Let's Talk About Comp as a Community

[Vycem]

Hey everyone,

I've been itching to have a frank and open discussion on comp scoring disassociated from any one particular event, but rather to see how we old feel about it as a community. This is something that is unique to WFB and 40k, since I never hear about FoW, WM/Hordes, or any other game system having this prop up.

Now, my understanding of comp is that it's a set of bonuses and penalties in tournament scoring to discourage players from playing certain army builds and encourage others, with the premise that the game design is broken and this acts as a form of balance to put everyone on an even footing.

My problem with comp is that I think is an outdated concept. 5th edition is pretty solid, with only outdated army books struggling - at no fault of the game or even their design, but just because they are outdated. Then we have WFB 8th edition, which completely redesigned the game - that's one of the major complaints, after all. So the game is different, and every new army book is being designed to capitalize on this, with magic, monsters, war machines, and power levels that would be unheard of in prior editions. The game design has shifted, and we are all learning and adapting.

I don't believe we should do something "because that is what has always been done." Yeah, I get it, lots of tournaments have implemented comp scoring for years, it was all the rage in the 90s and early 2000s, etc. But just because something "has always been done this way" it doesn't mean that we need to blindly follow tradition. I think it's good for us to stop and ask what exactly we are doing, and why. Do we want comp? I know that I'm not alone in the crop of new players who feels it's an unnecessary crutch, we would rather not have the extra layer of rules on top of the already hefty rules, and lots of the newer tournaments (see last year's NOVA tournament and some of the newer ones out there) have done away with it completely.

Hell, GW stopped running officially GTs for while, so we can't say they were running comp recently.

So the premise of comp is that the game is broken and that without it, someone would make an Unstoppable List and win every tournament, non-stop.

To be honest, I don't believe it, and I asked Dice_Runt about it, because I do want to understand. Is the game really broken and someone can make an unstoppable list, or is comp, no offense, whining?

I remember a couple of years ago EldarGuy was dominating the local tournaments with his Seer Council Eldar, but eventually the local community adapted and brought it down. He's still a very tough opponent, but that's because he has clocked in more hours playing the game than most of us - hell even more than some of us COMBINED. He has a LOT of experience and knows the rules and his army inside and out.

Dice_Runt says that in Fantasy the following armies cannot be stopped:
Khorne Demons...except by:
Teclis - he says this army cannot be stop worldwide and every army that faces the Net Teclis Army fails
he also cites a 100 Chaos Warrior army as unstoppable (have they faced each other yet?), which amusingly, would do very well in our proposed local comp.

He also told me that in all events he ran, the same guy with Ultimate Teclis has swept the tournament, prompting over 6 players to quit.

I want to hear from everyone. What do you think of comp? Do we need it here locally? WFB and 40k, what are we trying to balance, do we need it in each, both, neither? WFB is suffering, will comp help? Hurt?

I want us to make an informed decision and not just do things "Because a lot of other people have done it." I want to hear from the veterans and the noobs. I'm tired of being told "I'm a veteran and I know better so do what I say", I want to know WHY we need to be protected and what it is that we're being protected from.

I've been accused of "whining" because I question all these comp policies, but conversely, I think comp IS whining, a legalized list of punishments for playing something that the comp designers are scared of. If you support comp, let me understand.

And if we need comp, lets all agree on it and why we are doing it.

[Kyle]

Even with comp scores, the same uber leet meta gaming lists would always still win back in the day, never saw the point, just let the games played determine who wins.

Especially in stores and communities of players who often play amongst themselves the comp scores becoming meaningless usually as players know who played who and most are afraid to dock points, in many cases I would see players simple grade others with all high marks no matter what. Also the system is not even fair since a person can be a total douche for no reason when it's a complete stranger at some large venue.

[Dice_Runt]

wow you really missed everything i was say. why i am i not surpsided

[Vycem]

wow you really missed everything i was say. why i am i not surpsided

Dude, this isn't personal, why do you keep reacting like it is? I'm not even hostile. I took the conversation away from the game forums so we can all talk about it. And if I misunderstood, then fine, explain it, because what you said to me was:

First PM
1. You accused me of being negative and a whiner. Don't care, and I apologized for making you feel attacked. Again, I respect that you run events, it's a thankless job.

