As a new 40k guy can it be explaned to me -


good armys and what gets good comp
bad armys and what should not get good comp
it seems like you can take what ever you feel like and you can expect to get great comp (unless you make someone mad at you)
this is the pattern I am seeing happen.

The "make someone mad at you" is pretty much consistent with player scored comp/sports backlash on losing.

In general, it's harder to say "this is broken/abusive" in 40k than it is in Fantasy. Usually, what is considered bad comp is:
Nob Bikers with 10-11 Nobs per squad taking advantage of wound allocation
Seer Council on bikes taking advantage of unkillability
Mech everything gunline with multiple Psychic Choir
Double Lash, 9 Obliterator CSM

I don't really see a big need for comp in 40k.

I agree that there tends to be an attitude of "You beat me, clearly you have a broken list - so i'm going to dock you for comp."

I think people just can't differentiate comp and sports. If you play a good opponent and he was good sport then you feel bad docking him for comp. This, of course, defeats the point of having sports and comp.

As far as what gets a fair comp - in theory - it should be a balanced list that was fun to play against that you wouldn't mind playing again. Bad comp is the opposite. Your oppoent took units that abused the rules, had overpowered combos, etc.

Hope this helps.

40k is actually pretty balanced, ignoring those few armies whose out-of-date codices have made them an afterthought in 5th edition. There is a counter to everything. Lots of high strength templates will negate Nob Bikerz, whole armies (daemons) can negate psychic choir, and so on. From what I've heard, this isn't as true in Fantasy where some armies are simply better, and there's not a lot you can do about it.

That being said, I'd argue that comp scores at tourneys tend to depend less on whether or not someone beats you so much as on how they beat you. I don't like being tabled, but I won't say that it's the other guy's list unless I felt that I never had a chance. It's when my army got wiped and my opponent's didn't break a nail that I start to contemplate docking them. In general, however, I would argue that blatant redundancy is what I would be most likely to dock. I don't mind if you have one uber-unit; it's my job to kill it. However, when you start to have 2 or 3, I'm going to get annoyed.

In the end, whenever someone's army hands you your head on a stick you should probably look at your own list. How could you counter their evil list? What can you do about your list, or your play, that would negate or at least lessen that army's effectiveness? Hard lists will always persist because Warhammer is a game and people like to win. The key is to find out how you can be more competitive.

Comp will almost always be a gut reaction based upon the type of loss you suffered and whether or not the person you played was respectful/fun. It would make more sense to me to combine Sportmanship and Comp into a single score because that's how it almost always works out in the end.

Enough Rambling,

Monkey

I agree. A true comp score is not as big a deal in 40k as it is in Fantasy. It almost becomes an extension of sportsmanship in 40k.

The biggest thing to me is that the army was fun to play against. Yesterday at Patriot Games my last game was against Bsimon. We were both playing Daemons and he absolutely wiped the floor with me. I could have complained and said that three units of Fiends is cheese (even though I run two and that the pavane is broken (which it isn't) and generally been a turd about loosing so badly. But the thing was even though he had me on the ropes on turn two it was a really fun game.

I hear lots and lot of rants and whining about cheese this and beardy that all over the place. One good example is Nob Bikers. Yeah, you can tool them up to be really hard to deal with - almost to the point that it is broken. But the thing is when you do that you really have all your eggs in one basket. Yeah they are nasty, but they can only kill so much (granted that might be a unit or two per turn) but it is just something that you have to learn to deal with. The first time I play a new army I usually get mopped up pretty well. After that I usually do much much better. It just takes a bit to get used too. That is what I think alot of the negativity is about in 40k - people just don't know how to handle new things and some things take longer to figure out than others.

Well, if you look at the above responses, coupled with mine you will get the overall feeling of how the Hogs of War feel about Comp.

In general I think it is a rubbish score which only allows players who were just beaten a way to 'even the score'. I don't feel that 40k needs a comp score, as each army has ways of countering other armies. Now granted a person may not own all good units for a tournament list, but that is not a reason to punish the player who has bought what is needed to make a tough list.

I think 40k tournaments should only have 3 categories: Battle, Paint, Sportsmanship.

