PDA

View Full Version : How does "Comp" work exactly?



Megad00mer
10-03-2010, 17:53
After 12 years of playing 40k I'm finally interested in playing in a local tournie. One aspect of tournament play I never fully understood is Comp. Can anyone explain exactly what it is, how it works and how it can impact your tournament performance positively or negatively?

Thanks :)

wazatdingder
10-03-2010, 18:12
never heard of it, did you get injured or something?

SPYDER68
10-03-2010, 18:26
I guess your talking about army composition ?

To me.. army comp is a terrible idea in 40k.. if they want comp.. they need to make the rules reflect it.. like fantasy is going to be doing.

but i guess if your group uses it.. or tourney.. youll haft to ask them what they go by.

Lyinar
10-03-2010, 18:27
I believe he means Army Composition.

Comp Scores were implemented to discourage the 3rd Edition idea of taking heavily min-maxed lists, such as the infamous "I'm taking two five-man squads of Tactical Marines, each with plasma, lascannon, and a Powerfist in case someone assaults as my Troops choices, and shoving the rest of my points into everything BUT Troops".

The current fact of only Troops-slot Infantry being able to capture objectives has cut down on that a lot.

Sunfang
10-03-2010, 18:37
Yea,

Sadly army comp is important but nilla marines and necrons are kind of hosed. Are they still running army comp as an actuall efective score for tournament totals?

Raxmei
10-03-2010, 18:49
Comp is the tournament's way of attempting to shape the armies that people bring to compete. This is usually done in an attempt to keep out unbalanced army lists. A local tournament here shuts down Land Raider spam by penalizing you for taking too many vehicles. Min-maxing troops is dealt with by penalizing you for not taking full size troops choices. Use of special characters (such as Vulkan) is penalized. There's another rule in there about "power models" that only really affects special characters and Tyranid monstrous creatures, again to take care of special characters and all those cheesy Nid players who bring a Hive Tyrant and a Carnifex below 2000 points. Bringing too many models is also penalized, not because it's a power build but because the tournament intentionally wants to discourage horde armies.

One of the problems with that comp system was that the definition of a balanced army appears to have been built up around Space Marines. A marine player could trivially score perfect comp while most other races would be struggling to lose less than 5 points. That's (hopefully) unintended consequences: The diversity of 40k army composition makes it difficult to make a set of criteria for what a fair and balanced army is that works for all armies.

Dangersaurus
10-03-2010, 18:52
Dogs mark their territory with urine. TOs mark their territory with comp.


Edit to actually have a point: I'm the fluffiest bunny you can find and no mistake about that, but every comp system I've seen relies on false assumptions made by TOs. If imbalances in the game mean certain builds dominate tournaments, so be it. Tournaments are not the be-all end-all of 40k.

Lord Damocles
10-03-2010, 18:58
These might be educational:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247593&highlight=comp
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243688&highlight=comp
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155687&highlight=comp
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=209379&highlight=composition
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102319&highlight=composition

Tomalock
10-03-2010, 19:28
Even fantasy has moved away from comp at some of the big tourneys in recent years. The last GW GT (08 I think?) didnt have comp for either system. It is still used in fantasy RTTs at my LGS but I haven't even heard of a 40k comp system in years at tourneys. Atleast on the west coast, I can't think of any of the Vegas qualifiers that are running it.

EarthAndAllStars
10-03-2010, 20:00
Comp can have its place but was abused in Fantasy for a number of years. During the 6th edition era of Fantasy the local tournament scene players would mark down comp if they thought you had too much magic, too much shooting, and not enough units that would actually engage and fight. Too bad I played High Elves during that time and they are a shooting, and magic heavy army that had very poor infantry. So if I made a comp friendly list I was hosed. As soon as I switched to TK I suddenly got great comp and won "best general" at a small RTT.

The smart players simply picked armies that would be very strong but had good comp as well. The simplest at the time was a Chaos Khorne army as you had no shooting or magic (but great magic defense) and did nothing but fight.

