PDA

View Full Version : Swedish composition system for 40K



Gascogne
11-07-2009, 21:56
I saw the Calculate your army's competition rating (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208454) for Warhammer Fantasy by Tokamak and I thought that I could start a thread about the composition points for 40K in Sweden.


Tournaments in Sweden use an anti-cheese 'comp system' it rates your army on it's cheesyness, the lower the rating the cheesier your army list is considered to be.


I'm very curious what people think about it since myself live in Sweden and I'm not too fond of it at the moment. (I'm also new to the composition system)

In general an army starts at 100 composition points unless stated otherwise and get - or + depending on what units/gears/characters etc that one has in the army (mostly one gets -).

The list is for 1500 points armies
(Getting 100 is more or less impossible and one isn't suppose to get 100 on an army list)
(people sum it up like this)
>75 is good
>50 is ok
>25 is bad
>0 is stupid
<0 is unthinkable

---------
Here is an example on calculation. (I had some trouble understanding this calculation at first...)
(yes the armies are at 1750 due to I heard that the comp system is general for 1500 points afterwards but it shows the calculation atleast)

Ork army 1750 with comp 0 (my army is apparently very cheesy...)
Ultra Marine army 1750 with comp 83 (friends army)

10 +/- (composition difference/2)
Comp/5
Ork comp 0=0
Ultra Marine comp 83/5 = 17

If Orks win the compositions is the following:
10 +/- (0-17)/2

Ork player gets 10 - (-8,5) = 1,5 points
Marine player gets 10 + (8,5) = 18,5 points

The points are added to the general score for the battle.
---------


The list of the composition points for the different armies can be found on these links, it is up to v5.1 at the moment

Black Templars (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=475)
Blood Angels (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=473)
Chaos Daemons (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=482)
Chaos Space Marines (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=470)
Dark Angels (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=476)
Dark Eldar (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=479)
Daemonhunters (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=483)
Eldar (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=472)
Imperial Guards (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=481)
Necrons (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=469)
Witch Hunters (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=484)
Orks (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=478)
Space Marines (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=471)
Space Wolves (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=477)
Tau (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=480)
Tyranids (http://www.svenska40k.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=474)

Kalec
11-07-2009, 22:02
My god, this is even wore then the fantasy comp system.

stainawarjar
11-07-2009, 22:15
Sly Marbo is as good as a Primaris Psyker?


I learn something new every day ;)

BaloOrk
11-07-2009, 22:17
I havent played in a tournament for years, sure was more simple back in the days...
Just sent the list to the organizer, and got a composition score back. (0-10)

I`ll take a closer look later.

Archangel_Ruined
11-07-2009, 22:18
In english? This model has no idea about synergy, the rating wont really work without that idea. Example - 3 units of harlies and 3 falcons are worth more than the sum of their parts.

Maidel
11-07-2009, 22:44
I really dont get it - you lose points for taking tactical squads??

Bergioyn
11-07-2009, 22:45
I got 48. And btw, this system seems really stupid to me.

Archangel_Ruined
11-07-2009, 22:51
Indeed, the maths required to really compare armies is so complicated I wouldn't actually know where to begin, at all. It would have to take into account squad combinations, special rules, weaknesses and strengths against a theoretical 'standard' army. I really don't know how it would work, but I know it isn't this system.

Ravenous
11-07-2009, 22:54
This is really bloody stupid

I got a 9 for my normal tourny list.

ehlijen
11-07-2009, 22:55
Is this based on anything beyond personal bias? As far as I can see this is nothing other than some group or indivudual trying to tell you what army they think you should play and measuring what you do against that expectation.

Stand up to the Tyranny and don't calculate your army :p

I mean, it doesn't even acknowledge that the points have to go somewhere. By that system, the bigger an army, the worse it is, list unlooked at.

Maidel
11-07-2009, 22:56
This is really bloody stupid

Ditto - from the marine list the only thing that doesnt appear to lose points is a captain.

Taking vanguard actually gives you points back for some weird reason :wtf:

infelix
11-07-2009, 23:04
I haven't played in a tournament here in Sweden in ages and they didn't have this system when I did. I really don't see whats good with a system like this at all and it's something that actually makes me not wanting to reenter the tournament scene here in Sweden because simply put I find it bloody stupid.

Ravenous
11-07-2009, 23:06
Apparently with this system we all have to take squishy armies that hit each other with cotton candy and love....

number9dream
11-07-2009, 23:18
I haven't played in a tournament here in Sweden in ages and they didn't have this system when I did. I really don't see whats good with a system like this at all and it's something that actually makes me not wanting to reenter the tournament scene here in Sweden because simply put I find it bloody stupid.

I'm pretty new to 40k and the first time I looked at one of the Swedish comp calculation-thingies I didn't really feel like playing anymore :/ I think if I were to enter a tournament I'd just take whatever I wanted and not care about the comp.

Lord Damocles
11-07-2009, 23:21
So the only thing that isn't cheesy about Necrons are Pariahs...?

:confused:


EDIT: My Necron army scores a mighty 59... Which should cause Warseer to implode.

Poseidal
11-07-2009, 23:26
Why are there so many any negatives on the Autarch? the most popular build is one who has minimal gear for the +1 reserves, as he's generally not very effective. They should be giving points for tooling up your Autarch.

Why are Wave Serpents penalised so hard as well? especially compared with Valks and others?

EDIT: Worked out my Eldar army - exactly 0. Whoah, that was pretty crazy. Note I also run an extremely 'fluffy' list; why are Banshees so penalised while Scorpions (who are better vs. more targets) aren't?

laudarkul
11-07-2009, 23:27
8 pts Officer of the Fleet and Straken only 5:confused:? 5 pts each psyker?
It's very weird in my opinion...

Skraal2099
11-07-2009, 23:32
I got 22. My army does have dual lash in it, so I expected it though.

Tae
12-07-2009, 00:02
Hmm, my marines score (if I added it up right) 78 -
Librarian
MotF + Power Weapon and Storm Bolter
4 Tactical squads (each with plasma gun, 2 missile launchers, 2 multi-meltas)
4 Rhinos
2 Devestator squads with 2 lascannons, 2 plasma cannons each.

Fluff-tastic!

However I utterly despise this composition system. I hate it in fantasy as it seems to make (seemingly) arbitrary decisions as to what's fluffy and what's not and it seems to have a similar system in 40k.

Frankly I don't personally think that 40k even needs such a system, as even the most abussive of lists (double lash, nob bikers etc.) are still far, far, far more beatable than any MSU DoC army in WFB.

Gascogne
12-07-2009, 00:04
This is really bloody stupid

I got a 9 for my normal tourny list.

That is 9 more points than my army got. ;)

Apparently with this system we all have to take squishy armies that hit each other with cotton candy and love....

I think I prefer waagh...


I'm pretty new to 40k and the first time I looked at one of the Swedish comp calculation-thingies I didn't really feel like playing anymore :/ I think if I were to enter a tournament I'd just take whatever I wanted and not care about the comp.
That is how I feel also at the moment, newly made a new army and just got all the models and then I got to hear we use a comp system here in Sweden which takes much fun out of it. :eyebrows:

Thud
12-07-2009, 00:13
I got 44 with the least cheesy Eldar list in existence. Seriously? I get docked for my two troop Wraithguard units?

MagnustheRaven
12-07-2009, 00:20
This and every comp and balancing effort has one huge problem, they try to create balance where none or very little balance exists.

40k and Fantasy will never be Magic The Gathering (thank God!) and balance between armies will NEVER be achived.

Why? Simply put because the focus on the developers at GW isn't to balance lists for tourny play as they focus on the hobby/club gamers as they make up the bulk of 40kers, the tourny crowd is loud but comparitivly small.

This comp system is just silly as it tries to create ice cream with burger taste...

Maidel
12-07-2009, 00:26
65????

Chaplain, vet squad
3 tactical squads
1 devestator squad
predator
4 rhinos...

what in gods name is cheesy about that????????????

Lord Cook
12-07-2009, 00:38
I scored 33 with a Guard list consisting entirely of Veteran squads in Chimeras, supported by various tanks and a Command squad in a Chimera. Just looking over the comp points for individual units, the system is completely arbitrary and seems to have been put together by someone who knows almost nothing about the army in question.

MagnustheRaven
12-07-2009, 00:39
40k is a d6 game, and they used D20s and coinflips to make the comp list it appears...

Occulto
12-07-2009, 00:44
My god, this is even wore then the fantasy comp system.

I never thought I'd find myself reading that sentence and agreeing. :p

CrownAxe
12-07-2009, 01:21
The fantasy comp system at least was somewhat reasonable and effect

This is just bad. Mainly because since most armies are closed to balanced to each other it isn't really needed except for maybe the armies that are truly dominating

My 2000 pt daemons got a 19. YAAAYYYYY!!!!

Maidel
12-07-2009, 01:23
The other thing this list doesnt seem to take into consideration is the army size.

People here are comparing 1500 pt armies against 2000 point armies - there isnt a difference with that list - no matter how you make it, a 2000 pt army will score lower under that system.

CrownAxe
12-07-2009, 01:29
its suppose to be used on the typical tournement army size list, which would be 1750-2000

Ork
12-07-2009, 02:06
Anything competitive
-100 pts

I would not play in a tournament that uses this scoring system. I'm more for UK GT system (none).

AFnord
12-07-2009, 02:08
Yes, CrownAxe is correct, this comp is built to suit a particular army size.

I have not seen this particular comp list before, and to be honest, i'm not overally fond of it. I'm not saying that it's as horrible as most people seem to think, but I feel that soft things are hit a bit too hard, and hard things are hit a bit too soft compared to each other. I'm all for comp lists that are harsh (punish those lash princes and nob bikers, they deserve it!), but some units (like big gunz) are not that strong. Useful? Yes, but not as strong as say a unit of stormboyz. And yes, i'm an ork player, that is why i use those as examples. And warpheads are not nearly as strong as SAGs...

freddieyu
12-07-2009, 02:28
army comp is necessary in fantasy due to the imbalance...

in 40k things are more balanced and the environment self corrects better, so army comp is unnecessary in 40k, at least to this degree...

the neckbone
12-07-2009, 03:05
i got -2 but i agree with everyone else this is a crap idea

Creeping Dementia
12-07-2009, 03:29
My Mech Tau gets a score of 25, pretty low for Tau I guess.

My Sisters take the cake though, -15.

lain2k3
12-07-2009, 03:35
Captain on a bike + Relic Blade

Sternguard in Drop pod
2 Ironclad Dreads

3 Tac squads with PF and rhinos

Vindicator
LRC + MM

39 points

what the hell

TheDarkDuke
12-07-2009, 03:40
Wow this is a really interesting terrible rating system, and I thought the fantasy one was bad!

1500 point lists/2000 point lists *comments made on my 1500 lists*
My BT come in at 45 points/32 points. Wow I run a very none competitive BT army.
My CSM come in at 63 points/54 points. I run a Death Guard no transports army.
My Ork come in at 34 points/15 points. I take nothing resembling a power build!!!!!
My IG come in at 48 points/30 points. Vet list with only 3 chimera and 1 tank....
My Necron come in at 70 points. No monoliths at all, only 6 destroyers.

This rankings tells me that the rank of power for my armies is as an all comers:
Ork
BT
IG
CSM
Necron

I will tell you right now the rank in power would look like this as a all comers:
IG
Ork
CSM
BT
Necron

I also started glancing at my brothers CSM, Tyranid, Eldar and SM armies and wow are they so far off base its scary. I stopped looking at the Nids when they ranked worse then my Orks and he only has 2 carinfex and 1 non winged tyrant. His terminator/thousand sons army is "worse" then my Death Guard/Typhus CSM .... ya....

Lord Humongous
12-07-2009, 03:57
My 1500 point chaos list scores a 13; I could get over 40 easily by dropping the one "Lash of Submission" I've got and a few other minor tweaks.

I'll grant my army isn't fluffy, but even a fluffy cult list is going to score very low. Is every chaos army supposed to be full of lesser deamons and naked foot troops with no transports or icons?

One thing I noted is that the scoring system generally penalizes you on a per-unit basis. So if you keep your kill points low, you also keep your comp score high. Isn't kill point minimization a bit cheesy?

Edit- Seth- yeah, CSMs also loose points for every troop in the book they have. WTF? Even lesser daemons drop your score!

Seth the Dark
12-07-2009, 03:57
I love that you lose points for taking any troops for Orks.

freddieyu
12-07-2009, 04:05
i dont get it...the higher the points means your army is cheesy? so i get a -144, what does that mean? no special characters, no valks...4 chimeras, a manticore, a griffon, a hydra, 1 vet squad, 2 PCS, 1 CCS, 4 IG squads,. 1 sentinel, 2 Rough riders...

EmperorEternalXIX
12-07-2009, 04:10
LOL the Space Marine one is hilarious. Everything in the entire list seems to be a negative, except your first Land Raider and an Honor Guard squad.

freddieyu
12-07-2009, 04:12
ah I get it now...at least in this system my army seems not to be cheezy...

-=Lazuli=-
12-07-2009, 04:15
My mech guard got an 11. :( At 2000 points, two mech (min.) platoons and command squad, all infantry squads have autocannons, 3 Leman Russes and 3 Bassies. Shouldn't I be docked for having four flamers in the platoon commands? Oh, and I have won only one game with this list (how is it cheesy, maybe I suck).

Grimbad
12-07-2009, 04:28
So many armies with only negative points for all their stuff. This system is useless for those armies; no matter what, when playing larger games, their points will be lower and in smaller games they'll always be rated higher. Should all play 100pt squad vs squad games to be fair with each other?
Am I missing something?

Raalyk Saaris
12-07-2009, 04:33
My chaos army got a 35, but what angered me is that everything was a deduction except possessed and spawn, so if I was to tourney in sweden I'd need to load up on those units...

it made me feel bad for taking basic troops...

Lord Humongous
12-07-2009, 05:25
So many armies with only negative points for all their stuff. This system is useless for those armies; no matter what, when playing larger games, their points will be lower and in smaller games they'll always be rated higher. Should all play 100pt squad vs squad games to be fair with each other?
Am I missing something?

I think what's missing is this isn't a general rating system, its a scoring system for tournaments. In that context, it could work; when added to a generalship score, painting score, etc, as part of the overall scoring, it seems no worse than some other systems. It does look like a decent "handicapping" system for generalship; at the same points, the stronger army WILL have a lower score, so will need to win more games.

Kalec
12-07-2009, 05:52
LOL the Space Marine one is hilarious. Everything in the entire list seems to be a negative, except your first Land Raider and an Honor Guard squad.

Whats ironic is the chapter master gets a penalty off the bat, even though he unlocks the weaker of the two bodyguard squads.

Ravenous
12-07-2009, 06:40
I think what's missing is this isn't a general rating system, its a scoring system for tournaments. In that context, it could work; when added to a generalship score, painting score, etc, as part of the overall scoring, it seems no worse than some other systems. It does look like a decent "handicapping" system for generalship; at the same points, the stronger army WILL have a lower score, so will need to win more games.

So you can build an army that sucks and do sucky and get the same as someone with a good army that does well?

**** that noise.

DaR
12-07-2009, 07:40
Usually, I find comp systems fairly laughable.

This one is actively offensive to me.

I play a half dozen different armies, with both tourney and themed lists versions of them all. I've got hardcore tourney lists that score over 40 that make guys at the local stores groan and crappy "wouldnt' play except for fun" fluff lists that are into negative numbers.

There appears to be no rhyme or reason as to what gets the penalty points and what doesn't. And the thought of penalizing most basic troop choices is ridiculous. The fact that there are several armies where you literally cannot put a legal army on the table without taking a -6 or more penalty is just not amusing at all.

big squig
12-07-2009, 07:45
This is a waste of time. 40k really doesn't need this system at all.

DaR
12-07-2009, 09:01
Actually, I feel I should clarify.

I don't normally think 40k needs a comp system. While there are clearly armies that are more or less powerful over all than others, almost every codex has at least one mostly viable tournament list, and a good player can overcome the weaknesses of most lists. Possibly not in a very "fluffy" way, but it can be done.

40k tourneys that use comp systems are not inherently bad. They're catering to a different market than "hardcore" tournaments, which is fine at most levels. A comp system can be useful if you want to actively promote certain sorts of play over others.

