# Community Comp



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

Hi guys,

Been a while since I have posted here because I have been leading the charge on a system to help balance the game out.

The game has gotten pretty crazy since 5th edition and with the new Eldar rumors it seems now more than ever tournaments need to employ some kind of comp system.

Community Comp is a system to grade the power level of armies ultimately for use as a comp score in tournaments but is also very useful as a yard stick for causal games.
When grading your army you will compare which units you have in your army to the relevant pages in the Community Comp document and tally up all the "credits" you have spent. 

Community Comp is a dynamic system that changes when new books come out and is periodically tweaked for a constant pursuit of more accurate scoring.
We recognise that no one person or even small group of people can ever have enough experience to judge the power of an army without bias.
To minimise the bias we maintain a council of 15 people to engage in rigorous debate about how many credits each unit or combo should cost and we are constantly probing the community for feedback and suggestions. 


In addition to the comp scoring we have made a set of custom missions that go a long way to providing balance by giving players multiple angles from which to approach the mission.
Basically you stick a capped kill points component, Eternal War component and a slightly modified Maelstrom of war component into one mission.
Players earn VPs from each component which all add together and the most VPs wins.


You can find all this on our website www.communitycomp.org/
or contact us on our facebook page www.facebook.com/CommunityComp


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

I am actually scared by your blatant delusion about bringing "balance" on WH40K :laugh:
Lots of work on this stuff...still, have you playtested it? I'd like to view/read some battle reports and list build using your credit system.
Honestly, and no offense, it looks like Sisyphus endeavour... (yeat, here i am, reading trough the document...)









EDIT: also, i note that Kayros with grimore comes in at 14 (or am i mistaken?) credits, wich is 2 Imperial Knights...something feels wrong here...
Also, 2 land raiders are considered the same as an Imperial Knight...while the necron monolith is just 1 point??? again, wrongness ensues, imo.
And you BANNED the stompa??


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

I'm going to wait until I've seen more than one unit from the Eldar book before I cry carnifex on them.

People have been bitching about this since 5th edition. Eldar and Tau are nothing new, they're just not called Leafblower and Razorwolves anymore.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

yes its been play tested quite extensively, pretrty much every tournament that runs in the states of Victoria and South australia now use it. West Australia are beginning to use it as are ACT and NSW will soon be predominately Community Comp.
Its also used in Italy, Finland and starting to be used now in New zeland.

We have the army lists from several tournaments available as an example we can present but for a taste of that below is the list i have been playing are recent major events. I win most of my games and its one of the tougher lists at these events.
I am the kind of guy who trys to break the system and grind as many points out as i can. Im not a dick about it, im a good sport but i am what you might call a power gamer. This system really is designed to prevent power gamers from making really hard armies. 


1850 pts eldar CAD // dark eldar allied
Asuremen

Farseer with Singing spear, Falochous wing, runes of whitnessing

9 Harlequins (codex eldar ones) with shaddow seer and all of them with harlequins kiss

5 dire avengers in wave serpent with scatter lasers, shuriken cannon and holo fileds

9 jetbikes with 3 shuriken cannons and a warlock on bike with singing spear

6 jetbikes with 2 shurien cannons with a warlock on bike with singing spear

3 war walkers with scatter lasers and star engines

Bastion with escape hatch and comms relay

Archon with armor of misery, shaddow field, hawywire grenades and husk blade

5 kabalite warriors in a raider with torment grenade launchers and night shields with a dissintergrator.



This list won the recent 1850 tournament called the western smash

HQ: 

Mephiston - 175

Librarian (lvl 2) with force axe, combi-melta. Veritas Vitae (Warlord) - 115

Troops:

Tactical Squad (5) with Heavy Flamer. Drop Pod - 115

Tactical Squad (5) with combi-melta and meltagun. Drop Pod - 125

Elites:

Command Squad (5) with 3 melta guns, 2 storm shields. Drop Pod - 185

Fast Attack:

Drop Pod - 35

Drop Pod - 35

Heavy Support:

Vindicator with over-charged engines - 130


Grey Knight Allied Detachment:

HQ: 

Grey Knight Librarian (lvl 2) with Nemesis Warding Staff and combi-melta - 120

Troops:

Strike Squad (5) - 110

Elites:

