PDA

View Full Version : Do you comp?



IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 13:47
Yes yes we have hundreds of thousands of polls and threads on this over the years, but it was postulated that 90% of the warhammer 40k community plays open RAW by the book with no comp and that those that use comp are the 10% minority.

I'd like to see how those numbers fit at least on warseer (in my personal community it roughly 25 out of 110 or so that refuse comp and only play by the book always)

So its a fairly black or white statement which requires a black or white poll:

A) you will only play by the book no comp warhammer 40,000 and only attend events that have no comp
B) You are open to playing with comp

Snake Eyes
21-01-2014, 13:50
I am willing to play comp'd games and comp'd events. Usually we play what ever goes within my gaming group though.

totgeboren
21-01-2014, 13:57
I have never played 'comped', using official comp rules, but the last tournament I attended has a sort of soft comp. You sent your list in beforehand and got a yay or nay response from the organisers. Like my friend had 3 wave Serpents in a 1200 ps list, and the organizer asked him to remove one. My list got an ok. So no official rules you could try and bend, just a sort of GM that looked everything through beforehand to ensure the games would be fun.

At home we have never use comp, people tend to regulate that themselves. If we notice that some things are unbalanced or too good, the people using it tends to tone it down or weaken their army in other places to compensate.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 14:20
You're making this a simple binary choice when in reality its a more complex issue. Whether I agree to comp depends on the setting and situation.

Would I play in a comped Tournement - yes
Would I insist that anyone who want to play me in a casual setting needs to obey certain comp restrictions - no

Comp is for tournements, for casual games I always go by the book.

AndrewGPaul
21-01-2014, 14:25
In principle, I'm open to additional restrictions on the players' forces. Whether that is "comp"* restrictions in a tournament, a gentlemens' agreement to not be "beardy" or playing in a scenario or campaign with specified forces (for example, if someone at my club said "hey, let's play the Kastorel Novem campaign from Imperial Armour 8!", I'm not going to demand I can use Necrons).

I may have issues with particular instances of such restrictions, and in general I'm in favour of rules which allow players to use more of their models, not fewer.

I do find Spiney Norman's stance odd, because to my mind a "casual" game is one where I'm playing friends, who I would expect to be more open to such things as "hey, do you mind not using that unit again tonight? I fancy playing something different for a change".

* what is "comp" short for, anyway?

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 14:27
"composition" wherein you agree to alter the army list by not allowing certain things.

Ex: we use a no spam comp rule where you can take max of 2 of any non troop type in a normal FOC, which means you can bring 2 wraith knights, but not 3 etc...

This was done because as our group is quite large, asking that people not take min/max lists was met by a couple people by asking "what exactly is a min/max list" so in an effort to cut down on some of the spam that rule was put in place.

T10
21-01-2014, 14:29
I have usually endured the army composition restrictions enforced by local tournament organizers, but in later years I've found that it's no great loss to skip such events.

I usually build my tournament armies around something I think is cool, even if it is sub-optimal on paper, and instead apply myself in order to make the best use of what I brought. However, army composition restrictions push me into the mindset of "how can I work with this", resulting in me making "better" yet less enjoyable armies.

Also, I almost never agree with any TO on what is a "proper" army composition. They usually have a specific unit or character in mind when they apply wider restrictions, because apparently it's "unfair" to restrict the one specific type of broken unit when there are other ok units out there that are similar. Hey, mr. TO! Is Kairos Fateweaver the Special Character "too good"? How about instead of banning all Special Characters you ban just Kairos Fateweaver!?

-T10

Sir Didymus
21-01-2014, 14:29
I've never played a comped tournament, even though I wanted to attend a few, but somehow the comp has found a way to make my otherwise soft/fluffy lists unplayable.

In otherwise 'casual' games, its mostly by the book, but the most fun seems to arise, when you agree upon the game beforehand, make up some home-brewed rules for the scenario and just go for the fun of it. I usually rely on my opponent to restrain himself, but don't mind giving the cheesiest lists a go - or field one myself for that matter - but such games usually end up boring and one sided, and just an exercise in math hammering.

