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.

A lot of discussion here on comp as of late. Let's first quickly define comp...

Composition:
The selection of various units from a codex to fill the Force Organization Chart (FOC). This includes the particular size of each unit & options selected. For example consider the following Space Marine list:

{HQ}
Librarian/terminator armor, stormshield, Null Zone* & Avenger*
* psychic power

{Elites}
5 terminator/Cyclone missile launcher
5x assault terminator/All equipped w. stormshield & thunderhammer - Landraider Crusader/Pintle mounted multi-melta & extra armor

{Troops}
10x tactical Marine/Power fist, lascannon, meltagun - rhino/Extra armor
10x tactical Marine/ same as above
5x Scout/Power fist - Landspeeder Storm/Heavy bolter

{Heavy Support}
Predator/Autocannon turret, heavy bolter sponsons & pintle mounted stormbolter
Predator/ same as above

{Fast Attack}
Landspeeder Typhoon/Heavy bolter

So this list has the following composition:

HQ - 1
Elites - 2
Troops - 3
Heavy Support - 2
Fast Attack - 2

You could further breakdown the list by showing the percentage in cost for each slot (e.g., HQ, Troops, Elites, etc.) and also the options in each unit. This particular list was selected to demonstrate a fairly typical Space Marine army for 5th edition. Note that the tactical squads can be broken down into four combat squads so that there would be five scoring units for the troops. This is the pure composition of this army.

Now let's look at a 4th edition Space Marine army as another example:

{HQ}
Librarian/Terminator armor, stormshield, adamantium mantle, Veil of Time*, Fury of the Ancients*
+ terminator command squad (5x)/2x assault cannon
+ Master of Sanctity/Terminator armor

{Troops}
6x tactical Marine/Power fist, lascannon, plasmagun
6x tactical Marine/ same as above
6x tactical Marine / same as above
6x Scout/5x sniper rifle, heavy bolter

{Heavy Support}
6x Devastator/4x heavy bolter
6x Devastator/4x missile launcher

{Fast Attack}
2x Landspeeder Tornado

This army has the following composition:

HQ - 1 (Librarian, MoS & terminators all counted as one choice)
Elites - 0
Troops - 4
Heavy Suppport - 2
Fast Attack - 1

The two lists are not identical in points and were chosen as typical examples of what people play/played.

Some tournament organizers score armies on their composition. Typically they reward players who bring what is perceived as a balanced list versus a list that is designed to win at all costs (WAAC). WAAC lists tend to spam the best choices from the codex. Spam is taking two or more of the identical unit. Typically there is no penalty for spamming troop choices. If we compare the two armies above we see that they both have a large number of troops. The first list has some spam while the second list does not. The second list also does not have any elite choices which could help to score more points for comp. So most likely the second list would score more highly for comp overall.

Now we can take a look at the effectiveness of both armies in reference to their ruleset. Personally I would pick the second army as the stronger list, keeping in mind it was designed for 4th edition using the previous codex. Shooting was more powerful the last edition due to there being much less of an advantage for cover saves at that time. That's just my opinion though! So based upon my opinion the second list would score higher for comp and generally tend to win more games assuming they were both played by those of equal skill and I find that interesting.

Those that are in favor of comp tend to prefer balanced lists that do not rely upon spam. Those that eschew comp want to be able to build a list that suffers from no restrictions. This is the crux of all the arguments. It's important to note that the game requires two people to play and they may not necessarily share the same set of opinions. If you are playing a pickup game at the local shop probably there are no written restrictions for comp but if you play there often then most likely there is a prevalent set of opinions on what people consider to be fun and what people consider to be WAAC. Those that don't want to be imposed upon by an restriction often will say that players of lesser skill derrate them based upon their comp to compensate for losing against them. On the other hand others will say they only play to win and that's all that's in it for them. What is funny is when a WAAC player loses then blames it on something along the lines that the other player specifically designed their list to beat his.

There is also gaming in a tournament that has a comp score or even possibly league play. Typically there will be a written set of restrictions. Personally I am oppposed to any closed comp scoring systems as they are both open to abuse and the TOs can't well defend themselves if the comp system is viewed in a dim light by the general public following the event. Some people are so upset about comp that they seem to want it completely banned across the country. You always have a choice as to whether or not you play in a tournament of league and by choosing to participate you have agreed to accept the TOs rules. It's important to remember that even if you win all your games if you did so in such a manner that is frowned upon by others then you are open to public criticism. If you don't like comp then the best thing to do is not waste your time and money playing in events that score comp.

