Comp/No Comp

[Peanut]

I've been listening to a few Warhammer podcasts lately, specifically Dimensional Cascade and Garagehammer, and hosts on both of those shows have been mentioning how "anti-comp" they are. I'm just wondering why? Comp seems like the greatest thing to me... I won't go into why! Not trying to start a debate, just curious.

[KJTW]

I look at it like this (Excluding end times, which I consider a supplement)

If players are using the rules to their advantage in how they build their armies, how does adding more rules prevent this from continuing? If you look at results across the country there are as many "net lists" on the bottom tables as there is at the top. You said you listen to Garage hammer. If you listen to it for a while, then you've heard Chris say that he relies on his build to do the heavy lifting and in tournaments. You will also hear him say he almost never comes in at the podium. He's usually in the middle third and a lot of that comes from painting points. I'm my opinion it's about the player, and not their list.

I think players should be able to take what they want, and TO's should run tournaments they would like to play in. In My event the only comp is. Small tweak to lore of undeath, however 25% of scoring is sports. If you want to take a list that is super tough but not fun to play against, that's up to you but you're doing while sacrificing a significant part of your overall score. So if when it all costs is your goal that list may not be the right answer.

The purpose of the game is to have fun, and in my opinion that goal is better served by being permissive instead of restrictive.

ultimately it's about having fun and building up the community. Most of the guys around here are great guys and should provide fun games for themselves and their opponents in my experience. Just because an event is comped doesn't mean I am not going to play. I am there to have fun, and drink beer, and have a good time with my friends.

[Fixxer]

This article has been posted before on these forums, I just thought it was a brilliant piece of writing. It pertains to fighting games more than WHFB or tabletop games, but I feel like video fighting games are as close to table top games as we can get. I think that the SCRUB mentality is more prevalent in board games though and this article should be read by everyone who wants to comp the hell out of this game. 

 

I like NO COMP. 

 

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win

 

Ending. "It's also totally fine to mess around with no intention of ever becoming really good. You don't have to try to be the best at every game you play. I certainly don't try that, it would be exhausting. But when I see someone else trying to be the best, I admire it, rather than condemn it. If that makes the game fall apart, I hold the game developer responsible, not the player.

But if you want to win—if that's your intention—then you need to leave behind whatever mental baggage you have that would prevent you from making the moves that actually help you win. By doing that and practicing and learning, you can walk the path of continuous self-improvement that Playing to Win is really about."

[Peanut]

Interesting article. I think I may be a "scrub."

 

KJTW, I think what you're doing is rad and will make for a great tournament, and I'll agree that everyone at ORDO is cool and about the game, not just winning. It seems to me like you aren't completely anti-comp, the sports score acts as a subtle comp, I think.

 

Without arguing any points, I'll just explain my thoughts (that need more thinking):

 

I worry that if I want to compete at the tournament level, my army selection choices are more limited. For example: I should play Savage Orcs rather than regular orcs. At the last OFCC, I fought a guy who, after the game, told me to get rid of my regular orcs and swap them out for their more-naked counterparts. And he insisted I get manglers. I don't like manglers, and I like the look of regular orcs over savages, so I play that. I can see the argument that I am setting self-imposed boundaries on myself, and maybe that's true, maybe in that way I am a "scrub." I want a level playing field where skill and a little luck determines the outcome of the game, but I also want to take common goblins rather than night goblins. Maybe I want too much! Hopefully GW starts doing a better job comping themselves with the points, though it's such a huge undertaking to stay on top of that. I look at games like Infinity though, and it seems like they do a really good job keeping power levels matched. I'm hopeful for 9th, having less armies. Maybe GW will stay on top of the power levels a little better with more frequent releases. MAYBE. I don't know!

[Sylvos]

Players feel entitled to have some form of control over their environment.

 

Comp provides this illusion of control and "balance".

 

It is all a lie.

 

There is no balance, there is no control.

There is only me.

 

I am the way and the light.  

 

Through me all things are saved.

 

I am the Champion of No Comp.

[Peanut]

Oh...

[JMGraham]

Comp always exists. The point costs, % requirements, min and max unit sizes, etc. in the army books are all a form of comp imposed by GW. Some people are happy with that, and think that GW did a good job in setting the restrictions on what you can take. Those are the "no-comp" (or, more accurately, "GW-comp") folks. Other people see GW's built-in comp system as either falling short, or being too unbalanced to be fun. Those people are the folks who impose additional restrictions in the form of external comp. Among friends, social pressure seems to take care of people being jerks. External comp is more useful in a tournament or event setting, when strangers with different expectations of what is fun might bump into one another.

