OK, here's the plan: simplicity. At its simplest, an army's chance of victory is in part based on what tools it brings to the fight. If a list does not include anti tank and comes up against a heap of tanks, it will probably lose, amirite?

So, this version of comp works on how many counters is put into a list.
Following this is a list of units. Armies start at comp 5. For each category that the list possesses either at least 4 incidental counters, 2 more focused counters such as specialised units, or 2 incidental and 1 focused counter, deduct 1 from the comp.

Here's the categories:
Light Infantry (templates attacks, heaps and heaps of 4+ strength attacks including charging, attacks affecting per model)
Heavy Infantry (armour ignoring attacks, low ap attacks)
Light Vehicles (S6-S8 attacks in multiples)
Heavy Vehicles (Meltas, Lances, S9-10 weapons)
MCs (Posioned Attacks, mass Low AP High Strength 6-8 Weapons)

No.

EDIT cause Krefey is cranky: Math comp never has and never will work.

There will be always a way to break it.

I remember just very recently Lonestar put one up. Within seconds 8 different people had broken it...

The only way you would get math comp to work is on a codex by codex basis - which is a ) too much work with too many variables and b ) won't be able to cover all given situations.



So put simply.

No.

Do you think that all counters are equal in points efficiency?

If they cos tmore points you get less of them, duh.

This comp system has taught me that Doomsday Arks are the most overpowered thing in the game. Take two of them and it's 0 comp.

From that pretty sure my thousand sons sit pretty close to zero, infact I can't think of many general armies that wouldn't get close to zero.

Yup, I would change your scale to /20 maybe?

I personally dont like the angle your coming at it from but this is the kind of conversation the community needs to have.

I think that different codexes are far far too different for a single formula like this to actualy work. Maybe something like this would work for all marine armies but how does it work for eldar who can quite often actually ignore several units bu jsut moving away when it counts.
Walking assault terminators for example. Eldar dont need to kill them or even interact at all. An eldar army could easily take no power weapons or low AP guns and avoid the comp hit but smash those armies because it actually has a counter in its speed.


The reason comp ended up the subjective mess that it is was because no single math formula will work for all codexes.


if we are to change comp each codex needs its own set of rules to keep armies fair.

The reason comp ended up the subjective mess that it is was because no single math formula we have managed to figure out will work for all codexes.

Just putting my own spin on that comment.

Aarott's proposed extension to math comp

The idea behind this section of the math comp is, rather than comparing to how much you can counter, examines how counter-able your force is. If you take a massive infantry mob and your opponent focuses on melta spam, you will have a much easier time at winning, amirite?

This comp starts at 5. For each 5th of the force that is wholly the same general type (I'm thinking speedy, scoring, armour value or inside armour value, mob, or super heavy infantry), deduct 1 from this comp.

I suggest that perhaps a more fitting comp score could be achieved if both of this and the above counter comp were added, or averaged.

Hmm, actually, that would be very effective. A gun that can kill just about any unit in the game, and if that fails, a second chance to kill just about every unit in the game from across the table, AND is comparativily durable for a gunboat, AND for only 400ish points. I seriously consider giving this a try..

That said, it's still 1/5 comp- 2 high strength high ap attacks might not be fast enough to kill an angry MC.



Just throwing it out there, but isn't it the well played general army that is more likely to win in most situations, and therefore more deserving of a comp bat?

edit: spelling

Responses like this are just plain stupid. If you're going to offer an opinion, back it up with reasoning, in a civil manner, instead of just being a post count increasing jerk.

So part A discourages balanced armies then part B encourages them.

I think you don't quite understand the balances of this game tbh...

+1

Christian fulton made a pretty serious attempt at a kind of math comp calculator like this. It took into account amour saturation, weapons ect. It was a pretty good go but at the end of the day books like eldar and deamons kind of ruin this whole concept by just being so different to marine style armies.
I think it is theoretically possible to invent a formula that will do it but it will be either too complex for a human mind to do or just to complex to actually implement.

that said if you can get a collection of say 100 lists that scored a 3 on pannel comp and figured out a formula that when all 100 of these lists were plugged into it scored roughly a 3 then that would be a pretty serious achivement IMO

I thought I explained why math comp was a crok in the other million comp threads.