2. You compared WFB to magic, telling me a story about your buddy with his unstoppable deck that he doesn't play with in tournaments because it's too easy of an autowin and he likes to win with skill, and how you have taken that idea to heart and forms the core of how you run tournaments. Fine, but I don't believe Magic and WFB can be compared like that, so I asked you to please explain to me how a list in WFB can be autowin.

You said to me, and I quote: "Tournaments are that 'tournaments' not who has the best list but who has the most skill with all of it. I am sorry if that is something you can not get into, i really am. "

And I told you, I agree 100%. I just don't agree with the premise that there are lists that automatically win against all opponents because the game is that broken, I asked you to tell me.

So second PM is when you tell me the lists that are autowin, and you did one better by telling me how a local player has such an unstoppable list that over 6 people stopped playing WFB.

Well, shit, I completely agree that if the game is that broken or we just can't face up to that list as a community, then maybe we should find a way to retain players and look at this comp thing in depth.

So I brought it up to discussion so we can all think about it and if it has merit, see how to best make it happen so we don't lose players, if that's the case. But we can't just say "lets use this comp because Tournament X used it, so it HAS to be good!"

If I'm wrong in my understanding of our PMs, clarify! I want to believe, can't you see that? I want to believe that we need these house rules in our tournaments, or at the very least I want to understand why they are that specific way.

Why is that such a problem, why can't we all debate it?

It's our gaming community. For a tournament not only do we spend the time preparing our armies and learning the game, we set aside a huge chunk of hour and pay extra money. What's the problem with discussing the rules we make?

It's not a criticism on you, I believe you when you tell me you're a very good and experienced player, I really do. But man, you have to give me more than a smartass "why am I not surprised" comment that I somehow didn't understand your wisdom. Because that's pretty douchy to a noob. I'm listening to you and I want to learn from you and from all the vets.

[Dice_Runt]

( my spelling sucks when i type fast)

Army Comp is not away of punishing folks, nor is it designed to give people whom build weak lists an upper hand. Army comp is there to add something different and new to events.

It also gives the players the options to try out a different list then the same as there day to day list.

[ShadowMaster]

@Kyle - Rating your opponent is Sportmanship not Composition score. Your correct though, it doesn't work in small local groups that all know each other.

@Endre -
I did feel you cryed a bit in the tourney thread. With our dormant community, you should just be happy to get a chance to play. Who cares if Nate wants to use comp? As you said - it's a thankless job and it's Nate right to run it how he likes.

With that said... we can move on to your questions on COMP.

Why does comp exist? Basicly the GW is run first like a hobby business and a competitive game second. The core rulebook is fine. The game design concept is flawed at the early levels with the Army Books release cycle and it's secondary use as a medium to generate both revenue and marketing buzz about the game. GREAT for business, bad for gamers.

As time passes, Army Books become outdated and they simply can not compete with the newer releases. Comp is a way of creating a (more perceived) balance between these gaps. How people achieve comp and what is ultimately fair or not is debated far and wide.

In the end, playing with zero changes is the most popular option (play as written) with the ETC rules as the most widely accepted balancing system. Again, eveyone will never agree on which works best. With som much ambiguity, it's best to just let Nate or whoever do his thing.

Re: WM/H
WM/H doesn't need comp. PP performs extensive, PUBLIC testing of their rules prior to release. They release the whole new ruleset and all army books all in one pass to maintain balance. Was it always so? No, but they learned and EVOLVED into a great balanced game. They will continue to steal GW players because of this IMO.

Can't speak for the other games you listed yet, but I will point out GW has a much bigger player base to rate the need on.

Does Comp Work?
IMO no. Comp does not create balance, it simply shifts the power to differnet builds. A good list designer will always be able to compete. Because of this, I'd rather not restrict people (more than the basic rules require) on what they can bring and play.

For the record.....
I've beat Rob's Teclis list. It wasn't easy and he trashed me in the 2nd game that night. I beat another Teclis list in round 2. Gun lines > Elves.

Luis's Skaven tore my Chaos Warrior horde a new one, so that uber list can be beat as well.

My DoC do well, but they are far from unbeatable. I could run all Khorne, but it's not the best option IMO. (No masque, mages, flamers, or banner of despair). You'll loose big time to another DoC player that brings them.

