What do people mean by "comp" these days?

[GodlessM]

This is why I dislike this site, it's like trying to play chess against a pigeon. It doesn't matter how good you are at the game, the pigeon will just waltz around knocking over pieces, defecating on the board and strutting around like it's still winning.

Fair enough if you don't understand the game that well, but don't try and take apart good tactical descriptions with stupid logic.

There's no such thing as stupid logic; if it is logical then it isn't stupid. The fact that the list you advocate was torn apart means really only one thing, brace yourself; not everyone has the same opinion as you. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram just because some people disagree with you and accept there is no fact on the matter.

I for one agree with The Low King; the list is much like the 100 High Archers in a tower list. It is brutal hard to get big points from, but it is also brutal hard to get big points with. Essentially all it will do is cock-block players out of high contention in a tournament, but you will get nowhere either, so what's the point? If you are only going to tournaments to annoy people then there's something wrong, and there's a lot more to dislike about that than Warseer (and it's no secret my feeling for this site these days, but dues are given when earned).

BTW Lorcryst, please don't preach about irksome values on the internet and then equate math-hammering and play WAAC. WAAC stands for Win At All Costs, All Costs being the main thing here. Most WAAC gamers play only hard as nails lists, don't have any concern for the fun factor of their opponent, lawyer rules to their advantage, and in some cases will gladly cheat. Don't mix this up with a competitive gamer. More so, don't assocaite mathhammer with being competitive only. Many people come on claiming, 'I don't care about winning so just ply', but then rage quit or go emo when they lose all the time. Math hammer is used in fun games also to make sure you don't just always throw yourself into situations where you have no hope whatsoever.

[Urgat]

An underdog bonus is a great idea! We could assign values to this underdog bonus, perhaps either by a council of judges assigning a score or a pre-made system. Fluffy choices can be encouraged and typical tournament fare can be discouraged. What to call it though? Perhaps, since we're talking about composition of the lists, a "comp score"? Now, if we can only get this idea to catch on.

Problem is, comp scores went to the Chaos Wastes, and came back as a mutant abominations

[Lorcryst]

BTW Lorcryst, please don't preach about irksome values on the internet and then equate math-hammering and play WAAC. WAAC stands for Win At All Costs, All Costs being the main thing here. Most WAAC gamers play only hard as nails lists, don't have any concern for the fun factor of their opponent, lawyer rules to their advantage, and in some cases will gladly cheat. Don't mix this up with a competitive gamer. More so, don't assocaite mathhammer with being competitive only. Many people come on claiming, 'I don't care about winning so just ply', but then rage quit or go emo when they lose all the time. Math hammer is used in fun games also to make sure you don't just always throw yourself into situations where you have no hope whatsoever.

Okay, my words may have gone too far ... I wasn't preaching anything (I really, really hate preachers) and I was not associating WAAC and Mathhammer ... wrong use of "and", I think, that wasn't meant to be an associative one ...

To try to make myself clearer : when I play, I try to make it an enjoyable experience both for me and my opponent ... that doesn't mean that I "play to loose" (except in the first introductory game of my friend's 8-years old son, I wanted to let him win at least once), I do try to win, but that concern is, for me, secondary to everyone having fun ...

And yes, I realize that current comp models *try* to give the underdogs a bonus ... but they fail miserably at it, IMHO, promoting elite, WAAC-like lists instead of fluffly ones ... when was the last time you saw a thematic Goblin army in a tournament ? In the nineties, those were often seen, not winning much games mind you, but have good "composition" scores nevertheless.

Ah well, I realize that the definition of "fun" is different for different people ... but I'm still not convinced that the current "comp" and rulepacks are a good thing for the game ... for one, they totally neuter my fluffy Night Goblins lists, forcing me to design "hard" lists if I want to have a chance of not finishing last ... that's what disgusted me of tournaments, more than the usual obnoxious attitude of some players that couldn't resist gloating after destroying a "weak" list with their überWAACy List of Doom ...

[Lord Inquisitor]

And yes, I realize that current comp models *try* to give the underdogs a bonus ... but they fail miserably at it, IMHO, promoting elite, WAAC-like lists instead of fluffly ones

So, Lorcryst, care to define what comp is for you? Sounds like you are just talking about ETC-style hard comp.

