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.

Hmmm... my Lysander wing gets a 21 (23 if you count lysander wing themed and fluffy). My mech tau get a 29.

Posted By GM Aeneas 08/08/2006 8:19 PM
I have played with this comp. My Deathwing [consisting of 5x5 man squads,a command squad,and a Ven Dread] got a I think 35. I got hit for Character points, Squad size, Deep Striking and Power weapon attacks. The comp is designed to hurt those armies that are designed as power gamer armies, ie Daemonic Statured DP and a Greater Daemon in the same list, and encourage balanced forces. All armies can be made to get a perfect comp. The question is how much comp do you sacrifice to make the unbeatable army. The ARMORED vs NONARMORED is ARMOR VALUE vs NON ARMORED VALUE [example Preadator vs Marine] </quote>

Amen!

There was a ton of feedback solicited by the organizers last year on what to change and why, and plenty given from last years players. It wasn't created in a vacume and the organizers weren't out to neuter any list but marines, so please lay off the "brutally slowed" part.  I can see why the power gamers don't like it.

And yes, a someone from our group brought an armored company with about 6 pie plates to last years event because he could.  Anyone can, you'll just get dinged for it, and it's your choice to get hit.

For all of you who are attacking the comp list Question How would you fix it [without removing comp completely]?

@Moopy, I played at "Capital Punishment" last year also and I saw that guy play the 6 basilisk army. He phased-out a Necron player on his turn one without the Necron player having his turn. The funny thing is that the comp was so screwed up, it gave him the sam comp hit if he had 2 ordinance weapons or 6. That is lame!

The guy who won, won with a drop podding Blood Angels list and looking at the "new" comp list, he could easily do it again.

I played a pure Grey Knights list and I had one of the best comp scores, being dinged for fearless and 10 guys in 2+ armor. I played a guy who had 21 dark lances in his DE army and my game was over on turn 4. BTW, he got dinged for more than 3 AP:2 weapons and he came in third in the event.

@GM Aeneus Other than dropping the whole comp nonsense, I would simply list what you can and cannot have in each armylist and make it more even to non marine players. The comp system as it stands will be very marine friendly and that is sad. I will make you a bet right now that a Marine player wins. Wanta bet?

Darrian

If I go agin this year I am going to play my Chaos army with a siren prince and a bloodthirster and say screw comp. I figure so many knuckleheads there will have neutered their lists to be comp-friendly I can hope fully go 5-0.

@GM Aeneus Other than dropping the whole comp nonsense, I would simply list what you can and cannot have in each armylist and make it more even to non marine players. The comp system as it stands will be very marine friendly and that is sad. I will make you a bet right now that a Marine player wins. Wanta bet?

The problem with going through every list is how many there are. How many possible combinations just using the SM Traits? The comp list does not favor anylist I can make a perfect comp list with almost any list [Chaos cult and Deathwing are the only ones I can think of that I can't, but they get benefits because of what they lose]

@Aeneus. I think you are missing the point. No one is argueing that you cannot build an armylist with perfect comp, that is not important. What is important is howto build a "comp-friendly" list (40+ score) AND make it a viable tourney winning list. That is the issue! What most of us have realized and you seam to miss is that Space Marines can do this very easily in the current comp system. Can you do the same with Chaos? I bet you cannot.

This is why the system is unbalanced.

Darrian

@Darrian13  Yep. I placed in the top 10 in that tourney and took an award (have to look what it was when I get home).  I've seen that BA army, and to be fair that player (Travis?) can crush with most any army.  He's a really freek'in good geneal.

Yes, you are right last years comp had that loop hole.  I'm not sure if you were at the feedback session after the event in the hotel conferense room; that was pointed out loudly. It's really not that fun when a game boils down to, "Who gets the first turn = wins".  Might as well just dice off for the win instead of actually playing a game. Not much fun in that.

Point is this comp system discourages that type of army (which isn't fun to play against), and comp is that enforcer.  It can't stop an opponent from taking it, but they'll find it harder to win even if they crush all their opponents with an OTT army. Of course some people will try and do just that to tweek the organzier's noses to so show, "they can".

The stock Choas list I can. The cult lits I can not, nor can I with Deathing. Competitive army or a Comp Friendly is where the individual players make the choice. The person who wins overall will find the balance between the two extremes.

