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.

Hokkaido23 wrote:Why put it in quotation marks? Are you implying that its not a scene? And im sure it can seem cliquish to those outside the percieved clique. Im also sure its the same as other game store cultures around the world.

Well, I know that at the insistence of the aforementioned Ultramarines player (whose name I know, but won't mention) the composition scoring for the Contest of Champions has been changing a lot recently. It may be coincidence, but the composition scoring is changing in such a way as to attempt to put the players from Ukiah and Petaluma who are dominating the tournaments in Sac at a disadvantage, and to give the Ultramarines force, which is comprised largely of tactical squads more of an advantage.

I say this because it is another example of why comp just doesn't work. My friend has taken Best General at the CoC probably 90% of the time in the last year, and they keep changing the comp, and he just keeps bringing a different army with full comp to get the award again, including with Necrons and pre-new-codex IG.

Comp shouldn't exist.

The only criteria should be that the list is legal and complies with whatever structure the Tournament Organiser has set out prior to the event.

Yes, this results in power-builds, but that's GW's fault for making a pathetic set of rules, not the players' fault for finding their mistakes.

The tourney scene in Germany never used comp scores (at least the last couple of years I was part of it) and I never met anyone who missed it. We use restrictions in many tourneys, e.g. no triple Heavy Support or Elite, no SC, no double HQ or no double psychic powers in HQ.
That works really well. Reading threads like this (and there are many on dakka like this) I really pity US tourney players for this random and arbitrary factor in their tourneys.
But we in Germany also don't have sports scores, so it's quite different over here.

Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?

It's a question of "can" versus "should".

In the real world, there's no law requiring manners or good judgment. One is free to act as boorish and foolishly as one desires. That is similar to a non-Comp build.

In the same way that manners are supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive behavior, Comp is supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive army building.

That is, just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.

But rather than strait-jacketing players by changing the FOC and thereby making their armies illegal, Comp allows them to continue playing, but at a penalty of scoring less than full points.

If we changed the FOC to:
1 HQ
1-2 Elite
4-6 Troops
1-2 Fast
0-2 Heavy
that would have a similar effect, but now, you wouldn't even have the option of fielding 3 Heavies. So I don't see how changing the FOC is better than applying Comp. Comp still leaves the decision of what to field in the player's hands. A new FOC takes that away entirely.


The other way to look at it, is as a handicapping system, whereby choosing to take only strong stuff reduces the players need to play well. If your list is inherently strong, you don't need to be as clever of a general to get a win, all else being equal.

Nurglitch wrote:Dis-satisfaction with composition rules is one reason why I think that some tournaments should have pre-generated lists that Tournament Organizers should publish upon announcing sign-up for the tournament. If Tournament Organizers want to see a particular list, or don't want to see others, then they should define what is acceptable and what is not.

Leave the list-building to the 'Ard-boyz, as sometimes players should just bring miniatures and rely on their skill at playing the game with the forces they have available, like a real general. It would certainly make it easier for Tournament Organizers to tune scenarios, and it would make painting a matter of comparing apples to apples.

Nurglitch and I disagree often, but in this there is agreement.

Whats with the maple leaf? I thought you were USA nurgle powered?

Hokkaido23 wrote:

Bahkara wrote:This is the problem I have as he may have had access to the comp they were using while those from outside the local scene do not. If you are going to have comp in a tourney you need to give everyone a fair chance at seeing what it is, not just those that happen to live near the TO.

In addition it seems like the TOs ruined the tourney for a number of people. I'm curious if those that weren't local or part of the local scene were the ones that were "poo-pooed"

The tournament and its rules used were advertised on the Kublacon website months in advance. Everyone had the same access to them, plus its RT comp so its been around forever. Hardly a surprise. Furthermore, the SF/East Bay gaming area and the Sacramento gaming area are completely separate. Players know of each other, they play each other sparingly at local tournaments, but thats about it. The winning player is from my local area, which is completely separate from SF/East Bay.

I checked the website and there is mention of comp but not what it is or how it will be used. At least with GW GTs and RTTs you new what the criteria was. Like I said I use comp only for pairings and not actually as part of your score.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?

