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.

So, I posted this in the tournament discussion area and am reposting it here to get some feedback. Comp sucks, but here is an idea for a system that may actually do what it is meant to do: Help weak armies and encourage people to actually bring them without forcing people to change their armies which is hugely annoying. No one wants to be told how to play. This eliminates the subjectivity of player judges comp and the chipmunking that it opens the door to. Also, instead of a bonus to battle points, it could simply be a comp score based on your army. The effect would be the same.

Tier system: Bonus based on a 100 battle point scale. For those of you who don't play in tournaments, often who wins is decided by a single point. A 5 point bonus is significant. A 25 point bonus is huge, more than max points in a single game.

Tier 1: Wolves, BA, IG, Orks: straight battle points

Tier 2: SM, CSM, Tyranids, BT, Eldar, DE, Daemons: +5 Battle points

Tier 3: Tau, Sisters, Dark Angels: +15 Battle Points

Tier 4: Necrons, Daemon Hunters: +25 Battle Points

Comp stinks, but hey, this at least actually benefits the weak armies and everyone still gets to bring what they want to bring. If you bring a balls out list, you will start out with less points, but can still earn the W through superior play. You bring a weak list but play the hell out of it, you can take the tournament.

Would it work? I don't know, but it seems to level the playing field in a relatively fair way. No one wants to be told what to bring, or to have to buy, assemble and paint new models. So this gets around that.

Plus, it gives a pretty damn big bonus to the weak armies. As a Cron or DH player you start out with a massacre and change. That is a huge bump.

I'll put it like this:

If this system were implemented I would definitely bring my Necrons to that tournament which would make me very happy.

They haven't seen a tournament since I realized that a few guardsmen with a power weapon can run off 20 warriors in 5th edition.

I would be down for something like that, my only concerns are orks are Tier 2, and the you will have a problem with the DH and WH ally rules.


I can see people taking an inq and min troops just for the points and filling the rest of the list up with good units from other codex.

Yeah, I think this would actually encourage the weaker armies to come. Might have to try it at an RTT and see how it works.

As for which armies are which tier, that would be a point of debate, but the overall system is what I was curious about.

I think it could work. Though the numbers would have to be skewed based on the number of games played. The numbers given are fine for a 5 game tournament but broken as hell for a 3 game

And based on results around the country and most events I've personally attended Orks should probably be straight BP's since whether the internet likes it or not they are a very solid and consistantly winning codex.

I think it has merit. The only issue I see with it is not all BA/SW/IG/Ork lists are tier 1. For example;

John brings his SW with Razorbacks, TWC, optimized and ready to beat face. He takes a hit for bringing a Wolves army but hey he's ready for that given his list, he'll just stomp people enough during the tournament to make up for it.

Tim brings his SW with a Blood Claw theme, non-optimized but centered around the Claws because he likes their fluff. He takes a hit for bringing a Wolves army in the same manner as John and he's not ready for that, as he'll struggle against an equally skilled (but better list bringing) opponent.

@Hulk

I agree on Orks, but the minutiae of the system isn't all that important, it's the system itself. I think it is the only comp system that actually makes sense. Although sense I have not played it, I could be totally wrong.

A percentage of points works better as it scales to the size of the event.

@AgeOfEgos

Yeah, good point. It does encourage people to bring the nastiest lists they can within their bracket since they take a hit regardless.

If you boil it down to a list judgment though, you bring a lot of subjectivity to the table and people will always feel that the judges were off. For that to work it really relies on some very knowledgeable judges.

You'll have to deal with some drama over what tier armies belong in... but I would personally love to attend an event using this system to try it out and see how it works in practice

Yes, true. But that is unavoidable. If you had a panel of judges who were all respected tournament players, that would be the best way to handle it.

They have a similar system to this in Australia. The thing is they give lower tier armies more points, like actual points to buy units. Problem is that often this just means more stuff for the power armies to kill. It actually disadvantages the weaker armies.

By giving the weaker armies a head start, in theory at least, it levels the playing field.

