Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Comp... Pfffft What is comp?

Hey Kegger Followers!

So if you don't already know, I float around forums and see what happening daily and today I came across this post: 
It basically discusses comp and was really quite interesting. It has a few chuckles and there are some good points on both sides of the argument. There are also some great points made within the debate happening in the comments section. It is certainly a good read and I encourage everyone to read it and all the comments!

I would be curious to see what kind of comments our community has to say on the topic as a whole.

I will get the ball rolling by saying I have always been one to disagree with comp. I am on the side that it is some what subjective at times. I also stand behind the view that what most consider "Cheese" I consider  a "challenge". The ability to overcome "challenges" with the army I enjoy playing rather then just complain about someone else's truly makes someone a great player. Not adapting to rules and new strategies I personally feel is a very narrow way of looking at and playing WH40K. I think that if its within the rules GW has set in place then let it be. Not everyone will agree with everything but such is life right?

Here I come!

And on a completely unrelated note...



  1. Well written article.
    First off, it seems to me, that the people who complain about comp the most are just like the guys who complain about cops the most. You know, the ones who are always getting speeding tickets. "Those cops are assholes, why can't the go after the real criminals?" Howsabout you stop speeding dickhead?!
    A lot of the comments from the BOLS article seem to be defending comp. I for one agree with comp. I have nothing against a tough list, but cheesy powerful lists are annoying. Sure you can say it's the list you want to play... but there's 3-4 lists out there that A LOT of guys seem to "want" to play. Those are also usually the guys who complain about comp. Coincidence?
    Now, I dont agree with comp that completely limits what you can take, but I do agree with comp that dings you (Like at astro). You COULD take 3 Helldrakes, but you're gonna pay for it.
    I really like what vlad78 said on the BOLS article. "

    Imho, comp is compulsory, no less.
    yes it forces people to play a certain way, so does GW.

    At least comp tries to balance things whereas GW doesn't give a damn.

    I you don't want to see 80% of the same necron/GK spam, comp has to be used.

    Now if you like to compete with always the same opponent, against the same bandwagon codex again again and again, it's up to you. Don't disguise yourself behind excuses like the force or personnal freedom to justify playing the most broken army lists.

    It"s your right to do so but please be more respectful for comp which is an attempt to ensure some diversity in tournaments.

    You want the whole concept to be buried, on the contrary I think that's the best thing that was ever invented in 40k competitive gaming.

    IMHO sharing a great game is more important that winning at all cost."


  2. *Edit*
    Forgot the "y" on the.

    And... Forgot to mention that those 3-4 lists that guys always seem to "want" to play are also the same lists that seem to win lots of tournaments.

  3. the french bakery-hell chicken filth was pervasive at AdeptiCon... and I chuckled as I crushed a flyer/anti-flyer heavy list in the 40k FRIENDLY event.

  4. @Greg, While your points are valid I would like to point out that the "Cheesy" lists are not sweeping tournaments. Here is a list of the top 16 from AdeptiCon:

    1 Newton, Jesse – nids
    2 Roberts, Josh – Necrons/CSM
    3 Aleong, Aaron – Necrons/CSM
    4 Nayden, Sean – Eldar/dark Eldar
    5 Hoerger, Eric – Necrons/CSM
    6 Nanavati, Nick – Necrons/GK
    7 Reidy, Thomas – daemons
    8 Tricola, Adam – Gk/Necrons
    9 Born, Werner – Necrons
    10 Hernandez, Allan – Gk
    11 Brown, Austin – Necrons
    12 Brunner, Ken – Necrons/CSM
    13 Arimond, David – gk
    14 Myers, Thomas – Ork
    15 Hesselberg, Daniel – Necrons
    16 Kopach, Tony – Space Marine/IG

    As you can see the winner was a Nid player... I don't think you can tell me that the nids have the all-time "Cheesiest" list out there... Now you can certainly say that the majority of the lists are necrons/gk or some variation but that still does not change the fact that a codex that has been deemed 'Short-bussed' (NIDS) took top spot.

    @Jason: I commend you for smacking them upside the head and making them realize a tough on paper/net list is still not an automatic "I-win button". This is a prime example that shows when you know your army, you know the mission, and you actually have a strategy (and some times a little luck from the dice gods) ANY list can be beaten.