 

Different strokes for different folks. I don't mind what people do. I just think it's stupid to call GW-comp "no comp" because it has very clear composition rules.

 

Personally, I think GW is a great company when it comes to IP development and model-making, but an atrocious company when it comes to making a balanced rule set. Their policy of no external playtesting and not catering to the tournament crowd has worsened this over the past decade. 

[Don't Panic]

well i like it that we have dynamic feelings on GW comp vs some form of comp.  i honestly think it comes down to play style and what army you have as well.  if you play tomb kings/beastmen/dwarfs/other middle/lower tier armies or like playing fun choices in stronger armies then yes comp would probably be more fun for you.  if you like bringing the toughest nails lists out there, then yea no comp is your thing.  im somewhat in between.  i like both.  i like playing for and against unique lists and no-comp i see a lot of 'same old song and dance' lists that i either have an answer to or i dont with my favorite army.  i think comp encourages strategy more with your list building and that entices me more.  your list will have weaknesses at higher comp values but how you make up for that as a general is something i admire.  seeing an end times character charge and table something is boring to me.  for example playing against jordan he brought sisters of slaughter and heck id NEVER seen them before and because of that they wrecked my face lol.  ive tried even a weird style gunline and just didnt enjoy it even though ive never lost using a gunline lol.  i like playing both as stated, but seeing pieces on the table like minotaurs, jezzails, gyrobombers, giants, vortex beasts etc is just fun imo.  that being said i love also playing tough as nails lists and learning how to play them.  my one gripe is i wish we had ETC comp here or someone would try a tournament with it.  reading it, that type of comp is more my style...  i want all the comp/uncomp styles and building lists to play them ALL :P im weird.........

[KJTW]

Peanut, I will try and strange a game for you with Sinewgrab sometime. I think you will find his orks a good challenge, and a great example of why you don't have to take internet lists

[Kremmet]

Ehh, I don't really think the comp VS anti-comp argument breaks down into thinking GW does a good job with the competitive scene VS people thinking they need external help as you are suggesting Jim.  In fact I've always found it hard, especially in the WHFB crowd, to find anyone who believes in the former.  To me the comp VS anti-comp argument tends to be more about control over the meta.  This isn't to say that they want the same units to be what is best all the time, but that the same types of lists tend to be the ones that are incentivized.  Swedish, for example, in general loves lists that are mixed bags and avoid going too far into one direction.  This means that all-comers lists tend to be much higher in their comp than RPS affairs which most competitive players will tell you is the best way to build lists anyway.  Anti-comp people tend to like the challenge that new builds come and believe strongly in self comping.  The biggest issue with this approach is GW's meta shifts are often very harsh (from infantry to monstrous cav to elves in this edition) and therefore do little to preserve previous meta's lists.  To be fair this isn't just a problem with GW as much as it is with gaming in general.

I was one of the guest hosts on the latest Dimensional Cascade talking about comp and, if I remember correctly, I probably came off as very anti-comp because of who I was arguing with.  I'm not actually anti-comp, but I don't think it's the savior it is often touted to be.  I like playing in comped events because they let me build different lists from non-comped ones, but I don't think they should be the majority of events because they can quickly stagnate.  There's also the larger issue that comp tends to avoid certain parts of the game because they're "too powerful" which I feel is a huge mistake.  If you're telling me that there's a comp value for Banner of the World Dragon, but that it's impossible to comp the End Times then I wonder about your intentions.  

 

Edit for Dontpanic:  I think you're the only person I've seen listing dwarfs with TK and BoC.  Just a little aside that, while they have very few competitive builds open to them, dwarfs are not often considered a low tier army.

[Romes]

I think in a tournament environment where are a substantial subset of the players trying to win in the strategy game rather than purely the beer game(which is equally as legitimate, to each their own), comp adds value and makes for a better event. Not all events are like this, and some events and communities rebel against the idea of comp because they would rather that no one attending consider the game primarily as competitive. I think there's a long discussion to have there. But it's not what I want to talk about. 

 

I want to tell you that comp is absolutely effective, and here's why: (this is a persuasive section, and will have some non-qualified language, please don't flame!)

 

A good comp: 

 

Promotes list diversity, reduces the rock paper scissors nature of the game by preventing extremes, and makes armies closer to the same power level.

