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.

Personally I think comp should be a simple yes/no you either get max points or no points.

Does the army conform to the force org chart?

Anything else you are bringing in your own biases of how the game is supposed to be played which automatically means that you are going to be telling someone that their way of playing is the wrong one.

Somnicide wrote:Personally I think comp should be a simple yes/no you either get max points or no points.

Does the army conform to the force org chart?

Anything else you are bringing in your own biases of how the game is supposed to be played which automatically means that you are going to be telling someone that their way of playing is the wrong one.

LOL I love this comp

FOC = yes? get 10 pts
FOC= no? get 0 and go home!


I also echo the sentiments in regards to diversity, sometimes playing the same thing (or against the same thing), is just boring and lacks imagination.

I think a way to curb it is to force those lists to play each other for their first round, helps eliminate the spam in later rounds. You would be less likely to play against the same list a second time in a round of bouts.

Comp scores should be eliminated from tournaments. It's a tournament and you're there to win. Unfortunately this gives rise to Rock-Paper-Scissorshammer but that was going to happen anyway, let's be real.

You can eliminate most of the real problem units by limiting people to one codex only. Therefore, no more of this cross-codex "synergy" involving a Psyker Battle Squad and a Callidus Assassin, or an Inquisitor lending deep-strike protection AND a table-wide hood to any imperial force.

Instead, run the tourney like ToS where people are competing mostly against others with like codices. Obviously Crons aren't expected to perform as well as Mech Vets. This levels the playing field a bit.

Agreed and with allies gone now from the new Grey Night Dex, allies are going to be less of an issue going forward.

Diversity is more common than you'd think. Another good way to diversify and accomplish that meaningful goal of comp is to go with something like NOVA's bracketed approach (I talk about NOVA a lot b/c I run it, sorry ... best to talk about what you know!).

Functionally, this approach breaks down the tournament into a series of sub-brackets on its second day - each one based upon your competitive performance on the first day. All subsequent 2nd day rounds are relegated to bracket, so winning doesn't accelerate you back into the frying pan, but accelerates you only within your first-day-record-paired field. The de facto accomplishment here is that you compete for Best General within your field of peers in a list+skill sense, and you'll generally see the more hardcore or "rote" lists in brackets that are isolated from the softer or more experimental lists. It certainly also avoids the very negative approach of applying one's own experiences or homebrew attitudes to what they THINK the game should be played like by everyone else, but doesn't prevent more creative list-builders from fairly competing for prizes and rewards amongst their natural peers.

This also accomplishes a FAR better result than Throne of Skulls, in that it prevents "gaming" the system by bringing a beat-stick from an underplayed dex, yatta yatta .... remember there are just as many fluffier or creative list players running Space Wolves (who've been in some cases running them for a decade) as there are running Necrons, and it's not especially pleasant or fun to bring your fluffy Space Wolves to a Throne of Skulls event and get crushed even WORSE due to your comparison to the "hardcore" Space Wolf players. Rather inconsiderate, in fact, to presume that the only fluffy/casual lists are run via out-dated codices.



More info:

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/12/creative-and-incidental-comp-at-nova.html

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/01/nova-open-is-better-for-casual-gamers.html

Somnicide wrote:Personally I think comp should be a simple yes/no you either get max points or no points.

Does the army conform to the force org chart?

Anything else you are bringing in your own biases of how the game is supposed to be played which automatically means that you are going to be telling someone that their way of playing is the wrong one.

I completely agree Sir.

frgsinwntr wrote:ive never understood how limiting peoples options is supposed to bring more diversity

Because you've misunderstood the core concept. A functional Comp system (bear in mind I said functional, not perfect; every one I've ever seen has been flawed) ADDS options, by handicapping. In a non-Comped tournament, there is never a reason for an Eldar list to include Storm Troopers. Or an IG list to bring Rough Riders. Or a SW list to bring SkyClaws. But in a Comped event, a player who chooses non-optimal units/combinations is rewarded with bonus points to compensate for his weaker army. This increases the variety of army lists brought to the event.

