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.

With the recent Bols article, it got me thinking about whether or not some sort of Comp system would work in 40k. I checked out the link to the Australian Community Comp document. Needless to say, I was not impressed. I have major problems with how that particular system is organized.

First, the system penalizes players too much. Most of the workhorse units in a codex (and some others) are given some sort of a comp penalty. With the way that I would build a list, I would end up giving away half my score at the end of the tournament even with a semi-competitive list. The system as a whole might eliminate the nastiest and cheesiest lists from the tournament scene, but it ends up penalizing the majority of people's armies to an exorbitant degree. In the end, the system as it stands merely adds another level of metagame for players to work around. However, all this assumes that all units in the game are given a comp score that makes sense in the context of their army, which brings me to my next point:

The Comp System does not assign scores in a manner that makes sense. Even the new Eldar codex is under-comped with regards to jetbikes and D-weapons. Tau, Demons, CSM, Guard, and Dark Angels are all hit hard by the system. The way it deals with Land Raiders across all armies is terrible. There is also enough BS table nonsense to make Phil Kelley proud. There are plenty more examples of extremely questionable choices made when assigning comp costs.

The greatest problem the Community Comp system has is that it is inconsistent. Some armies are penalized more than others, and the way the penalties are handed out means that games at a tournament level can be decided by a couple of points in the Comp Score rather than in the game itself. This may have gained acceptance in Australia, but I don't see gaming groups outside of there taking up its system.

Ultimately, I don't think that comp systems are the solution to the problems that Warhammer 40k has. Event organizers should make it clear to any participants exactly what kind of event they are putting on with regards to tone. Tournaments in the US are already organizing around the ITC house rules, and using alternate missions and scenarios taken from the LVO and BAO to try and level the playing field at a competitive level. House rules and alternate missions are what I personally have experienced to work to ensure a good balance between fun and competition. Comp systems is taking house rules a step too far, and ignores the fundamental imbalance inherent in Warhammer 40k.

I welcome any sort of feedback people have had with this and other comp systems, both in 40k and other tabletop wargames.

Link: http://www.communitycomp.org/files/CommunityComp.pdf

I agree with you about the community comp system being heavily flawed, especially with regards to points values assigned and certain armies being undercomped.

Their intent is that each army pays ~8-12 points, so you're meant to have around that much with a semi competative list since the purpose is to have everyone on a level playing field, hence if you take a weaker list, you get more points to even it out. That's what comp is and you don't seem to understand that premise.

Community comp isn't widely accepted across Australia, just in certain areas regardless of what some people would have you believe.

Comp is like communism, a great idea in theory that makes everything equal for everyone, but it doesn't quite work out in reality, with most of the strong stuff staying strong and the weak getting no benefits.

What we actually need, is for GW to stop writing wildly upderpowered (CSM, DA, Orks, BA) or wildly overpowered (Eldar, Necrons, Daemons and Tau to a lesser extent) codices. They were heading for a good thing during most of 7th with the relative balance of Orks, DE, SW, BA and to a lesser extent, GK. But then necrons and eldar ruined that with books that were way out of line with everything else.

I'll grant you much of the flavour was removed from some of those codecies, but they were much more balanced against each other than before.

Now that comp has been explained to me, it makes even less sense as a system. Why would I give up half my tournament score just for bringing my army? Why wouldn't I bring the most competitive list to a tournament if I intended to win outright?

In my experience, the best indicator of balance in lists and codexes is how close the games are over their entire course. I feel that, with the exceptions of Necrons and Eldar, the 7th edition books have been very balanced. It's all a matter of agreeing with your opponent about what kind of game you want to have.

If I was playing against someone in a close game and won, but the win was counted less because my opponent had a lower comp score than I did, I would not be happy. It's good to hear that not all Australian players agree with the madness that is Community Comp.

 Drasius wrote:
Comp is like communism, a great idea in theory that makes everything equal for everyone, but it doesn't quite work out in reality

I disagree. Communism is at least good in principle. Comp is a terrible idea even in theory, the execution of it in most cases only adds insult to injury.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Drasius wrote:
Comp is like communism, a great idea in theory that makes everything equal for everyone, but it doesn't quite work out in reality

I disagree. Communism is at least good in principle. Comp is a terrible idea even in theory, the execution of it in most cases only adds insult to injury.