 

I think a lot of the confusion about whether or not comps do this (Swedish is the most obvious example) is an issue of accumulated anecdotal evidence. When you compare the lists at a swedish event to the lists at a no comp event you recently attended you'll usually be able to say, "look this 30-40 man GT I went to had just as much list diversity, and not very many people brought OP stuff, who needs comp?"  You, dear non-tldr reader, can probably think of some events like this.

 

This is because many, if not most, people playing Warhammer: A: aren't trying to bring he filthiest thing they can, and B: don't have the money/time/interest in going out and building the most powerful option. Their is social pressure against doing so, internalized norms, and community values, reputation/ $. This is comp in itself, it's just not formalized comp, it's the super subjective comp of "that would be lame."

 

The point is, most lists at this mystical GT your picturing, (probably whichever one you last attended), weren't written to be broken.

 

But moving on.

 

In my experience, in any given small GT (30-40) there's maybe 20%-50% of the field there to be competitive and of them at least half,usually more, are self comping in some way. The subset that is there to be competitive also has wildly different experience levels. You then have a very small subset of players who are both bringing competitive lists and are experienced players (10%-25%). Pairings, and when that subset faces each other, make a massive difference in the small population set for determining results.

 

So you see variety, you see diversity, and other many of the podium armies aren't the filth. Maybe a round 5 pairing on table 4 has an experienced player with a well rounded list against a less experienced player with a powerful list that, when unstopped, gets big wins, but has some real weaknesses (looking at you daemon prince!) Player A wins, and big, and takes home the gold (insert another million theoretical examples).

 

There are simply too few players both experienced and taking powerful armies over too few rounds, for a clear pattern to come out of the power level difference and define the results. 

 

So, when you compare comp to the local GT, it's easy to say "meh, not really needed."

 

So what does comp do:

 

Take a hard boyz scenario, everyone brings the filthiest thing they can with the focus purely on winning. In 8th, (before endtimes) this is maybe 4-5 lists, they look exactly the same, and they should. You'll see Kairos/Epidemus/2 SC, fully powered HE white lion banner Allerielle deathstars with double frost, which beats Epidemus, and lists from the other competitive books that are optimized to beat the HE deathstar, but get destoryed by daemons. You might see light council IF there are a lot of daemons. From each army book every list looks pretty much the same.

 

This relationship is mirrored in MTG for the early ravager period, you had ravager, RG anti ravager, and rouge (everything else) which beat anti ravager and lost to ravager.

 

It's not a great environment because if people are close to the same skill you can pretty much determine the outcome with the pairings computer.

 

boo.

 

What swedish does to this environment is MASSIVE. There is no longer one build per book, every book (maybe not beastmen?) is valid and competitive. There are at a minimum 20 solid builds in the game (+ a lot of experimental rogue builds where people finally take double giant cause they're comp cheap), but really a lot of variety within them (usually about 1800 points of in book overlap).

 

Now the tournament is fun.

 

So, when you're asking does comp work (make the game more balanced and increasediversity), ask what it would do to a hard boyz event. Yes, it works.

 

Does your event need comp? You'll probably only benefit by the difference between what your event looks like and a Swedish event looks like, which may not be a ton, and may decide it's not needed. Just don't decline comp because you think it doesn't work.

 

A final thought:

 

In my experience the people who most often are the strongest advocates for comp are the same ones bringing the hard lists. I don't bring hard lists because I want auto wins, I bring them because I don't want auto-losses. A one sided games is not what gets people into the hobby.

 

 

TLDR - There's no TLDR here! scroll up BWAHAHAHAHAHA

[Romes]

Here's the real TLDR:

 

If you're trying to determine if comp works based on your personal tournament experience in uncomped GTS:

 

Experimental evidence is only valuable if it is both statistically significant and free of confounding causal factors. I'd argue that what we have is neither, so all that's left is the realm of theory.

 

Which is all, of course, a different question than: is comp needed?

[rudra34]

Romes, while definitely an opinion piece, that was an intelligent and well-structured argument.

 

However, Beastmen are awesome :)

[McNathanson]

I'm so glad Romes and JMGraham wrote what they did so I didn't have to try to compose a complete reply... nice job guys.  Especially the bits about "no comp" really being "default GW comp" (especially relevant, given GW's atrocious balancing system of flat points cost plus an all-but-meaningless Core/Special/Rare/Character points restriction), and Romes' points about the flaw in anecdotal arguments against an improved balancing system, and his data-driven assessment.  Well done, good sirs.