  5. Umm, the nid player was not the winner. A GK/Necron player won Adepticon. That is just the final 16 players of day 2. And 25% of that field is Necron/CSM with 4 fliers and a heldrake in their list.

    Over 50% of the lists have necrons in them, simply to get the massive air superiority. As well as being able to drop off troops while flying.

    While I don't agree on comp for the most part, I feel it is neccessary if the feel of the tournament you want is thematic. If you don't want to see Draigo and 10 Paladins to show up in 4 lists out of 16, comp special characters. If you don't want the over bearing 3 heldrake necron allies list then comp fliers.

    Where are the Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Sisters of Battle and Tau?

    Anyway, I guess my point is that comp is necessary if you want balance through all the codexes, because as they are now, they are not balanced.
    If you don't mind 50% of the top 16 armies having 1 army in it, then go with no comp.

  6. Even if I don't agree with a specific comp system that is used at a tournament, having something I don't agree with is better than not having one at all.

    It seems that any comp system out there does a better "attempt" than the current GW balance system, which seems to be based off of the following points:

    1) Make models that GW has lots of spare stock sitting around become so powerful that they will sell them no matter how bad they were before (from the last codex refresh making the models or rules suck so bad no one used them).

    2) Making the models or units that have the biggest profit margin the most powerful in game so that they can keep their profits up despite retarded policy decisions.

    3) Making the models that cost a lot $$ wise so cheap and useful in game that you need to have multiple units (case in point last editions Rhino $ increase to $50 point decrease to 35)

    Then again, maybe I'm just jaded by all the anti-consumer policy that GW has been passing, teamed with the constant "new codex = win games" sales mentality.

  7. @ Nykster: I miss read the post where I got that info that is my bad. But I do wish to make a comment on the armies you don't see.

    BA & SW: IMHO they are very tough CC armies, something that 6th seems to not be as friendly towards.

    Sisters: well.... they are just too far behind the times.

    Tau: now with the new dex I feel they will be seen at the top or at least far more competitive.

    Dark Angels: Not sure about these cats I felt the codex was decent but I really can't comment as I don't have enough info to have an opinion.

    Also keep in mind that this new edition has not been out for very long and more balance will come as more codices come up to 6th's standards (I can only assume/hope). Is it really that shocking to see most of the newer codexes that work better with 6th being the primary armies at the top?

    @ Byron: I could not agree more its a common pattern and its kind of sad. Other good example are the Carnifexes and Daemon Princes.

    1. @ Fabio: It sounded like you just said "Take what is good, not what is cool. Cool does not win games."

      Also, it's good that Demon Princes went up in points. They were too cheap and thusly too powerful in the last codex.... Maybe thats why you ran 2 of them ;) (Muah!)

    2. I don't think I said that anywhere.. He asked why certain armies were not seen and I gave my 2 cents as to why I think that is.

      As for the DP's well.. that's what I was running since I started playing 5th so call it what you want but they could be beat when played properly. Remember "don't hate the player, hate the game."

  8. When it comes to comp I think the choice on whether to implement comp or not is summed up in the following comment posted in regard to the article.

    "vonevilstein −
    Ultimately is up to the tournament organiser, it's their tournament. Then it is up to the individual as to whether they want to attend or not. I don't think there really is a debate here.

    My personal opinion is that yes, when taking the game as whole, banning or restricting units is likely to unbalance the affected codex. But is this really the end of world? I've got a local tournament coming up for which the TO has restricted flyers and FMC's to 2 per army. This means I can't use my favoured "Khorne Air", which is (ridiculously) 2 Bloodthirsters and 3 Khorne Daemon Princes. Have I thrown my toys out the pram? No. In fact I've enjoyed the challenge of coming up with an alternative list based on the models I've got. And it means I've got some hobbying to do before I go.....I love hobbying...;)

    I go to tournaments for the challenge, fun and the opportunity to just play as many games as I can in a day (my dream day...;)). I don't go hoping that everything is as fair as possible to give me an equal opportunity to win."

