Swedish Komp System

[Cryptognomicon]

I do not like the idea of penalizing anyone for taking something that is in their codex.  Because at some point in the process of choosing what should or shouldn't get penalized the TO or whoever is writing up the comp system is going to choose based on their personal preferences whatever they may be.

Bullshit.  Why assume that the people who spend a ton of time creating and updating this is based solely on "personal preference".   

It is based on 3 things:
1)The math.
2) playtesting.
3) limiting "gimmicky" stuff.

Number 3 might be personal preference, but typically they try to limit incredibly powerful, low skill or dicey elements in the game.

When a new book first comes out, its comp is based only on the math.  Then they do playtesting and try to break the book to see if anything from #3 reveals itself.

Lastly, it isn't about penalizing anyone, it is about leveling the playing field so that more codex's can participate, and so that players don't have to wait 3-7 years between when their army is good, or hope to win the "codex lottery" as tau and eldar have done recently.

I never, never understand people who take GW products as gospel.  They make a beer and pretzel game.  It is not suitable for competitive tournaments.  Luckily, there are many huge fans who put in work to try to make it more suitable.

Even if swede comp were to become standard for BG events(unlikely, since so many of you already "know" it is bad), you can still play whatever you want on thursdays, or mondays, or non tournament saturdays.  If you want to play the silly beer and pretzels game, no one is stopping you.  But I'd like the events I spent 9-10 hours at to be a better competitive event than an "I spy" world championships.

When I talk about personal preference I was meaning #3.  What one person thinks is gimmicky another wont.

Example: If someone doesn't like flyers then flyers get penalized.  Taking the Storm Talon from the swedish comp - having more than 1 is gives you a point.  But if you are taking 2 or 3 storm talons you aren't taking any other fast attack options as each takes up a slot. So if you want to play a list with 2 you get docked a point even though you aren't taking landspeeders or assault marines which may/maynot be just as powerful depending on your list.   The FOC is already limiting your options by itself so I'm not sure this is needed.

The only way to make a 40k tournament 100% balanced is to force everyone to play the exact same list and get rid of all randomness(predetermined warlord traits and psychic powers, etc). This is not ever going to happen though for obvious reasons.   

I'm not saying take GW as gospel...I'm okay with some minor adjustments here and there depending on the event (ex: allowing only books that BG sells) - and not saying I don't want to try this out eventually. But some of us do like to play with all the rules as they are written at events too.  I'm not a big fan of comp because I don't want a situation to happen where standardized version of comp penalizes something in my army that i happen to like and I can't ever play it again. As long as BG keeps hosting diverse events then this shouldn't become a problem.  I foresee that at somepoint BG will host an event with some sort of comp rules to try it out. That's cool. I'll give it a shot and play. I just don't want it to become a standard thing.  Just my personal opinion. 

[jhobin]

I think it's worth a try and sounds interesting. If nothing else it may be useful when trying to schedule a game with someone you don't know. i.e. "I have a 0 - 1 list and am looking to play the same."

It's easy to armchair quarterback something, it's another to play it.

[AstartesXXVI]

I think that is the real value in this system, even though I am against comp I am very much not against players being able to somewhat categorize themselves to better make matchups more on their level. The close matches are the most enjoyable ones.

I also think it should definitely not have any derogatory context, which is tough. You look right at the list of stuff, and someone will immediately be like "Oh that's bullshit that X is worth Y points." But you have to push through that.

I like this because rather than limiting you, it simply rates what you take and lets your organizer decide where to draw the line.

In my experience it is best to take things into account without a lot of preamble and back your system as much as possible. It's true -- you can talk about whether it'll work all day, and the guys who don't like it will swear it will never work and the guys who do like it will swear it's the only way forward. It is better just to do it, and back it. People always respect things more in practice than in theory.

[Sir_Prometheus]

We have the Force Org Chart that already tells us how many of a certain unit type we can have and each unit is worth X amount of points.

We used to have a Force Org Chart.  Now only Tyranids do.   

[AstartesXXVI]

My first thought on looking at comp as a point system is that there is already a point system built into 40k so why do/should we need another?

We have the Force Org Chart that already tells us how many of a certain unit type we can have and each unit is worth X amount of points.

The problem here is GW has stated quite plainly many times that point costs are spitballed and are only considered based on that codex. So, for example, the Heldrake is cheap because the other units have the potential to be kitted out to be ~300pts/unit. You compare it to another book and it makes no sense, but within the context of the single book it is (somewhat) more logical. 250 points of Guardsmen =/= a Land Raider, you know?

In a larger game, point costs are not really any way of telling things apart. The Riptide is expensive so it is prohibitive to some degree to spam the thing. But we don't objectively know how much of the on-table effectiveness the unit has from just its point cost -- it's also how easy or hard it is to use them in a way to affect the game in your favor.

This is what a comp system should rate, IMO. I'd assign every unit in each codex a number 0 to 3. 0's are "those" units that we never see because they are so bad, 1's are units that are decent, 2's are units that are above average, and 3's are units that even having one of can drastically affect the game. I might even whip something along these lines up just to see how it works out. After that you just do what was done in this thread: run power lists through it and see how the numbers come out.