A few additional points:

 

Whether you are a "scrub" or a "competitive" player, I sincerely doubt that many people prefer a game which is mostly decided by build matchup prior even to deployment. I believe most prefer a game that is decided over the course of the game itself, by some combination of luck and skill.  With that in mind as part of what makes for a "good game", any system that makes it easier to create good matchups improves the likelihood of the kind of games we're looking for.  Therefore, it only follows that Swedish Comp should make tournaments more fun for nearly everyone involved as long as the ratings are used to influence round-over-round matching somehow.  The only drawback I see is a more cumbersome building exercise (Army Builder Swedish Comp plugin, anyone?!).

A second thought: assuming players are building armies with consideration toward the "good game" goal above, an army power rating system actually frees players up in creating builds.  It's *less* restrictive, not *more*, because it allows you to bring a "10" and still have a good game at the same tournament where other people who brought a "1" are also having a good game.  By contrast, without a comp/rating system, if you want "good games", you end up trying to blindly build a "5-ish", to strike a balance between getting steamrolled, and streamrolling others, which is very difficult without knowing what everyone else is bringing!

 

Of course great player attitude and high player skill both are very important, but the ever-elusive struggle to devise a "fair and balanced" list, based purely on a point cap, and without knowing what everyone else is bringing, is definitely improved upon by a secondary build scoring system, like Swedish Comp.  As someone who used to spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get "good games" in a tournament setting, I am a huge fan!

[MexicanNinja]

I'm a scrub and I feel that it's the community which makes or breaks the game. Whether comped or uncomped, both may be exploited and abused.

 

So again, I think it depends on the event and the players. I've experienced some of my best games in uncomped events.

[McNathanson]

Swedish, for example, in general loves lists that are mixed bags and avoid going too far into one direction.  This means that all-comers lists tend to be much higher in their comp than RPS affairs which most competitive players will tell you is the best way to build lists anyway.  Anti-comp people tend to like the challenge that new builds come and believe strongly in self comping.

 

Anti-comp people believing in self comp is quite true, in fact I think most of us (pro or anti) do a lot of self-regulating, for the good of the many :)

 

But I'm also pretty sure most of us have experienced games involving two well-intentioned players whose versions of self-comp differ enough that the game is just not even very interesting.  I think that's the benefit of having a deterministic comp system instead of subject self-comping: less chance for a gross difference in opinion of what is a "5-ish" list :)

 

Oh and another thing I like about Swedish: as you point out, without comp in the mix, new builds emerge with every GW rules release.  The beauty of a comp system is that the "rules" release every time there's a tournament won, or a meta-pattern emerging, or a new book... so you're constantly getting to experience the challenge of building for a new meta.

 

And finally, the fact that almost every unit can participate in the meta means that models don't go from must-have, to obsolete, and back again... you can build an army you like, using models you like, and the Swedish comp system will work to bring it closer to a "5-ish" for you.

 

A great example of this is the Khorne army I've always wanted to build, but which previously just isn't good enough to bring to tourneys.  I always felt that in order to make for interesting games, I'd need to include models I just didn't like and shy away from the ones that really inspired me.  With Swedish, comping around 18 means that I can just pick the models I want, build a list I think is cool, and it'll probably be perfectly fun at any Swedish event I go to.

 

Lest I sound like I think Swedish is the Savior arisen, I *still* agree that good players and attitude are the #1 ingredient for fun games of any kind.  And WFB also depends heavily on pretty models, paint and terrain.  But I find it hard to argue logically against the improvement that results from applying Swedish comp to augment GW's flat-cost %-based nonsense :)

 

 

[godswearhats]

The game requires a lot of social interaction with your opponent in order to play, some of which is because of the ambiguity and (in some cases unnecessary) complexity of the game. Exploiting some of the flaws in the game (or even just trying to win with Dwarfs) also often encourages a style of play that detracts from the fun, both for you and for your opponent. However, it could be argued that if the game didn't require the same level of social interaction, then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

For example, Magic: the Gathering is an equally (if not more) complex game, but all of its rules are extremely well defined. It's meta game shifts with every new release (every few months), and they have an active group of expert players (the DCI) who regulate what cards should be allowed in a given competitive format. So, whatever deck you play, you know that you use whatever you've got to beat your opponent in 2 games out of 3 within an hour. To me, competitive Magic is incredibly cutthroat and is always WAAC, but you can play the whole game without really interacting in any meaningful fashion with your opponent. It does not detract from the game - it actually just shows that at the highest levels of the game, you can't be thinking about being a nice guy: it's pure competition. All the social interaction in the game is restricted to saying the things you need to say about moving the game along, and nothing else.

