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.

Hello all,

Below is a copy of a points based comp system I used in a tournament once that is modeled after Astronomi-con's comp system. Please take a minute or two to read it and vote. Suggestions are always welcome, but please take the time to word them constructively.

Each player starts with a full 20 points of composition. Points will be deducted as follows.

Force Organization Penalties:
-1 for having a third HQ
-1 for having a duplicate HQ
-1 for the third Fast Attack selection
-1 for the fourth Fast Attack selection
-1 for any triplicate Fast Attack selection
-1 for the third Elites selection
-1 for the fourth Elites selection
-1 for any triplicate Elites selection
-1 for a third Heavy Support selection
-1 for a fourth Heavy Support selection
-1 for any triplicate Heavy Support selection

Note: A duplicate or triplicate selection refers to the unit entry in the relevant Codex. Altering a unit’s wargear or upgrades does not stop it from being a duplicate or triplicate selection.

Points Section
-1 for having more than 370 points worth of HQs
-1 for each full 100 points of HQ over 370
-1 for having less than 610 points in Troops
-1 for having more than 370 points worth of Fast Attack
-1 for each full 150 points of Fast Attack over 370
-1 for having more than 370 points worth of Elites
-1 for each full 150 points of Elites over 370
-1 for having more than 370 points worth of Heavy Support
-1 for each full 150 points of Heavy Support over 370
-1 for having more than 250 points worth of flyers/flying monstrous creatures unless all the points are on a single model (including upgrades)
-1 for each full 150 points of flyers/flying monstrous creatures over 250 points

Dedicated transports are counted as part of the points for the force organization chart they are bought for. Dedicated transports that are also flyers are counted against both the slot allowance and the flyer allowance. For example, a land raider bought for a terminator squad would count against the elites section but a necron night scythe would count against the flyer allowance and count towards the minimum troops points total.

No because it overcomplicates list building and army selection.
Any form of comp will just mean a new overpowered list/build.

The questions should be, do we need Comp? If yes then why? What are you trying to control?
Why is comp needed now, what about when Daemons White Dwarf update made them stupid, we didn't need Comp then?
What about when Heldrakes first came out and were FAQ'd, we didn't need comp then?
Why do we need Comp now?

That comp list is easy to get around...pretty much pointless.

Looks like swedish comp in 40k

 Bat Manuel wrote:
That comp list is easy to get around...pretty much pointless.

What do you mean by "get around"? Its an open ended system. You start with 20 and take negatives. In a balanced BP tournament, 20 points can help someone overcome a minor loss to make top positions versus a player who ignored the comp guidelines.

Comp list seems to promote 5E-style MSU Marines and Guard, since they have decent troops and spammable transport options, plus are more often than not spoiled for choice in their other slots so not being able to spam duplicate Elites, FA, or HS options doesn't hurt them as bad. Xenos would be practically unplayable, because they're being forced to spend all their points on garbage troop options: all their damage-dealers are in Elites, FA, and HS, and they have few competitive options in those slots so spamming is inevitable. The author of this list also seems to think spamming stealth suits or vespid is just as good as spamming riptides and missilesides...

You couldn't pay me to play in an event like this. This is a good example of the worst comp has to offer and why I was personally glad to see it on the way out towards the end of 5th, and why I'm extremely disappointed that GW is forcing everyone to resort to this kinda crap again. I imagine these people mean well, but it's clear they have no idea what they're doing the majority of the time. They don't have a very good understanding of how the game or certain armies work and what leads to these spam lists to begin with, and often in their quest to make the game "better" they ultimately end up making things worse, paving the way for certain armies to dominate and punishing all others, mostly xenos because of GW's design philosophy, and in some cases very severely. The main problem with Tau is being able to spam riptides, easily 4-5 of the damn things, and this list doesn't just punish that but pretty much every possible competitive Tau build to the point where bringing Tau at all and trying to get perfect comp scores is pointless and not fun. Everyone complains about heldrake spam just as much, but without the heldrake the CSM codex is absolute garbage, it's literally the only thing in the book keeping it at all relevant at this point because every other option is so bad. Hilariously though the list doesn't seem to affect wave serpent spam too much, so I guess you'd still see some Eldar in the sea of Marine/Guard armies.

