Tournament Comp

Hi guys.


As some of you may be aware, I run my clubs annual tournament (or at least the 40k side it).
For thr past couple of years we've been working with 7th, but have started to think our usual comp needed a revamping to fit more things.
Whether some like it or not, things like Flyers, Lords of War and Super-Heavies are part of the game now, and most of the feedback we've had over the past couple of years has been to open things out a bit and allow for these new elements which are a part of the game.

Thinking about it, we decided this feedback was right, so we looked at changing our comp.
(We were also told everyone hates The Relic in tournaments)

So I've come to a new system, and wanted to use you guys if you don't mind as a bouncing board. I;ve been asking elsewhere, but I'd like to get some opinions from you lot to see what you thnk.


In the past, our comp has always had one goal - reduce spam.
We don't change the rules for specific units, and we don't ban specific Codecies/Supplements/Dataslates. I just don't like banning anything outright. I prefer instead to allow people to bring what they want, but to merely limit how much of a certain type of unit people can bring.
So this new system is designed both to do that - reduce the amount by which an army can spam certain units - and also to allow for the new elements such as Lords of War and Super-Heavies whilst imposing a limit to their use. A Super-Heavu wopuld be allowed, but the tax is that it severely limits the rest of your army options.


So below is the proposed idea, and I'd like your opinions.
I've heard a few things already, but whats the worst you think you can manage under this comp?

Unless there's a Britishism I'm missing, I thnk you mean 'scrape,' not 'scrap.'

Heh. You are correct, I meant to say "scrape".

If all you want to do is reduce spam, seems good.

It seems like it'd benefit some armies way more than others.

Oh?
Which armies do you think would be disadvantaged? (probably a bad word to use, but at least less benefited?)

Armies with limited selection slots come immediately to mind.

For example - the Sisters of Battle, Dark Eldar, and Orks are not exactly on my short list for 'broken codices' but with each having 2 or less Troop selections is already putting them on their back foot.

The sisters would, by definition, be a 1point army simply to take a legal minimum CAD due to duplicating Battle Sisters. I can think of no reason to penalize a player who is choosing to field the Sisters in a tournament barring (maybe) wanting to dock them for Jacobus and Exorcist spam. They also only have 2 Elites and 2 Fast options - further punishing them.

Codex Harlequins also falls into this same issue - though I suppose at least an argument could be made that they're "good" (not that I'd make it) but they are *heavily* penalized as a solo army, which is, functionally, heir least competitive build.

Orks are being told that to field multiple squads of basic boys they are being cheesy.

Dark Eldar are being told to bring a squad of Wyches or pay a cheese tax. Codex: Coven builds are highly punished also.

Anyone wanting to run Chaos:Daemons as a mono theme army (the less cheesy option of that codex generally across the board) will be penalized, while taking Chaos Undivided or adding them in as allies (both more competitive options) will be less penalized.

The easy fix that springs to my mind is, unless your legit goal is to penalize Obj. Sec. simply remove the duplication penalty from selections of Troop options (and you can even add in a caveat that if it's a unit that is normally not a Troop but is made one due to a special rule, then the penalty can still apply - which will at least effect Bike lists and the ilk, which are at least actually kinda cheesy moreso than just bringing multiple base Troop slots.)

As an example (and I admit I have Sisters on the mind because I'm working on painting up that army currently. But my current rough Sister 1500 list (that I think no one would call cheesy without looking like a dolt) is;

Jacobus
Celestine
2x Priests
3x Exorcists
4x Battle Sister Squad
Seraphim Squad
Dominion Squad

By your current point system my list would be a 6 point list.
If I got to add in an additional 300 points I'd probably want to take more Battle Sisters, though I guess I could take Celestians, which are not bad, but that would still be +1-2 more points.

Making this list a 7-8 point list under your ruleset, suggesting it is on the strong cheesy side.

With my rule adjustment the list is a 3-4 point list, on the low side of cheesy.

That's my thought.

Sorry, got a bit confused. If your Sisters list come easily inside the comp as legal, and can be described as "strong cheesy", how are they penalized?

http://www.communitycomp.org/

This has made quite a stir here in Australia - most of the big events use it now and we update it every 3 months or so to take into account changes from the community

Whoof.

I find that very interesting actually, but far too complicated for my liking. I'm not a big fan of comps which have to go into detail on a Codex-by-Codex basis. Thats why I'm wanting to go for something far more generic which can be applied globally. Granted I know this will probably always work better for some armies and worse for others, but I really didn;t want to get to the level where I was looking at every single Codex and saying "This unit is too bearded, so it needs specific comping".

Will definitely look through and see if theres something I can take from this though.

Not a fan of comp in general as, more often than not, it's based on the experiences of an individual or small group who may have totally unfounded bias against certain units/codexes and little or no experience of other things that are as bad or worse.

Thats completely how I feel as well, and why I'm trying to keep it simple. Spam is the only thing I'm trying to keep down, whilst also taking into account a general local feeling towards the biggest of the LoWs.

Squidmaster wrote:

Sorry, got a bit confused. If your Sisters list come easily inside the comp as legal, and can be described as "strong cheesy", how are they penalized?

The point being that the list in question is about as distant from cheese as the moon is.

Massaen wrote:

http://www.communitycomp.org/

This has made quite a stir here in Australia - most of the big events use it now and we update it every 3 months or so to take into account changes from the community

This seems like the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. I would prefer 40k: Sigmar to this. I seriously can't think of a way to make the game less enjoyable.

Jimsolo wrote:

Massaen wrote:

http://www.communitycomp.org/

This has made quite a stir here in Australia - most of the big events use it now and we update it every 3 months or so to take into account changes from the community

This seems like the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.  I would prefer 40k: Sigmar to this.  I seriously can't think of a way to make the game less enjoyable.

That feels like an over the top reaction - looks no worse than other restriction based tournaments I've seen, and I am personally of the opinion that less-than-cutthroat tournaments, by definition, require house ruling nowadays.

I really don't think so. Just looking through it, it looks like every possible combination of units that work together are penalized. I love trying to bring units that have synergy with one another, and for a comp system to go out of its way to punish that seems like the worst thing that could happen to the game. It appears that every form of unit synergy I can think of has been targetted and fined under this system.

I think a banned/restricted list would be far more productive. Just a list of units/upgrades which are banned, or restricted to one only.

Conversely some might argue that outright banning models is unfair and not fun - it's all a matter of opinion with these sorts of things.

I don't think all unit synergy has been punished, but one might suggest that 'synergy' in the game is also called 'cheese' by many. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

To be fair - the way the system is set is that the average 1850 army should be spending 12-16 points out of 20 on comp. So synergy is very possible but Spam is not.

I came into it late in the build - only in the last 12 months - as the West Aussie rep - but the east coast has been using it for some time. I agree that for me - its overly complex and a little unwieldy but the fact that on the east coast we don't have to worry about the super US builds at the big events speaks volumes IMO

Once you understand you are meant to spend points its easy to build lists.

I build a list, run the CC over it and see what it scores and tweak accordingly.

That's certainly not how it reads. Everything doesn't cost points, therefore the things that DO are being punished. That's how it looks, at least from an outside perspective. (I also find the notion of 'small detachments' infuriating.)

Don't get me started on the detachments...

It's a democratic vote system when changes are made but suffice to say I am in the minority for changes to that!