PDA

View Full Version : Jervis Johnson: "There's no need for comp in 8th"



Pages : [1] 2

evilsponge
26-08-2010, 17:49
So Johnson's got some articles out that talk about the new edition of warhammer. In he he talks about a bunch of stuff, but I want to talk about his address to tournaments for this new edition, you can find it Here (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat440002a&categoryId=500004&section=&pIndex=2&aId=12400020a&start=3).

What are your thoughts on comp? Personally I think it's a relic of the past, and isn't generally needed. I think after tournament organizers get a chance to test the new rules they'll agree its a much more balanced gamed than before. Besides, I always thought telling players what they could or could not bring, or punishing them for bringing something allowed in their army book was always against the spirit of the game.

CaliforniaGamer
26-08-2010, 17:54
Sage words and I agree with them.

A No Comp system (say aside from limiting some of the OTT special characters) is much better than the endless flavors of homebrew crap that have put little to no thought into 8th ed balance and merely create massive new imbalances for no good reason.

Balerion
26-08-2010, 18:01
"But what happens if I end up playing lots of games that favour my opponent's army?" I hear you cry. My answer to this is that none of the scenarios favour a particular army over another - they favour a particular build of army.
Jervis, you lie.

I'd say the scenarios have pushed things in the right direction, but there is still a significant divide between armies that can field powerful units which, coincidentally, suffice for the challenges of the scenario, and armies that have to field substandard units or employ units in unforeseen ways in order to meet these challenges.

Novrain
26-08-2010, 18:04
Comp is already happening with 8th (see the tournies banning the 15+ spells) and frankly I can see why.

No game system is ever going to be balanced for purely competitive play, and I think it is a bit arrogant of GW to think 8th is any different to 7th in that regard.

Tournaments and GW gaming, to me, dont sit well together because the multitude of different army books make it exceedingly difficult to have a system wide balance.

A truer test of "tactical skill" would be a tournament with one and the same list used by everybody, with dice rolls decided by statistical averages. (or even a game of chess I suppose...)

Trying to use a game like WHFB to determine tactical skill is fundamentally flawed, as the variables (list creation, random chance with dice etc) are not controlled.

I am not against tournaments, and do think that comp systems often create more problems than they solve, but we have to remember that the results of any tournament are heavily based on luck/list building/exploitation not necessarily "tactical" skill.

chamelion 6
26-08-2010, 18:08
I don't think competative gaming or tournament are a relic or a thing of the past. I thing they are out of style at the moment, but there will be a time when that style of play is fashionable again.

Right now that kind of gaming, as far as GW stuff goes, has fallen victim to it's own excesses and extremes. Right now a lot of players are just timed of the atmosphere surrounding that kind of thing. But time softens memories and it will loose much of the bad rep it has at the moment...

UberBeast
26-08-2010, 18:33
GW games will always need composition scores for competitive play.

What happens when you go up against a chaos Ld bomb list with hellcannons and magic items/spells/gifts that all drop your leadership and you're running off the table from hell cannon panic on turn one?

There is no reason to believe that 8th edition is any more balanced than previous new editions, and it can't be as balanced as 6th edition was when they released ravening hordes which balanced everything very neatly in one go.

rodmillard
26-08-2010, 18:33
I agree and disagree with Jervis on this - in a tournament with random scenarios at 2000 points, which is what he advocates in that article, you could leave it without any further comp restrictions (beyond possibly banning special characters). the combination of unknown opponents and random scenario generation will force players to take a balanced list, since there are no power builds that can take all comers in all scenarios.

You will still have a lot of work to do as tournament organisers, however. There are still holes in the rules that haven't been FAQed, and you will have to house rule them. You will still have to decide whether or not to tinker with the magic system (personally, I would just ban the powered up versions of spells and leave it as is). There are still items in various army books that were designed for 7th ed (or even 6th) that have the potential to break the game unless (a) house ruled, or (b) banned.

8th ed is a huge step in the right direction, but we will have to wait for some proper 8th ed army books before some issues get ironned out, by which time they will either have broken the game again or 9th ed will be upon us...

EDIT: BTW, I am still an advocate of setting opponents in first round matches in tournaments based on army composition.

Kudzu
26-08-2010, 18:43
I think no SC's and no power scroll should be the basis for the first few tourneys, beyond that we should give it at least six months before laying out true comp systems.

If 8th follows 7th in upping the power curve you know we'll be in for a bumpy ride.

Pacorko
26-08-2010, 18:45
Jervis, you lie.

I'd say the scenarios have pushed things in the right direction, but there is still a significant divide between armies that can field powerful units which, coincidentally, suffice for the challenges of the scenario, and armies that have to field substandard units or employ units in unforeseen ways in order to meet these challenges.

Isn't that what he said in far less words?:eyebrows:

It a matter of some army builds being more eficient than others.:rolleyes:

SiNNiX
26-08-2010, 18:45
The only thing my tournaments comp for is special characters, that's it.

So far, so good.

Phazael
26-08-2010, 19:18
In fantasy, he is high at all point levels. As much as people whine about the magic phase, what happens with gunlines at all point levels is just plain boring. There are still a fair amount of special characters that break the game. And there are still item/effect combinations that make games utterly unfun. Many of these were trotted out rescently and are not likely to get fixed or adjusted any time soon. Some were actually introduced by the new edition itself.

Any kind of point system (see ECT) just moves the goalpoasts for the power gamers. Also, some items are not a problem ordinarily, but quickly become ridiculous when put together with other items. The Power Scroll is a good example, with ridiculous synergy with the 13th spell or Transformation of Kadon, but not an issue when used with Lore of Fire or Heavans. The WS10 weapon is fine, on its own, but quickly becomes dumb when paired with the VC Crown of Command. The Pendant of Kalith is suitable for a wizard, but ridiculous on a 2+ AS warrior.

Here is a short list of things that need to be corrected before comp can be completely abandoned in fantasy (and even then the war machine spamming and special character issues will still be there):

1) Slaan Cupped Hands reverse miscast Haduken.
2) VC Power Scroll Mountain Chimera shenanigans.
3) TK with 4+ bounds and 10+ PD worth of incantations a turn.
4) Book of Hoath + anything
5) Dwarf and Empire armies with 2+ scrolls and more DD than people can ever produce in PD.
6) Tzeench 3+ ward deathstar blocks.
7) Power Scroll + 13 spell
8) 10 War Machine Empire and Dwarves with one engineer to buff them all
9) Double Stank

Thats all the top of my head.

One of my more rescent games of fantasy was against an empire army that had (as its sole core choice) 60 Flaggelents deployed in a long line across the table with a giant gunline behind it. Yeah, tell me again that comp is not needed....

SiNNiX
26-08-2010, 19:46
6) Tzeench 3+ ward deathstar blocks.

8) 10 War Machine Empire and Dwarves with one engineer to buff them all


Educate me, as I have no clue what you're talking about on either of these points.

Avian
26-08-2010, 19:46
To be fair, what he says is that people should not use comp right away, but try a couple of tournaments without first. He doesn't say that there is no need for comp.

enygma7
26-08-2010, 19:59
To be fair, what he says is that people should not use comp right away, but try a couple of tournaments without first. He doesn't say that there is no need for comp.

Yes, that seems very sensible. New comp systems will arise but it would be a bad idea for tourni organisers to start imposing comp and house rules right off the bat. Until people have experienced playing the new edition against a wide variety of opponents and outside the metagame of their LGS it is difficult to make good decisions on this kind of thing.

At the moment people mostly have theoryhammer, their experience in a very limited metagame and their own personal prejudices to go on - and you just have to look at warseer to see the wide variety of oppinions on what needs "fixing".

If its true that tournis are restricting the big spells I think they could be creating problems for themselves as large deathstar units start ruling the field unchallenged.

In time I think we'll see tournis penalising power scrolls and attempts at first turn win buttons, but lets actually have some tournis first so people can make an informed decision. If something is broken, the tourni crowed will quickly highlight it :)

SiNNiX
26-08-2010, 20:07
People just have to learn how to adapt to these so-called "broken" lists. I have been playing this game for 12+ years and I can tell you that there is no such thing as a "broken" list, but merely lists with very low failure rates. At the end of the day, you still have to roll those dice.

Like I said, the only thing we don't allow in my tournaments are SC's, as a few of them are designed to completely change the battle, and it wouldn't be fair to ban just a few of them.

WarmbloodedLizard
26-08-2010, 20:28
wishful thinking, really. the armybooks are as imbalanced as ever. the only thing that changed are that randomness and steadfast level the playing field a little. the huge imbalances of 7th are gone and the new big imbalances of 8th are here. people might not see it, yet, as the edition is new, but everyone will have to aknowledge this with time.

Lord Inquisitor
26-08-2010, 20:32
I think he makes a lot of sense.

Scenarios are great for balancing lists. 40K was much improved by 5th's scenarios. That said, they're not the be-all-and-end-all ... Imperial Guard Leafblower lists proved that certain lists can obliterate the enemy so effectively that the scenario is moot. Of course, certain builds can deal with all scenarios better than others and this was certainly true in 40K... but it was a step in the right direction.

I think we're a long way from really understanding where the powerlists in 8th ed really are. I certainly agree that the massive imbalance in army books has lessened. Some are still better than others, sure, but I don't think there is nearly the requirement for "tiers" as plagued 7th towards the end.

Does that mean there's no need for comp? I don't know about that, but I feel that comp is a tricksy thing. Certainly rediculous items like the power scroll can be simply banned without needing to go as far as banning rulebook spells (wizardbombs are much less reliable without it). However, 8th self-limits rare and specials, is it necessary to comp internal balance? Yes, certain army builds are great and others are worthless now, but is this an issue for tournaments? You build the army and bring it to the tournament, providing the optimum Empire build is comparable to the optimum Daemon build, is there a problem?

Special characters are always a thorny subject, but there's a world of difference between "no unique characters" as a tournament restriction and some of the crazy comp systems we saw in 7th, from actual points handicap to heineously complicated comp scoring systems. 40K tournaments typically get by without any comp system at all - sure some armies are seen a lot, others have specific builds that work, some are just so out-dated that they are never seen - but the 40Kers get by without comp. Each new cheesefest (nob bikers, lashprinces, thundercav, etc) eventually becomes simply part of what one expects and players learn to deal with it. I expect every Space Wolf army to have thundercav and much as they **** me off, I simply deal with it and certainly I can win against them. There is much to be said for this statement from Jervis: As with every edition of Warhammer so far, and no matter what some pundits might say, how good a player you are is always more important than what army you use. I agree.

Warhammer is never going to be totally balanced (or even reasonably balanced, if one is cynical) but the question is: is it unbalanced enough for comp requirements to be necessary?

a18no
26-08-2010, 20:37
3000pts games tournement outside of ardboyz need comp. You can play anything, sacrifice mage, big unit with lots of characters, etc.

Go play some 2000pts games, where you need to make choices. A level where a 200pts sorcerer that blow itself could be good, or very bad (it's still 10% of the list...).

Jervis said that comp is not necessary for now, but he has said too that 2000pts should be the standard.

Lord Inquisitor
26-08-2010, 20:43
Jervis said that comp is not necessary.

Again, what he actually said was don't apply comp until you've run a few tournaments with the rules as written:

Finally, I'd recommend playing with the rules and army lists 'as written', and only start to use army composition restrictions (i.e. additional limits on what units may be used in the tournament) once you have run a few tournaments using the new rules.

ewar
26-08-2010, 22:21
OK, I'm going to try and not come across like some sort of socially inept internet pedant... but, did anyone else find that whole article quite annoying?

He talks about fixing problems in such a roundabout way - GW couldn't admit there were any bloody problems with the last edition, so what the hell have they actually fixed? Its like watching a political interview with Paxman - the interviewer asks a question the interview doesn't want to answer, when both sides (and the bloody viewer) know what the damn answer is anyway!

At no point has GW ever held their hands up and said "oops, we screwed up, we do actually understand that it wasn't fun to play against Siren Bomb or Raise Spam lists. Our bad."

Instead we get told how the game is just MORE balanced than it already was. The very fact that it was news to the community when Jervis used such krazy new fangled lingo as "deathstar" or "metagame" just shows how insanely out of touch the GW PR machine is with their community.

I love the hobby, but bugger me I sometimes wish someone like Creative Assembly would just buy the company and sack the lot of them.

Rant over.

p.s. I don't in any way doubt that Jervis is a very nice chap, in and of himself. It's just the corporate entity I am irritated with.

jamano
26-08-2010, 23:31
Educate me, as I have no clue what you're talking about on either of these points.

You've never seen the chosen block with warshrines list before? It's one of the most frustrating lists because you have to nickel and dime them to death while not really getting any points for it(and in 8th you dont even get half) If you get 11-12 on the eye of the gods(chosen get a free roll, and the shrines roll every turn) the unit gets 4+ ward and stubborn, which combines with mark of tzeench to give them a 3+ ward against everything. The war machine thing is referring to engineers not being part of a cew so they can give their benefit to all war machines within a certain distance of them.

thefan
26-08-2010, 23:39
AHHH..... the great and almighty Jervis. I got a hold of him at GamesDay 1996. So I started asking him about some rules and clearity on them. Especially since he was part of developing them. I really don't recall the questions but the gist was , I was looking as to how the rule came about and what was the intention. All I got was "What do you think?" My reply was "I don't know I didn't develope the game, you did." still I got no answer. You really had to be there to see he was being a jackars so then came the new name for him. Jervis the jackass Johnson.

So this article with him is no surprise to me. I love citadel figures and Gw products but a bunch of the staff suck.

Andy Jones was awsome to talk too. Got a hold of him and talked all day about warhammer quest when it first came out. We talked so much after awhile he let me and my friend at the time look at the Wood Elf army book that was in development. Yup got to see the first draft. He took it out of his personal bag to show us

:)

SiNNiX
26-08-2010, 23:42
The war machine thing is referring to engineers not being part of a cew so they can give their benefit to all war machines within a certain distance of them.

ORLY????? :D I love 8th... so, so much.

Rafi
26-08-2010, 23:46
I think Jervis needs to 'play' against my 'Slann in a Folding Fortress with 136 Saurus Warriors' list.

Todosi
26-08-2010, 23:52
I think that 8th edition does not yet need comp....IF it is played as it is meant to be played. That is with random scenarios and at least some use of the mysterious terrain. If you are playing on an open golf course all three rounds of a tournament, then of course some builds will dominate. If you have the same objective all three rounds, same thing.

Keep the objectives random and a good deal of terrain and the game balances itself.

zerorocky
27-08-2010, 00:03
One of my more rescent games of fantasy was against an empire army that had (as its sole core choice) 60 Flaggelents deployed in a long line across the table with a giant gunline behind it. Yeah, tell me again that comp is not needed....

Wouldn't that army auto-lose if the Blood and Glory scenario was rolled?

enygma7
27-08-2010, 00:05
I was looking as to how the rule came about and what was the intention. All I got was "What do you think?" My reply was "I don't know I didn't develope the game, you did." still I got no answer.

I imagine he was partially wary about being drawn into an arguement about why the rules were made as they are and partially just fed up of people looking to him/GW as some sort of devine authority telling people how the game SHOULD be played.

I get the impression that the developers at GW don't really get competetive players and people who view the rules as written as some sort of word of god, which is why they've been so bad at addressing balance issues and tightening up the way they word things. They'd probably prefer it if people just came to sensible agreements amongst themselves and chilled out a bit :)

The tightening up of wording and definitions in 8th and the frequent FAQ updates do show they are (reluctantly?) beginning to address these issues.

Phaedrus
27-08-2010, 00:06
8) 10 War Machine Empire and Dwarves with one engineer to buff them all
9) Double Stank

Thats all the top of my head.

One of my more rescent games of fantasy was against an empire army that had (as its sole core choice) 60 Flaggelents deployed in a long line across the table with a giant gunline behind it. Yeah, tell me again that comp is not needed....

With regard to #8: What on earth are you talking about? Yes, in 2000 points an empire army can field 9 War machines, but "buffing them all with one engineer?" If you put them all a minimum distance away from one another with an engineer in the middle maybe he could reach them all... maybe... but even if he could he could only affect one per turn.

With regard to #9: 2 steam tanks are illegal in 2000 points now. You need a 2400 point game to field them.

And with regard to the flagellants: that is an illegal unit. Flagellants have a maximum unit size of 30.

Balerion
27-08-2010, 00:43
OK, I'm going to try and not come across like some sort of socially inept internet pedant... but, did anyone else find that whole article quite annoying?

He talks about fixing problems in such a roundabout way - GW couldn't admit there were any bloody problems with the last edition, so what the hell have they actually fixed? Its like watching a political interview with Paxman - the interviewer asks a question the interview doesn't want to answer, when both sides (and the bloody viewer) know what the damn answer is anyway!

At no point has GW ever held their hands up and said "oops, we screwed up, we do actually understand that it wasn't fun to play against Siren Bomb or Raise Spam lists. Our bad."

Instead we get told how the game is just MORE balanced than it already was. The very fact that it was news to the community when Jervis used such krazy new fangled lingo as "deathstar" or "metagame" just shows how insanely out of touch the GW PR machine is with their community.

I love the hobby, but bugger me I sometimes wish someone like Creative Assembly would just buy the company and sack the lot of them.

Rant over.

p.s. I don't in any way doubt that Jervis is a very nice chap, in and of himself. It's just the corporate entity I am irritated with.
Well, at least it's progress. They probably wouldn't even have admitted failure in a roundabout way 5 years ago. Slow, slow progress.

I completely sympathize with your frustration. We're still far away from a dynamic, responsive company that engages in productive intercourse with its customers, but on the bright side there have been signs of life/invigoration lately from creaky ol' Geedub.

Hooha
27-08-2010, 01:03
With regard to #8: What on earth are you talking about? Yes, in 2000 points an empire army can field 9 War machines, but "buffing them all with one engineer?" If you put them all a minimum distance away from one another with an engineer in the middle maybe he could reach them all... maybe... but even if he could he could only affect one per turn.

With regard to #9: 2 steam tanks are illegal in 2000 points now. You need a 2400 point game to field them.

And with regard to the flagellants: that is an illegal unit. Flagellants have a maximum unit size of 30.

Also, hordes can tarpit a stank like never before. Better still, ANYTHING wounds stanks on a six now. A 200 point brick of 100 skaven slaves would tear a stank apart, and could probably handle two or three.

anyone that still cries about stanks is letting too much personal vendetta seep into their assessments to be taken seriously.

thefan
27-08-2010, 01:07
[QUOTE=enygma7;4943002]I imagine he was partially wary about being drawn into an arguement about why the rules were made as they are and partially just fed up of people looking to him/GW as some sort of devine authority telling people how the game SHOULD be played. QUOTE]

This point had crossed my mind aswell. As for the arguement. I could argue myself out of a bag at that time of my life. So I was no were near a worry for him for an arguement but as for the GW authority I can understand that point and that was probably his feelings too.

Gaargod
27-08-2010, 01:15
I think Jervis needs to 'play' against my 'Slann in a Folding Fortress with 136 Saurus Warriors' list.

Why god why?

stashman
27-08-2010, 01:16
One of my more rescent games of fantasy was against an empire army that had (as its sole core choice) 60 Flaggelents deployed in a long line across the table with a giant gunline behind it. Yeah, tell me again that comp is not needed....

If I'm correct, only one unit of Flagellants is aloud in core and max 30 models.


Wouldn't that army auto-lose if the Blood and Glory scenario was rolled?

Hahahahahahahahahaha :D


I think Jervis needs to 'play' against my 'Slann in a Folding Fortress with 136 Saurus Warriors' list.

Hmmm... It's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw


If you always wanna go for a draw, then it will work. It's hard to win if you hide in a tower and only casting a couple of spells.

And it seems really fun to play it and against it :rolleyes:

jamano
27-08-2010, 01:25
He doesn't have any right to be upset that people look to him or GW instead of figuring it out themselves, we paid 75$ for the book!

Smithpod68
27-08-2010, 02:27
Well I remember reading years back how GW realized they created a monster with tournaments. Players started buying/building lists that fit tournament play. With the new edition of course people are going to build nasty lists. The point of the tournament scene is to WIN! You honestly can't believe you'll actually go to a tournament with a nicely painted army,a fluffy list,and expect to win? Tournaments are not meant for that. I think this is GW"s attempt to try to appease the tournament crowd and try to entice others to join in. I for one really don't like tournaments,but I don't discourage people from playing them. Honestly,run tournaments the way you wish,I am certain people who play in them understand what they are in for.

SiNNiX
27-08-2010, 02:32
8) 10 war machine empire and dwarves with one engineer to buff them all

You lie!!!!!!!!!!!!

jamano
27-08-2010, 02:42
Well I remember reading years back how GW realized they created a monster with tournaments. Players started buying/building lists that fit tournament play. With the new edition of course people are going to build nasty lists. The point of the tournament scene is to WIN! You honestly can't believe you'll actually go to a tournament with a nicely painted army,a fluffy list,and expect to win? Tournaments are not meant for that. I think this is GW"s attempt to try to appease the tournament crowd and try to entice others to join in. I for one really don't like tournaments,but I don't discourage people from playing them. Honestly,run tournaments the way you wish,I am certain people who play in them understand what they are in for.

Tournament players want a balanced game! The Ard boys environment is NOT what most tournament players want. I think this is a spit in the face of tourney players because GW has always felt like trying to play their game competitively, or worse yet, trying to balance it out for such play is simply sacrilege, if you don't play the fluffiest list imaginable with only people you know already then go to the pub afterwards, you're doing it wrong!

freddieyu
27-08-2010, 03:03
Jervis' suggestions make sense actually..by keeping the pointage low and the scenarios varied you have to craft well balanced armies..this is not to say armies themed specifically to a certain strategy (gun-lines, magic heavy) won't work, but they may be severely disadvantaged in some of them....

