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.

what's the best way to go about creating an Composition scored list for 40k tournaments?

I have tried have something in each FOC slot, with the majority in troops
I have tried not taking any special characters
I even tried writing up a background for the army as fluff

doesn't seem to make much difference.

As general rule I try to stay away from the whole min/max lists (IG AV12 spam, Nob Bikers/Lootas, MechDar, TW calv/razorspam, etc), this also doesn't seem to change much.

Just wondering what others expectations, experiences are in this regard.

Gah. Misunderstood the question.

Dash is correct. Find out what the criteria is and go from there.

There's only ONE single right answer to this:

Talk to the organizer. If the tournament that you're going to unfortunately has composition scoring, talk to the organizer about what criteria they're looking for. If it isn't spelled out in a rules packet, ask questions. There is no standard, no right answer, no correct list - only the whim of the organizer and the judges.

The last time I took a fluffy list to a comp scored tournament, missing all the normal face beating stuff, I got 7.5/20 points. I decided that I would never again pay attention to composition scoring, and take what I wanted anyway. I'd actually encourage you to do the same, but that's my opinion. Short of that, see item #1.

There is already comp in the game, it is the force org chart. That and only troops can score. I think comp is just a way for tournaments to penalize good players who take solid choices. As far as not min maxing I can appreciate that, but remember those who do are rarely able to make an all comers list for every mission.

Good points all, and I am under the same belief that the FOC already provides for the balance of the lists (even if others may not agree).

This is what I got from the TO last year:

Composition
Player’s composition will be scored by players and game judges. Players will score one another for each game round based on their opponent’s army list. Each round is worth between 0 and 5 points. The game judges will also provide a score for each army’s composition based on the following:
Was the list turned in on time via email? (4 pts)
Does the list have any math errors? (1 pts)
Is the list easy to follow with all the entries clearly marked? (1 pts)
Are characters and units given creative names to help give the army character? (2 pts)
Is there a clear theme/ or a story written to help explain why certain units are picked? (2 pts)
Judges will also score the army list provided based the same composition scoring sheets used by the opponents for each round (5 pts)

Player Comp sheet:
COMPOSITION (Maximum of 5 pts) SCORE _________

Please select only one of the following that appropriately represents your opponent’s army.

 This army is a great representation of a competitive and well balanced army. I found nothing wrong with this great army. (5 pts)
 This is a nice army, but there are a few things this army with a few “tricks”, but very fair to play against. (4 pts)
 This army has some balance and looks good on paper, but there are some strong combinations used to win. (3 pts)
 This army is ok, but there are some obvious combinations or min/max being done here. (2 pts)
 This army is riddled with some very nasty combinations. (1 pts)
 This army’s sole purpose is to win Best General, nothing more. (0 pts)


given the above, suggestions?

That seems fair.

So what army are you using? Like I said, different armies have different fluff.

going for eldar (I run eldar, nids, and IG genestealer cult)

current makeup is brief fluff, everything painted well (I like to think so at least ), minimal duplication (only the heavy is duplicated once)

2 HQ
1 Elite
4 Troop
1 FA
2 HS


don't want to post list as this really isn't the place for it.


I am a fairly seasoned player and can usually make what I have work for me, so I am not too concerned about min-max (although of course some draws are better than others). My typical battle record is 2-1-0 (W/T/L), and I like to think I am not a Dink when played against, but for many of the tourneys around here (at least the big ones) is a combination of points for the overall winner; battle-points/composition/painting/and of course the dreaded sportsmanship.

Just based on that I'd say it should be worth a 3 or a 4 at least.

Basically, it seems to me that these days comp often means "don't spam the best units".

That said, Dash is right, check with the TO and see if you can get lists that scored max at the previous one and use that as a guide (not necessarily a template).