 

With Warhammer, our tournament community is small (< 250 players in the Northwest and < 100 in any given city), our games are long (2.5 hours minimum) and our meta game shifts slowly - there's a time delay in gathering and painting the necessary miniatures, army books are inconsistent in release schedule, many players adjust their existing army to a meta shift (rather than change their entire army), probably less than 50 players who are truly interested in competitive play, and so forth. At even the most competitive tournaments, we're playing against people we know personally, or want to know personally, and we exchange a lot of social and hobby interaction pre- and post-game, as well as during. We (the overall PNW Warhammer community) just don't play the game in a truly competitive fashion, and so the flaws of the game never consistently surface, and the best players are consistently in the top tables regardless of what comp is applied to an event. As a result, comp becomes purely a personal preference of a TO.

 

In other areas of the country or the world where they have a larger community, with more tournament play and a faster moving meta (because people are more willing to switch armies, for instance) the flaws of the Warhammer game end up funneling players toward certain lists within their army books. Because the release schedule may involve no meta changes for some time (e.g. there were 8 months with no army books, or the release of the Lizardmen / Dwarf books didn't really change the meta), optimal lists for certain armies become almost set in stone - and those tournaments become boring - rock, paper, scissors - so why bother going? Enter Swedish, which punishes the (obvious) optimal choices and aims to avoid certain styles of play that are deemed boring: gun lines, avoidance, unit spam, death stars. We don't have that problem here, because even the most competitive players know that the majority of their games will be against others who are just bringing whatever units they have painted or that they like the fluff for.

 

The one 2-day tournament I won last year was because I brought filth, designed to exploit the flaws in the game (and arguably because I cheated in how I cast Dreaded 13th, but in 3 out 5 games I didn't take that spell, so let's assume I would have won anyway). In the other 1-day I won, I brought overpriced 6th ed. Wood Elves and won with solid battle scores and good soft scores. This community doesn't need the super-active comp that the Swedes have because we don't have the highest skill levels. I like comp because I like to think I'm a pretty competitive player, so I want to win or lose on my own skill, rather than on being Scissors to someone else's Rock or Paper. I don't think we need comp for all the reasons I just said.

 

Ramble ramble.

[fluger]

This article has been posted before on these forums,

 

Quick note from that article:

 

 

 

"It's Not Fun To Play That Way"

This might be true, or it might not be, depending on the game. The scrub mentality is to make this claim for basically all games though so beware of that.

Some games don't hold up to high-level play. That's sloppy design in my opinion. A solid game holds up to experts playing it as hard as they can against each other. That way, the game can be fun for beginners and experts.

 

This is where this article diverges from WHFB or any GW game at all.  It isn't designed for high level play.  

[Peanut]

 

Ramble ramble.

 

Great post!

[McNathanson]

We (the overall PNW Warhammer community) just don't play the game in a truly competitive fashion, and so the flaws of the game never consistently surface, and the best players are consistently in the top tables regardless of what comp is applied to an event. As a result, comp becomes purely a personal preference of a TO.

 

I really liked your post and agree with most of it.  However I find this bit of logic to be flawed (sorry!)  In the pursuit of what I find a very interesting discussion I hope you don't mind my dissent :)

 

I believe the existence of comped tournaments has a natural "comping" effect o players who can't afford the time and money required to build totally different armies for uncomped events.  So the armies tend to look pretty similar.  Would the armies be as generally kind and balanced if there were no comped (or equivalently regulated, e.g. OFCC) tournaments?  I doubt it.  In the past when our tournament scene was mostly game store run RTT style, there were people trying to bring the winningest Rock they could, and it was through our efforts as a gaming community that lists were even somewhat balanced.  So I think the absence of crappy lists at uncomped tournaments is a direct result of a) comped tournaments and b) social pressure to self-comp (in addition of course to everyone being jolly swell guys around here, hah!)