It also creates an interesting metagame for the really competitive guys, in which skilled tournament players strive to build strong/nasty armies which utilize lesser-seen units in combinations which can compete on even ground or at only a minor disadvantage against optimal builds. Thus allowing them to start off with an advantage in tournament points over the guys who just build the best-known top list/use the generally-acknowledged best units from a given codex.

This theoretically creates several positive effects:

A) All players see and get to play against a greater variety of armies/units at competitive events.
B) Skilled players have a secondary route to attempt to maximize their scores at tournaments.
C) Skilled players are encouraged to handicap themselves with less-optimal builds, thus giving lesser players a better shot at beating them.
D) Skilled players develop new combinations and strategies using lesser-seen units, which may shed new light on their previously-overlooked qualities within a competitive venue. This expands knowledge of armies and units and the general quality of play.

All this was the expected and standard tournament environment I came up in originally in the late 90s to mid 2000s, at Rogue Trader Tournaments and Grand Tournaments. There are still a fair number of us vets kicking around who still prefer to try to innovate and use less-seen stuff in our armies because this is the philosophy we learned early. Look at Shaun Kemp's 3rd place CSM list or Jay Woodcock's 7th place Tyranid list from The Conflict GT in January, for a couple of great examples. Blackmoor and Greg Sparks (and I believe much of the Toledo crew) are other well-known proponents of unusual lists, as they came up in the same system. Dave Fay's Nurgle Marines on the West coast are another good example. Lots of GT winners and top players have a fondness for doing something different, in part because of the influence Comp had in the tournament scene when they were coming up.

Comp is very tough to do well, though. Sourclams rightly pointed out the manifold flaws and pitfalls you run into when you try to write an objective checklist system. Different codices work very differently, and it's probably impossible to do one-size-fits-all.

The best, most functional system I've seen is the Comp Council system I described earlier. But it's a lot of work, and requires some good players of multiple armies to be available to the TO and willing to put in a little bit of work.

Personally I think an easier approach than comp would be to simply reduce the point values on those sad units that are rarely/never taken today. A unit that is utter garbage in today's meta suddenly begins to look much better if you simply drop their point cost by some amount.

Take IG Stormtroopers, for example. You never, ever see a squad of 10 in serious play. Ever. They're relevated to minimal suicide drop melta, always, and their special character, that Bastonne guy, may as well not exist for all the impact he has on IG gameplay.

They are not a terrible unit, fundamentally. A 4+ save is good, BS4 is good, hellguns are good. But at 16 ppm they're garbage. You drop that to 10 ppm and let them carry a 3rd special, and suddenly they're not garbage anymore. They're not an auto-include because they don't score and you can still get vets for 20 pts cheaper for no appreciable difference from inside a chimera, but you would actually see them on the tabletop.

Same with Ogryn. At 40 points, Ogryn are worthless. They add nothing to your shooting capabilities (indeed it's a net minus because you're losing potential shots from whatever you would have bought with the 200-400 points), and they are almost guaranteed to bog down an assault unit in combat in an army that wants to lose assaults on its opponent's turn in order to shoot on their own. Knock that down to 25 per model and you'd see them on the tabletop. Certainly not auto-include, but you don't get looked at like you're crosseyed stupid for having them. A squad of 10 still runs 250 points and is impossible to transport, and will lose combat versus Tcav and numerous other assault units, but it has enough utility that it can serve a role.

Etc, Etc. You get the idea. Many units are okay, fundamentally, but are ruined by their point costs. Re-tool that, in an appropriate manner, and you fix not only comp, but the game in general.

sourclams wrote:Personally I think an easier approach than comp would be to simply reduce the point values on those sad units that are rarely/never taken today. A unit that is utter garbage in today's meta suddenly begins to look much better if you simply drop their point cost by some amount.

That is the 'correct' way to handle it but that would practically require the whole codex system to change to a Living Rulebook model with rebalances almost every codex release.

They do it in RTS games, it would make perfect sense for codex units to be rebalanced after people play with them thousands of games and things can be really seen.