If I were to TO (and I do TO locally) then I would create scenarios precisely with this aim in mind, and if necessary a scenario where you have to swap armies may need to come in play...so that players get to feel their cheese thrown at themselves....

jamano
27-08-2010, 03:09
Maybe they can give us a scenario book like 40k, and itll have enough ones that are balanced that you could use them for tournies to keep lists varied. The ones in the book have kind of the right idea, but have alot of their own problems.

freddieyu
27-08-2010, 03:20
Maybe they can give us a scenario book like 40k, and itll have enough ones that are balanced that you could use them for tournies to keep lists varied. The ones in the book have kind of the right idea, but have alot of their own problems.

We may be seeing that in the near future..but the chapter on scenario creation is quite a good read....

SideshowLucifer
27-08-2010, 05:26
There are a lot of great scenerios in the book outside of the ones you roll for. The random ones are ok, but two of them just plain suck while the others are just ok, Dawn Attack is my favorite so far.

Satan
27-08-2010, 05:42
I don't get it. Comp systems such as our national one or ETC has always ensured that people bring fair lists in a tournaments I've participated in. To me they facilitate a more balanced game and balanced lists than the rules out of the box.

I'm confident our national tournaments will include a comp system, and I'm happy for it.

I don't get tve deal with house rules though. That's never been particularly popular around here.

UberBeast
27-08-2010, 05:50
I just think it's silly for GW to act like they've done something great when they won't even acknowledge what went wrong with the last edition. Changes to the core rules provide only temporary relief from the powergamers and unbalanced lists if they do not provide balanced lists in the near future.

Core rules are neither here nor there when army book balance is so skewed.

soots
27-08-2010, 06:31
No matter what composition restrictions you put, people will find the most exploitable list.

Jervis' statement is but a dream.

decker_cky
27-08-2010, 06:32
I don't get it. Comp systems such as our national one or ETC has always ensured that people bring fair lists in a tournaments I've participated in. To me they facilitate a more balanced game and balanced lists than the rules out of the box.

I'm confident our national tournaments will include a comp system, and I'm happy for it.

I don't get tve deal with house rules though. That's never been particularly popular around here.

The point is that it's too early to throw a patch onto the system. We have a good idea that a few things are really nasty, but let's see what rises to the top in a few tournaments before we condemn things.

Perfect example is Phazael putting the Tomb King magic phase under things that are problems. Yes...it's a bit silly and yes it's way more spells than other armies can dream to stop, but on the other hand, the overall army even with that silly boost is probably one of the less competitive ones.

Rafi
27-08-2010, 06:39
Hmmm... It's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw, it's a draw


If you always wanna go for a draw, then it will work. It's hard to win if you hide in a tower and only casting a couple of spells.

And it seems really fun to play it and against it :rolleyes:

Unless I'm mistaken to win I would only need to destroy 100pts worth of units with my Slann (provided my opponent cannot kill my Slann or my unit of Saurus). Somewhat different in a Watchtower scenario tho. ;)

Satan
27-08-2010, 06:44
The point is that it's too early to throw a patch onto the system. We have a good idea that a few things are really nasty, but let's see what rises to the top in a few tournaments before we condemn things.

Perfect example is Phazael putting the Tomb King magic phase under things that are problems. Yes...it's a bit silly and yes it's way more spells than other armies can dream to stop, but on the other hand, the overall army even with that silly boost is probably one of the less competitive ones.

Yes, that I definitively agree with, and I wouldn't expect anyone to attempt to launch a fully fledged comp system yet, though surely they've already begun discussions in anticipation of next years major tournaments.

Currently my group is running without comp as we'd like to try everything out 'as-is' but I know we'll eventually start running with comp again.

Freakiq
27-08-2010, 06:44
I'm with Jervis on this one.

Comp tends to by skewed by the tournament organizers view of what's unbalanced, thus resulting in some moderately powerful builds being unplayable while outright broken ones being allowed.

vcassano
27-08-2010, 13:32
I'd say it is too early to say. You need a good spread of results and experiences before it can be decided what does and doesn't ruin a game. I've seen some composition ideas that remove spells or change TLOS and I think these are silly - the game was designed to include these.

It seems to me as if the problem, aside a few stray outrageous items, that restricting things doesn't limit power. composition can only really hinder excesses in design and these aren't a real pressing issue, except perhaps in rare, unfortunate situations with mismatched armies. More balanced armies with leaning towards the excess will always be better and largely safe from composition restrictions. E.g a dedicated empire gunline will get destroyed by the 3rd turn barring any serious bad/good luck while an infantry force augmented with heavy artillery will probably prosper.

Satan
27-08-2010, 13:42
I'm with Jervis on this one.

Comp tends to by skewed by the tournament organizers view of what's unbalanced, thus resulting in some moderately powerful builds being unplayable while outright broken ones being allowed.

That's why we have a more or less "national" comp system. As discussed to death in an ancient thread of 60+ pages which consisted of a lot of comp-loving swedes and comp-hating anglosaxians.

But yeah, I'm not too fond of local comp systems either, which is why we utilize comp system created by the long and exhaustive discussive efforts of others, such as ETC or SWFBR. Neither one which I found to be skewed in 7th.

It's worth noting that a DOW army ended up as number one in this years nationals using ETC. Who would've figured?


I'd say it is too early to say. You need a good spread of results and experiences before it can be decided what does and doesn't ruin a game. I've seen some composition ideas that remove spells or change TLOS and I think these are silly - the game was designed to include these.

It seems to me as if the problem, aside a few stray outrageous items, that restricting things doesn't limit power. composition can only really hinder excesses in design and these aren't a real pressing issue, except perhaps in rare, unfortunate situations with mismatched armies. More balanced armies with leaning towards the excess will always be better and largely safe from composition restrictions. E.g a dedicated empire gunline will get destroyed by the 3rd turn barring any serious bad/good luck while an infantry force augmented with heavy artillery will probably prosper.

Agreed. But they were a pressing issue in 7th. And y'know - the game's already dysfunctional for wood elf and tomb king players. And reigning in the excess in games design is actually a big game improvment IMO.

But I don't think rules-altering composition such as the removal of spells are the way to go and I've never played under a system remotely like that.

a18no
27-08-2010, 14:48
Unless I'm mistaken to win I would only need to destroy 100pts worth of units with my Slann (provided my opponent cannot kill my Slann or my unit of Saurus). Somewhat different in a Watchtower scenario tho. ;)

You still need 2 more units !!

So actually, to win you need at least 250-300 pts

Spiney Norman
27-08-2010, 14:59
Maybe they can give us a scenario book like 40k, and itll have enough ones that are balanced that you could use them for tournies to keep lists varied. The ones in the book have kind of the right idea, but have alot of their own problems.

Can we have a scenario book that ISN'T exactly like the 40K one? Like a book where every scenario ISN'T massively one-sided in favour of the army it is designed for. I would be nice to have a book of scenarios where either army has a decent chance of winning. Battle missions was the worst designed set of scenarios I've ever seen, even my Necrons were winning battles with impunity.

On the subject of comp, unless you're playing Tomb kings or Wood elves, which are both so dead in the water as to be far beyond the reach of the most powerful necromantic conjuration, most of the other armies are very close in terms of power, certainly much closer than they ever were in 7th.

smithers
27-08-2010, 18:12
...
Here is a short list of things that need to be corrected before comp can be completely abandoned in fantasy (and even then the war machine spamming and special character issues will still be there):

1) Slaan Cupped Hands reverse miscast Haduken.
2) VC Power Scroll Mountain Chimera shenanigans.
3) TK with 4+ bounds and 10+ PD worth of incantations a turn.
4) Book of Hoath + anything
5) Dwarf and Empire armies with 2+ scrolls and more DD than people can ever produce in PD.
6) Tzeench 3+ ward deathstar blocks.
7) Power Scroll + 13 spell
8) 10 War Machine Empire and Dwarves with one engineer to buff them all
9) Double Stank

Thats all the top of my head.

One of my more rescent games of fantasy was against an empire army that had (as its sole core choice) 60 Flaggelents deployed in a long line across the table with a giant gunline behind it. Yeah, tell me again that comp is not needed....

Ahem... your #3 is Tomb Kings?!?! My favorite army, but anyone who thinks they are overpowered in any way must be smoking something.

OK maybe in a 5000 point game their magic would scale up in a nasty way, but no way do they call out the need for comping that's just ridiculous. (Master engineers are also far from game breaking they can only use their ability once a turn and most players even with artillery don't bother to use em they'd rather just have more runes or another GT)

Phazael
27-08-2010, 18:30
Couple clarifications:
West Coast has pretty much adopted 2500 points as the new standard size, since its the only point level where every army gets to field at least one lord choice and the numbers are nice and round. Plus you can take a 2250 list and add a single core unit to it and probably be able to play.

Second, with the engineers, I am talking about sticking one in the middle of a war machine pile (guarded on all sides by steadfast blocks, of course) to eliminate misfires.

Third, I didn't realize the empire guy was cheating, but it doesn't stop them from doing that crap by backing it up with some lines of troops, really.

Fourth, yes Tomb Kings. Hat on a King, Lich High Priest and two pals, plus all the bounds equal the equivalent of a 20PD magic phase while the most any army can ever generate is around 11, and then only if you play dwarves. The only saving grace is that you generally won't see the facerape spells, but aside from that its like playing the old VC list times a billion. Toss in a pair of Catapults and see how much fun it is to play the unbreakable gunline of doom. That and, of course, tomb scopians are still the best character assasinators ever made, so you generally have no BSB or L4 by turn three.

Phazael
27-08-2010, 18:35
PS- I actually like 8th edition, aside from the movement chess game being removed from the game. But it took players all of about one month to break it with the existing books, many of which are rescent releases that won't see rebalancing until far down the road. They also compounded the problems by introducing a ton of common items that they clearly did not think about in many cases (Power Scroll, Watch Tower, Stubborn Crown), as far as their impact on the regular game. I have personally bottled up an entire death star unit with my DE lord on foot with the stubborn crown, which is just plain silly and could have been avoided with actual playtesting. To say that comp is no longer needed is ludicrous, at best.

SiNNiX
27-08-2010, 18:49
Ahem... your #3 is Tomb Kings?!?! My favorite army, but anyone who thinks they are overpowered in any way must be smoking something.

OK maybe in a 5000 point game their magic would scale up in a nasty way, but no way do they call out the need for comping that's just ridiculous. (Master engineers are also far from game breaking they can only use their ability once a turn and most players even with artillery don't bother to use em they'd rather just have more runes or another GT)

I agree here; TK are bottom 3 army right now. No need to comp them. No need to comp anything right now, actually. The fact is most of the things people complain about are available to everyone, not just a few people.

And yes, we covered the fact that ME's only affect one war machine per turn, but I wouldn't say most players don't use them. I actually find more success my making sure each of my Grudge Throwers is paired with a ME. Maybe it's just my unlucky dice-rolling nature, but that reroll for the Artillery die really comes in handy.

Rafi
27-08-2010, 18:55
You still need 2 more units !!

So actually, to win you need at least 250-300 pts

Ooh, that's true! I had not noticed that. Back to the drawing board, tho I do still think the Folding Fortress can lead to unfun armies and games (if using it competitively) and should be banned. ;)

Lord Inquisitor
27-08-2010, 18:56
Couple clarifications:
West Coast has pretty much adopted 2500 points as the new standard size, since its the only point level where every army gets to field at least one lord choice and the numbers are nice and round. Plus you can take a 2250 list and add a single core unit to it and probably be able to play.
I'm very interested in what the game sizes will turn out to be. From the horse's mouth the game is designed to be played at 2000. Under the old slot system, 2500 or even up to 2999 was nice as the ratio of basic troops to heroes was lower than it is now. But now the flip side of percentages is that the higher the points value, every army can still field 50% of their points in heroes.

Round here I've still only seen 2250 being played (and yeah, yucky percentages) but there has been some talk of 2400 as this actually produces very nice round percentage limits (25% is 600).

Frankly
27-08-2010, 18:57
To be fair, what he says is that people should not use comp right away, but try a couple of tournaments without first. He doesn't say that there is no need for comp.

And I think thats what alot of tournaments are doing at the moment, well, altleast they are around my area.

I went to a small tournie in the weekend with no comp and it worked as people are still getting used to their lists, new rules, game play etc, etc.

Frankly
27-08-2010, 19:00
I'm with Jervis on this one.

Comp tends to by skewed by the tournament organizers view of what's unbalanced, thus resulting in some moderately powerful builds being unplayable while outright broken ones being allowed.

As a general statement, this is far from the truth, especially on at a national level.

Enigmatik1
27-08-2010, 19:29
Fourth, yes Tomb Kings. Hat on a King, Lich High Priest and two pals, plus all the bounds equal the equivalent of a 20PD magic phase while the most any army can ever generate is around 11, and then only if you play dwarves. The only saving grace is that you generally won't see the facerape spells, but aside from that its like playing the old VC list times a billion. Toss in a pair of Catapults and see how much fun it is to play the unbreakable gunline of doom. That and, of course, tomb scopians are still the best character assasinators ever made, so you generally have no BSB or L4 by turn three.

For his part, Phazael isn't too far off base. I would actually agree with him if the nature of the Dunce Cap weren't random. But, seeing as it is random, I'm not seeing it as an issue. Those of us who still run Tomb Kings have access to without a shadow of a doubt, the weakest "lore" in the game to augment the weakest units in the game on a point per stat basis. Our relentless magic is supposed to make up for that...notice I say supposed.

The fact that we have no direct influence over what the Cap gives us is its limiting factor. Well, that and it costs 100 points and one of your Lords is practically butt naked if you take it. If the spells are circumstantial or just plain bad, stop wasting dispel dice trying to stop them. The TK player is only casting them to get you to waste dice. Every bound item and most spells i get when I field a Dunce Cap King are there to do just that. I'm not used to using BRB Lores to do anything and don't base my battleplans around them (although one day I will get to slam a Speed of Light-ed Bone Giant into some hapless victim). I load up on bound items to make you think and ultimately, make mistakes, so I can use my weaker incantations to execute my battle strategy. Pay closer attention to your local TK players (those that remain) and you'll probably noticed a similar trend among those of us who are left. There, problem solved.

amysrevenge
27-08-2010, 20:02
I just think it's silly for GW to act like they've done something great when they won't even acknowledge what went wrong with the last edition.

You underestimate nerd rage.

When Wizards of the Coast hyped up the (then) impending release of 4th Edition D&D, a change at least as dramatic as WFB 7th to 8th, they made numerous and lengthy statements about what went wrong with 3rd Edition.

By your logic, the response of nerds across the internet should have been "thanks for acknowledging the problems, we now have confidence in your new ruleset". That is VERY far from the actual reaction though, which was more along the lines of "But we liked your game - now you're effectively calling us stupid for enjoying your self-described terrible game".

Frankly, and I wouldn't have expected it knowing tabletop and roleplaying gamers as well as I do, the reaction to the edition change was far more knee-jerk, uninformed, and unreasonable for the D&D change than for the WFB change.

I mean, you get the sort of unrealistic hyperbole we see here ("You can totally set up 10 warmachines around a single Engineer, like spokes in a wheel, and surround that with steadfast blocks for protection" - I'm not so sure that you can afford this in a reasonable points limit when the warmachines will run to about 1000 points and each steadfast block will run 300+, never mind that once the first Misfire comes you've "used up" your Engineer for all the other machines), but it was much much worse on the D&D equivalent to WarSeer, ENWorld.

Frankly
28-08-2010, 00:48
For his part, Phazael isn't too far off base. .

Depends how far is too far. :)

Personally, I think he's all about theoryhammering it out over the internet and less about playing tactics on the table. Things like 'generally kills a BSB or a L4' by turn 3 or toss in 2 catapults and you have the unkillable range attack army of doom or the dunce Cap turning out to be the super-hat that can time wharp TK into 4th Ed VC(undead) is all a bit .... uhhhhh ... to me. It falls to far off base.

After playing about 50 odd TK games over the last month or so, I can tell to that I think TK are a REALLY fun army to play, really consistant due to its magic phase, but(and its a BIG 'but') the armybook has in-built issues and doesn't stand up well against some army builds. Things like this will keep it from consistantly getting on to the top tables on day two of tournaments.

Enigmatik1
28-08-2010, 01:36
Well, I've pulled off some pretty silly things in the magic phase with my Dunce Cap Kings...and my opponents could only sit there, mouths agape while I did. Is Phazael exaggerating? Sure. But I've definitely left games after wrecking with a Dunce Cap King thinking "this shouldn't be legal." :D

jamano
28-08-2010, 01:40
Well, you also have to remember that it isn't anywhere near VC dice spam because theres a limit on casting the same incantations on the same unit. Besides that other than ushtabi and tomb scorpions, the whole army is pretty unreliable in combat. T4 armies and armored armies walk all over tomb kings, especially now that the SSC allows armor saves. Phazael must play elves, they're the only armies that would be that afraid of TKs

Kudzu
28-08-2010, 01:46
I'm very interested in what the game sizes will turn out to be. From the horse's mouth the game is designed to be played at 2000. Under the old slot system, 2500 or even up to 2999 was nice as the ratio of basic troops to heroes was lower than it is now. But now the flip side of percentages is that the higher the points value, every army can still field 50% of their points in heroes.

Round here I've still only seen 2250 being played (and yeah, yucky percentages) but there has been some talk of 2400 as this actually produces very nice round percentage limits (25% is 600).

I've actually really enjoyed the boost to 2500, it let me squeeze in a Skrox unit that I'm now in love with.

SideshowLucifer
28-08-2010, 05:06
I'm still partial to 2k battles since the lower point games force tougher choices.

honorandglory
28-08-2010, 05:30
I'm still partial to 2k battles since the lower point games force tougher choices.

No, they just make everyone take the exact same optimized choices, 2500+ point level is where you will start to see people take some of the more unoptimized troops/Heroes.

Col. Tartleton
28-08-2010, 05:51
I think tournament play is diametrically counter to the whole point of WFB.

Lets see. First off each army is not even balanced. That might be a problem. Each army is not identical. Less of a problem then balance, but if you want something determined by skill you require a completely equal playing field minus skill. Third most of the game is randomly determined by die rolls.

Golf is a game of skill. Everyone plays on the same course with the same sort of balls and the same sort of clubs at their disposal. At the end of the day the weather might be involved somewhat but players will usually be effected by the same weather. Warhammer is by its nature like having a golfer play a game against a football player. The football player needing to sack to the golfer before the golfer gets it in, but the golfer gets a golf cart and a caddy horde to defend himself from the insane left tackle with a baseball bat.

Warhammer is about collecting models, customizing and painting them to fulfill your fancy, play games against one another, and write your own fantasy stories through game play. Realistically you shouldn't even use equal points, you should determine points on scenario rules and such.

decker_cky
28-08-2010, 05:57
Yeah, at 2000 pts, I'm stuffing in infantry since you need it. Maybe a chariot or two of support. At 2500, I can consider one of the monsters, or minotaurs.

Aluinn
28-08-2010, 06:47
evilsponge, please do not use quotation marks when you aren't actually quoting someone, especially if you attribute the nonquote to a specific individual. Jervis said nothing like what you wrote in the post title. He addressed tournament organizers with a plea to not delve into writing special comp rules until they have some experience running 8th Ed. tournaments without them, and then went only a bit further to say that 8th Ed. rules (in particular, scenarios) should make comp "less of an issue".

So, what he said is really rather sensible, but your fake quote makes it sound like he's talking absolutes. In truth, he left the door wide open for anyone who wanted to suggest that comp restrictions might improve a tournament.

Kudzu
28-08-2010, 07:11
Warhammer is about collecting models, customizing and painting them to fulfill your fancy, play games against one another, and write your own fantasy stories through game play. Realistically you shouldn't even use equal points, you should determine points on scenario rules and such.

To you, sure. To my friends and I it's (supposed to be)a fun game to use to compete with each other.

There's plenty of room for both within the system if a bit more attention was paid to how the rules were written and interacted with each other. Having well thought out and balanced rules hurts no one and helps everyone-- from the ultra fluffy to the ultra competitive... and that's why those of us who enjoy tournaments are a bit miffed at the sloppiness.

ChrisIronBrow
28-08-2010, 07:45
Warhammer is about collecting models, customizing and painting them to fulfill your fancy, play games against one another, and write your own fantasy stories through game play. Realistically you shouldn't even use equal points, you should determine points on scenario rules and such.


Just because you want the game to be this doesn't make it so, nor does it require that everyone who plays agrees with you. If balance truly didn't matter, then just drop the concept of Points and each player can show up with whatever army they like the best.

Gazak Blacktoof
28-08-2010, 08:41
If balance truly didn't matter, then just drop the concept of Points and each player can show up with whatever army they like the best.

That's something I've seen several of the designers suggest...

Sand
28-08-2010, 09:07
Couple clarifications:
West Coast has pretty much adopted 2500 points as the new standard size, since its the only point level where every army gets to field at least one lord choice and the numbers are nice and round. Plus you can take a 2250 list and add a single core unit to it and probably be able to play.

Second, with the engineers, I am talking about sticking one in the middle of a war machine pile (guarded on all sides by steadfast blocks, of course) to eliminate misfires.

Third, I didn't realize the empire guy was cheating, but it doesn't stop them from doing that crap by backing it up with some lines of troops, really.

Fourth, yes Tomb Kings. Hat on a King, Lich High Priest and two pals, plus all the bounds equal the equivalent of a 20PD magic phase while the most any army can ever generate is around 11, and then only if you play dwarves. The only saving grace is that you generally won't see the facerape spells, but aside from that its like playing the old VC list times a billion. Toss in a pair of Catapults and see how much fun it is to play the unbreakable gunline of doom. That and, of course, tomb scopians are still the best character assasinators ever made, so you generally have no BSB or L4 by turn three.