Tim

@Aeneus. Here is my Space Marine List

HQ: Epistolary FotD/FoA term armor, 4 termy command squad, 2 assault cannons, drop pod.
Troops: 10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, melta gunx2, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, melta gunx2, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, flamer, plasma gun, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, flamer, plasma gun, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/ p-fist, plasma gunx2, drop pod.
10 man tac squad, vet searg/p-fist, drop pod.
Fast attack: Land speeder tornado
" "
" ".

Obviously this is a very rough draft but I think you can see that it is very comp-friendly, 35 without bonus points 41 with.
Would you want to face this list with a similiar scored list from another race? If so, which?

Darrian

@Aeneas, Really? Ok, I showed you a 40 comp point Marine list, now show me a 40 comp point Chaos list. I bet you cannot make it competitive. Let see.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Darrian

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 10:04 PM
@Aeneas, Really? Ok, I showed you a 40 comp point Marine list, now show me a 40 comp point Chaos list. I bet you cannot make it competitive. Let see.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Darrian

Which Legion?

So, do chaos squads that are the size of their god's number (ie: "Favored") count as full sized? If not, they take a ding for not being "maximum" sized, or, if max size, they take a ding for not being fluffy. What about IG? A "full" platoon is five squads, and that's only one troop choice. Fill them out with special and heavy weapons and then they'll be taking extra dings for all the firepower. If comp is designed to penalize abuse, why can one fit in a Siren Prince Daemonbomb that could squeeze in at 40? Isn't that what comp is supposed to prevent?

I have played with this comp. My Deathwing [consisting of 5x5 man squads,a command squad,and a Ven Dread] got a I think 35. I got hit for Character points, Squad size, Deep Striking and Power weapon attacks. The comp is designed to hurt those armies that are designed as power gamer armies, ie Daemonic Statured DP and a Greater Daemon in the same list, and encourage balanced forces. All armies can be made to get a perfect comp. The question is how much comp do you sacrifice to make the unbeatable army. The ARMORED vs NONARMORED is ARMOR VALUE vs NON ARMORED VALUE [example Preadator vs Marine]

The comp system is bad for a lot of reasons. Here are just a few:
While trying to stop the abuse from army X from happening, they are also penalizing armies Y and Z.

If they are trying to stop the Statured Demon Prince and Bloodthirster combo, they are doing a poor job of it. Since most chaos armies are going to be already hit by the penalty for the expensive HQ and the over the Wargear limit, they are only penalized one point for taking 2 monstrous creatures. Hardly a deterrent.

And what is in the comp rules about stopping a siren prince? One of the most over powered units in the game.

And still Amour Company is ok? Here you are limiting everyone?s anti-tank by trying to limit the AP 1 and AP 2 weapons, and yet AC is ok. (By the way armies like elder and SoB have all of their anti-tank in AP 1& 2 form).


But there are 2 comp rules that are the strangest:
?Of the total number of units in your army, what percentage is fearless??

Why is their a need for this rule? No one has ever said that fearless armies are overpowered. If you look at all of the GT results, not fearless army has even been close to winning. Actually, most have been at the bottom. Those fearless armies pay points for fearlessness for example, look at the cost of a grey knight in power armor and compare him to a marine. Now look at the marks of chaos..they pay for fearlessness, and get some neat abilities to boot, but everyone forgets that they get a lot of drawbacks as well (heavy weapons anyone?). Now look at marines: They cost a heck of a lot less, and they have ATSKNF which is arguably better than fearlessness because it lets you break out of combat and shoot.

And then my own pet peeve:
?What percentage of your troop selections are at maximum size??

I think GW just pulls the max squad sizes out of their rears. If you have a max squad size of 10 like space marines do, they are fine. But no way are you getting some of the armies to 50% of their troops at full squad size (#1 people don?t want to buy all of the models that they will never use again. #2. The cost of some large squad means that is all you will have in their army.). Here is another example of a bad comp rule. What is often overpowered, and that people don?t like to see is the mini-maxed army. The marine army with the 6-man las/plas squads, or the Iron Warriors army with the 4 HS and 9 oblits, and the 2 5-man squad of CSM in their lawn chairs. You can make this comp rule better by having people take 10 man minimum squad sizes, not the 15, 20, or 30 man squads that some armies have as a max size.

Most people want to discourage MEQs because that is all they face at tournaments. This comp system encourages it.

Also you will have 2 camps. The ones who will follow closely the comp rules, and the second will bring what ever they want, and crush the first group.