"All armies are equal, but some armies are more equal than others"

As it stands right now, Warhammer 40k is a fundamentally imbalanced game, with all the positives and negatives this situation produces. Comp and other score-based penalty systems are trying to fix the metagame's imbalance by putting another metagame directly onto it. This is a step sideways at best, and is actively harmful at worst.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Drasius wrote:
Comp is like communism, a great idea in theory that makes everything equal for everyone, but it doesn't quite work out in reality

I disagree. Communism is at least good in principle. Comp is a terrible idea even in theory, the execution of it in most cases only adds insult to injury.

^This. Comp doesn't even sound like a good idea. I would rather have a few rules clarified and things like the 2++ re rollable toned down just slightly.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Comp and other score-based penalty systems are trying to fix the metagame's imbalance by putting another metagame directly onto it. This is a step sideways at best, and is actively harmful at worst.

It's worse than that. The problem isn't that it creates another metagame, that would be fine if it was a sensible system that introduced another layer of strategic decisions to make. The problem with comp is that its entire premise is fundamentally broken. Comp says "we all agree that X is overpowered", but then instead of fixing X it says "we'll let you take X and win, but you're TFG if you do". If you decide that comp is stupid and show up with the most overpowered list you can create you can win all of your games, leave the tournament satisfied that you were the best player even if someone else took the top prize because of shame points/painting/whatever, and entirely negate the effect of comp. The games were still one-sided massacres where your opponents had to suffer the frustration of playing against X, and the fact that you get a shame point penalty after the tournament is over doesn't make those games more enjoyable. The correct solution is to fix X and remove the balance problem, ensuring that the game itself (the most important part) is balanced and enjoyable for both players regardless of what score is assigned at the end.

Of course none of this really matters since fixing competitive balance isn't the goal of comp, shaming people for playing the game the "wrong" way is the only thing that matters. That's why every comp system inevitably ends up attaching shame point penalties to stuff that isn't a serious balance problem. Even in a perfectly balanced game there would still be something to shame people for and the same comp advocates would be telling us how we need their "solution".

Ultimately I don't think any sort of "points based" comp system will work, it's fundamentally layering a duplicate mechanism on top of something that already exists (points costs and FoC's).

I've yet to see a comp system that didn't just result in a *different* power tier as opposed to a flattened one, and that didn't generally punish fluff/theme armies at least as much as ultra competitive ones.

As much as I utterly despise the Fantasy ETC comp system, I think there's one aspect of it that might be a viable way to go a sort of 'comp-lite' for 40k... We know that the majority of the biggest grievances typically sprout from brutal combos, hence, target just those combos through a 0-'X' styled system.

For example, Daemons are stupid when throwing out a re-rolled 2++ save model/unit. What makes it super obnoxious however, if the fact that an army relying on this "tactic" will include Fateweaver for his re-roll to ensure that the Grimoire will almost never backfire. (thus removing the built-in balance feature of the Grimoire itself)
However, if you make Fateweaver & Grimoire of True Names a combined 0-1 option, you outright break the combo. The re-rolled 2++ is still allowed, but now it's a massive 33% chance to fail and instead inflict -1 save instead.
Same deal for stopping the likes of Summon Farms - just remove Malefic as an option for Pink Horrors, (who shouldn't have it anyways!), and/or put in a hard-cap on the number of new units which can be summoned each turn.

Other 'problem' areas such as Invis can be 'fixed' by simply FAQ'ing to allow Template weapons to hit invisible units, etc...

I really don't think it's worth it. Theoretically it's possible, but it has so many flaws that there's probably better ways to do this.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately I don't think any sort of "points based" comp system will work, it's fundamentally layering a duplicate mechanism on top of something that already exists (points costs and FoC's).

I've yet to see a comp system that didn't just result in a *different* power tier as opposed to a flattened one, and that didn't generally punish fluff/theme armies at least as much as ultra competitive ones.

As I mentioned in some other thread, I'd rather adjust the balance with a 'points multiplier' - "Eldar get to bring 0.95 x 1850 pts, Orks get 1.05 x 1850 points" etc. Or rather with current allied lists etc., "all Eldar units cost 1.05 x points cost per unit, all Ork units cost 0.95 x points cost per unit".