Of course tourney organizers can't really do this... This would need to be a game design thing done by GW and they honestly have said they don't care about true balance and competitive play. They are happy with what they have and it is balanced enough to be fun. (which they are right) It just isn't balanced enough to be competitive, but since that was never their goal they don't care.

Now if there was an independent rules council that rebalanced point values for competitive play that events could subscribe to, that *COULD* work, but would be a TON of effort and people would complain about it not being GW's rules and all sorts of other things.

IIRC, Mauleed ran an event a few years back with either this or a similar concept. I think the ways his worked, actually, if you took multiples of the same unit, the additional copies cost MORE points. So coming at it from the opposite direction. Partway through making an optimized army, the "best" units got priced up to where you stopped taking them and grabbed something else.

See, I disagree with that approach for two reasons:

1. It turns taking good units into a bad thing, as opposed to taking bad units a good thing. I would rather take somebody's crappy army and miraculously make it competitive than take somebody's competitive army and miraculously make it crappy. Bring everything UP, don't push it all down.

2. It still bones older codices or codices with fewer options. The SW codex has numerous competitive units in all slots. An AC/Las pred, TML speeder, LF squad, and Tcav squad are not necessarily a bad list. Nor a Manticore, Executioner, and Hydra squadron with platoon and vets. 1x Termicide, Dreadnought, Chosen, Land Raider, Predator, Defiler? I think that's borderline terrible. Retributors, Seraphim, Penitent Engine, Exorcist? That is terrible.

Yeah, I think your idea is better (although I have a pretty darn good Chaos list which includes 1 terminator unit, 1 chosen, 1 dread, 1 squad oblits, 1 squad havocs, etc. ).

Unfortunately I think it's also an even tougher sell to most gamers than a Comp score is, and it requires a lot more work for the gamers, thus making compliance a big challenge.

The problem with a comp score is that it encourages lopsided matchups, plus makes matchups even more important to winning the tournament than normal.

Not to mention the post-tourney complaining when people get unexpectedly hammered by thier comp score.

I can't see any evidence to support your first two theses. Would you please elaborate?

Folks complaining about their Comp score is a constant. Just like folks complaining about their Paint score. Or their dice. Or any of a thousand other things they always complain about. There's a reason veteran wargamers are called Grognards:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grognard

When you have a comp score, it encourages some softer armies. However, when a soft army is matched up with a hard army, the conclusion is typically forgone and it's not as much fun for either person. Ideally a comp system would try to encourage uniform power level in armies rather than wildly divergent army power levels.

As for the second, say you have a 3 game tourney, and a 0-20 comp score. In this example, one guy has a 5 comp score, the other a 15. Both have the same record (w/l). However, the guy with a 5 comp score played against all 2 comp armies, whereas the 15 comp guy played all against 20 comp armies. Even though the 5 comp guy had harder battles, the 15 comp guy scores ahead.

With the wildly divergent army power levels, this increases the effect matchups have on who wins. In the example I provided, it's not likely that the 15 comp guy would have had the same record as the 5 comp guy had the 15 guy played the same armies. He got lucky with the matchups and thus scored better in the tourney.

As for the complaining, there is a difference between just complaining and justified complaining. It's all too easy for an outsider to be surprised by a huge hit to thier comp scores because they don't know the local way of scoring. I've experienced it and seen it happen to other people.

skyth wrote:When you have a comp score, it encourages some softer armies. However, when a soft army is matched up with a hard army, the conclusion is typically forgone and it's not as much fun for either person. Ideally a comp system would try to encourage uniform power level in armies rather than wildly divergent army power levels.

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though. In most cases folks are still building armies they intend to win games with. The only guys who make really fluffy bunny lists are either total newbs, or guys who genuinely don't care about winning (like Allan McNabb at several of the Crossroads and Colonial events, just bringing out his old-school metal armies for the fun of it). Neither of which kind of player is ever really in contention.

skyth wrote:As for the second, say you have a 3 game tourney, and a 0-20 comp score. In this example, one guy has a 5 comp score, the other a 15. Both have the same record (w/l). However, the guy with a 5 comp score played against all 2 comp armies, whereas the 15 comp guy played all against 20 comp armies. Even though the 5 comp guy had harder battles, the 15 comp guy scores ahead.