Another thing is that it seems like there is player judged comp. If that is the case take a few seconds to describe the theme to your opponent. It shows you put thought into it beyond what are the best things. Heck, if you are a good enough flim flam artist you can make someone give you a perfect comp score with a nasty list.

Despite being a champion of Comp for many years, I am not a big fan of player-judged comp, especially when it takes the form of a 5pt sliding scale. IME there is a wide disparity of opinion between players on what constitutes what, and a 2 on one table could easily be judged as a 4 on the next.

The closest I ever saw to a decent player-judged Comp score was in Marty ("Mr. Clean")'s WH events at Adepticon. A three-level scale only, to make it easy. The first part completed before the game after exchanging army lists, and the second afterward.

Part 1
1pt: This army is abusive. It is designed purely to win IN A WAY WHICH manipulates loopholes and/or abuses Allies, and disregards player enjoyment, such as a pure Gunline or Magic-fest.
3pts: Tournament hard. A normal army, designed to win.
5pts: Fluffy bunny. An army which has been substantially handicapped by its owner's desire to fit some particular fluff or enjoy/paint certain units, at the cost of making it noncompetitive in my opinion.

Then after the match, Part 2:
-1: This army was stronger than it looked.
0: My judgement before the match was correct.
+1: This army was softer than it looked.

-----------------

I'm still not a huge fan, but I think this one winds up with LESS subjective variance.

Overall, I think that 5th edition in general requires Comp substantially less than 3rd or 4th did. The need Troops to Score and the KPs over VPs mission parameters make it much less in need of it. Modern codices tend to be better balanced, and virtually everyone is on the internet and has access to basic principles of good list design. I am much more comfortable in and happier with non-Comped events nowadays than at any other time in the twelve years I've been playing.

About the only Comp system I really get behind nowadays is handicapping based purely on list power; leave theme or fluff entirely out of it. Some fluffy armies are brutal, and some are pushovers.

If you have a council (3-10, maybe, depending on the size & scale of your event and the guys available) of veteran players who each play several armies, and the TO anonymizes the army lists (to remove any favoritism for or against certain players) before the comp council guys rate/judge them, you can get a decent assessment and give certain armies which are coming from cruddier codices and/or just have units chosen more for flavor than power get a bit of a bonus in the overall standings. This can encourage more variety in the lists used and help keep the top of the standings and the lists there from always showing the same things.

See now that is a pretty good spread for comp and better than the 5pt slide (per player mind you), allows for less 'subjective' assessments of the army list in question

That 3-level comp score is great!

I'm not a fan of comp, but a thought to those who complain about it - Comp scoring is no different from writing your own missions.

As soon as you write a non-book mission, or change the parameters of the mission, you fiddle with the balance of the game, the balance of the codexes, and give some units preference over others. These are all the same reasons that comp is considered 'bad' - because it fiddles with the balance of the FOC and the codexes.

The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

At the end of the day did the SW or the Tau have more tournament points, overall?

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

Mannahnin wrote:At the end of the day did the SW or the Tau have more tournament points, overall?

Not sure I just remeber seeing that he scored very low in comp with a very friendly list in terms of real killing power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

This is how comp should be done if it has to be done at all.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

Razorspam would blow right through this with 20/20 points. Another example that comp doesn't work.

Just to make that clear:

What is comp all about?

If I see such things:

Part 1
1pt: This army is abusive. It is designed purely to win IN A WAY WHICH manipulates loopholes and/or abuses Allies, and disregards player enjoyment, such as a pure Gunline or Magic-fest.
3pts: Tournament hard. A normal army, designed to win.
5pts: Fluffy bunny. An army which has been substantially handicapped by its owner's desire to fit some particular fluff or enjoy/paint certain units, at the cost of making it noncompetitive in my opinion.

Then after the match, Part 2:
-1: This army was stronger than it looked.
0: My judgement before the match was correct.
+1: This army was softer than it looked.

I have to say this can be used very well to "revenge" a defeat against just a good player.
And it implies that good comp necessarily means less strong army.