Most comp systems fail to do their job, however. Comp is usually used to do one of two things. First is rewarding people who bring a list that conforms to some particular subset of GW's fluff. The other type punishes people who bring lists that are "too good", usually as a way to handicap armies with codexes that are perceived as "better" than other codexes. This particular attempt is clearly the second sort.

The first type of comp fails because GW's fluff is not consistent. There's almost 30 years worth of 40k-universe story at this point. Some of it is outdated and never referred to in modern literature (sensei and the star child theories, for instance). Some of it subsumed by other contradictory fluff (which chaos gods are opposed, and to what degree they'll work together). Some has been removed by design studio fiat (Squats, anyone?) Some of it is in products most people have never even heard of, let alone actually read for themselves (how many of you have read all the supplements to the original Space Marine game, or Epic 40,000? Every issue of the BFG magazine?).

Even if you restrict things to current cannon stories and works, the details are often inconsistent. Read the Ultramarines Omnibus or Brothers of the Snake, and Space Marines are nearly invincible killing machines. One tactical marine versus an entire Dark Eldar raiding force. Read the Gaunt's Ghosts novels, and unenhanced IG solders are killing ancient Chaos Marines on a regular basis. Well, which is it? Are Space Marines ungodly and capable of mowing down regular humans by the thousands, or do they die with a straight silver knife in their eye like any other mortal?

Now, given that even GW's fluff doesn't agree on basic things like how strong a marine is, how can you attempt to write anything comprehensive on how any particular army's force organization "should be". Many armies don't have remotely enough fluff available to define that. And even the ones that do, like Space Marines, have literature which often features unusual deployments caused by battlefield circumstances. Does your comp scoring system allow for every last literary reference, or not? If not, why not? And how do you score a player who brings a lovingly modeled army based on a particular scene in his favorite book? Does he get full points, because it is exactly as written in the fluff? Or none, because you've restricted yourself to some particular subset of the fluff which doesn't include his army?


As for the second type of comp, there's at least a chance that you could, in theory, provide a mathematical basis for it. However, the problem is so vague and complex that I've never seen any attempt which I considered even close to adequate, only less horrible than others. Units have unexpected synergies in actual play, and things which read well on paper may never be viable on the table. And any given player may develop a strategy for a nominally awful unit that is very hard to counter with any other given army, while many people figure out weaknesses to common power units.

When Ork Nob bikerz hit the tourney scene, people were moaning endlessly about how to kill them and not get mowed down. But now, 12 months later, most people have adapted quite handily and there are active debates about how the ork codex is actually not that competitive, due to their inability to deal with AV14 targets. Do you comp nob bikers down, for that initial burst of fear and panic? Or up, because now they're often a liability due to how many points in your ork list are tied up in a single unit that can be run off the board in a one round, if you've brought the right counters.

How do you comp an entire army like Eldar, where nearly every unit is a specialist that's an amazing hard counter to certain strategies while absolutely useless against others? Are Fire Dragons amazing for their anti-vehicle abilities against a mechanized marine force, or mostly useless because shooting meltas at hordes of gaunts, genestealers or boyz in a Tyranid or Ork horde or at any sort of Chaos Demons with invulnerable saves is actually worse than Dire Avengers with their shuricats?

Answer me those questions, and maybe I'll see a comp system I like. I've yet to see one that didn't have some fairly mechanical checklists of "more than X of this unit is bad" and "taking at least Z of this unit is good", with very little accounting for the synergies involved in most truly competitive tournament army building.

Geep
12-07-2009, 09:19
Tyranids take a comp hit for having hormagaunts? Shouldn't we get a bonus for these guys?
Almost everything takes a hit in the army (even perfectly fluffy things) and there's no way to gain bonus points without spending alot of money (gargoyles) or taking almost useless models (more than 1 lictor).
It seems better for nids to spam expensive things (stealers, MC's) so our armies are smaller and we take fewer hits than to take a swarm and take smaller hits on many more squads. Badly thought out...

The Necron list isn't as bad, but that's just because Necron armies are small and start with a higher points total. They still take a comp hit for almost everything in their list (and they're not exactly spoilt for choice).

The Warhammer system was far better than this- and that's not a huge complement to that system...

Badger[Fr]
12-07-2009, 09:22
I don't normally think 40k needs a comp system. While there are clearly armies that are more or less powerful over all than others, almost every codex has at least one mostly viable tournament list, and a good player can overcome the weaknesses of most lists. Possibly not in a very "fluffy" way, but it can be done.
But some armies, such as Necrons or Sisters of Battle, have barely more than one competitive build. Composition favours creative thinking over copy-pasted army lists, and I fail to see how this could be a bad thing. Would a Grey Knight player attend a tournament if he knew there was no comp system?

In France, most 40k tournaments feature a comp system which doesn't depend on mathematical criteria, as these fail to take synergies into account. It may have flaws, but most players agree that tourneys would be worse without it.

HK-47
12-07-2009, 09:34
I haven't calculated my army yet but looking at the CSM list I feel it doesn't take theme into account at all. I'm a huge death guard fan, and I don't even want to calculate my points. Why is it -7 for each Plague marine squad? What I'm a bad person because I like Nurgle?

Staurikosaurus
12-07-2009, 09:39
A better question would be "Why the hell do I lose points for taking a chaos dreadnought?"

No thought went into this comp system beyond "I will design a comp system"

As an aside: 40K does need comp scores but as die rolls have a much bigger impact on the game than in fantasy, "cheese" units have a smaller impact.

Also: This comp system is useless. It tells you nothing about the strength of the army you are facing, only the units they took. "Cheese" or army strength is more about synergy and less about individual units - this terrible comp system does nothing to address this. You may as well provide percentages spent in the different areas of the force organization chart and get the same information this comp method provides.

Maarten K
12-07-2009, 10:33
my army came in at 20 points. I've got an praetorian/mordian all infantry army with three lascannons and no plasmaguns, three platoons, and a unit of psykers, roughriders, ratlings and veterans each. i always figured this was quite a fluffy army, but apparantly should go all armour. I don't know how others could possibly manage to get an army that actually scores above 75.

Radium
12-07-2009, 11:14
WTF? I get penalties for including ANY unit form the Eldar codex except swooping hawks and shining spears? This makes no sense at all. Even making the worst list possible would net a very low score. And my mech army has a mighty -12, even though I fully expected it to take a beating at this sort of comp thing, -12 is rough.

This system is insane. 40k doesn't need comp scores.

Wait, I took a second look and taking a squad of guardians is bad, while taking dark reapers tempest launcher/crack **** doesn't swing the score either way...
This system is broken.

Gascogne
12-07-2009, 11:14
I haven't calculated my army yet but looking at the CSM list I feel it doesn't take theme into account at all. I'm a huge death guard fan, and I don't even want to calculate my points. Why is it -7 for each Plague marine squad? What I'm a bad person because I like Nurgle?

Nurgle is bad for you. ;)

I was about to start up a Nurgle army myself but all my friends keept telling me that I should play Orks since every tactic I do is orkish.
And then I saw that orks gets very low comp score, weee funny...


A better question would be "Why the hell do I lose points for taking a chaos dreadnought?"

Chaos Dread is too good when it starts shooting your own army?

The_Outsider
12-07-2009, 11:26
I lol'd so hard at this sytem.

My 1500 DE force* scored a massive 26 (I was well on my way to a 50 odd point score until I added in my raiders).

*My list, for reference

Archon: shadowfield, combat drugs, agonisers, splinter pistol, trophy racks
6 Incubi (total): incubi master
Riader: horrorfex

10 Wyches (total): wych weapons, plasma grenades
Succubus: agoniser, trophy racks
Raider: horrorfex

8 Warriors (total): blaster, splintercannon
Raider: horrorfex

8 Warriors (total): blaster, splintercannon
Raider: horrorfex

8 Warriors (total): blaster, splintercannon
Raider: horrorfex

8 Warriors (total): blaster, splintercannon
Raider: horrorfex

Ravager: 3 lances

Ravager: 1 lance, 2 disintegrators

Ravager: 1 lance, 2 disintegrators


This system punishes me massively for having a third of my points in mechanised troops - the penalties htey incured were actually more than the rest of the list combined pretty much.

Ianos
12-07-2009, 12:02
Regardless of the system used, comp is very unsportsmanlike, funny thing is it is supposedly used for the enforcement of sportsmanship. Too bad its your opponent that also becomes your referee, which is against all athletic and competition rules across the globe.

Badger[Fr]
12-07-2009, 12:06
Regardless of the system used, comp is very unsportsmanlike, funny thing is it is supposedly used for the enforcement of sportsmanship. Too bad its your opponent that also becomes your referee, which is against all athletic and competition rules across the globe.
I think you're confusing Composition systems with Sportmanship scores.

slayerofmen
12-07-2009, 12:22
okay well my pure world eaters army gets 50 so whats that ...ok?
and my pure deathwing army gets! 40

nosferatu1001
12-07-2009, 13:39
Wow - 17 points for my 1500 CSM army. 1DP (why does Khorne and Nurgle get equally nerfed for daemon princes? +1T is lots more useful than +1A), 3 units of 8 bezerkers, 3 rhinos (-3 points for rhinos - really?! apparently you're only supposed to use foot troops ever) and 3x2 oblits. Damn it's a laughably stupid system - encourages fewer units, chaos dreads apparently warrant nerfing despite being worse than posessed (possessed don't kill your own troops) and just having plague marines is bad. Oh, don't forget - terminators bad, havocs bad, chosen bad, etc. It is pretty much impossible to build a CSM army that gets 75 points, unless it has 15 spawn...

Vaktathi
12-07-2009, 13:59
ahahaha my 2000pt Mech Guard is below 0. I'm at -35.


HQ:-11
-3 for CCS
-8 for Fleet officer

Troops:-16
Platoons x2
-2 platoon command
-1x3 infantry squad
-1x3 heavy weapon (autocannon)

Transports
9 Chimeras
-48

Fast Attack:-24
Vendetta Squadron X3. -4 for each "squadron", -4 for first vendetta in each slot.

Heavy Support: -36
-24: 3 Leman Russ Squadrons
-12: 3 LRBT's


Lets do 2000pt CSM's. I cannot for the life of me see why the penalize the Mark of Khorne so much, not that I run it on anything but my DP.


9pts after -91 comp.

HQ:-8
DP, Wings Khorne

Elites:-16
2x 6 Terminators, multiple combi & cc weapons

Troops:-18
3x CSM units mounted in Rhino's with PW's

HS:-49
-45 6x Oblits
-4 Havocs, 4 ML's


My Tau and Eldar ended up with similar totals to my IG and CSM's, and I don't think either of those two armies are particularly hard.


This system is horrifically and painfully dumb. I would never think of playing an event that used this system. Not only do the negatives seem arbitrary and *hugely* imbalanced, but they also don't seem to be consistent or conform to any sort of reasoning. It also doesn't scale with points level well at all.

WGMelchior
12-07-2009, 13:59
You should always use the army size indicated for the tournament. In almost all cases this is 1750. You can scale the number by taking the total minus and just adjusting that.

The thing you need to remember is that 50 should be a pretty good but not overly one-sided or optimized tournament army. That is why almost everything gives minus. You compare the minus with the point cost of the unit.

Only units that actively make your army worse, such as those removing abilities (Krootox removes Infiltrate, for example), gets a plus. If your whole codex is filled with units that only gives minus, congratulations!

A score below 30-35 or so means you have actively geared your army towards winning by selectively picking out only units that are very point effective. Most likely you have multiple of the same units, even outside your troop choices. There isn't anything bad with this, because you are going to a tournament after all.

The tournament result modifier for comp is usually very small and comp is instead often used to pair together players during the first round of a tournament. If you come with a list geared toward winning at all cost, you will play against other players with the same mindset and army composition.


The idea with comp is that you should be able to bring armies that aren't 100% optimal and still have fun during the tournament. It's also more fun to play against armies with a wide variety of unit types.

It's main falling is that basically each tournament organizer has to make his own list, and there's always a bloody row over what to do with each troop. It's hard to find an unbiased way to do this. And lots of people inevitably read a comp score as some sort of personal insult to themselves.

Important to note is also that the specific lists here are for one tournament only and are currently in development. As you can see several people have already posted about oddities and imbalances.

Morathi's Darkest Sin
12-07-2009, 14:51
Don't get why Flamers equal as nasty as Plasma guns with Plauge Marines but there you go, my Khorne/Nurgle force seems somewhere between Bad/Ok although its only 1500pts atm.

Came in at 42.

I imagine if I added another squad to take me to around 1750, it'd be around 37.

Odd system.

The_Outsider
12-07-2009, 15:13
Just looking over the DE one they need to switch the cost for the terrorfex and horrorfex and make the xenospasm seperate (not that anyone would take it most of the time anyway) as a horrorfex is superior to it's infantry mounted counterpart 120% of the time.

Minus two for mandrakes is absurd, sure they have some mental deployment but they are just angry guardsmen at the end of the day, a minus one would suffice.

Then they decided to make the night shield on a ravager a minus one and a horrorfex minus three - no way should that work - given that most non imperial anti tank weaponry is 36" the night shield is worth so much more than a horrorfex on a long range gun platform.

If I used my 2K list on that I would be looking at a -56 for my raiders with horrorfexes alone and that is before things like vect, ravagers and gear on my units.

The idea is solid by too many of the costs across the board (not just DE specific ones) are out of proportion and in many cases heavily punish themed lists (not just "my army is themed because I took a unit of noise marines as troops to show my lash/plague marine force is fluffy").

Venomizer
12-07-2009, 15:21
that is one whacked out system............the tau section especially amused me, being penalised for taking troop choices :wtf:

for the record, my 1,500 cron list scored 71 (unless I worked it out wrong that is)

Arkanthaes
12-07-2009, 15:39
Ahahaha....this is a joke right?

Daemonhunters get a +2 for taking Inq. lord, but immediatly loses it if you want to make him better than a wimpy boltgun platorm.

They also get +5 for taking Grey Knight Purguration squads, but get -1 for each special weapon you give them, which is what seperates them from normal Grey Knights!

To have even a remote chance of getting through Armour, they suffer atleast a -5 penatly, usually more. And yet, this is an army that suffers taking out armour!

And then minuses for those orbital strikes... I just can't see why.

This is, at best, proof that these people have no idea what 40k is and just pulled names and numbers out of a hat.

GCMandrake
12-07-2009, 15:40
My Guard came in at -59 :wtf:

I can only assume this is a mistranslation:


Psyker Battle Squad
-5 each Sanctioned Psyker model (-2 if no Chimeras are present in the army)

18 psykers = -90.

wizuriel
12-07-2009, 15:56
this seems even worse than the fantasy one.

Thud
12-07-2009, 15:57
My Tau Farsight Enclave came in at 42 points. Hilarious.

I got docked 36 points on stuff in XV8 suits alone.

Deus Mechanicus
12-07-2009, 16:04
My Guard came in at -59 :wtf:

I can only assume this is a mistranslation:



18 psykers = -90.

Nope, psyker squads in chimeras are according to the creator of the comp system the cheesiest and most powerfull option in the game.

J-L
12-07-2009, 16:07
My 1500 CSM list came in at a solid -4 pts. This system is an insult to all 40k players and a waste of time. The creators of it clearly have no understanding of competitive 40k. Their discussion of what units are too good not only offended me, but also physically damaged my head. I would never play in a tournament that uses this system.

Thoume
12-07-2009, 16:14
So taking a blank battlewagon is worse than one with an 'Ard case? Surely thats a typo...

Gascogne
12-07-2009, 16:17
So taking a blank battlewagon (-10) is worse than one with an 'Ard case (-5)? Surely thats a typo...

Can't assault from an 'ard case, that is why..

I recalculated my Ork list now when I manage to use exactly 1750 points, I got -1 heh. :skull:

Yautja
12-07-2009, 16:39
For my 1500 point lists I scored

60 Chaos Daemons out of 100
69 Space Marines out of 105
51 Dark Eldar out of 115

Nym
12-07-2009, 16:39
I ended up with -15 for my Ork list... What a joke really.

Apparently, everything in the Ork codex is cheesy, except for Flash Gitz and Weirdboyz. Great.

Tastyfish
12-07-2009, 16:46
My Tau Farsight Enclave came in at 42 points. Hilarious.

I got docked 36 points on stuff in XV8 suits alone.

I think this needs to be added in bold to the OP, You are not supposed to get 100!.