With the wildly divergent army power levels, this increases the effect matchups have on who wins. In the example I provided, it's not likely that the 15 comp guy would have had the same record as the 5 comp guy had the 15 guy played the same armies. He got lucky with the matchups and thus scored better in the tourney.

I don't think it materially increases the matchup factor, though. As above, a total newbie or a guy who just doesn't care (like Allan, above) is always going to be a soft draw, no matter what army he brings. Varying terrain from table to table, or matchup of army/scenario is always going to make pairings a significant factor. I got matched up against Tau in game 3 at Conflict last month, and while I would probably have rolled that army in an Objective game, I had to fight like hell and have him make a mistake to get a strong win like I did in Spearhead Annihilation, which was what we played. Matchups always matter and are always a big deal.

skyth wrote:As for the complaining, there is a difference between just complaining and justified complaining. It's all too easy for an outsider to be surprised by a huge hit to thier comp scores because they don't know the local way of scoring. I've experienced it and seen it happen to other people.

Sure. And I have no doubt that you've genuinely been hard-done-by, by incompetent, unfair TOs. But IME from the Comp Council events we had in the NE Indy GT WH scene, no one ever got blindsided by a "huge hit". All the grumbling and complaining was over a point or two on a 20-pt scale. And almost EVERY grumble someone made was that they thought they deserved 1 or 2 more points. Not that they got a 3 when they were expecting a 12. When everyone thinks they were graded 1-2pts low, then it seems manifestly clear that they were all graded on the same scale, and fairly.

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.
I like it done as a separate score, so people have some extra encouragement besides winning games.

This also takes comp. out of the annoying relation with competitiveness.
If an army is strong and fluffy at the same time, it is as good concerning comp. score as an army, that is only fluffy.

And deciding which army is fluffy is always subjective and should be accepted like that.
General comp score parameters will just ruin most of the styles. Because many armies contradict each other concerning character.

Many troop choices means Imp-fists losing termies, Biel tan Eldar lose many options...
No identical choices: How about Necrons? How about biker armies (DA Ravenwing)? How about IG tank company?

There will always be armies that can be built with passion and nice ideas behind it, that will be scored less than armies built for competition with no sense of style.

Not that they got a 3 when they were expecting a 12.

Of course that happens. But it does not happen, if the TO publishes his score parameters before the tournament, so the players have a clue what his reasons will be.

-Nazdreg- wrote:

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.

We're not so far off, then. I still support Comp scores, but since 5th edition I am more willing to participate in events without them. In 4th (and especially 3rd) non-Comped events were often total crap, and dominated by absurd lists. Remember some of the Ulthwe Seer council armies you always saw on the top tables at the GWUK GT? Up to and including a list with two five man squads of Guardians with no upgrades, with the rest of the army being comprised of a single enormous Seer Council?

-Nazdreg wrote:I like it done as a separate score, so people have some extra encouragement besides winning games.

I don't generally see a need for it as a separate score. Though "Fluffiest army" could indeed be a legit prize.

-Nazdreg wrote:

Not that they got a 3 when they were expecting a 12.

Of course that happens. But it does not happen, if the TO publishes his score parameters before the tournament, so the players have a clue what his reasons will be.

I was referring to a specific set of tournaments in the past, a specific system for scoring Comp, a specific set of judges who did it, and the complaints they got. In that actual, real-world example, no one got blindsided by a 3. In practice it worked out pretty well, which is one of the reasons I think that system (as I posted earlier in the thread) was the best I've yet seen.

Mannahnin wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.

We're not so far off, then. I still support Comp scores, but since 5th edition I am more willing to participate in events without them. In 4th (and especially 3rd) non-Comped events were often total crap, and dominated by absurd lists. Remember some of the Ulthwe Seer council armies you always saw on the top tables at the GWUK GT? Up to and including a list with two five man squads of Guardians with no upgrades, with the rest of the army being comprised of a single enormous Seer Council?
.

