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.

I've read a couple of threads that referenced Comp w/ respect to a tournament but I am unable to figure out what it means. I can kind of glean Composition but I don't know what it exactly entails. Can someone spell it out for me and tell me why some people make a big deal about it?

Generally it will be for things such as painting, list build and sportsmanship.

People complain about it as it is often subjective, open to abuse, and can sometimes mean that someone who sucked during the tournament can go on to win "best overall" etc, depending on the weighting that comp gets.

Personally I have no issue with comp so long as it is spelled out from the start exactly how the scoring is going to be done.

In 3rd edition, it was not uncommon to be able to make 800 point super HQs. Also troops were not needed for missions to score so if your troops sucked, there was no reason to take them. COMP back then was a % of your army should be troops, and if your HQ was too big or your troops were too small, you lost points. They wanted 60% troops and no HQ/FA/Elite/HS to be over 25%.

Now with the better force org, toned down units and troops being scoring, the traditional COMP rules are practically built-in to the codex, force org and missions. Now, all COMP scores really boil down to are "anti-spamming" guidelines. Almost all comp lists I have seen are based around repetition and trying to avoid it with the attitude of SPAM lists are bad, boring or unwanted.

There are couple ways of grading comp...

Sometimes it is based off of how powerful your list is. Other times it is graded off of 'not playing right'.

Sometimes it is objective (Checklist/restriction) based and other times it is soft (Opponent or Judge judged) based.

So.... The more powerful your list, the less points you get??? Seems counter-intuitive. I've always thought that building a good list was part of the strategy of the game.

I had a FLGS tournament once where I ran 2x Tac Squad, 2x LR, and Marneus at 1250pts. I assume that list would have done poorly in comp had they actually had a score for it. I went to win 4th place in the tournament. It was 3 rounds and I won 2 out of 3 but, I guess I didn't get enough kill points on the game I won.

There are a lot of opinions about comp and how to apply it; indeed if it has a place at all.

nkelsch wrote:In 3rd edition, it was not uncommon to be able to make 800 point super HQs. Also troops were not needed for missions to score so if your troops sucked, there was no reason to take them. COMP back then was a % of your army should be troops, and if your HQ was too big or your troops were too small, you lost points. They wanted 60% troops and no HQ/FA/Elite/HS to be over 25%.

Now with the better force org, toned down units and troops being scoring, the traditional COMP rules are practically built-in to the codex, force org and missions. Now, all COMP scores really boil down to are "anti-spamming" guidelines. Almost all comp lists I have seen are based around repetition and trying to avoid it with the attitude of SPAM lists are bad, boring or unwanted.

Except that we've been using the SAME FOC since 3rd ed.
How is the 5th ed FOC better than the 3rd ed FOC if they are the same?

As for comp. Yes, you get lower points. Which you should make up for in battle points as the harder armies should do better than 'softer' ones in terms of W/D/L.

That is only if the comp score is based on the power of the list.

If comp scores are used in a tournament, the rules for scoring them are usually given by the tournament organiser.

Here is an example of the composition guidelines given for a tournament I attended earlier this year:

COMPOSITION (15% MAX 30)

1 - Totally WAAC (e.g. full 2 x Seer Council, or 2 Nob Biker + 2 Warboss army), abusive combos Twin Lash with Zerkers/Oblit spam/Possessed Vindi spam = 1/6
2 - Powerful army An army that should easily beat most normal aussie tourney lists ,One that is at the bottom end of what you hope to see at Aus tournies. Egs: My MOAB list (1250pt- Tooled Archon, Wyches on Boat, 5 Warrior Boats, 2 Ravagers, all night shields) Single Lash with 2x Possessed Vindi = 2/6
3 - Normal tournament list = 3/6
4 - Nice army: Soft Normal Tourney list without too many rude combos /plenty of competitiveness, if taking a hard choice, eg a good named character, then will have a sub optimal choice to compensate = 4/6
5 - Really nice army: still looks able to compete but with either a very obvious weakness (eg no mobility/armour) and/or a less optimal unit (Techmarine & Servitors with no vehicles) = 5/6
6- Stunning army: "Really nice," with less competitiveness, usually has very obvious weaknesses and sub optimal units. Looks like it would struggle vs many armies. Usually with a fantastic theme driving the choices (Alun's Mechanicus army at Mechanicon - 1200pts Master of Forge on Bike with Conversion Beamer, ][ Lord w Power Weapon, Bionics, Psychic Hood, Auspex+ Henchmen: 2 Sages, 2 Mystics, 1 Acolyte, 1 Familiar, 2 Hvy Bolter warriors, 1 Plasma Cannon warrior; Techmarine + 4 Servitors, 10 Tac Marines "Praetorians", Plasma Gun/Pl Cannon, PF; 10 Tac Marines, Plasma Gun/Pl Cannon, PF; 10 "Skitari"/][ Stormtroopers: Sergeant w PW, 2 Plasma Guns. Thunderfire) 6/6