A Farsight Enclave force at 42 points is slightly above average (given this system), but not by much. Remember that this isn't against a nominal army scoring 100 points or even 50 points but the other armies taken part. Thus Thud's Farsight force is rewarded significantly despite having 42 points if his opponents are closer to the 30-35 point mark. I'd also point out that the fact everything is practically negative is designed to penalise min-maxing or hordes of small units (likely adapted from warhammer). Its not saying that a unit of boyz is cheesy

My first response was also what?! but after a moments consideration it becomes pretty apparent what they are trying to do. Also don't forget that these points go towards another pool of points rather than being deducted from the main set. If you're in a tournament with people playing to win with <30 point armies, then having an army picked to be in the high 80s might not be enough to get you any where near the top tables.

On the other hand, a guy who won all his battles with a 40 point list should obviously be recongised as better general than one with a 0 point list.

If you fought a battle with a lower comp score than your opponent, and then got a +1 to the generalship score for that match, would it seem that bad (i.e you win draws, and probably need to pick a 20-40 army if you want to win the tournament)?

Honestly if implemented right, it seems a good way of subtly altering the meta game to bring the armies into balance.

WGMelchior
12-07-2009, 16:49
that is one whacked out system............the tau section especially amused me, being penalised for taking troop choices :wtf:

for the record, my 1,500 cron list scored 71 (unless I worked it out wrong that is)

You're not actually penalized for it. If you work out the point cost, even the smallest possible Fire Warrior squad comes out to 60 points for -1 in comp. If you scale this up to 1750 points you would reach 71 in comp, which indicates a very soft list that could use a handicap when playing against your average list.

So what can we tell from this? The people who made the comp thinks that Fire Warriors aren't very tough for their point cost and that including many units of Fire Warriors will result in your army being softer than average.

The 'magic' number is minus 1 for every 35 points. If you check Tau, this mean the makers of that specific list thinks that:


What Tau has that is good:
- Crisis suits of all types are good if equipped with Missile Pods and Plasma Rifles.
- Hammerheads are good regardless of weapon loadout, but works best with railgun/SMS.
- Devilfishes are very resilient for transports, despite their high cost.
- Broadsides are great due to twin-linked railguns and are quite hard to kill, so definitely worth their points.
- Disruption Pods are waaaay over the top, considering the cost of 5 points.

What Tau has that is about average:
- Crisis suits with short range weapons are below average but useful in some situations.
- Stealth suits are above average, but only if you keep their points costs low by skipping upgrades for them.
- Kroots are just below average but can be good if you take one or two small squads.
- Pathfinders are above average, especially if you use smaller squads.
- Ethereals are decent when taken with an honor guard.

What Tau has that is below average:
- On their own, Fire Warriors are below average, especially large squads.
- Gun Drone squads.
- Pirahnas are far below average with their basic loadout, due to their high point cost.
- A Sky Ray is below average. It just doesn't have the offensive punch of the Hammerhead but takes up the same slot.
- Sniper teams are far below average.

What Tau has that is total crap:
- Vespids are extremely weak, and doesn't work well with any Tau army.
- Krootox makes your squads actually worse.


The only thing I outright disagree with is the Ethereal which is a severe handicap against most armies, and possibly the Pirahna which can be great if used properly.

Cry of the Wind
12-07-2009, 17:09
Took me a minute to figure out what was going on, so -25 there and then found some units to be really over valued based on table performance so -25 there. Forcing me to play a certain army to get a good score well that's about -75 there. So overall this comp scoring system gets a -25 overall mark from me.

Thanks for pointing out which country to avoid playing tournaments in!

WGMelchior
12-07-2009, 17:19
Or you could just go for non-comped tournaments if that's your thing. There are loads of those here as well.

Deus Mechanicus
12-07-2009, 17:25
Or you could just go for non-comped tournaments if that's your thing. There are loads of those here as well.

Indeed, i think it's important that we all dont put down every swedish 40k player just because a group made this wacky comp system. Unfortunatly one can get the feeling that the people that makes these comp systems activly surrounds themselves with yes people and push away any dissenters. And thus since everyone agree with the system it must be good and since they are the same people who organizes the tournaments of course the tournaments uses it.

But as i said there are plenty of swedes who disagrees with this travesty, they just wont get their voices heard in the community.

Cry of the Wind
12-07-2009, 17:31
But as i said there are plenty of swedes who disagrees with this travesty, they just wont get their voices heard in the community.

Too bad really since it clearly sours some people (myself included) to the local scene and while I might not have any short term plans to travel and game on the other side of the pond it might be a factor in my decsion in where to travel in the future.

Comp scores don't have much place in tournaments in my mind. The best way to avoid serious issues, make the top prize(s) not based only on general scores and to make sure the event is promoted in the right light. Promote the event as a fun gaming outing with a narrative background and you'll have people bring that mindset to the list and table. Tell them its Ard' Boyz and they bring the heat. It's that simple. If you don't want cheese at the tourny, don't hold it as a competitive event.

DaR
12-07-2009, 17:33
;3757155']But some armies, such as Necrons or Sisters of Battle, have barely more than one competitive build. Composition favours creative thinking over copy-pasted army lists, and I fail to see how this could be a bad thing. Would a Grey Knight player attend a tournament if he knew there was no comp system?

In France, most 40k tournaments feature a comp system which doesn't depend on mathematical criteria, as these fail to take synergies into account. It may have flaws, but most players agree that tourneys would be worse without it.

Not worse. Just different. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a "hardcore" style tournament with no comp, as long as everyone knows in advance that those are the rules. In fact, I've even seen an upsurge in tournaments that have no soft scores at all. No comp, no sportsmanship, not even painting. Just pure battlepoints, plus bonuses for secondary/tertiary objectives. I enjoy those tournaments as much as I do ones with soft scores. It's a different style of game and list, but just as much fun if you're properly expecting it.

As for Grey Knights? If you know what you're on about, you can do extremely well with a Demonhunters list. One of the local players brings his pure GK list to un-comped tourneys and usually places in the upper half, and often near the top. I've played him several times with a tuned tourney wraith-oriented Eldar list and am about even in terms of win/loss ratio. An awful lot of the power of that list derives from the player sitting behind it.

As for this particular set of comp rules, here's one beef with it:

At 1750 Eldar can bring the following:

10 Harlequins with ShadowSeer and Troupmaster, escorting Maugan Ra and Yriel.
3 units of 5 Pathfinders
2 units of 5 Warp Spiders plus Dual Spinner Exarch
3 Warwalkers with Dual Scatter Lasers
2 Wraithlords with Brightlance and Wraithsword

This scores 45 comp points, and is thus about midground between "soft" and "hard" lists, leaning towards the soft side by what I'm seeing here. Yet this is a list I take to uncomped tourneys and win with regularly. Overall this list is around 10-3-4 (W-L-D) playing against other unrestricted lists.

By comparison, this is is a 1750 Ork list:

2x Warboss on Bike with PK and Bosspole
4x 11 Boyz in Trukk, plus Nob with PK, Bosspole, Armor
2x 5 Deffkoptas with 5 Buzzsaws, 4 BigBomms, TL Big Shootas
1x 2 Deffkoptas with 1 Buzzsaw

This list scores approximately 20. That makes it fairly hard by the composition standards listed. But this list is genuinely awful. I would never play it at any sort of tournament, ever, for fear of being embarrassed right off the table. It's a very fluffy Kult of Speed "trick" list that uses Deffkoptas as a retinue for biker Warbosses. It has absolutely no potential against any sort of serious tournament list, as it cannot destroy even transports with ranged shooting, nor does it have any answer to any hard units except the warbosses. Seer councils, Land Raiders, Terminators of any sort, Wraithlords, dreadnoughts, etc, will all stomp all over it. You only even need one or two of those units, to keep your comp score nice and high, and you'll still destroy this list. The boyz squads are too small to deal with any even semi-dedicated assault troops, and will lose to even basic marine tac squads without a little luck.

If I ran the Ork list against the Eldar list, it would be an absolute slaughter. Despite the fact that the Orks are granting the Eldar 10 points for comp (45/5=9 for Eldar, 20/5=4 for Orks, 5 difference, +15 for Eldar, +5 for Orks), they are going to be tabled by turn 4, at latest, and that's assuming I play for maximum point denial on the orks and reserve all the trukk boy units.

Eldoriath
12-07-2009, 17:38
I think the IG comp is far too hard, a list cointaining 2 primaris, 6 vets with carapace and 3 maxed out demolishers in one squadron adds up to 1600p and 80 in comosition. If i'd like to play the army I got middle placement in a tournament (composition free), I would end up at something like 30 composition.

Btw I'm swede and dislike comp-system, but still think it's fun to play at tournaments even though they'r comped.

Kettu
12-07-2009, 17:41
Wait, I don't get it.

I got -36 for my stock standard, utterly fluffy, utterly balanced Sisters army.

One canoness, tooled up but without jumpack.
St. Celestine
Celestian bodyguard for canoness w/ Immolator

Four units of Girls, three w/ rhinos

One unit of Seraph
One unit of dominions w/ immolator

One unit of retubutions w/immolator
Two Exorcists.

And my list is unforgivable?

carldooley
12-07-2009, 18:10
tyranids 25pts
tau 67pts
SM 56pts
Eldar 17pts

my eldar list is more broken than nidzilla?
DUDE:D:D:D

Lord Humongous
12-07-2009, 18:20
So you can build an army that sucks and do sucky and get the same as someone with a good army that does well?

**** that noise.

That would depend on the points you can get for winning games. If you can score 100 points per victory, and play three games, then the 100 points the "sucky" army gets from comp won't matter much.

kendaop
12-07-2009, 18:26
My deathwing scored a 69. I guess my army is cheesier than most people's...:rolleyes:

Adeptus Mechanicus
12-07-2009, 18:33
I got 25 with my footslogging Bad Moons. The only thing I have to say about that is LOL. This system is balls. They give me -4 for each Kan (I run 2 groups of 3) and then an additional -2 for each grootzooka AND an additional -4 for each of them since I have a Mek with KFF in the army to shield my footsloggers. Oh my god.

Lostanddamned
12-07-2009, 18:39
Space Wolves 13th Company - using the Space Wolves list (so my Wulfen were ignored...) scored a 69, not bad I guess, although I'd say maybed a 59 would be fairer when various units are factored in.

Now to use this as a guide to what units are hard as nails, and build an SM army around that, I mean, thats what it's meant for I guess :rolleyes:

Ianos
12-07-2009, 21:09
;3757434']I think you're confusing Composition systems with Sportmanship scores.

Comp is about sportsmanship also but it covers the list aspect instead of the behavioral one. IMO if you are going to a tournament, just fight!

Radium
12-07-2009, 21:21
I agree with Ianos, tournaments are for determining a winner. Bring the best you can, but don't be a complete *** while playing. A lot of people come to have a good time, and they get to play each other after the first round, whereas the players that want to see how they measure up to one another get to go head to head after the first round. That's the way I see larger tournaments like GT's and the like.
Of course, local tournaments can be anything the local wargaming group sees fit!

Harzin
12-07-2009, 21:45
Or you could just go for non-comped tournaments if that's your thing. There are loads of those here as well.

Yes, Iím from Sweden and played for five or six years now, and Iíve never ever heard of anything like this. But maybe Iíve been playing with some strange people and groups, what do I knowÖ

First post :angel:

And by the way Iím dyslectic so please excuse my spelling.

Gascogne
12-07-2009, 22:48
Yes, I’m from Sweden and played for five or six years now, and I’ve never ever heard of anything like this. But maybe I’ve been playing with some strange people and groups, what do I know…


I see that you live in Lund and Sydcon (gaming convention) is coming up in a few weeks and they are using the comp system. ;)

djinn8
12-07-2009, 22:49
I fail to see why IG are penalised for taking Infantry. :wtf: is that about! This system can suck my... :chrome:

Lostanddamned
12-07-2009, 23:00
I just put my Imperial Guard into it. They came out with a score of an amazing -20

I happen to have a full pskyer choir in a chimera, and 3 tanks in separate squadrons. The last tank is a vanquisher with Pask. That one single model costs -18.

BaloOrk
12-07-2009, 23:23
Slightly off topic...

This thread got me thinking, what other comp systems are there in the world?
Do Warseer have a comp system thingy?
How is it in "grand tournaments"?

Maybe a worldwide "STCS"(Standard Template Comp System) would be in good order, hard to pull of thou...

Oh look, i just found some fluff in me belly button, time to sleep id say...

Muad'Dib
13-07-2009, 00:05
Maybe a worldwide "STCS"(Standard Template Comp System) would be in good order, hard to pull of thou...



The problem with comp systems is that they started out, at least in theory, as a way to steer people to making less competetive/more fluffy armies.
However, they have gradually evolved into monsters like the one posted in this thread, that penalise you for everything short of Chaos Spawn. Fantasy comp systems have exactly same problem - you can't have a Daemon/Vampire army that doesn't get pounded in comp for taking basic choices.

The question is, what are comp scores supposed to do ?

And the sad thing is, even the best system will have loopholes. And if a WAAC player wants to bring an army tricked-out to win, he will do it anyway.

magnum12
13-07-2009, 00:25
My 1750 point IG army scored a 5. At 2000, its -1.

-HQ: Creed + Astropath + Master of the Fleet + Missile Launcher. 160 points.
-Troop 1: Platoon Commander with bolt pistol + auto cannon + 2 plasma guns + 4 squads + 4 G. Launcher + 4 H. Bolter = 332.
--Fire Support Team: 3 auto cannons. 75 points.
--Anti-tank Team: 3 lascannons. 105 points
-Troop 2: Al’Raheim + 4 meltas + 4 squads + 4 flamers= 325. 5 Chimeras with heavy flamer and multi laser. 605 points
-Fast 1: Vendetta. 130 points.
-Heavy 1: Leman Russ with H. Bolter Sposons. 170 points.
-Heavy 2: Same as Heavy 1. 170 points
-Total: 1747
Expansion for 2000 points.
-Heavy 3: Hydra Flak Tank: 75 points
-Fast 2: Devil Dog with multi melta: 135 points
-Add 2 Plasma guns to Creed’s squad
-Total: 1988

This purely fluffy World Eaters list (concept stage) scored a 39.

-HQ 1: Kharn the Betrayer. 165 points
-HQ 2: Chaos Lord with Terminator Armor, combi flamer, Mark of Khorne, and Daemon Weapon. 160 points.


-Troop 1: 9 Khorne Berserkers with one SC with power fist and plasma pistol and a rhino with extra armor. 294 points. Kharn is always attached to this unit.
-Troop 2: 8 Khorne Berserkers with one SC upgrade, Power Fist, plasma pistol (these Ride with Khorne Lord in the Land Raider)=223
-Troop 3: 10 Khorne Berserkers with one SC upgrade, plasma pistol Power Fist and a rhino with Extra Armour= 315

-Heavy 1: Chaos Defiler with Twin Linked Lascannon and Havok Launcher: 175 points
-Heavy 2: Chaos Defiler with Twin Linked Lascannon and Havok Launcher: 175 points.
-Heavy 3: Chaos Land Raider with Extra Armour: 235 points.

-Total: 1742

-Fast 1: 8 Raptors with champion, icon of khorne, 2 flamers, a power fist, and plasma pistol (champion). 255 points.

-Total 2: 1997.

AlmightyNocturnus
13-07-2009, 00:56
As someone who plays both Fantasy and 40K, I`ll say something like the Swedish rating system is needed in Fantasy now because the armies are so imbalanced right now. A complete jet-lagged, half-drunk, noob can get hit in the head three times with an aluminum baseball bat three times, walk into a gaming store, use a complete stranger`s VC army for his first ever game of Warhammer Fantasy, and defeat a carefully managed Ogre Kingdoms army played by the world`s No. 1 ranked player. However, I think this kind of system is not ncessary in 40K now. It has pretty good balance I think - mind you, a few armies are a bit out of date - but most of the main armies are well-balanced, I think.

Almighty Nocturnus

Omniassiah
13-07-2009, 01:02
Slightly off topic...

This thread got me thinking, what other comp systems are there in the world?
Do Warseer have a comp system thingy?
How is it in "grand tournaments"?

Maybe a worldwide "STCS"(Standard Template Comp System) would be in good order, hard to pull of thou...

Oh look, i just found some fluff in me belly button, time to sleep id say...

