavoidable.

I've seen it done, with one bonus point for each of the following:

Scoring unit in Opponent's Deployment Zone at the end of the game.

Killing Opponent's Most Expensive HQ Choice.

Killing Opponent's Most Expensive Unit.

And before someone asks, if your most expensive unit is also your most expensive HQ choice it's worth 2 bonus points.

It was awesome, actually. The missions were KP on Dawn of War, Seize Ground on Pitched Battle and Capture and Control on Spearhead. I think it's a great way to run a tournament, because I agree that the BRB missions are pretty well balanced.

I've played in a tournament with book missions as well, it was good fun. Just don't see enough of them.

Every other month or so in Santa Monica for us Reece. Book missions only

Reecius wrote:I once saw, and this is no joke, a guy in a fluff oriented club here in SD say he would love to see a tournament where a guy who lost all his games could still win by having a nicely painted, themed army and being a good sport.

That to me is like speaking in a foreign language. What kind of tournament is that? And what would be the point? Sounds more like a giant circle-jerk where everyone hugs each other and cries about their feelings than a competition.

OT, but....

Well, it's a tournament with a number of different events - playing, painting, sportsmaship and modelling. That's a perfectly valid description of a 'tournament' - a number of DIFFERENT things you're being judged on. If he excels in three of them to a massive degree he'll probably win overall

Of course, he wouldn't win the 'best playing' prize, but that's fine - the person who's best at playing will win that. What's the problem?

Logically, someone who spends lots of time painting and modelling his army, then goes out of his way to give his opponents good games, is actually 'competing' in three events, and therefore being more competitive than someone who only chooses to compete in the 'playing' event.

[EDIT for clarification] Every single tournament I've heard of features a 'Best General' award. The arguments seem to happen when people think they SHOULD win 'Best Overall' just by being a very good general. i.e. people who aren't content with winning one prize. I find the idea that someone who only competes in one part of a tournament, ignoring painting, modelling, etc, can win 'Best Overall' ludicrous, because they are NOT the 'Best Overall', just the best at playing.

Well, you won Olympic Gold at the long jump. Well done. But because you jumped SO far we've decided that YOU WIN THE OLYMPICS! All of it! No, ignore all those guys who competed in all the other events, you were SO good at the long jump you get a much bigger and more expensive medal than all theirs put together!

Back on topic...

I don't like comp. Though I tend to play in quite friendly tournaments I agree that the big netlists are not as common as you think. But I also think that there's no distinction between marking someone down for comp and writing missions that favour one list over another.

I don't agree with the idea that you 'have' to write new missions to allow people massacre results. The rulebook missions often result in draws, yes, but who is the TO to say that's wrong. Don't change the game just because apparently 'competitive' players are so intent on massacres they can't stand the word DRAW.

There are two key problems with comp:
1. It does not do what it sets out to, to wit, provide a "fair and balanced" competitive environment. The reason for this failure is well known--so-called WAAC players just adjust their lists to exploit the comp. rules.
2. The other problem with comp scoring is transparency and arbitrariness. Most comp. scoring is carried out in a mysterious fashion by a judge or judges based on their intuition. The players are left to guess what is or is not WAAC. However, when a TO does attempt to be transparent by giving comp. rules it just reveals the arbitrary nature of the scoring and, further, makes the build restrictions that much easier to design around.

All comp does is add variety to a tournament so you aren't playing the same lists every time. The problem is it has a very high risk of backfiring and unless handled very carefully and well thought out in advance can lead to way more problems that can make it not worth it.


1. Comp does not inherently benefit anyone. The best generals will win no matter what, comp list or not. Simply making the best generals take different options does not give the little guy any sort of advantage.

2. Comp does not inherently increase fun at a tournament....it just makes things different than the normal.

3. Comp encourages abusive lists that skirt the comp rules leaving to some hard feelings. Case in point, I went to the Adepticon fantasy tournament last year with a list that got a mid-high comp score(14-16 I think), but in practice should have been comped much much lower(it rightfully deserved a 3)...and guess what I almost won best general with it. Where as fluffy comp armies (20+ comp scores) almost universally ended up at the last tables.

4. Comp does not balance anything. 40k is well enough balanced that it doesn't need comp (jury is still out on 8'th ed Fantasy).

5. Comp has a much MUCH higher risk of leading to hurt feelings. People will either complain about their comp score feeling artificially high/low, or complain that they were beat by someone skirting the comp system.



I'm not going to make a judgment on if comp is good or bad. Frankly it doesn't make a difference one way or another. But lets not kid ourselves that it fixes anything or needs to be implemented across the board anywhere. It just makes things "different" not "better"...and introduces a high risk of being bad for a low return on variety.

darwinn69 wrote:All comp does is add variety to a tournament so you aren't playing the same lists every time.