40k is not a game of chess or checkers nor was it intended to be. The rules constantly change. 40k is not like baseball or soccer as some might try to tell you. These are just bad analogies in general. 40k is very much a social game and some people recognize that for what it is. If it's all about just winning then maybe chess would in fact be a better choice for you.

G

Good post -- very informative.

Now, when players assess comp there are various different ways to look at it.

Is it a device to balance weak and strong choices in and between codexes?

It is intended to increase variety of armies, in order to improve the chance of fighting something different?

Is it a reflection of the fluff side of the game, to show that the player is 'into' the 40K background the 'right way'?

Or a combination of the above.

Theme and comp are two different beasts but often you will see the two joined at the hip. The reasons you pointed out for the inclusion of comp are all valid except possibly for meeting the background of the army, which is more in line with theme. We are seeing lots of tournaments that include comp so obviously it's important to some people for whatever reason. I think comp was intended to balance various armies and level the playing field so to speak. I do think some TOs include comp just because they think it's the thing to do... monkey see monkey do.

I was using the two armies above partially as an example as to illustrate how certain factored criteria can be subtle. The first army looks good on paper and has many of the units you'd expect to see in a solid SM list but the second list was very much so tweaked for 4th edition. Just going by a set of rules to grade comp you would probably not catch any of those differences.

G

I believe in comp to bring variety to tournaments. When I travel to play in tournaments, I hope I have good games against good guys with unique armies. Unique can be A) Something I don't normally face or B) Something I normally face but presented in a fantastic/unique manner. I think that makes the game richer for both opponents.

In my opinion, comp should not be used for 'balance' as it will simply shift 'power lists' to 'power lists within this parameter of limitations'. There will still be a upper tier build with hidden redundancy.

So, my two cents for what they are worth; Include a Unique/Cool score.

AgeOfEgos wrote:I believe in comp to bring variety to tournaments. When I travel to play in tournaments, I hope I have good games against good guys with unique armies. Unique can be A) Something I don't normally face or B) Something I normally face but presented in a fantastic/unique manner. I think that makes the game richer for both opponents.

In my opinion, comp should not be used for 'balance' as it will simply shift 'power lists' to 'power lists within this parameter of limitations'. There will still be a upper tier build with hidden redundancy.

So, my two cents for what they are worth; Include a Unique/Cool score.

I like this post in its entirety and endorse it's conclusion as well!

Alpharius wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I believe in comp to bring variety to tournaments. When I travel to play in tournaments, I hope I have good games against good guys with unique armies. Unique can be A) Something I don't normally face or B) Something I normally face but presented in a fantastic/unique manner. I think that makes the game richer for both opponents.

In my opinion, comp should not be used for 'balance' as it will simply shift 'power lists' to 'power lists within this parameter of limitations'. There will still be a upper tier build with hidden redundancy.

So, my two cents for what they are worth; Include a Unique/Cool score.

I like this post in its entirety and endorse it's conclusion as well!

Age of Egos is spot on in his thinking

Definately! I think comp as a balancing mechanism is meh at best... Comp just to shake things up is actually something that can be achieved. However, you still need an objective scoring system if at all possible.

It would be quite the task to develop one set of rules for comp that fairly grades all armies. It's been attempted but was a failure. I remember playing at a GW GD RTT in Baltimore back in the early 2000s. My first opponent was playing pure Flesh Tearers. He had six full squads of naked tactical Marines in rhinos (OCE), Chaplain with jump pack, DC and a Vindicator. He received a perfect score for comp as he had six full troop choices and no wargear. Start of the game he rolled for the DC and ended up with a 15 man squad due to the special rule for FT. There were several power fists included since he had a naked sergeant (bolter only) in each tactical squad. I won the game with my Space Wolves but it was no walk in the park that game. His army had many hidden advantages such as OCE, furious charge and the huge DC which the comp rules did not take into account.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Theme and comp are two different beasts but often you will see the two joined at the hip.

To some people, they are the same...In a lot of places, you'll get more comp points for an army from the background than an equally powerful one that isn't. Thus the problem with comp...People define it it different ways, and an outsider can get a nasty surprise.

+1 to ageofegos!