Comp is best done not using a system, but averaging the opinions of 4-5 good tournament organizers. I can determine a comp score far better then any system that anyone has done and while I may have a slight bias against a certain army that is why you have 4-5 people score the army and average it.

Most experience gamers can determine if a list was designed on a pure point/power ratio or if it was designed theme first ability second.

The reason to do this is that I in the 'ard boys tournament that I placed 3rd in in Harrisburg, PA. I was able to call the game when we swapped lists. The games didn't test my generalship it tested the power lists against each other. The 2 games I massacred my opponents in where friends and they had no shot unless I got horrible game rolls. Generally speaking they we're among the least enjoyable and most boring games I've played. Very little thinking on the fly just following the pre-programmed tactics with the minor changes.

Adding the soft scores seems to not only help out the hobbyists, It also helps to make sure that the games are more often closer and that people actually have to think about how they are going to deal with different things.

Docnoxin
13-07-2009, 01:37
My Ork 1500pt tourney list scored a 26. There wasn't a single thing in the entire army that I didn't take some kind of a negative for. Every model and every gear choice pinged me even for my troop choices.

Granted I have won two different tournaments with this list playing against a variety of opponents, but any comp system that posts all negatives for a particular codex is just ludicrous.

HK-47
13-07-2009, 01:47
Nurgle is bad for you. ;)

I was about to start up a Nurgle army myself but all my friends keept telling me that I should play Orks since every tactic I do is orkish.
And then I saw that orks gets very low comp score, weee funny...

:cries: But I like Nurgle, he makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

Okay I calculated it and it's 14. It's official I'm a horrible person. Unless I did my math wrong? :confused:

Here is my army list for reference.

DP: Wings, MoN, Warptime

DP: Wings, MoN, Warptime

10 PM: Champ with PF & CM, 2 Flamers
Land Raider: DP, Havoc

7 PM: Champ with PF & CF, 2 Meltas
Rhino: EA, CF

7 PM: Champ with PF & CF, 2 Meltas
Rhino: EA, CF

7 PM: Champ with PF, 2 Plasmas
Rhino: CF

3 Obliterators

Defiler: 2 extra CCWs

I don't know, is it an over powered list?

Znail
13-07-2009, 02:25
Why does so many take the comp scores so personaly? Its not an insult or some indication of being a horrible person to score low unless you realy tried to make a bad list, then you might have failed. But I am not a fan of that comp system as it doesnt look that well tested. Nor do I think 40k needs comp right now as even the codex considered worst are good enuff to win tournaments.

Pholostan
13-07-2009, 03:11
Seems a full Psyker Choir in a chimera is worth -49. They really really really don't like that unit.

DaR
13-07-2009, 03:21
The reason a lot of people take comp personally is exactly the terms it's couched in for this poll. The first post explains comp scores lower than 25 in this system as 'stupid' or 'unthinkable'.

The feeling you get walking away is:

"If your comp score is bad, you are a inconsiderate and horrible person who only cares about winning."

It doesn't matter why you picked the things you picked. It doesn't matter if those are the models you love, if you're trying to recreate some portion of dramatic fluff, or if you've just slowly evolved your list over time as you win and lose. If your composition by these arbitrary rules is bad, you must be an inconsiderate ass who is out to ruin the game for everyone else and so we will take points away from you to make it up to the opponents who must suffer through playing you.

Most people who espouse comp scores won't put it those exact terms, rather they'll talk about making the game "fair for everyone" and "discouraging win at all costs attitudes" or maybe "promoting balanced and background appropriate lists".

But that's not what the people who have run a bad comp list hear. What they hear is "you suck because you brought that list".

People who oppose comp in general will often give an argument based on the idea of "the goal of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun". So bringing a list that can win is not bad, it's good, especially if it leads to a fun game, win or lose.

Personally, I'd rather have a fun game against someone who has put a lot of thought into winning with their list than play against a sanctimonious idiot who thinks I'm doing it wrong because I brought 2 of unit X in conjunction with one unit Y instead of the reverse. By the same token, I'd rather have a fun game against someone who has clearly put a lot of love into building an army that fits a classic theme than some jerk who built a list by copying a winner of a previous GT and is now roflstomping all the newbies who don't know how to counter it.

And that's another reason comp usually fails. More often than not, the subset of jerks who aren't interested in a fun game but only winning will just bring "harder" lists so they can make up their comp scores with battle points. The subset of people who love the hobby and background will bring their fluffy lists and probably lose even with comp to boost them up because they're probably not thinking about their army as a tactical force in the first place. And most people will end up tailoring their moderately themed lists a little to fit the arbitrary comp-score system du jour and go on with their life.

solkan
13-07-2009, 04:41
I'm amused by the fact that Lash of Submission is 25 penalty, straight out. Would "minus one million" have been too much? :rolleyes:

My 1000 point league list for Daemons scored: 51 (Blue Scribes, 2x3 flamers, 4 fiends, horrors, plague bearers, bloodletters).

My last 1850 tournie list: 21 (100 daemons - Blue Scribes, Slaanesh herald on chariot w/ pavane, herald of Khorne, Masque, two units of flamers, some fiends, two units of horrors, two units of daemonettes, unit of plaguebearers, unit of bloodletters. It was the 'I'm not going to bother with anti-tank today, I'll just use what I have in the box' list.).

There are minor errors in the Daemons table (fiends can't get icons, is that supposed to be a penalty on unholy might?), and the scoring is silly for Soul Grinders. A basic Soul Grinder is just as cheesy as a Soul Grinder with Phlegm or Tongue?

A fixed comp score for Epidimius is misguided because he becomes cheesy in direct proportion to the number of nurgle marks. A fixed cost for Fateweaver is silly for the same reasons.

-10 for the Blue Scribes?!?

-5 points for a unit of flamers, but all of the other elites are two points per model?

-Penalizing Daemon players for taking icons?!? A marine army get's 3 unpenalized rhinos, but a daemon player get penalized for each icon (over and above their point costs) :wtf:?

Harzin
13-07-2009, 09:11
I see that you live in Lund and Sydcon (gaming convention) is coming up in a few weeks and they are using the comp system. ;)



Just looked it up and your absolutely right. Havenít heard of it before this year and not home then so didnít read the rules.

Note to self: check all fact before opening your big mouth.

Then a question to my countrymen, dose it ďworkĒ? I can see the thought behind and I like it, but this system seems, a bit, unbalanced. But hey havenít just it yet..

Gascogne
13-07-2009, 09:14
Then a question to my countrymen, dose it “work”? I can see the thought behind and I like it, but this system seems, a bit, unbalanced. But hey haven’t just it yet..

If you ask me, I would say not really but you can always give it a shot or two. ;)
Personally I think most units gets too much negative points, I'm trying to make a playable army list with the comp and keep the composition score pretty high but it ain't easy with orks heh.

Satan
13-07-2009, 09:20
Just looked it up and your absolutely right. Haven’t heard of it before this year and not home then so didn’t read the rules.

Note to self: check all fact before opening your big mouth.

Then a question to my countrymen, dose it “work”? I can see the thought behind and I like it, but this system seems, a bit, unbalanced. But hey haven’t just it yet..

It works. We even used the old comp from slemcon to comp our armies during our last few games and I think they scores reflected the army builds pretty good.

People always need to remember that a comp score is not just a reflection of some sort of "power level" though. It can also be used to indicate that you've constructed an army of stuff which probably won't work in unison and net you any games.

Unfortunately I won't be attending the tournament at Sydcon which is a shame as I was really looking forward to being able to test my army under this comp system.


If you ask me, I would say not really but you can always give it a shot or two. ;)
Personally I think most units gets too much negative points, I'm trying to make a playable army list with the comp and keep the composition score pretty high but it ain't easy with orks heh.

That's most likely because Orks have a lot of good options right now. But as always it depends on the context of the gaming environment. I made a post about the lifecycle models of the games over in the fantasy thread.

Ianos
13-07-2009, 09:59
People who oppose comp in general will often give an argument based on the idea of "the goal of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun". So bringing a list that can win is not bad, it's good, especially if it leads to a fun game, win or lose.

How about this, i am against comp not because i believe 40k is totally balanced or because i only play with "broken" lists, but because i think it is inconceivable to have my tournament standing (i.e. totally legitimate effort to win my games) lowered by my opponent.

Even worst is that they way people rate others' comp, is totally biased towards certain races and archetypes. Classic example, a troop based marine list vs. almost any type of Eldar list. Eldar get the comp shaft just because they have pointy ears and the the totally efficient, winning marines, get a good comp.

Logarithm Udgaur
13-07-2009, 10:06
The first list here http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203142 that I took to the last tourney I went to came in at 67 points.

The points seem a little off on the IG codex at least. -3 for wasting 30 points on a medic? -1 for Stormtroopers when the far superior veterans give nothing? -5 for every Psyker in a battle squad? Someone must not like witches.

Ya, pretty dumb. I doubt I would ever play in a tourney that restricted players so.

DaR
13-07-2009, 10:12
How about this, i am against comp not because i believe 40k is totally balanced or because i only play with "broken" lists, but because i think it is inconceivable to have my tournament standing (i.e. totally legitimate effort to win my games) lowered by my opponent.

Even worst is that they way people rate others' comp, is totally biased towards certain races and archetypes. Classic example, a troop based marine list vs. almost any type of Eldar list. Eldar get the comp shaft just because they have pointy ears and the the totally efficient, winning marines, get a good comp.

Comp scored by your opponent is truly an abomination before all that is dear and holy.

I don't especially like comp, as my posts pretty well indicate (because I still haven't seen one that I think works as it should, this one included), but I can at least tolerate it if it's impartially done via a fair process, even if the system itself isn't necessarily the best. You know in advance what the system is and can choose to care or not care at your discretion, or build your list to "game" the comp and still be dead hard.

But subjective opponent scored comp is just another word for "I like this guy" versus "I want to win" decision.

I outright refuse to play in any tourney that has significant composition scores judged by anyone other than the tournament organizers. It's far too easy for such things to descend into accusations of "chipmunking" and other shenanigans and generates nothing but hard feelings. I'm willing to accept something like the US standard RTT 'composition' score, which is a single checkbox type of judgement that is part of the sportsmanship overall score. But that's very much the limit of it.

Fixer
13-07-2009, 10:31
I got 60 points for the most brutally tuned all-comers army list I've made yet.

This whole list is a mess seemingly built with an arbitrary negative point score for everything the author does not like facing in a battle. It doesn't really grasp the complexities of tournament play and working to the metagame.

It even gives me bonus points for using a redeemer. The redeemer combined with Assault terminators is one of the best unit combinations in the game and it costs me less than using a regular land raider with Termies.

Satan
13-07-2009, 10:37
The first list here http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203142 that I took to the last tourney I went to came in at 67 points.

The points seem a little off on the IG codex at least. -3 for wasting 30 points on a medic? -1 for Stormtroopers when the far superior veterans give nothing? -5 for every Psyker in a battle squad? Someone must not like witches.

Ya, pretty dumb. I doubt I would ever play in a tourney that restricted players so.

Again, system is built for 1500 pts, not 750 which is your list. And there are no restrictions, just penalties. I agree on the -5 for the psykers being overly harsh IMO but it's still WIP, and I respect collective, democratic opinions and discussions - something which is often sorely lacking on Warseer (not aimed at you specifically however).

I posted the following over at the Fantasy thread, but it readliy applies to the 40k-side of the discussionas well:


It's sad that fantasy even needs this system...

Well, I think it's a natural result of the games development "cycle". Just as the digital games industry has a "cyclical" bussiness model and lifestyle - so does WFB and 40k. The game evolves with new mechanics and expansions with every updade, edition and army book/codex, so adjustments need to be made to ensure that armies are viable tournament choices despite being at the very far end of their respective "cycle". It brings both the game and its development to life I think and could very well be made to represent a cyclical level of dominance or re-discovery/warfare development by each of the races according to the ever-changing landscape of war.

Just as the introduction of Knights, Longbowmen, Crossbows and handguns changed the face of war during their respective times, so does the introduction of new units and special rules (which would reflect the ever-changing types of conflict within the game universe as some sort of escalation) change the landscape of the tournament environment. But instead of a sudden change of power, mighty nations and empires still wield some measure of influence and battlefield prowess and this is what the comp system reflects IMO until such a time as an army can find the opportunity to develop new weapons and tactics in the form of an updated army book/codex - much like the appearance of the Tiger tank and others which gave some military resurgence to the germans during WW2.

Please note that I did not intend the above as any sort of real historical analysitation or accurate description - it's just an example of how the comp system can be made to reflect and compensate for this not only by the use of rules, but as a natural consqeuence of the ever evolving world of warhammer warfare in the fluff if you'd like! Anyone who's ever played Company of Heroes will hopefully be able to relate to this.


I got 60 points for the most brutally tuned all-comers army list I've made yet.

Why complain about 60 pts, I think that's a good score. It might be a brutal list - in your opinion. You need to remember that the style of playing and units fielded vary between countries. Land Raider Redeemers may not be all that common over here. No-one's claimed that the system is in any way universal, and AFAIK there is no set Comp-list for the 40k scene in Sweden yet, unlike for WHFB. Hopefully a more widely accepted comp-system will be introduced within the near future however and developed by all interested members of the community.

Eldoriath
13-07-2009, 12:47
I'm from sweden and have played at un-comped tournaments mostly and attended one comped tournament. All was fun to participate in, but I don't think that the lists that I've seen work or are fair. Subjective comp is much better in that case since 40k is somewhat balaced between the races and a fixed point-comp list just creates another way of power gaming. THhe comped tournament i attended to was comped and gave your army a rating of 1-5, where a 1 was hard and a 5 was soft lists. I tuned down my tau a considerable bit and got a 4 in comp and thought that it seemed about right. And i met some lists rated 2 and had a quite even game, but then the comp slightly changed it into a victory for me.

Fixed list comp perhaps work in fantasy (have no idea, never played), but it feels wrong in 40k.

Satan
13-07-2009, 12:58
Fixed list comp perhaps work in fantasy (have no idea, never played), but it feels wrong in 40k.

One feather doesn't make a hen. ;)

As I've stated in my post above, the comps used for 40k in Sweden today are still highly subjective to some extent and some comp systems may be more/less fair than others.

I like comp for all systems, but I guess it depends on the system as well - perhaps 40k may well be a more "balanced" game when compared to WHFB but that is a discussion best left apart from this one IMO.

Lord Malorne
13-07-2009, 12:59
I got 58 for my Templars which is odd, I always thought they where beardy...

Kerrai
13-07-2009, 13:46
Lets see, how hard is it to do a cheesy 1850 list?
Not hard at all, just read around and pick one, they all look almost the same with minor differences most likely.

Look at the ETC lists, 4 tyranid lists for example, and all 4 is Nidzilla. Its just silly.

Try to make a competitive list that uses the comp instead, see if you can make a list that beats harder opponents. It brings more to the player and to the overall list building then you think.

Just picking the "best" has never and will never be hard. But doing a balanced list that does well against lists that comps worse, thats an achievement

But maybe your chapter or coven or fleet has the big units and weapons ready for each battle, never ever is there anything broken or so.

”Competitive” Lists looks the same, and its quite boring frankly.

And here in Sweden we have a few tourneys that uses the comp system, and a few that don't.. if you hate the comp system just stay away from those tourneys and polish your cheesy list at home until its playable again.

Ixquic
13-07-2009, 14:01
This comp system is a bigger joke than the Fantasy one and that's saying something.

Sisters penalized for taking faith points when that's the entire point of the army is the height of absurdity. I think Sweden's tournament players just need to stop playing GW games since obviously they don't really enjoy playing them as much as finding ways to make sure people don't use half their army books.

Satan
13-07-2009, 14:06
This comp system is a bigger joke than the Fantasy one and that's saying something.

Sisters penalized for taking faith points when that's the entire point of the army is the height of absurdity. I think Sweden tournament players just need to stop playing GW games since obviously they don't really enjoy playing them as much as finding ways to make sure people don't use half their army books.

The system is based entirely on point reduction. I get the feeling you haven't grasped the system. It's not about just penalizing for it's own sake, it's about penalizing to the level where the playfield becomes somewhat more equal.

Ixquic
13-07-2009, 14:11
Or what the comp designers consider "equal."

Hypaspist
13-07-2009, 14:12
Holy Mother of Cheese!
4 Comparable lists (all 1750 ish, points from memory) and their point scoring.

