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.

Polonius wrote:Did this slip through a wormhole from 2002? By that, I thought that complaining about comp in tournaments is about a relevant these days as railing against the Hapsburgs.

YES! I love this game.

This discussion has been run into the ground harder than Pacabel's Canon.

These threads are going more places than Emily Dickinson.

This topic has more locks than a conversation about social contract.

Polonius wrote:There is a chunk of the gamer population that says "I play for fun," but really mean "I dont' want to update my army, my tactics, or anything to deal with changes, but I still want to win half my games."

Not that I'm a huge fan of composition scores, but this statement seems a little pointed and incorrect. It's not "I don't want to update anything in my army to deal with changes." It's really more like "I want to be able to take the suboptimal choices of my army because I like their fluff/model/whatever and not be steamrolled every time by the WAAC cookie-cutter list of the month."

I agree that comp scores have a big tendency to say "you must play the list we think is fair or else your wins will be so penalized it doesn't matter that you showed up". I'd also agree that playing against dual lash, rhino plaguers and massed oblits for the 18th time is very boring. Same with playing against yet another melta mech vet army, mech sister spam, mech eldar, etc. laid on the table. It gets old very quickly, especially when there's an entire book of choices that people avoid because they are suboptimal and cannot stand up to a WAAC list.

People might respond with "Well then don't show up at the tournament if you're a casual player" or even worse "Well then don't play around these parts, that's how we like to play." Telling people not to show up is very short-sighted and selfish. Tournaments can be a very enjoyable experience between fellow gamers. Comped tournaments happen to be those that are run by casual players who would rather see more of the suboptimal choices on the field in the name of fluff and variety than seeing the same WAAC cookie-cutter lists that show little more than the user found something good in a list and spammed the heck out of it for the sole purpose of overwhelming people.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Horst wrote:http://www.daboyzgt.com/gt09/Final%20Comp.htm

comp used at the local tournament by me. gave fair scores imo.

Why don't you just drop the charade and say
"You will receive 0-15 points depending on how much I like you."

Very true with some of that group that runs that tournament.

Polonius wrote:

Shaman wrote:Comp shows that causal gamers don't like to lose.

Very nicely put.

There is a chunk of the gamer population that says "I play for fun," but really mean "I dont' want to update my army, my tactics, or anything to deal with changes, but I still want to win half my games."

That's a bit strong Polonius and unlike you. As an example, at the risking of sounding egoistic, when I've played in local tournaments at various stores with my Vulkan list I've placed 1st or 2nd every time. I could always run an optimized Vulkan list and do well but I think it detracts from the game for others "Ahh, another Vulkan list like the other 2 I played, except you put power-fists on your Sarg...fascinating!" .

The same could be said for other lists as well (2 Lash, PM, max Oblits). Many people may see that build and understand how to run it competitively but simply choose not to for the sake of variety. Take Blackmoor's Thousand Sons list on his blog as a good example. No doubt he knows what he's doing given his experience/credentials...and he's taking Ahriman and a Chaos Dread =).

I choose not to play my Vulkan list anymore as I feel it's redundancy in tournaments (and in unit selection) reduces the fun that my opponents and I have. I think rewarding players for thinking outside of the box not only increases the fun factor for vets but makes new guys to the game better players as well.

Kirbinator wrote:

Polonius wrote:There is a chunk of the gamer population that says "I play for fun," but really mean "I dont' want to update my army, my tactics, or anything to deal with changes, but I still want to win half my games."

Not that I'm a huge fan of composition scores, but this statement seems a little pointed and incorrect. It's not "I don't want to update anything in my army to deal with changes." It's really more like "I want to be able to take the suboptimal choices of my army because I like their fluff/model/whatever and not be steamrolled every time by the WAAC cookie-cutter list of the month."

The bigger question is why you would want to play with such people? Ether you like competition or you don't.

The codexes define what is legal. IF codexes allow unbalanced lists that is a fault of GW and points to the flawed logic on the part of the tourney scene of trying to use something unbalanced as the focus of a competitive event. 40K should not be played competitively, but if you insist, then just accept that you are doing so with a flawed system and that winning is the inherent focus of a competitive event and play.

I always find it amusing when people are shocked that people entering a competitive activity act competitively.

