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.

Foreword: Lets leave out the question of the overall legitimacy of army composition, and stick directly to this particular incarnation.

I have played for a few years at a local event, and they want to use a new comp system after getting some negative feedback following the abolition of the previous version.

(For 1500 point event)

What do you think of this comp system:

Start 20/20, deducting cumulatively for each applicable infraction:

-1 for the fifth troop choice
-1 for the sixth troop choice
-1 for a third FA choice (includes Allied FA choices)
-1 if the third FA choice is a triplicate (same Force Org ‘type’)
-1 for a third Elite choice (includes Allied Elite choices)
-1 for a fourth Elite choice (which must happen due to Allies)
-1 if the third Elite choice is a triplicate (same Force Org ‘type’)
-1 for a 2nd HS choice (includes Allied HS choices)
-1 for a 3rd HS choice (includes Allied HS choices)
-1 for a 4th HS choice (which must happen due to Allies)
-1 for a duplicate HS choice
-1 for a triplicate HS choice
-1 for more than 300 points of HQ
-1 Additional for each full 100 of HQ over 300
-1 for Less than 300 points of troops
-1 Additional for less than 200 points of troops
-1 for more than 800 points of troops
-1 Additional for more than 1000 points of troops
-1 for more than 300 points of FA
-1 Additional for each full 150 of FA over 300
-1 for more than 300 points of Elites
-1 Additional for each full 150 of Elites over 300
-1 for more than 300 points of HS
-1 Additional for each full 150 of HS over 300
-1 for more than 150 points of dedicated transports
-1 Additional for each full 150 of dedicated transports over 150

ONLY SPECIFIC CRITICAL (but not negative) COMMENTS
please
Thanks.

Really doesn't look that bad. I can see that some codices will do way better than others at this system. How many points? If 1500, this is pretty fair, if more, well I'd play SW and give out some serious hurting.

 Lobukia wrote:
Really doesn't look that bad. I can see that some codices will do way better than others at this system. How many points? If 1500, this is pretty fair, if more, well I'd play SW and give out some serious hurting.

1500 points is correct, sorry I should have specified. Updated OP.

Edit: Care to elaborate on your point of some codices doing "way better"? This is the kind of stuff I would like elaborated on, if possible. Thanks.

Like any arbitrary system, it can be gamed and is needlessly punitive to some armies. Losing points for taking more than a single Heavy Support? And if I take six troops options, I lose like, five points?

 Kaldor wrote:
Like any arbitrary system, it can be gamed and is needlessly punitive to some armies. Losing points for taking more than a single Heavy Support? And if I take six troops options, I lose like, five points?

Care to try and game it? I want to see how much power you can pack into very little deductions.

Thanks!

This overrewards codexes with strong Fast Attack choices and punishes those that lean heavily on their Heavy Support.

Ie, Guard will do just fine, they can take double Valkyries happily. Dark Eldar will suffer because they heavily rely on Ravagers.

punishing HQ prices also hurts Tyranids, and Necrons that even remotely attempt to use Royal Courts. Anyone else that spends that much on HQ at 1500 is only hurting themselves.

In short, not all Force Org Slots are created equal. A hybrid Guard list could easily be a rock hard competitive list while avoiding almost all penalties. In fact you can avoid all of them.

+++ Example (1500pts) +++
+++ 1500pt Imperial Guard 5th Ed (2009) Roster (Standard)) +++

Selections:

Imperial Guard 5th Ed (2009) (Standard) Selections:

+ HQ + (240pts)

* Company Command Squad (240pts)
Astropath (30pts), Medi Pack (30pts), Officer of the Fleet (30pts), 3x Plasma Gun (45pts)
* Chimera (55pts)
Heavy Bolter, Multi-laser
* Company Commander
Close Combat Weapon, Laspistol


+ Troops + (795pts)

* Infantry Platoon (625pts)
* Heavy Weapons Squad (105pts)
3x Lascannon (45pts)
* Heavy Weapons Squad (105pts)
3x Lascannon (45pts)
* Infantry Squad (85pts)
Lascannon (20pts), Plasma Gun (15pts)
* Sergeant
Close Combat Weapon, Laspistol
* Infantry Squad (85pts)
Lascannon (20pts), Plasma Gun (15pts)
* Sergeant
Close Combat Weapon, Laspistol
* Infantry Squad (85pts)
Lascannon (20pts), Plasma Gun (15pts)
* Sergeant
Close Combat Weapon, Laspistol
* Platoon Command Squad (30pts)
* Platoon Commander
Close Combat Weapon, Laspistol
* Special Weapon Squad (65pts)
3x Meltagun (30pts)
* Special Weapon Squad (65pts)
3x Meltagun (30pts)