The engineer thing is no big deal. You can get a bit more out of them now, true (but then, they were basically a waste of points before). However, they still only work once per turn, cost a fair amount of points and need to be within 3" of the Warmachines. If people put a whole lot of Warmachines in a bunch roughly equivalent to the big template, just to get the possibility of rerolling one misfire, then I'll be a happy, happy man.

As for Tomb Kings, I'm sorry if this sounds snarky, but have you actually played against them? Tomb King magic is, without a doubt, the worst in the game at present. In 7th it was actually worth something, because you could use the added maneuverability to beat better troops that outnumbered you (which by the way, is pretty much every other army when you play Tomb Kings). With Steadfast that's completely out of the window.
I'd happily play a Tomb Kings army that had not one, but two extra magic-induced movement phases in 8th.

Edit: Oh yeah, Tomb Scorpions are not all that in 8th either. Plus, they were always quite unreliable.

Sand
28-08-2010, 09:09
PS- I actually like 8th edition, aside from the movement chess game being removed from the game. But it took players all of about one month to break it with the existing books, many of which are rescent releases that won't see rebalancing until far down the road. They also compounded the problems by introducing a ton of common items that they clearly did not think about in many cases (Power Scroll, Watch Tower, Stubborn Crown), as far as their impact on the regular game.
This, I do agree with. There's definitely some unforeseen consequences in the design and new items.

Sand
28-08-2010, 09:12
To you, sure. To my friends and I it's (supposed to be)a fun game to use to compete with each other.

There's plenty of room for both within the system if a bit more attention was paid to how the rules were written and interacted with each other. Having well thought out and balanced rules hurts no one and helps everyone-- from the ultra fluffy to the ultra competitive... and that's why those of us who enjoy tournaments are a bit miffed at the sloppiness.
I agree completely.

I don't believe a completely balanced game is possible, if it's still supposed to be remotely recognizable as Warhammer at least, but I certainly think it could -and should- be better.

I only play with friends and we aren't terribly competitive, but even so, it would really help us if things were more balanced. First of all, noone likes to feel like they've lost before the game even gets going. Secondly, better balance would actually make it much more easy to make up "unbalanced" scenarios and storytelling-type events and campaigns.

Frankly
28-08-2010, 09:55
I think tournament play is diametrically counter to the whole point of WFB ....

....


Warhammer is about collecting models, customizing and painting them to fulfill your fancy, play games against one another, and write your own fantasy stories through game play. Realistically you shouldn't even use equal points, you should determine points on scenario rules and such.


I respectfully disagree. I think that tournaments are a huge part of the point of playing for some people. For me I really enjoy tournaments, I love seeing new armies, comvertions, great skill for my opponant on the table top, re-uniting with old friends and old enemies. All that happening at tournaments for me ... as well as playing a few games of warhammer.

smithers
28-08-2010, 17:03
It seems like some people are assuming that the purpose of a tournament is to identify the most-skilled players. Yes, the armies are unbalanced, and so a tourney is as much a competition between armies and army lists as it is between the generals. That doesn't make it any less valid as a form of competition. Sort of analagous to a horse race, where both the horse and jockey are factors.

Balancing the armies will never be accomplished, so the best we should hope for is that combos that are blatantly overpowered get nerfed over time, and armies that are severely lacking get upgraded over time. This seems to be the case to me, though the process is much slower than we would all hope. (I WANT MY NEW TK BOOK BWAHH!)

AndrewGPaul
28-08-2010, 17:27
I think tournament play is diametrically counter to the whole point of WFB...

Warhammer is about collecting models, customizing and painting them to fulfill your fancy, play games against one another, and write your own fantasy stories through game play. Realistically you shouldn't even use equal points, you should determine points on scenario rules and such.


To you, sure. To my friends and I it's (supposed to be)a fun game to use to compete with each other.


Just because you want the game to be this doesn't make it so, nor does it require that everyone who plays agrees with you. If balance truly didn't matter, then just drop the concept of Points and each player can show up with whatever army they like the best.

To be honest, looking at the game, I have to agree with the good Colonel. As people are fond of pointing out, there are other games with more competition-friendly rulesets, and the GW designers have produced more tightly-written games, so it's not a matter of them all being useless. Since it appears that they can write more balanced games, but Warhammer is not one such, the logical suggestion would be that they don't want to, as they don't see it being worth their time.

I'm not claiming there's anything wrong with playing the game as Kudzu or ChrisIronBrow want to. Just that the evidence appears to show that GW isn't interested in it.

Actually, Chris makes a good point, if possibly accidentally. I'd like to see more games where the players sit down and work out an interesting scenario, then put together the forces required and fight it out. Perhaps base it on a scene from one of the novels or the army books. You could even do what Battle For Armageddon did (on a smaller scale) - take a historic scenario and substitute in a Warhammer army.

Jim30
28-08-2010, 17:35
Personally I believe the UK tournament scene is a tiny proportion of actual warhammer community players. Most largeish tournaments seem to have about 40 - 100 entrants, and you'll see the same faces crop up again and again.

Now I have no idea how many WHFB players there are, but I'd personally think it was in the tens of thousands. In the UK I'd put the tournament crowd as a hard core of under 1000. Therefore its no surprise if GW doesnt cater to it - there simply isnt the interest from the mainstream customer. Ultimately GW is here to make money, and they make it by providing a fun range of products which equate to having a good game, albeit one which hardcore players find lacks balance.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to this debate - people will always scream balance problems, its human nature. I just think that the vast majority of WHFB players seem relatively content with the system as is, and don't see the need for major change for 'balance' purposes.

In terms of scenarios, I have a couple of books by charles grant which are wargaming scenarios for any period. Some of the best wargames I've done, using a range of systems have come from these books. A key driving factor though is that the armies are rarely balanced in size - its about succeeding in your objective, and points cost doesnt come into it. I strongly suggest picking up a copy if possible - they're damn good fun to play.

Col. Tartleton
28-08-2010, 17:43
Just because you want the game to be this doesn't make it so, nor does it require that everyone who plays agrees with you. If balance truly didn't matter, then just drop the concept of Points and each player can show up with whatever army they like the best.

Storm of Chaos? Pretty much.


To be honest, looking at the game, I have to agree with the good Colonel. As people are fond of pointing out, there are other games with more competition-friendly rulesets, and the GW designers have produced more tightly-written games, so it's not a matter of them all being useless. Since it appears that they can write more balanced games, but Warhammer is not one such, the logical suggestion would be that they don't want to, as they don't see it being worth their time.

I'm not claiming there's anything wrong with playing the game as Kudzu or ChrisIronBrow want to. Just that the evidence appears to show that GW isn't interested in it.

Actually, Chris makes a good point, if possibly accidentally. I'd like to see more games where the players sit down and work out an interesting scenario, then put together the forces required and fight it out. Perhaps base it on a scene from one of the novels or the army books. You could even do what Battle For Armageddon did (on a smaller scale) - take a historic scenario and substitute in a Warhammer army.

Yep. You certainly can play it in a tournament setting but you're going to have to maul the rules to balance it out. Certainly not a bad thing, the rules aren't for it as is. At the end of the day its a game of chance not skill. But they have gambling tournaments also. Warhammer is like a craps tournament.

jamano
28-08-2010, 21:03
GW is going to keep losing market share to games like warmachine and FOW because of their poor attitude, how big would magic the gathering be if they kept their casual attitude from years ago? Being competitive friendly sells more models, so they would not have to keep raising prices, and taking forever to release second waves if they had better sales.

ewar
28-08-2010, 22:16
Yep. You certainly can play it in a tournament setting but you're going to have to maul the rules to balance it out. Certainly not a bad thing, the rules aren't for it as is. At the end of the day its a game of chance not skill. But they have gambling tournaments also. Warhammer is like a craps tournament.

That's simply not true - skilled players will regularly do better than unskilled players, regardless of list.

When a tournament includes scenarios and the players are matched against players of equal skill then you get some immensely fun and challenging games, regardless of the lists.

I don't know why this subject produces such over-simplified or polarised views. There are lots of players, including myself, who enjoy playing friendly games and also going to tournaments. I personally only go to the grand tournament in the UK, at Warhammer world, each year.

And you know what? It's a bloody good laugh! It doesn't mean I have to play hardcore competitive gaming the rest of the year though. For 99% of the people there it's just a way to play against new opponents and armies that they don't regularly come across, whilst also being a measure of war gaming skill.

explorator
28-08-2010, 22:33
With regard to #8: What on earth are you talking about? Yes, in 2000 points an empire army can field 9 War machines, but "buffing them all with one engineer?" If you put them all a minimum distance away from one another with an engineer in the middle maybe he could reach them all... maybe... but even if he could he could only affect one per turn.

With regard to #9: 2 steam tanks are illegal in 2000 points now. You need a 2400 point game to field them.

And with regard to the flagellants: that is an illegal unit. Flagellants have a maximum unit size of 30.

This is exactly the problem. People need to play with the actual rules in order to get a balanced perspective on the system. Many people are breaking/missing/ignoring all kinds of rules and then crying about imbalance. The magic system especially gets a ton of grief form players with limited experiences.

I get the feeling that many of those who want a strict comp system have not played a large number of 8e games against a variety of opponents. Testing a system prior to making changes is just common sense, and 8e is still very shiny.

Maoriboy007
29-08-2010, 10:32
.....The magic system especially gets a ton of grief form players with limited experiences....

So far in 8th out of around 10 games I have seen about 4 of them decided fairly conclusivly in a magic phase by one maybe 2 spells.
This was bad enough in 7th when around 4 games were decided instantaneously by a gateway spell over the course admittedly more games, it felt wrong then and is worse now.

explorator
29-08-2010, 13:10
I have played over 10 8e games myself, and witnessed over 20 other games at my local. I have seen exactly one game decided purely by magic.

30 games is a small sample; I would not feel comfortable making serious changes to a comp system until I play at least 100 games.

Magic is something you have to prepare for. I have seen a player lose the Blood and Glory scenario before the game even started because he had zero banners in his army. If you are unprepared that is your own fault.

Kudzu
29-08-2010, 15:45
So far in 8th out of around 10 games I have seen about 4 of them decided fairly conclusivly in a magic phase by one maybe 2 spells.

And in those four games did the generals who lost have limited experience? 8th requires a lot of changes to be effective offensively and defensively, so putting all your eggs in one basket like you would in 7th is a risk now.

All in all, it's really no different then "that one, maybe two" war machine shot/s that decide the game or "that one, maybe two" combats that decide the game, except there's a lot more chance involved in trying to get the uber-spell off.

Lainer
29-08-2010, 19:05
8) 10 War Machine Empire and Dwarves with one engineer to buff them all


That would be cheating. To quote the faq:

"In addition,
one war machine that is within 3" of a Master Engineer
receives the following benefits:
• A Bolt Thrower may use his BS.
• A Grudge Thrower may re-roll the Artillery dice.
• A Cannon can re-roll the first artillery dice used.”

It says "one" war machine. You would need 10 master engineers to buff 10 warmachines.

jamano
29-08-2010, 19:48
I have played over 10 8e games myself, and witnessed over 20 other games at my local. I have seen exactly one game decided purely by magic.

30 games is a small sample; I would not feel comfortable making serious changes to a comp system until I play at least 100 games.

Magic is something you have to prepare for. I have seen a player lose the Blood and Glory scenario before the game even started because he had zero banners in his army. If you are unprepared that is your own fault.
In how many of those games did one of the players have a level 4 life, death, or shadow wizard? How many games did a lvl 1 with picked spells have a power scroll? The insane magic phases happen alot more when list building is:
1. lvl 4 life wizard
2. ??
3. Profit!

Gatsby
29-08-2010, 19:52
In how many of those games did one of the players have a level 4 life, death, or shadow wizard? How many games did a lvl 1 with picked spells have a power scroll? The insane magic phases happen alot more when list building is:
1. lvl 4 life wizard
2. ??
3. Profit!

you were watching south park as you wrote this weren't you? cause now i gotta go to netflix and watch this.



oh on topic yea, when built to annihilate turn one, wizards can annihilate turn one. but they gotta be built for it other wise it all falls on luck (which can still happen.)

Gorak
30-08-2010, 05:29
I think comp is bad idea period it usaly ends up being biest toward some armies the TO doesn't like and doesn't solve any problems, If I came to a tourney with an army that I spent time and hard earned money to build and was told I COULDN"T USE IT I would be pissed. It's true that at 3000pt you can have lots more but play testing lis6t before a tourn goes a long way to see what works vs what doesn't. I personal loved Jervis artical and vote no for comp score. Oh and BTW I play beastmen and regualry stomp HE,DoC and Lizards all sposadly top tier armies.

decker_cky
30-08-2010, 05:56
In how many of those games did one of the players have a level 4 life, death, or shadow wizard? How many games did a lvl 1 with picked spells have a power scroll? The insane magic phases happen alot more when list building is:
1. lvl 4 life wizard
2. ??
3. Profit!

I just death-sniped an underprotected Lvl 4 life wizard on turn 1 today though.

Anyways....big damage spells are sexy, but so far, a well timed soulblight, flesh to stone, wildform or even miasma has been more decisive than dwellers, purple sun or the 13th spell have been.

Hinge01
30-08-2010, 06:06
As a tournament oriented player, I feel the need to chime in. As I read these posts, I asked myself, why I go to tournaments.

To hang out with my friends.
To play other people. I play in a group of about 15 regular and irregular players. It gets stale playing the same people and I find it interesting to travel somewhere and play people with different styles and ideas about Warhammer.
To see some incredible armies. I have! You are short changing tournament players if you do not think they pour a lot of effort into the modeling aspect of this hobby.
To win. You are lying to yourself if you do not want to win when you put your army on the table, tourney or not. Can you have a great time and lose, hell yes! But you went into that game wanting to win.

As a side benefit, I have met some great people and struck up friendships across the country. The Warhammer community is more then playing at the local store and posting on forums. Tournaments are another way to deepen this community.

Putting on a tourney is a ton of work. The people who pull off a good tourney do it for the love of the hobby. Their goal is a fun event, not catering to the winners. These people should be commended and supported by GW. They make unusually good ambassadors for the game.

On the subject of comp, it is the single most debated, whined about, complained about aspect of any tourney. It is also the single thing tourney organizers take the most grief over. Honestly, there is no “right” answer when it comes to comp, other then to acknowledge there is a place for it. It will take time and experience for some of the more abusive builds to come to light. In the mean time, tourney’s will continue and organizers will need to do the best they can. Jervis is wrong when hints that 8th ed. is balanced and there will be no need for comp in the future. Yes, he did not come out and say it directly, but that is the way I feel he leans.

Finally, while my enjoyment comes from tournament style play, I believe that those who just enjoy playing the game for other reasons are equally important. As one poster pointed out, they outnumber the tourney players. Yet, I do not see GW doing much for them. Why is their not a “historical;” scenario in every White Dwarf? Why are there not more build and paint an army from xyz Black Library novel articles on the web site? I also ask why they do not send a GW employee to every Indy tourney with 75+ players with a camera, tell them to pick an army to photograph. This would emphasize the modeling aspect of the hobby and get some fantastic armies the coverage they deserve.

Yours in Warhammer,

Hinge

Souppilgrim
30-08-2010, 06:19
So far in 8th out of around 10 games I have seen about 4 of them decided fairly conclusivly in a magic phase by one maybe 2 spells.
This was bad enough in 7th when around 4 games were decided instantaneously by a gateway spell over the course admittedly more games, it felt wrong then and is worse now.

Ive seen over 10 games in 8th (7th as well) decided in 1-2 combat phases by a 175 point hydra, a 300ish point unit of chaos warriors, a 260-280 point unit of empire swordsmen, etc. All about the same points you would see magic at. Why should magic be any different?

cybercaine
30-08-2010, 06:32
So far in 8th out of around 10 games I have seen about 4 of them decided fairly conclusivly in a magic phase by one maybe 2 spells.
This was bad enough in 7th when around 4 games were decided instantaneously by a gateway spell over the course admittedly more games, it felt wrong then and is worse now.

Apparently, you didn't play a lot against the DoC magic army. Those were decided in 1 or maybe 2 magic phases fairly conclusively all the time. Sure, it wasn't 1 spell. But it was inevitable that they would cast a ridiculous amount of spells and grind your army down. And there was really no way to prevent it when they had way too many dice. Way too many dice. And if you brought magic, you almost couldn't afford to cast spells because their phase would be worse thanks to the Blue Scribes. I saw a lot of those games and was on the receiving end of some of those games. It was at least 10x worse than it is now. And it happened on autopilot due to non-random magic phases.

I just finished 'ard boyz with a LM list that contained a toad w/ Life. I didn't even cast a successful Dwellers until game 3 (tried once game 1 and failed, didn't try game 2). I won all three games on the backs of the buff spells and the ability to heal my stegs. There is a lot of complaining about PoS, PSoX, DB. . . My buddy has been rocking Teclis now for weeks with a lot of Shadow, and he's been underwhelmed by PoS. The buffs and debuffs + the teleport is another thing entirely. He feels he gets the most value from those spells.

I also think there is a lot of talk about the lvl1 sacrificial bomb caster that to me seems fairly silly. I have yet to run into one that worked. These spells are simply too random IMO to risk such a ridiculous strategy. First, you have to roll the spell you want (unless you have access to Loremaster which a few lower lvl casters do). You have to get the guy into position that will most likely mean he's dead next turn if he fails. And there's a lot of ways he can fail. You can fail to roll a lot of dice for your power phase. If that happens, you're likely sunk as a lot less dice means a lot less chance for IF even with Power Scroll. You can scatter off the the unit with PoS. You can fail to roll the distance needed with PSoX. You can certainly fail to kill characters due to LoS. Even if you manage to kill a bunch of models and you get 200 pts worth of stuff (which in my mind is a fairly good result with likely above average rolling happening due to all the above mentioned factors for one of these suicide squads), really all you've most likely managed to do is trade around 150 pts or so for 200. I have yet to see one actually win the game. In theory, they seem a lot scarier than they are in practice.

Finally, I should also like to mention that we are approaching an area of open list Fantasy. 'ardboyz was open list. While not exactly mandating open lists in the BRB, it seems clear that fantasy is moving towards open list. This is important as it relates to these suicide casters in that now it should be fairly clear if the player is using a suicide caster or a value caster at the start of the game. If he's using a suicide caster, you can certainly mitigate this with your play during the game. You can certainly do a lot to keep him away from juicier targets making his PSoX or PoS harder or more risky to pull off. I think perhaps that there might also be a lot of "Surprise POWERSCROLL!" going on when that should for the most part be a thing of the past in which hidden magic items could be game breaking.

Peril
30-08-2010, 06:58
Ive seen over 10 games in 8th (7th as well) decided in 1-2 combat phases by a 175 point hydra, a 300ish point unit of chaos warriors, a 260-280 point unit of empire swordsmen, etc. All about the same points you would see magic at. Why should magic be any different?

I have the opportunity to counter a Hydra or huge unit of Chaos Warriors. I can do nothing about a power scrolled Purple Sun, except remove models.

Lord Inquisitor
30-08-2010, 07:00
As I read these posts, I asked myself, why I go to tournaments.
Excellent post. I agree with your sentiments and I think it's important in these friendly-vs-tournament debates to realise and understand how both sides complete the hobby.

Tournaments enhance every part of the hobby. I play far more interesting scenarios at tournaments, see more painted armies and have as much of a laugh with friends and new acquaintances as with a gaming club.

Friendly games are a competition. Even in a wacky scenario with three people a side ... You're still playing to win. Sure you might be more inclined to for example meet an enemy challenge with your hero for the epic fight rather than with a champion, but most everyone is trying to win. A system where players are expected to self police and build armies as powerful as possible without taking anything perceived as cheese or too good, that feels like lazy game design. Likewise WAAC mentality is not necessarily associated with tourneys, the few horrible ruleslawyer experiences I've had have been "friendly" games.



I just finished 'ard boyz with a LM list that contained a toad w/ Life. I didn't even cast a successful Dwellers until game 3 (tried once game 1 and failed, didn't try game 2). I won all three games on the backs of the buff spells and the ability to heal my stegs. There is a lot of complaining about PoS, PSoX, DB.
But the buff spells are the most powerful! Sure against certain armies the megadeath spells can be horrific in theory but I've really not seen any real one spell massacres at all. Indeed I've not succeeded in casting purple sun despite trying virtually every turn in two games against double steam tank lists. But I've discovered that in general soulblight or the buff spells are vastly more powerful in most cases. Soulblight easily affects the whole enemy force ... -1 S and T to the whole enemy army at a critical point? That's game winning!

Gatsby
30-08-2010, 10:06
@Lord Inquisitor: your post... its not pink?

jamano
30-08-2010, 13:46
But the buff spells are the most powerful! Sure against certain armies the megadeath spells can be horrific in theory but I've really not seen any real one spell massacres at all. Indeed I've not succeeded in casting purple sun despite trying virtually every turn in two games against double steam tank lists. But I've discovered that in general soulblight or the buff spells are vastly more powerful in most cases. Soulblight easily affects the whole enemy force ... -1 S and T to the whole enemy army at a critical point? That's game winning!

You can have your cake AND eat it though, you nuke them with the kill spells the turn or two before you get everyone engaged in combat where having +4 tough when sitting around doesn't do much unless they're a gunline. And killing their wizard or bsb or whatever makes your debuff all the more effective when they cant counter it.

Lord Inquisitor
30-08-2010, 20:45
@Lord Inquisitor: your post... its not pink?
Yeah, I have trouble dealing with quotes and colour tags when replying on my phone. Rest assured that future posts will be back to their proper eye-jarring colour... ;)

You can have your cake AND eat it though, you nuke them with the kill spells the turn or two before you get everyone engaged in combat where having +4 tough when sitting around doesn't do much unless they're a gunline. And killing their wizard or bsb or whatever makes your debuff all the more effective when they cant counter it.
True enough, but that's getting pretty specific. Even with flying loremasters I've only once every managed to cast purple sun down an enemy's line and as it was against Warriors I only killed a handful of troops. I've not yet tried it against Lizardmen or Ogres but I just haven't been able to get these megadeath spells to work and I've not seen any horrific one-spell massacres happen in anyone else's games either. It should be noted that I don't have access to the powerscroll as I play daemons. The buffs and debuffs on the other hand have been instrumental in the majority of games I play.