Theocracity
21-01-2014, 14:31
In principle, I'm open to additional restrictions on the players' forces. Whether that is "comp"* restrictions in a tournament, a gentlemens' agreement to not be "beardy" or playing in a scenario or campaign with specified forces (for example, if someone at my club said "hey, let's play the Kastorel Novem campaign from Imperial Armour 8!", I'm not going to demand I can use Necrons).

I may have issues with particular instances of such restrictions, and in general I'm in favour of rules which allow players to use more of their models, not fewer.

That's about my view of things too. Comp is useful for tournaments and as a guideline for casual play, though my group usually runs by gentleman's agreement and is flexible about letting people use their models.

Wishing
21-01-2014, 14:33
I think the poll is cool, but I think the "are you willing" phrasing won't lead to the result you are looking for.

I'd say that a more relevant question is something like "is your own personal default for games of 40k, set by your personal preference, to 1) play 40k 100% by the book (all books) with everything allowed, or to 2) play with an explicit or implicit comp system, where some army options or combinations of options (like three Riptides or flyer spam) are not taken or discouraged?"

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 14:38
In principle, I'm open to additional restrictions on the players' forces. Whether that is "comp"* restrictions in a tournament, a gentlemens' agreement to not be "beardy" or playing in a scenario or campaign with specified forces (for example, if someone at my club said "hey, let's play the Kastorel Novem campaign from Imperial Armour 8!", I'm not going to demand I can use Necrons).

I may have issues with particular instances of such restrictions, and in general I'm in favour of rules which allow players to use more of their models, not fewer.

I do find Spiney Norman's stance odd, because to my mind a "casual" game is one where I'm playing friends, who I would expect to be more open to such things as "hey, do you mind not using that unit again tonight? I fancy playing something different for a change".

* what is "comp" short for, anyway?

Quite the reverse, by adding comp restrictions to casual games what you're basically saying is 'I don't trust you not to bring a cheesy list so I'm going to invent rules that force you not to', friendly games should be way beyond the level of enforced comp. Its fair at a Tournement where you expect that kind of behaviour, but all comp restrictions invariably limit genuine 'soft' themed lists as well as the really OP ones so I would prefer to leave casual play open for an anything goes type atmosphere. Heck I'd even be open to relaxing the game rules themselves and playing with a more flexible FOC in a casual setting, far from piling on additional restrictions.


I think the poll is cool, but I think the "are you willing" phrasing won't lead to the result you are looking for.

I'd say that a more relevant question is something like "is your own personal default for games of 40k, set by your personal preference, to 1) play 40k 100% by the book (all books) with everything allowed, or to 2) play with an explicit or implicit comp system, where some army options or combinations of options (like three Riptides or flyer spam) are not taken or discouraged?"

Totally agree, the poll question is skewed to achieve a certain result. It would have been better to have "always comp", "never comp" and "willing to try either". But it is designed to prove a point for an ongoing debate that to ask an open question.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 14:39
Well the are you willing is there beacuse in the other threads where this is raging the idea that I'm getting anyway is that one should never need comp and that 90% of the community does not use comp in their games and that us 10% special snowflakes are a vast minority.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 14:42
Well the are you willing is there beacuse in the other threads where this is raging the idea that I'm getting anyway is that one should never need comp and that 90% of the community does not use comp in their games and that us 10% special snowflakes are a vast minority.

"Willing to play in a comped environment" is different to "refusing games from anyone that doesn't stick to my comp rules", so this poll is hardly relevant to the debate you are referring to.

Wishing
21-01-2014, 14:45
* what is "comp" short for, anyway?

"Composition" I believe, as in, "This tournament has certain restrictions on army compostition".

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 14:45
This has nothing to do with "refusing games from anyone not sticking to comp rules" buddy. This has to do with the statement that 90% of the community is against comp in general.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 14:48
This has nothing to do with "refusing games from anyone not sticking to comp rules" buddy. This has to do with the statement that 90% of the community is against comp in general.

Congrats on twisting my words, in the context of the debate we were having I was referring only to casual play, not about tournements or big events organised by a 3rd party.

Comp at tournements is fine, and expected, it is also impartial, being designed by the organisers rather than one of the players.

Comp in a casual game is never impartial because the person who insists on it is one of the gamers.