Purifier Squad (10) with 4 incinerators - 270

Heavy Support:

Dreadknight with Nemesis Greatsword and Personal Teleporter - 170

Legion of the Damned Deatchment:

8 Legion of the Damned with Combi-Grav, Meltagun, Multimelta and the Animus Malorum - 265




Overwhelmingly players are agreeing that the community comp format is the best they have played in.
The victorian state championships was a particulartly good example of this. Its traditionally a no comp event so the gloves are off. But with 7th the way it is we really couldnt justify running the event that way because we knew there were like 5 players who would do horrible things to the others.
We allowed players to spend up to 14 credits but we didnt use a comp score and we use the Community Comp missions. It was widely accepted as the most ballanced 40k we had all played.

There are teething problems that players commonly run into when they are learning the system, mostly them thinking that something should be worth less than it is by a little or them imagining ways they can break the system. 
These wear off pretty quickly when they actually start making army lists and see the costs in the context of armies (which is how we decide on costs, nothing is just costed in a vacume)
The people who think they can break the system generally end up just making a good army that is costed appropriately and on the rare occasion that they DO come up with something that shoiuld be more expensive than it is we fix it. 

Balancing might seem like a mountain to climb but over the last year and a half we have climbed it


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

This seems like a fascinating system. Where on the one hand GW categorically refuse to balance things before release; you guys are focused on fixing them after the fact.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

yea well they dont make it easy for us i wont lie lol.

This new Decurion style detachment thing they are bringing out is bit of a problem for our detachment restrictions but we are getting around it.

If the rumors for the new eldar jetbikes are true its going to be a tough nut to crack


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

@paddlepop lion Do you have a link for further reading?


(Edit)Lol missed it in first post


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

paddlepop lion said:


> yea well they dont make it easy for us i wont lie lol.
> 
> This new Decurion style detachment thing they are bringing out is bit of a problem for our detachment restrictions but we are getting around it.
> 
> If the rumors for the new eldar jetbikes are true its going to be a tough nut to crack


How do you determine the costs of units? Or do you just agree on a number?

Before I go any further....

I like the idea, but disagree on the method of balancing. After going over, I can see reasons for some costs but other costs seem a bit high.

Your balancing also kills a lot of fluff aspects, making this game just a game. Might as well stick to chess.

I find the best way to balance games is with point limitations. I enjoy playing 500 point games, sure you can make some cheese lists. But with a bit of "realism" its not too had to add a few restrictions or build a story to play out.

But then again what do I know, I did quit playing competitive after 4th ed. Why? Dark eldar. But that's neither here nor their.

Its your game, enjoy it your way and I will enjoy my fluff style of Play.


Cheers.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

essentially we look at the unit and the kinds of armies its likley to appear in and the way they contribute to the power level of those armies. 
Then we make a targeted cost designed to hit spesisfically the thing that needs the cost but to leave other things alone.

This is why some things seem high, they are costed in context not in vacuum.


Really it doesnt get in the way of fluff at all its purely concerned with the power level of the game aspect, you as a player make lists according to your fluff boner.
The system HELPS fluff players because it softens the general power level of the tournament scene which allows players who make non optimal choices for fluff reasons arent having to face armies that are as strong.
The only time it will suck to be a fluff player is when your fluff would dictate that you bring are really really strong army and even then if you dont care about winning the event you can still do it. 

The things you have raised are valid concerns that is always raised when people are introduced to the system but when you start making lists and seeing events use it then you realise they arent a problem


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

paddlepop lion said:


> essentially we look at the unit and the kinds of armies its likley to appear in and the way they contribute to the power level of those armies.
> Then we make a targeted cost designed to hit spesisfically the thing that needs the cost but to leave other things alone.
> 
> This is why some things seem high, they are costed in context not in vacuum.
> ...


Fair enough, I will continue to build my csm / daemon list via the comp rules. 

I will post the list here when done, I do like a challenge.

Cheers


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

mumble mumble...those two lists seems fair enough. how many comp-points are those?

Still, i can't see a reason to ban some units...D weapons?
I need to calculate my own list with this...