It's a question of "can" versus "should".

In the real world, there's no law requiring manners or good judgment. One is free to act as boorish and foolishly as one desires. That is similar to a non-Comp build.

In the same way that manners are supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive behavior, Comp is supposed to encourage people to refrain from excessive army building.

That is, just because you can do something, doesn't mean that you should.

But rather than strait-jacketing players by changing the FOC and thereby making their armies illegal, Comp allows them to continue playing, but at a penalty of scoring less than full points.

But the problem with comp, as previously mentioned, is that it's too subjective and corruptible.

Changing the FOC leaves everyone knowing exactly where they stand.

Speaking simply as an outsider to the tourney scene, I find myself vaguely confused when it comes to some of the basics of comp scoring and "spamming". My confusion stems from this: Most complex military design/organization is based on multiple redundant systems, from fire bases and squad deployment to the fuel lines in your vehicles. This kind of layout is meant to prevent a massive systematic failure by providing backups and, in some cases, backups to those backups.

Having a bunch of fire teams that can't fill the role of the other fire teams in the unit is nothing shy of a disaster waiting to happen.

Spamming, as it were, is actually a pretty solid strategy, as it provides multiple redundant systems to prevent mass failure within your forces.

Example:

You're composing a list of Chaos Space Marines. Your troops choices have been filled out with 2 units of (10x) CSMs with 2 flamers each, mounted in rhinos, a pair of minimized terminator squads with Chaos Land Raiders, 2 units of Khorne Berserkers, and you're trying to choose between Defilers and Obliterators to fill in heavy support.

A pair of defilers would be alright here, but given that you're already geared to deal with a good number of infantry threats, it's a secondary concern. The units, as presented, have a glaring lack of true versitility, but can deal moderately well if they can keep from being overrun. Obliterators can fill in the gaps here, providing anti-tank fire in a harder to deal with package, as well as providing redundancy within itself, in case one of the squads fails in it's task.

Units are meant to fill specific roles withing your armies, and if your opponent has to divide his fire to keep you from being able to deal with what he's brought to the table, then all the better for you, both as a commander and a player. Assemble your armies like you have a specific goal in mind, and outfit them so that they can overcome all or most of the obstacles that may be presented to them. Your army is meant to act as a single organism, with multiple systems comprising the greater part of the whole to achieve a single, unified purpose.

Why would one enforce an arbitrary set of scoring to penalize players who actually want to make a sound strategic decision? I can see why a rules abuse list might take a hit, but a penalty for multiple redundant units is kinda weaksauce in my eyes. It kinda detracts from the idea that this is a tabletop wargame, in most cases.

I think this game is far too expensive to punish people for playing what they want to play -_-

Comp is slowed.

Nice post btw, Dronze.

I figured out who the tournament judge was.
http://www.simpsons.nl/marten/cbg.gif
No wonder.

I like when comp is judged in tourneys, but only when the judge follows some sort of check sheet and then is able to grant additional points if he/she sees fit. At our local indygt comp is graded by the players after each game. A certain group (that will go unmentioned) likes to give max points to their own guys. Giving too much power to one person or players is generally a bad thing in tournaments.

Without comp I feel that tournaments just become the spawn of Ard Boyz. I know a lot of people like this style, but from my own experience it just leads to pain.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?

It's a question of "can" versus "should".

In the real world, there's no law requiring manners or good judgment. One is free to act as boorish and foolishly as one desires. That is similar to a non-Comp build.

Just as in the real world, behavior varies considerably by locale. Sitting with the bare feet extended in Saudi Arabia is a vulgarity. In the U.S.A., it means you're doing pilates. Having hard lists is perfectly normal for my store. At other people's it's a sign of some sort of moral inferiority.

The other way to look at it, is as a handicapping system, whereby choosing to take only strong stuff reduces the players need to play well. If your list is inherently strong, you don't need to be as clever of a general to get a win, all else being equal.