Comp with the intent to balance the game is a flawed idea.

Comp with the intent to diversify the game is a good idea.

I have heard people say that instead of comp, by using some crazy missions that expose flaws in top tier armies you can do a better job at balancing and diversifying the game. I would love to see these missions should they exist!

It would be simpler to diversify the game by holding non-SM tournaments.

A friend got docked huge points one time because the TO thought his Blood Angels had too many jump troops and his idea was that the majority of the army should be in rhinos. Eh? Wha?

Composition shouldn't be taken out because it's a bad mechanic (even though it is) it should be taken out because there will never be a non-subjective way to score it
especially since as listed above, some think it's about a cool factor, some think it's about FOC abuse, some think it's about balance. IMHO Composition was much more
needed in 2nd/3rd edition where armies like my Black Templar could run 1 squad that couldn't be stopped if you abused the system enough. Ork nob cyboar units with
shinybits had more impact on the 3rd edition game than nob bikers do today. Army codices are coming out with easy fixes for that. squads that can take 10 combi-meltas, etc.
There used to be no answer to these overpowered units except composition docking for armies that didn't at least try to balance their FOC or theme for the army correctly.
I think it's an outmoded concept since GW uses the rule book and codices to balance the armies better than they used to in previous editions. Termies are scary now, but
almost every army can counter almost any strategy of another. Some of the older codices are weaker in the 5th edition metagame, but none of them seem abusive to me
except in the larger games that some gamers like to play in the 2k+ range. Abuse is pretty easy there.

Comp with the intent to balance the game is a flawed idea.

Comp with the intent to diversify the game is a good idea.

So you don't see the flaw in promoting "diversity" by telling everyone what units to take?

So you don't see the flaw in promoting "diversity" by telling everyone what units to take?

This. I don't want to de-rail a good thread by the OP though. It's good to talk about what composition IS as well as to discuss its merit or lack thereof.

"So you don't see the flaw in promoting "diversity" by telling everyone what units to take?"

If the goal is to have diverse armies versus stagnant, then comp can encourage that. With a decent comp system, you are not being told what to take, you are being told that if you bring something new you will get a carrot.

Imagine a local metagame where every week, for an entire year, player A brings the exact same space marine list and wins every single game. He is a great player, he knows his list inside and out, and everything is painted to a high standard.

If the store hosting these games institutes a comp system to reward player A for buying, painting, and playing with new stuff, that is a GOOD thing for the hobby--more money for the store to keep the lights on, more options for units, and maybe player a's opponents will finally get to play against something new.

Sid you have missed the point of the thread.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Sid you have missed the point of the thread.

G

Disagreeing is not missing the point.

I don't see why people feel the need for comp. Let the best player with the best army win.

This thread is a discussion about what is comp, not the merits of comp. You also have missed the point.

G

Comp is a way for bad players to feel like they're not bad players when they get beat by good players.

"Oh, I lost, but his list was uncompy."

Orly??

Ya rly.

Snarky snarky.

G

Guys, you don't know about the red triangle, do you?

I'm not following you KK.

G

I would love to post something as well thought out as a lot of the previous posters have, but find my self posting for other reasons.

I want to say that this thread is one of the best I have ever read as far as original content. I feel the idea of figuring out what comp is, is a great idea.

I for one am against comp, but the views laid out before this thread starting walking the path of OT, were great. Comp to spice things up, or as a carrot is a good idea.

After our recent GT in Denver, we have changed the comp/theme into awards that offer no points to overall. It is a good idea? Don't know yet. Will it spice up armies? Sure. Is that a good thing? Maybe.

Steve and I are good friends, but its a love/hate thing. We tend to disagree on a lot of 40k related issues, but not to the point were that gets in the way of our friendship. So I am happy to say that I am amazed at this thread as a whole, and applaud him for his efforts in true debate. He has brought forth an idea, "what is comp." He has given us a brief definition as well as common ways to score it. He has then provided holes to these systems, and challenge the thought of fixing them. I applaud you Steve.

Thanks bro. I intend to really flesh out this subject with a micro comp system built for one to two armies I am familiar with.

: )

G

I had a friend who gamed the comp system with his 3rd edition black templars.