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

So, using "The Dog Show Tournament" rules: 1850 pts 
I spent 9 points on this list (so i'd begin tourney with 22,2 tourney points). Single CAD, CODEX: CSM

Huron

20 Chaos Marines
MoSLaanesh
Icon of excess
2 meltaguns
Powersword
meltabombs

35 Cultists
3 flamers

15 Cultists
10 Autoguns

3 x 1 Obliterators
MoNurgle

5 Nurgle Spawns

5 Nurgle Spawns

5 Nurgle Bikers
2 meltaguns
combimelta
meltabombs

5 Terminators
MoSlaanesh
Icon of Excess
Lightning claw champ.
4 combi plasma

I'm not fully convinced. Might want to playtest it whit some friends.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

mine was 12 at the time and the pod army was 6.

My eldar has recently incurred an extra credit in asurmen so its now a 13.



We have basically decided after a very very large ammount of deliberation and several wide polls of the community and constant probing that there is a thick sentiment in the community that some super heavies are too much to deal with in comp game.
One of our fundimental principals that guide our decision making is:
"is it reasonable to expect that an average comp army can deal with this?"

an imperial knight most armies can either kill or dodge, 2 of them quite often they can kill one and dodge the other but 3 is getting pretty hard to deal with.
A stompa is more than twice as hard to kill as a knight but it also shoots 7 very dangerous weapons on the first turn a can kill a huge sectiion of a marine list on turn 1.

The obelisk from necrons is banned because the guns shoot 270 degrees so it can very easily lay down 20 HITS of s7 per turn and is tough enough that it will do that every turn for the whole game. its jsut too much to kill and too much to weather for most armies. the tesseract labrynth is even worse.

we have jsut released an imperial armor expansion pack with quite a few super heavies that are legal.


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

paddlepop lion said:


> mine was 12 at the time and the pod army was 6.
> 
> My eldar has recently incurred an extra credit in asurmen so its now a 13.
> 
> ...


And the stompa is on par with the imperial knight....


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

that is some peoples opinion but its not shared buy the wider community and not by the council. 

At some point in the future (a time which is determained by how much help we get from the community) we will be releasing an apocalypse package where all these things will be legal.
But untill then models like the stompa we have determained are just too big for an average comp army to be expected to deal with.


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

paddlepop lion said:


> that is some peoples opinion but its not shared buy the wider community and not by the council.
> 
> At some point in the future (a time which is determained by how much help we get from the community) we will be releasing an apocalypse package where all these things will be legal.
> But untill then models like the stompa we have determained are just too big for an average comp army to be expected to deal with.


That is understandable, I just feel if the stompa is banned the imperial knight and wraithknight should also be banned.

(Wraithknight after the new eldar dex drops)

But that's my 2¢ not the councils.

I will agree that we will disagree on how the comp rules are presented.

Cheers.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

look your 2c matters and it is taken into consideration.
All of us have our own opinions on what should cost what. This opinion is based off our experiences with and against said unit with the full rainbow of different armies in different missions. There is no "Right" cost for something its ultimately jsut what we think will best suit our needs.

What we have done is create a system that lowers the general power level of the metagame so that less experiences, less capable or more Fluff centric players can meet thier opponent at a tornament, look across the table and think to themselves:
"Well this game might be a hard one, but i can deal with those units, those units are a bit scary but if i play well and get a little lucky i might be able to win."

We feel imperial knights are JUST on the line of being too much. Theres a good chance that they will be going up a little bit more but a stompa is over that line.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

paddlepop lion said:


> we have jsut released an imperial armor expansion pack with quite a few super heavies that are legal.


link? 



mrknify said:


> That is understandable, I just feel if the stompa is banned the imperial knight and wraithknight should also be banned.


100% agree.

i understand how a stompa shooting is scarier than a knight..but i can have an army of three knights...and be perfectly legal... anyway...


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

Oh that hasnt been made into a button on the website yet ill have to get on that

heres a link to the forums where its linked.

http://communitycomp.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=0&t=50


Its still in beta so we havent finalised everything yet but in a month or so we will have a finished copy to start using.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

thanks


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

This system looks fantastic! I'm very impressed and think this should be the future of 40k tournaments. GW's models and fluff are outstanding, but their codices have reached a point where the community have to come together and impose limitations. 

Keep it up! :good:

edit: So the cumulative points system... if a land raider is 1 credit C2 then the first LR costs 1 credit, and the second costs 2 credits (1 X 2) for 3 credits total?