The purpose of a tourney is to win. That is what it is by definition.

Trying to impose an often arbitrary thing like comp score is a waste of time. If people just wanted to play for fun and to explore the fluff they could play a casual game. THat isn't why they are at a tourney. Tourney guys like to pretend it is about the camaraderie and all the huggy feely stuff they reference but for most it is not, and the only reason they pay it any lip sevice is because of the stigma of being seen as "that guy" if they don't.

Kirbinator wrote:

Polonius wrote:There is a chunk of the gamer population that says "I play for fun," but really mean "I dont' want to update my army, my tactics, or anything to deal with changes, but I still want to win half my games."

Not that I'm a huge fan of composition scores, but this statement seems a little pointed and incorrect. It's not "I don't want to update anything in my army to deal with changes." It's really more like "I want to be able to take the suboptimal choices of my army because I like their fluff/model/whatever and not be steamrolled every time by the WAAC cookie-cutter list of the month."

I think there are both demographics out there. I agree in that I wish more options were playable, and to be fair the more recent codices have done a good job with that. Look at the IG list that won Hard boys: far less spamming than you'd imagine, and no more than two of any one unit. http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/09/40k-ard-boys-armylist-leafblower.html

I agree that comp scores have a big tendency to say "you must play the list we think is fair or else your wins will be so penalized it doesn't matter that you showed up". I'd also agree that playing against dual lash, rhino plaguers and massed oblits for the 18th time is very boring. Same with playing against yet another melta mech vet army, mech sister spam, mech eldar, etc. laid on the table. It gets old very quickly, especially when there's an entire book of choices that people avoid because they are suboptimal and cannot stand up to a WAAC list.

I think you're selling the number of competitive builds a little short, but I see your over all point. I'm not sure how comp really fixes that, in theory but certainly not in practice.

People might respond with "Well then don't show up at the tournament if you're a casual player" or even worse "Well then don't play around these parts, that's how we like to play." Telling people not to show up is very short-sighted and selfish. Tournaments can be a very enjoyable experience between fellow gamers. Comped tournaments happen to be those that are run by casual players who would rather see more of the suboptimal choices on the field in the name of fluff and variety than seeing the same WAAC cookie-cutter lists that show little more than the user found something good in a list and spammed the heck out of it for the sole purpose of overwhelming people.

Well, Most tournaments do swiss pairings, so the odds of you facing a killer list in three straight games is pretty low. Comp, even when it works, doesn't change the fact that there is a power curve among units, builds, and armies; it simply shifts where the curve sits.

I like the sentiment you express in your final sentences, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. How do you define comp? How do you rate it? how judges it? Is it subjective or check list style? You seem to see comp as a handicap, do you think that stronger lists are inherently lower in comp? Why is 4 Gaunt broods great comp, 4 mobs of slugga boys okcomp, while 4 squads of mech vets with meltas poor comp?

Most critics of comp scores aren't opposed to the idea, they just point to two inherent flaws in any comp system:
1) they are all eventually arbitrary and subjective, and depend more on taste than anything else, and
2) They can all be "gamed" so that the best armies simply rise to the top again.

Fix those, and I'd love to play more comp style tournies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Shaman wrote:Comp shows that causal gamers don't like to lose.

Very nicely put.

There is a chunk of the gamer population that says "I play for fun," but really mean "I dont' want to update my army, my tactics, or anything to deal with changes, but I still want to win half my games."

That's a bit strong Polonius and unlike you. .

I should have made it clearer that I wasn't lumping all comp supporters into that group, and that I wasn't trying to shame those guys, just pointing out that they're there.

Definitely agree with pretty much everything you said in that last bit Polonius, which is exactly why I prefaced with "Not that I'm a huge fan of composition scores..." Like you said, the devil is in the details and there is no great way to apply composition restrictions without them becoming arbitrary and subjective.

Heck, I saw one tourney where a SM brought split tac squads and Razorbacks, which is exactly what the small transport capacity is best used for. One of the judges walked by and remarked that it was cheesy. Sad day for fair judging.

Also, for the 'comp leads to more variety' crowd...This is not always true.

