Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Comp scoring: a system where an army is rated by either their peers, the tournament organizer, a checklist, or a combination of the three. It is worth points and counts towards your overall score for the tournament.
For example, a very simple system of comp scoring for 40k is if the army has at least 30% troops, it gets 10 points, otherwise it gets 0 points. You add these points to your total at the end of the tournament when deciding who has won.
I was wondering which people think there shouldn't be comp at tournaments, and which people think there should be comp at tournaments.
Remember there are three separate systems of comp. Even if you think there should be comp you're free to say which systems you don't like, while if you don't like comp you can still say which system is better than the others.
A checklist seems a little specific unless I read that wrong.
I think it's a good idea to do the whole rating thing tbh. It prevents horrible lists of cheese becoming commonplace, which really make the games no fun *hides Netlings*.
Considering the new requirement of Troops to claim objectives under 5e, is this kinda thing even really necessary? I guess its still possible someone might try to load up on Elites and Heavies in an attempt to "wipe the board with cheese", but the new cover and assault rules make that rather difficult.
Even though I never liked comp scoring, I did understand the basis for it. But don't the new rules already provide an emphasis on composition?
"It takes a vast amount of self control to be this dangerous."
---Ogvai Ogvai Helmshrot, Jarl of Tra, VI Legion Astartes