Ravenwing.
Sammy in Speeder with 4 squads all with flamer/melta/plasma apoth 4 attack bikes and 3 speeders
58 points

Deathwing
Captain Useless
4 x Squads of Termies with (couple of ass. cannons, couple of CML's)
1 x LR
1 x LRC
Dready
56 points

Thousand Sons
1 x DP With wings, Warptime, WoC
1 x Sorcerer with MoT, Warptime, WoC
3 x (1xSorcerer w/WoC + 8 x 1k Sons in Rhino w/daemonic possession + Havoc Launcher)
4 x Oblit
37 Points

Sisters
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack, eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
4 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
8 x Serpahim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
1 x (5 x Sisters w/4 x melta in immy)
2 x Exorcists.

5 points

I would actually hate to think that any of those lists were particularly cheesy (possibly the Thousand Sons one... but even then......)

I am frankly staggered that the girls come out as the worst.

Its interesting, I can see what it's 'trying' to achieve.
But I can only come up with the conclusion that instead it is 'very trying'.

Ixquic
13-07-2009, 14:15
Exactly. Their version of "equal" is incredibly off. I understand in their world everyone is getting nerfed to down to the same standard but they missed the mark with so many points deductions and frankly they failed horribly at what they tried to do.

Satan
13-07-2009, 14:17
Holy Mother of Cheese!
4 Comparable lists (all 1750 ish, points from memory) and their point scoring.

Ravenwing.
Sammy in Speeder with 4 squads all with flamer/melta/plasma apoth 4 attack bikes and 3 speeders
58 points

Deathwing
Captain Useless
4 x Squads of Termies with (couple of ass. cannons, couple of CML's)
1 x LR
1 x LRC
Dready
56 points

Thousand Sons
1 x DP With wings, Warptime, WoC
1 x Sorcerer with MoT, Warptime, WoC
3 x (1xSorcerer w/WoC + 8 x 1k Sons in Rhino w/daemonic possession + Havoc Launcher)
4 x Oblit
37 Points

Sisters
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack, eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
4 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
8 x Serpahim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
1 x (5 x Sisters w/4 x melta in immy)
2 x Exorcists.

5 points


Around 50 is ok. my daemons came out at 46 or 44, can't remember which so three of your lists are very well within acceptable standards IMO. The Chaos lists uses 3 Rhinos and IIRC that's one of the reasons it has a somewhat lower comp than the others. The objective is not to have a nonexistant comp, it's to have a standard one.

Madigan
13-07-2009, 14:20
Silly comp system is silly.

The main thing that screams "BROKEN" about this system is that it doesn't take the point-size of the army into account. A 1500-point army will score higher than a 2000-point army just because there are less units (since pretty much ANY unit you bring gives you negative points). MAYBE if you started with a higher number of comp points dependent on the point size of the tournament I could see this even remotely working, but starting at 100 comp points regardless of the size of the game is, to be blunt, retarded.

And that's an adjective that I don't throw out unless I think its truly deserved...

2000-point fluffy mechanized IG army I'm using in a tournament next month scored an 8 using this system. AN EIGHT! No commissars, no special characters, no psyker battle squads, no pinning weapons of any sort, no Valkyries. But apparently bringing 5 Chimeras and 3 solitary Leman Russ tanks is the G**-D***ed Devil. *head explodes*

Hypaspist
13-07-2009, 14:20
Around 50 is ok. my daemons came out at 46 or 44, can't remember which so three of your lists are very well within acceptable standards IMO.

It was more the disparity between the three lists that were (just about) OK and the Sisters, they are just no way that much less acceptable than the other three lists (imo)

CEO Kasen
13-07-2009, 14:24
Interestingly enough, I was poking around some English/Swedish translators to articulate general feelings on the matter, and it turns out there's a lot of words that cross the barrier rather easily.

Guess what "katt ****" and "lunga fluke" mean in English!

Satan
13-07-2009, 14:32
The main thing that screams "BROKEN" about this system is that it doesn't take the point-size of the army into account. A 1500-point army will score higher than a 2000-point army just because there are less units (since pretty much ANY unit you bring gives you negative points). MAYBE if you started with a higher number of comp points dependent on the point size of the tournament I could see this even remotely working, but starting at 100 comp points regardless of the size of the game is, to be blunt, retarded.

Do people read posts at all? This system is only designed for 1500 pts games since it's a 1500 pts tournament. Retardation doesn't have anything to do with it. Systems are adapted/developed depending on the points size of the game being played, there is no such thing as a universal system. Your grounds for using such a slandering adjective are entirely nonexistant if you do so based off of false assumptions. Not to mention the fact that it's politically incorrect.


It was more the disparity between the three lists that were (just about) OK and the Sisters, they are just no way that much less acceptable than the other three lists (imo)

I don't have much experience playing against sisters so I can't say much about it but I wager those two excorsists weigh in heavily. also, the discussion regarding the comp is still ongoing, in no way is the comp presented on that page final as of yet. Also, you used 1750 pts lists. The system on that forum is for 1500 pts only. I think you'll find that you'll wind up with a much nicer comp after shaving 250 pts off!


Interestingly enough, I was poking around some English/Swedish translators to articulate general feelings on the matter, and it turns out there's a lot of words that cross the barrier rather easily.

Guess what "katt ****" and "lunga fluke" mean in English!

That should read "kattpiss", but that second one doesn't mean anything at all. It's not swedish, that's for sure.

CEO Kasen
13-07-2009, 14:33
You will note that the OP listed a 1750p army and explained nothing of the sort, good sir. :p

Satan
13-07-2009, 14:40
You will note that the OP listed a 1750p army and explained nothing of the sort, good sir. :p

My bad then, but it IS a 1500 pts tourny, which some people found odd given that alot of tournaments are 1750 pts in Sweden these days.

Hypaspist
13-07-2009, 14:45
The Exorcists DO account for 18 points of the 95 reduction. but even if you take no exorcists (and quite frankly how you are going to take out any armour without them on a reliably regular basis is beyond me) you are still going to get penalised for the immolators replacements to the tune of 10+ points, and they arent even a third effective as the exorcists.

I just dont think this iteration of the system is a great one, I am not saying it can't work, just that this doesn't.
However (even assuming a perfect balance) you do run the risk of people presuming that a list is WAAC or cheesy, just because of its score, rather than playing against it and playing against the players play style and deciding for themselves....

Satan
13-07-2009, 14:47
The Exorcists DO account for 18 points of the 95 reduction. but even if you take no exorcists (and quite frankly how you are going to take out any armour without them on a reliably regular basis is beyond me) you are still going to get penalised for the immolators replacements to the tune of 10+ points, and they arent even a third effective as the exorcists.

I just dont think this iteration of the system is a great one, I am not saying it can't work, just that this doesn't.
However (even assuming a perfect balance) you do run the risk of people presuming that a list is WAAC or cheesy, just because of its score, rather than playing against it and playing against the players play style and deciding for themselves....

As I said, the lists you presented were 1750 pts, whereas this sytem was intended for 1500 pts. If you shave off 250 pts I think you'll end up with a comp score which isn't too shabby.

Gascogne
13-07-2009, 15:00
You will note that the OP listed a 1750p army and explained nothing of the sort, good sir. :p

My bad then, but it IS a 1500 pts tourny, which some people found odd given that alot of tournaments are 1750 pts in Sweden these days.

My bad, like I said I am also new to whole comp system but I added the 1500 points in the first post to clarify. :)

Hypaspist
13-07-2009, 15:29
1500 point lists Sisters comparison

List 1
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack, eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
4 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
8 x Seraphim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
1 x Immolator
2 x Exorcists.

5 points it would appear I mis-calculated the 1750 list, that should have been -5 points......

List 2
1 x Cannoness w/ eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
4 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x melta in immy)
2 x Exorcists.

9 points

List 3
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack, eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
3 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
8 x Seraphim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
3 x Exorcists

3 points

List 4
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
3 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
6 x Seraphim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
3 x Immys + Multi Meltas

1 point

Whichever way you cut it, these points seem overly harsh...
Certainly my fellow group consider my sisters to be a good hard match up, but cheesy or overpowered? I think not.

But as I said, the previous comments I made about pre-defining people's opinions about any army is the major factor of this that I would probably disagree with. I appreciate the effort to try to level the playing field, but I am not sure this is necassarily the way forward.

Ixquic
13-07-2009, 15:45
The logic is you'll be facing similarly gimped armies so you can field an army of all footslogging battle sisters and dominion squads with no upgrades (the point of which is what?) but really what's the fun in that?

WGMelchior
13-07-2009, 16:50
The reason for your low comp on those lists is that you take 7-8 tanks, which is a lot at 1500p.

Satan
13-07-2009, 16:54
1500 point lists Sisters comparison

List 1
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack, eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
4 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
8 x Seraphim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
1 x Immolator
2 x Exorcists.

5 points it would appear I mis-calculated the 1750 list, that should have been -5 points......

List 2
1 x Cannoness w/ eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
4 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x melta in immy)
2 x Exorcists.

9 points

List 3
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack, eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
3 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
8 x Seraphim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
3 x Exorcists

3 points

List 4
1 x Cannoness w/ jump pack eviscerator, CoSA, BoSL.
3 x (VSS w/BoSL + 9 Girls inc HF+Flamer in Rhino w/smoke/light/EA)
1 x (5 x Dominions w/4 x flamers in Immy)
6 x Seraphim w 2xflamers, VSS + Eviscerator
3 x Immys + Multi Meltas

1 point

Whichever way you cut it, these points seem overly harsh...
Certainly my fellow group consider my sisters to be a good hard match up, but cheesy or overpowered? I think not.

But as I said, the previous comments I made about pre-defining people's opinions about any army is the major factor of this that I would probably disagree with. I appreciate the effort to try to level the playing field, but I am not sure this is necassarily the way forward.

Considering how you're practically spamming with vehicles, I'm not surprised you'd wind up with those scores. ;)


The logic is you'll be facing similarly gimped armies so you can field an army of all footslogging battle sisters and dominion squads with no upgrades (the point of which is what?) but really what's the fun in that?

No, the logic is you won't be face with something like 7-8 tanks in a 1500 pts game. There's nothing stopping him form investing in other tactically viable choices. Not just the no-brainers of each and every army. Not that I'd suggest that's what Hypaspist has been doing, but that is the general trend which comp-systems is set up to oppose.

Hypaspist
13-07-2009, 17:11
Considering how you're practically spamming with vehicles...... There's nothing stopping him form investing in other tactically viable choices.
(Emphasis mine)

See that's where our opinions may differ, have you tried footslogging sisters? ;)

Largely though I arrived at my army choices through playtesting, not net list building I didn't swing with footslogging sisters, or arco's (though I occasionally use them) I like my sister's mech'd and brimming with the cleansing flame of the emperor.

What we basically come to then is that any mechanised list will be seriously penalised?
as an example, Big Mek -5 (and a further -2 for every vehicle/walker in your army)?
and that's on top of the reductions for the vehicles themselves?

Like I said, I see where you are going... but it isn't quite there for me.

Thanatos_elNyx
13-07-2009, 17:14
-20 for a Monolith?

I might agree with that if it said for each after teh first but Necrons absolutely need Monoliths

Satan
13-07-2009, 17:17
(Emphasis mine)

See that's where our opinions may differ, have you tried footslogging sisters? ;)

Largely though I arrived at my army choices through playtesting, not net list building I didn't swing with footslogging sisters, or arco's (though I occasionally use them) I like my sister's mech'd and brimming with the cleansing flame of the emperor.

What we basically come to then is that any mechanised list will be seriously penalised?
as an example, Big Mek -5 (and a further -2 for every vehicle/walker in your army)?
and that's on top of the reductions for the vehicles themselves?

Like I said, I see where you are going... but it isn't quite there for me.

No, but some Mechanized combos will be penalised as they greatly increase the performances of vehicles, such as in the case of the Big Mek IIRC.

I'm sure you arrived at your conclusion via playtesting, but that doesn't necessarily make it a comp viable one. I can tell you for sure that my armies have not always wound up being compatible with comp, but I must say that they've been more balanced and have actually aided me in my gaming performance since I started using different comp systems.

That's what it's done for me - not penalise some kind of uber-list I thought myself in possession of, but actally help me building better gaming armies.

kendaop
13-07-2009, 18:54
Slightly off topic...

This thread got me thinking, what other comp systems are there in the world?
Do Warseer have a comp system thingy?
How is it in "grand tournaments"?

Maybe a worldwide "STCS"(Standard Template Comp System) would be in good order, hard to pull of thou...

Oh look, i just found some fluff in me belly button, time to sleep id say...

There already is a comp system. It's called points...the better, cheesier units cost more points. The crappier, less "good" units cost fewer points. I don't see how the whole idea of a comp system caught on in the first place.

Gascogne
13-07-2009, 18:59
There already is a comp system. It's called points...the better, cheesier units cost more points. The crappier, less "good" units cost fewer points. I don't see how the whole idea of a comp system caught on in the first place.

Said it before and can say it again, there is no point in making things more complex with adding another system on top on a system.
If people want to have expensive units in their army then they have to pay the points for them, plain and simple. :D

WLBjork
13-07-2009, 19:58
The reason a lot of people take comp personally is exactly the terms it's couched in for this poll. The first post explains comp scores lower than 25 in this system as 'stupid' or 'unthinkable'.

Yeah. Better descriptons would be:

100pts - put the Care Bears away. This is a wargame.

75-99 - This isn't an episode of the A-Team - you are allowed to kill something.

50-74 - now you're getting there. Bit light yet though.

25-49 - You're there, balanced and competetive.

0-24 - Competetive

(-25)-(-1) - whoa, calm down a bit

(-50)-(-26) - This isn't Rambo 5 you know

(-51) or lower - Wowsers, kill count of Hotshots, Part Deux!

SPYDER68
13-07-2009, 20:04
after just looking at this..

The comp scoring thing they have is very dumb..

an imperial guard power fish is the same worth as a lascannon ? thats a load of bs..

If they want a composition thing..

Go back to the 40% troops Req.. and 25% max on rest....

Skraal2099
13-07-2009, 20:10
...an imperial guard power fish is the same worth as a lascannon ? thats a load of bs...

I don't recall power fish being in the imperial guard codex. I thought the only non-humans were ogryns and ratlings. :D

just joking, I know that you're talking about power fists

Gascogne
13-07-2009, 21:15
Yeah. Better descriptona would be:

100pts - put the Care Bears away. This is a wargame.

75-99 - This isn't an episode of the A-Team - you are allowed to kill something.

50-74 - now you're getting there. Bit light yet though.

25-49 - You're there, balanced and competetive.

0-24 - Competetive

(-25)-(-1) - whoa, calm down a bit

(-50)-(-26) - This isn't Rambo 5 you know

(-51) or lower - Wowsers, kill count of Hotshots, Part Deux!

Haha! That made my day. :D

DaR
14-07-2009, 00:48
Warning: giant wall of text incoming, with a lot of thoughts on the nature and purpose of competitive 40k and what role comp has. TLDR version: comp needs a purpose, think hard about that purpose.


I think the real problem with this system is that it's not entirely clear what the underlying point of it is. In bald, unvarnished terms, this system needs to explain what it's for. That means explaining what the purpose of the tournament you're applying it to is.

Types of Players at Tournaments

As a prelude to talking about composition, I want to discuss the types of people who come to tournaments. After years of 40k tournaments, and even more years of tournaments for other wargames, CCGs, and board games, I've come to the conclusion that there are basically 4 general types of players who show up at any given tournament.


I want to prove my superiority at playing by winning as much as I can so everyone can see how good I am. Type 1 may be rude jerks showing off, or very nice guys who honestly wish to improve their game and test themselves. Either way, these people usually build hard or trick-oriented lists that let them show off their generalship and list design skills. There's also a small subset of these people who don't care so much about winning battles as they do some other intangible contest; for 40k this is often modeling and painting. For them, they're showing off their army to as many people as they can, but the same general rules apply otherwise.

I want to win fabulous cash and prizes. Most tourneys offer at least some minor rewards for placing at the top and these people want them. Maybe to expand their force, maybe because they're thrifty or greedy, whatever. They build very hard but often more balanced lists because they need to win against every opponent in order to take one of the top spots.