Hinge01
31-08-2010, 03:11
Thanks for the kind word Lord Inquisitor.

Hinge

silashand
31-08-2010, 04:15
GW is going to keep losing market share to games like warmachine and FOW because of their poor attitude, how big would magic the gathering be if they kept their casual attitude from years ago? Being competitive friendly sells more models, so they would not have to keep raising prices, and taking forever to release second waves if they had better sales.

This is my experience. Though I like 8th for the most part, the overt drive away from any semblance of a competitive system makes me prefer FoW and/or WARMACHINE these days. It's just my own opinion, but GW's continually declining sales as evidenced by their recent financial reports would seem to indicate that I'm not the only one who is abandoning their system for something else.

Cheers, Gary

ChrisIronBrow
31-08-2010, 04:56
This is my experience. Though I like 8th for the most part, the overt drive away from any semblance of a competitive system makes me prefer FoW and/or WARMACHINE these days. It's just my own opinion, but GW's continually declining sales as evidenced by their recent financial reports would seem to indicate that I'm not the only one who is abandoning their system for something else.

Cheers, Gary

Not to be too eager to jump on the bash GW bandwagon here, but... I find it shocking (don't you?) that GW's answer to declining sales volume is to keep serving up an ever increasing dose of what is failing them already.

I think 8th is a fun game, but I think they made the same mistakes as in 7th, and as in 6th, etc.. and it's only a matter of time until the system breaks again.

SideshowLucifer
31-08-2010, 12:48
I can't tell you how long people have complained aout GW games, and yet, they still keep playing thm, buying them, and the company keeps making money.
I worked for privateer press for several years and was one of their big competetive players both before and after their changes, and I can tell you their system isn't realy any more balanced then GW's. To be honest, they are following the trail GW blazed years ago, which is a successful buisness model.

A system will either grow stagnet or it will eventualy break. That's what it does. Even Flames of War changed to a system that has cost them more then a few players with their more recent army books. GW doesn't make a new edition to fix balance issues, they make a new edition to keep things from growing stale.

Odin
31-08-2010, 13:48
One of my more rescent games of fantasy was against an empire army that had (as its sole core choice) 60 Flaggelents deployed in a long line across the table with a giant gunline behind it. Yeah, tell me again that comp is not needed....

Has anyone pointed out that the max size of a unit of Flagellants is 30?

ChrisIronBrow
31-08-2010, 13:49
I can't tell you how long people have complained aout GW games, and yet, they still keep playing thm, buying them, and the company keeps making money.

And as long as GW thinks like that they will keep losing sales. Look at their numbers. There not losing profit, but they are losing sales. Selling less and less while charging more and more is a doomed business model.

GW could create a balanced system, and still change up the unit by unit balance with new editions. It would only require that they care enough to try.

Idle Scholar
31-08-2010, 15:34
I know this is a thread derailment but how much of GW's sales do people honestly think that competition minded fantasy 16+ y/o players make up?

I've always been under the impression that the majority of sales go to <16's and that GW's problems are a combination of macro economics (recession, wages, raw materials etc) and a general culteral move away from traditional hobby type toys (lego, airfix etc) to more time spent playing computer games, particularly MMORPG's. Add on top of that unhealthy competition form online stores (which by definition can charge less due to lower overheads, yet GW needs the brick and mortar places to bring in the kids :/) and their fair share of bad management decisions and you can see why GW's coffers aren't exactly overflowing.

Odin
31-08-2010, 16:25
I know this is a thread derailment but how much of GW's sales do people honestly think that competition minded fantasy 16+ y/o players make up?

I've always been under the impression that the majority of sales go to <16's and that GW's problems are a combination of macro economics (recession, wages, raw materials etc) and a general culteral move away from traditional hobby type toys (lego, airfix etc) to more time spent playing computer games, particularly MMORPG's. Add on top of that unhealthy competition form online stores (which by definition can charge less due to lower overheads, yet GW needs the brick and mortar places to bring in the kids :/) and their fair share of bad management decisions and you can see why GW's coffers aren't exactly overflowing.

Good points.

Charging £25 for 10 plastic greatswords doesn't help much, mind.

ChrisIronBrow
31-08-2010, 21:19
Good points.

Charging £25 for 10 plastic greatswords doesn't help much, mind.

Ultimately that's the problem. GW have priced themselves out of the casual "fun" market. However keep trying to make the rules more about random luck and destruction than gameplay. That works for cheap games that take little investment to get into.

The only reason many of us still play is that we are hold overs from another time and already have invested into this game. It's not easy getting new players into a game where they spend $60 on a unit that can be removed from the table in a single turn.

Honestly, 8th will need "comp" much more than 7th. It's just too early to have it worked out yet.

Gonzoyola
31-08-2010, 23:43
Really? All I want to say to this thread is I saw someone, seriously, propose that TK magic is a problem that needs to be brought in line? I'm sorry does my 4 movement without the ability to march intimidate you? or wait... i can shoot 10 S3 arrows at you, thats scary. Watch out for those 15 skeleton spear attacks in close combat!, oh wait! I GET IT NOW! ITS THE 18" MAGIC MISSILE!

Seriously, Don't embarrass your self

silashand
01-09-2010, 01:05
The only reason many of us still play is that we are hold overs from another time and already have invested into this game.

This is me. I confess if I were new to the hobby now I wouldn't even bother. I'd rather spend my money on paintball and golf to be honest. At least in those skill actually matters somewhat.

Cheers, Gary

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 01:13
Really? All I want to say to this thread is I saw someone, seriously, propose that TK magic is a problem that needs to be brought in line? I'm sorry does my 4 movement without the ability to march intimidate you? or wait... i can shoot 10 S3 arrows at you, thats scary. Watch out for those 15 skeleton spear attacks in close combat!, oh wait! I GET IT NOW! ITS THE 18" MAGIC MISSILE!

Seriously, Don't embarrass your self
TK=Undead Army
Undead Army=Blind Hatred
;)

The SkaerKrow
01-09-2010, 01:25
Warhammer still needs Comp scoring, and it always will. Just because the old tricks aren't as effective does not mean that there aren't new tricks to replace them.

Lord of Divine Slaughter
01-09-2010, 06:44
This is me. I confess if I were new to the hobby now I wouldn't even bother. I'd rather spend my money on paintball and golf to be honest. At least in those skill actually matters somewhat.

Then get out Gary. 8th takes a lot more skill and tactics than 7th, and if you can't see this, then its a waste of your time :)

neXus6
01-09-2010, 07:08
8th takes a lot more skill and tactics than 7th

That is very much open to debate. Indeed it has been and still is being debated to death in other threads.

Paraelix
01-09-2010, 07:16
No game system is ever going to be balanced for purely competitive play, and I think it is a bit arrogant of GW to think 8th is any different to 7th in that regard.


Pg 446- It's important to make clear that Warhammer is not specifically designed for highly competitive, cutthroat play. It is vital that the players who come along to such an event do so in a spirit of friendly competition, where taking part is more important than winning.

Gatsby
01-09-2010, 07:26
Pg 446- It's important to make clear that Warhammer is not specifically designed for highly competitive, cutthroat play. It is vital that the players who come along to such an event do so in a spirit of friendly competition, where taking part is more important than winning.

Translation: So if we Nerfed your army and never get around to fixing it, don't worry, your still in the running for Miss Congeniality.

Paraelix
01-09-2010, 07:38
Translation: So if we Nerfed your army and never get around to fixing it, don't worry, your still in the running for Miss Congeniality.

Counter-translation. "If you guys wanna bitch about tournament play, bitch to the organisers and not us."

Seriously, they made a game for fun. You are the ones who choose to play for hardcore competition instead of fun...

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 07:58
Counter-translation. "If you guys wanna bitch about tournament play, bitch to the organisers and not us."

Seriously, they made a game for fun. You are the ones who choose to play for hardcore competition instead of fun...

I can't tell you how much fun I had when purple sun ate half my army......

Kudzu
01-09-2010, 08:34
Counter-translation. "If you guys wanna bitch about tournament play, bitch to the organisers and not us."

Seriously, they made a game for fun. You are the ones who choose to play for hardcore competition instead of fun...

Except for the fact that some of us happen to think competition is fun.

DeeKay
01-09-2010, 12:58
Pg 446- It's important to make clear that Warhammer is not specifically designed for highly competitive, cutthroat play. It is vital that the players who come along to such an event do so in a spirit of friendly competition, where taking part is more important than winning.

And for me, that's the attitude that ruins my enjoyment of the game. As is often said in other posts, the objective of the game is to win and the point is to have fun. In this statement, GW have essentially said that it's the other way round. If GW wanted to make an RPG with toy soldiers, then they should have sold it as such.

With regards,
Dan.

Brother Loki
01-09-2010, 13:06
They do. They always have. If you didn't realise, then I suggest you may want to research products more thoroughly before investing in them.

rodmillard
01-09-2010, 15:33
If GW wanted to make an RPG with toy soldiers, then they should have sold it as such.


This is, in fact, exactly what they set out to make back in the late '80s. Then people started running tournaments, and it all went downhill from there...

theorox
01-09-2010, 15:40
Hmm... i'd say comp is not really needed, possibly a "No powerscroll" thing, but whatever, getting one spell off reliably in a game is not THAT overpowered In my opinon. Overpowered, just not "OmFG H4x0r5 Daemons!!!11?" Overpowered as a lot of people here seem to think. :)

Theo

Jim30
01-09-2010, 17:01
I've always seen that GW market their products as 'fun' and not as uber competitive games. They appeal to competitive people, but thats not the target audience.

As I've noted earlier, the number of hardcore 'uber competitive' types is a tiny, tiny number of the overall number of WHFB players out there. Thats why the game isn't based on competiveness - its not the target market.

This reminds me in a way of the 'hardcore vs casuals' debate on WOW. Essentially a tiny number of hardcore are upset that WOW is orientated primarily towards causal users. The reason is because Blizzard know that 11 million subscribers (vast majority of which are casual) can't be wrong financially. Ultimately there are other MMOGs out there, but the hardcore stay put - this is the same with GW - they know that the hardcore players will bitch and whine,but ultimately will stay put. Thats why you don't see any shifts, because GW have no financial incentive to do anything about it.

Lord Inquisitor
01-09-2010, 17:22
Is that true though?

I think that's close to the mark for 40k. A big chunk of the fan base is younger players and "casual" players. In my experience, in GW and Indy stores on both sides of the Atlantic, WFB has been the more "mature" of the three core games, with older and more competitive players in general. Not that all WFB players are hardcore tournament players, but I for one play 40k for a great narrative and scenario and fantasy as a direct match of wits with my opponent and this is a trend I see around me. Not that this means WAAC at any means, indeed I find in general fantasy tournaments to have far less sportsmanship issues to 40k ones, with higher painting and other hobby standards. Coupled with 7th being written by a hardcore tournament player and 6th and 7th had far more FAQs and rules explanations than 40k did, suggests to me that WFB certainly used to at least keep tournament play in mind.

Canucksfan1
01-09-2010, 17:56
I find it interesting that many of the recent posts are pointing to the quote that GW designs the game for fun not competition. I find it interesting that they state "fun", but create overpowered items or create a huge inbalance in army lists that depending on which army you are playing or the items you take the game automatically is either a fun game or a competitive game. Everyone knows that in 7th there was a complete inbalance where most new books completely trump the older books without having to take the cheapest lists. In 8th the same is still true, take a fluffy list up against highelves who don't max out on magic and swordmasters and you will still get creamed. There are armies out there that will just beat most fun/fluffy lists as GW army designers can't help themselves but load up on cheap overpowered armies. If GW wants to create a fun game either go back to 4th/5th edition when the game was crazy with superpowered characters but every army could beat another army on any given day, or stop creating things like HPA, Hydras, strike first (rerolls), powerscrolls, etc. at very reasonable point costs. Or atleast make the points costs of these things much higher where you would take them for fun as they are very expensive not to abuse them as they are a no brainer in an army.

I love how Jervis says to play games at 2k, this just goes on to further comfirm previous paragraph as at 2k with the 25% core rule really cuts down the options and variety an army can take as most lists after core, lord, a couple of heroes have very little points for special/rare (but that is not to say that some lists can't still dominate at 2k). I find it funny how Jervis suggests 2k, it is like they know they constantly f'up as they can't help themselves when writing books and magic items. They state their goal is to create a fun game, and to do that they are basically saying, 'please don't play over 2k as if you do the game definitely won't be fun as 2 many options open up and to much cheapness can creep into the game, as we can't help but write these things into the army book.'

ChrisIronBrow
01-09-2010, 18:02
Seriously, they made a game for fun. You are the ones who choose to play for hardcore competition instead of fun...

Warhammer by definition is a competitive game. There are two players, there are "victory" conditions, and the entire system is predicated on a points cost.

By making an imbalanced game, GW has NOT made "a game for fun". Tell me how fun it was in 7th if your army was Orcs and Goblins, and your only opponents were Over the Top daemon lists?

GW has made a "competitive" game, they just do a terrible job of it, and then try to make excuses instead of learning from their mistakes.

If the game was a "casual" lets have fun and ignore the rules game, then why bother with points costs? why bother with army books? Why bother with rules? All that boils down to is "cops and robbers" with toy soldiers.

It's a Lazy and insulting dodge by GW to claim Warhammer isn't "competitive"

Jim30
01-09-2010, 18:03
I completely agree that WFB is by far the most mature of the systems, but I think we overestimate the size of the harcore audience. I am a tournament player (as in, like turning up with a balanced force and having fun), but I recognise that in the UK, there is only a small number of tournament players out there - average tournament is 80-100 people in the UK, and there are maybe 30-50 a year. Most of these tournaments have 'repeat customers' so you'll see a hard core at almost all of them.

To my reckoning there are easily under 1000 active serious tournament players out there in the UK. I have no idea on current GW size base for WFB, but I'd harbour a guess that its considerably larger than 1000 players! To that end, those that tend to complain the loudest about balance in the game are usually the smallest group of GW customers (as is always the way with these things).

I don't doubt that tournament play is in the mind of the GW staff when writing the books, but equally, with a small team of people and finite time, I can see why they don't go to enormous lengths to ensure balance. With a range as large and complicated as GWs, and a hardcore player base who specialise in coming up with all manner of devious combinations, often unforseen I'd imagine, its not really surprising that WFB is never going to be a balanced tournament friendly ruleset. It works well enough for me to turn up and have a fun weekends gaming, but equally I can understand why a tiny minority of players think that it doesnt meet the requirements of their uber army build of the week.

As I've said before, GW is a business and needs to make money - it does this by using its limited staff resources to churn out new books and minis for the long haul. With a business model predicated on the idea that Junior won't play for more than 2-3 years, balance at tournaments isn't remotely an issue for them - hence they focus on putting new stuff out there to sell, and not fixing stuff for the hardcore customer. They know we're like crack addicts, we claim to quit, but somehow keep coming back for more system abuse! They also know that because of this, that our money is almost certainly going their way, regardless of what GW does or doesnt do, and as such, won't do much to handle concerns.

If GW was focusing on our end (i.e. the mature gamer who plays tournaments regularly) then we'd see a totally different focus. However we need to accept that with the company in enough business trouble as it is, its resources need to go on new customers and new toys to make us go 'oooooh' and not spending staff time working out whether a particularly theoryhammer combination used by only a handful of people requires an FAQ.

ChrisIronBrow
01-09-2010, 18:12
If GW was focusing on our end (i.e. the mature gamer who plays tournaments regularly) then we'd see a totally different focus.


I think the entire problem though, is that non competitive "fun" gamers need army balance even more than tournament players. When a list is too powerful a tournament player can rely on the TO to use comp.

When Jimmy and Bob are playing in their garage and it's 7th ed orcs vs. Daemons. Well, at least one of those players is going to quit the game soon.

Loopstah
01-09-2010, 18:47
When Jimmy and Bob are playing in their garage and it's 7th ed orcs vs. Daemons. Well, at least one of those players is going to quit the game soon.

Or alternatively because they are playing for fun Bob stops cheesing out his list and they both continue to play without using the overpowered or unfun options.

Because that's the sort of thing you can do when you play for fun, not take win more lists.

Satan
01-09-2010, 18:53
Or alternatively because they are playing for fun Bob stops cheesing out his list and they both continue to play without using the overpowered or unfun options.

Because that's the sort of thing you can do when you play for fun, not take win more lists.

...Because that's what people usually do? :eyebrows:

New players in particular?


I think the entire problem though, is that non competitive "fun" gamers need army balance even more than tournament players. When a list is too powerful a tournament player can rely on the TO to use comp.

When Jimmy and Bob are playing in their garage and it's 7th ed orcs vs. Daemons. Well, at least one of those players is going to quit the game soon.

This is probably one of the truest statements in this thread. Boy are people going to take offense to it.

GodlessM
01-09-2010, 21:19
Comp is fine, and may be preferable for tournaments still though significantly lessened (just banning a few double rare combos such as Steam Tanks for instance), but banning spells number 6 and or 5 because they have a small chance of decimating one unit completely isn't comp, it's poppycock! People complain that some builds rely on one unit, but I find it an appropriate method of showing a player that trying to throw all his eggs into one basket isn't competent army building. Plus as I said, such a devastating effect is still a rare enough occurance relying on several factors of pure chance.


I think the entire problem though, is that non competitive "fun" gamers need army balance even more than tournament players. When a list is too powerful a tournament player can rely on the TO to use comp.

When Jimmy and Bob are playing in their garage and it's 7th ed orcs vs. Daemons. Well, at least one of those players is going to quit the game soon.

Very interesting point that I never considered before, and honestly I can't say I disagree. Touche.

Gazak Blacktoof
01-09-2010, 21:21
...Because that's what people usually do? :eyebrows:

I'm not sure if it is usual, but, it's the sort of thing I do. I had a game on saturday in wich I asked my opponent if it was ok to use my hydra, or if he wanted to play a slightly smaller game so that I didn't have to use it (still building my dark elves). I wouldn't even think about bringing 2 unless playing a large game, say 3000 points or more.

I want the game to be fun, so I restrict what I bring. I actually apologised to my opponent after my first 8th edition game. I had completely misjudged what kind of game my opponent wanted and I fielded a hydra and the black dragon egg in a 1250 point game. That wasn't a good game for either of us.

I too agree with Chris, comp, house rules, etc (or at least discussing the type of game you want) really help in non-tournament play to keep the game fun.

Croaker2
01-09-2010, 21:27
I just wanted to speak up and represent the non-tournament players.
I've pleen playing for over 20 years, even worked for GW for a while and the only tournament I played was the staff tournament when I was working there.

There are thousands of us (as had been guessed at in this thread), but we tend not to say as much (or as loudly).

Satan
01-09-2010, 21:35
I'm not sure if it is usual, but, it's the sort of thing I do. I had a game on saturday in wich I asked my opponent if it was ok to use my hydra, or if he wanted to play a slightly smaller game so that I didn't have to use it (still building my dark elves). I wouldn't even think about bringing 2 unless playing a large game, say 3000 points or more.

I want the game to be fun, so I restrict what I bring. I actually apologised to my opponent after my first 8th edition game. I had completely misjudged what kind of game my opponent wanted and I fielded a hydra and the black dragon egg in a 1250 point game. That wasn't a good game for either of us.

I too agree with Chris, comp, house rules, etc (or at least discussing the type of game you want) really help in non-tournament play to keep the game fun.

I would never expect my opponents to do it, and wouldn't ask them to exclude something from their army either.

I try to bring stuff that I feel make a solid, balanced list. Sure, if I can come up with an interesting combo I'll bring it, but I'm not going to restrict myself. If I ever had a bad game it was of my own account by bringing a weird list like one containing a deathstar, but to me that was just part of the learning curve. If I end up in a cornered situation, like I tend to do with the wood elves right now, I'm sad to having to resort to the conclusion that sometimes it's a lack of balance which makes the game less fun.

Like Chris says, if you want casual play to be fun, then balanced rules and armies are going to be of much more use to you. In tournaments we can, and will continue to use comp so long as the game isn't exactly working great in matchups between different armies.

But to me comp isn't about restrictions, it's about trying out different types of army selections for different tournaments - I've stated in previous threads that comp and tournaments have been of great help to me in creating balanced and fun lists to play with, and I stand by that statement.


Comp is fine, and may be preferable for tournaments still though significantly lessened (just banning a few double rare combos such as Steam Tanks for instance), but banning spells number 6 and or 5 because they have a small chance of decimating one unit completely isn't comp, it's poppycock! People complain that some builds rely on one unit, but I find it an appropriate method of showing a player that trying to throw all his eggs into one basket isn't competent army building. Plus as I said, such a devastating effect is still a rare enough occurance relying on several factors of pure chance.



Very interesting point that I never considered before, and honestly I can't say I disagree. Touche.

I ain't ever seen or played with a comp system which banned anything from the game.

And people should stop trying to estimate the amount of tournament players. In the nationals there were short of a 100 participants. And this is Sweden. We have less than 10 million inhabitants and it's a large country with big geographical distances. I can't begin to fathom how many there must be in the UK - you've got what some 50-60 million people living in England alone?

Maoriboy007
01-09-2010, 21:35
Pg 446- It's important to make clear that Warhammer is not specifically designed for highly competitive, cutthroat play. It is vital that the players who come along to such an event do so in a spirit of friendly competition, where taking part is more important than winning.

How does this explain Cannons Hydras and Hellpit abominations?:p

rocdocta
02-09-2010, 01:56
Then get out Gary. 8th takes a lot more skill and tactics than 7th, and if you can't see this, then its a waste of your time :)

no, no and no. case closed. move on.