He had like 5 points of wargear, meltabombs on his chaplain, iirc.
He had crusader units with max upgrades. But, since it wasn't 'wargear', it counted as points spent on Troops. And since it wasn't a character with a powerfist, he couldn't be singled out in combat either.
He had landspeeders and whirlwinds, and I think no elites. So, he had a few points in FA and heavy, but it filled nice holes in his list (anti-tank and anti-horde).

On paper, it was a nice comp. 1 HQ, more troops than FA and heavy and elites, lots of points in elite. But, it had lots of hidden bonuses, such as hidden powerfists.

Now, it's also a great example of poor codex design by GW, but it's a great example of gaming the comp score.

Here is the first Space Marine list:

{HQ}
Librarian/terminator armor, stormshield, Null Zone* & Avenger*
* psychic power

{Elites}
5x assault terminator/All equipped w. stormshield & thunderhammer - Landraider Crusader/Pintle mounted multi-melta & extra armor

{Troops}
10x tactical Marine/Power fist, lascannon, meltagun - rhino/Extra armor
10x tactical Marine/ same as above
5x Scout/Power fist - Landspeeder Storm/Heavy bolter

{Heavy Support}
Predator/Autocannon turret, heavy bolter sponsons & pintle mounted stormbolter
Predator/ same as above

{Fast Attack}
Landspeeder Typhoon/Heavy bolter

Note that I have dropped the first terminator squad and the Landspeeder Typhoon to bring the cost down to 1500 point range (1485). Here is the actual composition breakdown:

HQ - 12.8%
Elites - 32%
Troops - 40%
Heavy Support - 11.4%
Fast Attack - 3.4%
(wargear - 0%)


I would run the breakdown on the second list but I have neither the older version of AB or the old codex.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now I will present a 2000 point daemon list and break down the comp. Daemons are I think going to be the next Dark Eldar and it will be very interesting to see what direction GW takes them in 6th edition. The daemons are not a popular army but many people that play them swear by their effectiveness. Daemons have a lot of new units and weird rules. You don't tend to see them often. Good players with the right lists can counter them so often you don't see them getting much respect. The thing about daemons is they are integral part of the 40k background. GW won't be able to sweep them aside.

So here is the list. I chose this one because I am very familiar with it.

{HQ}
Bloodthirster/Unholy Might, Deathstrike, Blessing of the Blood God
Skulltaker/Juggernaught
Khornate Herald/Juggernaught, Fury of Khorne, Blessing of the Blood God

{Troops}
15x Bloodletter/Icon
15x Bloodletter

{Heavy Support}
Soul Grinder/Phleghm, Tongue
Soul Grinder/Phleghm, Tongue
Daemon Prince/Mark of Nurgle, Wings, Iron Hide, Unholy Might, Noxious Touch, Cloud of Flies

Here is the breakdown:

HQ - 3
Troops - 2
Elite - 1
Heavy Support - 3

So this army has three HQ choices as GW has expanded this slot for some armies following specific guidelines (i.e., two Heralds can be chosen as one HQ choice and they count as two separate choices plus they are typically independent characters). Some heralds such as the Masque are classed as independent, heralds mounted on characters fall under the same category. An independent unit cannot join other units. It's also important to note in 5th edition that units only have access to options not wargear. GW penalized players for taking wargear back in 3rd edition. It's not the case now.

This list is both heavy in HQ and heavy support while light in troop choices. Following typical scoring systems for composition this army would suffer due to only having two troops. Sometimes composition and theme are mistakenly considered interchangable but in fact they are not the same. What is important to note is that by selecting the correct comp an army can score high for theme which is what I have found to be the case for this specific army because it is mostly composed of Khornate units and it was designed to have a strong central theme revolving around Khorne which is strictly based upon close combat.

5th edition was built upon composition since you need a large number of troop choices to hold objectives. This particular list also inherently excels in kill point missions since it has a relatively low count, 8 total at 2000 points. The army was designed to table other armies as every unit is very powerful in close combat and they all ignore armor saves during assaults which greatly helps to mitigate the low count for troop choices.

So in closing for this particular post this army scores low for comp but tends to draw high for theme. Like I said comp and theme can tie directly together if the compositionn supports the theme. To me this list is deceptive, it has very little shooting except for the two walkers. It can be played as a relatively fast army since the greater daemon and daemon prince have wings plus both walkers can fleet. The two Heralds, Blood Crushers and Bloodletters are slow but deepstrike onto the table which helps to make up for their slow overall movement rate.

This lisf flies in the face of convential wisdom..

G