I used to play in tournaments in Harrisburg, where they are comp heavy. The problem is, every tournament, I ended up fighting against several Marine lists that were pretty much identical. Even the Chaos lists just looked and felt like Loyalist lists with spikes (This is back in 4th edition). I've found this true in most comp-friendly areas...All the 'good comp' lists are pretty similar and bland.

To me, a lot of the pro-comp camp's arguments are based on having the 'one right way to play' and wanting to punish people who enjoy the game differently. Most of the restrictions aren't based on the actual power of the list, but rather how they match what the people running the system believe the game should be played.

Shaman wrote:Comp shows that causal gamers don't like to lose.

Actually, Comp shows that casual gamers don't like to play against the same armies with the same builds every single time. As a casual gamer, I can actually make that statement with a straight face. As a non-casual gamer, your speaking on behalf casual gamers is best not even attempted, much less with a sneer or a smirk.

Comp isn't about winning - it's about variety & diversity, which are completely different from winning. So what if Comp isn't perfectly fair to all armies - neither is non-Comp. The idea that a non-Comp environment gives every army an even shake at winning is ludicrous - otherwise there wouldn't be "power" builds. Comp simply states that winning should be more about Generalship on the table than the strength of the army you brought. Or that we should simply do something different.

Non-Comp, OTOH, *is* only about winning. Fantasy Ard Boyz showed that in spades with a massive Daemons of Chaos turnout, due to that army being hugely more powerful than anything else in a non-comp environment. If 40k had a similarly degenerate release (pretend Nids comes out, allowing Nid players to take whatever they want, with a 20% in-game effectiveness increase, but coupled with a 20% points cost *decrease*), I wonder just how happy the non-Comp camp would be with the collapsed metagame.

The other issue that people confuse is that Comp isn't this monolithic thing that appears out of nowhere and bites you in the ass. Comp can be restrictive (things not being allowed, like SCs) and/or punitive (anything allowed, but less points awarded).
If Comp is going to be at an event, the TO will usually let people know in advance. So people can vote with their feet and not simply not attend, in the same way that people who dislike non-Comp events can avoid those at well.

Considering the sheer amount of whining about GW not playtesting for balance, how anybody can promote non-Comp as "better" is beyond me. Don't people constantly say a blind chimp (much less a well-intentioned TO) could do a better job of balancing than GW?

@John: Actually, more and more tournament gamers are turning away from the idea that power in 40k is restricted to a few builds or codices, and starting to acknowledge that there is a lot of diversity at the top. At least 8 Codices are are cpaable of dropping at least one solid power build, (Wolves, IG, Marines, Demons, Chaos, Orks, Sisters, Eldar) while several more have some wacky extreme builds (DE, DH, DA).

The one difference between the natural range of power found in non-comp and the range of power allowed by comp is that in non-comp, a player can build his best list, and actually allow luck, skill, experience, and insight to compensate for a weak codex (Nids and Tau still win things). With comp, if you play an army that is gimped by the system, you can't do anything to really over come it.

@Polonius: That's 40k, and you're completely right there.

But have you *seen* what's happened in Fantasy?

JohnHwangDD wrote:Comp isn't about winning - it's about variety & diversity,

And you can say that with a straight face? Sorry, comp encourages less diverse builds in my experience.

Non-Comp, OTOH, *is* only about winning.

Hypocritical much? Non-Comp is about playing what you want to play not what other people think you should be playing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: That's 40k, and you're completely right there.

But have you *seen* what's happened in Fantasy?

Fantasy has joined AD&D 2nd edition in the pantheon of "Games that are more fun to read the rules for than actually play."

Fantasy is a train wreck. I don't even know where to begin.

@skyth: That ain't what WFB Ard Boyz showed. There are about 15 legal armies for WFB, so any given army shouldn't really show up more than 10% or so. At Ard Boyz, Daemons made up easily half the field, and consistently won out, taking easily half of the qualifying and prize spots. Those Daemon armies pretty much uniformly spammed 10 Horrors as Core, Hounds as Special, and Flamers as Rare. So yeah, I've done the analysis and I can definitely say that with a straight face. Non-Comp is about winning, and WFB Ard Boyz proves it conclusively. To argue otherwise belies the actual facts and history.
____

@Polonius: That's a great quote, and so very apt. But then again, doesn't 40k2 also fit in that very same pantheon?