 

Also, the best players consistently being in the top tables has quite a lot to do with the best players figuring out how to bring lists that appear soft but are actually still very capable.  I don't see anyone winning with garbage lists.  Heck I see very few people even playing garbage lists.  So construction is still a very important factor, and here in the PNW, building an army that is quietly very strong is a good route to the sweet, sweet glory of victory :P

 

I do really agree with most of your post though, especially the part about why competitive WFB and a sharp meta isn't likely to happen around here.  But I'll propose a more egotistical explanation: we're too smart to try fit a square peg (WFB) into a round hole (competitive tournament play), and most of us get our fix on Magic or computers or some other better suited game for that kind of gaming.

[ClassicFlava]

@NTK: Seattle historically has only run uncomped events so I am not sure your logic works.  Only recently have there been tournaments here run with Swedish comp.  For Portland area your logic may very well be spot on tho. 

 

That being said I tend to prefer Swedish events to uncomped (GW comp) events.  My reason is for that is because in my opinion you get much more list diversity.  If you want to bring a nasty list you (usually) can but if you want to take a unit(s) that you like but are less than optimal you can while still standing a chance to win due to Swedish. 

 

I think that subjective comp (what ofcc has done in the past) is by far the worst format, and I have been a captain and part of the rating committee.  It just ends in people getting upset that their list got rejected and others getting upset when they come up against a bad matchup and then complain about the other list. 

[MexicanNinja]

While I like what Swedish does. It only works if you use the scoring system as well for the difference in Swedish scores. That's something which isn't used in events I've been to in Portland using Swedish. Because of that, I am biased against Swedish because I've only seen Swedish used in it's whole at the hamslamwhich.

[Fixxer]

""This is where this article diverges from WHFB or any GW game at all.  It isn't designed for high level play."'

 

And that's your opinion, I disagree completely. The game requires a broader understanding of the multiple variables and the players ability to disregard what isnt important. Not only that, the learning curve is steep and the time it takes to be good is extensive. Competitive WH isnt for everyone, thats for sure, but I know plenty of people who play to win and do win with very diverse army lists. A lot of focus is put on the written list as this is important in making a tool box, much of what determines who wins or loses happens between turns 1 and 6. Decision making on the table is what separates a good player from a mediocre one. We all write pretty good lists, and if you dont, you've chosen to handicap yourself. 

 

Also, you must consider that sportsman scores are a part of tournament play meaning there is a fine line between bringing a list and playing the type of game the will still get you high marks in sports. Paint scores can also be as important in tournament play along with scenario objectives, a lot to consider if you want to consistently place high in a 5 game tourney or a tournament circuit. Well rounded players that love the hobby and game typically are good at promoting it also, they play good looking armies, theyre nice guys (or gals), and they want everyone to have a good time, even if they are winning. I just think most people dont want to put in the effort to actually be good at WHFB, they just want to win out of the gate. 

 

In my experience the guys that win tournaments are true enthusiasts and thats the point. I have yet to see someone muddle their way to the top of a 5 game tourney with a "broken" net list. Thats a Myth.

[fluger]

""This is where this article diverges from WHFB or any GW game at all.  It isn't designed for high level play."'

 

And that's your opinion, I disagree completely.

 

GW doesn't design their games to be bullet-proof, fully balanced games. They have NO intention of REALLY balancing out army books or even units within army books.  They NEVER have.  That's not a true knock on GW, it's on people trying to make Fantasy or 40k into Magic The Gathering.  Yes, the best players generally win regularly because they are better and yes they do it with good lists that aren't just cookie-cutter netlists.  Most good generals understand their own limitations and skills and build lists that suit THEM not the meta.  

 

But that's not my point, my point is that if you're tying to apply THAT article to this game, it breaks down immediately because this isn't a fighting game on XBOX.  

[King Mekhet]

I'm a big fan of comp. Not because I think it balances the game (it doesn't), nor makes it more fair (it doesn't), nor improves the play experience (it doesn't). I like comp for the simple fact that it changes up the meta. Players have to think outside the box, and as a result you see a different variety of lists, builds, and playstyles on the field.

Though again...they are not BETTER lists, just DIFFERENT. The sort of janky filth you'll see at Swedish tournaments is no less obnoxious than the stuff you'll see at uncomped tournaments, and by-and-large there will always be armies that the comp pack leaves in the dust. It just might be a different set of armies than in another format.

Thus I'm a big fan of comped events, so long as not ALL of the events use the same comp pack. A bit of variety is the sweet spot for me. Enough tournaments with one pack to make it worthwhile buying, modelling, and painting the additional models. However enough differently comped events out there so that you're not bringing and facing the same build over and over again.