I'll have to try and organize an RTT and utilize the system, see how it works.

Reecius wrote:@Hulk

@AgeOfEgos

Yeah, good point. It does encourage people to bring the nastiest lists they can within their bracket since they take a hit regardless.

If you boil it down to a list judgment though, you bring a lot of subjectivity to the table and people will always feel that the judges were off. For that to work it really relies on some very knowledgeable judges.

I agree, it's a tough call. I've suggested it before but just to add; Maybe if you added a Unique/Cool score to the overall...then it would encourage a variety of armies to be played. So someone playing a Blood Claw Wolves army gets a slight hit from the comp perspective but a high bump from the Unique/Cool perspective...but the Razor/TWC spam guy still takes the hit (with no benefit as how many of those do you farking see)....

The problem with basing bonus points off of theme is that some themes are powerful while others are weak. Speed Freak Orks and Horde Orks. Cool theme, very powerful. All Grey Knight Daemon hunters. Cool theme, crappy army.

I suppose you could have a system wherein there was some wiggle room. Such as a +/- 5 point adjustment.

If you take Logan Wing -5, if you take Ravenwing DA -5, if you take Blood Claws +5, 3 squads of Ogryn +5.

Something like that to adjust individual list strengths and weaknesses.

Reecius wrote:The problem with basing bonus points off of theme is that some themes are powerful while others are weak. Speed Freak Orks and Horde Orks. Cool theme, very powerful. All Grey Knight Daemon hunters. Cool theme, crappy army.

I suppose you could have a system wherein there was some wiggle room. Such as a +/- 5 point adjustment.

If you take Logan Wing -5, if you take Ravenwing DA -5, if you take Blood Claws +5, 3 squads of Ogryn +5.

Something like that to adjust individual list strengths and weaknesses.

Right, that's where I was going with it. I mean I guess it depends on what your ultimate goal is with comp right? The one valid reason I can think of for some sort of comp, is to encourage variety in armies you face. When I go to Adepticon...after paying the money for the gas/hotel/registration/etc...I really hope I play armies that look cool (and are different from the usual local scene). This is why I believe in some style of comp that encourages such armies.

If you are using comp simply as a balancing factor in terms of table strength...well I think it becomes much more difficult to achieve variety.

Reecius wrote:So, I posted this in the tournament discussion area and am reposting it here to get some feedback.

Tournament discussion goes in the tournament discussion area. I'm not seeing a thread there on this, so am assuming you posted it in another thread... So I'm going to move this one over so the discussion can continue in the appropriate place.

I would bring my demon hunters with heavy guard allies spamming ... thanks for the win.

Acknowledge that DA and Necron are in the pits a little bit, that DA players can count-as if they feel the need to compete in a tournament for the time being, that Necron will get a new dex in 2011, and that Comp - as ever - benefits players who will take time to break codices, comp rules, etc., and punishes players who won't (which is exactly who benefits and is punished the most from no-comp already anyway) ... and if you acknowledge these things (as I know you already have anyway on a personal level, Reece), you realize that the game is what it is, it works, and trying to re-write it to your own standards HURTS peoples' enjoyment in unreasonable ways while simultaneously highlighting the simple fact that "you" the complover may simply not be built to enjoy 40k at the tournament level at present (and what's wrong with that, anyway?).

That said, comp tournaments done just for "gaks and giggles," well sure, go for it, but there are better comp systems for that than this (IMO).

Perhaps this is going to be a bit skewed, but what if you were to base comp on the ratio of players to armies? The more players bringing the same codex to the tourney, the lower ther comp scores will be. start with 20 points, or whatever number you settle on, per codex and divide them up between the players with a common codex, rounding down. Example: 10 BA players, 6 SW players, 2 orks and a necron player show up for a tourney. The BA players split the points at 2 per person, the SW players split at 3 per person, the orks at 10 per person, and the necron player gets a total of 20 points, for being the only one.