Posted By GM Aeneas 08/09/2006 12:38 AM

Posted By Darrian13 08/08/2006 10:04 PM
@Aeneas, Really? Ok, I showed you a 40 comp point Marine list, now show me a 40 comp point Chaos list. I bet you cannot make it competitive. Let see.

I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Darrian

Which Legion?

You can start with Thousand Sons to show that the comp system is broken (The Thousand Sons are one of the least powerful armies out there, and so they should get a good comp score right?).

And then you can do a Black Legion army for real.

I agree with Blackmoor completely. Generic comp systems like this cannot and will not ever be fair. They will always penalize some army types while rewarding others.

If a group hosting a tournament doesn't like certain combinations in armies, then they should just come out and say it. Penalize those particular combinations in each army specifically. Sure it takes more time but it also doesn't hide behind a veil of fairness made by a uniform system.

Everyone who wants to attend that tournament will clearly know that taking 'X' kind of army is going to mean they are playing at a disadvantage in points.

I have to pop in here with my opinion. I understand that comp is unfavorably looked upon by most on this board; thats fine. I understand that people dont like this particular comp system; thats fine as well and I agree that this system still needs work. My response is, if you dont like it dont play in the tournament. Simple really.

I play at the home store in Sacramento where this system was developed. The owner of the store, who is also the organizer of Capital Punishment, is a big fan of comp because it helps level the playing field for players and has put in alot of effort and taken tons of advice (and abuse) for it. The reason we have the system we have is there was a time where the only armies we would see at our bi-monthly tournaments were min-maxed, super powered armies. The same armies and the same people won, over and over and over. It got to the point where new players or people who didnt play purely for WAAC had zero chance and consequently stopped playing. The store had the choice between 1) let things happen and become a place where the 'elite' ruled completely and 40k would slowly die off with the advent of FoW, Warmachine, LotR, Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh, heroclix, stratomatic baseball, etc etc etc, or 2) devise a system that applied to everyone, was known to and created in part by the players in that environment, and would create a competitive atmosphere for both tournies and regular gaming.

Let me say here and now that the players in the store have fought long and hard over what this comp system should look like. In the comittee that helped design it, they have 6 long time GW players, one of which is a playtester for fantasy. They know the rules, they know the armies, and they argue more than anyone about whats fair and whats not. We all agree, organisers and players alike, that this isnt a perfect system and there might never be a perfect system. We know that. The only way there will ever be a 'fair' comp system will be to do one for each army individually -- and then whos to say the person making the comp is being objective and unbiased? Its nearly impossible and I dont envy those who try to try to equalise something that was never meant to be tournament-friendly.

Everyone needs to realise a few things here. First, the comp is out there...its your call to build a comp-friendly army and try to win, or build an ultra-competetive army and try to make up the points in your battle score. Like I said above, if you dont like it just dont play. Second, there are plenty of tournaments that dont have comp or have minimal comp. Go to some other board somewhere, and youll find the bizarro-world version of Ed Maule complaining about the Adepticon Gladiator rules and saying people who bring forgeworld bloodthirsters should play in dresses. It all boils down to personal preference.

Lets use Capital Punishment as an example. I hear alot of people argue that lower comp equates to a tougher army, whereas higher comp is a powderpuff list. My BA army, which gets a perfect score in RTs incidentally, got a 39 and was middle of the pack comp-wise. I have 3 drop pods, a pair of predators, a pair of scout squads, hell I even run a veteran assault squad which most agree is not one of the most cost effective units in the list. In the course of the tournament I beat 2 people that scored mid to high 40s and were undefeated at that point. I also played the 6 basilisk AC, which scored mid 20s, and I beat him too. Its not so simple as its made out to be, and to Darrian13, I know who you are. Youre not so good as to be able to walk in and win on autopilot, so youd better bring a tooled up army. The norcal scene has some very good players and the implication that a comp system facilitates that is insulting. Another argument I hear is the system is designed for marines to do well and god help you if you dont have power armor. If I recall correctly, Mat Estes dark eldar scored mid/high 40s and he won Best General. Shock value for an unfamiliar army? That may be part of it but he mulched some good players. Steve Fox's Tau scored mid/high 40s also, and he was playing for first place in the last round. Blackmoor's 1k sons scored, what, 18? How'd he end up in the tournament? I dont even remember. Can we have even a slight aknowledgement that there is some amount of skill involved, regardless of comp?