I personally disagree with the inclusion of composition in a tournament situation, but basically that just means I give everyone maximum score unless they use 'Special' characters, in which case I drop a point. Keeps the TOs happy because the ones who know me know I will just give top score for everything otherwise despite their guidelines.

I respond to argument with, "Well if it wasn't subjective, the TOs would just do it themselves. I really did like that dual-lash army."

Here's another example of a local tournament's comp system. This is checklist style composition, in which the tournament organizers attempt to create a single unified list of criteria to determine the fairest composition of an army. This usually has unintended effects. This particular instance encourages players to invest a lot of points in a single huge HQ for example.


Ratio of troop selections to other individual selections

3:1 – 5 pts
2:1 to 2.9:1 – 4 pts
1:1 to 1.9:1 – 2 pts
less then 1:1 – 0 pts

Percentage of points spent on selections that are taken as anything other then as their default choice (For example, Ork Nobs taken as troops, Wraithguard taken as troops, etc.. ).

25% or less – 5 pts
25% to 49.9% – 3 pts
50% or more - 0 pts

Percentage of points spent on vehicles (anything with an armor value)

25% or less – 5 pts
35% to 25.1% - 3 pts
45% to 35.1% – 2 pts
More than 45% – 0 pts

Number of power models in the army (definition to be decided. Right now we are looking at single models that cost over a certain point cost).

Zero power models – 5 pts
No more than one power model per each full 1000 points of army size – 4 pts
More than one power model per 1000 points of army size – 0 points

Army List (army list must list each units war gear/upgrades along with costs, number of units per selection, total number of models, and a breakdown of points and choices by selection.

Army list was created on Army Builder or a spreadsheet, is accurate, and sufficient copies are provided for the tournament judge and all opponents – 5 pts
Army list was created on Army Builder or a spreadsheet, is accurate, but sufficient copies were not provided – 3 pts
Army list was not created using army builder or spreadsheet – 0 pts

Percentage of army points spent on Special characters

13.5 % of less– 5 pts
13.6% to 20%– 3 pts
20.1% to 25% – 2 pts
More than 25%– 0 points

Model Count (divide the tournament army size (TAS) by 20 and 15)

If your model count is <= TAS divided by 20 – 5
If your model count is => TAS divided by 20 and <= TAS divided by 15 – 3
If your model count is > TAS divided by 15 – 0

Composition (including 5 points based on opponent judgement) contributes 40 points towards final scoring compared to 60 for battle points, 20 for painting, and 33 for sportsmanship.

Examples like the above are exactly why I think composition is silly. I can appreciate a good fluffy army on its own merits. I have taken them to tournaments before, and didn't expect special treatment. Even if it was horribly underpowered, the above example does nothing to actually address it.
Certain codexes are disadvantaged just because they depend of different numbers of differently powered units.

If comp has to be used, I prefer peer marking pre-game after seeing the opponent's army list.

I generally perfer hard comp (IE restriction based) rather than a point score.

Point scores do not do anything to prevent bad matchups, and if you pair by comp, they give a leg up to armies that are favored by the people scoring comp.

chromedog wrote:

Except that we've been using the SAME FOC since 3rd ed.
How is the 5th ed FOC better than the 3rd ed FOC if they are the same?

Because in 5th edition there are mission critical needs for 'troops' in order to actually win the games and complete objectives. In 3rd, this did not exist and troops had no need to be fielded in a list except from the bare minimal.

Also, most Codexes had very very very very expensive and bloated HQ options. The 3rd edition HQ options for an Ork warboss could build a retinue of close to 60 models and be almost 100 wounds deep in a single unit and be over 1000 points. Most of the 5th codexes have really toned down retinues and even the most expensive HQ barley crests 300 points and that is being a special character.