IMO, GW is using WFB as a testing ground to see how much Codex Creep the player base will tolerate. GW realises they can muck up WFB without affecting their revenue or prifits, whereas 40k is sancrosanct. WotR being so nicely done in contrast to WFB makes the whole thing really glaring.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Polonius: That's a great quote, and so very apt. But then again, doesn't 40k2 also fit in that very same pantheon?

I'm sure it was. I never played, but I do enjoy reading the rules even now.

Kirbinator wrote:
People might respond with "Well then don't show up at the tournament if you're a casual player" or even worse "Well then don't play around these parts, that's how we like to play." Telling people not to show up is very short-sighted and selfish. Tournaments can be a very enjoyable experience between fellow gamers. Comped tournaments happen to be those that are run by casual players who would rather see more of the suboptimal choices on the field in the name of fluff and variety than seeing the same WAAC cookie-cutter lists that show little more than the user found something good in a list and spammed the heck out of it for the sole purpose of overwhelming people.

Its funny that you say that, its short sighted to tell compl players not to show up to tournments. I've seen in this very thread por-comp players tell the folks that dont like comp that very thing.....

I think Polonius is right on w/ his statement about the state of Fantasy right now. Comp. in 40k and comp. in Fantasy are two very different subjects. Fantasy is extremely unbalanced at the moment, while 40k is only moderately so.

theHandofGork wrote:I think Polonius is right on w/ his statement about the state of Fantasy right now. Comp. in 40k and comp. in Fantasy are two very different subjects. Fantasy is extremely unbalanced at the moment, while 40k is only moderately so.

The problem is that while there are some very strong armies in fantasy, there are also some criminally weak ones (O&G and OK), both of which are arguably weaker than DA and DH in 40k.

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Polonius: That's a great quote, and so very apt. But then again, doesn't 40k2 also fit in that very same pantheon?

I'm sure it was. I never played, but I do enjoy reading the rules even now.

Amen to that. And the Fluff, oh, the Fluff... That's always a treat to read.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@Polonius: That's a great quote, and so very apt. But then again, doesn't 40k2 also fit in that very same pantheon?

I'm sure it was. I never played, but I do enjoy reading the rules even now.

Amen to that. And the Fluff, oh, the Fluff... That's always a treat to read.

I picked up an old 2nd edition box game for $60. The space marines were useful for a while, the orks got traded, but Codex Imperialis and Codex: Wargear are still referred back to. Excellent stuff.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@skyth: That ain't what WFB Ard Boyz showed. There are about 15 legal armies for WFB, so any given army shouldn't really show up more than 10% or so. At Ard Boyz, Daemons made up easily half the field, and consistently won out, taking easily half of the qualifying and prize spots. Those Daemon armies pretty much uniformly spammed 10 Horrors as Core, Hounds as Special, and Flamers as Rare. So yeah, I've done the analysis and I can definitely say that with a straight face. Non-Comp is about winning, and WFB Ard Boyz proves it conclusively. To argue otherwise belies the actual facts and history.

Non-comp is not the same as Hard Boyz. The stated intent of Hard Boyz is to bring your hardest armies with the only goal baing winning battles. And btw, at the Hard Boyz I was at, there was quite a variety of armies present, with Daemons probably only about 10% of the total. If you are going by the finals, considering that you had to go through 2 rounds, it just proves that Daemons are the best army out there as they fought through 2 other rounds. (I would say that most people would stick with the same general army) I would say that your so-called 'facts' do not in any way support that non-comp is all about winning.

Non-comp might not be all about winning, but it certainly rewards winning more than other systems.

The problem with comp scoring is that it relies on subjective values for what is and is not considered "good". As long as a given force is "codex legal" then there should be no penalty for using it.

Polonius wrote:Non-comp might not be all about winning, but it certainly rewards winning more than other systems.

That is not neccessarily a bad thing. And comped tournaments are all about the winning also...Just winning in a different way.

To me, non-comp is about playing what I want not being forced or guilt-tripped into playing something I don't enjoy.

That is the whole issue with comp...The villification of the people that enjoy playing differently. If comp were simply a balance thing I wouldn't have an issue with it. but it would have to balance each game based on relative comp scores (And the comp scores based soley on power level rather than 'playing right').

@Skyth: I generally agree.