And again, the fundamental problem is that not all codices and not all entries within codicies are equal. The most obvious example is Lash/Oblit/Plague Marines. 2x3 oblits with a Lash Daemon Prince and a Slaaneshi Sorcerer with Plague Marines spammed out the ying yang (or even just 3 PM squads and Berzerkers in rhinos) is about as hard a list as can be played. It also fits into the majority of Comp systems very, very easily.

The fundamental problem with GW is that they don't create truly balanced systems where all options are as viable as others. Until that is fixed, any attempts at judging "comp" is just jury-rigging a broken system.

All composition systems are arbitrary, but if you know what you'll be judged upon ahead of time, if you get a low score, it's no-ones fault but your own.

In order for my Iron Warriors Army to be fluffy, I would have more heavy support than anything else, and yes, there would be 3 of things. Heck, I wouldn't even take an HQ or Troops if I didn't have too. I AM Iron Warriors. We ARE Tanks. We ARE F-ING GUNS. WE ARE F@CKING BULLITS!

In order to keep with the comp, I have to go against the fluff, or vise versa. So what is an Iron Warrior to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on Spamming. Taking multiples of something has gotten a bad rap, I don't know how. The word "Spamming" is derogatory, and really shouldn't be used. An Imperial Space Marine player should be taking 50% tactical squads in rhinos according to fluff, but to have 3 tactical squads is now somehow a bad thing? If someone wants to make a Death Guard army (and these were quite popular all the way back into 2en edition), how is it cheese if they take 4 squads of 7 Plague Marines? Dark Eldar are supposed to take lots of raiders. If you are going up against a Death Wing army, and you don't take lots of anti terminator weapons, it is not your opponents fault you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure that any real world army has more than 3 squads of infantry and more than 3 tanks. Heck, just look at the size of China's army. Are you gonna go and tell them that "It's not fair, you have too many"? Do you think that they'll care? It's time to MAN UP, you "He's spamming" whiners out there, and realize that's how it's supposed to be done.

A well designed game shouldn't need a comp system. Just sayin'.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:

[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy

Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name

If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.

I think this is actually a really good start. This sort of list is the right idea, though I don't think it is perfected yet.

Certainly you might need some special rules. For example, put a star beside the no spam requirement and state that, *for codexes with less than types of troops, troops do not count as spam. Bam- Necrons and Tau don't get nailed for spamming cron warriors or fire warriors. Another way to write that rule would be *If you take one of every troop type available in your codex, they do not count as spam. Again, crons and tau are fine (though the tau would have to take a singleton unit of kroot, which isn't a bad idea anyway.

What bothers me is that it is going to be pretty easy for the most broken cheese lists in the game to STILL score 4/5 comp points running essentially the same cheese lists they are running now... and at most tournaments, 4/5 comp and 4 wins will beat 5/5 comp and 3 wins.

Example: double lash prince, spam oblits, spam plague marines with some zerkers and a termicide. That is a common cheeseball army. It just buys one spawn (FA for 40 points) and suddenly they are scoring 4/5 comp points, missing only the 3 heavies and no spam rules.

So I think it needs work, but I like the simplicity of it and the ideas behind it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:

[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy

Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name

If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.

I think something slightly better would be:

Are there more troops than elites? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than fast attack? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than heavy support? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than elites+fast attack+heavy support? yes=5, equal=3 no=1

personaly, I would also like to see
Is there a special character? No=5pt, yes 1=3pt, yes 2=1pt, yes there were 3or more=0pt

I think the above systems are garbage.

No system will apply equally to everyone, it is impossible, the codexes are made to be different form one another.

You know what system would work REALLY well: using the codexes and the rule book! Wow!

Comp systems are a thinly veiled attempt by TO's to try and force people to play the game they want to play it. It is weak, petty and childish.

People should be able to bring whatever they want, so long as its legal.

As I had mentioned, we just ran a tournament here with a 16 person turnout. We had no comp scores and played missions straight out of the book. No stupid, goofy new scenarios you had to learn 5 minutes before playing them.

Everyone LOVED it. We had not problems with sportsmanship, no issues with army builds, everyone had a great time and went out of their way to say how fun it was.