Sgt John Keel
21-01-2014, 15:02
I would be willing to play in a comped environment if a) the composition rules don't affect my personal preferences to a significant degree when it comes to list building or b) it's a one-off thing.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 15:05
Congrats on twisting my words, in the context of the debate we were having I was referring only to casual play, not about tournements or big events organised by a 3rd party.

Comp at tournements is fine, and expected, it is also impartial, being designed by the organisers rather than one of the players.

Comp in a casual game is never impartial because the person who insists on it is one of the gamers.

Oh? Thanks for that clarification ;)

Theocracity
21-01-2014, 15:06
Comp in a casual game is never impartial because the person who insists on it is one of the gamers.

I don't think a group's comp rules should be handed down from on high by a single player. They should be developed as part of a discussion that takes the other player's opinions into account.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 15:07
I don't think a group's comp rules should be handed down from on high by a single player. They should be developed as part of a discussion that takes the other player's opinions into account.

Definitely agree. We have rules councils before each event where anyone that wants input shows up and we all discuss.

skorczeny
21-01-2014, 15:10
Is there a difference between 'comp' and 'house rule'? Is 'comp' as specific subset of 'house rules'? Doesn't the BRB encourage players to do this anyway?

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 15:15
House rule is comp yes and yes the BRB encourages it. However there is a subset of players that believe that comping or houseruling is wrong and that you should be obligated to play using just the rules as written. That if someone asks to play you straight out of the book, powerlisting style, that it is immoral and sociopathic to say no to their request because you should play purely by the book because you are denying that person a game... because you are the only person in the whole world that they could play against.

Now it appears there is some backtracking or clarification involved and that that house rules / comp are ok in big events, but for whatever reason that the vast majority hate them for one off random games and you should not use them for casual one off games.

Sgt John Keel
21-01-2014, 15:29
House rule is comp yes and yes the BRB encourages it. However there is a subset of players that believe that comping or houseruling is wrong and that you should be obligated to play using just the rules as written.

Now it appears there is some backtracking or clarification involved and that that house rules / comp are ok in big events, but for whatever reason that the vast majority hate them for one off random games and you should not use them for casual one off games.

Honestly, I think the crucial point in this "backtracking" is that they are okay in limited events that are easy to avoid if you don't agree with that particular set of comp rules, and that people may not want some extra rules dictating their "everyday" games.

Edit: This is the new "are Forge World okay without the opponent's consent" debate, yes?

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 15:38
No this is the debate wherein I stated I only play once or twice a month and that our events use comp and somehow it blew up into casual games (original context was just games, the casual label was recently added as a "clarification") should never have comp enforced on them at all and that you should be fine with taking on 3 riptides with the wraithknight ally or you are wrong, not getting better at the game, immoral, or a sociopath in a casual game and if you aren't ok with it that you are forcing your comp on someone else, because you are somehow forcing them to play with your rules, and that this is something that a tiny minority do. One poster even mentioned that you were obligated to play someone if they show up with a list that is by RAW legal.

That's the whole sticking word here. Forcing others to play like you want them to. FORCING them. The reality of course is vastly different, no one forces anyone to do anything. It really isn't about the forge world debate since we openly use forge world as well.

Wishing
21-01-2014, 15:39
Is there a difference between 'comp' and 'house rule'? Is 'comp' as specific subset of 'house rules'? Doesn't the BRB encourage players to do this anyway?

Basically the same thing but with different implications. "House rules" suggests that you take something about the rules and change them or add something to them. For example, you might allow some allly combination that isn't normally allowed. That would be a house rule. "Comp" suggests that you take something about the rules and say that it isn't allowed anymore (or discouraged). For example, saying that it is not allowed to take three Helldrakes in the same army would be comp.


Edit: This is the new "are Forge World okay without the opponent's consent" debate, yes?

Very much so.

skorczeny
21-01-2014, 15:41
House rule is comp yes and yes the BRB encourages it. However there is a subset of players that believe that comping or houseruling is wrong and that you should be obligated to play using just the rules as written. That if someone asks to play you straight out of the book, powerlisting style, that it is immoral and sociopathic to say no to their request because you should play purely by the book because you are denying that person a game... because you are the only person in the whole world that they could play against.