8th taking more skill than 7th...i mean really. more skill at rolling dice maybe. more skill at rolling for a charge range. more skill at rolling for hits, wounds, and more skill at rolling to see if you can change facing, more skill at rolling up a I WIN spell. then more skill at rolling a double using power scroll. more skill in rolling 3+ to kill ogres, dwarves or any other init 2 with the Psun. more skill at rerolling generals ld when stubborn when rear charged by 9 chaos knights...mreo skill at rolling with a reroll from bsb for frenzy tests...more skill at rolling "mysterious" terrain and ignoring obstacles...more skill at losing a battle, flee but not give a single VP up cos its turn 6 and fleeing units dont count as casualties...seriously...retarded rules.

jamano
02-09-2010, 04:42
no, no and no. case closed. move on.

8th taking more skill than 7th...i mean really. more skill at rolling dice maybe. more skill at rolling for a charge range. more skill at rolling for hits, wounds, and more skill at rolling to see if you can change facing, more skill at rolling up a I WIN spell. then more skill at rolling a double using power scroll. more skill in rolling 3+ to kill ogres, dwarves or any other init 2 with the Psun. more skill at rerolling generals ld when stubborn when rear charged by 9 chaos knights...mreo skill at rolling with a reroll from bsb for frenzy tests...more skill at rolling "mysterious" terrain and ignoring obstacles...more skill at losing a battle, flee but not give a single VP up cos its turn 6 and fleeing units dont count as casualties...seriously...retarded rules.
You must have a heavy cav army. A large chunk of the added skill in 8th is that you have to do more to win a game than terror bomb and kill the front rank in combat on a charge.

silashand
02-09-2010, 05:01
Then get out Gary. 8th takes a lot more skill and tactics than 7th, and if you can't see this, then its a waste of your time :)

I play Warhammer because I like the background and the world setting. I would like it to also be a good "game" as well. When Jervis comes out and says it's not meant for competitive play it simply comes across as an excuse because regardless what he would like to think, anytime you create a system with rules, some semblance of strategy and victory conditions you automatically end up with a competitive system. That GW wants to turn their games from Axis and Allies into Yahtzee is IMO a travesty. It is also insulting to their customers in that they think they can tell people how to have fun with their system rather than providing a solid framework and letting the players themselves decide what is fun in their own groups.

Cheers, Gary

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2010, 05:18
When Jervis comes out and says it's not meant for competitive play it simply comes across as an excuse because
Wait, what? When did he say that?

Justice And Rule
02-09-2010, 05:57
no, no and no. case closed. move on.

It's funny when someone who adds nothing to discussion other than poor strawmen says this.


8th taking more skill than 7th...i mean really. more skill at rolling dice maybe. more skill at rolling for a charge range.

By this you mean "More skill at judging the situation, evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of charging, and making a decision based on the risks involved", right? Do you really prefer "More skill at measuring distance so I don't get cheated the 1/8" that I needed to hit, which will inevitably decide the combat before we actually even hit each other"?


more skill at rolling for hits, wounds,

Units are more consistent. From a guy who apparently despises random dice, you'd think this would be a good thing.


and more skill at rolling to see if you can change facing,

Oh noes! Now you don't need to take it in the flank if you aren't already engaged at the front! HERESY!


more skill at rolling up a I WIN spell. then more skill at rolling a double using power scroll. more skill in rolling 3+ to kill ogres, dwarves or any other init 2 with the Psun.

When you are using the Power Scroll this early in the argument, you must be running low. The Power Scroll is the only noticeably broken part of things. If you take it out of the equation, those huge spells become much harder to pull off. Lord Inquisitor has posted his own problems trying to pull off PSun as a Daemon army.


more skill at rerolling generals ld when stubborn when rear charged by 9 chaos knights

So? They might hold. Then again, they might not even be standing there afterwards. Of course, you never mention the size of the unit being attacked. What about a 7x10 unit that gets charged in the rear? Should they automatically bolt despite completely outnumbering them?

Oh, and by your previous logic, they shouldn't even turn around if they stay. When you are flanked, you are obligated to allow your opponent to keep nailing you in the rear.


...mreo skill at rolling with a reroll from bsb for frenzy tests...

So Frenzied units can actually be more disciplined when things which exert command are near them!? MY GOD! How is this even a bad thing?


more skill at rolling "mysterious" terrain and ignoring obstacles...

Or you could just ignore those random rules, like it says you can in the rulebook. It's outright stated that it's your choice to use them.


more skill at losing a battle, flee but not give a single VP up cos its turn 6 and fleeing units dont count as casualties

Meh. I'm not a fan of it, though it's not a huge design flaw. Scenarios can be made and modified fairly easily.


...seriously...retarded rules.

Eh, it's really your poor understanding of most of the rules, and focusing on the few bad parts actually there than actual bad rules.

Sorry, back on topic. I agree with the idea of not comping the first few times, though I think comping is still going to occur. However, not being a tournament player, I'm not familiar with how much was comped on the American scene. But I don't think anything he says is particularly outrageous. And the page in the rulebook doesn't say it's not a competition game; it's just not as balanced as a game designed specifically for competition. There's no real judgment outside of the standard "Always go in with the idea of having fun and not just trying to WAAC your way through the competition."

silashand
02-09-2010, 06:11
Wait, what? When did he say that?

Jervis and other designers have made that comment at various seminars and interviews over the years, some of which I have witnessed in person. I was not quoting the most recent GW online article.

Cheers, Gary

SideshowLucifer
02-09-2010, 06:29
For the people who want balanced warhammer fantasy, have you guys tried the Warmaster game?? The scale is much larger, and the warmies retain their flavor without becoming unbalanced.

Warhammer Fantasy is no more or less balanced n the whole, then any other game right now. FoW has their horrible match-ups and they are getting worse with every new book they release. There is barely any sembilance of balance in Warmachine/Hordes where everything is so over the top, you can lose a game on yoru first turn if you aren't careful. Malefeaux (sp?) has their odd little combos that seem to make balance little more then a concept.

I honeslty don't know what the tourney players are expecting for balance. Fantasy and 40K have always been more loose with the balance in favor of the army flavor. This is nothing new at all. The tourney complaints is actualy pretty new and recent and is a young scene compaired to the older GW players.

freddieyu
02-09-2010, 08:04
For the people who want balanced warhammer fantasy, have you guys tried the Warmaster game?? The scale is much larger, and the warmies retain their flavor without becoming unbalanced.

Warhammer Fantasy is no more or less balanced n the whole, then any other game right now. FoW has their horrible match-ups and they are getting worse with every new book they release. There is barely any sembilance of balance in Warmachine/Hordes where everything is so over the top, you can lose a game on yoru first turn if you aren't careful. Malefeaux (sp?) has their odd little combos that seem to make balance little more then a concept.

I honeslty don't know what the tourney players are expecting for balance. Fantasy and 40K have always been more loose with the balance in favor of the army flavor. This is nothing new at all. The tourney complaints is actualy pretty new and recent and is a young scene compaired to the older GW players.

I have 2 warmaster armies (Orcs and Dwarfs) at 1500 pts each, but have never played with them, since I have no opponent in this country...

Still, they are nice little models, with incredible detail for something so small...

AndrewGPaul
02-09-2010, 08:22
I would never expect my opponents to do it, and wouldn't ask them to exclude something from their army either.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that two people should discuss beforehand what sort of game they want to play. The scenario, to me, includes the armies involved; "let's do a Dark Elf raid on a coastal settlement - no Witch Elves or monsters, and you don't use any gunpowder artillery". Wargaming is a co-operative activity after all. Anything less seems rather sterile, in my opinion.



Like Chris says, if you want casual play to be fun, then balanced rules and armies are going to be of much more use to you.

I play for "fun" as it seems to be described here, and balanced rules and armies are of little importance. I'd rather have interesting armies. I can come to an agreement about what makes a fun game with my opponent, I don't need the game designers holding my hand.


And people should stop trying to estimate the amount of tournament players. In the nationals there were short of a 100 participants. And this is Sweden. We have less than 10 million inhabitants and it's a large country with big geographical distances. I can't begin to fathom how many there must be in the UK - you've got what some 50-60 million people living in England alone?

Only 100 players? How many copies of Warhammer do you think GW have sold in Sweden? A thousand? If so, you're in a minority.


FoW has their horrible match-ups and they are getting worse with every new book they release.

Are those ahistorical horrible matchups, though? In a game like Flames of War, which is a historical game, changing the effectiveness of units to achieve some sort of mythical "balance" is clearly wrong.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-09-2010, 09:01
If I end up in a cornered situation, like I tend to do with the wood elves right now, I'm sad to having to resort to the conclusion that sometimes it's a lack of balance which makes the game less fun.

So why not do something about it?

Satan
02-09-2010, 11:13
So why not do something about it?

I am. I got a second army I opted to play Beastmen instead until the release of a new wood elf book. Doesn't mean I won't keep trying as I just got some 7 treekin and 3 warhawks for the WE. It's just that it's not FUN to play with them under the current ruleset, which is a shame as I really enjoy 8th.

That's the problem with wanting WFB to be a beer & pretzels kind of game - when the balance isn't working it's not very fun, and drinking only makes it less so.

So my plan of action with the woodies is to wait until we get a couple of comp systems for national metagame and ETC and then we'll try running games under those conditions, like in 7th ETC beastmen and O&G got to run 2600 pts in games where other armies had 2250 an so forth.

If you've never tried it you wouldn't believe how fun and interesting this actually makes the game.


It seems perfectly reasonable to me that two people should discuss beforehand what sort of game they want to play. The scenario, to me, includes the armies involved; "let's do a Dark Elf raid on a coastal settlement - no Witch Elves or monsters, and you don't use any gunpowder artillery". Wargaming is a co-operative activity after all. Anything less seems rather sterile, in my opinion.

Yeah, sure. I meant under the conditions that we play our games by. We like them friendly and competitive. If people only want to play friendly/casual then opf course such a discussion is perfectly reasonable. I meant that I wouldn't ask them to exclude/include anything on account of our personal bias toward it. I don't tell them how to build their army.



I play for "fun" as it seems to be described here, and balanced rules and armies are of little importance. I'd rather have interesting armies. I can come to an agreement about what makes a fun game with my opponent, I don't need the game designers holding my hand.

Neither do I. Balanced rules are of importance however, because otherwise it's not fun. Look at board games - do they appeal to you if they're imbalanced? 8th has really opened the door and made fun games viable for me - under 8th the discussion described above is always taking place in regards to terrain for example, setting the stage for an "interesting" game, but the armies need to be balanced, otherwise it won't be fun. And it's not about wholesale slaughter on one part being the definition of boring, it's about the game being no fun because one army is locked into a corner on account of its original restrictions - like how certain units aren't viable options in the current context on account of their outdated rules. That's why I would've liked Ravening hordes 3.0.



Only 100 players? How many copies of Warhammer do you think GW have sold in Sweden? A thousand? If so, you're in a minority.

Yes, a 100 players in the Nationals. This is a big country. The nationals isn't the biggest tournament around. There's no single tournament which gathers up all the tournament players in the country. I don't make estimations regarding how many active tournament players there are in this country. They don't need to participate in anything more than their local gaming group tournament or LGS league two to three times per year in order to count as tournament players to me. I assume most people who purchase Warhammer and are active playing it at all participate in tournaments at one time or another. Even if it's with their circle of 4-5 friends for example.

I have no idea how many copies they've sold. I'm not even going to guess, because that leads us down the road of damned unscientific, unreliable, unproven guesswork.

SideshowLucifer
02-09-2010, 13:10
Are those ahistorical horrible matchups, though? In a game like Flames of War, which is a historical game, changing the effectiveness of units to achieve some sort of mythical "balance" is clearly wrong.

WEll certainly we could say the same about Warhamer Fantasy then as well. If you take the cannon armies agaisnt one another, I'm sure there would be more balance.
My point is in FoW if you play Italians and end up matched agaisnt Germans, your usualy going to lose. Also, More games of FoW are won and lost during deployment then any other game system I know of. I judged the FoW nationals before they moved them to PA.

jamano
02-09-2010, 14:23
Only 100 players? How many copies of Warhammer do you think GW have sold in Sweden? A thousand? If so, you're in a minority.
Ok let's take sweden as an example. even though as the origional person said, theeres more than 100, your example gives us a number to use. Of those 1000 warhammer players in sweden, how many do you think just have 500 pts and dont ever feel the need to buy more product? Of the 100 tournament players, how many do you think buy multiple armies, and many more points in a particular army then they need, so that they can bring different lists to tournaments? I think tourney players in general buy more product than casual players. 10% is actually a big chunk of your playerbase to ignore completely though as other people have said, its probably much higher than that.

AndrewGPaul
02-09-2010, 15:29
I am. I got a second army I opted to play Beastmen instead until the release of a new wood elf book. Doesn't mean I won't keep trying as I just got some 7 treekin and 3 warhawks for the WE. It's just that it's not FUN to play with them under the current ruleset, which is a shame as I really enjoy 8th.

That's the problem with wanting WFB to be a beer & pretzels kind of game - when the balance isn't working it's not very fun, and drinking only makes it less so.

So my plan of action with the woodies is to wait until we get a couple of comp systems for national metagame and ETC and then we'll try running games under those conditions, like in 7th ETC beastmen and O&G got to run 2600 pts in games where other armies had 2250 an so forth.

If you've never tried it you wouldn't believe how fun and interesting this actually makes the game.



Yeah, sure. I meant under the conditions that we play our games by. We like them friendly and competitive. If people only want to play friendly/casual then opf course such a discussion is perfectly reasonable. I meant that I wouldn't ask them to exclude/include anything on account of our personal bias toward it. I don't tell them how to build their army.

I would. " Do you mind not taking that Hydra/unit of whatever the next time? I know you've got other units, and I'd like to see them across the table on occasion." If they refuse, fair enough, but i'd consider other things to shake the game up a bit.



Neither do I. Balanced rules are of importance however, because otherwise it's not fun. Look at board games - do they appeal to you if they're imbalanced?

Doom and Descent. Both of those are horribly biased against the hero players. We played them for months, and the heroes lost a dozen straight games. We all came back for more, though.


8th has really opened the door and made fun games viable for me - under 8th the discussion described above is always taking place in regards to terrain for example, setting the stage for an "interesting" game, but the armies need to be balanced, otherwise it won't be fun. And it's not about wholesale slaughter on one part being the definition of boring, it's about the game being no fun because one army is locked into a corner on account of its original restrictions - like how certain units aren't viable options in the current context on account of their outdated rules. That's why I would've liked Ravening hordes 3.0.

Not quite sure what your point is here. However, if some units aren't generally worth fielding because of odd restrictions, then simply change the game to make them worthwhile. "Not a viable option" usually means "it relies on some very rare circumstances to be any good". Simply make those circumstances more likely to happen.


I assume most people who purchase Warhammer and are active playing it at all participate in tournaments at one time or another. Even if it's with their circle of 4-5 friends for example.

I have no idea how many copies they've sold. I'm not even going to guess, because that leads us down the road of damned unscientific, unreliable, unproven guesswork.

What you said above in the preceing paragraph is "unproven guesswork". For example, I would assume that none of my friends play in Warhammer tournaments, based on the people I play with. I don't know if that's any more of a valid assumption than yours.

Glabro
02-09-2010, 15:47
A truer test of "tactical skill" would be a tournament with one and the same list used by everybody, with dice rolls decided by statistical averages. (or even a game of chess I suppose...)


And how exactly would these dice rolls be decided by statistical averages? The only way is to roll lots of dice. The other alternative is a diceless system, the kind which staff officers the world over have been using to play out scenarios for a long time.

AndrewGPaul
02-09-2010, 15:49
I think he means that every D6 roll is assumed to be a 3 (or perhaps every 2nd roll is a 4), every 2D6 roll a 7, etc.

As for a "competitive Kriegspiel", there's enough moaning about tournament organisers on here as it is, without them deciding who gets killed in-game, too. :)

Jim30
02-09-2010, 16:38
Taken from another board I go to on which there was a discussion about wargaming history and evolution:

"0900: "Emperor Bonaparte, I present my new battlefield analysis tool, the mapboard and miniatures"
1230: Josephine: "Napolean, are you coming to lunch or still playing with your toy soldiers"
2200: Two lieutenants start simulating a what-if battle between regiments
2215: First 'discussion' about unit equivalency and force parity
2245: First 'discussion' about line of sight rules
2300: First attempt to parse the already agreed upon rules to the advantage of the parser
2330: First 'discussion' about unit damage absorbtion and weapon effects
2335: First 'discussion' about the random number generator used
2337: First accusation of cheating
2338: First challenge of honor related to wargames
0700: First duel due to wargaming"

Looking at the balance debate, don't forget that most conventional wargames scenarios aren't balanced by points - buy any wargame scenario book and you'll see suggestions for forces which are often imbalanced in size, but balanced by victory or special rules conditions. Don't feel constrained by points, think about other ways of making balance happen.

sliganian
02-09-2010, 16:41
Warhammer Fantasy is no more or less balanced n the whole, then any other game right now. FoW has their horrible match-ups and they are getting worse with every new book they release. There is barely any sembilance of balance in Warmachine/Hordes where everything is so over the top, you can lose a game on yoru first turn if you aren't careful.


Citation needed.

Lord Inquisitor
02-09-2010, 17:41
Jervis and other designers have made that comment at various seminars and interviews over the years, some of which I have witnessed in person.
Well, I thought I'd post a few excerpts from Epic: Armageddon, written by Jervis Johnson.

This said, some methods of play are more popular than others. Of
the methods we discuss in this section, ‘tournament play’ with its
army lists, points value and simple ‘line up and fight’ scenario
has proved far and away the most popular with the playtesters that
have helped develop the Epic rules. This is understandable; it is
easier to collect armies, find opponents and organise games when
using the tournament rules than it is to create your own scenarios
or set up and run campaigns. However, just because tournament
play is more popular than the other forms of gaming just
described doesn’t make it intrinsically any better (or worse) –– it
just makes it different. The aim of the Epic Gaming section is
therefore to show you as many different styles of play as possible,
and then let you choose the style that suits your tastes best. In
other words, we want to reveal the whole breadth of the Epic
hobby, rather than just one small part of it.

And with regard to "tournament gaming"

Tournament Games
As has already been mentioned, tournament games are the single
most popular form of Epic game. This is mainly because it is the
easiest way to play Epic. All you have to do is use the army lists
to collect an army, safe in the knowledge that you can use it to
play an even and balanced game even against a complete stranger,
something that is simply not possible with scenarios or
campaigns. In order to achieve this happy state of affairs,
tournament games require three things: army lists, points values,
and a set of tournament game rules.

The flip side of course:

The pre-defined and slightly abstracted nature of tournament
games is not for everybody, and many players prefer to play Epic
in a way that allows them to really explore all of the possibilities
presented by the game’s background.

It should be noted that Epic scenarios don't have points values, don't even need to have balanced forces. You use whatever you deem appropriate.

This is to me the two sides of gaming. I'm aware that this is two extremes, the we-want-a-perfectly-balanced-game-and-tight-rules on one side and who-needs-points-values on the other. Some people prefer one or the other, I personally play far more "tournament" style games in any system, but I like scenario games too.

The point is that the game can cater for both, and Epic does this wonderfully, and makes the two very clear. In Epic, if I'm playing a tournament game then it is flat out a direct contest for me - and, it might be added, far more balanced on than any of the core games. If I'm making a scenario I'm not even using points values - I don't even care if its remotely balanced. The two are seperate. 40K has this to some degree with "normal" (i.e. "tournament") games and Apocalypse (i.e. free-form scenario play) and somewhere in between Cityfight, Planetstrike, etc.

Warhammer doesn't have this separation, but most people do fall in the "tournament" category, i.e. standard army lists, balanced scenarios and forces, suitable for pick-up games. It's interesting that Jervis himself decided to categorise normal army-list pick-up games as "tournament" games.

Then again, maybe Epic is the abberation. There are so many cool things in there in terms of basic game design - one of my favourites is an actual, proper "counts as" rule - that have never translated over to the core games systems.

Kaptajn_Congoboy
02-09-2010, 17:45
Citation needed.

I'm not sure about the first part of the quote, I'd say both external and internal balance are pretty good - at least from the last 6 months + late FT of Warmachine. Some scenarios are weighted toward certain casters, though.

You can be shot or spelled turn 1 by certain things - Sniped Hunters (10" deployment + 6" Advance Deployment + 6" move + 14" range + 4" Snipe = 40", 2" into your deployment zone. Same applies to a bonejack under Infernal Machine running 18" straight ahead; it can get within spell range of Stygian Abyss (10" + 18" +10" spell range: 38", just on the deployment zone if you deployed straight across from the bonejack.

Lucky rolls at times like this can cost you the game on turn 1...but it's a pretty tall order since your warcaster/warlock will be full up on Focus/Fury; the lowest medium-based ARM caster, Venethrax, has ARM16, which means he gets -9 to damage from the Hunter's Long Arm (which makes it impossible to one-shot the caster with that combo). Low-ARM casters like Sorcha still have -8 to damage from Stygian Abyss. But if the Coven hits on 3 unboosted Stygian Abysses in perfect conjugation - 7+ on 2d6 each time (a Skarlock having cast Infernal Machine) and boosts damage on 2, they will kill Sorscha on above average rolls....very above average rolls...
Against Hordes you can forget it, the damage will be transferred away.

Usually you can look up cards to see if such tricks are possible (for the Coven trick you will actually have to deploy yourself into the trap). If you are in a hurry they can be easily prevented by screening with something dureable.

Archangel_Ruined
02-09-2010, 17:56
I've always been against comp scores, it's far too subjective if it's judged on an 'ad hoc' basis and if it's somehow put in print then you just get a lower tier powergamer taking advantage. A better system has always been points balancing, but that's so far from perfect it really doesn't say much for the improvement. My opinion on tournament gaming has always been 'If you don't want to run with the big dogs then don't **** up the tall trees', if you can field it legally then good luck. There is no 'unbeatable' army, just very good lists. If you've seen the 'unbeatable' slaan army run into a dwarf gunline recently you'll know what I mean.