A math system like this can only work on an Army based system, not universal. As others have said, some armies (eldar/demons) do not work like conventional armies.

I have seen maths systems in Fantasy that are on an army basis, which seem to work alright.

I also think that a maths system that takes everything into account effectively is the way to go, even if it isnt 100% accurate. At least it becomes clear cut to comp levels, rather than being subjective to everyone's oppinion and experiance.

Then choose not to respond? All the silly one word responses belong in OT.

+1 breaking math comp. Within 24 hours of the system being out, a dozen people will crack which particular codex/list is totally competitive whilst breaking your system.

I applaud your efforts, but you have to understand you've recent engaged into an argument that has spanned EONS.

Really? Math comp again? Can't we just kill it and let it die?

The problem with math comp, as has been pointed out, is that any formula the human mind can devise can be broken by the human mind.

It doesn't matter what you base the formula/algorithm on, someone will find a way to game the system and get perfect comp while having an extremely effective army. Maybe if you could design an AI to do the calculation for you, it might work, but then you would have designed a machine intelligence, and would have better things to do with it than come up with arbitrary rules for games of toy soldiers.

End of story. No "ifs", "buts" or "hang on, what abouts".

Current peer comp systems may be a bit of a lottery, but it is the purely subjective nature of them that makes them work. You can't game the system when you don't know all the variables.

Lets face it, panel comp is probably as good as we are going to get for a long time. All the positives of a subjective system, while removing some of the knee jerk reaction aspects that make it a bit of a hit and miss when done as a pure peer system.

Swallowing my pride for but a moment, Army comp is an unneccessary evil that this generation of gamers will have to live with for the forseeable future.

If you like it then fine, use it, take dual etherals and three units of vespid.

If you dont, take your MSU Razorback spam.

Screw it guys, were playing with plastic Toys here, nothings perfect, enjoy it your way.

+1 WFG for writing all that so I didn't have to type it out on my iPhone touchscreen haha.

No, paddlepop lion, the community doesn't need to have this argument. It's been tried. It failed. Also, the game already has a system to keep armies fair: they're called points costs.

Oh and master aarat by saying that 2 doomsday arks deserve a 1/5 for comp you starkly highlight why peer comp also fails: opinion. No matter that doomsday arks are overpriced glass cannons that would not be fielded in a competitive neuron army at all, let alone in multiples, because somebody will always come along and decide that because their land raider got blowed up one time that arks are overpowered and so need to be hit with the comp stick. Subjectivity = bad. Everyone taking what they want and the best player winning = good.

But clearly the points costs don't ballance armies or we wouldnt be talking about it.

When has it been tried? When has the community gotten together to make a simple, small list of restrictions for each codex then had tourneys with it?

They did it a few years ago for the ETC (I'm not sure if they did it for 40k as well, but I know the WHFB one used it).

It resulted in homogenous lists which converged on a different "best list" formula. So it didn't really fix anything about the discrepancies of power within the game, it just moved the goalposts.

People keep saying that the result is a different "best list scenario" but that truely isnt a problem. Sure the good players will find the best way around the restictions but its not like when they find it they will be playing full strength fate crusher.

If the "best list" ends up being 4 units of strike knights withOUT psybolt, a unit of terminators, a GM 2 razorbacks a rhino, and a land raider. Thats a dulled down list that is like half as good as GK can be.
Books like TAU and sisters who arent as good have fewer restrictions making them far more able to fight the "best army".

If the variance in list strength becomes lower the difference between the best list and a mid range list is much much smaller which is the point of the system. You cannot ever avoid the best list scenario. good players will find the best list and win with it in every system, thats what makes them good.

