Swedish Komp System

[PhoenixFire]

I wonder what screamer star and jet council end up scoring on this. Like Chase said it's easier to score high for some codex vs others and granted some codexs are worse than others.

I'd do a tournament at BG with these restrictions but ya the only way to see some out of the box stuff is too impose a limit of around 3.

Good players will still come up with mean lists although it'll likely hurt attendance as say someone who only has a bike army couldn't go or wouldn't want to go.

The doubles at abington with only 6 teams (or 12 guys) is a CRAZY low. BG is after all a business and as such I suspect wants to do tournaments that appeal to the largest number of people to up the revenues and cover costs.

[AstartesXXVI]

I like that it is essentially a bonus and not a negative. Additive is the way to go.

Internet hyperbole is a tough nut to crack when it comes to comp. You're definitely right that this much more lenient than most, though. I've had a couple of occasions where my default all comers list with no Thunderwolves and no Rune Priests had more than half its comp points deducted for having more than one (asynchronous) Grey Hunter squad.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I wonder what screamer star and jet council end up scoring on this. Like Chase said it's easier to score high for some codex vs others and granted some codexs are worse than others.

I'd do a tournament at BG with these restrictions but ya the only way to see some out of the box stuff is too impose a limit of around 3.

Good players will still come up with mean lists although it'll likely hurt attendance as say someone who only has a bike army couldn't go or wouldn't want to go.

The doubles at abington with only teams is a CRAZY low. BG is after all a business and as such I suspect wants to do tournaments that appeal to the largest number of people to up the revenues and cover costs.

CHAOS DAEMONS
1 Be´lakor, if no other FMC in the list.
1 Every 4th mastery level on Flying Monstrous Creature
1 Each Flying Monstrous Creature after the 1st
 1 Each unit of Screamers after the first
1 2nd Exalted Reward (First if army includes a Flying Monstrous Creature)
1 Each Herald of Tzeentch/Lord of Change if army includes Screamers & Exalted Reward
1 Each unit of Flesh Hounds after the first
1 Each Soul Grinder after the second
1 Each unit of Seekers after the first.
1 Each Herald of Tzeentch with exalted locus after the 2nd

So, most lists have 4 heralds, and fateweaver, right?  So that's 4 for the heralds, cuz you have screamers, 2 for fateweaver, because he is both a lord of change (he counts, right?) and mastery level 4. 

So that's 6, and I assume you must have more FMCs, so it's probably more like 7-9.  Probably some Loci and Exalted rewrds in there too. 

[andalucien]

I was listening to a podcast where they said,
Most tourneys in Sweden use this comp system, but there are still greater and lesser comped events, because different events will put the cap at a different number.

Like there are "5 point tournaments" (middle o the road), "8 point tournaments" (expect some more nastiness), "3 point tournaments" (a little more fluffy friendly).

[AstartesXXVI]

Well, I'm not a fan of comp, but if there is something like this on the US side, it wouldn't be hard to adjust it to include the new material regularly.

To me the biggest fault with comp is it's subjectivity but if a consensus is reached it can become a standard and people can get acclimated to it, and it being convenient to change from place to place it'd be an idea candidate for a standard across the board.

I would never use it in my events but a standard existing is a good idea for all the places that do.

[Cryptognomicon]

I have mixed feelings about comp of any kind. But that's just my initial feelings before trying it.  That said, I think this would be fun either way to try out sometime.

[Benjamin]

Give the gamers a system, any system, and they will game it.

[Sir_Prometheus]

That's true.  But that rings similar to the argument made that "banning things or changing rules is useless, because some other thing will be the most powerful thing".

That's also true, yet it's also misleading, because while there will always be some "most powerful thing", it is totally possible reduce the delta.....the peaks and valley's CAN be smoothed out.  Warmachine is pretty balanced, but still some things are more powerful than others, does that mean all the work (and play-testing, and errata's) that PP puts into balancing it was worthless?  Of course not.  Because whatever is "broken" in Warmachine is much less powerful in comparison to the "sucky" than it is in 40k, and this comparatively means that player choices (skill) have much more to do with the outcome of the game. 

[shwnlyns]

This is interesting, I like the victory points adjustment based on the komp difference idea. Maybe it's because my list sucks but it currently only scores a 1 and will be a 0 after I replace the stormraven with a land raider. Ive had some success with the list but most of my stuff is not komped, ie vindicators, dreadnoughts and razorbacks.

[BrianP]

The Sisters w/IG allies and an Inquisitor list I last played gets a freakin' 7 using this comp. That is just hilarious.