I'm not a big fan of duplicate mechanisms, as they take a ton of work and usually aren't very good. A points multiplier is probably the simplest way to adjust the balance - it's easy to understand and quick to change when needed - so it keeps with the KISS principle.

 prowla wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately I don't think any sort of "points based" comp system will work, it's fundamentally layering a duplicate mechanism on top of something that already exists (points costs and FoC's).

I've yet to see a comp system that didn't just result in a *different* power tier as opposed to a flattened one, and that didn't generally punish fluff/theme armies at least as much as ultra competitive ones.

As I mentioned in some other thread, I'd rather adjust the balance with a 'points multiplier' - "Eldar get to bring 0.95 x 1850 pts, Orks get 1.05 x 1850 points" etc. Or rather with current allied lists etc., "all Eldar units cost 1.05 x points cost per unit, all Ork units cost 0.95 x points cost per unit".

I'm not a big fan of duplicate mechanisms, as they take a ton of work and usually aren't very good. A points multiplier is probably the simplest way to adjust the balance - it's easy to understand and quick to change when needed - so it keeps with the KISS principle.

I disagree. Points multipliers are also unfair because they target armies as a whole rather than address the root of the problem: specific units within those armies are broken, either in isolation or in combination with others. A 0-1 limit on certain units and combos would be a better way of addressing the problem, and is just as simple a solution.

I didn't know that Warhammer Fantasy used a comp system in tournaments. Does anybody have opinions about whether it works for Fantasy? Or is, as the consensus seems, comp just a bad idea in general?

Now I don't know a lot about the current 40k edition but why not add back the limits that GW took away? E.g. 0-1 Wraithknights

WayneTheGame wrote:
Now I don't know a lot about the current 40k edition but why not add back the limits that GW took away? E.g. 0-1 Wraithknights

The problem is that 7th edition brought about a major change in how the Force Organization Chart works with the advent of Detachments. There are now no longer as many hard-and-fast rules as far as unit selection goes. There are now ways of taking multiple Superheavies or Gargantuan Creatures in a single detachments.

Still, I think that the idea of 0-1 limits, exclusive, is a good way to address some of the more egregious balance issues in the current game.

For example, in an ideal 0-1 limit system you can take Fateweaver or the Grimoire, but you can't take both.

Comp is nearly impossible unless you're the game's developer. With a comp system, you're saying the game is so flawed, that we must make sure it's fair. At that point, why are you paying for it or playing it?

You'd be better off freezing a section of the rules in time (I suggest 5E, it was the best competitive edition, but that's also an IMO statement), and then proceeding from there. To actively try and comp the modern 40k system, that includes throwing out new units/rules nearly monthly, you're going to have a very hard time.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Now I don't know a lot about the current 40k edition but why not add back the limits that GW took away? E.g. 0-1 Wraithknights

Because stuff like Centstar doesn't require "spam", just a certain combination of strong things, which, on their own are good, but together are more then the sum of their parts.

Same deal for screamerstar (though dropping to 1 herald makes it less good but also punishes the people who want to take more than 1 herald and NOT run screamerstar).

I think this should be reinstated, don't get me wrong, but that is what the formations in the latest books have been aimed at, though the ability to simply spam wraithknights ensures that idea doesn't really hold water.

 Drasius wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Now I don't know a lot about the current 40k edition but why not add back the limits that GW took away? E.g. 0-1 Wraithknights

Because stuff like Centstar doesn't require "spam", just a certain combination of strong things, which, on their own are good, but together are more then the sum of their parts.

Same deal for screamerstar (though dropping to 1 herald makes it less good but also punishes the people who want to take more than 1 herald and NOT run screamerstar).

I think this should be reinstated, don't get me wrong, but that is what the formations in the latest books have been aimed at, though the ability to simply spam wraithknights ensures that idea doesn't really hold water.

A limit on detachments/formations, along with house rules and bans/limits on certain units makes a lot more sense to me than a comp system.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that Centstar required three detachments. Personally, I would argue for a limit of two detachments or formations per army, three if taken in a "formation of formations" like the Decurion or Warhost.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
With the recent Bols article, it got me thinking about whether or not some sort of Comp system would work in 40k. I checked out the link to the Australian Community Comp document. Needless to say, I was not impressed. I have major problems with how that particular system is organized.

There's your problem.

That comp doco evidentally works for a ton of players. You hate the crap out of it. Any comp you write will work for some players, and be hated by others. Nobody will agree because human nature - personally I found it laughable that they comped Killa Kans of all things for Orks, that gak sucks

This game is unsalvageable as a competitive entity, don't waste your time trying to change that with dakkadakka's ten thousandth comp thread!