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

Hey are the comp rules going to be made into an excellent sheet or an app?


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

its not 1x2 for cumulative its 1+2. the third one is 1+2+2

4th is 1+2+2+2 etc etc.





> Hey are the comp rules going to be made into an excellent sheet or an app?


Great question.

We have a very skilled Web designer on our team who has grand plans of a Battle scribe type app. but a first step will be an online army building program that lets you write in your army with all the resources at your finger tips. you can submit your list online to your tournament organiser if they have registered thier event with us.

We dont just offer a comp system, handy cheat sheets, army list templates etc. We are about to release a full tournament organisers pack which is quite literally a basic shell for a players pack, mission pack, comp system, Score calculation system for runnning things on the day, score sheet proformers to be printed etc. Just everything a TO needs to run an event and all they have to do is fill in the blanks. 
We offer the service to check over everyones lists to make sure they have the right comp scores calculated etc which saves TOS further time. The thing we get out of this deal is all the data from thier event. This means all the army lists, the final standings and all the round scores so we can analyse it using our handy dandy statistical tools and better improve the system.

Were always looking for new people to help out as well. There is a list as long as my arm of things to do, its an embarrassingly large ammount of work to get it to this point and maintain it. I have become quite obsessed lol.


----------



## mrknify (May 15, 2014)

@paddlepop lion very cool. I look forward to further updates about this.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

That you have tournament winning lists is simply changing the goalposts on a meta. I understand the sentiment, but having a rapidly changing meta doesn't actually balance a game, it just prevents people from gaming a system with experience too much. It's just another factor to take into account that they're having to juggle power over cost.

Something that's ironically the most important thing to tournament players.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

Vaz we arent rapidly changing the metagame and this system does not just move the goal posts. That idea is a common one that people notice when they are first introduced to the system.


We define a balanced metagame as one where all codexes can be used to make competitive armies and there is many possible competitive armies.
In addition the "best army" in a ballanced metagame is not very much more powerful than "second teir armies".

What Community comp does is lower the power level of the format enough that all codexes can make multiple competitive armies and it specifically targets powerfull builds and combinations so that the best army/s are not very much more powerfull than second teir armies.

This is different to say a highlander system where they Change the meta game rather than lowering the power level generally. 
When doing this they aim at the more powerfull armies but in doing so they wound second teir armeis as well. in these systems the best army is still far more powerfull than second teir armies, they are just all different armies. 


You must understand, i am "that guy" and so are most of the people on the community comp pannel. Breaking systems is what we do, we enjoy it and were good at it. 
Myself i have been getting away with murder under the pannel comp system for years now. We made this system because we are watching 40k generally take a nose dive because of the series of massive mistakes GW have been making. players are leaving for x wing in droves and tournament attendance is dropping to the point where in several states in Australia (where im from) events arent even running.

We made this system to Fix whats wrong with 40k. They do everything right exept accurately written rules and ballance. 
This system provides ballance not just a different metagame and it does this in part by providing a deliberately engineered "sweet spot" in the system. 
I dont care who knows it because it doesnt change the systems efficacy but f you spend 5 or 6 credits you have the best chance to win a tournament. You get the most comp points for your army and the good players who try and win notice this. 
Across the board the best players are playing 5s and 6s which is the softer end of the scale. We suggest that all players use an army that spends between 8 and 12 so the average player ends up with an army thats in fact inhearently more powerfull than the top players are using. 

This contrbutes significantly to the effect i mentioned earlier where a newer or less capable general meets thier opponent on the table and can look across the board and think to themselves "well this might be a hard game, but i know i can deal with those units, That unit might be a bit scary but if i do x/y or z i can probbaly bring it down eventually and if i play well and get a bit lucky i might win"

thats what were looking for because thats when newer players have fun and are enticed to come back.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

I think I was negatively impressed, but the more i look at the file, the more it grows on me. Still, it has its bad.spots, but i think it's better than the LVO tourney rules...also better than many other events...
Anyway i think that (just like Vaz said) most of the "balacing" comes from changing the meta, not with unit restriction but basically giving certain units an handicap in tourney points ('cause in the end, it's what the system does). Still, a better solution than most to "competitify" (it's not an actual word...) a "beer and pretzel" game system, where "that guy" shouldn't even be allowed to get near the table.