 Sidstyler wrote:
Comp list seems to promote 5E-style MSU Marines and Guard, since they have decent troops and spammable transport options, plus are more often than not spoiled for choice in their other slots so not being able to spam duplicate Elites, FA, or HS options doesn't hurt them as bad. Xenos would be practically unplayable, because they're being forced to spend all their points on garbage troop options: all their damage-dealers are in Elites, FA, and HS, and they have few competitive options in those slots so spamming is inevitable. The author of this list also seems to think spamming stealth suits or vespid is just as good as spamming riptides and missilesides...

The list is trash and you couldn't pay me to play in an event like this. This is a good example of the worst comp has to offer and why I was personally glad to see it on the way out towards the end of 5th, and why I'm extremely disappointed that GW is forcing everyone to resort to this kinda crap again. I imagine these people mean well, but it's clear they have no idea what they're doing the majority of the time. They don't have a very good understanding of how the game or certain armies work and what leads to these spam lists to begin with, and often in their quest to make the game "better" they ultimately end up making things worse, paving the way for certain armies to dominate and punishing all others, mostly xenos because of GW's design philosophy, and in some cases very severely. The main problem with Tau is being able to spam riptides, easily 4-5 of the damn things, and this list doesn't just punish that but pretty much every possible competitive Tau build to the point where bringing Tau at all and trying to get perfect comp scores is pointless and not fun. Everyone complains about heldrake spam just as much, but without the heldrake the CSM codex is absolute garbage, it's literally the only thing in the book keeping it at all relevant at this point because every other option is so bad. Hilariously though the list doesn't seem to affect wave serpent spam too much, so I guess you'd still see some Eldar in the sea of Marine/Guard armies.

You clearly did not read the request for well constructed criticism. Eldar Waveserpents count towards the minimum troop options and there is no penatly for repeating a troop choice, so jetbikes and avengers in serpents are unaffected. Double wraithknights is only a -1 to comp. Tau can still do double missile side and double riptide while taking only a minor penalty (-2 total, -1 each for over 370 in HS/Elite). How does it really cripple Xenos again? I'm pretty sure you can build a competitive Tau list that still scores a 15+ in comp.

Honestly, I wouldn't have a hard time making a Tau List with this comp. But it would also depend on how many points you would be playing. 1500, no problem. 1750/1850, I'll start losing some points. 2k, Hmm...

I would also like to state that I do not run Trip/QuadTide. I do think that Riptides, while properly supported, are incredible damage dealing machines that has the potential to remove the element of fun out of the games I play at my local meta. Hell, every time I play against Space Marines with my two Riptides tends to be a boring game....

Another thing you must consider is that EVERYONE is incurring this "point tax" on their army. But I do see it favoring multiple small unit armies that have variety in their troop choices. Hell, spam sisters with flamers in immolators for a jolly good time.

My double Flyrant/double Tervigon/Triple Fex list gets like 5 points total. Not -5, 5. I'm guessing this is for a 2k event (hence the 610 points of Troops)? Or 1850?

PanzerLeader wrote:
You clearly did not read the request for well constructed criticism. Eldar Waveserpents count towards the minimum troop options and there is no penatly for repeating a troop choice, so jetbikes and avengers in serpents are unaffected. Double wraithknights is only a -1 to comp. Tau can still do double missile side and double riptide while taking only a minor penalty (-2 total, -1 each for over 370 in HS/Elite). How does it really cripple Xenos again? I'm pretty sure you can build a competitive Tau list that still scores a 15+ in comp.

