Comp

[Jack Shrapnel]

Some food for thought...

What do you see as the "best" method for comp to be used in a tournament, and which ways do you find comp not so helpful. Comp is a regular feature in our local events, and thought it may be a good idea to have a discussion over what makes a "good" comp system and what doesn't....

comp tends to be one of those "subjective" scores that is meant to encourage more balanced, friendly, and fun lists... but does it accomplish what it is meant to???

and without comp would we just be doomed to be inundated with powergaming lists and unfriendly combos or does the idea of losing a few points of comp not actually dissuade such lists from making an appearance???

So do you like comp or do you not?

[fritzthedwarf]

First I agree completely that the 'comp' issue should be discussed because there is so many ways to look at it.

I am fine with comp if it is clearly explained how it will be scored (accepting that even with a clear process comp is still somewhat subjective). A clear process of how painting is to be marked, and how an army is to be judged for comp - well before the tournament - is important to allow players a chance to adjust their lists/paint their army in time.

I also think that comp should apply to best overall and best general should only be ref the mission objectives/battle points/ etc, whatever the scoring for the scenarios happens to be.

[matt4698]

What exactly is comp I am sort of confused

[Jack Shrapnel]

Comp = army composition scores -> basically an extra score that goes into a tournament based around evening the playing field somewhat between armies to make things "fairer"

ie: someone who has a new army book with all the latest tricks faces a necron player who hasn't had an update in the last century or so... or someone brings a pretty mean min-maxed list, while someone else brings a list based around fluff and more balanced...

not all tournies use them, however many do....

Mark you made a great point about having the expectations and process explained way ahead of time to let people adjust their lists to more fit within the comp restrictions (ie: I may not realize that the list I've sent in is seen as so "rough")

Also agree that best general should be based solely on who was the "best general" of the day - ie: win ratio...

[muadib02]

Comp is the adjusting of a persons score within tournament standings based on the composition of their army, judged either by their peers or by the tournament official. It can be based on any number of criteria ranging from Adherence to Fluff, to Limiting Power, to Creativity in List Building.
I believe it is a valuable tool if used correctly in a tournament setting. Without it you simply wind up with a million and 1 identical uber competitive armies which often require less skill and "generalship" to win with then a good old comp satisfying list.
To set a few things straight about what I think a tournament system should judge players on

Best Combatant= Person with best win/loss/tie ratio
(Idea, never seen) Best General= Person with best win/loss/draw and best comp (if comp is an objective rating of army power, as it takes more skill to win with less powerful force)
Best Painted= Army with best painted miniatures, theme etc.
Best Sportsman= Subjective review by players of "most enjoyable opponent" combined with objective score of the composition of persons army
Best Overall= The Person who scored highest in all of these areas (not necessarily the winner of any of them)
Lucky= Guy who did random stuff and somehow it was funny

Doing it this way ensures that the person who does not care about comp or the hobby aspects and only wants to win can still have his little prize, but in the end he is not the top winner (kind of taking the wind of of his sails a little). As well, assuming that players are aspiring to win Best Overall they will bring lists which fit into the Comp guidelines and learn to play with them...thus increasing variety and bringing out units people dont see much of.

Now all of this has really just touched on what comp is and why it should be used....
Personally I believe that a Comp score is only fair if judged impartially and in light of the game as a whole (too often to opponents trash a comp score just to get revenge, etc.) In my experience comp rules often lead to arbitrary decisions such as 'you loose points for having a special character' Now this will encourage fewer people to bring special characters, but unnecessarily cuts out special characters who are not ridiculously power boosting, or who are just fun. (ex Lukas the trickster, awesome yes, easy to use hell no, success rate less than 50%)
As well Comp will often judge use of the Force Organization chart with judgement such as how many Heavy Support were used, or bonus points for using lots of Troop Choices etc. This a falls apart when you look at different armies (My wolves have one of the best troop units in the game, of course I field 40 Grey Hunters at 2000 points)
In light of the unbalanced nature of very specific lists which exist today I do not know how to avoid comp as a necessity (even if I would like to field Ulrik the Slayer without being penalized) while also keeping the atmosphere friendly and fun and avoiding Loganwing Missile Spam lists which arent even fun to play with let alone against.