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

Care to let me know what the bad points you think are?

we are always looking to improve it and any feedback would be helpfull.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

I will..in some days 
Real life is somewhat bitchy...

EDIT: i could begin with my CSM point of view. I feel that some units have been highly priced due to the possible abuse they imply, like Nurgle Spawns and Obliterators. However, those high pricings feels "in a vacuum" because the steep price for 3 nurgle obliterators (5 points!) is ridiculous, compared to what 5 points can buy in the same system. Also, nurgle oblits can be good, but should be taken in context. Example: they should cost more if deployed with fearless characters or if you include in your army a divination source. 3 oblits can be multiplied even with the presence of any fortification. I know, you already pay for the fort. or the divinator, but..a divinator with 3 common obliterators in to a fortification will cost waay less than said obliterators with MoNurgle... however, the divinator and oblits in fort. can be way more dangerous than the marked oblits. 
This is just an example to say that even comcomp has its shenanigans and thus, partially, is just changing the meta. 
Moreover, Havocs as C1...strongly disagree. Should be ruled that only certain equipment cause them to be C1 ( i guess massed autocannon is the problem here) but trust me, handycapping Havocs with plasmaguns in rhino...is truly unfair 
Then, the +1 tax for each 55 models, is ok for some armies but not for others. I understand it's a way to keep people from spamming models, but since you already cover that in a precise way for each army (orks hordes are at a premius as do IG blobs...) why penalize even those who try to build an army tah can work with just some more models? You can't really compare 55 cultists (+1) to 55 boyz (at a +2 IIRC). Cultists should be +0 and then Ork boyz could be good at +2. Maybe i am wrong with some calculations here (and thius my reasoning is moot), please point that out if so.
Again i think you should penalize absurde power creeping alliances. Tau + Tyranids? power creep. CSM + knights? power creep. Eldar + Tau.. etc etc etc.. namely the two last level of alliance should be penalized. And this WILL penalize some armies more than others (xeno, more than imperium) but i've seen lots of absurde necron + orks, tau + tyranids and so on lists, used to abuse "that" OP unit. Also, more than 1 CAD should come at a premium. Who relies on the basics, should be rewarded. All this new "decurion" type of list, really make a dent in your system. But even Alliance and Dual CAD can be crippling, imo, when it comes to list balance.
So, maybe, dual cad +0.5 , Alliance +0.5 to +1.5, decurion type detachment from 0.5 to 2.0...just throwing numbers around to express an idea, if you understand what i mean. 
Sorry, but my english is not perfect...can't express proper toughts besides kinky and creepy ones...


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

Nurgle oblits are actually 2 credits for a unit of 3 actually. maybe ill have to have another look at the table and see if i can clarify it some more.

You actually have limited detachment options in CC. You will notice there is a page for detachemts which details it.
you cant have double CAD and we are debating now making the decurion style detachment take up all your detachments which will probably change in the next update in june. 

The 55 models rule like all the rules there has a specific purpose. Marine equivilent armies rarely trigger 55 models and when they do its by a few models and they can almost always make a small tweak to dodge it. 
horde armies find themselves making a small tweak around 110 models.
essentially what this rule does is to provide a soft pressure for armies to think about thier model count which helps to curb model spam a little.
It seems like a meaninless rule now but when and if you start making lists in the system it will make sense. 

I havent figured out a way to make the system look like it works on first impressions but i think its actually a sign that its been done right. 
So often these systems look snazzy in the begginning but it ends up being crap when you use it. This is kind of the opposite, looks like its full of holes now but when you use it you find out it is pretty solid


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

paddlepop lion said:


> Nurgle oblits are actually 2 credits for a unit of 3 actually. maybe ill have to have another look at the table and see if i can clarify it some more.


mmh, i was reading the table in a stupid way it seems. My bad! Anyway, a personla feeling is that you should not tax the number of oblits, but the number of units. 3 single oblits are WAY more powerful than an unit of three (being forced to use all the same weapons, not being fearless, not benefiting from MSU etc.)



paddlepop lion said:


> You actually have limited detachment options in CC. You will notice there is a page for detachemts which details it.
> you cant have double CAD and we are debating now making the decurion style detachment take up all your detachments which will probably change in the next update in june.