Now it appears there is some backtracking or clarification involved and that that house rules / comp are ok in big events, but for whatever reason that the vast majority hate them for one off random games and you should not use them for casual one off games.

It seems to me that holding 'casual' to the standard of 'must include everything and cannot be restricted upon in anyway' is anything but casual.

If you own a Squiggoth - awesome. I would love to see it. But if you insist you must be allowed to use the squiggoth in every single game you can fit him into your army list, regardless of your opponent, regardless of the table you're playing on, then you are breaking the spirit of the game, and therefore going against the rules of the game, according to the BRB (in my opionion).

skorczeny
21-01-2014, 15:45
Basically the same thing but with different implications. "House rules" suggests that you take something about the rules and change them or add something to them. For example, you might allow some allly combination that isn't normally allowed. That would be a house rule. "Comp" suggests that you take something about the rules and say that it isn't allowed anymore (or discouraged). For example, saying that it is not allowed to take three Helldrakes in the same army would be comp.



Very much so.

What about a house rule changing the FOC to only have 2 fast attack slots?

I also house rule mysterious terrain, which is an optional rule, RAW.

duffybear1988
21-01-2014, 16:10
I play mostly quick pick up games these days so no I don't comp. Even back when I was tournie goer I only ever went to comped events if it didn't cause too many changes.

The problem with comp in friendly environments is trying to get everyone else to play along with it. I have written countless modifications and rule changes in the past only to be told that it isn't going to be used. My current gaming club barely even use the GW FAQs!!!

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 16:22
It seems to me that holding 'casual' to the standard of 'must include everything and cannot be restricted upon in anyway' is anything but casual.


Quite the reverse, casual is may include anything not must. Obviously you are not forced to use anything, but you are not forcing your opponent to use (or forbidding the use of) anything either. As soon as you introduce you comp you are well inside competitive territory, because by putting rules in place to stop the more powerful builds you're basically saying that you expect those builds to appear without the rules. That doesn't sound like a casual environment to me. If you have to ban something that suggests it is a problem in the first place.

Sgt John Keel
21-01-2014, 16:25
No this is the debate wherein I stated I only play once or twice a month and that our events use comp and somehow it blew up into casual games (original context was just games, the casual label was recently added as a "clarification") should never have comp enforced on them at all and that you should be fine with taking on 3 riptides with the wraithknight ally or you are wrong, not getting better at the game, immoral, or a sociopath in a casual game and if you aren't ok with it that you are forcing your comp on someone else, because you are somehow forcing them to play with your rules, and that this is something that a tiny minority do. One poster even mentioned that you were obligated to play someone if they show up with a list that is by RAW legal.

That's the whole sticking word here. Forcing others to play like you want them to. FORCING them. The reality of course is vastly different, no one forces anyone to do anything. It really isn't about the forge world debate since we openly use forge world as well.

I guess I'll write my opinion on the subject in long-form then:

The bottom line is that you need to get along with the person you will be playing against. If this person is unwilling to grant your requests, you'll have evaluate if it's worth playing the game with this person, and the same applies for any requests she may ask of you.

Personally, if the requests are of the form "would you please not take X this time", I'll most likely accede if it is not unreasonable, such as totally crippling my anti-vehicle capability because I don't have any other miniatures with effective anti-tank weaponry.

If the demand, on the other hand, is "I won't play you if you take X, ever" I'm still likely to accede, unless I really, really like X or the opponent can't articulate why X is so horrible. Or, possibly, we could adjust the rules of X if that's the problem.

Both of these are of course conditional on my opponent viewing any requests of mine in a similarly charitable manner.

If the demand is "you can't take X because person(s) Y said so", I'd be less charitably inclined. I'm not playing Y, so please have your own opinion and reason with me. This is also largely about managing expectations. The longer beforehand I've been told, the better I can adjust my expectations and the less upset I will be.

I also expect to know what army I'll be facing and will construct my army list according to that information. I expect my opponent to do the same. If she chooses to use a preconstructed list, that's on her.