So basically they implemented 3rd edition comp into 5th edition by instead of telling you to take 60% troops, they kinda force you to take 60% troops by making them the only units who can score. Instead of telling you not to take a ton of overbloated HQ, they simply removed the bloated HQ or moved parts of it to other force org slots.

Comp still exists... they have just changed how and where they do it by the rules and the missions and codex designs.

Regardless of the pairing system used, missions can and will favour one list/codex or another, just as does deployment order and individual army list choices that may or may not be effective against one's opponent.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, just stating my preference. In terms of pairing, I like my old local club (I've just moved) did, which was to pair locals with visitors during the first round of a tournament and make sure that everyone gets to play against someone new.

That said, the majority of Australian tournaments use comp, and it is typically peer marked, so that's just what I'm used to.

Comp is a holdover from an earlier time and is subject to abuse by TOs and/or judges (sometimes without them even being aware they just contradicted a previous ruling to help out a buddy).
Is 3 Vindis in a list spam worthy of a down-check?
Ever hear of something called a 'line breaker squadron'?
3 individual Vindis on one table would merely be the representation of the micro battle that single table represents in an overall conflict. That point in a battlefield where devastating firepower is brougt to bear to either create a breakthrough or halt a strong enemy advance.

Now, multiple Las-plas razorbacks would be spam since their unit description (the fluff) specifically states these are rare items unable to be reproduced today. A Chapter would be fortunate to have even 1 of these...much less so many they can flood the battlefield with 4 or 5 of them (as seen in certain Wolf armies of late). However GW does not seem to notice a mismatch between the fluff they write and the rules they list (Las-Plas Razorback upgrades should be a "1 unit in an army may take this upgrade" option, or a special rule that confers an extra KP or Objective Point if the unit is destroyed).

Now for the controversy:
I would like to see a new score put in place of the old "comp" score. The fitness score. At the end of a Tourny you lose 1 point for every BMI (Body Mass Index)point over 30. I mean really; have you seen the videos of the WarCon (BoLSCon) players? After you've clubbed to death whatever baby-seal you were pitted against do you have to eat him too? While your contemplating the latest power-list and color scheme for a DIY Army, can you perhaps put the chips and soda down and walk around the block while thinking about it? Would it kill you that when you get a cramp while painting to get up and do a few jumping jacks or situps to help stretch out those kinks and cramps?
I aint a fitness monger and am showing a bit of middle-age paunch myself (and i'm working on that)...but come on people. Some of you are not to far off from the stereo-typed gamer in SouthPark 'Warcraft' episode.

I completely agree with what you say about the Vindicators. Even outside the fluff, I wouldn't want to face three vindicators any more than the next fortified building, but I don't believe people should be either rewarded or penalised for playing within the same rules as everyone else. You know, those rules that stop you from having six vindicators.

Having never been even slightly overweight, I'll refrain from comment on the rest.

"I'll refrain from comment on the rest."

Yeah, I fully expect to get a blast for posting that, but it it's morbidly humorous to see some Jabba-esque dude wheeze his way to the front (having just walked farther than at any other time during the day) of the room to accept the award for "Best General."

Although the funniest thing I ever saw was back in my submarine days when one of our guys who was hugely overweight ordered 2 large Pizzas and a 6 pack of DIET Coke...then proceeded to eat the whole thing in one sitting. As if the DIET Coke was going to help.

I kind of look at comp as a (read as "one of"... not "the only") measure of generalship. Who can do the best with the least?

There are configurations that are simply easier to win with than others... now-a-days usually referred to as "competitive builds". Comp scores are simply a way of rewarding those who take non-competitive builds with extra points.

If they lose a lot... the config points shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things. If they win... well, maybe they are the better general as they can win with a worse army. Conversely, one could argue that choosing the army is part of being a good general... so it can go either was as I see it.

Our FLGS typically does not use comp in it's scoring (maybe one point of out say... 25-30) and I don't really miss it. But then our tournaments tend to be very competitive (even though I'm not) so I suspect the bulk of our local gamers probably wouldn't want comp to be a major factor.

I will say that I have more respect for a player who can win with a "non-competitive" build than I do for someone who wins with a ringer as it usually takes far more skill, creativity and risk-taking to do so, but that's just my personal opinion.

@dkellyj

BMI is a terrible measurement of an individual's fitness level. It is simply a height to weight ratio and does not take into account increased muscularity. I personally have a BMI of 31.6 but at 6'4" and 260lbs, I hardly consider myself obese. In fact, as a varsity college wrestler, I would consider myself in better shape than most other wargamers.