As I said in the Community Comp thread, comp is impossible to enact in today's 40K. There are so many imbalances now, that there is no easy fix. Hell, there's no complicated fix either. Also, just so there's no confusion, comp did not make or break a tourney back in the day. So-called soft scores like comp, sportsmanship, and army appearance were put into the tournament scene because it wasn't about clubbing people over the head. It wasn't about who could win all of their games at any cost.

It was pretty basic: don't be a douche, paint your little army men, and don't (ab)use the imbalances in your codex to an excess. Do those things and win some games, and the trophy was yours.

 the_Armyman wrote:
As I said in the Community Comp thread, comp is impossible to enact in today's 40K. There are so many imbalances now, that there is no easy fix. Hell, there's no complicated fix either. Also, just so there's no confusion, comp did not make or break a tourney back in the day. So-called soft scores like comp, sportsmanship, and army appearance were put into the tournament scene because it wasn't about clubbing people over the head. It wasn't about who could win all of their games at any cost.

It was pretty basic: don't be a douche, paint your little army men, and don't (ab)use the imbalances in your codex to an excess. Do those things and win some games, and the trophy was yours.

I have heard about events like this going on for 40k in the present. They seem like a good idea, and one that I would personally enjoy attending.

Competitors being scored on the combination of wins, sportsmanship, and army appearance, with the winner being the best overall sounds like an excellent way to organize tournaments with a more friendly atmosphere.

I still don't think that a comp system, even in a "soft" form, is a good idea to promote balance. Banning and limiting certain units and detachments, along with altered missions, are in my opinion much fairer to both sides of the tabletop.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Competitors being scored on the combination of wins, sportsmanship, and army appearance, with the winner being the best overall sounds like an excellent way to organize tournaments with a more friendly atmosphere.

The problem with sportsmanship scoring is that you almost inevitably get people who give zero scores as revenge for losing a game, or even the people who automatically give everyone a zero because it helps their own chances of winning. The alternative is that you have a system where it defaults to full points and you have to explain to the TO why you think any other score is appropriate, but then you just end up giving everyone full points and the sportsmanship score becomes irrelevant. And really, if someone is behaving so badly that they should lose sportsmanship points why haven't they been kicked out of the event?

And painting also has its flaws. For example, how do you handle the person who pays to have their army painted? They've literally just bought a perfect painting score, and created a situation where everyone else is pressured to do the same or start every tournament at a significant disadvantage. And how do you account for subjective opinions about painting quality?

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Competitors being scored on the combination of wins, sportsmanship, and army appearance, with the winner being the best overall sounds like an excellent way to organize tournaments with a more friendly atmosphere.

The problem with sportsmanship scoring is that you almost inevitably get people who give zero scores as revenge for losing a game, or even the people who automatically give everyone a zero because it helps their own chances of winning. The alternative is that you have a system where it defaults to full points and you have to explain to the TO why you think any other score is appropriate, but then you just end up giving everyone full points and the sportsmanship score becomes irrelevant. And really, if someone is behaving so badly that they should lose sportsmanship points why haven't they been kicked out of the event?

And painting also has its flaws. For example, how do you handle the person who pays to have their army painted? They've literally just bought a perfect painting score, and created a situation where everyone else is pressured to do the same or start every tournament at a significant disadvantage. And how do you account for subjective opinions about painting quality?

Ideally, sportsmanship would be a "0-1" or "thumbs up, thumbs down" system. Getting one zero would be grounds for having a TO come over to investigate the complaint. Getting any more would mean disqualification.

As far as painting goes, the system that I would feel to be the most fair in that case would be the person with a professionally painted army would receive the points for having a well-painted army, but not the points for having painted a majority of the army themselves.

I will admit that paint scoring is highly subjective. The best way I have seen it done is via a committee of judges doing the scoring, with the top 2 or 3 being put to a vote of all the participants.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Ideally, sportsmanship would be a "0-1" or "thumbs up, thumbs down" system. Getting one zero would be grounds for having a TO come over to investigate the complaint. Getting any more would mean disqualification.

I mentioned that system already, and it still doesn't work. Everyone gets a perfect score except the people who you should be kicking out, so why have a score at all? Just kick out the people who do something that would have given them a zero and drop the score entirely.