So I was right then? You failed to address a popular build that's widely considered to be annoying/too good because repeating troops choices isn't penalized? Or are you saying that dedicated transports take up one of your 6 troop "slots", which is a hilariously heavy-handed way of trying to fix them and potentially presents even more issues? If I've still got something wrong then I think that only serves to illustrate how overly complicated your system really is in the end because it's not 100% clear to me how this is supposed to work. According to the list as I see it all you need to do is spend a minimum of 610 points on troops to avoid a comp hit (better and easier for Imperial armies than xenos), and there's no limit for transports unless they're also flyers.

And in my opinion taking any comp hit can be crippling, especially if it's "undeserved", because by your own admission those few comp points can mean the difference between winning overall and coming in second, third, or worse, and the way I understand it would be easier to build a competitive Marine list (or any army capable of spamming MSU) with this system and get a good comp score than it would be to build a competitive xeno list and do the same, especially when your options for dealing with that vehicle spam are going to be limited since they're all outside Troops: it's one of the reasons why Marine armies dominated in 5th and xenos were either just plain bad or had one good build available to them that had to be played perfectly to stand a chance. And like I pointed out before you get equally punished for spamming bad units and good units alike, do you have any way of addressing that at all or will you continue to work under the assumption that three full units of vespid have the same impact on the game that three riptides do? Even the unit in your example, the terminators with land raider transport, isn't really considered a "competitive" choice anymore but nonetheless still nets a player a comp hit because of how many points it eats up...the assumption being made is "lots of points = too powerful" and that isn't always true, in fact most of the time the really broken units are often under-priced. I didn't even notice that you took comp hits for spending too many points in those slots, which is another hit for xenos in my opinion since more often than not those competitive (and in most cases necessary, "must-take") units are often pricey to boot, so not only are you spending lots of points on those options, but you're getting hit twice for them on comp, and you still risk running a list that isn't optimized enough to deal with others you might potentially go up against from better-designed books, unless you just ignore the damn comp and take all the hits. But if you know you have no chance of winning the event at the list-writing stage then I don't even see the point in going. Also, needless to say I really don't like the idea that a player can win all of their games and still lose out to someone with one or even multiple losses based on comp scores, it really feels wrong for something like that to happen in what's being presented as a competitive event.

Sorry if I'm not being "constructive" enough, I am admittedly biased because I've never liked comp and still hate the idea of it to this day (even when GW is doing everything it can to run the game into the ground), but I don't like the system and wouldn't play in an event using it. Maybe calling it "trash" was a bit harsh, so I apologize for that, but as others have pointed out I feel your system doesn't really address all the issues 6th currently has and merely shifts the balance of power to a few other armies/builds instead.

And also, there's no mention of what the point limit for the event is, whether "Lords of War" or fortifications are allowed (I just assume they aren't by default, but still), etc.

Hi

Since I have played in Astro Toronto in 4 of the last 5 years, I voted yes...

I am pleased that at least you amended it such that FA, HS and Elite are all penalized equally, unlike the actual Astro comp, which hits elite harder than anyone for no reason I can fathom (and have said so to the organizers within their yahoo group). It also looks like you tweaked the initial thresholds for 1850, but not incremental increases, which remain at 10% of 1500. You should look at tweaking those ranges as well.

Also, FYI for those thinking that this supports marines/guard over others, 3 of the last 4 years in Toronto have been won by Xenos (my Orks twice, and Jon Ho's Tau most recently).

Like all comp systems, it simply shifts power from one build type to another. Their goal is to balanced armies with representation from each slot in a Codex that are capable of facing wildly divergent scenarios. Their secondary goal is to have fun, well-rounded armies present at a hobby event. Their slogan is "the tournament for people that don't like going to tournaments" so turning to their system for the average competitive gamer may not be the most logical solution...

Cheers,
Nate

I'm not sure I'd want to play in a tournament with this sort of comp. Your system seems likely to penalise people twice, once for taking multiples of something, and secondly for those choices taking up too many points. I feel it should be based on one or the other if you have to have such a broad comp system at all. Either limit the number of choices or the points, not both. It also unduly punishes those armies with worse troops, as they rely on elites, fast attack and heavy support.