The comparison to the Forge World debate is because my opinion on the subject is extremely similar. Just replace the quotations above with "can I please use Forge World this time", "I will play with Forge World this game" and "I will play with Forge World this game because X says I can and you can't do anything about it". I'm extremely likely, excited even, to play with Forge World items if you can be mature about it. If I'm aware that Forge World is considered "standard" in the area, I'm fine with it (unless it's something specific I don't like, in which case see above). If I'm not aware, I might be unhappy. Therefore, it's my opinion that it's always best to ask.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 16:38
My main issue with forgeworld is that some gamers use it to blindside you mid game, an unfortunate example which happened to me was an ironclad dreadnought landing next to my monolith by drop pod. It was revealed to me, at the start of the assault phase, that the drop pod was a forgeworld unit called a 'Lucius drop pod' which allows units to assault in the turn they drop. Needless to say my monolith was reduced to a smouldering pile of scrap metal and I was not amused.

My only requirement if you are using a forgeworld against me, I want a list if units and ten mins with your IA book because I don't have a working knowledge of FW units and I don't want any more nasty surprises.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 16:44
@Sgt Keel - I agree with everything you have said. The game is a shared experience with another person or group of people. The type of game that is to be played is agreed upon first, and then you play and everyone has fun.

As I've noted several times, and will note again, I only have time to play once or twice a month. I have a preferred type of game I want to play, and do not want to use my once a month game on a powerlist style game because I already know I have zero fun in that environment. There are dozens of people I play and with whom also do not wish to powerlist and therefore, we have no problems or issues.

There are also players in my area that do nothing but powerlist, and I get along with most of them as well, barring the one or two that make comments about how if you aren't powerlisting you're crippling the community or playing wrong, but we don't play 40k together because we realize that we want different things out of the game. Our events do use forge world, so everyone knows that they could come up against a forgeworld unit or list, and everyone is cool with that. There are guys that have voiced strong opinions against forge world but those guys also choose not to play in our events because of that, and that's perfectly fine IMO.

I also of course do not play random games anyway. Our games are scheduled in advance and we already know what rules for that month will be based on the event, as to the campaign days we all meet up its the same thing though we don't know who we are going to play, we all adhere to the event rules so all of this is a moot thing for me personally.

The picture being painted is that a player (me) stands around in a GW store with my army ready to go waiting for a random opponent to show up, and some guy shows up and says "hey man wanna play? I have my awesome 3 riptide with wraith knight ally and a revenant titan! This will be great" and I get angry and rage at him and tell him I'm never playing someone like him ever. This fiction just never happens ever, not even one time. In fact, our FB group has many pickup games set up, all of varying types of comp or even no comp, and all is harmonious and well.

The poll asks how many people never use comp compared to those that do use comp in general (regardless of events). I suppose in the near future we will do one that is casual games only but I suspect the results will be similar. This poll has gone on and been asked on many sites for many many years and it usually lands at around 25% don't use any comp at all.

Harwammer
21-01-2014, 16:56
I think it comes down to list building philosophy.

For 'friendly' games I think lists should be effective, but they shouldn't be optimised. There should be strengths written in the list for your opponent to struggle with and weaknesses too to be exploited.

For narrative games, yes there absolutely should be comp. If you want to act out the story of Tycho's fall to the black rage against the orks then Tycho should be a mandatory choice!

For competitive events / games you should write the toughest list you can under the victory/scoring conditions of the event. As many events are paid events (and there is a moderate invest cost in this hobby) I think it is fair for TOs to try include comp rules that prevent participants having 'non-games' thru facing gimmicky lists.

totgeboren
21-01-2014, 18:24
Using some form of official comp for normal friendly games seems a bit excessive to me, and these generic comp rules I see are often pretty weird.
I mean, someone who spams Chaos Dreadnoughts is hardly a powergamer who will ruin the fun for everyone, but if the same players insists on using three Heldrakes with baleflamers all the time, well, yeah, he is definitely no fun to go up against. But normal people understand that there is a difference between using three chaos dreads and using say three Heldrakes.

Another example. If I'm running three chaos dreads and three Maulerfiends, I would be spamming. If I changed one dread for a Contemptor and one Maulerfiend for a Forgefiend, I would be running an army that was just fine, even though the latter is more powerful than the former.

I am in favour of people self-regulating the competitiveness of their army. If all they are facing is tournament lists, they better man up and make armies that give their opponents a run for their money. However, if they are in a group of people where some people play something other than Taudar, Screamerstars or Croissant spam they better tone their lists down so all the people can play and have a good time.