* Veteran Squad (170pts)
6x Lasgun, 3x Plasma Gun (45pts)
* Chimera (55pts)
Heavy Bolter, Multi-laser
* Veteran Sergeant
Close Combat Weapon, Laspistol


+ Fast Attack + (260pts)

* Vendetta Gunship Squadron (130pts)
* Vendetta (130pts)
2 Twin-linked Lascannons


* Vendetta Gunship Squadron (130pts)
* Vendetta (130pts)
2 Twin-linked Lascannons


+ Heavy Support + (205pts)

* Leman Russ Squadron (205pts)
* Leman Russ Exterminator (205pts)
Lascannon (15pts), Plasma Cannons (40pts)


Created with BattleScribe (http://www.battlescribe.net)

 GreyHamster wrote:
This overrewards codexes with strong Fast Attack choices and punishes those that lean heavily on their Heavy Support.

Ie, Guard will do just fine, they can take double Valkyries happily. Dark Eldar will suffer because they heavily rely on Ravagers.

punishing HQ prices also hurts Tyranids, and Necrons that even remotely attempt to use Royal Courts. Anyone else that spends that much on HQ at 1500 is only hurting themselves.

In short, not all Force Org Slots are created equal. A hybrid Guard list could easily be a rock hard competitive list while avoiding almost all penalties. In fact you can avoid all of them.

I would like to request a supporting list to evidence your claims.

Please note I'm attempting a dispassionate evaluation of this system. I'm soliciting people on this forum to have a source of opinions which does not share my own personal bias.

Thank you.
edit: You're fast. Thanks!

I am curious as to how much the overall scoring will be, as in how much impact 1 to 20 points is going to make in the long run. If the system is meant to encourage varied lists and prevent spamming, I like the system, but I do think that 1) there should be the same limit on HS as the FA and Elites, and 2) a player should be allowed to ignore 1 of the 5 FOC restrictions without penalty.

 Ghenghis Jon wrote:
I am curious as to how much the overall scoring will be, as in how much impact 1 to 20 points is going to make in the long run. If the system is meant to encourage varied lists and prevent spamming, I like the system, but I do think that 1) there should be the same limit on HS as the FA and Elites, and 2) a player should be allowed to ignore 1 of the 5 FOC restrictions without penalty.

Total tournament is 200 points including painting, sports, battle points etc, IIRC

 Dracos wrote:

edit: You're fast. Thanks!

Let the speed with which that was done indicate how easy it is for Guard to circumvent the restrictions.

Now try Tau and be sad for them.

Tyranids are going to be punished a lot by the Elites restrictions. Eldar are going to suffer from the Heavy Support, maybe Elites but probably not at 1500, and Transport (one transport costs 100 points minimum).

At a 1500 point limit some of these restrictions don't make sense. For example, spending over 300 points on a single HQ at that level would be self limiting so why bother enforcing it in comp?

On the other side of things, pushing people to only 4 troop choices while most of the scenarios are objective gathering is counter intuitive. This has a further drawback of limiting which HQ choices are going to be used regardless of other restrictions.

I think it would help to better analyze your comp system if you explicitly stated what your end goal was. Now that I think of it, it's hard to determine whether your comp system is being "gamed" unless the system has a stated purpose.

So, what are you really trying to accomplish?

Also, you mention the tournament is 200 points between comp, painting, sports, battle points, but we really have no reference to understand what that means. Obviously the comp score is 20; but what are the ranges for the other scores?

For example, if painting (a potentially highly subjective area for sure) can net you up to 150 points then being dinged 1 point for an extra troop choice doesn't really matter in the grand scheme. Point is: context is everything.

I began competitive play in an era that rewarded armies for taking more troop choices, so punishing armies for taking more than four troop choices doesn't make much sense to me. If that is an attempt to try to limit MSU armies, I think that it's the wrong way to approach it.

 Dracos wrote:
What do you think of this comp system:

It's a terrible system, just like all other attempts to make a uniform comp scale for every army. It includes the worst "you're not playing the game I want you to play it" problems of comp in general, but does nothing to fix the balance problems that could ever justify a comp system in the first place. For example, an IG player that brings three units of rough riders (one of the worst units in the codex) is penalized just as harshly as a player that brings three Vendetta squadrons (one of the best units in the game), despite the massive difference in power between the two armies.

Of course yours goes beyond the usual problems and includes some new and interesting problems, so I give you credit for that.

-1 for the fifth troop choice
-1 for the sixth troop choice

Congratulations, you might be the first comp advocate I've ever seen with a comp system that penalizes you for taking troops. What happened to the whole "take lots of your core units" thing? Do you really think it's a good idea to punish the player who takes six tactical squads instead of spamming elites, while giving 20/20 for the player who takes minimum troops and spends the other points on better units?