You end up with a bigger number, but it gives you a scale. So people can say "I have a Level [whatever] list" and it will be clear what they are expecting from their opponents.

This also saves some trouble publishing results -- you can see what level a guy's army is right in the results, it will plausibly show what armies have problems (i.e. if the top tier is all guys with maxed out army comp you know there's a power issue, and can correct the scores next time, or if it is a spread, you can show once and for all that the strength of a list isn't worth being concerned about).

You could even use it to sort who will face who.

[Tharcil]

I don't think Keith's point is getting across clearly here with regards to penalize vs. looking at it as an organizational cost.  You can still play what you like even if it is good.  Applying this to my list from the last event was interesting.  You can look at it as a "penalization", but you can still play the units that you like, pay the tax, it just limits you from taking all of the things that are great in the same list.  This is not about not getting to play what you like, you can just not 5 or more of that caliber unit/combo etc.  It is not a restriction on the units, only a limitation.  It is about balancing, not neutering. 

Those people playing books with that many great combos (Tau are the easy example, sorry to pick on them) need to diversify a bit.  You can still take a couple of riptides and a buff commander and not go over the threshold.  You just can't also taken another such combo on top of it like you can now.

One thing that might make this more palatable could be to allow for you to take bonuses instead of just penalization.  Something that is themed doesn't take as much of a hit, for example the Dark Angels take a huge hit for pretty much all of the Ravenwing units.  If there was also something that said if there are only Ravenwing units in the army, the penalties are reduced by 2.  I'm using this as an example since I'm familiar with it, but allow for ways for each book to maybe mitigate the penalization for things they really want to work.  X HQ units, or X number of troops.

[AstartesXXVI]

I think it might be simpler to just change the lists to be less harsh on certain things. As soon as you introduce ways to get back points, it will just result in people gaming it. Also, people using units they hate just as a tax on units they like is probably more annoying than just saying you can only have so many of the things you like.

[Grimwulfe]

I think that's just it Astartes the comp system doesn't force you take units you don't like.  The comp system just limits certain combos etc. Which promotes diversification. 

I think the best way to do the curve is that that create a curve where certain armies get more points etc.  Lets say Chase is running a tourny at 5 points. With the curve certain armies would get bonus points so they can be competitive.  Like Orks for example maybe they can use 6 points or 7.  Would that put them in line with a 5 point eldar list?  Its possible but needs to be tested.

Overall the goal of comp is try and get each army on a SOMEWHAT level playing field.  so the games are played against another human instead of what army they brought.

[Tharcil]

I think it might be simpler to just change the lists to be less harsh on certain things. As soon as you introduce ways to get back points, it will just result in people gaming it. Also, people using units they hate just as a tax on units they like is probably more annoying than just saying you can only have so many of the things you like.

That's fair, I hadn't thought of it that way.

[Sir_Prometheus]

I like stealth suits, but don't find them useful, currently.  They're not --bad--, they're just not what my list needs right now.  I would love to essentially be paid to use them.  (though I'd markerlights to support them and apparently I pay through the nose for those)

[robpro]

One thing to consider is at what game points level the Swedish Komp is balanced for. If you're playing in an 1850, I think it overly penalizes some things that might be over the top in a 1k but not crazy in an 1850. Just to use Necrons as an example, penalizing each Nightscythe in a 1k is different than penalizing each one in an 1850.  Fantasy is specific in their ETC that it is designed for 2400 point games. I think the Swedish Komp isn't a bad place to start, but if we choose to modify it we should do so specifically we an 1850 or whatever we deem standard game in mind.

[andalucien]

I like stealth suits, but don't find them useful, currently.  They're not --bad--, they're just not what my list needs right now.  I would love to essentially be paid to use them.  (though I'd markerlights to support them and apparently I pay through the nose for those)

Yeah, it would be pretty cool to have an excuse to pull some of the old models from last edition off the shelf for a tourney.  At least some concession that makes it seem worthwhile to try it... Necron Destroyers anyone?   C'Tan shards?   

[Grimwulfe]

One thing to consider is at what game points level the Swedish Komp is balanced for. If you're playing in an 1850, I think it overly penalizes some things that might be over the top in a 1k but not crazy in an 1850. Just to use Necrons as an example, penalizing each Nightscythe in a 1k is different than penalizing each one in an 1850.  Fantasy is specific in their ETC that it is designed for 2400 point games. I think the Swedish Komp isn't a bad place to start, but if we choose to modify it we should do so specifically we an 1850 or whatever we deem standard game in mind.

Very good point. 

[Sir_Prometheus]

Well, wouldn't just take into consideration that for a certain "Komp level" you set the actual points higher for bigger games? 

Maybe a 5 point limit for 1850 should be 7 for 2500.

I'm not sure, but I think they did state explicitly somewhere that these tables were balanced for 1850.   

[robpro]

It doesn't mention anything about 1850 in the Komp pdf I have. My list has 8 points and I feel it's a fairly balanced 1850 for going mono-necrons. One model different and it would be 10 on their chart, so allowing 5 at 1850 or 7 at 2500 doesn't really fix the issue if the book lacks other things to run that aren't complete garbage. I'm all for an event using it as is with 0 or 3 points to try it out, but I do think we'll need to modify it to make it right for BG.