It's always better to put the bar a bit lower, since everyone can adapt and self-regulate to that level. Putting the bar at the tournament top means most people are unable to field armies that give good games, and most people prefer good even games before turn three wipes.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 18:31
Its' not always all about power either.

Its about variety. Three dreadnoughts is not as powerful as three baledrakes, but either is spam, which indicates no variety.

"What's wrong with that?"

Nothing, if you are into that kind of thing. The thing that burnt me out was having to face the same units all the time over and over and over again. I like variety. I play in games that offer that. People assume that this only means spamming power items because that is the most common scenario but its the entire spam concept in general. Every once in a while its cool but for years facing the same armies over and over repeatedly killed my interest.

Lokust
21-01-2014, 18:37
I miss comp.

insectum7
21-01-2014, 18:45
There's a negotiation before every battle at my club, about which missions to choose from, whether or not to use random terrain rules, about terrain setup, use of a couple house rules etc. before every game.

I wouldn't find light FOC restrictions particularly invasive in any way, especially if going to a convention or event.

bhusus
21-01-2014, 23:55
I play almost entirely narrative games so we're limited by army/ally choices based on the location of the army - so a planet controlled by Chaos would have areas controlled by Iron Warriors or Alpha Legion and the list would be built appropriately (even though they are both Codex CSM)

AngryAngel
22-01-2014, 01:32
This poll is very flawed and as such goes mostly the way I'd imagine it to. As was said asking people if they'd agree to comp on every casual game, that is a different beast. Not would you ever play a comped game or a comped event.

Edit: It also doesn't give an accurate accounting in any regard as you've said multiple times when most players don't even come online to participate in the forums.

Marshal
22-01-2014, 01:47
I didn't answer the poll. To me it seems too black and white. I think there should have been a third option, to the willingness to go to such events, but willingness to go to events without, kinda an indifference to the whole thing really.

To me, it's a different event when there's comp involved. Not worse, not better, just a different event. The good players adapt, the bad players do not. I enjoy both sort of events myself.

IcedCrow
22-01-2014, 02:13
Well considering the statement that launched the poll was that 90% of people are against comp, asking people if they used comp or refuse to use comp seems pretty apt.

AngryAngel
22-01-2014, 02:17
Taking the comment out of context as your want to do, sure. I'd think you'd be "obliged " to have a more accurate poll however.

ntw3001
22-01-2014, 02:27
Yah, it's obviously a leading question that's not going to hold any water when presented as evidence in the other thread. I got ma opinions as regards the wider debate, but it's, uh, boring. It's been raging for a while. Both sides are firmly entrenched, nothing new has been said for weeks and it's probably time to take a break and stop worrying about people being wrong on the internet.

Rated_lexxx
22-01-2014, 02:47
I said no, but only because there was only yes or no

I'll play in tournaments where there is some comp but not one that goes over the top.

The over the top comp list scores are ones that basically restrict to one type of unit each

Commissar Merces
22-01-2014, 03:08
Really interesting that there is a thread for this topic as I was just about to post a thread about this. A group of relatively local players are forming their first tournament and it's a comp one and the response has been less than enthusiastic that's for sure. I just don't think this particular comp design fixes any of the problems it's designed to do. I would love to hear some other opinions as I try to figure out if this is worth my time.

http://cruxofwar.com/uploads/Crux_2014_Comp_Rubric_v2.2.pdf

Ssilmath
22-01-2014, 03:26
I actually kind of like that comp system, Merces. My suggestion would be that the next time you have a tourney, call it something like "Big Guns are Best" and lower the comp penalty on Heavy Support, or something similar for one of the other Force Org charts. And maybe have the TO's set out the objectives for each round, and announce as much. Would be an interesting tourney, one I'd attend even with my "poor" list and probably have a decent time.

Commissar Merces
22-01-2014, 04:17
I actually kind of like that comp system, Merces. My suggestion would be that the next time you have a tourney, call it something like "Big Guns are Best" and lower the comp penalty on Heavy Support, or something similar for one of the other Force Org charts. And maybe have the TO's set out the objectives for each round, and announce as much. Would be an interesting tourney, one I'd attend even with my "poor" list and probably have a decent time.