Bottom line: dont like it, dont come. I look at comp like free points - RT comp is easy to get, systems like this are more challenging. At least I know ahead of time, and the same rules apply to everyone. I look forward to well-organised events, and Capital Punishment is better than most. Kublacon is better than most, even though the scoring this year was fubar and the person that was given the best overall award didnt actually win it, turns out. I look forward to Adepticon next year, and the return of the GTs.

@Hokkaido, "if you don't like it don't play in the tournament, simple really" Wow, that is pretty enlightening, thank you for that insight. I hope you are not the guy in charge of public relations for this event. You know, most events actually TRY to get people to attend, but your approach is pretty novel.

Onto Capital Punishment last year, I am amazed that you did so well with a Blood Angels army. Your comp system, last year was even more weighted for marines than this year, and you played a marine army and got a good comp score, imagine that. Wait a second, the guy that won also played a Blood Angels army, that must be a coincidence, surely not the pro-marine bias that we have been mentioning. I am not questioning your ability to play the game nor Syrus's, I am pointing out that the comp system is very flawed and is OBVIOUSLY pro-marine.

Onto your examples, I played Mat Estes and he is a very god player who completely disregarded comp, in favor of a hard as nails Dark Eldar list. I was whiped out on turn 4. I also played Steve Fox, in the 3rd round, and did slightly better but ultimately lost a close game. I must point out that I was not too happy with the fact that I caught him cheating, claiming to have gear on his hammer heads that he did not pay for. The fact that he cheated, and I caught him, had no negative reprecussions with the judges, but whatever.

Onto me, I played a pure Grey Knight list at your "comp-friendly" event and I made every attempt to maximize my comp score. While my comp score was very high, it cost me too much of my lists effectiveness, especially when playing against an optimized list like Mat Estes' Dark Eldar. Since I was a noobie, I had been playing 40K for 3 months at that point and Capital Punishment was my third RTT, I figure I did pretty well. This year I will take your advice if I attend and do my best to bring an optimised list in favor of a watered down, comp-friendly one. Hopefully, I can do as well as Mat did with his.

Darrian

To Hakkaido23
You want to have comp thats fine, but your system is bogus as its weighted toward one codex.
How many non-marine players were on this committee? How many non-MEQ players in general?


You use this as an argument to make non-cheesed lists, yet your comp remains focused on marines, generally penalizing the power of non-marine players.

Interesting that the penalty on Fearless does not include ATSKNF. Why is that again?

Interesting that rending weapons are not penalized. Why is that again?

Interesting that anti marine weapons get penalized severely, as do monstrous creatures, and high armor vehicles. Oh wait, marines don't have monstrous creatures and their base weapon is str4 so not especially harmed.



I'm starting to get it now.

Im not involved with the tournament in any way. Its not even my comp system, I have no bearing on it one way or another apart from suggestions the players give after tournaments.  I care about you showing up only in the capacity that the tournament will do well if more people show. In lieu of a proper GT, this is the best we have locally. When I say "if you dont like it, dont play", I mean just that...no one is forcing you to play. If youre going to complain, save yourself the trouble of posting, dont show up, and it wont affect you. What will be your reasons for coming, if you do, and comp has not changed? If you dont like it so much, dont come. I'll be the first to say the comp system isnt perfect. I said so before the event last year, and I'll be saying it again when we next discuss this topic at the Contest of Champions in September. Im not saying this comp system is good and everyone should use it, im saying this is what we have, like it or leave it. I can say with certainty there will be *some* form of comp, and the majority of players are in favor of that. Theres no escaping it, lets just make the best of it. Theres always the opposite -- 5 games in a tournament against the armies people whine about being cheesy...3 monoliths, 14 assault cannons, 17 starcannons and a 40 man seer council, whatever it is, take your pick.  As far as specific aspects of the comp system...I personally dont think fearless should be penalised.  Fearless troops generally cost more points than the same model without it, so no penalty should be assessed IMO.  Rending weapons (lets be real here, assault cannons) should be included in any category penalizing ap2/3 weapons, but IMO the assault cannon being so easily available and effective is a product of the marine codex.  Hell, my first army was guard...penalize the heavy bolter, if youre going to knock people for taking certain types of weapons.  Believe it or not I lean toward less comp.  This isnt my system, im simply pointing out that I really dont think theres as strong a marine bias as you think.