I honestly wonder if people who are so anti-comp ever played a game before 5th edition. Legal lists in 3rd and 4th editions were so widely unbalanced they broke the game wide open. Warhammer 40k was UNPLAYABLE in a competitive setting due to massive imbalance. People who would say 'Codex legal = Fair' were laughed out of stores into the street. There was no end to absurd and broken combos that made the game simply not fun... which is why COMP had to exist.

But if anyone needs a refresher... I will be glad to pull out my 60 model 3rd edition ork HQ unit that gets to take 30 wounds against squig wargear before you even get to harm an ork due to majority rules. All with 5+ KFF saves and Doks patching them up. With the mobups, that unit basically becomes an unstoppable fearless crushing machine. Also the return of unassaultable units and the funhouse mirror formation that made it impossible to target and shoot models standing in plain sight. Without Comp, games at competitive events became unplayable. Games literally could not be finished due to imbalance and brokenness.

5th edition did a lot, but I am not going to pretend we have reached the holyland of balance and fairness and codex design.

I cannot speak to 3rd - I took that edition off. That said, the notes about 4th? Not sure I fully buy it, from my and my group's experiences. We all played fairly powerful lists, I guess, but ... nothing broken or whackadoodle; late game falcon contesting wasn't all that great, nidzilla wasn't all that great, necron treble lith wasn't all that great; all were very good, but they have parallels today.

Note - I don't think the game was better on the balance front; there were surely more dexes that struggled or lacked any real depth, but ... man, just ... laughing people out of the store and such? I must be fortunate never to have lived in that kind of 40k world either at the LGS or gaming group level ... just lots of dudes affably playing hard lists, many of them the same ones you saw bs'ed about around the intarweb as being "Broken," but certainly not all.

I don't mean to interject too hard - fair's fair, opinions are opinions, yattayatta - just, seems kinda OTT in the far-reaching / wide-spread environment.

Like I said, though - I can't attest to 3rd edition; I took that one off, and the first half ish of 4th Ed I think.

imweasel wrote:I would prefer to say:

The more comp is used, the more it just fails.

Word.

Comp sucks.

nkelsch wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

-Nazdreg- wrote:

See, I don't think army power levels are really "wildly divergent", though.

Exactly. This is the reason why a dont support any comp. score with the intention to balance the lists.

We're not so far off, then. I still support Comp scores, but since 5th edition I am more willing to participate in events without them. In 4th (and especially 3rd) non-Comped events were often total crap, and dominated by absurd lists. Remember some of the Ulthwe Seer council armies you always saw on the top tables at the GWUK GT? Up to and including a list with two five man squads of Guardians with no upgrades, with the rest of the army being comprised of a single enormous Seer Council?
.

I honestly wonder if people who are so anti-comp ever played a game before 5th edition. Legal lists in 3rd and 4th editions were so widely unbalanced they broke the game wide open. Warhammer 40k was UNPLAYABLE in a competitive setting due to massive imbalance. People who would say 'Codex legal = Fair' were laughed out of stores into the street. There was no end to absurd and broken combos that made the game simply not fun... which is why COMP had to exist.

But if anyone needs a refresher... I will be glad to pull out my 60 model 3rd edition ork HQ unit that gets to take 30 wounds against squig wargear before you even get to harm an ork due to majority rules. All with 5+ KFF saves and Doks patching them up. With the mobups, that unit basically becomes an unstoppable fearless crushing machine. Also the return of unassaultable units and the funhouse mirror formation that made it impossible to target and shoot models standing in plain sight. Without Comp, games at competitive events became unplayable. Games literally could not be finished due to imbalance and brokenness.

5th edition did a lot, but I am not going to pretend we have reached the holyland of balance and fairness and codex design.

3rd edition to present.

MVBrandt wrote:Like I said, though - I can't attest to 3rd edition; I took that one off, and the first half ish of 4th Ed I think.