This will allow you to keep up with the flavor of the month armies, but will also start everyone in the positive, so fewer people complain about being docked points for taking certain things. If you take a less popular choice, you'll be better rewarded, but the damage won't be quite so bad, since everybody is splitting the same pot per codex.

Dronze wrote:Perhaps this is going to be a bit skewed, but what if you were to base comp on the ratio of players to armies? The more players bringing the same codex to the tourney, the lower ther comp scores will be. start with 20 points, or whatever number you settle on, per codex and divide them up between the players with a common codex, rounding down. Example: 10 BA players, 6 SW players, 2 orks and a necron player show up for a tourney. The BA players split the points at 2 per person, the SW players split at 3 per person, the orks at 10 per person, and the necron player gets a total of 20 points, for being the only one.

This will allow you to keep up with the flavor of the month armies, but will also start everyone in the positive, so fewer people complain about being docked points for taking certain things. If you take a less popular choice, you'll be better rewarded, but the damage won't be quite so bad, since everybody is splitting the same pot per codex.

this sounds to me like the throne of skulls kool-aid

Let's not get anything wrong here. I HATE comp. I think it is flawed and don't enjoy being told what I can and can't bring. I also agree that traditional comp systems don't do what they are meant to do. They don't work.

However, that attitude is not the norm. Comped events draw bigger crowds, by far. This may change in coming years, but it is fact at present.

In terms of leveling the playing field I think this system is the least invasive form of it. I am not married to the idea, nor do I state that it would work as I don't know. It does seem, to me anyway, to be a compromise between both schools of thought. You want to bring the rock hard list, fine. But the other guy wants to come and use his Crons, OK, and here he has a chance of winning.

You could break the system I am sure. I wasn't trying to say you couldn't. I am not presenting this as a polished system ready to implement into a tournament. I was more interested in people's feedback on the fundamental concept. If we had a system that, as AgeOfEgos said, encouraged a wider variety of armies then I think that is a benefit. You would have to account for situations like you state Mike, where loop holes were addressed.

@Dronze
That is a bit too random, IMO. What if by chance 5 Tau players show up? They get hosed.

At any rate, I would love to see all no comp tournaments, but not everyone feels that way. If it must exist, I feel a system that simplify benefits the weak without penalizing the strong or telling people what they can or can not bring is best.

I'd rather see armies that look like armies rather than a collection of the baddest rule-pushing min/maxed models in the codex. That's why I still play 40k and WFB instead of Warmachine/Hordes.

Reecius wrote:Let's not get anything wrong here. I HATE comp. I think it is flawed and don't enjoy being told what I can and can't bring. I also agree that traditional comp systems don't do what they are meant to do. They don't work.

However, that attitude is not the norm. Comped events draw bigger crowds, by far. This may change in coming years, but it is fact at present.

I find this interesting if true (and I think it is) since reading on the internet would lead me to believe otherwise! (About comped events being more popular)

The 'Ard Boyz attendance was suprisingly low for fantasy, but I thought part of that might be people still getting "Ard Boyz level" armies together with the new rules (but it's not as likely since there's no painting requirement).

I do think I enjoy comped events more- since I don't tend to have the hardest list, it would usually give me the better chance. Also, the guys in my gaming group are the friendly gamer crowd and wouldn't be up for something like 'Ard Boyz.

However, I also play with the Inner Circle club near here at tournies and I know they love an uncomped one and it's actually fun to see them in action at something like 'Ard Boyz and see what they can pull out.

But from when we had this discussion before, I am still really wanting to see a comp system that works in practice. I would love to hear if you tried this and how it went (although unfortunately I'd have no chance of attending, given that you're on the opposite coast!).

I can run in both circles, and wish there wasn't such vehemence on both sides of the comp issue. There can be events for different kinds of gamers, and it'd be great to hear about a comped one that was a success!

Or you can avoid the whole issue entirely and do something like it looks like DakkaCon will be- a fun, laid back event, that has multiple things going on and isn't a tournament anyway, and so doesn't require comp (but also doesn't attract super hard lists, since it's a casual affair). At least that's what I'm hoping it will be . We'll find out in January!