Comp like this seeks to reduce spam, but spam isn't the only thing that can be abused. You'll stop the 3 hellturkey lists with a system like this (maybe), but won't do much to combat other abuses, and will just get a different lopsided representation, while hammering theme lists and the like into oblivion.

Your comp system is poorly thought out. For instance, why a broad, 370 point limit? Just because it's 1/5th of 1850? Why should an ideal army be split up evenly between the FOC?

For a specific example, I could be a Necron player. Taking 2 Annihilation Barges and a Doom Scythe would be 265 points, giving me no penalty and strong units. However, if I want to take a sillier list and take a Monolith and a Doomsday Ark, I'm taking a penalty to my comp score for no good reason.

I would play in any comp system as long as it is used for pairings day 1, first round/two only.

Have everyone who is a full 20 play full 20's and rank and pair the others based on the score.

Make a system that covers all of the major meta and weeds them out from the full 20 lists.

Basically what it will do is give a person and incentive to try to get a 20 to have an easier time to the top, but it also allows people to take a 0 score on comp and just have to fight harder matches.

Yes there is always the worry about what happens in later rounds when the top lists face lower ones, but you will have the best generals with 0 comp lists facing the best generals with 20 comp lists which basically means the best generals are fighting instead of the best lists which is what you are shooting for in the end with comp.

As far as having it effect a point outcome in either a game or a tournament, the comp system would have to be based on units/ army compisition rather than broad points and force org selection. And would require constant updates and tweaks based on new rules. A broad systems like the one in the first might work well for pairings but for points that matter it is way to broad in that it just encourages a different best build based on comp.

Making a diversified list doesn't necessarily mean a bad list you could very easily score 18-20 under the guidelines with a few armies and still have basically the same tournament level lists, while other ones and non tournament lists will be in the 10-15 range.

Not going to go into details or listbuilding, but unless you put the time to go codex by codex unit by unit, I wouldn't be interested in a comp system that affects tournament points outcomes, as all it does it make you take a different army not necessarily a worse/more fun to play against one.

I do not see this comp harming farsight crisis spam or eldar wave serpent spam as both are troops.

Also are allies really that bad that you are penalizing them simply for have them? What is so bad about IG and SM or CD and CSM those are both fluffy and help cover each others weak points and do not "break the game"

As a side note what are you rules concerning units that do not take up FOC. I ask because the O'vesa star would not be hurt at all by this comp as you have 2 HQ under 370. You could limit the elites or take the 1 point hit and then fill out with crisis suit troops and kroot maybe broadsides too and still not be hurt by this comp

EDIT: None FOC units would include SM command squads, honour guard, Tau bodyguards and farsight command team, techmarines and servitors. Also I thought of another one, Inquisition are you limiting to only two "books" or are players going to be penalized for taking this in addition to an allies?

I voted no. I am so mad at GW with their piss poor release of escalation and stronghold. The nuts are coming out of the woodwork now.

 carlosthecraven wrote:
Hi

Since I have played in Astro Toronto in 4 of the last 5 years, I voted yes...

I am pleased that at least you amended it such that FA, HS and Elite are all penalized equally, unlike the actual Astro comp, which hits elite harder than anyone for no reason I can fathom (and have said so to the organizers within their yahoo group). It also looks like you tweaked the initial thresholds for 1850, but not incremental increases, which remain at 10% of 1500. You should look at tweaking those ranges as well.

Also, FYI for those thinking that this supports marines/guard over others, 3 of the last 4 years in Toronto have been won by Xenos (my Orks twice, and Jon Ho's Tau most recently).

Like all comp systems, it simply shifts power from one build type to another. Their goal is to balanced armies with representation from each slot in a Codex that are capable of facing wildly divergent scenarios. Their secondary goal is to have fun, well-rounded armies present at a hobby event. Their slogan is "the tournament for people that don't like going to tournaments" so turning to their system for the average competitive gamer may not be the most logical solution...