[Kyle]

@Kyle - Rating your opponent is Sportmanship not Composition score. Your correct though, it doesn't work in small local groups that all know each other.

Well have played events in the past that used both Sportsmanship and comp scoring rules.

GW games just are too simple and inflexible to have any real tactical flexibility. Many games including WH/Hordes have lot of balance issues, but it generally can be ignored thanks to smart gameplay and general flexibility of game systems. One can have lots of different army builds in WH/Hordes due to simply changing a single figure in your army, the whole dynamic of the force changes with tons of new rules and unique abilities to contend with, and each army having many combinations to toy with.

GW games are just very ridged , you see little army flexibility, army compositions are very narrow as army books just repeat themselves over and over again. GW games can't grow since each army has to attempt to stay about same as other armies in the game, so you get very little new material in books, just changes. While other games like WH/Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, etc, you usually get new stuff for everyone so armies all gain tons of new options and builds to toy with. With a GW game you get an army book which is not going to change much from previous in unit options due to them not being able to really expand the line as they got to expand a ton of other armies as well with their own books, so adding a bunch of new units and rules to a single army is going to skew balance big time.

Getting rid of the stupid army book mentality would greatly improve GW games, they need to adopt a system like every other game does where you have an expansion and all armies get some new things.

When PP said they were doing army books, I figured they were going to fuck up bad, but at least they are going to continue like in the past and continue to put out expansions that add to all armies.

[ShadowMaster]

With WM/H the book is a completely optional fluff piece. All the rules are on your cards.

[Kyle]

Yea but was more concerned at the time that they were going to be doing just army books like GW which was going to hurt the game. It's such a crutch to 40k and Fantasy.

[ShadowMaster]

Agreed - to copy that model would be a mistake.

[KingdomCome]

The make money at all costs model? Yeah it's terribad.

[Kyle]

Money could be made either way, the army book style makes little sense. It would seem more beneficial to put out regualar game expansions and offer new stuff to all players armies. Right now it seems counter productive to target only select players with a new army release, but I suppose the community is dumb enough that it jumps on whatever new army gets released as the flavor of the month. "oh shit, I'm making a new army!.... again"

Having to revamp a complete army takes a long time and they can never get all armies done and updated to current edition standards before they get the urge to relaunch with a new edition. System is broken.

[ShadowMaster]

What the fools don't realize is thet would make more money with a more balanced game.

[Kyle]

The game system is fine, it's their business model that stops the game from being balanced. Instead of getting all armies up to date and everyone on a level playing field, all armies are in constant flux, and sadly this model is likely to never change especially with the way they usually have stuff in the works and planned out for years ahead at a time.

They would need to do like WH/Hordes did with a complete relaunch with all lists brought up to date, and from then on use expansions to further change, balance, and expand on the product. Tons of games have balance issues, but their business model usually allows for a constantly changing game environment that will always alter any meta, balance swings around, shitty armies suddenly don't suck, etc.

Broken business model is just never going to allow for a balanced game. And GW really is not going to take notice, as it still makes tons of money and more than pretty much all the competition. GW needs to fail badly to basically get a clue.

[Dice_Runt]

it would also seem that army comp is big the Bay Area (California)

[NurgleNick]

Who cares what happens in California?

Comp. is idiotic. I'll rape 95% of the WH40K playerbase, whether or not there is comp., because my army is designed with efficiency and optimal utilization of the FOC, and because I know almost every Codex, as well as the BRB, by heart. I don't play to win -- I play to table people until there's nothing left of their army except the paper they wrote their list on. If you introduce comp., the only way you're going to do something to me besides make me write an equally abusive and devastating list within the new parameters you've established, is if you make ONLY ME play by those rules, and allow everyone else to play without comp.

And I'd wager money that I'd still take 1st.

My point is this: No matter how you disguise it, talk it up, or discuss it, comp. is nothing more than a system designed by weaker players who'd rather blame their losses on their opponent's list, instead of their own poor list design and tactics.

I welcome comp. Please, give me a comp. system, so I can abuse it with glee, like with the 6-Troop, 0 Heavy Support Tyranid army I created, which earned me as many bonus points as a whole 'nother round by myself, in the last comp'd 40k tournament we had. Boy, that was fun!