Don't try and "improve" the game according to your own agenda by implementing an arbitrary comp system, just let people play how they want to play.

Reecius wrote:I think the above systems are garbage.

No system will apply equally to everyone, it is impossible, the codexes are made to be different form one another.

You know what system would work REALLY well: using the codexes and the rule book! Wow!

Comp systems are a thinly veiled attempt by TO's to try and force people to play the game they want to play it. It is weak, petty and childish.

People should be able to bring whatever they want, so long as its legal.

As I had mentioned, we just ran a tournament here with a 16 person turnout. We had no comp scores and played missions straight out of the book. No stupid, goofy new scenarios you had to learn 5 minutes before playing them.

Everyone LOVED it. We had not problems with sportsmanship, no issues with army builds, everyone had a great time and went out of their way to say how fun it was.

Don't try and "improve" the game according to your own agenda by implementing an arbitrary comp system, just let people play how they want to play.

STANDING OVATION!!!!

THe thing that really chaps my rather massive ass is the way the above system so heavily penalizes you for "Spamming"

Its like saying, ok this is a war game but unless you put together a force that would have any actual military comander shot for stupefiying incompentence in the face of the enemy, you get penalized.

What the hell is wrong with taking muliples, how is that cheezy, it does not make your army somehow uber, its just simple logic in a game where there is usually only one good choice per FOC slot for a particular style of army.

Why the hell should and Air Cav force be penalized for taking multiple Valkyries, or a Marine Drop Pod army be penalized for taking multiple tac squads. It makes not sense either fluff wise, or for the sake of competition. Someone somewhere decides that its not "cool" to actually build a tactially sound army and chooses to penalize anyone who does not play the way they like.

God I hate comp!!

Im adding this to my sig for sure

Man up, Bring your best, and play like your playing a Wargame, not a kindergarten team building excercise.

Comp is for the weak!

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:I think something slightly better would be:

Are there more troops than elites? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than fast attack? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than heavy support? yes=3, equal=2 no=1
Are there more troops than elites+fast attack+heavy support? yes=5, equal=3 no=1

personaly, I would also like to see
Is there a special character? No=5pt, yes 1=3pt, yes 2=1pt, yes there were 3or more=0pt

So by your chart, battlesuit Tau score very low comp.
Man-Spam IG score very high comp.
Unless you're playing Cadian IG with Creed, Kell, Bastonne, and Pask, then you score average comp.
Ork hordes led by a warboss score very high comp.
Battlewagon Orks led by KFF mechs score very high comp.
Nob Bikers score very high comp.
Lash+Oblits and Plague Marine Spam scores very high comp.
Eldradzilla scores very high comp.
Aspect Eldar scores average to low comp.

So let's see... Nob Bikes and Lash Chaos are fine, compy, armies and battlesuit Tau can sod off because they totally shouldn't be able to do that. WTF?

The basic assupmtion of this checklist is that troops are equally viable or unviable across all codices. Which is completely false. Comp systems fail because they have to deal with the fundamental truth that codices are not balanced internally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bigtmac68 wrote:What the hell is wrong with taking muliples, how is that cheezy, it does not make your army somehow uber, its just simple logic in a game where there is usually only one good choice per FOC slot for a particular style of army.

Why the hell should and Air Cav force be penalized for taking multiple Valkyries, or a Marine Drop Pod army be penalized for taking multiple tac squads. It makes not sense either fluff wise, or for the sake of competition. Someone somewhere decides that its not "cool" to actually build a tactially sound army and chooses to penalize anyone who does not play the way they like.

Exactly. Comp is worthless. If you really want battles to like White Dwarf articles, then demand that GW balance codices internally so that all options are viable. What's funny is that the people who most complain about 'hard' lists are the same ones that say 'GW IS A MINIATURES COMPANY, NOT A RULES COMPANY'.

You can accept that the speed limit is 70 miles per hour, or you can stay off the highway.

Moz wrote:A well designed game shouldn't need a comp system. Just sayin'.

Word.

In any point based game, there will always be something that is 'the best' for the points spent.