Yeah I'm still a bit bitter about it as I'd typically see this: I'd line up my high elf spearmen against (I'd use them because using the special and rare choices was cheesy. Yes I actually was dinged in comp for taking the 6th edition sword masters because I didn't theme the army with enough wizards since they were from Hoeth. But wait, magic is cheesy so that would ding comp anyway) against 200+ skaven, 200+ goblins, or a tough as nails Khorne army. Then my opponent would see my 12 archers and two RBTs sometimes give me a dirty look, and mark my comp down for having around 10 power dice. :eyebrows:

Thankfully later on they made comp a much smaller portion of the overall scoring system and only people who looked to have deliberately abused the lists were knocked down. I think the SoC lists brought about the demise of "heavy comp" more than anything since one could take a perfect comp list and simply destroy most other armies at the tournaments; Nurgle daemons come to mind as does the Slayer and Sylvania list.

So if the comp rules are light and your grade against your opponent is simply "This list was fun to play against and seemed to be fair, or This list is an abuse of the rules" and it is worth one point per game then over the course of a tournament a truly abusive list will be punished. In this case comp scores can work. If they have it on a scale of 1-10 then it is rife with abuse.

Archangel_Ruined
10-03-2010, 21:25
Comp is a good idea in theory but I've never seen it actually work when it has rules written down. Once a rule is written then there are ways around it, or you can abuse a codex right up to a certain point but no further. It's not a good way to play the game, but then having organisers walking around and arbitrarily marking down power builds isn't objective and reliable enough either. The best you can hope for is no comp whatsoever, then at least you know it's a gloves off affair where anything codex legal goes.

Gray Hunter
11-03-2010, 05:54
I really don't think there's a need for comp in 40k these days. Yes, in 3rd it kind of had a purpose because of all those kids who'd insist on bringing two squads of five Tac Marines and then nothing but Elites and Heavy Support, but nowadays that kind of army is punished by the rules.

Now the only reason to do it would be to give a boost to a weaker army, but then how do you define weak? Usually "weak" armies have at least one or two feasible builds. A good tournament player will spot these builds and use them, plus they will get the bonus for using a "weak" army. It's almost impossible to regulate.

An example would be Dark Eldar. Their Codex is a decade old, only about three units are actually worth taking and some of their wargear simply doesn't work in the current edition of the rules and is literally worthless. All the hallmarks of a weak army that's going to get hosed by the likes of Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Rune Priests and Tyranid Trygons, right? Wrong! A DE player who knows his army and knows the one or two builds that actually work will tear the hearts out of most armies and use them to play bocce ball.

It's better just to let players play by the rules as they are, and if one of them happens to think that a Daemonhunters army centred around Grey Knights is going to be super competitive, then that player probably doesn't deserve to win Best General anyway.

Chrysis
11-03-2010, 07:26
Comp is a good concept, but the problem that crops up is that it is entirely subjective. If I take an army consisting almost entirely of Thousand Sons my army then I get a different comp score based on whether my opponent was fielding power armour or not.

The only way to attempt to avoid that when you can't guarantee that every player is going to look solely at composition and not how badly they got thrashed is to have composition marked by a panel of people not playing in the tournament. Even then those people will almost certainly have their biases, and so you have to try and make sure that the panel as a whole doesn't end up biased because a number of the panellists share the same point of view.

As a whole at tournaments I go to it works fairly well, but I've certainly seen my army get dinged a number of times because of too much AP3 or too many vehicles in a Thousand Sons army. Never mind that a Thousand Sons army relies on Thousand Sons for troops, and that vehicles are the only way to get them moving or provide anti-horde or semi-reliable anti-heavy armour assets within theme.

Deetwo
11-03-2010, 07:37
Playergiven composition points are an aboslutely horrible idea... As are some very arbitrary "too much of this specific type of weapon/vehicle/whatever", trying to force people to a subjective and highly biased standard of a "fluffy" army.

The only working comp ruleset is when it simply limits spamming of units.

40k doesn't really need any comp though.

3 0f 6
11-03-2010, 08:10
Comp can be fairly stupid when it comes to player given comp, as a sore loser is bound to mark you down (and at the GT tick the bad opponent box..)

Satan
11-03-2010, 08:16
Yeah, well he asked what Comp is and how it works, so that's what I'm gonna go with here:

Comp means alot of different things in different tournaments and countries. The Anglosaxian part of our community clearly has an overall negative view of comp, so they assume that it works roughly the same way everywhere, which it doesn't.

The idea of comp is to balance out tournaments in some way, allowing what could be desrcibed as "lower-tier" armies a shot at getting a decent tournament score or placement.