I like the concept. I don't like the implementation. I don't think it actually fixes the meta, I think it handcuffs the worse codexes even more (orks, sisters, and Tyranids) while greatly benefits tau/eldar. Sure, they can't spam monstrous creatures, but their books are strong enough to take that hit. I dunno, it seems like the spirit is in the right place but the actual implementation wasn't very careful. Like a deathwing or ravenwing army are nearly impossible. And grey knights get docked additional points because all HQ options are Psykers (and Tyranids basically). Not saying it isn't a good idea, just not sure it is the right way to go about it.

I would much rather see percentages as a comp ala fantasy.

Ssilmath
22-01-2014, 04:27
Well, let's see. Orks and Tyranids have a lot of variety in their books, so I'm not sure why they're suddenly worse off. Deathwing and Ravenwing both rely on high point cost troops that are pretty customizable, so not sure why they're impossible. Grey Knights have 2 Inquisitor HQ's that are not psykers. Tyranids have Tyranid Primes, Old One Eye and Deathleaper, while Tervigons can be moved to troops.

Not seeing your argument, really.

Commissar Merces
22-01-2014, 04:47
Well, let's see. Orks and Tyranids have a lot of variety in their books, so I'm not sure why they're suddenly worse off. Deathwing and Ravenwing both rely on high point cost troops that are pretty customizable, so not sure why they're impossible. Grey Knights have 2 Inquisitor HQ's that are not psykers. Tyranids have Tyranid Primes, Old One Eye and Deathleaper, while Tervigons can be moved to troops.

Not seeing your argument, really.

Allow me to show you.

Orks rely on certain units because most units are > others in their book. They also heavily rely on transports, which you can only take so many of before your comp score starts disappearing (after the third vehicle) add in a couple of battlewagons and suddenly you are disqualified from the tournament because your comp score is too low. Orks need lootas and dakka jets are a good unit for them. Can only take one of each without getting penalized.

Deathwing and ravenwing are starting the tournament down -8 comp points because they must take a special character to be unlocked. Furthermore, if you are staying fluffy and only taking those units, you are going to run into either a -8 or -6 comp as well.

Tyranids also have the honor have having a -10 comp because monstrous creatures count more should you take more than one of the same unit (DESPITE THEM BEING ARMED DIFFERENTLY). Assuming you want to run 2 tyrants (either walking or flying), that's a base -12 for taking an identical HQ (even if they are armed differently). Tyranids need strong synapse this edition, and tyrants are the best option for that in the book as they have access to tyrant guard to soak up some fire for them. Also, taking two units of venomthropes (pretty much a must this edition) is going to run you another -8 points. Wanna take two exocrines or 4 dakka fexes? Also another -8 per selection.

Now lets look at what this comp is really trying to get rid of


Commander w/2x Missiles, PEN, Armor, Target Lock, VRT
3x Crisis w/Shas'vre M3S, CNC, Drone Controller; Shas'ui w/2x Missiles, Target Lock, 6x Markers
Riptide w/Ion, Fusion, EWO, Skyfire
9x Fire Warriors
9x Fire Warriors
10x Kroot + Hound, Sniper
10x Kroot + Hound, Sniper
2x Broadsides w/HYMP, SMS, EWO
2x Broadsides w/HYMP, SMS, EWO
1 hammerhead with missile pods

Farseer w/Bike
6x Jetbikes w/2x Cannons
6x Jetbikes w/2x Cannons

Aegis Defense Line with quad gun

1850 points

A total of -8 comp. This doesn't fix the problem. It exacerbates it.

Wishing
22-01-2014, 07:21
Just for the record - the reason the poll questions are biased is that they are phrased:

- I will only play uncomped
- I am willing to try comped

Imagine if you swapped those "will only/am willing to" statements around.