The problem isn't with comp scoring. The problem is that people show up with unoptomized lists and get beat up by people with optomized lists. Matchups are still a big part of winning a tourney. Sometimes unoptomized lists match-up really well against the current 'best build', but get destroyed by all the middle of the pack armies. Imagine the BW spam list against a Broadside and markerlight heavy Tau build. Tau are going to Markerlight the BW, deny the KFF save, and are getting +2 on the damage roll (open-topped, AP1). But, a foot-slogging ork list might just wade across the board, losing a few handfuls of boyz, and then win in assault.

Scott-S6 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:Why not simply amend the FOC and drop comp entirely?

It's a question of "can" versus "should".

But the problem with comp, as previously mentioned, is that it's too subjective and corruptible.

Changing the FOC leaves everyone knowing exactly where they stand.

If I pre-publish a checkbox comp system, based purely on the FOC, then there's nothing subjective or corruptible.

The problem with changing the FOC is that not everybody has the models to play a revised FOC. They might need that 2nd HQ or 3rd Heavy just to make points. So now they can't even play. Not being able to play is worse than Comp, IMO.
____

Dronze wrote:Spamming, as it were, is actually a pretty solid strategy, as it provides multiple redundant systems to prevent mass failure within your forces.

Why would one enforce an arbitrary set of scoring to penalize players who actually want to make a sound strategic decision?

Completely correct.

Because players tend to only spam the "good" stuff, rather than the basic stuff. In theory, massed Obliterators / Tank squadrons / Elites are rare, so they wouldn't be available in the quantities desired by every commander. If the Nazis could have had KoenigsTiger at the same numbers and cost as inexpensive PzIII & StuG III (along with their other superweapons), then Europe would be speaking German today. Thankfully, those super units were only available by the handful.

____

hancock.tom wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Now, for the opposite of going through every Codex with an arbitrary weighting system, how about a very small, simple, generic 5-point checklist:

[] 4+ Troops
[] 3+ Singleton Units
[] No Spammed Units
[] Non-Empty Elite and Non-Empty Fast
[] Non-Max Elite and Non-Max Fast
[] Non-Max Heavy

Singleton = non-repeated FOC choice
Spammed = 3+ FOC choices with the same name

If you score up to 5 points above, then everybody gets 1 free break.

This sort of list is the right idea, though I don't think it is perfected yet.

double lash prince, spam oblits, spam plague marines with some zerkers and a termicide. That is a common cheeseball army. It just buys one spawn (FA for 40 points) and suddenly they are scoring 4/5 comp points, missing only the 3 heavies and no spam rules.

Like any other human system, I don't think it can be "perfected". It's merely a guideline, with limited application. Sure, we can change the Anti-Spam to exclude Troops, which solves the Necron Troops problem, but there quickly comes a point at which the foundation of Codex imbalance simply cannon be overcome without rewriting the Codices. In this kind of thing, think it's easier to pick a few "obvious" things to focus on, and not worry about the minutiae too much - after all, if the base Codices were perfectly-balanced, Comp wouldn't even be an issue in the first place...

The problem with your "cheeseball" Dual Lash army is that you assume to allow far too many points.
2x Lash Prince = 310
3 Termies (tB&PW) = 90
8 Zerks (2 PP) = 183
3x 7 PM (2 PG) = 573
1 Spawn = 40
3x 3 Oblit = 675
1871 pts with minimal upgrades, which is nearly 400 pts over where I'd want to set a Comp event (1500 pts).

The true core of the Lash army (2x Prince, 2x 7 PM, 3x Oblit) is 1367 pts by itself, so it's very difficult to keep all the "good stuff" in there at 1500 pts and still score full comp.

If you reset against a 1500 pt limit, and want full comp, the army looks more like this:
1 Lash Prince
3 Termies
8 Zerks
3x 7 PM
1 Spawn
2x 3 Oblits
That's under 1500 pts, and scores 5/5 (Spam PMs). It's also a lot less powerful than the previous list, losing the backup Prince, and the 3rd Oblits.

At 1500 pts, the player needs to make a some tradeoffs between power and comp, and that's the point. Comp shouldn't be something to agonize over, because ultimately, it should be a permissive system, by which, I mean that it should always permit any legal army to play.