Novrain
02-09-2010, 18:13
I think he means that every D6 roll is assumed to be a 3 (or perhaps every 2nd roll is a 4), every 2D6 roll a 7, etc.


I did indeed mean that. Cheers :)


For the people who want balanced warhammer fantasy, have you guys tried the Warmaster game?? The scale is much larger, and the warmies retain their flavor without becoming unbalanced.

Warmaster is actually fairly unbalanced too, in favour of anyone with alot of cavalry it seems, but it is difficult to judge because of the fewer games observed / played.

I suppose it revolves around how central winning is to your concept of fun ultimately, and trying to persuade either side to feel the other way is a little fruitless.

silashand
02-09-2010, 19:19
Well, I thought I'd post a few excerpts from Epic: Armageddon, written by Jervis Johnson.

LOL. It appears they are inconsistent even amongst themselves when asked about the matter. As I said, I have been to seminars where the answer was essentially "well... our games aren't really designed for tournaments you know?" I wish they'd make up their mind.


Then again, maybe Epic is the abberation. There are so many cool things in there in terms of basic game design - one of my favourites is an actual, proper "counts as" rule - that have never translated over to the core games systems.

Many of the specialist games are "abberations" in that they incorporate ideas that would probably make the GW core games that much more enjoyable. GW just seems enamored of pursuing simplicity to the point where it doesn't actually improve the games they produce sometimes. IMO they need to realize that there is a time and place for both simple *and* complex ideas. JMO though.

I also dearly wish they'd get off their stupid "random always equals fun" kick. I truly think they just don't grasp the concept that not everyone likes a lot of random elements in a game.

Cheers, Gary

sliganian
02-09-2010, 19:47
Usually you can look up cards to see if such tricks are possible (for the Coven trick you will actually have to deploy yourself into the trap). If you are in a hurry they can be easily prevented by screening with something dureable.

That was sort of my point to the poster who claimed Warmachine could be over in Turn 1. :)

Given that you KNOW if you are going first or second BEFORE you deploy, you'd have to be a ***** to leave yourself open to an Turn 1 Assassination run. Numerically speaking, there are very very very few things that can even attempt a Turn 1 Caster kill that the idea of suggesting such things as happening in a regular game is almost pointless.

If I am playing, say, Sorscha, and know I am going second and DON'T have her deployed behind a beefy Jack, then I deserve what comes.

the_corvus
02-09-2010, 20:01
Looking at the balance debate, don't forget that most conventional wargames scenarios aren't balanced by points - buy any wargame scenario book and you'll see suggestions for forces which are often imbalanced in size, but balanced by victory or special rules conditions. Don't feel constrained by points, think about other ways of making balance happen.

Those are historical scenarios where the victory conditions are "do better than they did in real life". You can do no points/unbalanced games and have a lot of fun in Warhammer but that requires a lot more background work than just pulling out a historical scenario or having a set point limit.

Some of the most fun times I have had in "wargaming" have been in horribly unbalanced scenarios in Close combat: A Bridge too far (like wiping out multiple platoons of Americans with two MG-42 teams, or pushing back to the British drop zone only to be ambushed by air droppped 18 pounders).

But if GW really want to push that line they need to come out with the support for it and not say "points are just a suggestion, make up your own scenarios" as the evidence is that people will just play the points system because it is easier. And honestly there are plenty of historical wargames that already do historical scenarios far better and cheaper than GW do so it seems a bit like telling your customers to go play the competitions games.

Gazak Blacktoof
02-09-2010, 21:06
So my plan of action with the woodies is to wait until we get a couple of comp systems for national metagame and ETC and then we'll try running games under those conditions, like in 7th ETC beastmen and O&G got to run 2600 pts in games where other armies had 2250 an so forth.

I thought you said you didn't restrict what you opponents brought, however that's what an ETC style comp system does, doesn't it? Asking individual opponents how they want to play the game also results in a greater variety of game styles.

I for one would be willing to play a no-holds-barred match with duplicate rares, silly amounts of magic and agressive item combos. But I also don't mind a game of infantry battles with no magic at all.

ChrisIronBrow
02-09-2010, 21:57
There is no 'unbeatable' army, just very good lists.


Maybe, that's true right now. There certainly have been times where an army rose to "unbeatable" status. (baring intentionally throwing a game of course.)

Satan
02-09-2010, 22:30
I thought you said you didn't restrict what you opponents brought, however that's what an ETC style comp system does, doesn't it? Asking individual opponents how they want to play the game also results in a greater variety of game styles.

Ah, what I mean is that I wouldn't ever specifically ask my opponent to restrict himself in any particular or specific way, e.g: "Please don't bring your Steam Tank to the game on Saturday".

To me that discussion pre-game is when we determine which comp system we want to run. Not that it's much of a discussion, usually just a simple - "You wanna go with A or B?"

To me this is a very restricted type of discussion. We don't go into discussions of "narrative" game elements anymore or similiar stuff prior to a game - it just ends up being biased, and most importantly - not fun prior to, or during the game. What I mean to say is that the "discussion" which sets the premise for the game is to me and my group a very basic affair, where we purposely avoid trying to create any conditions which might decrease the amount of fun, thrill or competition in the upcoming game, such as "narrative" elements.

But that doesn't mean I can't see the merits of such. I just want to explain how I and my group tries to enjoy the game. After all - there's nothing more worse than people trying to tell everybody else what or how the game should be. To each his own I say.



I for one would be willing to play a no-holds-barred match with duplicate rares, silly amounts of magic and agressive item combos. But I also don't mind a game of infantry battles with no magic at all.

I don't mind playing games like that at all - it's what we currently do under 8th after all. But me and my regular gaming group of some 10 people quickly realized that they just weren't any fun to us. At all. Mind you, this was 7th, and I find 8th working very well so far, with some armies, like the wood elves possibly needing a boost by comp in order to perform. As to what form or shape that "boost" may take I don't know. Possibly something along the lines of the last ETC, allowing them to field additional points under an ETC game.


I would. " Do you mind not taking that Hydra/unit of whatever the next time? I know you've got other units, and I'd like to see them across the table on occasion." If they refuse, fair enough, but i'd consider other things to shake the game up a bit.

I'd probably be offended if someone told me that. It's entirely fine by me though to discuss whether a unit is OP for example. Not that I happen to think that about anything myself.

Like I said, we decide on a comp system, people bring what they will. Makes for tactical balanced and fun games in my experience. But I understand that it's not everyone that shares this happy experience.



Doom and Descent. Both of those are horribly biased against the hero players. We played them for months, and the heroes lost a dozen straight games. We all came back for more, though.

Yes, but this is a co-operative game is it not? I mean a competitive one where one side would be given a clear advantage in such a context as to make the game simply uninteresting to all participating players. That's not just any fun. You're just waiting for it to be over.



Not quite sure what your point is here. However, if some units aren't generally worth fielding because of odd restrictions, then simply change the game to make them worthwhile. "Not a viable option" usually means "it relies on some very rare circumstances to be any good". Simply make those circumstances more likely to happen.

That's what comp does for me. It makes more options viable. The comp systems I've played with have never been focused on restrictions, rather encouraging options which I wouldn't normally choose. To me that is the definition of a good comp system - the encouragement of more unit choices without interfering with any type of core rules. Just as SWFBRs comp did under 7th.



What you said above in the preceing paragraph is "unproven guesswork". For example, I would assume that none of my friends play in Warhammer tournaments, based on the people I play with. I don't know if that's any more of a valid assumption than yours.

True. I just wanted to make the point that the figure of a 100 players in the nationals doesn't say anything about the popularity of the game really. Not here anyway. At best it's an indicator, but the rest would just be guesswork as we know by now.

Kudzu
02-09-2010, 23:33
I've always preferred comp systems that don't ban things outright but use VP penalties on certain things. Sure you can take broken item X, but you start the game at negative 100 VP's instead of 0.

It makes it a choice for the player rather than telling them "No" outright.

Glabro
03-09-2010, 00:09
I think he means that every D6 roll is assumed to be a 3 (or perhaps every 2nd roll is a 4), every 2D6 roll a 7, etc.

I usually give people the benefit of the doubt and don't outright assume they don't know what they're talking about.

But then, I saw the response to this, and I just sighed. Stop and think for a second. Do I really need to explain how wrong this concept is?

jamano
03-09-2010, 00:35
I usually give people the benefit of the doubt and don't outright assume they don't know what they're talking about.

But then, I saw the response to this, and I just sighed. Stop and think for a second. Do I really need to explain how wrong this concept is?
Other people have described it as for example, needing 4's to hit and rolling 12 dice would net you 6 success with no dicerolling, then needing 5s to wound would net you 2 wounds. Anything you couldnt condense further(like 3 dice needing 5s wound be one success) is rolled.

AndrewGPaul
03-09-2010, 08:55
Yes, but this is a co-operative game is it not? I mean a competitive one where one side would be given a clear advantage in such a context as to make the game simply uninteresting to all participating players. That's not just any fun. You're just waiting for it to be over.


No, both Doom and Descent have two sides - the Marines/Hero players and the Monster/Overlord player. We played over a dozen games of both without a Marine/Hero win. Nobody seemd to mind - it was about the challenge.

AndrewGPaul
03-09-2010, 08:58
I usually give people the benefit of the doubt and don't outright assume they don't know what they're talking about.

But then, I saw the response to this, and I just sighed. Stop and think for a second. Do I really need to explain how wrong this concept is?

Are you meaning me, or Novrain? I agree, it's a silly idea. The whole point of using random numbers to control events in a wargame is so that, while you can roughly redict how things should go, and plan on the basis of that, occasionally something wierd happens. Assuming all dice rolls are average removes the risk - you know before you start the game how every melee will end - and shows that you don't understand statistics very well.

Satan
03-09-2010, 09:32
No, both Doom and Descent have two sides - the Marines/Hero players and the Monster/Overlord player. We played over a dozen games of both without a Marine/Hero win. Nobody seemd to mind - it was about the challenge.

Yeah, that's still co-operative though.

AndrewGPaul
03-09-2010, 10:46
Partially, at best. One side still wins. You can also play the game with two players, which makes it decidedly non-cooperative.

SideshowLucifer
03-09-2010, 13:10
That was sort of my point to the poster who claimed Warmachine could be over in Turn 1. :)

Given that you KNOW if you are going first or second BEFORE you deploy, you'd have to be a ***** to leave yourself open to an Turn 1 Assassination run. Numerically speaking, there are very very very few things that can even attempt a Turn 1 Caster kill that the idea of suggesting such things as happening in a regular game is almost pointless.

If I am playing, say, Sorscha, and know I am going second and DON'T have her deployed behind a beefy Jack, then I deserve what comes.

My point was not that you could be assassinated on turn 1, it was that I have played many many turney games there where decided during deployment. Flames of War is particularly bad about this. I can usualy tell who is going to win a WM game from army lists and deployment unless the match-ups are particularly close.

SideshowLucifer
03-09-2010, 13:11
Yeah, that's still co-operative though.

Space Hulk.
No sembiance of balance but is fun as hell.

the_corvus
03-09-2010, 13:34
Space Hulk.
No sembiance of balance but is fun as hell.

Those are fundamentally different types of games. You don't need balanced games for it to be fun. But there is a difference between a two sided game like Space Hulk in which you can quickly and easily swap sides for the next game (and IIRC this is the recommended method) and Warhammer where you pick an army you like the aesthetic of and spend many hours assembling and painting them.

It is fine if Terminators struggle to win in Space Hulk because the game is really survival horror. It isn't fine if you pick an army in Warhammer and spend weeks of effort building and painting it only to find out that it doesn't have much chance of winning a pitched battle.

sliganian
03-09-2010, 16:13
My point was not that you could be assassinated on turn 1, it was that I have played many many turney games there where decided during deployment. Flames of War is particularly bad about this. I can usualy tell who is going to win a WM game from army lists and deployment unless the match-ups are particularly close.

#1: My misunderstanding on the assassination bit, sorry.


#2 So.... you are saying that in wargames, people who deploy better tend to do better than people who deploy poorly against people who deploy better? Sorry, but I fail to see that a gigantic revelation or a 'flaw' in WM/Hordes. It is true of any system I've seen.

Novrain
03-09-2010, 17:55
I agree, it's a silly idea. The whole point of using random numbers to control events in a wargame is so that, while you can roughly redict how things should go, and plan on the basis of that, occasionally something wierd happens.



So why use random numbers in a competitive scenario? Randomness, even that produced by dice rolls ultimately reduces the measure of "skill" needed to win the game and increases the factor of luck.

A balanced competitive game system where the most "skilled" general will win, is completely opposed to a game system involving dice/chance like warhammer does.

A better chess player will just about always beat a worse player, why? Because the role of chance in a game of chess is negligible. A better warhammer player (one that has the most tactical skill) will often win against less skilled warhammer player, but will sometimes be undone by poor luck when it comes to dice rolls.

If you want to have a purely competitive, balanced game of warhammer then you have to remove the role of luck / chance as much as possible.

Competitive gaming imo should be a no holds barred cheesefest with dice rolling reduced to minimum. But then you could probably predict the outcome before even unpacking your models, which is why I think playing warhammer for purely competitive reasons is a bit of a non-starter.

:p

AndrewGPaul
03-09-2010, 18:56
It's comparing a different set of skills. Not only does it test your logistic skills in selecting an army list, your strategic skills in developing a battle plan and your tactical skills in carrying that plan out, it tests your problem-solving skills in dealing with the inevitable unforseen cock-ups.

And most importantly, it's supposed to be fun. I don't think anyone would agree - not even yourself, as you admit - that a game that can be calculated to completion before yuo begin would be fun.

"If you want to have a purely competitive, balanced game of warhammer then you have to remove the role of luck / chance as much as possible. "

I'm certain that that is not one of the primary design goals of the Warhammer writers. I'm almost certain it's not even a minor goal. :)

lanrak
03-09-2010, 19:00
Hi Novarian,
If dice are used to generate realistic range of results.They can simulate real world encounters.
And are used in many historical games to do just this.

This doesnt reduce the amount of skill required to play, or make tactical decisions any less complex.

However WHFB (and 40k) are developed as co-operative narative driven games , with a heavy focus on strategy rather than tactics.

As focusing on narrative and strategy makes marketing of specialised minatures easiser.

In WHFB and 40k units are tailored to specific tasks, placing more emphasis on list building than in game chioces.(Compard to other games.)


WHFB and 40k do NOT use dice to generate a realistic range of result, but to ensure 'kewl stuff ' happens most games, to support thier narrative nature;).

Therefore ,writing rules driven by marketing the new releases, and the rule of kewl ,make achiving a balanced game suitable for competative play practiclay impossible

Most game develped for more competative play than WHFB, (Eg Armies of Arcana) .Have a proveable level of balance.
As the game was playtested for years to prove the relationships between elements in the game, before the PV allocation method was finalised.

GW devs just guess, at individual PV for minatures , then revise at the army level.TOTALY missing out the level of interaction, the UNIT level!

While GW pretend WHFB and 40k are suitable for competative play , they are misleading thier customers and setting them selves up for critisism .

TTFN

AndrewGPaul
03-09-2010, 19:21
GW devs just guess, at individual PV for minatures , then revise at the army level.TOTALY missing out the level of interaction, the UNIT level!

You can, of course back that up, having been a long-term member of the design studio?

Novrain
03-09-2010, 19:25
While GW pretend WHFB and 40k are suitable for competative play , they are misleading thier customers and setting them selves up for critisism .

Bang on! I agree that WHFB (I cant really speak about 40k as I dont play it, but I imagine it is the same) is a game that is fundamentally not designed for competitive play, and would need to be bent out of shape to become one.

decker_cky
03-09-2010, 19:29
Thing is, GW don't really pretend it's suitable for competitive play. They're quite explicit that it isn't. 'Ard boyz is basically them thumbing their noses at overly competitive play and saying "Yup...we know there's big imbalances. Let's see how badly you can abuse it." Most of the tourney scene is player driven, so it makes sense to bend that balance a bit with comp or whatever.

Blinder
03-09-2010, 19:35
So why use random numbers in a competitive scenario? Randomness, even that produced by dice rolls ultimately reduces the measure of "skill" needed to win the game and increases the factor of luck.

A balanced competitive game system where the most "skilled" general will win, is completely opposed to a game system involving dice/chance like warhammer does.

A better chess player will just about always beat a worse player, why? Because the role of chance in a game of chess is negligible. A better warhammer player (one that has the most tactical skill) will often win against less skilled warhammer player, but will sometimes be undone by poor luck when it comes to dice rolls.

If you want to have a purely competitive, balanced game of warhammer then you have to remove the role of luck / chance as much as possible.

Competitive gaming imo should be a no holds barred cheesefest with dice rolling reduced to minimum. But then you could probably predict the outcome before even unpacking your models, which is why I think playing warhammer for purely competitive reasons is a bit of a non-starter.

:p

A better chess player will more often than not defeat a less-proficient player because they can better adapt their ideal of how to win to the reality on the board, and generally start with a stronger plan (as a "better player" often chooses the strongest opening line, until you pass a particular point of "better" and unpredictability becomes an asset again). The fact that there are no dice involved doesn't change this, there simply are no dice involved because the game focuses entirely on known maneuverability values and using those to gain a winning position. There can be PLENTY of unpredictability in a game of chess, however, even in a "by the book" opening because you and your opponent have several options on how to progress the chosen opening lines to reach midgame, and one or both players might decide to throw the book out entirely. Also, players who don't *know* (m)any lines could do *anything,* resulting in chess' equivalent of really good or really bad dice rolls.

Meanwhile here in d6 land, we have a game which is partly about maneuver (the which isn't entirely known, when's the last time you saw a chess board with a forest in the way), partly about relative unit strengths and force preservation (even in a no-dice system not all warhammer units are equally capable of eliminating what they attack, and in chess you don't have to worry about how many "fights" your pieces have been through), and partly about force composition (something else absent from chess... though I've often been interested in setting up "duplicate warhammer" as a tournament idea which would make individual listwriting less important). Even in a 100% "no random unit interactions" environment the game demands much different approach than a chess game. Does that mean it demands less skill? Not by necessity.

In actuality, the main thing that reduces the "skill" needed in wargames is player-chosen lists. The more reliable unit performance is during play, the more games are decided when players pick the units they're going to use (imagine if you could trade a knight and a rook off to start a chess game with a second queen in their place. Then your opponent decides he really doesn't like pawns...). Adding in a random aspect to unit performance *increases* the amount of skill (that is, tactical acumen) required in such a system, as it increases the amount of adjustment you have to make to your overall plan. In the absence of a restrictive movement/attack system as seen in chess (since I really don't think we want our units to only be moving at 45 degree angles and all), this is actually the most straightforward way to add to the number of decisions players must make, and the number of possible outcomes they must consider (then you throw in special rules and crap like that, but I'm just talking about the core mechanics).

So, really, as long as we want to be able to pick our forces, have the units be diverse, and not play on a chessboard or hex map, we *need* to introduce randomness in unit performance or whoever brings the bigger badass has a much easier time winning even if the total points value suggest an equal matchup.

EDIT- this isn't trying to suggest warhammer (or 40k for that matter) have the right formula for competition, just that randomness does not exclude "skill" from a game, and that while there can be such a thing as too much randomness, there can also be such a thing as too little.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-09-2010, 09:08
Thank you for the explanation, Satan. I think there's only a subtle difference between the way we play our games, and I wouldn't mind trying it your way once some 8th edition comp systems are released next year.


But there is a difference between a two sided game like Space Hulk in which you can quickly and easily swap sides for the next game (and IIRC this is the recommended method) and Warhammer where you pick an army you like the aesthetic of and spend many hours assembling and painting them.


You've never played warhammer like that? I have.

I would recommend that everybody fights their own armies once in a while, or more often if they can. I certinaly want to try fighting against my own dark elf army to see if it is balanced.

yabbadabba
04-09-2010, 09:37
GW and Tournaments: GW saw a market and have successfully exploited it despite having only produced two games that are really suitable for the format (E:A and Warmaster). I believe that JJ started running them back in the day in response to customer requests.

Pure tournaments should be dropped in place of campaign-in-a-day style tournaments. That would reflect the nature of WFB/40K far better. But then there would be even more complaints from those who don't get that those games aren't designed for tournament play :evilgrin:

the_corvus
04-09-2010, 10:15
You've never played warhammer like that? I have.

I would recommend that everybody fights their own armies once in a while, or more often if they can. I certinaly want to try fighting against my own dark elf army to see if it is balanced.

My point was that there are only two "armies" in Space Hulk and you don't normally pick an "army" like you do in Warhammer.

gauly_13
04-09-2010, 10:45
Having a random element in the game doesn't mean there is less skill involved, but merely a different skill set. A good WH general doesn't just need to know how far their troops move, how tough they are etc etc, but also needs risk assesment skills (if I fail this action, what is my back up in case it fails? Is it worth the risk to try, or should I try for something safer?) and reactive skills (if my opponent gets this spell/charge/movement etc, how will I react? How will I react if they dont?).

Being able to react to the random element of the game is a fundamental skill, and probably the hardest one to master! Just because you have no influence over what numbers will come up, doesn't mean you have no say in the situations you're placed in. I think some people need to realise that tactics in the game reach far beyond trying to organise the best combats for your cc troops, and scope out the juiciest targets for your ranged troops . . .

Brother Loki
04-09-2010, 12:05
Pure tournaments should be dropped in place of campaign-in-a-day style tournaments. That would reflect the nature of WFB/40K far better. But then there would be even more complaints from those who don't get that those games aren't designed for tournament play :evilgrin:

Absolutely. That's the sort of event that they should be promoting, but I suspect they don't because they're a lot more labour intensive (and therefore costly) to plan and run than tournaments. You only have to look at the campaign events run by Tempus Fugitives (like Wrath of Nagash & Great War Against Chaos for WFB and the Age of the Emperor campaigns for 40k/30k) to see how much work is involved.