-1 for a 2nd HS choice (includes Allied HS choices)

Is there a reason why you penalize heavy support options more than other FOC slots? Do you really hate the IG player who takes a pair of LRBTs so much that they should receive a lower comp score than the IG player who takes a pair of Vendettas (a better option if you want to win games) instead?

-1 for more than 300 points of HQ
-1 Additional for each full 100 of HQ over 300

This is completely redundant. It sounds like you're the kind of less-experienced player who thinks that "death star" HQs are powerful instead of a good way to lose the game. You don't need to impose a penalty for over-spending on HQ options, having 300+ points wasted on your HQ is enough of a penalty as it is.

-1 for Less than 300 points of troops
-1 Additional for less than 200 points of troops

Also redundant. An army with that few points spent on troops is going to lose anyway, you don't need to impose additional penalties.

-1 for more than 800 points of troops
-1 Additional for more than 1000 points of troops

See previous comment about "take lots of your core units". You want to reward players who take core units instead of special elite/heavy/fast units, not punish them.

-1 for more than 300 points of FA
-1 Additional for each full 150 of FA over 300
-1 for more than 300 points of Elites
-1 Additional for each full 150 of Elites over 300
-1 for more than 300 points of HS
-1 Additional for each full 150 of HS over 300

Completely redundant. You're already punishing these with the penalty points for multiple uses of that FOC slot, so pick one and drop the other method.

-1 for more than 150 points of dedicated transports
-1 Additional for each full 150 of dedicated transports over 150

This is completely unfair because not all transports are equal. A marine player can spam Rhinos/Razorbacks with little or no penalty, while an Eldar player that takes two transports is already getting at least a -1. Similarly a Necron player who spams Night Scythes takes less of a penalty than one who takes Ghost Arks instead, despite the flyerspam list being much more powerful.



Anyway, short form: the comp system is broken, and I wouldn't attend any event that uses it.

I like the idea, but dislike the execution: Just skimming through the list, I can see a few that I would suggest dropping:

1. All penalties relating to troops choices. There is no reason to punish players for bringing more troops in a largely objective based game.
2. Slot specific penalties (ie, penalizing X or more points of Elites, or for taking more than 1 Heavy Support choice). Generic catch-alls work better.
3. Penalties for taking X points in dedicated transports. Space Marines will never reach this unless they are taking a Land Raider as a transport. Tau will reach this if they take 2 Devilfish. Eldar will quickly reach this too.

I would maybe make the scoring system more along the lines of this:

-1 point for each identical non-troops/dedicated transport entry taken beyond the first (ie, taking 2 Vendettas separately would get you -1 points, taking 3 would get you -2, but if you squadroned them you wouldn't get any penalty)
-1 for each non-troops slot in the FOC used beyond the second (using 2 HS slots gives you 0, using 3 gives you -1, using with allies gives you -2)
-1 for each FOC choice that costs more than 400 points, with an additional -1 for every further 100 points over this limit

And you might have to change the weighting of the system a touch, but I feel that this is perhaps a better start. It likely needs to be refined, but if you are looking at introducing army composition scoring it's probably a cleaner start.

 Peregrine wrote:

This system is not my baby. I am just collecting feedback on it.

Reading through this I would have to agree with the others on the penalties to the FA, Heavy, and troops slots as well as the odd dedicated transport rules. If I were looking at a tourney with this comp system I would feel like my Dark Eldar were almost being specifically singled out for penalty. My 1500 DE are by no means a power build and most people consider it a balanced list but it would suffer greatly under these rules. I typically have 4-5 troops choices mounted in Raiders and backed up by two Ravagers and 3 fast attack choices (which vary depending on what I feel like bringing that day). That's a lot of points I just lost under this system for bringing an army that is built the way the codex writer intended it to be built. Conversly, my IG would pretty much laugh off these restrictions as their 'dex gives them multiple ways around it (as others have already pointed out).

When you're building a comp system, the first thing you need to think about is what general things in the meta you want to limit in order to keep as level a playing field as possible. Once you have those specific things you can begin crafting solutions that don't needlessly penalize some armies while hardly touching others. It will also help prevent specific codexes from being targeted (which will not endear your event to a lot of players). The system you've posted here feels like a group of people sat down and just shouted out random things that bother them so you've ended up with a system that is all over the place with some random/needless penalties. It would be easily gamed by some while being almost crippling to others imo.

I think it actually was specifically targeting Dark Eldar. Last year the top 2 finishers in battle points were DE, and venoms are being called out specifically as being undercosted comparably with Vendettas.

edit: I'm pretty sure that's why the transport thing is there, to try and limit/punish DE vehicles

I think it actually was specifically targeting Dark Eldar. Last year the top 2 finishers in battle points were DE, and venoms are being called out specifically as being undercosted comparably with Vendettas

I think the 6th ed rules will fix that all by themselves without this draconian comp system, and honestly, a comp system should never target a specific army like that.