The newbies who show up to tournaments need their lists to get demolished, because they are baby seals. Baby seals need to be clubbed. That's how they learn. I was a baby seal, once -- I endured my share of being demolished by plenty of folks. That's how you figure out what works, what doesn't work, and why. You play with experienced players, and you lose until you learn how to win.

If you tie an experienced player's hands, I'm still going to kick you to death without breaking a sweat. If anything, comp. scores hurt the newbies who don't know how to build a list that works without resorting to stuff they've seen on the internet. Me? I'll be just fine. I'll make a list that's just as good, adheres to the new restrictions, abuses them as much as possible, and then I'll take that list and crush everyone else who isn't used to working under those restrictions.

Finally, comparing Warhammer armies to Magic decks? That's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Autowin? Hahahahaha.

Seriously, when you find the autowin 40k army which trounces absolutely everything on autopilot, let me know. I hear Bigfoot's been working on it for years.

[ShadowMaster]

I'll second what Nick said that I can have no problems building a good list using whatever parameters are defined.

[Ovich]

I think the concept of Army Composition Restrictions has it's roots in what people have spoken about so far : addressing the inherent inequalities in a game system so that players who play with so called "out dated" or "weaker" lists have a chance to compete with "stronger" or "broken" lists. I don't think it's meant to create equality between less experienced or weaker players and veteran or more talented players. A significantly more talented or experience player is more times than not, going to beat a less experienced or less talented player, no matter what the Comp Rules are, as Nurgle Nick has so humbly pointed out.

The concept of Army Comp, IMO, makes some sense if you have an inherently unbalanced gaming system like GW's games. Making it work in creating that balance is a whole different story.

Kyle I've heard that Comp can be scored by opponents. If you listen to PodHammer, in Australia, it seems like most of their large, popular tournaments have Comp scored by the opponent. The big problem I see with this, is the apparent difficulties in stopping some douchebag giving someone a bad comp score in order to increase their chances of winning the tournament, or in retaliation after getting trounced. Now I don't know specifically how they score it, when the score it, or what kind of role the judges have in it, but it just seems like allowing players to score each other on comp is not a good system. But I'd have to see it close up to really judge it.

From what I've seen at tournaments that have had COMP or from tournaments that I've run that have included set COMP rules :

I honestly saw lists that were generally more tame. You will have players that create very good lists, but just not as nasty as they could normally produce. Maybe this was because they didn't want to lose that competitive edge against that second place guy buy ignoring comp rules and ending up with a Negative to their score.

Now, do tame lists mean more balance in the end ? I don't know.

I think ultimately Comp is more about what Nate said above. It's not so much about balancing as it is about changing things up. When you have a comp list, you have to be a little more creative, think about your army in different ways, and perhaps be challenged tactically in ways you haven't seen in a while. I think it adds variety to the tournament scene.

To do it all the time would be a mistake though as the freshness of it will where out.

For the record, I don't think COMP has anything to do with the current funk that Fantasy is in. It's got alot more to do with lost personnel. In the span of a year the local community has lost players who were key to the continuing development of the game in south Miami. Chris, Matt, Dale, Neil, Dan to some extent, and Myself.

Fantasy just needs a nice kick in the pants.. some new blood and some healthy casual gaming.

[NurgleNick]

But does it really change things up?

For example, just because I netted 15 bonus points for comp., doesn't mean I needed those 15 to win. I could have been penalized 40, and still scraped by.

You know what needs to be done to change things up? Different missions, besides the Standard 3. And that's what we've been doing lately, and it pays dividends in the long run, once people realize the Standard 3 isn't in place. When you can no longer bank on your army being good if it can handle the Standard 3 from the BRB, you naturally have to build with flexibility in mind. Of course, there'll always be an army that tables you, because everyone has bad matchups, but the real balancing comes from the missions, and not from penalizing the guy who's smart enough to know that 3 squads of 15 Lootas is a better purchase than FlashGitz and Elite-Choice Nobz.

That's penalizing someone for knowing the difference between a Guinness, and a Natural Ice. That makes no one a better player, and that makes the better player have an easier time winning.

I repeat: If you want to make people change their lists, try using unusual missions, with victory scenarios that require more than brute force to win.