It is headed along the right path, but definitely needs some adjustments. Blanket ally penalties are easy to whip up, but given the various force multipliers impact the game differently based on the force they are initially multiplying… the trickle-down effects from penalizing the "strongest" suck.

Fantasy comp systems have it easier as they do not need to deal with allies, but I feel there needs to be a more specific, targeted way to deal with allies.

[keithb]

I don't like it, mainly because it has traditional written all over it and traditional doesn't work (which is why there have been pissing matches about Comp for the entire several years I've been playing this game).

I would rather see players judge how good their opponents' lists were, and that information used to give a bonus or negative.

Worst idea ever.  This has been tried several times of the years in many different game systems, it never works.

[keithb]

It seems bad that a particularly strong army might score a 3 and a not particularly strong army might score a 12.

Hearing that makes it VERY difficult to take seriously.

The comp tries to break "common builds" as much as rebalance the game.  It forces you to make different choices to score well, and that promotes variety.

[keithb]

Right so lets say you do that.  Person gets beat and it butt sore.  He dogs you, now you have tpo deal with an average or lose out because you pissed off a child.

But if he's butt sore, wouldn't what he give you be lower than the average anyway?

Besides. Only a fool would publish the differential. You give the winners in each category, no specifics. No one can complain if they only know the final score, and not how much it was or wasn't altered by their soft scores on comp. You tell people how much it can potentially change, of course, but there is no need to show, say, anything but your final total of battle points.

I feel it's critical it happen AFTER the game. I don't know if the guy was a slow or inexperienced player or a cheater before the game. The only people who would use after-game comp to screw someone are the same sort of people who it is going to intentionally be hamstringing anyway. It's not a realistic threat with the option to drop an anomalous result anyway.

If you do player scored comp before the game it hurts everyone -- for instance, a player in the vein of Mr. Prometheus would probably be low-balled even if the gameplay or list that day didn't merit it, merely on reputation. Similarly, you might see a guy with some Riptides and give him a zero only to find he's a super nice guy and you had a great game and his Riptides were the only good thing in his army.

Rubrics don't work. People only want rubrics so that they can still be a dick to their opponents but dance around the comp with their list and then act like they were a perfectly nice guy all day because the rubric said so.

I much prefer the player-friendly method. I would rather see tough lists but people not being jerks to one another, than average lists and everyone mad because they couldn't take what they wanted. Not to mention, you can make this additive, so no one ever gets a negative, only no added points.

So your answer to people scoring it on butt hurt is just to hide it from the recipient?   Good plan.

Rubrics are desired because it is transparent to everyone.

Also, can you please explain why i shouldn't act "like a nice guy" because I took a hard build?  Shouldn't we always be "nice guys" while we are playing the game and be gentlemen?

[keithb]

And 9 of 10 players wouldn't change a thing.  What's the point in that?

There are multiple ways to use the comp chase.

limiting to a particular score is just one way.

The "Active comp" method works as follows.

I bring a 4 comp Nid list.   I play against an 8 comp Eldar seerstar list.    At the end of the game, we take the difference in score(4), and subtract it from the eldar list, and add it to mine.  So If I lost 15-5, It is still a loss for me, but it is 11-9 instead.

[keithb]

Would a guy like Alex do much worse if I built his list by throwing darts at the 40k wall? 

Uh, yeah, I'd think so..  You could always ask Alex.  There are times I feel when I've almost beaten him, so I certainly that would be easier if he had a crummy list. 

List matters a lot, I think.  That said, I don't know that this comp does a great job of punishing "good" lists, it seems like it more merely punishes "popular".  Those are not at all synonymous. I like Hammerheads, personally find them more useful per point than broadsides, but they're aren't popular, so they weren't penalized. 

It's worth asking, what do you want a comp system to do?  Way I see it, there's a few options:

1) Balance out "Good lists".  I.e. if you actively take a bad list, you're rewarded for it.

2) Create more diversity -- either by reducing spam (3 riptides, 7 wave serpents, whatever) and also by making sure we see more than one type of list....not everything einds up being jet seer all the time, or O'Vesa star

3) Some people just want to get rid of the "broken" things.....mostly deathstars of various types, atm. 

I don't love #1, because to me, list building is a fun part of the game.  Personally, I just want to see both more different codexes and more different builds within those codexes do well.

Why is #1 bad?  You have new paramaters, you can weigh the merits of how important something is to your in game success to how much it helps your comp score(and how important the comp score is to placing well).

Just a new variable.  If anything it forces you to actually understand your codex better.