Tycho wrote:

I think it actually was specifically targeting Dark Eldar. Last year the top 2 finishers in battle points were DE, and venoms are being called out specifically as being undercosted comparably with Vendettas

I think the 6th ed rules will fix that all by themselves without this draconian comp system, and honestly, a comp system should never target a specific army like that.

I just put together a DE list to see if I could make a viable one that worked within the comp system and it looked pretty bad. Now it makes sense if this is to cripple DE.

If 1500, this is pretty fair, if more, well I'd play SW and give out some serious hurting.

I would argue that it's actually on of the more poor systems I've seen. Also, this would actually work better (but still poorly) at 2000 points. At that point level and under this proposed system EVERYONE would basically be forced into a list that would get a lot of penalties. At 1500 some armies will be able to bring an OP list that will also get a high comp score (I can see 'Crons and Gaurd inparticular thriving here) while other armies will be heavily penalized for bringing what most would consider a very basic build. Plus, since the OP has pretty much already stated that they think I'm right about this specifically targeting one particular army - well that pretty much tells me it's not a good system right off the bat. It is INTENDED to be slanted. Comp scores are suppose to be the exact opposite of that.


Under this system, I can almost promise that the championship round will come down to Cron air VS IG Air. What will the people who made this list do then? A new comp system to eliminate those two armies? This system appears to be built on a bad premise right from the start and probably needs heavily revised in my opinion.

EDIT:

In a nutshell - When you read through a codex it becomes clear that each army is sort of set up to be played a certain way. Of course some codexes have builds that allow you to play an "out of character" list (Space Wolf armies who rely on shooting for example) that is actually more powerful than a build that is "in character" for that army. A good comp system should never penalize a player for building an army that is "in character" for his codex imo. Am I making sense? lol Feels like I rambled a bit there. Let me know if clarification is needed!

Other folks have already analysed this system better than I can, so I'm just going to ask two questions:

 Dracos wrote:
-1 for a fourth Elite choice (which must happen due to Allies)

This line appears to be duplicated? Is it meant to be "-1 for a fourth identical Elite choice"?

 Dracos wrote:
-1 if the third Elite choice is a triplicate (same Force Org ‘type’)

Can you elaborate on "same Force Org 'type'"? How is it different from just saying "-1 if the third Elite choice is a triplicate"?

The system seems to favor certain codices, and to a lesser extent, certain builds within those codices. As others have said, if the goal is to nerf DE playing 6E should be sufficient. I would reccomend a simple Y/N system in its place, as this is not inherently biased. I don't have the energy to but I reccomend taking the most common 1500 point builds from all the books and plugging them into this system. I believe it is biased towards newer books such as Necrons, some IG, and CSM while armies such as Eldar and Tau are hit very hard.

 Dracos wrote:
I think it actually was specifically targeting Dark Eldar. Last year the top 2 finishers in battle points were DE, and venoms are being called out specifically as being undercosted comparably with Vendettas.

edit: I'm pretty sure that's why the transport thing is there, to try and limit/punish DE vehicles

So the issue is that the people who made the list don't understand how to play the game?

 Dracos wrote:
I think it actually was specifically targeting Dark Eldar. Last year the top 2 finishers in battle points were DE, and venoms are being called out specifically as being undercosted comparably with Vendettas.
.... to try and limit/punish DE vehicles

Why not just tell the DE players they're not welcome in the tournament?

Actually its scary. The people who made this are long experienced organizers, who have contributed to GW directly.

Actually its scary. The people who made this are long experienced organizers, who have contributed to GW directly.

Which suddenly clarifies a lot of my recent questions about GW ...

EDIT: I would still strongly recommend that this system be tossed and a new, more objective one put together. Regardless of which of my armies I brought (I have at least 1500pts of almost everything), I don't know that I would find this a fun tournament to attend if this is their idea of a good comp system.

I've been trying to convince them that all this does is re-write the rules without really addressing the perceived problem in that some individual units seem undercosted. This is like going fishing with a hammer. Sure, the hammer is easy and you can hit things hard with it, but its not really gonna help with the defined goal of fishing.

As previously mentioned, why is this on the list twice?

-1 for a fourth Elite choice (which must happen due to Allies)
-1 if the third Elite choice is a triplicate (same Force Org ‘type’)
-1 for a fourth Elite choice (which must happen due to Allies)

 kronk wrote:
As previously mentioned, why is this on the list twice?

-1 for a fourth Elite choice (which must happen due to Allies)
-1 if the third Elite choice is a triplicate (same Force Org ‘type’)
-1 for a fourth Elite choice (which must happen due to Allies)

Apologies, copy paste error that was present when posted by the organizers.