Probably the best bit of the system im suggesting is the fact that its completely fluid. We can change it if loopholes come up. Say the first go at the GK book restrictons allowed for a psybolt marine spam list that was smashing face. The restrictions change to deal with it, maybe Psybolt ammo becomes 1 pt meaning you cant spam it and have other good stuff in the same army making it much harder to build this "best army"

also do you have a link to some info on this ETC thing i would love to have a look.

youre obviously talking peer comp & newbies here, not a panel of experienced gamers

Nope sorry, and my recollections are particularly vague. I couldn't even tell you for sure if they did it for 40k, but I know they did it in fantasy a few years back.

fantasy had a whole range of different attempts at evenign up the lists

usually fantasy is much more balanced and the comp thing didnt need to really be looked at but a few army books and an edition change really nerfed some lists & in others created monsters in 6th -> 7th

they tried tiers for a while & then also messing with points limits so at a '2000' point tournament some armies were allowed 2250 while some were restricted to 1750 etc. some had a huge list of restrictions 'no multiple wampire, no scroll of -----, no more than 2 bolt throwers

i think what all of the attempts had in common is what has been said above. theres ways around everything, and it wont work for everyone, or everyones armies.

So its never been done in australia as far as anyone knows?

Maths comp?

No, he's talking about customised race based restrictions.

I don't think it's ever been run at a 40k tournament in my knowledge. It's definitely been run in WHFB tournaments though.

This is basically how Swedish Comp works.

Has unusual effects like a cheap Vespid squad becoming a powerful choice due to their huge positive comp modifier offsetting other choices..

Would you believe that, virtually regardless to the comp system used, one can take anything they like? And that the best player will often win? And that out of all the comp systems, math comp is the least subjective?

I could have sworn Arc used math comp several years ago.

Yeah I think that they have taken it all a step too far.

I like the concept they have done, bt you shouldn't be changing units/points/FOC.

What I would like to see is a guage that works like this:

Unit Name | 1 of | 2 of | 3 of | 4 of | 5 of | 6 of *any above 6 are at the points for 6
Grey hunters (5) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 7 pts | 10 pts
Grey hunters (5, melta) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 7 pts | 10 pts
Grey hunters (10, 2 melta) | 0pts | 0pts | 0 pts | 3 pts | 4 pts | 6 pts
Grey hunters (8, melta, MoW) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 6 pts | 6 pts
Razorback (HB) | 0pts | 0pts | 0 pts | 3 pts | 4 pts | 6 pts
Razorback (Lasplas) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 7 pts | 10 pts
Razorback (TLLC) | 0pts | 0pts | 2 pts | 4 pts | 5 pts | 8 pts
Razorback (TLAC) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 7 pts | 10 pts
Razorback (HF) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 7 pts | 10 pts
Rhino | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 5 pts | 7 pts | 10 pts
Long Fangs | 3pts | 5pts | 10 pts | N/A | N/A | N/A ** need to expand this to ML/LC/HB/MM/etc.
Predator (AC/HB) | 0pts | 3pts | 6 pts | N/A | N/A | N/A
Predator (AC/LC) | 0pts | 4pts | 7 pts | N/A | N/A | N/A
Predator (LC/LC) | 0pts | 3pts | 6 pts | N/A | N/A | N/A
Predator (LC/HB) | 0pts | 1pts | 3 pts | N/A | N/A | N/A
Vindicator | 1pts | 3pts | 5 pts | N/A | N/A | N/A
Whirlwhind | 0pts | 0pts | 3pts | N/A | N/A | N/A

Take this number, subtract from (initially) 100, then multiply that by the comp points available for the event (30) and get a comp score. IMO - you can get negative comp. This is of course up to the TO.