I see your point but, due to my hatred of BMI, must disagree with you. Perhaps a one point deduction for every body fat percentage point over 24%.

the last i check, comp scoring is done on the army, not the player. on topic again, please?

while i think there is a place for comp in tournies, i don't think it should be used for final points scoring. an elegant solution i've seen reported here is that you use comp to determine pairings for the first round.

warboss wrote:the last i check, comp scoring is done on the army, not the player. on topic again, please?

while i think there is a place for comp in tournies, i don't think it should be used for final points scoring. an elegant solution i've seen reported here is that you use comp to determine pairings for the first round.

I like this idea.

Comp is basically a handicapping system like in golf. Generally speaking less powerful or more fluff oriented lists get high comp scores. More powerful or less fluff oriented lists get low comp scores.

It is primarily used to close the scoring gap between weaker lists and more powerful armies that tend to beat them.

It is primarily used to close the scoring gap between weaker lists and more powerful armies that tend to beat them.

Sort of begs the question: Since we all have access to the same books and models, if you choose to bring something fluffy to a Tournament (vice a pickup game at the FLGS) shouldn't you expect to have your butt kicked?
Granted, some armies (Eldar, WH/DH, Crons, etc) are disadvantaged due to the age of their Codex, but you can still put together some rock-hard (but spammy) non-fluffy lists. If your Army is getting beat because of fluff or age, put it away until it gets an update or accept the fact your going to be in the 5-10th place area. (I did that with my beloved SoBs...)

"Comp is basically a handicapping system like in golf."
Which is why i don't play golf. I suck at it. I know i suck at it. And the last time i checked, while you can play your handicap at the FLGS (Friendly Local Golf Shop), you could not use it as a ticket to play in The Masters.
That is what Comp has become: 20 Free shots so the scrubs at the bottom of the field get to make the final walk with Tiger Woods.

(EDIT) Now, if GW decides on an Official definition and ruling on what a "Comp" score is and how it will be determined and what it provides in the tournament format then that would be great. Everyone would know EXACTLY what rules they are playing under. But the current system where it may or may not be used, and if used it may or may not be subjective to an arbitrary judge who cares not for "your fluff" (3 vindis and 2 ironclad Dreds in a Fists Army could be quite fluffy...they are the Masters of Siege breaking...IMHO) is too chaotic.
Barring that, the TOs who plan to use Comp should spell it out in the same way so you can choose whether or not you want to drop several hundred dollars (or even a grand) in travel, time off, hotels, tickets, time away from family, etc to attend a tourny that they suddenly find out they have no chance of winning because some stranger decided they don't like 3 Monoliths and a butt-ton of Warriors.

dkellyj wrote:And the last time i checked, while you can play your handicap at the FLGS (Friendly Local Golf Shop), you could not use it as a ticket to play in The Masters.
That is what Comp has become: 20 Free shots so the scrubs at the bottom of the field get to make the final walk with Tiger Woods.

lol, dude, you need to tone down the exageration. it's chicken little "the sky is falling!" posts like this that end any reasonable discussion of comp in tournies. can you give me a single example of someone with a gakky list who got into the vegas finals or ard boyz finals (the "masters" of 40k) due to comp earlier in the season? how about an example of someone from a really big tourny like adepticon or bolscon/gamescon who got into a final because of comp earlier/elsewhere? how about a SINGLE example from ANY tourny involving more than 10 people to go along with your post that shows how high comp with low battle scores got someone into the finals?

Actually everytime the subject of comp scores comes up someone always throws out the Golf Handicap analogy. I was merely showing how the analogy fails the comparison in that at a higher level of play, golf does not count handicap scores.

As for your challenge, I think you are looking at it backwards. It's not about someone getting INTO an event becuase of their comp scores (or painting for that matter); but I would imagine their are a fair number of people who feel they did NOT get a ticket because of an arbitrary soft score ruling against them. A ruling that can't be apealed, nor any explanation given, so the player knows what to expect next time (if the TO thinks 3 Vindis is poor comp, fine...let us know so we can retool our list (drop a Vindi, pick up a 2nd Dred??).

Again, Comp or not...at least create a standard and let people know what your looking for and what it will cost. Then we can decide if we think we can go 5-0 with a hard list, or if we should tone it down so a 4-1 score can still get the 2nd place Rennesiance Man ticket (knowing the other 4-1 ard list will get dinged on comp).