I want to play fun games against people I don't regularly play. Most clubs/stores have a limited pool of players, these people want to play against people outside their regular pool. They may bring hard lists to test themselves against others, they may bring soft lists because they don't care about winning. Either way, they're generally pretty friendly sorts who are often more interested in the game itself than winning or losing. They won't play to lose, but if they do, no big deal.

I'm here because he is, or just to hang out. These people can also fall into subsets of any of the other three, but they're mostly present because someone else convinced them they should come or to be social and hang out meeting new people who share some of their interests. Their lists can be all over the place, because they don't necessarily have a focused game related reason to come.


I know people of all types and many many people fall into more than one category at a time. I'm mostly a type 3 and then a type 1 player. I want to have fun games against lists I don't regularly get to play, but I do want to win, and show off my capabilities as a player. I have friends who are type 2+3 players. They want to play new people, but winning is important to them, because they are starving students (or the equivalent) and the only way they can afford to grow their army is by winning prizes at events.

Types of Events and Deciding Why You Would Want Composition Scores

When you decide to run a tournament, you need to decide which of these crowds of people you wish to cater to and how much.

If you choose to cater primarily to type 1 and type 2 players, composition scores are probably a detriment to your tournament. Both types of players will immediately game the system as much as they can, starting with their proven winning lists and modifying them just enough to minimize the penalties and maximize their chance of still winning. The only reason for comp in a pure results oriented event like this is to try and "balance" the codexes against each other. WHFB suffers clearly from imbalance; 40k still has it, but less so. If you have comp, it needs to be absolutely mathematically rigid and extremely well play tested, otherwise all you have done is add another "game" on top of the normal 40k game for them to "win".

If your only goal is to cater to type 3+4 players, maybe you don't really want to bill your event as a tournament in the first place. If you don't care about who is the single winner, have a "40k get together event" instead of a tourney. Orient your prizes, if any, along axis other than simple battle points. With no way to "win" the overall event based on pure win-lose-draw ratio, there's no incentive to bring ultra-hard competitive lists.

The only place comp really is necessary is if you are trying to cater to all 4 types at once. You need a reason for the less competitive type 3 and type 4 players to come and play competitive games against the type 1 and type 2 players. No one likes to lose horribly, so you are basically offering up the olive branch of "If you are not a cutthroat player, we will reward you anyway to play against the people who are".

Alternatives to Composition

In general, the point of composition is to balance out weak players and lists against strong players and lists. With most comp systems, in the end it doesn't really matter much if the lists are weak or strong deliberately via creation, evolved through testing, or entirely on accident. Most comp systems achieve this by giving consolation rewards to the weaker list or penalizing the stronger list. This is done with the assumption that the strong player/list are going to win more than the weak player/list and that the penalties and rewards will thus force the entire competition into a narrow band and give more people a chance to win overall.

If you want to avoid composition, but still encourage all types of players to come to your events, you need to give good reasons for less competitive players and lists to still play. These are some ideas for things you can use as part of overall scores that are not purely win-lose-draw oriented. This is obviously not exhaustive, just a sampling of the sorts of things you can add to "battle points" in order to emphasize aspects other than simple winning.


Sportsmanship. A staple, but one I don't like. It's too easy to have this turn into popularity contests, not to mention the problem of scoring people you lost to down.
Painting. Another staple. Usually more objective than Sportsmanship. You can further divide this into painting, conversion, theme, and overall presentation. You can make these subjective or objective, and have either overall players score by vote or a specific group of tourney organizers score via checklists and the like. Also includes things like Player's Choice. You can even have player's choices for multiple categories (PC for Theme, PC for Painting, etc).
Alternate Scenarios. Capture the Flag. King of the Hill. Last Man Standing. Anything beyond the standard missions, especially if the exact conditions are not announced in advance, can force people to build balanced lists or risk being shut out in any given game because their custom spam list can't achieve the scenario win conditions. This can also include alternate deployments (short sides, diagonals, etc), alternate scoring unit selections (only vehicles score, only HQs score, etc), or alternate Kill Point charts ("Shoot the Big Ones" which is popular in my area, and the 'ard Boyz "Headhunters" scenario are examples of this).
Secondary/Tertiary Scenario Objectives. These can be all sorts of varied ideas. They can be specified in advance for each scenario (like Adepticon or 'ard Boyz), or have one or two chosen randomly each game. Possible ideas include: Protecting your specific FOC slots while killing the opponent's. Table quarters. Victory/Kill points in objective missions. Objectives in Kill Points missions. Having more Kill Points left in your force instead of the standard more Kill Points taken from the opponent. Getting specific units to specific places like deployment zones, quarters or table halves or keeping opponents out of same.
Overall Tourney Objectives. These objectives cross game boundaries, so track the conditions for every game and award people who meet them best. They can be cumulative or specific. Win (or lose) a game with the smallest (or largest) percentage of your army remaining. Kill the most opponent HQs (or Heavy Support, or Elites, or whatever) across all your games. Lose the least number of Troop units (or HQs, or Fast Attack, or whatever) across all your games.
Meta Objectives. Base some rewards on things other than the game play itself. Be the first to kill an enemy HQ each round (in real time). Be the first to finish a game in the round (speed playing). Award Bonus points for helping set up and tear down the event, or bringing beer, or snacks for everyone.


In the extreme you could potentially have battle points only be a small factor into overall score. Or have battle points be entirely separate competition from the overall, which is based on special scenario/tournament objectives plus sportsmanship and painting.

You also don't need to do all of these for any one event. Pick a few and add them to your standard Battle scores. Just the pure variety will keep people interested whether they're winning or losing overall.

Yes, I Still Need Comp Scores. What Now?

None of the Alternatives appeal to you, but you still want to run a tourney which caters to everyone and you've decided you still need comp. You're either running a cut-throat tourney and need to balance the less competitive codexes, or you're running a general tourney and need to balance weak players against strong ones.

First, consider the following two sets of questions:


What behaviors are you trying to promote and discourage?

What incentives are you willing to offer to get them and what penalties are you willing to apply to prevent them?


If you want people to bring variety lists, then your system should more heavily penalize multiples of any unit or reward having different types of units. If you want to discourage vehicles, penalize them or reward bring troops without transport options. If you want people to bring "balanced" lists, that's hard to manage with comp, obviously. Which is why you've asked for help trying to get things right.

Now, having decided what behavior you want to enforce, what bonuses and penalties do you offer? In most cases this is to have bonus battle points as the reward mechanism. A player with a "better" (more desired) list will get more bonus comp points than a player with a "worse" (less desired) list. This is, of course, basically a handicapping system. Putting these bonus points into the same category as your battle points has ups and downs.

Next, a little pop psychology. People generally respond more positively to incentives than penalties, which is one reason why this proposed Swedish system is getting so much flak. No one likes to be told they're losing points for what seems like no good reason, even if the math works out the same in the end. You have to take 2 troops and an HQ in a standard 40k game, losing some number of your points for simply fulfilling that mandatory requirement feels very bad. Since players don't like being penalized, consciously or not, they're going to end up choosing weaker options. Ever try playing chess with all pawns? It's certainly balanced, but would you enjoy it? Is that the sort of experience you want your players to have at your 40k events?

Next thing to consider is what happens if someone deliberately games your comp system. For example, if I can make a list that scores 10 or 20 bonus points for comp even on a draw or minor loss, can I actually come out ahead in battle points? If you're giving 20 battle points for a win, 10 for a draw, and 5 for a loss, but I can get a guaranteed 10-20 points for playing such a crappy list, can I win the overall event with a couple losses and draw and gaining all my points through comp differential? Is that a behavior you wish to encourage?

Once you know what you're trying to achieve and what mechanism you've got for rewards and penalties, you need to actually craft your system. In my experience, with anything as complicated and open ended as this, it's best to start from the simplest possible thing and add only as much complexity as you have to.

Could you get away with just granting a flat bonus to weaker codexes? Probably not, since many codexes have strong builds and weak builds possible. How about flat codex bonuses, plus a few extra bonuses for units that are considered "too weak" for cut throat competitive play? Is that enough to balance the overall? Build your comp system up in small steps in this fashion, and at every point ask yourself "is this enough so that my players will have the most fun with the minimal chance that my system will be screwed up and make someone miserable instead of happy?".

Specific Criticisms for the Swedish Composition System

First off, as I mentioned a couple of times, you've got a very negative/penalty oriented system at the moment. That's bad from a player morale perspective, as it makes people feel that they are not good people for wanting to bring their favorite list. The math may work out nicely, but no one likes to be told their list is a '-10' on a scale that starts at 100.

So consider adapting your system so that the modifiers are mostly positive rather than negative. Give everyone 50 points to start instead of 100, and rebalance all the unit modifiers so that instead of 0 or -5 or -10, you get +5, 0, or -5. Now your basic HQ and troop choices can be neutral or even slightly positive while still leaving room for negatives for the "cheesy" things. Likewise, instead of penalizing the "obvious" choices like powerfists and meltas for marines, reward the less obvious choices like heavy bolters and chainswords. The difference in the math in the end is minimal, but it prevents the kneejerk "WHAT!? PENALIZED FOR ANY TROOP CHOICE I TAKE!? THAT SUCKS!" reactions.

Another option in a similar vein, suggested somewhat in jest by WLBjork, is to start at 0 and make all your negatives positives and bill the result as a measure of quality of list. Make it so that getting a high score seems at least vaguely positive. Just that minor set of changes and suddenly the entire perception of the composition score changes. This also has the advantage that you're less bound to the size of games you're playing. Lists at larger points values simply get a bigger overall score, which is entirely appropriate. With some tweaking and a lot of tuning in the long run, your "comp score" tool could become a fairly powerful tool for evaluating overall list fitness not just for specific Swedish tourney events, but for any 40k game.

A personal point, I think you've chosen some somewhat questionable premises in your current scoring. Overall, people like 40k because it is big and over the top and has lots of very cool thematic and iconic units that you get to control while you play. Your current system penalizes using those units fairly heavily. Again, is that the experience you want your players to have to go through? To be told that they are "doing it wrong" for wanting to play with the fun and good units? I certainly would object to that experience.

Logarithm Udgaur
14-07-2009, 07:48
Good stuff. Anyone thinking of organizing an event should read this post.

Yes, I have nothing better to do at midnight.

Radium
14-07-2009, 08:15
Very, very interesting read DaR. I don't really have anything to add except this question: if you play 5 rounds in a tournament (our GT for example) and you bring a 'fun'* list, is it really so bad if you come across a 'hard'* list in the first round? You might get beaten pretty badly, but that is part of most tournaments. If you suffer one list like that, but after that get to play other players of your mindset, isn't that good enough? Do we all really need another system to balance that all out? I don't think so, but others might.

*'fun' and 'hard' lists are of course another strange term. Why can't a list that's been optimized for winning not be fun, or why can't a list with a bit of everything be very hard? The biggest part of fun game is the player you're facing and not the list itself. I've seen people use the best list they could build, and wield it like wet toiletpaper while laughing their rears off, and I've seen it the other way around as well.

Pholostan
14-07-2009, 08:17
Hats of to DaR, a very thoughtful and good post! I agree that it is very hard to do a comp system that works, and mostly I think that 40K doesn't need any. But if I would try to do one, your insight would have helped a lot.

Gascogne
14-07-2009, 08:55
Very good post DaR, now to see if I or another swed can get that text to the composition makers. :o

Hrafn
14-07-2009, 09:09
There already is a comp system. It's called points...the better, cheesier units cost more points. The crappier, less "good" units cost fewer points. I don't see how the whole idea of a comp system caught on in the first place.

*LOL* Do you really believe in that?

We can discuss comp systems, but claiming that 40K is balanced properly?

DaR
14-07-2009, 10:11
Very, very interesting read DaR. I don't really have anything to add except this question: if you play 5 rounds in a tournament (our GT for example) and you bring a 'fun'* list, is it really so bad if you come across a 'hard'* list in the first round? You might get beaten pretty badly, but that is part of most tournaments. If you suffer one list like that, but after that get to play other players of your mindset, isn't that good enough? Do we all really need another system to balance that all out? I don't think so, but others might.

*'fun' and 'hard' lists are of course another strange term. Why can't a list that's been optimized for winning not be fun, or why can't a list with a bit of everything be very hard? The biggest part of fun game is the player you're facing and not the list itself. I've seen people use the best list they could build, and wield it like wet toiletpaper while laughing their rears off, and I've seen it the other way around as well.

I happen to fully agree. One of the best games I ever played, period, in any system was at the Fantasy GT in Calgary in 2004. I took Beastmen (not very competitive even at the time, let alone now, but I had a lot of fun building and converting an entire Dragon Ogre themed army) and played Chris Frye's Night Goblin list (pure goblins, not a single orc in the list). He spanked me silly, and tabled me by turn 5, but I enjoyed every damn minute of the game, despite that. That game remains my gold standard for sportsmanship and enjoyment, even 5 years later.

I haven't played in many tournaments where composition was a serious factor. I've also only very rarely been to a 40k tournament I didn't have fun at. I can count on one hand the number of tournament games I've played that I did not enjoy (and of those, one was at a comp tourney, though the experience had everything to do with the player and nothing at all to do with the lists).

In all honesty, the game system where my tournament experiences made me most want a comp system at times were actually Warmachine/Hordes tournaments. Despite being a game that's usually considered much better balanced and much better for tournament play overall than either WHFB or WH40k, there are some styles of Warmachine lists that while not impossible to beat, are simply unfun to play against. Some of the people in my local playgroup at the time were fond of pure denial lists (usually either Khador with Sorscha or Cyrx with the Coven at the core of the list). There's not much less fun than showing up to a game and spending the entire time not doing anything because your opponent's army makes every last one of your abilities useless. For better or worse, 40k at least does not suffer that problem to any great degree.

GitBent
14-07-2009, 12:22
After reading this thread fairly extensively (thanks DaR, you son of a...) I have a few very simplistic comments.

Most of DaR's comments, namely the reward vs. penalize concept to prevent knee jerking reactions I agree with heavily.

I have played both fantasy and 40K (though now exclusively 40K) for over a decade and the few comp systems I have ever encountered and liked were simple. They had a very small weight to a person's overall score, but enough to give players of fluffy lists a small boost in score vs the more hardcore, "here's my Slaanesh sorcerer in a unit of Tzeench marines..." type builds where from a fluff stand point most people would go: :wtf:

Now I personally play Saim-Hann style Eldar. Anyone on here is likely to admit certain mainstays of the Saim-Hann fluff (Vypers, Guardian Jet Bikes, etc) are not necessarily the most optimized choices when it comes to any competition, especially most US Grand Tournament style lists.

Let's use the Vyper Jetbike as the case in point here. Just for taking this very fluff appropriate, but generally massive waste of points (from a optimization standpoint) I get pretty hammered. Even in its most efficient (or so I am inclined to believe based on personal style and play testing) build of EML/ShuriCannon - I lose 6.5 points off my comp (or gain 6.5 points depending on the rate vs penalize aspect).

This unit is typically 225 points which does very little compared to equal points of something like Dire Avengers in a Wave Serpent; which nets me -9 for a shoot-tastic build and runs me only 25 more points which is now a scoring unit that is equally mobile.

Personally, I'm going to run that additional scoring unit because it does what I would normally do with those Vypers, pound down on infantry units and have some potential fire (the serpent's turret) to hit vehicles where needed, but it also is slightly more resilient and can move just as far and deliver equal if not more punching power.

In general, most comp scoring systems cause me to react one of two ways:
1) Oh that's nice, my Tau Hunter Cadre should get a boost after every army pummels me into the turf
2) Why the hell am I being penalized for taking X unit in this army when it fits the fluff and build perfectly?!

My 1500 point Saim-Hann build, which is fluffy and no where near optimized, pulled a whopping 28 points - and let me tell you, I wasted plenty of points to keep the fluff strong.

Comp scores should be a reward - if fluff is what you want to encourage - see DaR's wall o' text above, but how much should they reward?

I can go on with one further example - my Tau army, which I took to the last Seattle GT, is a very balanced Hunter Cadre style list (commander with body guards, 3 fire warrior squads, a pathfinder squad, solo broad side, couple hammer heads, one stealth team). Quite fluff fitting and yet from a competitive stand point it is terrible - at best it can pull of minor victories, but tends to get draws and minor losses (as it did at the GT), but it is damn fun to play and it looks fairly nice on the table. I will grant that this is higher than 1500 points, but it scored a massive 12.