That is JohnHammer 40K, not Warhammer 40K.

So a mixed bag of Chaos, including units that by all rights don't even work together (Slaanesh and Khorne) scores full comp.

By contrast:

1500 pts
Kharn
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8xChaos Terminators
8xChaos Terminators
Defiler
Defiler

Gets poor comp. That's an awesome system. No, really, Slaaneshi/Khorne/Nurgle is way more fluffy than Kharn and fellow berzerkers of the Blood God.

Comp sucks. It does nothing to moderate power in a meaningful way, and adds nothing but an arbitrary restriction to the system based on the prejudices of the Comp System designer.

MY FUN IS BETTER THAN YOUR FUN.

@Reece: I'm not changing anything. Just making a suggestion, that people are free to ignore.

If I really were creating "JohnHammer" (which I have neither the time, nor inclination to do), I suppose I'd go about things differently.
____

@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.

As for the Khorne army, if you want to be compy, how about this:

Kharn
8xChaos Terminators
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x MoK CSM/Rhino
8x MoK Raptors
Defiler

This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Reece: I'm not changing anything. Just making a suggestion, that people are free to ignore.

If I really were creating "JohnHammer" (which I have neither the time, nor inclination to do), I suppose I'd go about things differently.
____

@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.

As for the Khorne army, if you want to be compy, how about this:

Kharn
8xChaos Terminators
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x Zerks/Rhino
8x MoK CSM/Rhino
8x MoK Raptors
Defiler

This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!

That is a perfect example of why I hate comp. In order to score full comp I have to take a crap unit that has nothing to do with my army theme. Raptors. You mention that some people may not have the models to play an altered foc but that is exactly what is being done here by forcing the player to purchase a unit they dont want, and does not fit well with thier army.

Again its just some random retriction that is being imposed on a game system for no apparant reason.

Comp is pure unadulterated evil! (j/k but god do i despise the very concept of comp in every possible way)

A player who fills all three HS slots with a single basilisk apiece gets dinged for spamming basilisks and taking too much HS, but a player who fills two HS slots with three basilisks apiece is not spamming basilisks or using too much heavy support.

Raxmei wrote:A player who fills all three HS slots with a single basilisk apiece gets dinged for spamming basilisks and taking too much HS, but a player who fills two HS slots with three basilisks apiece is not spamming basilisks or using too much heavy support.

DING

another example of COMP=FAIL!!!

If it's Legal, Its allowed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.

Sooo.... comp is based on what, then? If someone was going to make a Deathguard Legion, I doubt they'd be adding Noise Marines to their ranks. Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as a game mechanic, it is still fully existant in the background material.

As for the Khorne army, if you want to be compy, how about this:

...WRONG FUN...

This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!

So the purpose of comp is to compensate weak armies by handicapping powerful ones... okay.

DA GROTZ!

Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun
Big Mek with Shokk Attack Gun

30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots
30x Grots

Killa Kan with Grotzookax3
Killa Kan with Grotzookax3
Killa Kan with Grotzookax3

Skorcha Trakx3
Skorcha Trakx3
Skorcha Trakx3

Here's a ridiculously weak army with a single recurring theme, that of two Big Meks and their huge retinue of Grots, with every model that incorporates Grots in some way, and it gets a 1/5 on your comp system.

The simple fact is that I can make dozens of armies that would 100% adhere to background material or some sort of overarching theme, that are completely fluffy and not very powerful, and they would be at or near minimum composition points.

Comp systems fail. They simply add another mechanic for Gamey players to game the system, and the real loser is the bad-to-average player that needed all the help he or she could get. Fixing the game (making all codices internally balanced) is what fixes the game. Shoehorning the game into your vision of what it should look like just breaks it in different ways.

Rather than just give another standing ovation I will try to add something to the conversation.

We have discussed how comp makes no sense in any kind of "realism" terms.

It makes no sense in terms of fluff as repeatedly demonstrated by Sourclams and others.

It does not help balance the game also as repeatedly demonstrated.