As far as painting goes, the system that I would feel to be the most fair in that case would be the person with a professionally painted army would receive the points for having a well-painted army, but not the points for having painted a majority of the army themselves.

But why have points for "I painted it myself"? And how do you tell if someone painted their own models or not, if they aren't honest enough to admit it?

I will admit that paint scoring is highly subjective. The best way I have seen it done is via a committee of judges doing the scoring, with the top 2 or 3 being put to a vote of all the participants.

But that still leads to unhappy players who feel like they deserved to win. The best way to handle painting is to have a separate painting contest with its own scoring and prizes, so that the people who are mostly there for the gaming don't have to get frustrated about how their painting was scored and how it may have cost them the win they deserved based on their win/loss record.

All of your points are valid. I agree that at a highly competitive level your ideas would be the best way to handle things.

However, no system is perfect, and it must be adapted to the needs of the people using it. In the groups that I play with, while people do play to win, having fun with the game is paramount. I have experienced systems like what I have described working well in these kind of groups. Will these systems work for every player in every group and in every tournament? No. But I do think that they would work well in the kind of groups where I like to play. We clearly have different ideas and expectations for both the game and the context within which we play it.

Perhaps that is why some groups in Australia turned to Community Comp; it suited that particular environment well. The problem is that Community Comp doesn't seem to fit any other environments well.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
In the groups that I play with, while people do play to win, having fun with the game is paramount.

And that's where my point about sportsmanship is most important. In a hardcore competitive environment you probably expect things to get a bit confrontational from time to time, and it's easier to put a bad experience behind you and focus on winning the next game. In a "play for fun" environment* like yours, on the other hand, one bad experience can really ruin a player's enjoyment of the entire event. That's where you need to have the least tolerance for bad behavior. If someone is causing enough problems to get a meaningful sportsmanship penalty then they need to be kicked out of the event immediately. Giving them a score penalty after the tournament is over doesn't fix their behavior problems and prevent them from ruining someone else's day. And once you've removed the people who can't figure out how to behave appropriately everyone else is getting the exact same sportsmanship score and there's no reason to have it.

*Having fun is still the most important thing in a hardcore competitive tournament, it's just a different kind of fun.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 Drasius wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Now I don't know a lot about the current 40k edition but why not add back the limits that GW took away? E.g. 0-1 Wraithknights

Because stuff like Centstar doesn't require "spam", just a certain combination of strong things, which, on their own are good, but together are more then the sum of their parts.

Same deal for screamerstar (though dropping to 1 herald makes it less good but also punishes the people who want to take more than 1 herald and NOT run screamerstar).

I think this should be reinstated, don't get me wrong, but that is what the formations in the latest books have been aimed at, though the ability to simply spam wraithknights ensures that idea doesn't really hold water.

A limit on detachments/formations, along with house rules and bans/limits on certain units makes a lot more sense to me than a comp system.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that Centstar required three detachments. Personally, I would argue for a limit of two detachments or formations per army, three if taken in a "formation of formations" like the Decurion or Warhost.

If you want to fix Centstar, don't ban other people's fun. Just ban Cenststar and leave multiple detachments be. Like "No Centurions with Tiggy, Draigo, whatever else needed in the same unit, at least one of the components has to be missing". And that's it, Centstar gone, and other non-cheesy mutliple detachment armys are left intact.

I think one major point with bannings and restrictions is that they try to act they aren't banning the cheese builds, but the generic components of cheese. Multiple detachments won't hurt anybody.

Edit: just to be on topic: comp system stinks. If you want to ban cheese why are you giving comp points to minor combos that low tier armies can pull out? It gives the message "Your army sucks, but if you try to do against it, we punish you.".

 Peregrine wrote:


The problem with sportsmanship scoring is that you almost inevitably get people who give zero scores as revenge for losing a game, or even the people who automatically give everyone a zero because it helps their own chances of winning. The alternative is that you have a system where it defaults to full points and you have to explain to the TO why you think any other score is appropriate, but then you just end up giving everyone full points and the sportsmanship score becomes irrelevant. And really, if someone is behaving so badly that they should lose sportsmanship points why haven't they been kicked out of the event?

Why would you kick someone out of an event just because they may not get along with a given opponent? Personalities clash, a rules discussion gets heated, maybe someone tries to bend a rule. Both players might get a ding on sportsmanship and they move on. Now, if they're throwing obscenities or fists, then they're removed. Good TOs can see anomalies and handle them. That's their job.