For a touurnament, provided you've got the space, tables and scenery (i.e. Warhammer World), and demand, there's probably relatively little work (and therefore cost) involved apart from on the day itself.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-09-2010, 12:29
My point was that there are only two "armies" in Space Hulk and you don't normally pick an "army" like you do in Warhammer.

In my opinion that makes it even better as a game where you switch forces. In the chess example that was thrown up earlier; where as somebody might switch out pawns or other pieces for a second queen, you get an entirely different game if you have to swap forces. Suddenly people might start taking more pawns, because it forces their opponent to think during the switch game.

What's the point in a flying vamp with purple sun and a power scroll against lizardmen if your opponent has exactly the same chance to crush your army? There isn't one.

Now that doesn't balance the game, or provide the same type of game as can be had by talking to your opponent or using a comp system, but it forces people to think differently.

the_corvus
04-09-2010, 12:36
But then there would be even more complaints from those who don't get that those games aren't designed for tournament play

But they could be. Designing the core rules for tournament play would in no way detract from the game being played in the "narrative" or campaign style. Instead GW are extracting the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of effort.

yabbadabba
04-09-2010, 12:42
But they could be. Designing the core rules for tournament play would in no way detract from the game being played in the "narrative" or campaign style. Instead GW are extracting the maximum amount of money for the minimum amount of effort. Or GW are keeping to a long held, successful and praised tradition of focussing and promoting the background, creative and social side of the games instead of building something that is overtly competitive and hostile.

Perspective.

Kenshinzo 7
04-09-2010, 15:27
I agree yabbadabba. That's a very good point.

SideshowLucifer
04-09-2010, 15:35
I still think this whole thing is ridiculous. It's like someone buying an apple and complaining it doesn't taste like an orange. The people complaining know that the game is not a tourney game and yet they still buy it, play it, and complain that it isn't what they want.

Satan
04-09-2010, 15:42
Or GW are keeping to a long held, successful and praised tradition of focussing and promoting the background, creative and social side of the games instead of building something that is overtly competitive and hostile.

Perspective.

You mean like the failed competitive environments of games such as MtG and Starcraft 2 for example?

It's not black and white. There's nothing which says you can't promote background and competitive factors at the same time and work against any implied hostility.

yabbadabba
04-09-2010, 15:55
You mean like the failed competitive environments of games such as MtG and Starcraft 2 for example? Not in the slightest. And I understand that MtG is successful card game and Starcraft 2 a succesful computer game yes? So what relation are they to a wargame?


It's not black and white. There's nothing which says you can't promote background and competitive factors at the same time and work against any implied hostility. Again you misread the point.

Damocles8
04-09-2010, 16:00
Not in the slightest. And I understand that MtG is successful card game and Starcraft 2 a succesful computer game yes? So what relation are they to a wargame?

Again you misread the point.

I'd rather have the competitive environment of WHFB and WH40k (well a relaxed competitive environment anyway) than the "must win" attitude I see in MtG and SC2

Satan
04-09-2010, 19:39
Not in the slightest. And I understand that MtG is successful card game and Starcraft 2 a succesful computer game yes? So what relation are they to a wargame?

Again you misread the point.

I'm just not willing to accept that a wargame is so fundamentally different from these products that it couldn't be successful as a competitive endeavor, or at least on "more balanced" terms. This seems to be some generally accepted universal truth on this forum unfortunately. No offense intended against your argument of course.

Perspective, as you say, is relative.


I'd rather have the competitive environment of WHFB and WH40k (well a relaxed competitive environment anyway) than the "must win" attitude I see in MtG and SC2

And everyone's free to enjoy the game/hobby as they see fit. If people want a competitive environment then they should be left free to form what they perceive to be the best foundation for this, and of course the other way around if you prefer it casual.

I can't stand people dictating what the game/hobby is or isn't. It's all relative to perspective and not the dictation of an opinion.

Myself, I don't enjoy the environment I've experienced (in my limited exposure) with these games. But Im just trying to make the point that the companies behind these products have been successfully able to combine alot of different factors when making their products commercially viable. And they're not fundamentally different from wargames as they're leisure products as well.

yabbadabba
04-09-2010, 20:16
I'm just not willing to accept that a wargame is so fundamentally different from these products that it couldn't be successful as a competitive endeavor, or at least on "more balanced" terms. This seems to be some generally accepted universal truth on this forum unfortunately. No offense intended against your argument of course.
Perspective, as you say, is relative. But you wish to impose this on GWs products despite there being better products out there for this sort of thing, despite GW's success being built in spite of balance and lack of tournament competitve design, and the lack of evidence suggesting, for GW, this would be successful (in fact there is evidence to the contrary).


And everyone's free to enjoy the game/hobby as they see fit. If people want a competitive environment then they should be left free to form what they perceive to be the best foundation for this, and of course the other way around if you prefer it casual. Agreed, but why should GW have to change their successful product?


I can't stand people dictating what the game/hobby is or isn't. It's all relative to perspective and not the dictation of an opinion.But isn't that what you are suggesting, that GW should change 30 odd years of successful design philosophy to match the expectations of what could be a minority customer base and possible deter a majority customer base?


Myself, I don't enjoy the environment I've experienced (in my limited exposure) with these games. But Im just trying to make the point that the companies behind these products have been successfully able to combine alot of different factors when making their products commercially viable. And they're not fundamentally different from wargames as they're leisure products as well. Agreed, but what you haven't done is suggest why GW should change. You have done very well outlining the basis of the change, possible comparisons etc, but GW has a successful product - arguably for me its not the product that is at fault but the business philosophy of the board (and here again, not the design philosophy as much).

Satan
04-09-2010, 20:52
But you wish to impose this on GWs products despite there being better products out there for this sort of thing, despite GW's success being built in spite of balance and lack of tournament competitve design, and the lack of evidence suggesting, for GW, this would be successful (in fact there is evidence to the contrary).

How are they better? That is a relative term.

I'm not saying I wish to impose anything on anyone. I think we're talking about two different things - I'm discussing WHFB as a viable tournament game on the basis that it probably could improve, and that having clearer rules with successfully moderated army books would also benefit new players.

But I see that argument thrown around too easily, that GW games aren't competitively viable "because XX (Jervis for example) said so". Once a product is out of the manufacturer's hands, it's up to the customer to decide what do with it. The manufacturer can say whatever he likes, but the consumer isn't going to care one bit. This is in line with what I often see you stating yabba - people shouldn't adhere slavishly to the rulebook. And that's what I'm trying to discuss in this thread - people want to enjoy tournaments with comp, and others are trying to impose THEIR POV on them that comp isn't any good or that WHFB isn't suitable for tournaments.



Agreed, but why should GW have to change their successful product?

I'm not saying they should.



But isn't that what you are suggesting, that GW should change 30 odd years of successful design philosophy to match the expectations of what could be a minority customer base and possible deter a majority customer base?

No. I'm saying that it could be argued to be commercially viable in other ways. I'm not going to deign to dictate how/what GW ought to do since I have little to no detailed information regarding their business. The yearly financial report isnt enough for me to determine that.



Agreed, but what you haven't done is suggest why GW should change. You have done very well outlining the basis of the change, possible comparisons etc, but GW has a successful product - arguably for me its not the product that is at fault but the business philosophy of the board (and here again, not the design philosophy as much).

And I'm not going to, but TBH I've never seen any conclusive "evidence" pointing to anything, just mere speculation, sometimes supported by numbers (that's not any critique aimed towards you yabba, I just want to point that out). And I mean that in either direction. Like I said above, I'm trying to argue WHFB as being a viable product for tournament play. With comp. If people want to. And they're free to enjoy the game however they want to.

I agree about the business philosophy, but I can't support that view, it's just a hunch to me, based on personal experience in other types of business. I just think there could be alternate business-minded ways to apprach design.

the_corvus
04-09-2010, 21:06
Or GW are keeping to a long held, successful and praised tradition of focussing and promoting the background, creative and social side of the games

None of which requires me to play Warhammer (aka spend nearly a grand on a tournament size army), or to get my friends to play Warhammer. In fact I spend far more time just building minis and reading novels than I do playing because I don't find the rule systems that stimulating.


instead of building something that is overtly competitive and hostile.

Because the lax rules and disregard for balance has prevented competitive play and hostility?

Oh, and actually the friendliest games I have ever played were against high ranking tournament players. It is in the local pick up games where you get people rules lawyering or out right cheating the most.

In all the competitive gaming I have done the majority of hostility has been from people with personality problems or scrubs (ie people who think they are good but aren't).

yabbadabba
04-09-2010, 21:27
None of which requires me to play Warhammer (aka spend nearly a grand on a tournament size army), or to get my friends to play Warhammer. In fact I spend far more time just building minis and reading novels than I do playing because I don't find the rule systems that stimulating. Nothing requires you to play warhammer, its a hobby done for a laugh. Nothing in wargaming requires you to do anything - its one of its joys.


Because the lax rules and disregard for balance has prevented competitive play and hostility? Obviously hasn't prevented competitiveness, and by hostile I meant playing style and not personality.


Oh, and actually the friendliest games I have ever played were against high ranking tournament players. It is in the local pick up games where you get people rules lawyering or out right cheating the most.
In all the competitive gaming I have done the majority of hostility has been from people with personality problems or scrubs (ie people who think they are good but aren't). I am sure we can all think of apocryphal stories to support our points of view. My response to you was to show that perspective is what is being discussed here, not reality.

The biggest thing we suffer from on here is a complete lack of accurate historical analysis and supporting data - therefore most of what we discuss is subjective and influenced excessively by our own experiences. Unlike Share Trading, Food Retail etc, wargaming has no dedicated market analysts, no historians, no economists studying it. Therefore while the truth is likely to be a sum of some of the opinions on here, it is not something which is readily obvious. Some pieces of evidence are obvious, but facts are very few are far between, therefore our interpretations are, at best, clumsy and blinkered. And I include my own in that.

the_corvus
04-09-2010, 21:54
Nothing requires you to play warhammer, its a hobby done for a laugh. Nothing in wargaming requires you to do anything - its one of its joys.

You didn't understand what I meant. Taking part in the background, social, and creative parts of the game don't require me to shell out thousands on minis. GW would very much like me to shell out thousands on minis. Therefore GW poorly supporting my preferred style of play costs them lots of cash, but costs me little lost enjoyment.


Obviously hasn't prevented competitiveness, and by hostile I meant playing style and not personality.

It is a wargame. The play is by definition hostile. The only reason you get "hostile" play in Warhammer is because the holes in the rules are large enough to drive a Tiger through. You shouldn't need to rely on your opponent not creating power lists or abusing loop holes.

Basically I think supporting the social side of gaming and the competitive side can be done. I think Blizzard for example are doing a brilliant job of supporting both play styles and I think their revenue* shows it is a better strategy than "this is how we play it, now you play it like this or else you are wrong" that we seem to often get from GW.

* But hey, if GW was any good at long term strategy they would be Blizzard and 11 million people would be playing World of Warhammer a $15 a month.

itcamefromthedeep
04-09-2010, 23:51
"if you don't play the fluffiest list imaginable with only people you know already then go to the pub afterwards, you're doing it wrong!"
I agree that Games Workshop would do well to avoid alienating any of their customers unnecessarily. There's no *need* to stick it to the hard-core players.

---

We know that they don't work very hard on the mechanics, because their product is riddled with issues in need of errata. While nobody is perfect, the Space Wolf codex has more than one errata/FAQ entry for every page with mechanics on it. This is absolutely unnecessary, as evidenced by the large number of board games from out of continental Europe that require no errata at all.

If GW wants to take a relaxed view toward balance then that's fair enough (I'll-advised I think), but a relaxed view toward the quality of their mechanics makes for lame games among friendly players. I really wish they would hire a good editor or two.

---

I'll say that most of the hostility that has cropped up in my games of Warhammer has been the result of a difference of opinion in the rules. Therefore I think clear rules would eliminate much of the hostility in the game and promote a more friendly social environment.

I also agree that better game balance would help the "beer-and-pretzels" gamers *more*, allowing them to field the models that they like without allowing the game to be lame (one way or the other). I've often been told of players who would like to field unit XXX or YYY, but it just can't perform on the table, and so it isn't fun to play with.

I'd like *any* of my toy soldiers to be fun to play with.

enygma7
05-09-2010, 00:31
We know that they don't work very hard on the mechanics ... This is absolutely unnecessary, as evidenced by the large number of board games from out of continental Europe that require no errata at all.


This isn't strictly fair. Board games have far fewer interactions between different rules and each player tends to start with the same things and have access to the same actions - a board game has nothing like the design complexity of a wargame with a large number of factions all with very unique play styles and special rules.

I'm not saying GW couldn't write better mechanics though - they need to adopt much more out of house playtesting and feedback to get this nailed. Privateer Press are a good example of how it should be done, but even they
aren't infallable.

They seem to have been making more of an effort with 8th ed, but without this input from people not tightly linked with the design process they can never fully succeed.




I'll say that most of the hostility that has cropped up in my games of Warhammer has been the result of a difference of opinion in the rules.

...

I also agree that better game balance would help the "beer-and-pretzels" gamers *more*

Totally agree on both points.

Satan
05-09-2010, 01:35
This isn't strictly fair. Board games have far fewer interactions between different rules and each player tends to start with the same things and have access to the same actions - a board game has nothing like the design complexity of a wargame with a large number of factions all with very unique play styles and special rules.

Not true. Boardgames can be different, I'll give you that, but claiming they're less complex is just highly subjective. I take it you haven't tried games like Twilight Imperium, World in Flames and the like... and there are others out there like them...

There's nothing "unique" to the complexity of wargaming which separates it entirely from other forms of entertaining games. It's a beast of its own, but it sure can be compared to board games, many of which are more or less complex, just like wargames are. After all it's just a boardgame with miniatures.



I'm not saying GW couldn't write better mechanics though - they need to adopt much more out of house playtesting and feedback to get this nailed. Privateer Press are a good example of how it should be done, but even they
aren't infallable.

They seem to have been making more of an effort with 8th ed, but without this input from people not tightly linked with the design process they can never fully succeed.



Totally agree on both points.

I totally agree with your sentiments. It's embarassing to GW when people pop open a new codex/army book and immediately find faulty rules and spelling. It appears to me they can't handle this aspect flawlessly... It appears to me they need outside input, but I fully understand how that might interfere with their policy of keeping stuff under the lid.

It makes me undescribably happy to see that people on Warser are at last, able to reach common ground and understand one another.

ChrisIronBrow
05-09-2010, 05:40
It's embarassing to GW when people pop open a new codex/army book and immediately find faulty rules and spelling.

To be honest, I think that's the core of the problem. It's not Embarrassing to them, they don't care, and it shows in the products they create.

yabbadabba
05-09-2010, 09:30
You didn't understand what I meant. Taking part in the background, social, and creative parts of the game don't require me to shell out thousands on minis. GW would very much like me to shell out thousands on minis. Therefore GW poorly supporting my preferred style of play costs them lots of cash, but costs me little lost enjoyment. No, it costs them lots of your cash, but if you are not being targetted then your lost cash isn't a loss. You cash, when it does come in, is a bonus. As I have said elsewhere, GW have produced perfectly fine games which never took hold, so the issue is out on whether balance is important to GW and its success. I have also said that the challenges to GW aren't 40K/WFB but its pricing startegy, and whether the "vet" market is something which will be financially viable enough for them to chase. Part of me hopes for the sake of variety they keep deciding no.


It is a wargame. The play is by definition hostile. The only reason you get "hostile" play in Warhammer is because the holes in the rules are large enough to drive a Tiger through. You shouldn't need to rely on your opponent not creating power lists or abusing loop holes. Naive. People are hostile, not the rules. Aggressive rules can be played in a non-hostile way. A wargame is competitive, because both sides are seeking to achieve their goals (not necessarily win, a dimension GW's have sadly lacked), but the hostility comes from the players and their attitude towards the execution of the game.


Basically I think supporting the social side of gaming and the competitive side can be done. I think Blizzard for example are doing a brilliant job of supporting both play styles and I think their revenue* shows it is a better strategy than "this is how we play it, now you play it like this or else you are wrong" that we seem to often get from GW.
* But hey, if GW was any good at long term strategy they would be Blizzard and 11 million people would be playing World of Warhammer a $15 a month. a few things - we have two entirely different business structures, strategies and makets here so the comparison in that respect with Blizzard is broken. Second people are paying a lot more than $15 dollars a month to play WFB and 40K. If GW had similar numbers of people playing those games compared to Blizzard then Blizzard would be blown out of the water - thats the difference and arguably there are far more people happy to sit on their arses and play computer games in the world than there are people who want to make the effort to play a few games, assemble and paint some models, make some terrain and try and be sociable. Third, playing WoW is nothing like playing a wargame in terms of commitment, effort and resources required. Finally GW aren't very good at long term management, agreed, certainly in terms of understanding the market and their decisions upon it.

I know this comes up occasionally so I'll lay this one to rest too. GW have tried playtesting with the community - in fact they did it for a very long time and occassionally still do. It didn't work for them, and to be frank seeing some of the results I agree (you couldn't help but wonder how many playtesters were just armchair generals). The only way that I can see playtesting working for GW is via open beta testing which unfortunately doesn't fit in with their product security strategy; also arguably GW has more to lose through day to day sales than someone like Blizzard or Battlefront.
The second thing to consider is GW is very driven to design and sell their vision of a wargame; this is why they encourage house rules etc for us to be able to take that and make it tailor fit what we desire. Therefore what might seem totally reasonable to you, might go against that vision and never make it in. GW have with 8e WFB declared a move away from the overtly competitive nature of 6e and 7e WFB, thus indicating that while they will continue to exploit the tournament scene, it is no longer on the priority list. Whether this extends to 40K we will have to see.

As a consumer, you are saying to GW that you want a certain type of product - as it should be. As a company GW has to decide whether you are a market that will generate sufficient reward from the commitment and resources needed; if the answer is no, then there is no reason for GW to chase you as a consumer - as it should be. What is making the gears grind is GWs inability to be able to spin that to make you, the consumer, commit to their products without having to fulfill your desires at a loss. In fact GW doesn't talk to the consumer at all, it talks at them. Now if they did do that properly, then maybe that is the key to that minor market veteran retention?

Anyway, apologises for the length.

itcamefromthedeep
06-09-2010, 05:42
Games like Epic Armageddon manage to include a great deal of complexity without huge reams of errata needed, often because of creative use of simple mechanics. This is as opposed to Fantasy and 40k, where there seems to be a drive for each model or new weapon to use radically new mechanics. This may very well be an attempt to keep things interesting, but it leads to a lot of FAQ issues when it invariably turns out to be missing a vital clause or two.

It could be argued that this proliferation of complicated mechanics is a push toward "beer and pretzels gaming".


It's embarassing to GW when people pop open a new codex/army book and immediately find faulty rules and spelling.It took less than half an hour for me to spot the poisoned greatbow issue on the Stegadon. That was a little disappointing. It usually takes longer than that.


It makes me undescribably happy to see that people on Warser are at last, able to reach common ground and understand one another.Often, people don't feel the need to post agreement, or elaborate upon nuance of agreement. If someone makes a post, it's usually because they see something that they feel they need to correct or add to.

The adversarial appearance of a lot of conversation may just be smoke and mirrors.


To be honest, I think that's the core of the problem. It's not Embarrassing to them, they don't care, and it shows in the products they create.Yabba has a point in that GW are pretty successful, and have gotten here using the strategy that is getting derided.

"Don't fix what ain't broke."


Naive. People are hostile, not the rules. Aggressive rules can be played in a non-hostile way. A wargame is competitive, because both sides are seeking to achieve their goals (not necessarily win, a dimension GW's have sadly lacked), but the hostility comes from the players and their attitude towards the execution of the game.


The second thing to consider is GW is very driven to design and sell their vision of a wargame; this is why they encourage house rules etc for us to be able to take that and make it tailor fit what we desire. Therefore what might seem totally reasonable to you, might go against that vision and never make it in. GW have with 8e WFB declared a move away from the overtly competitive nature of 6e and 7e WFB, thus indicating that while they will continue to exploit the tournament scene, it is no longer on the priority list. Whether this extends to 40K we will have to see.I didn't really see the "overtly competitive" nature of 7th edition, and I don't think that the tournament scene is being thrown under the bus. I tend to think that Jervis Johnson speaking about the tournament crowd and addressing tournament organizers directly is evidence that GW is happy to live with that community.

What is explicit is that GW are not willing to tailor their game *specifically* to that crowd.

jamano
06-09-2010, 14:23
It IS broken, because gw has been shrinking and cannibalizing itself for years!

Walls
06-09-2010, 17:05
I think some of the last posts have illustrated a huge problem within the gaming community.

" I found (INSERT WAY TO BREAK THE GAME) in a minute!"

That means you were looking for ways to break the game. The ruleset is NOT anyworse then any other mini game. It's easy to break into, arguably the best mass minis on the planet and fairly accessible. It's not the rules that are broken being the problem, it's the players using these rules to wreck games that is. Because it IS abusable, easily argued, whatever, doesn't mean it should be.

While I agree that there is a level of competition to the game (Let's face it, there's a winner and loser), it can be competitive in the sense that chess in the park is, or a game of poker in the garage with coworkers. Warhammer is meant to be a beer and pretzel game really. GW obviously would rather put effort into their minis then their rules. It's how they make money. They WILL WITHOUT A DOUBT make more money off cool minis then they will off of good rules. Everyone that bitches about the rules is still playing the game afterall.

Avian
06-09-2010, 17:33
It's not the rules that are broken being the problem, it's the players using these rules to wreck games that is.
If you are selling games then players can't POSSIBLY be a problem.