How a comp system goes about this differs to the extreme. In some version, you get a list for each and every army from which you calculate a "comp score" based on what you intend to include in the army. This "comp score" can then be used in order to pair off players with similiar scoring levels or maybe affect the overall tournaments points allocation in some way. As I said, it differs wildly.

Then there's "subjective comp" which is more or less a TO or local player's society receiving a list and assigning it a "comp score" based on their perception. Not necessarily a bad thing, as it makes sure that lists in a smaller tournament get to face off against equals for example, but possibly bad as it allows for abuse. Then again so does playing a game.

In Sweden, for example, we've got more or less certified national comp lists for WHFB and 40k, but there are still tournaments using "subjective comp" and indeed, without any comp scoring at all. We like a bit of variety I guess, but with every tournament my different gaming groups organize we always have one comp scoring system or the other. Nowadays I wouldn't dream of playing without it!

To what end you use the comp score however is different from each tournament, as stated above.

God, people like to Whine about comp on this forum.

Dangersaurus
11-03-2010, 09:11
I think Satan puts it best: In addition to putting a TOs unique "mark" on a game, comp can be used to give players that shouldn't be able to win a chance to win.

Deetwo
11-03-2010, 09:23
give players that shouldn't be able to win a chance to win

Surely you mean "armies" and not players?
A bad player is a bad player and they will loose against competent players even if they used a powerful list, there's no comp system that can change that.

Zurken
11-03-2010, 09:59
Thumbs up for Satan (lol).

Norsehawk
11-03-2010, 11:30
Question then, I have yet to actually play in any tournaments, but a friend is pushing me to try it out and I am getting close to actually doing so.

If I did go the tournament scene, I would probably be playing a small tight list, Deathwing. For the speed of the list for play, general toughness, and the (somewhat) underdog nature of playing the Dark Angels list. Would a Deathwing army (with a few dreds) be a good comp score or a bad one?

marv335
11-03-2010, 11:44
Comp is something that doesn't work.
For example, and Ork Green Tide (6 maxed troop choices) would be fine under most comp systems, but it is one of the overpowered Ork builds that people don't generally like to face in battle.
Nob Bikers, again, in their most powerful form, are maxed out troop choices.

Fortunately, UK tournaments tend not to use comp scores.

Satan
11-03-2010, 11:59
Question then, I have yet to actually play in any tournaments, but a friend is pushing me to try it out and I am getting close to actually doing so.

If I did go the tournament scene, I would probably be playing a small tight list, Deathwing. For the speed of the list for play, general toughness, and the (somewhat) underdog nature of playing the Dark Angels list. Would a Deathwing army (with a few dreds) be a good comp score or a bad one?

I'd say I simply don't know. Here's the link to the swedish 40k-comp (http://svenska40k.se/forum/download/file.php?id=154)(updated about every month or so, as the metagame progresses). But that's not by any means a sure thing!

For example, a Dark Angels army starts at 108 KP (108 Comp points) and gets -5 for each unit of terminators (-3 for each after the third, just -2 for first unit taken as troops), etc. Check out the file above.

The type of army you're trying to build should be adapted to what you expect the level would be in your local tournament. There's nothing universal about the system featured above, though I try to land my forces at about 50 KP.

So, for example, when trying to build a Deathwing list, consider the following:

- What type of comp score will be used? "Subjective" or "Objective"?

- How many unit of Terminators/Dreadnoughts will you field? A lower number of units won't give you as much of a negative penalty if using an "objective" system, but depending on your TO might be subject to further penalties. All depending on your local metagame/the "level" of the local tournament, etc.

- What's your local metagame/what type of metagame do you expect to face at the tourney? This, alongside the type of comp score being used may have an impact on your choice of troops.

That said, I think you could probably do a Deathwing army with a decent comp and expect to face fun/fair opposition, depeinding on how the tournament is organized.

Satan
11-03-2010, 12:00
Comp is something that doesn't work.
For example, and Ork Green Tide (6 maxed troop choices) would be fine under most comp systems, but it is one of the overpowered Ork builds that people don't generally like to face in battle.
Nob Bikers, again, in their most powerful form, are maxed out troop choices.

Fortunately, UK tournaments tend not to use comp scores.

Again, the anglosaxian community assumes that comp works the same way everywhere. None of the above would be true under swedish comp rules for example.