Cheers,
Nate

Also worth mentioning that Astro's unique missions do a great job of beating the crap out of the typical "problem children" armies that people tend to moan about the most, more-so than just the comp alone...
I remember at the '04 Toronto event, back in 4th, a hyper competitive player brought tri-falcon Eldar with all the bells and whistles and won only 2 games out of 6 IIRC. One of those was against 'Nids which 4th ed Falcons tended to hard-counter anyways as the Bugs had almost nothing to scratch those holo-fielded tanks. But overall the guy couldn't get much accomplished because overall killing the enemy is secondary to playing the missions at Astro.
(My drop guard meanwhile managed to go 0-6 in landing a Deep Strike mission, despite about 60% of the missions allowing Deep Strike... ah such fond memories!)

I know from having been to a half dozen or so Toronto events, Screamerstar for example would get absolutely savaged in most missions as it's too many pts invested in a single blob, and it would be forced to consistently put itself in situations it doesn't want to be in.


The main thing as I've mentioned to Xian & crew who run Astro, is that I don't really feel that 40k atm lends itself well to adding in %-based comp like Fantasy does. While most Imperial and CSM armies for example don't mind squeaking by with only 200-300pts invest in HQ, armies like Necrons, Daemons & Tyranids tend to require higher than average spending because of the synergies they're meant to bring to the rest of the force.
And unlike in Fantasy, it's equally difficult to put a 'fair' % cap on the Elites/Fast/Heavy sections as compared to the Special/Rare alotments which work out quite evenly across every army.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Your comp system is poorly thought out. For instance, why a broad, 370 point limit? Just because it's 1/5th of 1850? Why should an ideal army be split up evenly between the FOC?

For a specific example, I could be a Necron player. Taking 2 Annihilation Barges and a Doom Scythe would be 265 points, giving me no penalty and strong units. However, if I want to take a sillier list and take a Monolith and a Doomsday Ark, I'm taking a penalty to my comp score for no good reason.

It actually was based on 1850 in the original event last August. So that is where the numbers come from. The point of comp isn't to encourage "silly" lists as you referred to them, so I don't see your point on the Necron list.

Sidstyler wrote:
So I was right then? You failed to address a popular build that's widely considered to be annoying/too good because repeating troops choices isn't penalized? Or are you saying that dedicated transports take up one of your 6 troop "slots", which is a hilariously heavy-handed way of trying to fix them and potentially presents even more issues? If I've still got something wrong then I think that only serves to illustrate how overly complicated your system really is in the end because it's not 100% clear to me how this is supposed to work. According to the list as I see it all you need to do is spend a minimum of 610 points on troops to avoid a comp hit (better and easier for Imperial armies than xenos), and there's no limit for transports unless they're also flyers.

And in my opinion taking any comp hit can be crippling, especially if it's "undeserved", because by your own admission those few comp points can mean the difference between winning overall and coming in second, third, or worse, and the way I understand it would be easier to build a competitive Marine list (or any army capable of spamming MSU) with this system and get a good comp score than it would be to build a competitive xeno list and do the same, especially when your options for dealing with that vehicle spam are going to be limited since they're all outside Troops: it's one of the reasons why Marine armies dominated in 5th and xenos were either just plain bad or had one good build available to them that had to be played perfectly to stand a chance. And like I pointed out before you get equally punished for spamming bad units and good units alike, do you have any way of addressing that at all or will you continue to work under the assumption that three full units of vespid have the same impact on the game that three riptides do? Even the unit in your example, the terminators with land raider transport, isn't really considered a "competitive" choice anymore but nonetheless still nets a player a comp hit because of how many points it eats up...the assumption being made is "lots of points = too powerful" and that isn't always true, in fact most of the time the really broken units are often under-priced. I didn't even notice that you took comp hits for spending too many points in those slots, which is another hit for xenos in my opinion since more often than not those competitive (and in most cases necessary, "must-take") units are often pricey to boot, so not only are you spending lots of points on those options, but you're getting hit twice for them on comp, and you still risk running a list that isn't optimized enough to deal with others you might potentially go up against from better-designed books, unless you just ignore the damn comp and take all the hits. But if you know you have no chance of winning the event at the list-writing stage then I don't even see the point in going. Also, needless to say I really don't like the idea that a player can win all of their games and still lose out to someone with one or even multiple losses based on comp scores, it really feels wrong for something like that to happen in what's being presented as a competitive event.