3rd was so broken, they tried to release 4th edition assault rules half-way through development of 4th edition and then ruined a whole tourney season forcing the hybrid 3rd/4th rules on GW events as a way of playtesting things. I blame it for killing GWs GTs (even though it was mostly the economy) the attempt to fix the rules with the hybrid assault rules, the game legal chapter approved VDR garbage and many of the other untested chapter approved reorg lists that led to totally unfair subcodexes (imagine if all forgeworld rules were tourney legal), it was simply a nightmare. If you missed that period of time, consider yourself lucky. That was roughly 1998 to 2005ish. Things got bad around 2003.

frgsinwntr wrote:3rd edition to present.

You think 3rd edition to present was balanced and 'codex legal = fair'?

I disagree, that simply isn't reasonable.

I'm willing to say I wasn't good enough at the game then to make the call of what was broken or not. Maybe If I was a top player at the time I could tell you the answer to that.

I have to say 5th ed for the most part is balanced. 4th ed was also balanced for the most part.... But what do I know. I've only won a GT and was ranked top SM player on the rankings HQ for almost a year... Not the best credentials... But certainly not lacking for any.

frgsinwntr wrote:I'm willing to say I wasn't good enough at the game then to make the call of what was broken or not. Maybe If I was a top player at the time I could tell you the answer to that.

I have to say 5th ed for the most part is balanced. 4th ed was also balanced for the most part.... But what do I know. I've only won a GT and was ranked top SM player on the rankings HQ for almost a year... Not the best credentials... But certainly not lacking for any.

I never questioned your ability to play 5th edition... but being good at 5th edition I don't think rewrites history. Many "Chapter Approved" rules and lists were not balanced, fair or competitive... they were fun but making them tourney legal was a mistake. Just like how making Forgeworld now 'tourney legal' would be a mistake. There was a reason specific CA articles were banned and COMP rules that resemble modern rules like forcing troops and trying to shrink HQs were put in place. The reason 5th is so much better is because they took a lesson from the comp rules that were implemented and integrated them into the core rulebook and codex designs. That is the whole point.

Right now 5th edition rulebook core missions and scoring rules are not 'liked' by lots of people so tourneys replace them with custom rules... and in 6th edition these changes may be core rules. So the min 40% troops and max 25% HQ limits of 3rd edition are now alive an well in 5th by making HQs single cheaper ICs instead of 900pt mega-units and requiring troops via scoring objectives with them. 3rd edition COMP *IS* 5th edition core rulebook which is why 5th edition is as good as it is.

A very simple answer to those who are complaining about composition scores in a tournament.

No one told you to sign up and play the game.

Comp or not, it is your decision, your choice to make if you "want" to go and play in a tournament that has that built in component in it.

And if you do not like the way the rules are in that particular tournament, then don't play.

Go to a tournament that has no comp component in it if that is your thing.

You must have missed the point above where there was some talk about people showing up with hard lists to comp tournies and just smash everyone they play.

The only way to have a totally objective comp system is to simply wait until the tournament is done, and mark down anyone who won too many games. Clearly they had some sort of advantage over the other players, and they need to be penalized for it.

My dream: to actually have enough models to have the options to make a list that is able to break any comp system wide open. I have not yet seen one I could not do this to, but unfortunately only have so much at my disposal at any given time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Further to this, it seems like the argument that in a sport like basketball, it would be better if one team was known to be really slow and weak, but were still let into the Olympics anyway with a starting score of 50-0. Do they really deserve to be given a bonus just so that they can stand a chance, despite not having spent time training like everyone else?

Fearspect wrote:Further to this, it seems like the argument that in a sport like basketball, it would be better if one team was known to be really slow and weak, but were still let into the Olympics anyway with a starting score of 50-0. Do they really deserve to be given a bonus just so that they can stand a chance, despite not having spent time training like everyone else?

This is why Comp issues are ultimately GW's fault. GW doesn't playtest enough, release rules updates enough (8 years between codices, no problem, amirite?), and doesn't strive for internal and external balance between its armies.

The player base responds, rationally, by running the most attractive unit and army combinations, resulting in the New York Yankees of the current 40k lineup (Space Wolves being the obvious one) showing up everywhere.