For instance, List:
6 GH in Lasplas razors, 3 squads of fangs with ML
GH = 0+0+3+5+7+10 = 25
6 Razors = 25
3 squads of fangs (4ML) = 18
Current comp = 100 - (25+25+18 = 68) -> 32/100 -> 3/10.
Now realise you have only spent 1275 pts. With the other 475 points you would expect some WG with combi-melta/PF (1 pts ea), Rune priest (1 pts + pts/psychic power) and maybe some thunderwolves (2pts ea + pts/wargear).
I didn't try to make these points work and analyse this, just threw them down on paper as I threw this post together

Then we get together a list of every unit in a codex, in their default and oft-seen combinations, and compare that to actually received comp scores from various major panel judged events.
Keep changing values (as you would in AI style setups) until you get something that reflects panel judging scores.
You also put this out there for the no-compers to break (and many will be happy to) and see what you need to tweak.


Once you are happy with this, move onto codex #2.

The last time I remember someone putting together a list like this they included Thunderfire cannons as a comp boost.

The big problem is that I would seriously doubt the ability of anyone who would actually put their hand up and try to collate a list of all the "good" choices in a codex. It would seem to me that they haven't played the game enough to actually know all of the best units across the game if they think that it would be easy enough to catagorise them all as such.

Another issue is that if you make a bunch of stuff a comp hit then it doesn't necessarily change the overarching issue. There will still be one unit that is a better choice and a convergence on a "best" list. So you still have a best list and sub-par lists, but as an added problem to be able to get the "best" list together you have to pour over the comp restrictions carefully and you have to go out and obtain obscure units that won't be much use in other events.

It's pretty much the worst bits of no-comp combined with a lot of red tape.

Lists like the one above tend to punish less versatile codices, for instance try to do that with dark eldar and they could probably mix up their units to have near same effect but dodge alot of the comp hits, granted you might be able to account for this, but its one hell of a list to try and work out every good combination of units in every slot

Sure is one hell of a list Typhus - people do it now with Panel Comp. Just need to get their brains on the table and get the data out.

The thing is, you get a less versatile codex and you compensate.

For instance, Tau Broadsides might be 0/1/4.
Also, having the same unit in multiple codexes does not mean they have the same points values. HF Razorbacks and TLAC Razorbacks in BA lists will score harder than their equivalent in the SW list above - probably on par with the Lasplas.

You could also impose a "hull tax" as such, as each tranport capable vehicle past the 3rd/4th incurs an extra 2pts hit.
Or you could say:
Razorback | 0pts | 0pts | 0 pts | 3 pts | 4 pts | 6 pts
- (HB Option) | 0pts | 0pts | 0pts | 0pts | 0pts | 0pts
- (Lasplas) | 0pts | 0pts | 0 pts | 1 pts | 3 pts | 4 pts
- (TLLC ) | 0pts | 0pts | 2 pts | 1 pts | 1 pts | 2 pts
- (TLAC) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 2 pts | 3 pts | 4 pts
- (HF) | 0pts | 0pts | 3 pts | 2 pts | 3 pts | 4 pts
This would fix the "I took 8 Razors, 2 of each type and got no comp hit" issues.
These are all options.

Can I post 'No.' again?

No.

@Reunion-Round - No.
Let me point out I am a firm no-comp supporter and run my tournaments (so I'm not all piss and wind) as no-comp.

I would be happy with comp if it was quantifiable.

@ChaplainFortis

Nothing should boost comp, only not take it away - the 0's in my suggestion above.


I agree. I am not putting up my list as authoritative. That's crazy talk. I would want 10ish good players/TOs/Panel Judges from all over having open discussion on changing the scoring and why they made that choice.
I would also want consistency - having panels judge lists and ensure that the scoring generated is consistent with what is judged.

Which would just piss more people off than it does now.

Quite frankly, apart from a couple of anomolies, i've been quite happy with my comp socres. They are as expected.

Peer comp events where I play someone new I tell them how comp works and what my list should be (generally a 2/5) and let them make up their mind. I remember EL when I told the TO my list was 1/5 and the 2 newer players I played that it was as well.

Panel Comp i've been more than happy with with the exception of 1 event.

Overall, when you really look at comp scores across a vast amount of tournaments your scores my differ at each event but they tend to be scored well enough relative to the rest of the field.