Where as one of my competitive Eldar builds (which would sweep that poor Tau list off the table by turn 4) in the same point section clocks in at 48 (which includes a full 10 warlock on jetbike seer council with fortune/doom farseer on bike).

My point here is that a list which fits fluff and is generally not competitive, under this system scores terribly for comp whereas my far more competitive army, with one of the most hated units (and point sinks) in the current edition has 4 times the score... let me repeat FOUR TIMES the comp score.

With the associated math to this score, that means when my Eldar list destroys my poor Tau - not only will my poor Shas'O run home to his Ethereal overseer, but that dirty rotten farseer and his autarch buddy get the same comp score I do?!

Tau: 12/5 = 2
Eldar: 48/5 = 9

Eldar Comp gain: 10 - (9 - 2)/2 = 6.5
Tau Comp gain: 10 + (2 - 9)/2 = 6.5

Balance needs some tuning. This being said, I eagerly await the day where a truly universal (per system naturally) and effective comp scoring system occurs to give armies which fit fluff and tend to see more love from a player's choice side, that extra edge to keep up with the crazy hardcore lists out there which have about as much fluff as you can stuff into a 25mm scaled thimble.

Kerrai
14-07-2009, 14:58
Very good post DaR, now to see if I or another swed can get that text to the composition makers. :o

I just got to say, if you hate/dislike the comp so much.. why try to ruin it? If you dont like comp, dont play those tournaments no? Just because you think the comp list is silly and bad doesnt mean everyone agrees and you should try to change their minds.

I love comp, its great fun trying to build a list thats not complete cheeze and would blow away anything without any real thought to tactics..

CEO Kasen
14-07-2009, 15:03
I just got to say, if you hate/dislike the comp so much.. why try to ruin it? If you dont like comp, dont play those tournaments no? Just because you think the comp list is silly and bad doesnt mean everyone agrees and you should try to change their minds.

You're reframing their argument, I feel. Most of what people are objecting to is the specific comp system in question linked to in the OP, not the concept of composition in general.

And, frankly... That statement seems awfully silly and a little ad hominem; Does their dislike of the system alone invalidate their statements? Furthermore, this is a public message board, isn't it? I would turn that around and state that if the OP did not want to see objection to the Swedish Composition System, s/he should not have posted it in public.

SPYDER68
14-07-2009, 15:08
That comp system is sad when my IG scores a 49 on the chart, and ive only lost 2 games with the list out of the last 15-20 or so..

Then the tau list i made.. that wouldnt really stand much of a chance vs my guard.. a fun fluffy tau list.. Scored a 5...

Kerrai
14-07-2009, 15:42
You're reframing their argument, I feel. Most of what people are objecting to is the specific comp system in question linked to in the OP, not the concept of composition in general.

And, frankly... That statement seems awfully silly and a little ad hominem; Does their dislike of the system alone invalidate their statements? Furthermore, this is a public message board, isn't it? I would turn that around and state that if the OP did not want to see objection to the Swedish Composition System, s/he should not have posted it in public.

Still, if they dont like it they dont have to use it.. its that simple

CEO Kasen
14-07-2009, 15:45
Still, if they dont like it they dont have to use it.. its that simple

And my point is that if it's posted, it's entirely up for public discussion and as long as their reasoning is sound they're allowed to hate on it as much as they wish.

SPYDER68
14-07-2009, 15:46
Still, if they dont like it they dont have to use it.. its that simple

If they dont like it they are still able to post their openion about not liking it.

Just like to me.. its a very broken / bad comp system. The points are all off between the armies..

There are much better and easier ways...

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2009, 16:18
Looking at my own army (necrons) most of the comp seems ok. I think that being penalised for having any and every heavy destroyer is a bit harsh given that the army really lacks AT of any other sort these days. Other lists take penalties for their long range AT but necrons don't have a melta gun equivalent.

I also think that a larger bonus should be given for using pariahs. +1 per model, so a maximum of +10, still wouldn't encourage me to use them.

I'd be quite happy to use necrons under a system like this.

Edit:


If you choose to cater primarily to type 1 and type 2 players, composition scores are probably a detriment to your tournament. Both types of players will immediately game the system as much as they can, starting with their proven winning lists and modifying them just enough to minimize the penalties and maximize their chance of still winning.



I think that's all most comp systems are aiming for. All the TO wants is for people to bring softer lists to level the field a bit. Sure, the balance might not be perfect even after you've applied the comp scoring to every list, but you can hope it will be closer than if comp hadn't been used.

Mannimarco
14-07-2009, 16:44
ok im not sure if im doing this right: my death guard 1750pts list (which is fluffy, at least in my eyes) seems to be cheese incarnate?

termy lord with a daemon weapon
10 nurgle termys, 4 of them are champs, 2 heavy flamers, 2 twin claws, 2 chain fists, 2 powerfists

5 squads of 7 plague marines, 3 have two plama guns, 2 have 2 melta guns, all have a champ with a power fist

giving me a total of (100 - all those penalties) 72!

100 - 72 is 28, so im using a cheesy list?

is that right?

Kerrai
14-07-2009, 17:59
If they dont like it they are still able to post their openion about not liking it.

Just like to me.. its a very broken / bad comp system. The points are all off between the armies..

There are much better and easier ways...

Since everything is wrong with it, do you have anything better we/i could look at?
Where the points between armies are alright

SPYDER68
14-07-2009, 18:29
Since everything is wrong with it, do you have anything better we/i could look at?
Where the points between armies are alright

Your never going to be able to balance the armies throu a composition standard.. The most you can do is go on amount of points spent per Slot. HQ / Elite/ Troops etc like it used to be throu a % of the army.


What does your comp gain ?.. Nothing at all.. I could toss points on every option in an army and be like.. if you take so many points of this.. your army is cheesy!!

But with the system as above.. you can make a base army list between two seperate armies that would be evenly matched.. and one would throw flags of bad composition all over while the other one looked fine..

I took my Tourney guard list.. and My tourney Tau list.

My guard ended with a score of 56 or so..

My tau.. which wouldnt stand much of a chance against the guard list i had.. ended with a total score of a 5...

And you can do this with many other lists / armies..


It seems your wanting people to play "softer" lists.. in what your openion they should or should not take in strength.

IG power fists are worth the same points as a LasCannon ?.. yea.. right..

Penalized for taking squads of Leman Russes ? Why ? they are weaker in squads and much easier to kill when they are put into squads..

I mean seriously.. the points on some of the units are crazy.. i dont really know a nice way to say this.. but the points on certain things are so far off it makes me wonder if the person knows what hes doing in games or when making a list to think they should give that many - points..

This is all the same as all the threads of people being like.. omg.. IG is overpowerd.. Battle tank squads! Ill make a comp system and give them extra negatives if they take them in squads!! Even thou.. if in squads they die must faster.. and yet.. can only shoot at 1 target!



There are many many things that needs easily adjusted...

Gazak Blacktoof
14-07-2009, 18:50
You could modify either list from your standard force to one more or less favourable under this scoring system. As with the comparable WHFB comp system you're not supposed to use your existing lists. Instead you build a list with the comp in mind, in the same way that you build one that fits the force organisation chart and complies with any other limitations.

Take out the duplicates that give you heavy penalties.

Tone down some of the wargear combos.


This is a work in progress so the ranting and raving isn't really necessary.

Faddlevins
14-07-2009, 18:55
I was floored when i saw the changeling as -7 on the comp score for chaos daemons!

Lord Inquisitor
14-07-2009, 19:05
Well, the army I took to the local Ard Boys tournament (IG with Daemonhunters allies, came second) got a 65. So totally balanced! :D

I'm glad noone thinks Grey Knight Terminators with Furious Charge, Counter Attack and re-rolling missed hits in combat is a good combo.

One major issue with this system is that the points level played at affects the score - it's much harder to score well at high points values.

Pholostan
14-07-2009, 19:32
This is all the same as all the threads of people being like.. omg.. IG is overpowerd.. Battle tank squads! Ill make a comp system and give them extra negatives if they take them in squads!! Even thou.. if in squads they die must faster.. and yet.. can only shoot at 1 target!

I think this is a misunderstanding. As I read the codex, you always have to buy Leman Russ Battle tanks in squadrons, even if you buy just one. That's one squadron with one in it. So in that comp system a vanilla Leman Russ battle tank is -8 comp in a heavy pick of just one tank. Any additional tank in the squadron is an additional -4. So three tanks in one squadron would be -4 for the squadron and -4 per tank, i.e. -16 in all. If you take them as three picks to avoid the squadron drawbacks they are -8, -12 an -16 for a huge -36 in total.

So you're actually not penalized for taking the tanks in a squadron in that particular comp system.

But I agree with you, my feeling is also that the authors of that system over-values the new IG codex. Some things definitely don't feel right.


One major issue with this system is that the points level played at affects the score - it's much harder to score well at high points values.

I've been reading the forum and I *think* it is made for 1500p armies, but I'm not sure. Many numbers gets thrown around.

SPYDER68
14-07-2009, 20:42
Its the fact that.. people have said their openion.. i said my openion that it is a bad system in my openion.. Then i get the reply.. well since you dont like it why dont you do better.. and with comments like that... i stated why i think its junk.. i could give even more if liked, but ive got better things to do atm :P

I could care less about comp, and ill play a game against any list somone makes.

Gazak Blacktoof
15-07-2009, 11:07
One major issue with this system is that the points level played at affects the score - it's much harder to score well at high points values.

Surely its not that important. If everybody is playing at the same points value they'll all be aiming for the same comp level.

A 2000 point army will incur more penalties than a 1500 point force, but all of the other 2000 point forces will also take similar penalties.

marv335
15-07-2009, 12:21
I had a look at the comp for Orks.
There is no way to make an army without getting significant penalties.
As far as I can see it's a very poorly thought out system. I'm glad it's not in use here.

Black Antelope
15-07-2009, 18:14
Hmm.
My 'nids (horde, shooty warrriors, max zons/'vores, lots of spineguants) gets 71, which is probably quite right.
My IG (horde with 5 sentinals and 2 russ) gets 41, which i think is far to low.
I mean, 12p for 5 sents, 20 for 2 russ...

Ekranoplan
15-07-2009, 18:23
This system is poorly thought out. A power fist in the guard army should give you points back, especially if its in the Company Command Section. Such weapons are just not that competitive in a guard army. I also noticed in the medic gives a -3? wtf? The medic is one of biggest point sinks in the army. You should get comp points back for taking a medic.

Znail
15-07-2009, 18:29
I find the shocked reactions from peoples scores rather amusing! It seems quite alot of people are unaware of how good or bad their armies actualy are. I dont agree with all the scores, but I havent seen any army listed that has got points way off from the expected.

Sir_Turalyon
15-07-2009, 18:35
Wow, my boring, unfriendly Dark Angels Tactical / Devastator gunline bulit around heavy weapon / powerfist spam scored 77 points. This system is silly.

Le Shirrif
15-07-2009, 18:43
My chaos list got 79.

My Dark Eldar list got 77.

Dark Eldar list, ok, fully mounted blaster spam. But my chaos list? 2 csm squads, 1 zerker, 2 defiler and 1 lash prince? Is that really that cheese? I mean, a lash prince is 35 points on his own!

g0ddy
15-07-2009, 18:50
What the crap... negative points for taking tactical squads?!??

Everything in the marine list is a negative except for legion of the damned, vanguard (w/ jump packs) and honour guard?

I score a 54... with a 1750pt list that consists of...

Cassius
5 TH/SS Assault Terminators
Ironclad Dread
10 Tactical Marines w/ fist, plasma gun, heavy bolter
10 Tactical Marines w/ power sword, plasma gun, plasma cannon + razorback
10 Tactical Marines w/ lascannon, plasma gun + razorback
10 Assault Marines w/ 2 flamers and a power sword
10 Devastators w/ 4 missile launchers
a Vindicator


~ Zilla

Edonil
15-07-2009, 19:07
Negative points abounded for my Sisters army, and I'm not running mechanized Sisters. Also, I'm barely maintaining a 50% average of wins with the list...and yet I scored a 27? I get penalized for taking my own Troop choices! What the heck is this crap?!

theweck
15-07-2009, 19:14
If you look at all of the swedish comp lists, they all are abound with negative values for most things. It is not whether you get a high score or a low score, it is your score relative to everyone else. If we all get docked for troop choices, no one is any worse of than the others. I'm not saying that I agree with all of the specific values contained in the lists, just that the widespread discontent at most the values being negative is a little misplaced seeing as everyone is getting penalized for almost everything. The survey (at least at the time of posting) actually shows that we have generated a nice little curve as far as the values go, with people averaging in the 25-50 range.

Max Jet
15-07-2009, 19:30
This list implies that biovores are so bad, they don`t even exist! XD
Otherwise I cannot explain why you dont get a bonus for using them.

PxDn Ninja
15-07-2009, 19:39
So the only thing that isn't cheesy about Necrons are Pariahs...?

:confused:


EDIT: My Necron army scores a mighty 59... Which should cause Warseer to implode.

I loved the fact that you lost points for each unit of warriors, even though you have to take two units to begin with.... How is taking something REQUIRED supposed to penalize you?

saarkvansoor
15-07-2009, 20:41
Interesting, to go from 43 comp points to 0 jumping from 1500 to 1750. My Ard Boyz list is a whopping -50.

Of course somehow all my core troops being Jetbikes with supporting Vypers, which is entirely fluffy for Saim Hann, somehow gives away 20 points off the bat.

Pholostan
15-07-2009, 21:31
I loved the fact that you lost points for each unit of warriors, even though you have to take two units to begin with.... How is taking something REQUIRED supposed to penalize you?

Everybody loses points for their required troops, so it depends how you choose the rest of your army. I mostly comes down to who gets least amount of negative points, as almost all choices makes you lose points. Some rare choices gives you points though, as Space Marine Honour Guard +5 (don't ask me why).

Some armies have no positive choices whatsoever. Imperial Guard for example. The motivation is that the IG-codex is "rock hard" and such.

It very much possible to get very high comp scores with necrons in that system. 80-90 is very possible, a score that is neigh impossible with say Imperial Guard.

Znail
15-07-2009, 22:28
I loved the fact that you lost points for each unit of warriors, even though you have to take two units to begin with.... How is taking something REQUIRED supposed to penalize you?

Its already been answered a few times, but here it is again. The reason is that taking 4 units of 10 Warriors is better then 2 units of 20, so there is the reason why you have a penelty for even the required units.

But it seems people have a realy hard time looking at this in a rational manner!

Gazak Blacktoof
15-07-2009, 22:29
Of course somehow all my core troops being Jetbikes with supporting Vypers, which is entirely fluffy for Saim Hann, somehow gives away 20 points off the bat.

The system doesn't judge theme, it's supposed to assess the relative power of lists. Some themes are inherently stronger on the table top than others.

LonelyPath
15-07-2009, 23:33
I got 82 for my DH

Adeptus Mechanicus
17-07-2009, 13:53
What we basically come to then is that any mechanised list will be seriously penalised?
as an example, Big Mek -5 (and a further -2 for every vehicle/walker in your army)?
and that's on top of the reductions for the vehicles themselves?

Like I said, I see where you are going... but it isn't quite there for me.


I have nothing against using comp. I actually think it helps making a enjoyable tournament for all players and not just the ones with the hungry power-gamer eyes devouring everyone and their mother at a tournament. This being said I do agree with a lot of people that it is in dire need of improvement.

My Orks, for example, take quite a pounding from this comp-system. I run a fotsloggin' army of Bad Moons and by doing so I do have a Big Mek with a KFF. I have no transports and no tanks but I do include Kanz and a Dread as I think they are just the right mindset for the Orks and also insanely awesome-looking. This gives me a rather serious spank on my **** composition wise. I loose - 12 for 3 Kanz with Big Shootas (anyone else use the mwith Big Shootas?) with an additional - 6 for having a Mek with KFF (that gives me a -5 just by himself as well). I also get nothing less than - 18 for 3 Kanz with Grotzooka and an additional - 6 for the Meks KFF (yet again). The whole system is based on deduction of points and thats all fine, but I think they overdid it on some units in some lists, the Mek / Walker thing is one of them.

I end up with a comp score of 19, and I do include both Tankbustas and Flash Gits, units so insanely overpriced or gimped that there are several threads on the matter. But I still like them and the Bad Moons would not be the samer without the awesome looking Gitz.