Unless it does just the reverse, forcing everyone to bring the same build so they get good comp scores...................

don_mondo wrote:

darwinn69 wrote:All comp does is add variety to a tournament so you aren't playing the same lists every time.

Unless it does just the reverse, forcing everyone to bring the same build so they get good comp scores...................

Right, you aren't encouraging variety, you're just shifting the goalposts. There will still be more powerful lists within whatever comp restrictions are layed out and the competitive players will all bring variations on those.

Personally I think comp is (assuming honesty on everyone's part) the only truly soft score, and doesn't really achieve anything. If there's a particular armylist build that's dominating then circuit that a TO wants to avoid then they need to implement pre-tournament list reviews and a list is either acceptable or not, no scoring. I'm not advocating that, I just think it's the only kind of composition that isn't entirely arbitrary.

While there are situations where comp limitations should be required (i.e. team tournaments). As a whole I think they hinder more than it help.

Different armies are intentionally designed to derive their strengths from different areas of the force org chart and once you start penalizing or rewarding people based on where they pull from on the force org chart you are inevitably going to be crippling some armies' capabilities, while inadvertantly boosting others. I say GW has put a lot of work in creating, updating, and balancing rules and to attempt to change the rules in order to 'better balance' is not really helping at all.

Additionally, when I go to a tournament, I go to have fun, however, I also realize that I am taking a step out of the comfortable casual game and stepping into the arena to pit my abilities against my fellow players. It is expected, in my opinion, to see people bringing the full might of their armies in these situations. A comp score limits your ability to properly field your army in a situation where you definitely want to bring your A-game.

My vote is for - No

Composition has many flaws, but at its root, the concept pertains to assigning "points" that affect the winning and losing of an event, based on what army or unit selection you show up with. In my opinion, it's a very wrong way to look at the game, as you penalize someones performance within an event for a choice they made before they even got there. Some comp systems (transparent ones) are better than others, but at their root, all of them are attempting to force the attendees of an event to play the game in what the TO (or group of TO's) consider to be the "right" way. And thats where the major problem lies.

Comp seems to penalize players, at first glance, for the decision they make in list building prior to an event. In practice, it actually penalizes players for choices they now have no control over (what items they chose to buy, for whatever reason, years ago maybe). This is why, as Mike says, you penalize new players MORE with a comp system. Older, cagier, (wealthier) players tend to have more armies, more unit selections, and more knowledge of how to 'game' the comp system to achieve a high score, and still have the most competitive army within the new artificial environment that has been created. Is this fair?

I've been in the tournament and gaming scene for ~15 years now. I started as a kid (10 years old) who chose to play eldar in early third edition because the models looked awesome, the fluff and feel of the army was just what I was looking for, and I fell in love. As I attended tournaments over the years, at times I was lauded for bringing eldar, and awarded very very good comp scores. In later years (4th edition) I was scorned and awarded poor comp scores for the same army. Why? Because early on my build, which I ran out of reasons other than in-game strength, was ineffective. Later on, taking my beloved falcons was the cat's meow in terms of strength, and I was just a dirty, dirty power gamer.

Did comp affect me fairly in those situations? In the earlier one I was rewarded, but in a lot of ways, it didn't truly reward me. Sure I did better at events, but it gave me terrible guidance as to how to build a competitive army, and more guidance as to how to build a 'game the comp system' army. Later on, I was being punished because I didn't have much money, and wasn't able to buy new models.

Let the game design be the comp, composition is already influenced by the design of the codex's (whats good and whats not) and how the core mechanics interact with all of the other rules. Adding in another layer only serves to complicate things and serve one selfish (whether he is doing it knowingly or not is another matter) TO's desires or vision of how the game should be played.

We all had to purchase a core rulebook. We all had access to the same codex's and models. Let's all start with an even playing field of "composition" and stick to letting those decide what is "good" at an event and what is "bad"

plastictrees wrote:
Right, you aren't encouraging variety, you're just shifting the goalposts. There will still be more powerful lists within whatever comp restrictions are layed out and the competitive players will all bring variations on those.

Right, a Comp list the rewards players for taking all different units (like DaBoyz) moves the goal posts of good armies to codex's that have many choices of good units that work in cohesion such as space wolves. Where Orks, Dark Eldar and Necrons are really hurt with this. It's like playing baseball and if you let all your 3rd stringers play you get an extra 20 points right away.

Even Jervis is recommending not using comp scoring anymore, It's not been needed for a while.

@Gorkin
Wow, that is a great reference! Thanks for pointing that out, that is a very useful piece of information.