Assume the comp is weighted in favor of marines....how could a Tau and Dark Eldar army score so high and do so well battle-wise if that was the case? I hate to use those two armies as an example again but thats what I can remember. Yes, Mat's army took advantage of as much as he could to both get a high comp and still be a strong army but if thats the case, why didnt he win overall? One of the flaws from last year was there wasnt a 'sliding scale' to breaking an item of comp, if you were going to get zero points for one area you might as well go way way overboard and get as much advantage as you could. Mat's army did this to a certain extent, but the rules were posted well in advance...you work with what you have. This year the comp system will be amended to include that sliding scale, im told. What about the armored company? That army blew the comp system away and was amazingly effective in certain missions; why didnt he win best overall? He phased a necron player out in the top half of the first turn. As in, the necron player set up his models, then immediately removed them and packed them up again. Is that what a tournament organizer wants?? With no comp, every army can be like that. The hope is players will try to get as high a comp as they can; after all its basically free points. The armored company player himself said he didnt care about comp and just wanted to bring a broken army...well, how do you stop that? Disallow armored companies? Siren isnt fair in most people's opinion. Do you ban Siren? Pretty soon youre getting into 'that army is way too effective' or 'we just dont like it' and everything goes to hell. Wheres the happy medium?

You got a good comp score with your grey knights, good for you. Youre what a tournament organiser hopes to see, someone who tries to work within the framework of the comp system rather than exploit it. Is your list's ineffectiveness a product of having been forced by the comp system into a 'mold', though? Is it your weakness as a player? Is it the matchups you faced? Is it the list itself and the cost value of your basic models? Id say yes to all of those except the first.

the guy that won also played a Blood Angels army, that must be a coincidence, surely not the pro-marine bias that we have been mentioning

I take exception to this. Yes, first place was BA. Second overall was Khorne zerk/letters/hounds flootsloggers. Third overall was mech tau. Best general was dark eldar. Moopy took 6th or 7th with a very fair BA army. Also in the top 10 were 2 eldar lists and the now-infamous armored company. In the current series at the Sacramento game store that uses this list, 1st place is Biel-tan, 2nd is necrons, 3rd is full comp daemonhunters. Everyone just getting lucky here? Marine players phoning it in? I wont argue that you might be able to construct a marine army that is 1, effective and 2, high comp, but is it really impossible to do with any other army? You cant tell me the Saim-Hann army that scored a 46 wasnt viable, the Khorne zerk/letter list that took second wasnt viable, the necron horde of mostly warriors that scored 50 wasnt viable. There has to be some factor of skill that mitigates your percieved comp bias.

Sure, there are loopholes - Im not arguing that the comp is perfect, no way in hell. I am saying that just because its different and not what you want doesnt make it as horrible as youre making it out to be. So bring your optimised list, you can try your luck against players that know what theyre doing and arent fooled or intimidated by tricks and we'll see what happens. It better be marines too, cause if you win with SoB or Tyranids or something....it kinda kills the pro-marine theory.

 

For jfrazell: The comittee includes, to the best of my knowledge: 1 Saim-hann/chaos player, 1 necron player, 1 necron/eldar player 1 SoB player, 1 marine player, and one who doesnt currently play anything but is a playtester for GW and has alot of experience with 40k in the past.  From what I have seen, they argue extensively about the comp system, each has their own wishlist of what should and should not be in it, and I am very glad I am not one of them.

You're dead right, if you don't like the comp system, dont play.

And most won't.

But I don't see any reason not to point out how bad they are. These comp rules are not only "playing like you lack a pair", but poorly designed from a game standpoint because they fail to do what they intended to do, which is balance out armies.

If I lived closer I'd show up with something that still earned 35 or so points but was only ever so slightly less nasty, and certainly just as unpopular as anything else I'd bring. But when people complained, I'd laugh (harder) in their face, because I'm following the (crappy) rules.

Posted By Hokkaido23 08/09/2006 7:43 AM

 

For jfrazell: The comittee includes, to the best of my knowledge: 1 Saim-hann/chaos player, 1 necron player, 1 necron/eldar player 1 SoB player, 1 marine player, and one who doesnt currently play anything but is a playtester for GW and has alot of experience with 40k in the past.  From what I have seen, they argue extensively about the comp system, each has their own wishlist of what should and should not be in it, and I am very glad I am not one of them.

Let me preface in that I am not against comp per se', just comp lists that are preferential to certain lists.

-So in answer to the question, no horde players, no players who don't have a 3+ save armies.  You only have MEQ players on the council.  No guard, Orks, Nids, Tau, DE players are noted. 

 

Mauleed, if you went with that attitude you might end up being the inspiration for a sportsmanship guideline for opponents next year!  I can see it now:

How many times did you feel insulted by your opponent?

