Why do TOs apply Comp penalties to old codices?

[Lerra]

The purpose of Comp is typically to force players to run something outside of the overplayed flavor-of-the-month armylists. No one wants to play at a tournament where half of the players are running the same list. But if you want variety, why include Comp penalties for old, underplayed armies?

Da Boyz comp, for example, is great for stirring the pot among top-tier 5th edition codices, but it completely screws certain armies that were already going to be underplayed at a big competitive event (Chaos Daemons, Sisters, Necrons, Eldar, etc). Sure, some of the penalties are halved for certain codices (Necrons, Sisters, Dark Angels, and Black Templar for da Boyz), but why even have these penalties at all?

Frankly, there is no reason to penalize someone who shows up with Necrons. I doubt you'll have problems with a surplus of Necron players. If the point of comp is to encourage variety, it just seems counter-productive.

[DarkLink]

Because they think 'oh, we can stop spam because it's ruining the game and all those dirty WAAC players are horrible so lets change the core rules of the game because we're so much better at balancing things out than GW is'.

Yeah. Comp is stupid.

[gcsmith]

If someone thinks that the rules isnt good enough why do they run tournaments for the game

[Lockark]

A local TO tried this once. The players who did have good armies prety well wanted to lynch him and whine about how unfair it is.

=/

Was hated almost as much as the idea of a comp score in the 1st place.

After trying alot of different forms of it, we dropped it. It was a bunch of extra work for the TO, and found more times then not it hurt the "lower tire" armies more anyway.

[FTE-Charge!!!]

Im not much of a tournament player; could someone describe what you mean by these Comps? Its sounds very counter-intuitive that they would penalize the older books which already have an uphill battle from the start.

[Lockark]

Im not much of a tournament player; could someone describe what you mean by these Comps? Its sounds very counter-intuitive that they would penalize the older books which already have an uphill battle from the start.

On Paper a "comp score" is a system used to judge and punish armies based on the comp of thier army. You basically lose/gain points in the ranking based on how well your comp scores.

What a comp punishes or Rewards can very wildly. It basically comes down to what the creator is trying to curb. (In 5th they mostly try to stop unit spamming and/or Transport spamming.) They can range from being realy simple to realy complex. (Punishing spending most of your points in things such as heavy support, elites, ect. But reward you for spending more in your troops.)

On paper is sounds like a sound and logical idea.

But if you've played alot of tournies you quickly realize that is not the truth. Many times newer armies have much more "viable" units and a generally higher power level. Alot of times newer armies can work around comp allot easier then older armies.

In a competitive/tournament environment alot of older armies have to rely on a handful of their best units. Any sort of comp that punishes unit spamming will always hurt older armies more then newer ones.

[AbusePuppy]

To use a less circular definition:

"Comp" is short for "composition," meaning the various units that make up an army; it is, in theory, supposed to represent a score of either A, how "realistic" and "fluffy" an army is or B, how powerful an army is. (Opinions on the subject vary.)

In tournaments, a comp score is commonly used as a way to try and even the field and keep armies which are perceived to be overly-strong or -popular in check. In reality, it more often is a way for the tournament organizer to punish armies that he dislikes and reward his pet army.

[Dalleron]

To the Original question? If you are going to have a comp system of any sort, it should apply to any army. It is only fair that way. Yes, it is harsh when it applies to the older codex's, but why should they have special attention.

The best possible solution I can think of is to comp every army book seperately. But what TO is going to want to do that.

[AbusePuppy]

To the Original question? If you are going to have a comp system of any sort, it should apply to any army. It is only fair that way. Yes, it is harsh when it applies to the older codex's, but why should they have special attention.

The nominal purpose of comp is to even the playing field of supposedly "overpowered" codices and units, so punishing weaker books would seem to be at odds with its stated goal.


The best possible solution I can think of is to comp every army book seperately. But what TO is going to want to do that.

You would be surprised the lengths some people go to. I've reviewed a couple different comp systems over at 3++ (http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/), mainly the bizarrely complex ones. Take a look if you're interested in seeing some brain-melting nonsense.

[eldargal]

I can't stand the tournament scene and I still think composition scores are stupid. If you are going to twist a ruleset intended for friendly games into a competitive setting you can't turn around and whinge about the background of the armies being ignored and things like spamming units.

[Xas]

If you are going to twist a ruleset intended for friendly games into a competitive setting you can't turn around and whinge about the background of the armies being ignored and things like spamming units.

THIS!

I fully agree and have nothing to add other than: I wish TOs would be more true to what they are doing...

[Mr.Pickelz]

I'm with Xas and Eldargal on this one. My green tide shouldn't be punished, when just by looking at the tables anyone(with knowledge of the game) can see I'm goin to end up towards the back end of the rankings without comp scores.:(

[FTE-Charge!!!]

Thanks for the explanation!

From an outsider (non tourny player) this does seem a bit counter intuitive.... and then again a wee bit useful. I could see how preventing some of the popular internet lists would be a boon to diversity, but then again there are several wonderful and fluffy builds that require spamming (like a green tide)

All in all I would say do away with it. It breaths live back into older codices by letting them take what works and might even give a bit of predictability towards opponents if everybody starts taking internet spam lists.

[Dalleron]

I was not defending comp, as I have seen how it can be abused. To me, if someone is going to run a comp system of any sort, it is only fair that it goes for every army.

And due to how GW decides to release their stuff, it does hit certain armies harder than others.

@ AbusePuppy. Shoot me a more specific page link over there and I'll check out the craziness.

[DarkLink]

Here's a couple:
http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2010/09/swedish-comp-third-times-charm.html
http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2011/02/email-in-comp-score-ruins-tournaments.html



One comp rule I've seen that actually kinda makes sense is a model cap based on points. At tournaments time can be a big issue, and it's no fun for anyone if you only ever get to turn 2. The big offender for this is horde armies, where even a dedicated player trying to play as fast as they can might run out of time before getting to the end of a game. The particular tournament this was in had a simple math system that worked out to 150 models at 2000pts I believe, so you could still do sizeable horde orks or 'nidz, you just couldn't go overboard and bog down the playtime.

That's just a thing that deals with the practical issue of fitting games into a limited time frame, as opposed to trying to nerf some army, so it's not precisely a traditional comp score per se.

[L192837465]

Companies are figuring out the way to get people to behave a certain way is not to punish the norm, but reward the way they want. If you punish spam, people will just figure out how to break that. If you reward something, people will be far more inclined to do it.

[the jeske]

Companies are figuring out the way to get people to behave a certain way is not to punish the norm, but reward the way they want. If you punish spam, people will just figure out how to break that. If you reward something, people will be far more inclined to do it.

cool for the new dex . A BA doesnt have to go DoA or Razor spam he can run a single RAS in rhino one with jumpacks a tac[gasp]. instead of runing 2 apothecaries he will run one and corbulo . SW will replace a LF unit with some land speeders .

And at the same time an EC player is looking at his single choice in a codex other then a Demon prince and thinks how am I suppose to not spam and/or not play black legion ....

top tier list dexs stay top tier , weaker dex[because of fewer viable options] get weaker . comp is stupid it does not balance the game , other then making space marines more viable then variant lists [or if the Orgz miss something some other list].