I tend to agree that comp isn't really necessary for 40K. I think that if you are going to have comp, that it's better off scored by judges than by your opponent. There are potential problems with both systems, but at least the bias of a judge is evenly applied across the board (unless the judge is playing favorites with the players, in which case you have bigger problems).

In most ways i don't think 40k really needs comp but the issues is just some builds aren't fun to play against even if you beat them, but most them is because of spamming one unit over and over and over, I have been trying to figure out a way to fix this but I can find a answer.

this attitude work for me in 40k if every one has it. It seems like a "bring it" type of thing and that is cool if no one gripes.

I would be fine if they dropped the comp score or moved it to something the judges decided. I personally give everyone high marks anyway for comp. To me if it is in your codex it is a viable choice for your army, if my opponent wants to rely on one unit to win the game for them, then that makes it easier for me in the end. I do however love the sportsmanship, which many of my friends dislike as it is too subjective. I personally like it because if a player is a jerk I will dock them on sportsmanship. We are both there to play a game and if someone wants to take the fun away from me their sportsmanship will suffer. I have had plenty of games where I got my butt handed to me but gave the opponent a high sportsmanship because we had a great time playing. Then I play games where we are looking up every other rule or they question every move you do with your army. These games no matter if I win or lose are not fun at all so they get a deduction on sportsmanship.

Anyway just my 2 cents.

OK -but I played some one who did not know the rules or the rules for thier army and tried to insist that they did. I had to look them up in thier own book to show them how to play the army they played. Do not want to say they were doing something else.

In a case like that I would have dinged them on the sportmanship score. I was referring to someone who just questions everything you do in the game and makes you look it up and prove it over and over again. I had a guy make me show him 5 or 6 times where it says my Templars are fearless when in an assault. I can see someone asking the first time it is brought up but everytime it comes into play is rediculous.

You will have the same people consistently not know the rules, regardless of editions. That sadly will never change.

I know a great guy who tried to convince me that EMP grenades in a Tau list were great anti-Space Marine weapons.
I know another who argued that you could throw Krak grenades at Dreadnoughts (not melee, mind you).

There are a couple of things that make comp less important in 40k, at least locally:

1) There are no movement spells in 40k. In Fantasy, if I take 19 power dice and nuke you with Fireballs, you just chalk it up to shooting. If I Van Hel's and Raise Dead with those, I takea comp hit. Note that I listed Lash Princes earlier...
2) No one locally really buys the hardest tournament armies. I haven't seen anyone locally seriously consider 15+ vehicle IG, 8+ skimmer Mech Eldar, 7+ Valkyrie armies, etc. Comp isn't as important when no one brings the absolute bleeding edge min/maxed armies because they don't want to shell out that much cash.

EDIT:
To those that say comp is meaningless in 40k, let me proxy up an army and play a game against me. Then imagine you were in a tournament against that. =)

I wouldn't say that comp is "meaningless." It's more of a question of proportion and longevity. There are those "cutting edge" armies out there that annihilate folks the first or second time they're seen; however, the longevity of these builds seems to be fairly short. Counters crop up relatively quickly, whether it be the newest codex or a tweaking of old lists. There is a way to deal with any build. I'm not saying it's always easy, but "dominant" builds seem to become "strong" or "tournament" builds fairly quickly. They tend to be one trick ponies, and when someone figures out how to squish that pony the list loses its dominant position. I think the metagame of 40k is mutable enough that comp loses much (not all) of its importance.

Secondly, If you murder me with your proxied army this week, next week I come with a new build. If you trounce me again, I come back the next week with a new build, and so on. It hones my army. Last year after the Waaagh I set about building my SW army. I played Big d and WildEyedJester countless times over the course of the year, and my army got increasingly better at dealing with their lists. Yes, I got trounced many, many times, but I got better at building and playing my army. I learned its weaknesses and its strengths. I still have a heck of a lot of trouble with WildEyed's IG, but every time I play it I come a little bit closer.

Also, if you're playing in a tournament you should expect to fight hard armies. It is a competitive event. I suppose the main reason I discount comp is that I feel in tournaments you should build your list to win but play the game to make friends.