Sorry if I'm not being "constructive" enough, I am admittedly biased because I've never liked comp and still hate the idea of it to this day (even when GW is doing everything it can to run the game into the ground), but I don't like the system and wouldn't play in an event using it. Maybe calling it "trash" was a bit harsh, so I apologize for that, but as others have pointed out I feel your system doesn't really address all the issues 6th currently has and merely shifts the balance of power to a few other armies/builds instead.

And also, there's no mention of what the point limit for the event is, whether "Lords of War" or fortifications are allowed (I just assume they aren't by default, but still), etc.

I'm trying to find a generic system that encourages balances and unique builds but doesn't try to tailor down specific items/builds. So I'm not going to try and address any specific builds in this system. What I'm trying to find is a system that will let someone play 3 different Eldar lists instead of the exact same list 3 times.

I will say I think you are underestimating the impact this has on MEQ, particularly in the new Marine codex. The most popular MEQ builds emphasize taking minimum sized troops and max special weapons. Four minimum sized bike squads with max specials and max combi weapons still clocks in at 580 points. Still a negative hit on comp. The most lethal marine units are also found in HS and FA now. A marine player who takes a storm raven and two talons spends about 480 points for those 3 units. That would start him at a -2 (much like a Tau double tide/double broadside build) and he would lose additional points depending on the rest of the list.

In my mind, the goal of comp should be to add an element of strategy to the list building section. Based on an additional set of limitations, how can you still build a balanced force? Comp should be used to create unique events that emphasize fun. Not as a means to rebalance the game.

As for Lords of War, I'm sorting through that mess right now along with the new strongholds. No one in my local group has had fun playing with or against "D" weapons outside of APOC yet so I'd probably just rule them out unless we were deliberately trying to do a "No Holds Barred" event.

Hmm,

I am interested in your comp system, it seems very similar to what Da' Boyz were doing with their 5th Edition tournaments except that they had an exceptions list that would help certain armies with the comp scores.

Generalized comp like this is a good building block for a more intricate system. You start with the level playing field, then you break down book - by - book to see what needs tweaked based on army until this could turn into a comp packet varied depending on primary army choice.

Is there any particular event you are planning for this? I see that you said you ran a tournament using this... what was the feedback on the comp? What's the feedback for the comp from the Toronto crowd? I think you will get better aid from hard data then a forum, where most answers will be "Blah! Comp stinks!"

Might I suggest trying to get your hands on a Da'boyz packet from 5th? Compare it to the Astro and see what comes up. Da'boyz was a very popular event in 5th from what I've heard, and had a very similar comp.

I don't like it because you essentially say FMC lists cannot be plaid like flying circus or the dual fly rant list, without taking huge comp penalties. This comp system tends to lead to a homogenized way of making lists which is boring. FMC,Quadtide, etc... Really aren't that hard to beat. I think people just dont feel like trying to change the way they play to address the current meta. I can tell you right now I play SoB and I don't think playing flying monstrous creatures or quad tide is boring. And I don't think it's auto lose. It'll just take generalship to win like playing against any army.

comp scores never work has been my experience.

You get better results by making adjustments to the FoC and point limits. Creating objectives that encourage different armies is also a big deal.

Wouldn't play in this event. It's yet another terrible comp system with blanket rules across every army despite the obvious fact that not all armies have the same balance problems. The solution to Helldrakes (for example) is to specifically ban/modify/restrict Helldrakes, not to punish the DA player who brought "too many" of their awful flyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:
The point of comp isn't to encourage "silly" lists as you referred to them, so I don't see your point on the Necron list.