    In the end its up to the tournament organizers. If you don't agree with their decisions then take the massive amount of commitment and time it takes to put on a tournament and run your own.

  9. People are spamming necrons because they are retarded. I KNEW I was going to face Crons at dark star. I planned accordingly. People are dominating because their opponent sees necrons and go full window licker....

    This isn't fifth grey knights, its s7 spam. Deal with it.

  10. My favorite part of these discussions is the argument put forward by people that don't want comp.
    "Spamming an overly powerful unit should be seen as a challenge to overcome, not something to gripe about" (paraphrasing slightly..)
    What a delightful point you have.
    Let's just add a few words...
    "Not being allowed to spam an overly powerful unit should be seen as a challenge, not something to gripe about"
    Huh, still works.

    That aside- do I think comp is necessary and required for all things? Hell no. Are some event all about seeing who can effectively break an army book as far as possible to make a steamroller? Definitely, and do some people love this? Also definitely.

    But the thing that makes this game great, for me at least, the thing that sets tabletop apart from computer games and the like- is that- Do you like comp? Great, play some fun and closer-to-balanced comped games! Do you hate comp? Great, play some uncomped games, all about stomping face. I agree completely with the quote that Donny quoted, there is no "right" answer, there is only what is "right" for you and your gaming group.

    In case my completely biased writing didn't make it's way through, I'm totally for an agreed upon comp, because it's been my experience that super powerful lists restrict the game, and restrict the fun that people have. But shit, I play foot Eldar and refuse to put down my Aegis Defence line (until I can finally be bothered to make a solid looking Eldar one..), So it's clear to see where my priorities lay, and it sure isn't WAAC. (unless the W stands for wank.)


    1. "Not being allowed to spam an overly powerful unit should be seen as a challenge, not something to gripe about"...

      True but the guys that see it as a "challenge" have not changed the games original rules. We are playing with the rules given by the game creators ;).

    2. Here is where i'm tempted to make a smartass reference to"the most important rule", bit that wouldn't really add much ;-)

      You're right, though, comp is definitely changing the rules. what I was trying to get across originally is that the freedom to change the rules to enhance (for some) the game is TOTALLY part of the game and what makes this game great. (for some) I don't think that means that all things should be comped, but I think it definitely has a place in the game.

    3. Hey I am here to keep poking and prying I take no offence :).

      But I am glad you see where I am coming from with my comment in regards to comp changing the rules. I understand that even GW encourages changing the rules to suit you and your play style. I don't disagree with comp completely and I do agree that it has a place which is why Donny's quote is really the most logical. If you dislike comp, then don't play in a comp tournament and vice versa.

  11. There is a place for both. If running 3 Heldrakes backed up by a Cron-air monstrosity is your thing good for you. However that sort of thing should be limited to a certain type of tourney. As long as there are both kinds of tourney's around everyone should be happy.

    I dont like it when people try to enter Comp tourney's and openly complain about the restrictions.

    Its the same reason alot of people who are against Comp tourneys are bitching about including forgeworld. Because forgeworld openly crushes most of these elite army lists. That being said the moment I see someone running 3 heldrakes with IG allies backed up by 3 Thud guns behind a aegis defense line, im not putting my models down im going to the other side of the table to beat the shit out of you.

    There is a very marked difference between playing using the rules of 40k and intentionally trying to game the system.

    The way I look at it is, when I play Battlefield 3 or Call of Duty online and im running around shooting stuff having fun and other people are doing the same its awesome. The fun completely dies when I spawn and some tart is camping the spawn area for easy kills to boost his stats. Or when people hide in walls so you can shoot them but they can shoot you back.

    Its playing within the game but its playing in such a way thats its breaking what the designers intended.

    GW doesnt want to see only Necron and CSM allies on the table everywhere. Nor do the designers of COD or battlefield want to see everyone hiding in walls and exploiting the rules of the game.

    Its why I play Orks, no one is every going to bitch about that army being broken, its fun, crazy, sometimes stupidly random, exactly how a game of 40k should be.

    Kinda like when I shot your demon prince in the ass with a single ork boy, that was funny as hell. Or when Greg blew up my trukk and it flew backwards 14 inches then exploded stranding Ghazz and his buddies in the middle of no where. Those are the fun moments for me.