My one hope is that you let the TO decide how to run their event and stop telling them how to do it (you know, unless it's an event like CotT where the comp system was just pure pants-on-head retarded).


Honestly, even if a TO took on your system, do you think they wouldn't tweak it to their own thoughts?

If you got 10 gamers together and nutted out a math comp system over months of testing for each codex. I know i'd still change what your 10 gamers thought in some way.

Run a tourney & test it. Until then its just an idea in a sea of ideas

Kind of, Demon.

I personally won't use this for my events as they are all no-comp.

I just want to try and get the scoring to match what is being giving out in panel.
Until that happens I would strongly dissuage people from relying on this scoring method.

do they have to be?




fixed.

otherwise whats the point

The point is that I want it to be no different from the panel in the beginning, but make it available for players so that they can write lists and actually get their comp scores right based on what they are attempting to acheive.
From there the scoring will diverge over time, no doubt, but I actually do think the Panel gets it right 95% of the time

And yes, they have to be no comp
One because its the format (Win/Loss tiering with no soft scores on that stream), and the other because I accept list submissions on the day (lazy).

I don't think that any sort of sprawling math comp system will be able to be digested by players in a meaningful way or be in any way a productive use of time of the group of players you gather to solve the system.

Lion: do a google search for Swedish Comp Breaking.

Seriously, it is irrelevant what maths you bring up, and values you assign, because there will -always- be a way around it. Points values demarcate the units in codices, and how much you can use. Thats balanced enough. Comp scoring tries to push variety into lists, eg take average list, get average comp, take hard list, get comped hard.

Your talking not only about math comp, but a -floating- set of variables that can be modified at will decided by those involved? Hey, i think thats been done before..

Wait, its panel comp. Still subjective, and you have just derailed your entire process of "lets quantify comp".

If you want to modify points values, and that is exactly what you are doing by putting your arbitrary values on units, you are not playing 40k, your playing something else. Examples above are correct - I can write a perfectly viable Tau list under the swedish comp system, by taking a full unit of sting wings - it offsets my comp by enough to put me in the high 70's. Same goes for Vanilla marines - 2 Scout speeders is enough to bring you back into the above average category, with an absolutely viable Thunder-Bubble list.

Can not be done.

any type of points per unit system will fall down. 40K is not simple in it's set up and therefore will not fall into categories easily. the mix of different units and abilities and how they interact becomes too complicated for math comp type systems to work, this gets progressively less accurate the higher the points limit and also does not take into account the missions at the tourny.

I have seen the sweedish thing, its interesting and i suppose at some base level has some parralells with my ideal system but it is nowhere near what im suggesting.

Waht im suggesting is not math comp at all. Not in anyway similar. Im 100% opposed to changing somebodys final score in a torunament in anyway.
Waht im suggesting applies a few very simple limits to what choices can be taken. I gave an example for the eldar codex in the other thread






I did eldar because its the codex i know best. This is an example not a finished product so please dont waste conversation disagreeing with any of the spesifics of this list here.

The only parallell this has with panel comp is that a group of experienced gamers would all have thier 2c in working out the details.
It ultimately would be subjective but not only does it mitigate as much of the subjectivity as possible by getting the largest number of opinions it can but what subjectivity that is left will be made irrelivant by the transparency of it. Everybody will know what is worth what so they jsut take whatever they want within the points restictions and play. What a player plays and thier score ends up being 100% up to the players coices in list building and thier playing skill (minus soft scores like paint and sports if the TO is running them).

So why try and change it?

Quantifiable systems are all well and good, but as I stated earlier, subjective systems are better, because the mutability of the system that comes from different panel judges at different events means that no-one is going to be able to game the system with any sort of hope of actually pulling it off.

Also remember that many panel judges (myself included) not only look at the list in isolation, but at the list within the confines of the tourney itself. Lists that would normally score fairly low are quite often given a slight boost if the rest of the lists in the competition are of an equal power level or harder. It is this sort of adaptability that makes panel comp work- rigid math systems just aren't capable of this kind of fluidity.