Eh, i misreaded the Detachment explanations. Maybe you could make it a bit more "idiot-proof" (such as me  ) with some examples. It means i can take 1 CAD, 1 Formation and 1 "small codex" formation? So, CSM CAD , Allied daemon and Helcult formation?

Great to hear you are working on "decurion style" shit. i'm curoius about the outcome...

Anyway, my point on penalizing extra-single CAD choices stand.

Also, thanks for the patience! Thats makes you credit!


----------



## Squire (Jan 15, 2013)

The tyranid limitation on shrikes and raveners seems a bit odd to me. Shrikes are _okay_ and raveners are quite a weak unit so it seems strange to penalise someone taking lots of either type. I understand the credits you pay for even a large number of either creature is quite low, but I can't see the logic in taxing them at all.



neferhet said:


> mmh, i was reading the table in a stupid way it seems. My bad! Anyway, a personla feeling is that you should not tax the number of oblits, but the number of units. 3 single oblits are WAY more powerful than an unit of three (being forced to use all the same weapons, not being fearless, not benefiting from MSU etc.)


But by taking three singles you are using all heavy slots, so you're already limiting yourself in that sense. I really like the CSM limitations


----------



## paddlepop lion (Apr 7, 2011)

One thing people have trouble with in the beginning is the concept of spending credits. 
Everyone will spend some credits, we suggest between 8 and 12 on average for middle of the road armies.
Dont see a credit as a punitive measure, when you pay credits remember all the units your NOT paying for.

Also remember that these are targeted solutions for specific problem armies.
If you were to take a bunch of shrikes what you do is bring reasonably tough, fast combat units to the table. If an opponent has a ballanced army they are unlikley to have enough shooting to take out 36 wounds worth in the early part of the game so they are likley to make combat with still quite a few models and they have sucked all the shooting away from other targets.


----------



## difsta (Mar 19, 2010)

Hi All, another one of those "haven't posted over here in ages" fellas from Australia 

I am one of the members of the Community Comp Team, and I can say with confidence that this system works. We spend a lot of time looking over what kind of lists are going to events, not to necessarily see who is winning the events, but to gauge a strength of lists in attendance. This is not just community comp events, some TO's who are running their own format (panel comp, peer comp, no comp, etc.) are letting us see the lists in attendance. From this we get to see the little 'tricks' that people use to get around certain credits. Some of these are really nifty and don't deserve to be 'hit', others we look at and decide it is worth re-evaluating a rule.
I find the best thing to do to learn how to use it, is simply grab your existing lists, so the last list you took to an event, and plug it through the system (if you want to post them either here, or over on our facebook page/forum/etc.) we are happy to take note. Offer ways of skimming a few credits with minimal tweaks, or alternatively taking the feedback on board and potentially making changes.
This system has been successful due to the number of people providing feedback. So for those who are pessimistic, write a list, see if you think it gets the score you think it deserves.


----------



## Haskanael (Jul 5, 2011)

so, from what I have read this is pretty much a handicap system? people with higher amounts of "credit" spend on their army have a high handicap on their tournament score and people with lesser amounts of "credits" spend have a lighter to no handicap to their tournament score?


----------



## difsta (Mar 19, 2010)

pretty much. But it is more than just a handicap. It puts restrictions on the 'top level' of the list. So the lists that just straight up smash face (we all know they exist) aren't allowed in the 'Standard' credit limit of 20 Credits. Basically the more credits you spend, the less of the Composition Score/Handicap the player receives.

It is designed to encourage players who are there to win the event to take 'medium strength' lists. Without stopping the people who are there just to have fun taking the list they want (unless it is just to heinous to see on the other side of the table).

Australia has had what we call a 'Panel Comp' system for years. So the army list gets submitted to an event organiser and they get a group of players to rate the list out of a number (usually 5). Community Comp as a system takes away the individual comp judges bias, as the scores are calculate with a team of 15+ people, of which we get community feedback on the numbers to make sure we are on the money.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Squire said:


> But by taking three singles you are using all heavy slots, so you're already limiting yourself in that sense. I really like the CSM limitations


True indeed.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

This army is 7 points under comcomp system. This is ridiculous. 
Any chance this will be fixed? (whit centurion formations, of course)


----------