As for Ad Boyz...No comp no painting. Plus a rediculous amount of points to get every toy you want. That one-off Tourny really does not apply.

dkellyj wrote:Which is why i don't play golf. I suck at it. I know i suck at it. And the last time i checked, while you can play your handicap at the FLGS (Friendly Local Golf Shop), you could not use it as a ticket to play in The Masters.
That is what Comp has become: 20 Free shots so the scrubs at the bottom of the field get to make the final walk with Tiger Woods.
*snip*
Barring that, the TOs who plan to use Comp should spell it out in the same way so you can choose whether or not you want to drop several hundred dollars (or even a grand) in travel, time off, hotels, tickets, time away from family, etc to attend a tourny that they suddenly find out they have no chance of winning because some stranger decided they don't like 3 Monoliths and a butt-ton of Warriors.

dkellyj wrote:As for your challenge, I think you are looking at it backwards. It's not about someone getting INTO an event becuase of their comp scores (or painting for that matter); but I would imagine their are a fair number of people who feel they did NOT get a ticket because of an arbitrary soft score ruling against them. A ruling that can't be apealed, nor any explanation given, so the player knows what to expect next time (if the TO thinks 3 Vindis is poor comp, fine...let us know so we can retool our list (drop a Vindi, pick up a 2nd Dred??)

i'm not looking at it backwards; i'm just repeating your example. you make the grandious claim in your comp conspiracy theory post that 20 scrubs get to play with the big boys like tiger woods simply because of comp. if those 20 get to go, 20 more "deserving" people didn't get "into an event becuase of their comp scores". i hear the same crap repeated over and over regarding comp and yet no one is ever able to point to a discreet example of ANYTHING resembling what they're claiming. it's all smoke and mirrors without any facts to back it up. is it theoretically possible? sure. in practice, does it happen with even 1/1000 of the frequency that anti-comp people bring it up as examples in forum thread? nope.

dkellyj wrote:Actually everytime the subject of comp scores comes up someone always throws out the Golf Handicap analogy. I was merely showing how the analogy fails the comparison in that at a higher level of play, golf does not count handicap scores.

I think you're making the incorrect assumption that I think comp is a good thing. I was making the analogy because it is exactly like a golf handicap and the fact that tournaments use comp at high levels of tournament play is indeed completely ridiculous.

Comp is a handicapping system, for better or for worse. If we use it in a casual fun game it might be a beneficial thing that makes the game more interesting for both players. If we use it in a high level tournament? It probably skews the results a bit and might prevent the best player from actually winning. Do we want the best lists to win at these tournaments? A comp system appears to say no.

@Warboss

The SVDM had a huge issue with the 20 arbitrary comp points handed out. Alll Nid lists basically got a 1-4. Putting them pretty low and in a hard to come back from point disadvantage.

Hulksmash wrote:@Warboss

The SVDM had a huge issue with the 20 arbitrary comp points handed out. Alll Nid lists basically got a 1-4. Putting them pretty low and in a hard to come back from point disadvantage.

yeah, i commented on the many issues in that one (like tourny organizers playing in the tourney). nids all got screwed in comp... but how did they do in battle points? my point is that no one has ever not won a tournament (or at least reported it here with verifiable results) because of it. i honestly don't remember how the nid players did in their actual games. also, i don't recall (maybe you do) what % comp was of the final score. getting screwed on comp when it's 5% of the total doesn't mean much.

i'm fine with you taking on my no-prize bet on dkellyj's behalf. here's my original quest:

"how about a SINGLE example from ANY tourny involving more than 10 people to go along with your post that shows how high comp with low battle scores got someone into the finals? "

dkellyj wrote:
Although the funniest thing I ever saw was back in my submarine days when one of our guys who was hugely overweight ordered 2 large Pizzas and a 6 pack of DIET Coke...then proceeded to eat the whole thing in one sitting. As if the DIET Coke was going to help.

The diet coke wasn't going to 'help', but it wasn't going to involve another sixty-six teaspoons of refined sugar either. Incidentally, I weigh 67 kilograms and can easily eat two large pizzas in a sitting. I just don't weigh 67 kilograms again until the next day. But you didn't need to know that.

Unlike painting, the guidelines for marking compostion cannot be laid out so objectively. 'Ard Boyz is not the average tournament by any means, and it makes perfect sense that painting and composition are not used given that the early rounds involve local organisers rather than a centralised authority.