The point is that your proposal is a terrible idea because of that example. A list with three powerful units gets full comp points, while a list with three weak choices gets a comp penalty. This is indisputably a case of your comp system punishing the wrong list because you tried to make blanket rules instead of precisely targeting the problem lists.

What I'm trying to find is a system that will let someone play 3 different Eldar lists instead of the exact same list 3 times.

And your system doesn't do this. It just encourages people to figure out the best full-score Eldar list that can be made under your restrictions and play it. So you still face the same list three times, it's just not the same as the list you face in most tournaments.

Four minimum sized bike squads with max specials and max combi weapons still clocks in at 580 points.

Wait, let me get this straight: you want to punish lists that take lots of troops (the "core" of the army) instead of taking minimum troops to spam powerful non-troops units? Do you just hate the fluffy White Scars players in your area?

Comp should be used to create unique events that emphasize fun.

How exactly are you emphasizing fun? Are you making the popular mistake of assuming that any list/event/etc that isn't competitive is automatically fun instead, and that a list/event/etc can't be both fun and competitive?

 Peregrine wrote:
Wouldn't play in this event. It's yet another terrible comp system with blanket rules across every army despite the obvious fact that not all armies have the same balance problems. The solution to Helldrakes (for example) is to specifically ban/modify/restrict Helldrakes, not to punish the DA player who brought "too many" of their awful flyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PanzerLeader wrote:
The point of comp isn't to encourage "silly" lists as you referred to them, so I don't see your point on the Necron list.

The point is that your proposal is a terrible idea because of that example. A list with three powerful units gets full comp points, while a list with three weak choices gets a comp penalty. This is indisputably a case of your comp system punishing the wrong list because you tried to make blanket rules instead of precisely targeting the problem lists.

What I'm trying to find is a system that will let someone play 3 different Eldar lists instead of the exact same list 3 times.

And your system doesn't do this. It just encourages people to figure out the best full-score Eldar list that can be made under your restrictions and play it. So you still face the same list three times, it's just not the same as the list you face in most tournaments.

Four minimum sized bike squads with max specials and max combi weapons still clocks in at 580 points.

Wait, let me get this straight: you want to punish lists that take lots of troops (the "core" of the army) instead of taking minimum troops to spam powerful non-troops units? Do you just hate the fluffy White Scars players in your area?

Comp should be used to create unique events that emphasize fun.

How exactly are you emphasizing fun? Are you making the popular mistake of assuming that any list/event/etc that isn't competitive is automatically fun instead, and that a list/event/etc can't be both fun and competitive?

One, why don't you offer some constructive feedback instead of just going with the ever popular "OMG your system sucks"? Or would it be that hard for you to apply creative thought on how to enact a decent comp system?

Two, try using a little context clues in your responses. Based on my sig, I clearly play White Scars and frequent major GTs. In the last ten months, I've gone to five GTs (Railhead Rumble, Alamo, Wargamescon, Golden Throne Southwest, and Da Boyz) which had varying levels of comp and compiled a 22-5-3 record. I certainly don't hate "fluffy" white scars players as you allege. I also play pretty high level competition in a Texas meta with no comp at the overwhelming majority of tournaments.

Three, you seem to think that given identical restrictions, people will independently come up with identical solutions. Even with the simple example of four bike squads, you could get over the 610 point minimum by adding two bikes to any existing squads or adding a fifth bike squad or adding a scout squad or reducing to three bike squads and adding a full marine squad in a rhino to give you 5 scoring units when needed. Eldar list building goes the same way.

In this case, comp emphasizes fun by creating a different set of challenges from the norm. Comp restrictions add an extra layer of strategy in list building. Fun doesn't mean silly. Fun means creating an environment where the game can be played in a challenging manner that let's everyone think the match was competitive and not biased heavily in one favor as the result of poor rules writing.