- I will only play comped
- I am willing to try uncomped

It's obvious that the questions invite people to answer "I am willing to" as opposed to "I will only". For the poll to be honest, it would have to ask both questions with the same phrasing.

wanderingblade
22-01-2014, 08:20
I like the concept. I don't like the implementation. I don't think it actually fixes the meta, I think it handcuffs the worse codexes even more (orks, sisters, and Tyranids) while greatly benefits tau/eldar. Sure, they can't spam monstrous creatures, but their books are strong enough to take that hit. I dunno, it seems like the spirit is in the right place but the actual implementation wasn't very careful. Like a deathwing or ravenwing army are nearly impossible. And grey knights get docked additional points because all HQ options are Psykers (and Tyranids basically). Not saying it isn't a good idea, just not sure it is the right way to go about it.

I would much rather see percentages as a comp ala fantasy.

Also bad luck if you're an army where your main source of mobility comes from your transports. Dark Eldar are pretty hosed.

I feel this system shows the issue with comp. I'm sorta in favour of it. But most sets of restrictions just create a new meta, which in this case actually reinforces what's going on, and powerplayers can still prosper if so inclined.

RanaldLoec
22-01-2014, 12:36
I have one comp vs opponents I don't know well.

No allies

Everyone else I play against I know well enough to know what to expect.

Balance, comp etc boils down to the players use of the books and rules.

Yes I can play Taudar and look for obscure rule contradictions and holes, I just don't find it that fun or challenging.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

IcedCrow
22-01-2014, 13:47
Taking the comment out of context as your want to do, sure. I'd think you'd be "obliged " to have a more accurate poll however.

I posted the original quote and discussed it. The original quote was that imposing comp on someone is a bad thing and that 90% of the warhammer community doesn't want to have comp imposed on them. My interpretation of that context is that 90% of the warhammer community does not want to play with comp. If it was that 90% of the warhammer community does not want comp IMPOSED on them, then sure who wants anything imposed on them? (but then again where was it said anyone was imposing and forcing comp on someone?)

The results are about the same as they are always. Roughly 25% will only play uncomped. That's what I was trying to discern. How many people will only play uncomped with no alterations at all, and it always fluctuates between 20 and 25%.

Spiney Norman
22-01-2014, 17:53
I posted the original quote and discussed it. The original quote was that imposing comp on someone is a bad thing and that 90% of the warhammer community doesn't want to have comp imposed on them. My interpretation of that context is that 90% of the warhammer community does not want to play with comp. If it was that 90% of the warhammer community does not want comp IMPOSED on them, then sure who wants anything imposed on them? (but then again where was it said anyone was imposing and forcing comp on someone?)

The results are about the same as they are always. Roughly 25% will only play uncomped. That's what I was trying to discern. How many people will only play uncomped with no alterations at all, and it always fluctuates between 20 and 25%.

The problem is that you didn't even mention having comp forced on you, you asked who would be willing to play comp in a one-off circumstance. The whole discussion we had was totally predicated on the 'forcing', not the 'comp'. I would agree to occasionally play with comp in a tournament or other event, what I object to is it being mandated by my opponent for every game I play.

insectum7
22-01-2014, 18:44
Now lets look at what this comp is really trying to get rid of


Commander w/2x Missiles, PEN, Armor, Target Lock, VRT
3x Crisis w/Shas'vre M3S, CNC, Drone Controller; Shas'ui w/2x Missiles, Target Lock, 6x Markers
Riptide w/Ion, Fusion, EWO, Skyfire
9x Fire Warriors
9x Fire Warriors
10x Kroot + Hound, Sniper
10x Kroot + Hound, Sniper
2x Broadsides w/HYMP, SMS, EWO
2x Broadsides w/HYMP, SMS, EWO
1 hammerhead with missile pods

Farseer w/Bike
6x Jetbikes w/2x Cannons
6x Jetbikes w/2x Cannons

Aegis Defense Line with quad gun

1850 points

A total of -8 comp. This doesn't fix the problem. It exacerbates it.

If I'm reading the comp rules right, I think the total is -10. (-8 for the duplicate Broadside unit, and -2 for the second HQ) I don't think I find that list particularly heinous though.

Interesting that there's no mention of allies anywhere in the Comp rules, you would think it'd be part of the consideration. (unless their force organization chart is intended to mirror the base chart without the added allies chart, which is potentially implied but unclear.)

For the record (and fun) my current list comes in at -24. Named Character (-8), 3 Drop Pods (-8), and a duplicate fast attack (-8). Who would have thought two Land Speeders would raise eyebrows? Ah, well.