I like using good units. I don't like to win automatically or win at all costs, but I don't' enjoy using lousy units, no matter how neat they are. Comp tells me that I need to stop using the units that I enjoy using, and use others, in order to maximize my score.

I'll use fun units, but I know I'm handicapping myself when I use them. (I used to love using Daemonhosts). I know that using sub-standard units means it will increase my chances of losing.

However, I don't blame my opponent when I lose because of what I took in my list. Comp seems to be more about controlling what the other person is taking in thier list with no regards for thier fun.

Polonius wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:I think Polonius is right on w/ his statement about the state of Fantasy right now. Comp. in 40k and comp. in Fantasy are two very different subjects. Fantasy is extremely unbalanced at the moment, while 40k is only moderately so.

The problem is that while there are some very strong armies in fantasy, there are also some criminally weak ones (O&G and OK), both of which are arguably weaker than DA and DH in 40k.

I've been following this problem for months, and they aren't just arguably weaker - O&G and OK are *provably* weaker. You can handicap them by 10% extra points and 10% extra VPs relative to the rest of the field, and they *still* won't perform at par. Chaos Dwarves, Dogs of War, and Beasts of Chaos are also in this category.

Based on the numbers, you're probably looking at over 15% points differential to bring any of these armies up to par. And that's precisely what the ETC is testing for 2010, with a 20% points handicap.

And the top end is similarly provably stronger with Daemons and Vampires being 10-15% stronger than average.

So in WFB, you're looking at "balanced" (i.e. both sides have similar chances of winning) games varying from 2000 pts to over 2700 pts.

With that as context, the difference between strong Comp (e.g. ETC) and No-Comp (Ard Boyz) is measurable and provable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@skyth: That ain't what WFB Ard Boyz showed.

So yeah, I've done the analysis and I can definitely say that with a straight face. Non-Comp is about winning, and WFB Ard Boyz proves it conclusively. To argue otherwise belies the actual facts and history.

Non-comp is not the same as Hard Boyz. The stated intent of Hard Boyz is to bring your hardest armies with the only goal baing winning battles.

I would say that your so-called 'facts' do not in any way support that non-comp is all about winning.

Really?

The stated intent?

Games Workshop wrote:'Ard Boyz Tournaments and Schedule

'Ard Boyz Tournaments are a three-part, competitive series of events hosted by Independant Retailers across North America. For the last two years we've hosted 'Ard Boyz Tournaments for both Warhammer 40K and for Warhammer Fantasy. We plan to add War of The Ring to the mix starting in 2010 to make an 'Ard Boyz event for all three of our core systems!

Unlike the traditional tournament format you may be familiar with, that takes into consideration your painting and sportsmanship, the 'Ard Boyz Tournaments focus on one thing and one thing only; how well you play the game! These tournaments are the place to field that nasty list you felt guilty about playing, or that massive horde army you couldn't hope to paint it in time.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=400002a§ion=community&aId=500011a

No Comp mentioned there, and it's "competitive" and "how well you play the game!". Heck, they don't even have Sports or Painting as factors. They don't say anything about only "winning battles" or "hardest armies" - they say "massive horde that you couldn't hope to paint in time".

OTOH, if you're allowing subjective things like Sports and Painting as core parts of an event, then who's to say that an overwhelming component of Sports can't be what you choose to bring? Or that the standard of Painting depends on what you brought?

JohnHwangDD wrote:The stated intent?

Games Workshop wrote:'Ard Boyz Tournaments and Schedule

'Ard Boyz Tournaments are a three-part, competitive series of events hosted by Independant Retailers across North America. For the last two years we've hosted 'Ard Boyz Tournaments for both Warhammer 40K and for Warhammer Fantasy. We plan to add War of The Ring to the mix starting in 2010 to make an 'Ard Boyz event for all three of our core systems!

Unlike the traditional tournament format you may be familiar with, that takes into consideration your painting and sportsmanship, the 'Ard Boyz Tournaments focus on one thing and one thing only; how well you play the game! These tournaments are the place to field that nasty list you felt guilty about playing, or that massive horde army you couldn't hope to paint it in time.

They don't say anything about only "winning battles" or "hardest armies" - they say "massive horde that you couldn't hope to paint in time".