    1. Oh man you wont let me forget that! Common! lol!

      Rob I personally hate comp and I have decided for the most part to avoid comp tournaments for that reason. I just have to deal with not being able to participate in every tournament.

      I brought this up because the article on BoLs was decently written and took an approach that I had not seen so I brought it here. I am really not saying one is better then the other I just took the side that I enjoy more and wanted to see what everyone else thought.

  12. Here's my thought. If I'm playing in a non comp tourny, I'm bringing the most in your face deal with me or die list I possibly can. If I'm playing in a comp based tourny. I'm bringing the most in your face deal with me or die list I possibly can within the guidelines. If you cannot tell, I don't care what system I'm playing in. Its all fun.

    1. I am a competitive person. When it comes to tournaments, I will play THEE most powerful list I can put together. Within the guidelines of the tournament, comp or not. I will not and do not regret playing a "cheese list" IF it fits my play style and gives me the best chance at winning. Soo altho I may not like draigo wing, I might like MSU DE or whatever.

      Now for everyday play, against my friends? I play by my rules and will play fluffy, fun lists with a competitive edge. Meaning if my buds whip out a necron flier list, i may lose but he will have a fight on his hands.

      Thats just who I am :)

  13. Personally I thought it was a completely awful article.

    Not because 'no comp tournies' don't have a place - they most certainly do, but because it's an entirely opinionated rant. Anyone can write that kind of crap. It's just one guy's very vociferously spouted opinion trying to masquerade as 'fact'.

    The comments aren't much better either.

    For myself, I'm the flip side of Fabio. I don't play at 'no comp' tournaments. I don't enjoy them in the least. However that doesn't mean that they are 'wrong' or 'have no place' they are just for people who like that kind of thing.

    I play for immersion into the 40k universe. Storytelling and Forging a Narrative, yes even at tournaments. That's what I enjoy. As such the very limited cookie cutter armies at no comp tournaments do nothing for me. Even if I wanted to compete in an event like that, I'd need to build an appropriately 'competitive' army and that means buying it and more importantly painting it. My painting time is barely there for stuff I WANT to play, so painting up a force just to 'compete' which I am not otherwise inspired by isn't going to make it for me.

    But that's just me. Others feel differently. More power to them - I am glad there are events out there for them.

  14. Yeah, I dont think there is a wrong way to enjoy your 40k game. I do think though that both tournements have their places. For me it doesnt become fun to play the same Cron/CSM armies over and over and over again.

    That being said if thats your cup of tea, by all means down the hatch it goes. I LOVE to win at everything, however as I get older my fun is based on the experience. Before I would rather win a hockey game 10-0, now that I dont play with scouts watching and all that I would rather win 2-1 or even lose 3-2 in a close fun game. Same goes with 40k for me.

    Its all rather subjective though, no one can tell you how to have fun, you just enter the tourney thats right for you.

  15. Let's face it, comp is just for losers. Its an attempt by tourney organizers to attract more attendees by making it a 'fun & safe' environment. It's a TOURNAMENT people, if you want fun and safe little narratives, go dress like an elf in your basement.

    1. You mean I can't leave my basement? Damn, I was going to wear my elf costume to work today.

    2. Interesting view. Are comp based tournaments, less competitive than non comp? If they are, then how are they less competitive?

    3. Well crafted troll post. Comp isn't just for losers, it's for everyone!

      And you are right, it does help organizers attract more players - some of whom might not attend an event lest they get steamrolled.

      One thing that helps attract players is creating an event that creates close games. Everyone loves a well contested game, and a game that goes to the wire is gonna produce the maximum enjoyment for most players.

      I think comp has a place, but overbearing comp stifles creativity in making an army.

      Just as we might slam GW for not doing a good enough job balancing the codex, many composition systems either don't correct this, or make matters worse.

      I'd prefer a world where comp wasn't around due to good internal and external codex balance. Forgeworld does a lot to throw a wrench in what might be deemed a dull metagame with "cookie cutter" lists. However, comp can also produce the same problem by discouraging too strongly deviations from some (seemingly) arbitrary optimal FOC arrangement.