@ArbotiorIan
First off, thanks to contributing the conversation. I am going to disagree with you, but please don't take it as an attack, because it isn't.

Your argument holds no water because it relies solely on semantics.

Someone who paints well and is nice is in no way being more competitive than someone who plays with a powerful list but isn't the best painter.

That is just bending language to fit your argument.

If you come to a tournament with a soft list and a lack of tactical skill and lose a game that is by its very meaning a contest to determine a winner, you are not being competitive. You are being the opposite of competitive.

If you paint your army well and are talented at and enjoy that aspect of the hobby, then great! We all love admiring a beautiful and creative miniature. It is one of the best parts of the hobby.

But that should not have an impact on who wins a tournament, at least not IMO.

It should absolutely and obviously impact who wins the best painted award, and kudos to them. That is an award that means more to that person in all likelihood, anyway.

A tournament should be a contest of skill on the table top.

A painting competition should be a contest of painting and converting skill.

The two things are totally different. They appeal to wildly different types of gamers. One of them really relies on artistic skill and practice, the other on tactical skill and practice.

It is right brain vs. left.

To mix them together is like having a boxing match combined with water colors. Toss in who's the nicest dude and that is what the traditional tournament consists of.

I know and understand the hobby consists of all of those things, but to mash them all together doesn't really work, IMO.

Have competitive tournaments with painting competitions separate. Let anyone bring what they want to so long as the list is legal. That takes all subjectivity out of the game. Put up guidelines for expected behavior with a clearly defined criteria for what types of things will constitute a penalty and ejection from the tournament.

Give an award to the best player and the best painter, hell, give them equal billing if it makes a difference.

But the game is a game and a hobby. Those two things, while combining to create the hobby we love, don't mix that well in a tournament setting, IMO.

Recognize both, but keep them separate.

and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Reecius wrote:
To mix them together is like having a boxing match combined with water colors.

Or Chess Boxing !!

Sorry, I tried to resist for an entire minute.



On topic though, I recently tied for first but lost a tourney because of comp, and had no real issue as it was used as a tie-breaker, basically.
That was about as close to appreciating comp as I will get.

I don't want composition scores (too subjective), but I definitely want aspects of the game that help shape army composition.

The fact that Troops are Scoring Units and many missions require Scoring Units to hold objectives has definitely helped. Fantasy has a decent system that simply puts a hard limit / requirement on legal armies between Rares, Lords, and Core choices. I like both systems.

- Marty Lund

@kirsanth
I think Boxing and chess have a lot in common, actually. Less so than Boxing (stereotype: uber manly, competitive) and visual arts (stereotype: slightly effeminate, non competitive).

So maybe: interpretive dance boxing!

Comp is basically used for two purposes. The first is to 'balance' the game. The second is to increase the fun level of the game.

Now, as 'fun' is subjective, I use that term with the assumption that people bring lists that they think are fun to play and are the types of lists that they would want to play against.

Part of the problem is how a comp score is typically implemented in the US. Typically (At least, every place I've seen it used) is as a score tacked on at the end of the tournament.

When you look at the balance angle, supposedly comp is supposed to make the person who had the hardest matches win.

The problem is when someone with a 5 comp score (out of 20) plays against 3 people with a 2 comp score, winning all the games and the person with a 15 comp score plays against 3 people with an 18 comp score, winning all the games.

Assuming that the comp score is accurately judged (that's another ball of wax...), the person with the 5 comp score has the harder battles, but loses out to the person with the 15 comp score for overall (And Best General if comp is addeded into battle for that award). This represents an epic fail on the part of comp for balance purposes.

If you have a person with a 5 comp that plays against a person with a 15 comp, the outcome is almost pre-ordained. While the comp score may help 'balance' this for overall, there was no point to the game, and thus no fun for either player. This represents an epic fail on the 'fun' part of comp scoring.

Generally, this leaves comp as currently implemented a failed concept. Granted, there are a lot of places that actually use comp as a way of discouraging people who don't play 'right' from attending and keeping them from winning anything if they actually do attend.

Reecius wrote:
and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Chuck Norris could. Just saying.

I don't have a problem with Comp as a theory, I just don't like my opponent having a subjective way to bone me if he felt that the reason I whipped his heinie for him was that I had Vulkan and not because he was fielding a horrendous list and didn't know how to play. It happens.

If one were to have the comp built right into the Tournament Rules and have it be a requirement to play that would be one thing. I'd still play in a tournament that had requirements of say, minimum of 50% troops and no special characters and no maxing out FOC sections. I'd be fine with that. What I don't like is my opponents, who also want to win(and for the most part are pretty good about not abusing it but then about 10% of every group of people are gak heads) deciding what my score is.