And painting also has its flaws. For example, how do you handle the person who pays to have their army painted? They've literally just bought a perfect painting score, and created a situation where everyone else is pressured to do the same or start every tournament at a significant disadvantage. And how do you account for subjective opinions about painting quality?

People who didn't paint their army are not eligible to receive Best Painted. They're asked prior to judging if they painted it themselves. This community is pretty small, and the truth always finds a way. Paintng rubrics are divulged before a tourney. Most people's painting scores are going to be a 5-7 on a scale of 1-10. The subjectivity comes in when it comes time to decide the top three or Player's Choice. Most people know which are the top armies of a tourney when it comes to appearance. If one person gets butthurt because they thought they were the best, then tough. If it's obvious a judge is showing favoritism, then people stop attending that event.

Tabletop gaming is a poor measure of skill, so I've never understood the need to place battle points as the be-all, end-all. If it's a true competition, then everyone should be given the same army, with the same terrain setup, and take dice out of the equation.

 the_Armyman wrote:
People who didn't paint their army are not eligible to receive Best Painted. They're asked prior to judging if they painted it themselves. This community is pretty small, and the truth always finds a way.

You just can't make sure if everybody's telling the truth nor can you check it.

If it's obvious a judge is showing favoritism, then people stop attending that event.

This doesn't work in politics either (give 4 years to feth up the country, and if you didn't like it, you won't have to give me another 4).

Tabletop gaming is a poor measure of skill, so I've never understood the need to place battle points as the be-all, end-all. If it's a true competition, then everyone should be given the same army, with the same terrain setup, and take dice out of the equation.

I agree that it's not purely skill game, you are paying for better units, you have an imbalanced game, and you have dice. But true competition doesn't mean everybody is competing with the same circumstances.

 the_Armyman wrote:
Why would you kick someone out of an event just because they may not get along with a given opponent? Personalities clash, a rules discussion gets heated, maybe someone tries to bend a rule. Both players might get a ding on sportsmanship and they move on. Now, if they're throwing obscenities or fists, then they're removed. Good TOs can see anomalies and handle them. That's their job.

Remember, this is in the context of a "you must justify anything less than a perfect score to the TO before giving it" system, especially a black and white 0/1 system. If a player has behaved so badly that the TO can objectively say "you deserve a lower score" then they've reached the point where they should be removed from the event. If the TO can't clearly say that the score is justified then nothing major has happened, and there's no reason to penalize their score.

What you're talking about would be true in the kind of system were players just assign sportsmanship scores without TO approval, preferably with a broader range of scores to accommodate a middle ground between "perfect game" and "worst TFG". In that case you could have minor sportsmanship offenses where a player gets a lower score and then everyone moves on. But in that system you go back to the original problems I mentioned: people who give out low scores as revenge if they lose a game, and people who automatically give out low scores to everyone because it helps their chances of winning.

People who didn't paint their army are not eligible to receive Best Painted.

But we're not talking about a separate "best painted" award here, the discussion was about a tournament where your final score is composed of win/loss record, painting, sportsmanship, etc. If you're going to have that kind of system then everyone, regardless of how they painted their army or had it painted, needs to be scored on the same painting scale. You can't just say "you're not eligible" because then you've created a rule where anyone who pays to have their army painted might as well not bother showing up because winning the tournament is impossible, regardless of how many games they win.

The subjectivity comes in when it comes time to decide the top three or Player's Choice.

No, it comes in at all times. The difference between a 5/10 and a 7/10 is potentially enough to make up for losing a game (or winning by a small margin), depending on how the scores are weighted.

Tabletop gaming is a poor measure of skill, so I've never understood the need to place battle points as the be-all, end-all.

The "need" is that it's a gaming tournament, not a painting contest. If I want to enter a painting contest I'll enter a painting contest with a model that was painted without reference to any gaming rules. If I enter a gaming tournament I expect the outcome to be based on gaming results, not a bunch of extra stuff that usually seems to be added for the sole purpose of proving how "casual" everyone is.

If it's a true competition, then everyone should be given the same army, with the same terrain setup, and take dice out of the equation.

Army construction and understanding/using dice probability are part of being a good 40k player. If you take those away then you have a very different (and, IMO, much less interesting) game.