[Kyle]

I think using unique scenarios and missions to mix it up make for better faction balancing. Too many times events would just keep using the same missions and people know to build armies to optimize for such missions/scenarios. Also a good variety of terrain elements to mix it up, unlike many of the big events that use tons of small generic terrain and sparse tables.

[Ovich]

Different uses of scenarios and terrain work well too, but COMP has the effect of encouraging the player to stay away from the lists that they feel the most comfortable with and trying combinations that they may not have considered before. And they can feel safer doing this because they know that other people are probably doing the same thing with their lists.

[Abaddon]

I have been playing this game for a while and in my opinion the problem has been the increase in points for tournaments. It made people really think hard about what they wanted to field and it limited the amount of high point models.

Its a given that there is power creep in all GW games. That is how they make their money. That will never change. The army comp is a fun thing to use but not a fix. If people just want to win and dont care about having fun then they will bring the so called "unbeatable" armies no matter what.

As for the sportsmanship score. I think its a good thing. People just need to be honest about the scores and if someone gets a low score the person running the tournament should ask the 2 parties involved what happened. Eric and I were at a tournament a few years ago and when a player was given a 0 out of 5 for sportmanship he was pulled to the side and asked why he was given that score then the 2 opponents were also asked why they gave that player the score and in the end the dickhead was stripped of his wins. Harsh? Yes but remember there are other people playing and if one person is making the experience bad for everyone else then he has no business being there.

At another tournament there was a guy with an Ork army with bikes with large plates to block LOS to the rest of his army. Clearly he was being as cheezy as it gets. I asked why he did that and his response was "because the rule allow it and helps me win". I did not end playing against that guy but if I would have, I am sure I would have given him a 0 for sportsmanship. And yes Bill I would have also grabbed him by his head and slammed it on the table a few times.

I remember my most epic games being played with 1000-1250 points. I remember fondly going up against some douche Iron Warriors player or some sweaty cop and his poorly painted Nurgle army. And let me tell you, those games were more fun then 1850 point games.

Just my 2 cents.

[NurgleNick]

I remember that sweaty cop's Nurgle army looking pretty baller (how can you make a Nurgle army look bad? Christ, sneeze on 'em and they look pro), and Iron Warriors were one of the most broken 3.5 Chaos armies in the game. 4 Heavy Support choices? Basilisks? Barrage Battle Cannons? Siege Specialists?

Christ, man.

I don't really believe in power-creep, either. People think 'Nids are bad all over the world, but 'Nids stomp the much-lauded Leafblower IG into dust. Certain builds are a Rock to another army's Scissors, but even when you run into a supposed "Hard Counter", you can still outplay the other guy, and win the mission, even with grievous losses.

I agree that Comp. can force people to play lists that'd be unorthodox for them, but I just disagree with forcing artificial restrictions on people in order to cattle-prod them into playing something they may or may not really want to try, to begin with. It's much more pleasant when new and unusual scenarios force you to add some planning for the unexpected into your army -- you at least get to choose whether or not your current army is flexible enough to handle those unknowns. When someone penalizes you if you don't change your army, beyond whether or not your army could still handle the missions, I call bullshit.

I think comp. is a terrible idea, with noble aims. I just think those noble aims could be achieved with a much less bitter pill: imaginative scenarios that make you think your way to victory.

[Abaddon]

Yea. Stephen's Iron Warriors were pretty sick. Had to use every shrub and pebble on the table for my World Eaters to make it to hth.

I think that the power creep manifests itself because the army books are so spread apart in release time. So when a new edition comes out it is years before a new army book is released for your army. Also, there have been times when some army books have sucked big time and you are stuck with it for a long time. Some books have indeed taken become more tame. Case in point the Chaos Marines.

I think you may be right about the scenarios. For example making it so you have to achieve the objective to win and casualties offer no points. And if you opponent is wiped out then the game ends in a draw. That would put more of an emphasis on the objective and less on just sitting back and wiping out you opponent winning by default.

[Kyle]

Power creep is a myth because its so random. Sometimes of course an army gets better with a new dex, but this is not always true, and each codex release is not better than the previous. Each new dex does not create the new Meta top dog. And then a new game edition comes out and screws everything up Meta wise.

[Sponsored content]