I think if there was a comp system that balanced every codex and major build, and opened up tons of interesting new armies while restricting the boring ones, more people would be excited about comp.

There isn't one, and I'm not going to hold my breath. Subjective comp will always run afoul of either chipmunking or completely arbitrary judging, and objective comp can always be gamed, eliminating many armies.

How do you even define good comp? Is it solely a matter of in game strength? Theme? Fluff?

to answer the actual question, no, I don't think it should be used in tournaments. I won't avoid a tourney with Comp, but when I see "comp" on a score sheet I simply assume, at best a randomly determined score, at worst it's a way for the judge to buck up local favorites.

Monster Rain wrote:

Reecius wrote:
and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Chuck Norris could. Just saying.

Haha, I stand corrected!

I'd still play in a tournament that had requirements of say, minimum of 50% troops and no special characters and no maxing out FOC sections.

Agh! These types of systems to me are the worst! 50% troops BONES some armies (Necrons anyone?) while no three of anything or no maxed FOC BONES others. Comp just can't encompass all of the armies as they are so different. You would literally have to have a comp list for every Codex to make it even remotely fair, but guess what, the codexes do that already. They have a built in comp system.

@Polonius
I agree, I will still go to a tournament with comp, but I know it will open up the door to subjectivity and introduce a variable I can't control. It stinks.

The only comp system I saw that I actually liked was the SoCal slaughter's system of judges comp, pairing similarly powerful lists against one another in the first round of a GT. After that, it was strictly battle points.

That helped to mitigate bad luck in first round pairings, but still, Comp stinks.

I'm tempted to start a new thread of people sharing examples of counterproductive comp restrictions. Basically, ways Tournaments tried to "shake things up" only to see yet another typically competitive list win.

My best example is from two weekends ago, when I played in a 1500pt tournament. There were two rules: each army could include double HQ choices, but must include at least 2, and no non-troops choices could be duplicated.

I took my standard mech IG with Medusa, Vendetta, Valkyrie, Marbo, CCS, Primaris, two AC/GK squads, flamer PCS in chimera, flamer SWS in Vendetta, and four veteran squads, three meltas in Chimeras, one meltas and Demo charge in valk. I won out, with max points. I played a marine player that could only take two dreads instead of the three he liked to, an Ork player with only one battlewagon, and a tyranid player that was more hosed by mission and matchup than comp.

So, despite an honest effort to limit the power of spam, I instead fielded a list from a deep codex (IG) and prospered. The biggest penalty was having to take the Psyker, although he's cheap and came through with 10 shots against Tyranid Warriors at one point.

The only comp system I saw that I actually liked was the SoCal slaughter's system of judges comp, pairing similarly powerful lists against one another in the first round of a GT.

Was that the one where they paired all the IG players against each other? I heard something about a large tournament around here recently that did something like that, and, at least the way it was described to me at the time ('hey, lets pair up all of these similar armies against each other and take half of them out right away') didn't sound too impressed, but I may have only been hearing one side of it.

Reecius wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Reecius wrote:
and P.S. your metaphor with the Olympics doesn't work that well. Maybe use the decathlon instead as you win by competing in several events. You can't "win" the entire Olympics as I am sure you know.

Chuck Norris could. Just saying.

Haha, I stand corrected!

I'd still play in a tournament that had requirements of say, minimum of 50% troops and no special characters and no maxing out FOC sections.

Agh! These types of systems to me are the worst! 50% troops BONES some armies (Necrons anyone?) while no three of anything or no maxed FOC BONES others. Comp just can't encompass all of the armies as they are so different. You would literally have to have a comp list for every Codex to make it even remotely fair, but guess what, the codexes do that already. They have a built in comp system.

Meh. I still would prefer it to subjective scoring by my opponents. Maybe knock the troops down to 40%. I used to kick ass with Necrons in tournaments such as this in NH, then again that was 4E...

@Monster Rain
Ah yeah, in 4th Necrons were great! Could you imagine needing to bring 1,000 or even 800 pts of warriors now? You'd be done for.

@Vaktahi
The system sort of worked out that way because most of the IG armies had low comp scores. But basically you got paired with a comp score as close as possible to your in the first round. That is all the impact it had.

After that, it was just about who got how many points.

Hulk had the second lowest score (Missile Spam Wolves) and played the lowest (Bloodcrusher Spam Daemons). That was pretty funny!

@Polonius
That is a great point. A deep codex like IG, or even Marines has so many options where a lot of armies like Crons or Tau just don't. The comp system that is meant to boost them, ends up hurting them.

One comp system will not work for all the books because they are all so incredibly different.