Reading comprehension fail. And your 'facts' still don't prove that non-comp is all about winning any more than a comp event.

OTOH, if you're allowing subjective things like Sports and Painting as core parts of an event, then who's to say that an overwhelming component of Sports can't be what you choose to bring? Or that the standard of Painting depends on what you brought?

Only if you have no moral compass.

Another reason comp really doesnt have a place in tournaments is that many times when you're judged, you're judged incorrectly.

I'm not talking about torpedoing ones soft scores, although that does happen.

When considering Comp judging by tournament officials, Composition judging can often be GROSSLY out of whack. Lots of people in this hobby like to think that they're actually MUCH better at knowing "whats up" in this game than they actually are. I find that many store owners who run tournaments really fall into this catagory. As an example, lets take a store owner...he runs RTT's in his store once a month for 40k. He uses comp grading, but thanx to players complaining about chipmunking he's taken the painting and comp points unto himself for judging.

He knows about lash, BikerNobs and loota spam, oblits, Vulkan lists and whatnot. He's seen people play these armies in his store rather frequently. He gives each of these armies a slight (or not so slight...depending) ding on comp whenever he sees them in his tournament.

Now Mr. Store Owner is quite familiar with the typical power lists because he's seen them in his store. However, either he doesnt PLAY 40k or he plays very little due to him not wanting to "take his work home with him" or spend his free time with things he sees every day at work. This is normal.

Now, at this months 40k tournament an out of towner shows up. He's got a heavily converted Seer Council on bikes army, or maybe a Feral Ork appendix list that noone has seen, but whatever his list is, its GROSSLY "Overpowered" when you consider a comp friendly environment. Problem is, since Mr. Store Owner isnt as well versed in the intracacies of 40k as he would like to THINK he is, he just sees a new interesting list and doenst realise how "broken" it well and truly is. He gives the newcomer a nice fluffy score in composition for bringing something new and interesting to his store.

The Newcomer proceeds to wipe the walls with everyone in the store with their comp-friendly lists...laughing all the way to the 50 dollars store credit that is offered to the overall winner that day. Thanx for the extra comp points there pal.

Sooo many people are ready to say that they're sooo good at this game that they can spot a broken list from a mile away. Noone wants to admit that they're fallible, or maybe just plain not as good as they think they must be. In my personal opinion, unless you play at least a game week against different opponents everytime, and every possible army, and different combinations of those...you really dont have any business judging another persons "composition" of their army.

Composition simply doesnt belong in a tournament setting. Noone is qualified to judge something like that. Certainly not a disgruntled player that just lost, or a store owner who doesnt even play 40k, or a 40kGT official that says "D@MN! I've never seen THAT trick before....maybe I shouldnt have maxed him on comp."

Composition is another excuse for people to claim the tournament was misjudged. It doesnt work, its been proven, and that's why its been on the downturn in recent history. Tournament goers everywhere should rejoice once it goes the way of the dodo.

Polonius wrote:@John: Actually, more and more tournament gamers are turning away from the idea that power in 40k is restricted to a few builds or codices, and starting to acknowledge that there is a lot of diversity at the top. At least 8 Codices are are cpaable of dropping at least one solid power build, (Wolves, IG, Marines, Demons, Chaos, Orks, Sisters, Eldar) while several more have some wacky extreme builds (DE, DH, DA).

The one difference between the natural range of power found in non-comp and the range of power allowed by comp is that in non-comp, a player can build his best list, and actually allow luck, skill, experience, and insight to compensate for a weak codex (Nids and Tau still win things). With comp, if you play an army that is gimped by the system, you can't do anything to really over come it.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that certain codices cannot compete, the issue is most only allow one power build which leads to army/unit redundancy. A 'Unique' score across the tables would make a difference on every army as well...not just the older ones (Although it's mostly their age that is showing and will be remedied). Redundancy however is common among any power builds, as the redundancy of certain units is the core of a power build.

However, I don't like the name 'comp' as it seems restrictive from the get go. I think tournaments should simply add another scoring column in terms of 'Unique', 'Cool', 'Theme'....or some other suitable name. This moves the topic into a more subjective state....rather than trying to make it work as a score (Did army have 2+ of PM? Then -1)...as certain armies may build a theme around that unit.