0-1 : 3 points

2-3 : 2 points

4-5 : 1 point

You cried during the game : 0 points

Bonus Points:

Your opponent never implied that your male figures were, perhaps, female : + 1 point

Your opponent never made a chicken-like 'bwark, bwark' gesture towards you : +1 point

Your opponent wasn't Ed Maule : +1 point

BTW, my Kroot army gets a 24?!?!  Wow, I must be a cheese monger.  I wanted to punch a coworker when I got to the part about how many units in the army have infiltrate.

Having this kind of brutal composition scoring could end up with the unthinkable scenario of an army with one draw beating an undefeated army at a tournament.

- Oaka

 

When you show up to a tournament (where there are prizes for being the best in certain categories) shouldn't you come to win? Even if you don't plan on winning you should at least plan on trying to be competitive out of respect for the other atendees who came to play their asses off.

If you want to play 'comp friendly' or kid glove games then bring that junk on any other day than thournament day.

i agree comp rules usually are biased and comp list like this keep people away because of all the model requirements. im not going to buy another 40 dark eldar warriors just to play in 1 tournament.

everyone seems to want to "fix" all the broken issues with 40k. instead of writing some silly comp rules, just come up with better scenarios!!!!and better terrain!!!!

for example if you want less pod/fear lists. then create one of your scenarios that negatively impacts pods. just make sure everyone can have access to your scenarios beforehand. you want less MEQ's ? make a heavy gravity scenario where your movement is restricted to your armor save, so 3+ armor saves can only move/charge 3+. you want less armored company, add minefields to the scenario.

whatever it is you are trying to "fix" can be done with nore diverse scenarios.


 or god forbid....playing with 1500 points.

1500 point games usually allow 4 games in a day as opposed to 3, allowing a wider range of scores and narrowing a field of 20 players down to 1 undefeated person.

1500 points give more room for movement and allows horde armies to actually setup in a timely fashion with enough room.

1500 point games correct a lot of the so called cheese in  lists.
if you dont. (necrons for example)


so thats just my uninformed opinion. fix "cheese" with better scenarios better terrain and four 1500 point games in a day.

Silly, My mech sisters get 41 without breaking a sweat, only getting zeros in:

Armored> nonvehical 0(its a mechanized army, duh)

AND

Troops at max size 0(size is 20 max, their at 10 to fit in rhinos)

And being kind and giving myselfa 2 in the most expenisve HQ slot.

Other than that, I max out everything, since I dont worry about power weapons, infiltrate, fearless......since I dont have those normally, and Acts of faith take care of that when I need it.

Hokkaido, how is comp supposed to help new players? Unless someone sits a new player down and explains comp to them, theyre unlikely to score well on it. Unless theyve been playing that way the entire time, a new player will have to field a different army then theyre used to, and wont do as well. And the experienced players just tweak their existing power armies a bit to squeeze out some more points. They know they can still whomp everyone and win, and wont worry about a few points lost cuz they took effective units.

As a Tyranid player, it would seem that I get hosed, plain and simple. Tyranids only have a few effective choices, and if I go with a Godzilla variant like Im playing now I would take a huge comp hit. Sure, I can take huge units of troops, nids do that well, but we have to balance 'huge numbers of troops' with other gak that actually works'. This comp method marginalizes Tyranids.

Your opponent never implied that your male figures were, perhaps, female : + 1 point

I just find the chest seed very, very odd.

And lo, the Emperor spoke thus, "Go forth, and impregnate the chests of young men everywhere!"

So... if I was playing Guard - no, wait, Mechanised Guard - would I have to bring a full 55-man/6 Chimera platoon to have a full sized troops choice?

This comp system is beyond stupid. Comp is stupid actually, but this system is worse.

BYE

If I lived closer I'd show up with something that still earned 35 or so points but was only ever so slightly less nasty, and certainly just as unpopular as anything else I'd bring. But when people complained, I'd laugh (harder) in their face, because I'm following the (crappy) rules.

I can easily give you a mech sisters army that breaks 40 that can win if played right.....Assuming 2Kish....

I flying cannoness with toys

5 sister squads in rhinos

2 seraphim squads

3 exorcists.

I give the system an 'A' for effort, but a 'D' for execution. Honestly, power-armor lists (excepting things like Deathwing or Grey Knights) should take a hit. ATSKNF and rending need to be figured in on top of this. Marines have such an advantage out of the gate, they need to take a hit for any kind of system to truely level the playing field.