The "old" soft comp systems are still alive. Shandowner ran a GT last year with a comp council system, he's planning to switch over to the Swedish pre-made system for this year.

[GodlessM]

Maybe comp does that in Belgum Lorcryst, but the comp being used here has been working well for our past tourney season, with great balance achieved across events.

[Duke Ramulots]

Maybe comp does that in Belgum Lorcryst, but the comp being used here has been working well for our past tourney season, with great balance achieved across events.

Coud you give a link to this comp system, or is it one of the well known ones?

[quietus1986]

Its a softer version of the ETC in belgium most of the time.

[GodlessM]

@Duke Ramulots; we've used lots of different systems in Ireland, some ranging from army restrictions in general, others with specific army restrictions, and more recently a points based system called SCALE (find it here). We've managed variety with a good balance over the last year, though I admit being a small country we are a tight knit nationwide community.

@quietus; the ETC isn't comp, it's Warhammer 7.5 edition.

[quietus1986]

Et the moment most comps in blegium are no units of more than 40-60 models and never over 450pnts and no special cars the point limit on the units and model limit are taken from the etc.

[Lorcryst]

So, Lorcryst, care to define what comp is for you? Sounds like you are just talking about ETC-style hard comp.

The "old" soft comp systems are still alive. Shandowner ran a GT last year with a comp council system, he's planning to switch over to the Swedish pre-made system for this year.

Well, for me, the best version of "comp" is the one from the last century, where theme, friendliness and sportmanship of the army were "judged" by the opponent giving a score between 1 and 10 ... alas, that type of "comp" is mostly extinct ...

But Quietus1986 said it best : at the moment, "comp" in Belgium is a sort of "ETC Light", with caps on unit size and points value ...

450 points of Night Goblins is an unit of 100 with Full Command, Netters, 3 Fanatics ... oh wait, I cannot take more than 60 models in an unit ... but with Warriors of Chaos, I can take an unit of 60 Marauders of Khorne with Great Weapons and Full Command (355 points) ... meaning that, once again, elite armies are given the advantage over "weak", fluffy armies ...

There's no point in taking a fluffy list if I want to be classed above last ...

BUT, I'm not a good example, I've not attended a tournament since the inception of ETC rules ... that, for me, are a bad thing.

[GodlessM]

That's not good comp Lorcryst because it is totally subjective, and often jerk players judged people low because they were beaten and sour.

[Krish]

Well, my example is different i would not have anything against loosing with fun list ( for example throgg troll horde, or archaons all cavalry army ), but i cant take fun list because its banned. So i cannot play for fun = fun is banned , for fluff = fluff is banned so i must play if i decide to with one right list for a tourney army. Lets be honest with ETC there is ONE or maybe TWO lists max for army if we say about hard winning and nothing more ( and there is nothing else left after this cuts, no fun , fluff, climax ... only this one right build). And the hole strategy topic comes to discussion like: "what is better, other tricksters shard or dragonbane gem? " ... And the reason why this kind of lists are banned is simple, creators of this rules do want to have a list than can beat anything, they do not want surprises ( like described above 100 bowmen in building, horde of this or that and so on ). because they would cry themselfs to death not being able to beat it with they one single list. To other players with different lists destroying something like this would be no problem auto win, but to some it would be impossibility, and rules like etc are simply created for cutting such surprises to make game predictable and armies almost the same in terms of strategy, they only look a bit different.

[IcedCrow]

Chipmunking is why I don't agree with player-given scores. It was a big issue many years ago and I'm glad it's mostly gone. Chipmunking, for those not familiar with the term, was when a player would tank another player's soft scores (painting, comp, sportsmanship) to help them get further up in the standings.

IE I'm playing Bob who is one or two places higher than I am. Win or lose, I'm going to give Bob low painting, comp, and sport scores because it will help me catch up to him.

Also the issue where bad losers would auto tank their opponents because their lists were "broken" (IE I lost and I think I'm a great player, therefore you must have cheated or fielded a broken list) was another issue.

[Lord Inquisitor]

@Duke Ramulots; we've used lots of different systems in Ireland, some ranging from army restrictions in general, others with specific army restrictions, and more recently a points based system called SCALE (find it here). We've managed variety with a good balance over the last year, though I admit being a small country we are a tight knit nationwide community.