PanzerLeader wrote:
One, why don't you offer some constructive feedback instead of just going with the ever popular "OMG your system sucks"?

I did explain why it sucks.

Or would it be that hard for you to apply creative thought on how to enact a decent comp system?

Peregrine's decent comp system:

{empty space}

There, done.

Two, try using a little context clues in your responses.

Or I could just look at your proposal. I don't care if you win or not, your proposal is still bad and still punishes weaker lists unfairly.

Three, you seem to think that given identical restrictions, people will independently come up with identical solutions.

Yes, it's called netlisting. How do you think we got all of those identical lists in the first place?

In this case, comp emphasizes fun by creating a different set of challenges from the norm.

Again, how is that more fun? You seem to be assuming that if you make things different it will automatically be more fun, and that's not a good assumption.

Fun means creating an environment where the game can be played in a challenging manner that let's everyone think the match was competitive and not biased heavily in one favor as the result of poor rules writing.

And your comp system doesn't accomplish this goal. Besides, didn't you just say that your comp system isn't even trying to rebalance the game? So how can you simultaneously not improve balance and make people think that the match was more competitive?

Screamerstars can get off pretty light and seerstar/wave serpent spam are virtually untouched. Enjoy!

After doing some thinking, I can figure on a few ways that you could modify this to make it a bit stronger.

I think penalizing for the 0-3 maxes on the FOC is a bit strong, perhaps just penalizing for using more then 1 of the same unit in the slot. For instance...

Wraith unit: -0
2 Wraith Units: -1
3 Wraith Units: -2

Troops are 0-3 and then deduct.
Dire Avenger Squad x3: -0
Dire Avenger Squad x4: -1
Dire Avenger Squad x5: -2

As was stated before, I think a % system is hard to work in 40K since 40K isn't already worked with % like Fantasy. I think the HQ things work well, but just a suggestion.

Again, this is a solid starting point in my eyes, it just needs to be worked across the armies instead of a blanket comp. As was stated, different armies are strong in different ways. Don't necessarily destroy what's strong, but limit what is abusive... or do the best you can with input from players.

 Matt1785 wrote:
I think penalizing for the 0-3 maxes on the FOC is a bit strong, perhaps just penalizing for using more then 1 of the same unit in the slot.

Why should taking three units of ratlings result in a harsher comp penalty than taking two Vendetta squadrons?

I think Peregrine has the right of it.

The 'problem with 40k' is not that particular FOC slots are overpowered; it's that particular units are overpowered. These units are scattered across every codex, randomly between FOC slots.
So its pretty pointless to penalize armies from taking 3 elites when they don't have any good elite choices; and even worse to reward armies for taking >600 points of troops when their best choices are there.

A far 'fairer' comp system would be going codex-by-codex, identifying the 'overpowered' units and combos, and targetting those specifically. Ie:

Tau:
-1 point for each riptide past the first
-1 point for each unit of missilesides past the first
+1 point for each unit of Vespids

Guard
-1 point for each Vendetta
+1 point for each Ratling squad

... etc, etc

I don't particularly agree with comp systems in any case, but I fear they will become increasing necessary as GW releases worse and worse codices and datasheets and refuses to put out balance errata. 40k is obviously not designed with the intention of being a tournament game, so accommodations need to be made if you want to have a good, balanced game.

I agree with Peregrine on pretty much all accounts except where he says he's against all comp.

I'm not against comp as a concept, but I'm absolutely and completely against comp like this.

It's this kind of short-sighted foolishness that gives comp a bad name. I take three Helldrakes and I get a penalty. Fair enough. I take three squads of Howling Banshees and I get the same penalty. Wtf?

At this point 40k is a bit of a mess, and I'm all for introducing a bit of comp to make tournaments more accessible to people who otherwise only play casual games with their mates and would never even consider running a Seer Council. But this kind of system equally dicks over fluffy players with silly armies as it deals with the units you're really trying to address.