If I would vote comp. I never would take non-competitiveness on purpose into consideration.

In my opinion there are 2 ways of doing it:

1. If you just want to clear your tournament from certain specific builds, then you should just ban them before it even started. Make a list what you dont want to see and control the players lists before.

But remember, you will not balance the game doing this. You will just see different armies, not different games. If that is your intention: Go ahead.

2. If you want a vote for fluffy or innovative armies, then PLEASE dont vote for non-competitiveness. Otherwise you honour the worst army instead of the most stylish.
Encourage the lads to bring some nicely designed army lists, write fluff stories about it, customize their units and to bring themed armies.
And if a khorne daemon army consists of 2 bloodthirsters, 2x8 crushers and 4x8 letters it is extremely fluffy. (8 units in the army, 8 in the respective FOC-slot and mono khorne)
So it should receive full marks. (If it is painted well, if there is made some effort in it like squad names and such)
Yes, it is not the most competitive army, but certainly is not the worst.

But dont expect to improve the balance at all.

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

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

OK let me explain:

You have the choice between A, B and C.

C is a common known competetive build (least diversity)
B is a themed build (more diversity)
A is a casual build (most diversity)

In a tournament honouring generalship, why would you not choose C?

or, to speak in numbers (estimated):

C = 1-2
B = 3-5
A = 6-10

So, most players will choose C. Therefore we have mostly number 1 and number 2. There is a possibility to take the other options, but you wont because it soundly decreases your chance to win your games. Especially against C builds.
So we have much hidden diversity but in fact diversity will most likely not exist.
So if we ban 1-2 completely (I spoke of lists, not units), we have 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 at our disposal (with a quite equal chance of running one of them). This is much more diversity than 1 and 2.

Or simpler: If we ban C, we allow A and B to exist. 2:1

But the problem is, that this is not completely the case.
If you kill C you must introduce D, which is:

D is a common known competitive build if C is not available.
And we have the same problem.
But we have D instead of C, so thats diversity too.

Illumini wrote:

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Jubear wrote:The worst thing about comp is that generally only the TO has any say. My friend got blasted at cancon last month despite playing SW and not having any TWC or more then one 6 man unit of LFs but he still lost heaps of points for having al his greyhunter packs armed the same (done mostly for ease of play).

It also makes life hard for the older codex to have any chance for example if i was trying to play Tau at a tourny I would have to run a net list just to bring them up to par with the top tier armies.

However because the TO dcides that my army is spam driven I loose alot of comp points even tho a hard as nails tau army is still underpowered.

I actually think that having the TO adjudicate the armies is better than the players. Players rate comp after the game, so tend to vote armies they beat as being better for comp. Done properly, however, the TO will asign comp scores before any games are played. Idealy, the TO will also use an impartial scoring method. Hopefully, the TO would also release a sheet of the comp rules to anyone joining the Tournament, so that they know how they are being judged. A small blurb in the package, that looked something like this:

Hi, players. For this years [insert tournament here], we will be using the following method for evaluating comp scores (out of 20).

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.

By doing this, we hope to encourage variety from our players.
[Insert TO here]

By releasing the comp rules, the TO would allow players to build lists specifically for the tournament, instead of springing a poor score on them without warning.

Razorspam would blow right through this with 20/20 points. Another example that comp doesn't work.

100% SS/TH + CML Terminator Deathwing also blows right through this. The more elaborate the comp system, the more it fails in its goal.

I would prefer to say:

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

That comp was just an example of how it should be done if you are going to do it, but now I kinda want to do the impossable and make it work.

6) For every troops unit (excluding the first) that has fewer than 10 models, -1.

That would hopefuly limit Deathwing/Razorspam a bit.