[muadib02]

www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=719

This system does not seem too bad. it evaluates the contents of the codexes and addresses what is undercosted vs its power etc.

[muadib02]

as an example of this system my 1500 pt Space Wolves
Bjorn the Fell Handed, PC
2x Venerable Dread, PC, HF
10x Grey Hunters, 2x PG, PF, PP
2x 10 Grey Hunters, Fl, MG, PF, PP
2x 6 Long Fangs, 5 ML

This army Received a Comp score of 56
.... which is in good proximity to 50 (defined as well balanced for 1500 points in the sheet. as well no army can exceed 100 or go lower than 0)

[Jack Shrapnel]

Nov 2, 2010 17:19:09 GMT -5 muadib02 said:

www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=719

This system does not seem too bad. it evaluates the contents of the codexes and addresses what is undercosted vs its power etc.

only problem is... it's from 2009... any codex released since then isn't represented (ie: it's the old tyranid dex)

[muadib02]

You have a point, but it was more of an example than anything.

[fritzthedwarf]

I couple of things. I am not a fan of players judging the comp of their opponents armies (at least not in a large way). We all have varied viewpoints on what is a nasty list and if you get destroyed by your opponent was is because their list was a power list, they were a better general, they were luckier, or a combination of these. The impression is that someone getting tabled/soundly defeated will tank his opponents comp score because the army was probably a power list. The judging of lists is also a real problem. All players do not know all the codexes and all the power builds so scoring would vary wildly. A list I think might be strong but okay for comp another person might view as an uber-power/unfluffy list. Therefore I find that the judging must be based on a list of criteria (I have to look at the site Ryan listed but from his example of his SW list it seems similar to something I read about on DakkaDakka I think from a very recent tourney), and the judging should be done by a judge/TO (or panel but then you need more people with a good knowledge of all armies). The critieria list at least allows each player to get a good idea of where they stand.

Ryan, on your point about Best General I disagree. Best General should refer strictly to the win/draw/loss rankings for scenarios. I don't think comp should be part of the Best General.

I agree that without comp in some manner in the tourney it is likely that there will just be a pile of uber-lists and those with more fluffy/balanced/weaker codex lists will show up less or be less satisfied with their chances at a tourney.

[trevor]

i just feild the models that i have the most experiance with, hell with comp.

[fritzthedwarf]

I just tried that system using an old nids 1500 nids list (not a nidzilla list) and it came to 64 pts.

[Jack Shrapnel]

Nov 2, 2010 18:33:32 GMT -5 muadib02 said:

You have a point, but it was more of an example than anything.

I liked the system for sure... was disappointed I couldn't run my list through it! seems like a very thorough, easily done chart...

hopefully they'll update it (or we can find something similar maybe?) so we could try out a few lists through it (min-maxed vs. balanced) to test it out!

There's got to be a good, fair system out there somewhere right???

[guis]

I don't like comp because it's impossible to make a 'fair' system, it will always be unbalanced and abusable.

As far as local tournaments go I see the biggest way to combat people bringing power gaming lists is to make it a very low entry fee so the final prizes aren't very big, something as little as $20-30 for first place. Run the tournament as a 'don't bring a stupid list' tournament, but don't push comp onto people, because those who want to bring a stupid list will no matter what you do.

[fritzthedwarf]

guis - a low entry few with smaller prizes will not prevent power lists. When you say 'don't bring a stupid list' tournament, each of us will have a varied idea of what that means and so the problem will remain. I agree with you that those that want to bring a power list will probably do so regardless of the tournament, and that is why comp gets added so that those lists are penalized accordingly.

Comp can be useful to try to balance out the playing field (albeit I agree that it is difficult to be fair and balanced because there will always be a subjective element). That is why there should be a Best General (or whatever term you want) that does not have any comp applied while Best Overall has comp. That way the player with the power list can win a title/prize even if they ignore comp and the others can also win something regardless whether their codex is not current, they don't have the current optimal models, etc.