It does not stop players from gaming the system.

It does not help less skilled players play on an even playing field.


What does it do?

It adds useless restrictions and encourages the idea that some armies are somehow "better" than other armies based on a purely random and totaly inconsistent set of criteria.

bigtmac68 wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:This is "Fluffy" and scores 5/5 Comp (Spam Zerks), but it's not as powerful. How about that!

In order to score full comp I have to take a crap unit that has nothing to do with my army theme.

Yes, that's pretty much the very definition of Comp - limiting the most powerful builds.
____

Raxmei wrote:A player who fills all three HS slots with a single basilisk apiece gets dinged for spamming basilisks and taking too much HS, but a player who fills two HS slots with three basilisks apiece is not spamming basilisks or using too much heavy support.

Yes, that is because Squadrons have disadvantages along with advantages. Squadrons have vulnerability to Immoblized = Destroyed, along with distribution of hits across the squadron... If a Wave Serpent unloads 10 Fire Dragons next to a Squadron of 3 Basilisks, how many Basilisks can they Destroy, compared to 3 individual Basilisks? If there are 3 smallish targets, 2 Squadrons can only target 2 of them, instead of all 3 separately.
____

sourclams wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@sourclams: You and I both know that the Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as of the most recent Army Books and Codices. It's a relic like Zoats and Fimir.

Sooo.... comp is based on what, then?

If someone was going to make a Deathguard Legion, I doubt they'd be adding Noise Marines to their ranks. Ancient Enemies fluff is no longer valid as a game mechanic, it is still fully existant in the background material.

When you talk about Deathguard & Noise Marines and Ancient Enemies, you are talking about THEME, not COMP. Theme is how well the army adheres to GW's established background Fluff, whereas Comp simply looks at the FOC. The two have nothing to do with each other from a scoring perspective. Theme will always be subjective, whereas Comp can be handled objectively.

sourclams wrote: DA GROTZ!

The simple fact is that I can make dozens of armies that would 100% adhere to background material or some sort of overarching theme, that are completely fluffy and not very powerful, and they would be at or near minimum composition points.

To which, I say: "so what"?

That Grot army isn't going to win much more than it would before, although the Comped opposing armies will give it slightly better chances. But then, winning probably wasn't a priority of such an army in the first place. That army will probably score very high on Theme, likely fulfilling the player's objective.

It is always possible to create a weak army, or weak deck, or otherwise weak force. Nothing prevents that in any game system which allows for detailed selection or construction.

We all know for a fact that the strongest lists spam the strong units (e.g. Dual Lash & Triple-Max Oblits), and that is what Comp attempts to address. Trying to sidestep the fact that most Codices have strong Heavies, and most armies benefit from having more Heavies is kind of strange. All else being equal, more Heavies, and repeated units is more powerful, so if you're going to apply mechanical Comp, that's where you should clamp down.

We all know for a fact that the strongest lists spam the strong units (e.g. Dual Lash & Triple-Max Oblits), and that is what Comp attempts to address. Trying to sidestep the fact that most Codices have strong Heavies, and most armies benefit from having more Heavies is kind of strange. All else being equal, more Heavies, and repeated units is more powerful, so if you're going to apply mechanical Comp, that's where you should clamp down.

To which I respond, why? Whay does it need to be adressed at all, everyone knows what the strongest lists are and how to beat them. I dont need or want a handicap to compete against a strong build. I want the challenge of either figuring it out and doing it myself. If I cant do it and loose, then I loose and I deserve to.

I find the very idea of comp insulting if It is in my favor, and frustrating if it works against me. I have never, once, ever had an experience with a comp system that was positive. It has never added to my expereince.

I think the best example is how in tournaments where it does not exist it is NEVER missed, yet in tournaments where it does it is ALWAYS a source of controversy and ruins the experience of someone.

In sports do you tell each team, " you cant bring your three best players. " or " you can only have one good player at each position, any more than that and they have to stay home. "

Everyone knows what works the best and what wins. So why would you artificially penalize that just to reward people who choose to bring lists that are less effective??

I will just never understand the reason anyone would want comp in the first place.