List 1:

2x Imperial Guard Platoons - only 2 troops taken (never mind that they're 400 pts and numerous squads apiece) -1 comp

400 point IG platoon - 2 comp for 20% list total

Imperial Guard Heavy Weapons Team - Troops Unit, 3 models, -1 comp for being under 10

Leman Russ Vanquisher with heavy bolter sponsons (largely regarded as one of the worst variants), -1 comp

LR Battle tank, heavy bolter sponsons, -1 comp

LR Demolisher, -1 comp

Max heavies, -2 comp

Lord Commissar and Colonel Iron Hand Straken, max HQ, -2 comp

So far we're at -11 in what's looking to be a diverse and decidedly less-than-optimized list.


List 2

6x Imperial Guard Veterans Squads in Chimera, max melta/plasma, 2x Manticores, 2x min. squad Stormtroopers with melta.

Max comp.

The more you add to this system to "fix 40k army comp" the more loopholes you're going to create for one of the newer, arguably "better" codices to find ways to get a relatively high comp score while an older codex with fewer options simply gets shafted.

1) For every duplicate non-troops choice, -1 point.
2) For every unit with at least 20% of the points value, -2 points.
3) If the player has completely filled any non-troops slot on the force organization chart, -2 point.
4) If the player has only the minimum 2 troops choices, -1 point.
5) For every vehicle unit with a total armour value of 34+, -1 point.
6) For every troops unit (excluding the first) that has fewer than 10 models, -1.

This is rubbish. Sourclams pointed out why.
With general "penalties" you cannot create a good balance. It is just plain impossible.
GWs balance is not that bad.
Again, if you dont want certain units, ban them outright, if you dont want certain builds, ban them outright. But dont try to create a better balance.
If you want fluffy lists, then honour it and dont complain about competitiveness...

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:That comp was just an example of how it should be done if you are going to do it, but now I kinda want to do the impossable and make it work.

6) For every troops unit (excluding the first) that has fewer than 10 models, -1.

That would hopefuly limit Deathwing/Razorspam a bit.

And just produce more fail as sourclams has pointed out.

Ah well, was worth a shot.

Cheers!

I am a big fan of keeping it simple and also of not having other players rate your list, because someone is bound to be a dink.


Something like this:


Provide List and Breakdown of Unit Roles/Fluff/or Strategy for TO

1pt No clear purpose for many units; lack of theme, fluff or strategy
3pt Clear Purpose, every unit has a role to fullfill, synergy within the army comprehensible, or fluff clearly represented
5pt This list is sick, tight strategy AND unique

Modified as follows:

for each Win +1
for each Loss -1

I personally think that comp is a way to give the illusion that it will be a fair playing field. I think that Sourclams did a great job illustrating that point. Also, any good player will just build around the rules and still bring a rock list. Lastly, IMHO, comp was necessary back in previous editions, but in the new rules I think that the FOC does a fine job.

I agree that scoring comp is hard and i dont feel that players should have any hand in comp scoring their opponent. Something like the above seems like the best way to do it.
I like comp despiste what everyone says. It encourages players who have a motley collection of random units that they like to play to still come and enter the tourni. And it makes WAAC gamers play a little differently. Otherwise it is really discouraging when joe average gamer dude has showed up and PAID to put away all their models by turn three, three games in a row after having faced what amounts to the same army on three tables. He probably wont come to the FLG to enter into a tourni again. Less diversity of players. Less interest in the community.
Many of you will say that average joe gamer dude should either not play in tournis or he should go out and get a better list. Buy some more competative units. Well... its a game and a kind of expensive one. Lots of players, especially younger ones cant afford to go out and buy a heap of Razorspam or whatever the newest and latest netspam list has to offer. I wont play at one FLGS because you only see one attitude of player in tournis there. WAAC. THey show up with unpainted armies that have stuff they borrowed just for the tourni to make the most hellish list imaginable. ANd guess what. They play a lot of spam. Not very diverse. THe FLGS tournis are suffering because of it. Now half as many people show up as before because it has gotten old.