According to this system my lsit would be pretty cheesy, yes? Well a friend of mine plays a MEQ army of Crimson Fists including Pedro Kantor and a LR Redeemer with hammer & shield termies and so forth and he gets a score of 40. Let's put aside the point that Orks are handicapped against MEQ armies (I know there are ways to break tank but I think we can all agree it is not a walk in the park) shall we and dive right into the thick of it. If this comp is supposed to penalize MEQ armies how come I get so bad scoring for a very situational KFF and a few walkers? Are really Kanz that broken, if so please do let me know.

The list looks like this:

Warboss in Mega Armour with attack squig, bosspole and cybor kbody.

Mek with KFF, Burna and 'eavy armour.

2 x 5 Lootas

10 Tankbustas, 2 hammers, 2 bomb squigs, nob with pk + pole

5 Meganobz (as troops)

20 Shoota Boyz, 2 big shootas, nob with pk + pole

20 Shoota Boyz, 2 big shootas, nob with pk + pole

20 Shoota Boyz, 2 big shootas, nob with big choppa + pole

20 Shoota Boyz, 2 big shootas, nob with big choppa + pole

1 Dreadnought (as troops) with 2 x skorcha, armour plates and grot riggers

3 Kanz, big shootas

3 Kanz, grotzookas

6 Flashgits, more dakka, painboy

Gascogne
20-07-2009, 09:47
My Ork list also get very very low comp score but I saw an odd Ork army list which was made just to get a lot comp score. ;)

I wonder how well this army list would do against other armies hehe. :rolleyes:



HQ: (110pts)
Weirdboy. (+2)
Weirdboy. (+2)

Elites: (495pts)
15 Tankbustas. 2xhammers, 3 squigs. (+10)
15 Tankbustas. 2xhammers, 3 squigs. (+10)
15 Tankbustas. 2xhammers, 3 squigs. (+10)

Troops: (720pts)
30 Grots. 3 slavers. (+/-0)
30 Grots. 3 slavers. (+/-0)
30 Grots. 3 slavers. (+/-0)
30 Grots. 3 slavers. (+/-0)
30 Grots. 3 slavers. (+/-0)
30 Grots. 3 slavers. (+/-0)

Heavy: (175pts)
5 Flash gitz. More dakka. (+5)

1500 points in total

Mojaco
20-07-2009, 10:17
I got 52. Apperantly I shouldn't give my thousand sons any psychic powers. How dare I.

I'm surprised obliterators only cost -5 points.

edit; And I get 41 for my guard army, which is vastly inferior to my Chaos army (few wins versus loads of wins). Biggest loss of points; taking leman russes. Again, what was I thinking?

Satan
20-07-2009, 10:28
I got 52. Apperantly I shouldn't give my thousand sons any psychic powers. How dare I.

I'm surprised obliterators only cost -5 points.

edit; And I get 41 for my guard army, which is vastly inferior to my Chaos army (few wins versus loads of wins). Biggest loss of points; taking leman russes. Again, what was I thinking?

Around 50 is considered balanced. As I see it, people have some issues grasping this concept.

My daemons score about the same as your guard, I'd say they're fairly competitive without being an overblown or ludicrous build. Just because you've managed to score a build around 40 doesn't mean it's competitive. It just means there's alot of penalized elements in it.

I've had several low-scoring builds which were nowhere near competitive - it really says more about my (in)ability to construct an army than the comp system itself.

However, there are of course things I disagree with in this comp and I think it could do with some further work, but I tihnk it's agreat foundation for future tournaments.

Treadhead_1st
20-07-2009, 11:13
My 1500 Guard list rolls out at 55.

The only thing that didn't cost me a point was my Priest (no Eviscerator). I don't even take Heavy Weapons!

Mind you, I do have 3 Russes, a Demolisher and a Basilisk to take care of my Ranged firepower, and most local people think it's a bit cheesey (very little Infantry however).

Satan
20-07-2009, 11:36
Mind you, I do have 3 Russes, a Demolisher and a Basilisk to take care of my Ranged firepower, and most local people think it's a bit cheesey (very little Infantry however).

I don't think that's cheesy at all. Against some opponents you might suffer for your lack of infantry, which is probably the reason why your army would get a score like that.

CherryMan
20-07-2009, 12:14
In my smallish 600pts list I currently own with my space marines I scored a rating of 74, but when our next order comes in Ill be able to put together a 1500pt list with a rating of 52. The reason for the big drop is due to tanks I think.

Seriously don't see why people think the points are stupid, you're supposed to get a score around 50 for a compatible list. True enough, some of the points can be recalculated to better fit in, but all in all I think its a pretty good idea. If you score a list with 5-10 points left, and still thinks "hey.. my list ain't that cheesy, I have a 50/50 win/lose score most of the time" then maybe the average point in you're LGS is below average in general. Personally don't enter much tournaments, but I still found it quite interesting to sit down and calculate the score on my armies, just for the heck of it (mostly as I am being charged with the words "OMG! CHEEESE" most of the time I play, and now I know its not that bad).

Mojaco
20-07-2009, 12:37
I just find that a lot of minusses don't make any sense at all. Why is a heavy weapon cheesy, while a special weapon is not (for chaos and IG, didn't look further)? A special is cheaper and makes you more mobile, so you could make an argument for the reverse to be true.

It's just so... random.

Satan
20-07-2009, 13:13
I just find that a lot of minusses don't make any sense at all. Why is a heavy weapon cheesy, while a special weapon is not (for chaos and IG, didn't look further)? A special is cheaper and makes you more mobile, so you could make an argument for the reverse to be true.

It's just so... random.

Quite the opposite. It's very well conceived.

You could for example also argue that Heavy weapons have a longer firing range, in the case of lascannons for example. A minus doesn't by any means indicate that anything is "cheesy" since they're prevalent throughout the entire comp system. You need to look at it from a bigger picture - if a heavy weapon is penalized, then you need to look at what part it plays in relation to:

- The basic rules of the game
- The context of the codex/unit
- It's perceived (relative) "power"

For example.

The negative score it awards isn't a punishment by any means. It's just a corner stone of utilising a comp system to create your list to arrive at the point where you perceive that has a corresponding "power" level to its comp score. For example, if I where to build a deathguard list, I'd include spawn and possessed - units considered useless by most but which would aid me in getting a better comp score. The trick is to then find a build which I deem viable for playing purposes, not one consisting of just spawns/possessed/plague marines, in relation to what comp score I aim to "achieve".

Do I have to include possessed/spawn in a deathgaurd list? Of course not, but then I'd also have to accept that I'd get a lower comp score. Cries of "But it's fluffy!" doesn't change that fact that something may well be inherently more powerful/advantegous than other available choices which in themselves are not "bad", just considered not worthwhile in the context of their own codex.

For example, if I include more mech units in a build, I might face shortcomings against horde armies with rending as I'd have fewer points of infantry, and the other way around. Generally speaking, balanced lists (which can still be themed) tend to do better in tournaments with a mix of mech/infantry/heavy/special chosen in consideration of your final comp score.

Mojaco
20-07-2009, 14:21
Quite the opposite. It's very well conceived.
The principle is well conceived. But the result is not.

Another example. You get -2 for each Heavy Weapon squad. Why? Why not +5 like for Possessed? I know a lot of people never use them, just like possessed, as they run quickly an can't take orders. And why no difference between mortars or lascannons? Generally, I find mortars perform better then lascannons, as they can't be shot so easily. So I might say -3 for mortars and -2 for other heavy weapon. Or +2 as they run and die so easily, giving free kill points.

Or a dreadnought in a droppod. I hate it when people take a single droppod and put an Ironclad in it. You get it first turn, can throw it right on the edge of my battleline and have good chance of removing my best tank, instantly giving me a problem. To me, it's just as annoying as a lash whip. However, that's just -3 for the dreadnought and -5 for the droppod, while a lash whip is -25. Why not -10 for the first drop pod that you take, as it's guaranteed for the first turn, wheras a second is not?

It's just random. Biased. Pulled out of someone's ***. The problem is mainly that everything is given a relative value. So one thing is considered only slighty 'better' then another. It'd prefered it if it simply started at 10, deducted 1 for every know OP unit and added 1 for every know UP unit. It'll still be biased and subjective, but less so.

Grand Master Raziel
20-07-2009, 14:21
I rated a kind of surprising 45 for my DA-successor army. Maybe the system is not designed for a 2000pt list, though. It does seem kind of odd to me that you lose points for taking your army's bog-standard Troops choices, and I have issues with how it comped...well, pretty much everything, to be honest.

Vepr
20-07-2009, 14:54
I thought my 1500 point nid army was semi fluffly but apparently not with that system. If I added it up right I am in the low 40's with my list and that is with a HT, 2 sniper fexs, an elite boom fex, and then warriors, stealers and gants. :wtf: I tried to put together a list that was competitive but not cheesy for regular games. I would not expect to come close to winning a tourney with that list. :(

Vomikron Noxis
20-07-2009, 16:46
What a ridiculous system. I get -7 for each unit of Plague Marines in my Plague Marine army... (Clearly showing why nobody should ever use comp scores)

Satan
20-07-2009, 17:02
What a ridiculous system. I get -7 for each unit of Plague Marines in my Plague Marine army... (Clearly showing why nobody should ever use comp scores)

No, as a plague marine player I find that perfectly acceptable... It's people's preconceptions and snap judgements that are ridiculous...

Radium
20-07-2009, 17:02
Generally speaking, balanced lists (which can still be themed) tend to do better in tournaments with a mix of mech/infantry/heavy/special chosen in consideration of your final comp score.

While it is true that the balanced lists with a mix of everything are the best possible lists, I still don't think 'forcing' it onto people via a comp system is the way to do it.

A tournament is meant to find a winner, someone who scores the combined best of painting and playing. Even if you bring the best possible list, you probably won't win from the very best player with a balanced list. In the end the tournament will be won by a very good player, with a strong list. Not a mediocre player with an insanely powerful list.

If I go to a tournament, I expect to face powerful lists. If I couldn't take that, or if I want to play a game with weak lists*, I go to my local gaming club.
Adding a comp score does the exact same thing as banning or restricting certain units, it changes the power balance of the game. Instead of the usual most powerful list, you'll now see somewhat less powerful lists with just the right amount of 'weak' units in it to boost the comp score, and enough power to still flatten the opposition. It won't make things more fun for the losing side, when they come across a player wanting to win the tournament they will either have their army kicked all across the table, or manage a draw in which case they either try to win themselves and have met their match or they brought a 'cheesy' list and will still lose due to the comp score.
In none of those scenarios does the comp help the losing player have more fun, or will it stop the domination of the best players.

*I used the word weak instead of fun because I still believe a battle with two powerful lists can be just as much fun (or more fun, depending on the people playing) as a battle with two weaker lists.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-07-2009, 17:07
A tournament is meant to find a winner, someone who scores the combined best of painting and playing. Even if you bring the best possible list, you probably won't win from the very best player with a balanced list. In the end the tournament will be won by a very good player, with a strong list. Not a mediocre player with an insanely powerful list.

If I go to a tournament, I expect to face powerful lists.

The point you missed is that some of us think that the list shouldn't even be a factor.

Radium
20-07-2009, 17:16
No, I didn't miss that part. But you can never exclude listbuilding as part of the tournament, unless you force everyone to use the exact same list. If you allow custom lists, people will circumvent the comp system by taking enough 'bad' choices to score high in comp while still taking more or less the same list they would have taken without comp scores.

Gascogne
20-07-2009, 18:09
While it is true that the balanced lists with a mix of everything are the best possible lists, I still don't think 'forcing' it onto people via a comp system is the way to do it.

Forcing feels like the correct word for the comp system for me heh, I tried a lot to get a list with good comp score with the Orks but those lists don't work for me at all.
Long as I am at least above 0 on my comp score with my army list, I don't care what comp score I got and I really want to play with the units I want to play with.


Satan, a question for you if your are up for it.
Could you make a 1500 points Ork list and still get decent comp score while the army is still competitive?

Would love to see if I have missed something, most likely I have.
I know that vehicles/walkers/meganobz gets a lot minus in comp but I love Deff Dreads and Killa Kans, plus Meganobz are fun to have (they are like mini-mechs). :D

Satan
20-07-2009, 18:19
Satan, a question for you if your are up for it.
Could you make a 1500 points Ork list and still get decent comp score while the army is still competitive?

Would love to see if I have missed something, most likely I have.
I know that vehicles/walkers/meganobz gets a lot minus in comp but I love Deff Dreads and Killa Kans, plus Meganobz are fun to have (they are like mini-mechs). :D

I'd imagine it's within the realm of possibility, yes - but I'm not overly familiar with the Ork codex so I wouldn't lay claim to being able to create such a list at this instant. However, I think you could manage those 3 choices if you'd be willing to try and combine them with some low-penalty choices.

Gazak Blacktoof
20-07-2009, 18:19
No, I didn't miss that part. But you can never exclude listbuilding as part of the tournament, unless you force everyone to use the exact same list. If you allow custom lists, people will circumvent the comp system by taking enough 'bad' choices to score high in comp while still taking more or less the same list they would have taken without comp scores.

Then they handicap themselves to avoid comp hits which is fine. Very few people are going to mind you taking the very best and worst elements of a codex.

If you took that same list when others took only the best elements you'd expect to lose. Comp is supposed to allow more variety in lists.

Voss
20-07-2009, 18:30
I have to admit I don't mind the idea of comp scores (though I think its more necessary in fantasy than 40K, given the greater imbalances in the 40K army books), but I am very confused by this one.

I popped open the ork list, and was rather surprised to find that not only are Orks penalized for taking their troops choices, their penalized even more for focusing on Troops choices. Taking an ork army thats mostly orks is... bad? And overpowered?
Something seems wrong with that idea.

Grand Master Raziel
20-07-2009, 18:31
With a little reflection, I think there are two main problems with this comp system. One is easily fixed, one is probably unfixable. The easily fixed problem is that you have the same starting point for any sized army. So, a 2000pt list can't help but have a lower score than a 1000pt list, simply because you lose points for virtualy everything, and the 2000pt list will have about twice as much stuff as the 1000pt list, so therefore will have twice the opportunities to lose points. That can be easily fixed simply by having different starting points for different sized lists: 100 comp points for 1000pt lists, 150 CPs for 1500pt lists, 200 CPs for 2000 pt lists, and so on.

The unfixable problem is that the rating system doesn't take into account synergies between units, and that's where the game tends to get broken. For instance, a Lash-Prince by itself is pretty good. A squad of Obliterators, by itself, is pretty good. A unit of Plague Marines, by itself, is pretty good. None of these units, in and of themselves, is particularly broken. However, put them together, and you have the classic cheese list of 5th edition. It's the synergy between being able to Lash enemy units into template-friendly clusters while having one of the hardest units in the game to claim objectives that really makes the list cheesy. It's a prime example of the whole being more than the sum of its parts, and this comp system doesn't take that into account.

Personally, I think if you're going to have comp scores, the only effective way to do it would be to have comp judges who are not actively playing in the tourney review each list and pass judgement. Lists would still be subject to the prejudices of the individual judges involved, but at least there wouldn't be an incentive to tank someone's comp scores in order to boost your own relative standing in the overall scoring.

Gascogne
20-07-2009, 18:43
I'd imagine it's within the realm of possibility, yes - but I'm not overly familiar with the Ork codex so I wouldn't lay claim to being able to create such a list at this instant. However, I think you could manage those 3 choices if you'd be willing to try and combine them with some low-penalty choices.

No demands that you should make it this instant, just in the near future would be great.

The largest problem with the low penalty choices for orks is either Tankbustas (never tried them myself but everyone is screaming they are total crap).

Secondly there are the Flash Gitz which a lot people say aren't worth their points but all my Heavy slots are already taken plus I don't find them too fun when I read about them.
And there are no models for them either or am I wrong?

Third one can take Gretchins...



I have to admit I don't mind the idea of comp scores (though I think its more necessary in fantasy than 40K, given the greater imbalances in the 40K army books), but I am very confused by this one.

I popped open the ork list, and was rather surprised to find that not only are Orks penalized for taking their troops choices, their penalized even more for focusing on Troops choices. Taking an ork army thats mostly orks is... bad? And overpowered?
Something seems wrong with that idea.

It feels that both Orks and Imperial Guards get a lot of penalties on their units, more than say like Space Marines. :p