That looks like a reasonable system, under the category of a "comp score" soft comp system as opposed to the ETC's hard comp. It's similar to the Swedish soft comp here (click on the first Fantasy-Kompmallen link), although theirs is somewhat more convoluted.

Well, for me, the best version of "comp" is the one from the last century, where theme, friendliness and sportmanship of the army were "judged" by the opponent giving a score between 1 and 10 ... alas, that type of "comp" is mostly extinct ...

Unfortunately "player judged" soft scores have proved to be problematic, especially in the area of comp. Particularly if you lost the game or played someone who was a jerk, that would incline you to give a low score for theme and comp as well as sportsmanship, similarly an army you just beat probably wasn't that bad, right? Likewise you had issues with friends giving each other perfect scores or a player being tanked by someone who is in competition with an opponent just to try and push their opponent down so they can win.

A comp score given by an impartial party or by a pre-made system like those above help to mitigate this.

[Lorcryst]

Yeah, I agree that the "old comp" wasn't good either ... but I remember less jerks and more "sporting" players back then ... well, less serious about winning, at any rate.

*waxes nostalgic*
Gone are the days of good old fun at tournaments, alas ... now we are seeing a cutthroat environment where if you're not the best, you're pond scum ... sad, sad days these are ...
*end nostalgia*

I would still prefer an uncomped, no-hold-barred tournament with "army composition" scores given by a panel of impartial judges, tough ... I can dream, right ?

[Jericho]

I don't want to get drawn into a big huge rant like I usually do, but let me say this:

Fantasy is probably better off than 40k in terms of Net List Syndrome right now. Outside a few of the 7th edition books, cookie cutter builds aren't as common as they are in 40k. Fantasy also presents a different problem in that it's extremely difficult to make a succinct scoring system that encompasses most/all of the armies fairly.

The comp council idea has merit, it allows a more balanced view of armies and you don't have to rely on someone with a conflict of interest (the opponent) to fairly score someone's army. They can be tough for large tournaments though, as convincing people to submit lists on time is never easy. They usually have to be backed up by a threat, such as giving a 0 to everybody who doesn't submit on time. Still better than outright banning someone from using their army though, that I don't agree with. You ban ******* and s*** disturbers, not people who happen to play Skaven

[Lord Inquisitor]

I would still prefer an uncomped, no-hold-barred tournament with "army composition" scores given by a panel of impartial judges, tough ... I can dream, right ?

Such things do exist ("comp council") so it's just a matter of trying to persuade your local tournaments to consider this system.

[yabbadabba]

Yeah, I agree that the "old comp" wasn't good either ... but I remember less jerks and more "sporting" players back then ... well, less serious about winning, at any rate.

*waxes nostalgic*
Gone are the days of good old fun at tournaments, alas ... now we are seeing a cutthroat environment where if you're not the best, you're pond scum ... sad, sad days these are ...
*end nostalgia*

Have to agree with you there mate. Those days are long gone and were definitely a time worth remembering.

[IcedCrow]

I was first exposed to WAAC and what it meant in 1998. It was 40k. I learned in 1998 what WAAC was... and what playing vs the meta meant. I was taught by an eldar player that in 40k 9/10 of the armies you fight are going to be marines or something with a 3+ save, so take as many AP3 or AP2 guns as you can. How do you think I won two of my RTT 40k trophies, both a mere year after starting in the hobby? Hint: It wasn't because I was really good at the game.

WAAC gaming has been alive and well since the 90s. I'm not sure of mid to early 90s but I know in the late 90s the same mentality that exists today existed then. The difference is the internet was tiny then so the stories and the mindset was not as public. You still primarily dealt with small cells of players instead of reading about how to groin stomp your opponent on a global scale.

EDIT: I was first explained what "chipmunking" was in 1999. That being tanking the opponent's soft scores to gain an advantage. So again yeah... the golden age of tournaments is being colored by rose tinted glasses. This type of behavior has been around since the advent of the internet.

[yabbadabba]

Don't forget the first 40K tournaments run by Jervis, circa 94/95, were hamperted by an oversight in the VP rules which allowed Eldar players to take an Eldar army worth 0VP. And a few used that loophole shamelessly.