@Reecius

Comp events don't actually draw the largest crowds. I'm pretty sure Wargamescon doesn't do comp. Adepticon's big RTT doesn't do comp. Nova didn't do comp. You'll note that's 3 of the 4-5 events that pulled over 80 people for 40k that don't have comp. And arguably the 3 most successful with the 4th being apparently the DaBoyz which is the only large event with comp in the US anyway that I know of. I don't think comp actually brings a bigger field in at all.

I do think it hurts starting tournaments. DaBoyz put on a hell of an event (from what I hear) but they've also been doing it for 5 years. Meaning they started in this style while GW GT's were the standard so comp was accepted. This gave them years to build a reliable crowd based on that model. Which is awesome. But I think in start-up events comp hurts more than helps. Just my two cents.

Actually, I think Adepticon, and Wargamescon both used comp. I think it was player judged at Adepticon. I know the team tournament was. I think the Gladiator was no comp, but the GT was.

Da Greand WAGHH!!, Da Boyz, and Broadside bash are all heavily comped.

I hope that is a trend that changes, but we'll see. I agree with you though that it seems that the no comp route is the more popular for new events at present.

@RiTides
Yeah, I will see if we can't try it out and give it a whirl. I prefer no comp but if a system can keep both sides of the argument happy and draw in bigger crowds, then everyone wins.

@Durzod
What does an army look like to you? A collection of toy soldiers looks like an army to me regardless of which units they are.

BoLScon did not use comp.

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks Bloodthirstar.

Reecius wrote:Let's not get anything wrong here. I HATE comp. I think it is flawed and don't enjoy being told what I can and can't bring. I also agree that traditional comp systems don't do what they are meant to do. They don't work.

You and I are in agreement here, Reecius. I don't like to see comp, personally, and think it's been outdated and in need of amputation for a while, but people have been so insistant on keeping this bit of gangrenous rot that they don't realize that it's killing progress in the meta.

@Dronze
That is a bit too random, IMO. What if by chance 5 Tau players show up? They get hosed.

At any rate, I would love to see all no comp tournaments, but not everyone feels that way. If it must exist, I feel a system that simplify benefits the weak without penalizing the strong or telling people what they can or can not bring is best.

Certainly, it's not perfect, but it's a method of scoring that can actually keep up with the metagame without having to revise it every 3 months... It's certainly balances better on a larger field, where diversity is a little more solid, but i don't use comp scoring in the tournies I run, as i think it's generally a subjective thing to begin with.

The AdeptiCon Championships hasn't used Comp in years. The Team Tournament event had a 1 3-point question on comp that was responsible for 5% of your overall score. That question has since been removed from the event.

Yay! I was right But I think it does show that Non-comp events are actually the bigger pull nowadays and what the community truly wants.

Damn then I was way wrong!

Haha, color me incorrect.

Well then, this idea will most likely end up in the good old round file!

There actually was a 1 point question in the Sportsmanship list the last few years that dealt with Comp - but that accounted for a grand total of 3 points out of like 240. Hardly Comp scoring. That said, Sportsmanship is being handled very differently in 2011 and this is no longer included.

I was in the team tournament at adepticon last year and the fantasy tournament. The fantasy tournament had comp and I think the team tournament did, too. I didn't sign up in time to get a ticket for the championship or gladiator.

Well, I was wrong, and glad to be seeing the no comp tournaments rising in popularity. They are simpler and better, IMO.

My little idea seems to have lost relevance, like a fart in the breeze.

I can't wait for Adepticon this year, you guys do a killer job, Mathias. My team and I have already started our army.

There was Comp on the Fantasy side for sure. I don't have any influence over there, nor should I - I know nothing about Fantasy anymore!

Very minimal scoring the 40K Team Tournament - 24 possible points (5%) of your Team's Overall score. That was a weird leftover from the 4th Edition scoring and was meant to actually be removed in 2010, but got lost in the shuffle. It is gone for 2011 as is the Sportsmanship checklist.