Their last financial report said that GW was selling less stuff (albeit for more money), thus logically everyone who plays the game and buys the stuff is doing it RIGHT. It makes no kind of sense to talk about players being a PROBLEM. The problem is the people who might feasibly buy the product but for whatever reason AREN'T.

Any sensible attitude would be something on the lines of "Thank you, people who buy our stuff. Please continue!".

Walls
06-09-2010, 17:42
GW has no problem with their rules. I know a TON of players who don't. The ones who generally do are loophole finders, super competitive players, rules lawyers, etc. These guys aren't arguing the rules when they work with them, only against them. There ain't a minis game on the planet without giant rules holes. But why abuse them at the expense of others? If people weren't ABUSING the problems, there wouldn't be problems. So yes, players are the ONLY problem.

DaemonReign
06-09-2010, 18:04
These guys aren't arguing the rules when they work with them, only against them.

This is super-true.

But on a more a serious note:

I don't play pick-up games. I don't play at tournaments. But the set-up of such events seem very strange to me.

The question boils down to: Why isn't there simply race-slots for competative play?

You show up at a tournament with DoC and get to test your skills against other DoC-players.. You show up with a Wood Elf list and play against Wood Elves.

Regardless of whether the balance-issues in Warhammer is big or small this would be only way to ever truly say that: Yes, I lost/won entirely because of luck/skill - and not (more or less) because my opponant was crippled/boosted with respect to my particular List in general.

I do realize that this would not be "as much fun". But then everyone has all the opportunity in the world when playing Friendly Games or just casual pick-up games to let different races face off against each other.

Tournaments should be a different thing all together. Precisely because it's focused so squarely on Winning (more so than other social settings for the game anyways) - personally, if I ever actually did attend a tournament, I wouldn't be able to take it seriously if all the races were just mixed up as I understand they are (and have always been).

I've said it before and I suppose people just think I'm trying to get in their face about this: But seriously, if you want to be sure about BALANCE go ahead and play Empire vs Empire.

That being said, and this is of course natural since I only play friendly games with actual Friends, this balance-talk has never really been much of an issue that has bothered me. Least of all I care for supposed balance-issues at those tiny point-levels that seem to be customary for most people - I prefer playing games at point-levels where all bets are off either way.

itcamefromthedeep
06-09-2010, 18:09
GW has no problem with their rules. I know a TON of players who don't.
I respectfully disagree. Here's an example. You have a High Elf Griffon rider fighting against two Rat Ogres and a Packmaster. Does the Griffon get to use its thunderstomp?

Is the Skaven player being immoral when he says that he has a Monstrous Infantry unit because the majority of the models are Monstrous Infantry?

Is the High Elf player being immoral when he claims that he gets to stomp any infantry his Griffon is fighting, regardless of how many infantry are there?

No matter what your stance on the outcome (which is off-topic, and beside the point) is either player being *unfair* or in this disagreement over the rules? Which one do you think is trying to *abuse* the rules?

I find it hard to believe that every rules issue (or even most rules issues) are only brought up by people trying to wring an unfair advantage out of the game.

DaemonReign
06-09-2010, 18:26
I respectfully disagree. Here's an example. You have a High Elf Griffon rider fighting against two Rat Ogres and a Packmaster. Does the Griffon get to use its thunderstomp?

Is the Skaven player being immoral when he says that he has a Monstrous Infantry unit because the majority of the models are Monstrous Infantry?

Is the High Elf player being immoral when he claims that he gets to stomp any infantry his Griffon is fighting, regardless of how many infantry are there?

No matter what your stance on the outcome (which is off-topic, and beside the point) is either player being *unfair* or in this disagreement over the rules? Which one do you think is trying to *abuse* the rules?

I find it hard to believe that every rules issue (or even most rules issues) are only brought up by people trying to wring an unfair advantage out of the game.

Monstrous Stomp doesn't work against Mounstrous Infantry right?

That's your issue here?

I don't know exactly how Packmasters work in CC because I have zero knowledge of Skaven pretty much - but in this particular case, if the Packmaster is in b2b and allowed to make attacks then the Griffon should/must be allowed to make its Stomp attack but these attacks would naturally only be directed at the Packmaster.

That would be my "common sense" approach.

Damocles8
06-09-2010, 18:30
Well thanks for that tidbit, didn't catch stomp only working on infantry, warbeasts, and swarm units....

DaemonReign
06-09-2010, 18:33
Well thanks for that tidbit, didn't catch stomp only working on infantry, warbeasts, and swarm units....

Which reminds me.. Gosh darn it.. I had a DP Stomp a unit of Empire Knights in the last battle I played.. fudge..

Gonna have to buy a friend an apologetic sixpack of beer.. Thank god I would have won that battle either way.

itcamefromthedeep
06-09-2010, 18:36
That would be my "common sense" approach.As I said, how you resolve the issue is beside the point. The example was brought up only to show that honest players can have an honest disagreement where the rules are genuinely unclear.

yabbadabba
06-09-2010, 18:42
As I said, how you resolve the issue is beside the point. In the time honoured GW approved approach of rolling a dice.

SeaSwift
06-09-2010, 19:15
Pure tournaments should be dropped in place of campaign-in-a-day style tournaments.

I SO wish they did that more...

Marlow
06-09-2010, 19:16
Sage words and I agree with them.

A No Comp system (say aside from limiting some of the OTT special characters) is much better than the endless flavors of homebrew crap that have put little to no thought into 8th ed balance and merely create massive new imbalances for no good reason.That is my view, just ban the Special Characters and let people take whatever else they like.

Walls
06-09-2010, 19:18
Special characters are generally not that good. There are a few, but for the most part it's combinations of units and items that break the game. Can't really ban those combos.

I really think a few of the last posts have illustrated what I've been trying to get across. It's a player thing. You either are gonna be douches and argue: in which case only winning matters, or you're gonna be human beings and adults and have a quick discussion. No conclusion? Roll off. Too many people forget two of the major rules in the game.

1. Have fun.
2. Roll a dice when you can't figure something out.

wizbix
06-09-2010, 20:11
Edit: Been drinking too much Bugmans - nothing to see here.

Satan
06-09-2010, 20:40
Special characters are generally not that good. There are a few, but for the most part it's combinations of units and items that break the game. Can't really ban those combos.


Erm. Yes you can. I can't think of a single comp system I ever played under that allows special charactrs. Not I don't personally enjoy them, but it's a decision I fully understand.

Walls
06-09-2010, 20:46
Every tourney that happens up here allows special characters because they know it's not them that necessarily breaks the game. It's super item/spell combos any "mundane" hero or lord can bring into the game + units + etc.

Satan
06-09-2010, 20:49
Every tourney that happens up here allows special characters because they know it's not them that necessarily breaks the game. It's super item/spell combos any "mundane" hero or lord can bring into the game + units + etc.

THat's all fine and good for those tournies, but you've got to understand people who'd want to exclude special characters from tournaments as well.

And not necessarily on the basis of them being "broken". I don't think that's ever been a big argument in our discussions really.

Tae
06-09-2010, 21:30
This is super-true.

But on a more a serious note:

I don't play pick-up games. I don't play at tournaments. But the set-up of such events seem very strange to me.

The question boils down to: Why isn't there simply race-slots for competative play?

You show up at a tournament with DoC and get to test your skills against other DoC-players.. You show up with a Wood Elf list and play against Wood Elves.

Regardless of whether the balance-issues in Warhammer is big or small this would be only way to ever truly say that: Yes, I lost/won entirely because of luck/skill - and not (more or less) because my opponant was crippled/boosted with respect to my particular List in general.

I do realize that this would not be "as much fun". But then everyone has all the opportunity in the world when playing Friendly Games or just casual pick-up games to let different races face off against each other.

Tournaments should be a different thing all together. Precisely because it's focused so squarely on Winning (more so than other social settings for the game anyways) - personally, if I ever actually did attend a tournament, I wouldn't be able to take it seriously if all the races were just mixed up as I understand they are (and have always been).

I've said it before and I suppose people just think I'm trying to get in their face about this: But seriously, if you want to be sure about BALANCE go ahead and play Empire vs Empire.

That being said, and this is of course natural since I only play friendly games with actual Friends, this balance-talk has never really been much of an issue that has bothered me. Least of all I care for supposed balance-issues at those tiny point-levels that seem to be customary for most people - I prefer playing games at point-levels where all bets are off either way.

You might be interested to see how the UK GTs are being run this year as it's somewhat along the lines suggested above.

Everyone is still drawn randomly against everyone and then ranked afer each match etc. however the way to determine the winner of the tournament has changed.

The player with the most tournament points from each race will be crowned Empire Champion (or O&G Champion etc.) Then the scores from every other player of that race (i.e. excluding the champion) is averaged and this is deducted from the champions score. Whichever of the champions then has the highest score wins.

So potentially the player with the most points might not win, if he is playing a race with a lot of other strong players as well.

jamano
07-09-2010, 01:41
In the time honoured GW approved approach of rolling a dice.

That's not a substitute for writing the rules properly, I've never found it fun to have the rules determined by a random die roll.

oCoYoRoAoKo
07-09-2010, 07:32
Everyone is still drawn randomly against everyone and then ranked afer each match etc. however the way to determine the winner of the tournament has changed.

The player with the most tournament points from each race will be crowned Empire Champion (or O&G Champion etc.) Then the scores from every other player of that race (i.e. excluding the champion) is averaged and this is deducted from the champions score. Whichever of the champions then has the highest score wins.

So potentially the player with the most points might not win, if he is playing a race with a lot of other strong players as well.

Actually, every game in this years' GT is against a random opponent, and you dont get ranked after the first game according to the amount of points you have.

Also, champions are worked out a little differently also. Its the player with the highest points difference from the racial average that is champion. Of these, the one with the highest racial difference overall is the winner.

So this year, you are hoping that a. you do well (as usual) and b. everyone else in your race does badly (to reduce the average). Im not a big fan of this systam :/

Cy.

yabbadabba
07-09-2010, 08:15
That's not a substitute for writing the rules properly, I've never found it fun to have the rules determined by a random die roll. The rules aren't being determined by dice roll, a disagreement on interpretation is. Its one of the two GW "rules" that people oten conveniently forget.


THat's all fine and good for those tournies, but you've got to understand people who'd want to exclude special characters from tournaments as well. Not at the moment, no I don't understand. Like all things equilibrium is reached so including special characters is not a problem for me. I just think people lack patience and are still suffering from GW's massive anti-SC push from '95

Mystic_Weasel
07-09-2010, 13:08
I think i would need a 3000 essay to write my views on this, so i will try keep it simple.
I am a casual gamer, I look for cool mini stories within the battles and things that i will remember fondly for years to come.
If you don't like power gaming (or the old term "being beardy" - a GW term for players who "abused" the rules to create super armies that take the fun out of the game)
Then don't go to tournaments!
I find tournament players and power gamers mind sets to be strange and games with them to be mostly unenjoyable.
Looking at great models/characters purely as a series of numbers to win with does not interest me.
But each to their own, I am enjoying my hobby of RPG style warhammer, with close friends and through them meeting or introducing them to other randomers.
While Tourney players are enjoying going out meeting new people, seeing amazingly painted armies, and seeing how well they can place in day or two they are there.
We're both enjoying ourselves? so really whats the problem.

I do think it should be noted (AGAIN) that GW have never claimed or tried to make a 100% balanced game, only a fun one. That beardy players are ABUSING the system, and using it in a way it is not designed.
So it does amuse me when said people start to complain about "lazy, stupid, incompetent" GW designers for not making it beard friendly.
My guess is these people do not like sports that can end in a draw, and must have scores of at least 18-23 or else the game is slow and boring. (meaning: hyper competative and short attention span)
OK, that is unfair.
but throughout my time in the hobby, it is always super competative gamers, who are jerks. argue about every little thing (even when i will prove them wrong because i know the rules better than them-surely they should know the rules inside out?), get overly aggressive when you try to charge because you a mm out of range. Despite he was nearly half an inch out earlier and you let him do it anyway.
Now i am not saying all competative players are like this! I have read some interesting and thoughtful posts on this site from tourney players (islands of rational thought in a sea or whine sometimes).
I honestly think if the game was 100% balanced people would still complain it is not balanced. Say grey seers are white and stormvermin black, someone will complain grey seers are white, and stormvermin dark brown.
There is no victory in the pursuit of balanced gaming, especially when you are trying to please 100's of different personalities, and cultures.
I say enjoy it or go play your beloved warmachine.
Ok, after what i said at the start i still rambled!

itcamefromthedeep
07-09-2010, 14:02
I do think it should be noted (AGAIN) that GW have never claimed or tried to make a 100% balanced game, only a fun one. That beardy players are ABUSING the system, and using it in a way it is not designed.
So it does amuse me when said people start to complain about "lazy, stupid, incompetent" GW designers for not making it beard friendly.
Unbalanced games are more "beard-friendly".

The mythical "perfectly balanced" game would *not* be beard-friendly, because there's nothing to abuse. Being perfectly balanced, army composition would be irrelevant to an army's success. We'll never get there (nor should we, frankly).

The more balance you have, the easier it is for casual gamers to have a fair match. Balanced rules make it reasonable to bring the unit that you like the look of, or that you think is funny. With off-kilter balance, if you don't take *effective* units you'll often lose, which will eventually start making the game lame.

Better yet, improved game balance would allow casual gamers and hard-core gamers to have a game on a more even playing field, which is conducive to fun for both.

Tae
07-09-2010, 16:39
Actually, every game in this years' GT is against a random opponent, and you dont get ranked after the first game according to the amount of points you have.

Also, champions are worked out a little differently also. Its the player with the highest points difference from the racial average that is champion. Of these, the one with the highest racial difference overall is the winner.

So this year, you are hoping that a. you do well (as usual) and b. everyone else in your race does badly (to reduce the average). Im not a big fan of this systam :/

Cy.

Hmm I overlooked the entirely random opponents, not too sure I llike that, but nevermind.

Oh, and check the 'example' on the third page for the scoring, notably where it says in stark letters "The winner's score isn't included when working out the average, as doing so would penalise a player for getting a high score".

Not that it would make that much difference over what you said, just wanting to make sure everyone is clear as to how they're going to work it out.

Personally I think it sounds, excluding random opponents for all 5 games, like a much more entertaining tournament for me to attend. There are plenty of 'balls to the walls' tournaments out there where people can be as WAACy as they want and as a big a p***k as they want to try and win. Personally I'm glad GW is moving their tournament back towards fluffy and fun gaming (although I'm sure it will be the usual suspects atop each race).

Shimmergloom
07-09-2010, 23:11
In the time honoured GW approved approach of rolling a dice.

aka, Lazy rules design.

yabbadabba
07-09-2010, 23:28
aka, Lazy rules design.Opinion, not proof.

ChrisIronBrow
08-09-2010, 01:05
Edited because I'm a jerk!

Sorry Yabbadabba, I didn't mean it to be that harsh.

Needless to say, I think your twisting peoples arguments.

rocdocta
08-09-2010, 01:40
No need for comp in 8th. what an ********! i play ogres. is that idiot seriously trying to tell me that my army has just as much chance of winning as a massed xbow DE or a WoC hell cannon list?!

he should stop using drugs and listening to his sycophantic fanboys...

rocdocta
08-09-2010, 01:43
GW and Tournaments: GW saw a market and have successfully exploited it despite having only produced two games that are really suitable for the format (E:A and Warmaster). I believe that JJ started running them back in the day in response to customer requests.

Pure tournaments should be dropped in place of campaign-in-a-day style tournaments. That would reflect the nature of WFB/40K far better. But then there would be even more complaints from those who don't get that those games aren't designed for tournament play :evilgrin:

but that suggests that people would only be interested in some sort of story book gaming weekend. we have capaign leagues for that. a pure tourney is an organised day(s) where you turn up and see how you go.

Kloud13
08-09-2010, 02:04
I would like to see a tournament where you are allowed a single lvl 2 in your army for magic, and that's it. then maybe the game can be tactical again instead of just who has a better lvl 4 mage.

Like it or not, 8th is ALL about the magic phase now.

drear
08-09-2010, 02:09
i think if you slap a mage level limit on armies you rule out alot of builds that armies rely on, highelves or deamons for instance would feel left out, and your gimping a vampire count army alot .

i think podhammer was talking about tourniment comp and they made a comment about having the 'big' spells a 1 use per game kind of deal, you cast it, it goes off or it doesnt either way its now gone.
but until we get a few proper tourniments over and done with we have no way of telling how things will pan out.
the 25% core rule has atleast leveled the playing feild for some armies, as it means your not going to be facing an army souly built around massive special units and rares, with a minimum core choice hiding at the back.

Walls
08-09-2010, 02:27
I think if you're going for competitive tournaments, why have ANY comp? It's silly. You're there to win, bring whatcha got. Storyline driven themed tournaments just shouldn't exist. They should be events without rewards for being "First Place". Awards, or more specifically rewards, should go to the "winning" team. It's like D&D. It's about the experience and journey.

Then, there's the discussion that Warhammer isn't meant to be played in a competitive tourney atmosphere...

jamano
08-09-2010, 03:30
You misunderstand competitive tournaments walls, we're still there to have fun. It wasn't quite this bad in 7th but if people only wanted to win every no comp tournament with SCs would just be daemons. Comp adds more variety to the options and makes more different lists viable, which rewards the better player more for finding them.

rocdocta
08-09-2010, 03:39
You misunderstand competitive tournaments walls, we're still there to have fun. It wasn't quite this bad in 7th but if people only wanted to win every no comp tournament with SCs would just be daemons. Comp adds more variety to the options and makes more different lists viable, which rewards the better player more for finding them.

100%. it encourages people to break out from the cookie cutter effective lists and try something new. i used to take hard lists but now i am a believer in showing your generalmanship by using a balanced army, not one that takes the hardest possible combos. other wise its like shooting ducks on a pond. fun for you, but not the ducks. soon the ducks stop coming back and its just the same small lame group of hunters sitting around going "where did all those ducks go?!"

Ard boz is a different matter. huge amounts of fun cos everyone know the story.

Walls
08-09-2010, 04:19
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I believe 100% in non cookie cutter, based on fluff, etc lists. I am not at all for the Ard Boyz and ******** like that. Go check out the Warriors of Chaos or army lists thread for the troubles I am having with my Throgg monster horde to prove it. I play actual Catachan, heavy bolters and flamers. Like the 3rd ed codex. No manticore/Hydra/AV12 spam. I use Ogryns and ratlings and penal legions and scout sentinels... in the same list.

I am just saying when it comes down to it, a competitive tourney where only winning your game matters shouldn't be comp based.

jamano
08-09-2010, 05:03
well the ones with comp also do usually have a painting and sportsmanship score

Jetty Smurf
08-09-2010, 05:46
I am just saying when it comes down to it, a competitive tourney where only winning your game matters shouldn't be comp based.

The thing is, the tournaments with comp systems are trying to make it skill based (and potentially luck based too, but mostly skill). It takes no skill to purchase an unbalanced army, and win with it (though not as obvious as with 7th). All tournaments, regardless of what game/sport whatever should be skill based.

Warhammer is not balanced, and that's fine. But if winning a warhammer tournament as it stands is all you care about, then it takes less skill than it does cash. With enough money, you won't even have to assemble or paint your army. This is, of course, taking things to the extreme, nonetheless, the point still stands.

At the very least it seems to be better in 8th than it was in 7th.

Walls
08-09-2010, 06:08
The thing is, the tournaments with comp systems are trying to make it skill based (and potentially luck based too, but mostly skill). It takes no skill to purchase an unbalanced army, and win with it (though not as obvious as with 7th). All tournaments, regardless of what game/sport whatever should be skill based.

Warhammer is not balanced, and that's fine. But if winning a warhammer tournament as it stands is all you care about, then it takes less skill than it does cash. With enough money, you won't even have to assemble or paint your army. This is, of course, taking things to the extreme, nonetheless, the point still stands.

At the very least it seems to be better in 8th than it was in 7th.

That's backward thinking though. If everyone going to these tournies, or even say the top 20 guys, are buying armies instead of skill, then they are competing with the same level armies against each other. Then it DOES come down to skill.

rocdocta
08-09-2010, 07:51
That's backward thinking though. If everyone going to these tournies, or even say the top 20 guys, are buying armies instead of skill, then they are competing with the same level armies against each other. Then it DOES come down to skill.

but thats it. in australia we get about 30 people to a tourney. if it is allowed no comp, and the optimised chainsaw list surfaced, well people that want to win through skill would drop off as they dont want to be a punching bag for people that they know are inferior generals. then the pool gets smaller and smaller until the player base makes it not commercially feasible to run a tourney.

not everyone wants to own a chainsaw I WIN list. dont get me wrong, i would like to run a ard boyz style tourny as they are great fun but i wouldnt like it to be the norm.

yabbadabba
08-09-2010, 08:17
Edited because I'm a jerk!
Sorry Yabbadabba, I didn't mean it to be that harsh. Don't be so harsh on yourself, you a merely confused :D. Anyway I never saw nuffink


Needless to say, I think your twisting peoples arguments. How so? I am confused because GW have produced a product which they are open about its faults; have made it clear that they do not with to change the design philosophy; have included 2 rules to drill home that there might be issues with the game; consistently refuse to properly support competitive play compared with other products; have two products which are ideal for competitive play but have fallen on its face and, most importantly, have shown no historical precedent of producing a balanced set of rules and army books for their core games that reflect tournament play and needs.

Yet people then take a product, put it to a use its openly not designed for and accuse GW of getting it wrong! For me as a wargamer GW have morally got it wrong exploiting a market that they have no intention of properly supporting eg tournaments, but the businessman in me is laughing all the way to the bank. I think Daemons were the litmus test for tournament play in WFB, and they failed to produce the results GW needed to convince themselves to change their philosophy. GW have built a highly successful business around a set of imagery driven, heroism inspiring rules - not balance and tournament play - so why would they change a strategy which isn't broken?