PDA

View Full Version : How Do You See Comp?



w3rm
03-12-2011, 05:35
So this my personal view on comp.

Most TO's know there's going to be tricky stuff no matter what you do. For every build you ban, there's always one that will abuse the comp rules. So I think the point of comp is that it's supposed to ban the same old lists you always see. It's to give some other armies a chance and to play something different and fun.

So how do you guys view comp?

tmarichards
03-12-2011, 05:50
I think it makes the game more competitive- by taking out the worst of the crutches, toys, abusable game mechanics and combos you make people have to actually play the game instead of just using those dumb no-brainer aspects.

MOMUS
03-12-2011, 06:10
I think i agree with richards, although i have just entered a tourney with no comp:eek: apart from no SC.
At first i was expecting to see alot of 'cheese' lists but speaking to a few other entrants the no comp dosnt seem to be a problem, its mainly for fun.....so far.

eron12
03-12-2011, 08:05
I think at times comp is used to make the game be what the TO's think it should be, rather than what it is. For example in the early day's of 8th, some of the comps posted on here seemed to be trying to edit out as many of the edition changes as possible and bring the game back to 7th.

Comp is also used to limit armies percived as powerful by the designer. While it may be done right, at times comp just seems like a way to like someone act like a game designer for a while.

Jind_Singh
03-12-2011, 08:10
Comp is a tough one!

Here are what we've seen/done:

1) Comping lists: Specifically limit/ban units from tournaments. Pros:Ban the worst of the worst. Cons: Who decides what is worst of the worst? Steam tank? Is it? Why? It's tough to kill, sure, but is it all that? Hell Pit abomination? I hate it - but is it worthy of being banned?
Two Steam tanks.....two abombs...but what about netters? Or mulitple fanatics? Or a host of other things that will 'break the game'...were does it end?
Special characters? But what about the decent ones? Now we ban cool ones because of a broken few!
And who are we to decide who takes what?

Something I spoke about with a tournament organizer was simply putting in points penalties on items/units...

So a single Hellpit/Stank is fine, but when you include TWO it's a points deduction at the end of the day. Maybe some items (the more known ones that make peoples lives hell).

That way you can still bring whatever but you'll pay the price at the end of the day!

2) Comp scores - panel of judges the lists and scores them - again based on bias as if a certain judge can't see the woods for all the trees around him he'll make skewed judgment calls - so it's not really a great situation.

3) Favorite player: Who was the most sportsmanlike player of the event? Each vote gives the player points to their overall score. But it's tough as if a good player turns you inside out you might be inclined to vote for someone else!

Recent event (for 40k) had an extensive check list each game were each check was a point.

Some events make you score the players each round and the points are added up at the end of the day, also add in players favorites to get bonus points.



At the end of the day though we found that any event that has comp scores will encourage a good crowd - the last event had 26 players, with a solid core of power gamers (say 6 mean lists), the rest were normal, a few fluffy ones.

The system was:

6pts = win
4pts = draw
2pts = loss

3pts = secondary objective


So a maximum of 27 points for gaming

15 points for painting/modeling (Basically about 6-7 line items that score 3pts each to max of 15)

3pts for first 'favorite player' nomination, 2pts after = 7 points sportsmanship
1pt per 'favorite army' award (Basically walk around and look at everyone's army - which ever one you like the look of the most, for whatever reason, vote for it! Max 4-5pts I think per person.


Now even with this little amount of comp scores it still helped kerb the more beardy of power gamers as it's not in your interest to be an all out jerk!



Either way I prefer comp events over non-comped - but be careful how you manage the comp!

Wishing
03-12-2011, 09:00
I think I agree with the OP. As soon as you introduce comp, you might get rid of the most commonly known/used no-brainer lists and choices, but it just moves the benchmark and makes a new set of lists and choices into no-brainers. So the main purpose of comp feels like it is to shake things up - the game is still unbalanced no matter how much you comp it, so there will still be stuff that's effective and stuff that isn't, and people will most likely still field the effective stuff.

Corporeal
03-12-2011, 09:07
If I were a TO, i'd run it like so:

single elimination, with the overall winners and overall losers matched up together with one condition. they HAVE to make up a new list on the spot with whatever they have, not exceeding 750pts and not announced on the website.

of course people balk at this, but it works. why? two reasons. it forces people to become creative, eliminates pre-builds (IE netlists and powerbuilds) and because it it such an oddball requirement where unit losses hurt a lot more, it forces people to think much more tactically. A true player should always be able to adapt to the conditions of the field, whether he's commanding an entire regiment or a special operations squad.

Urgat
03-12-2011, 09:43
If I were a TO, I'd enforce 5 or 6 fortitude points per army. That would deal with pretty much every list abuses.

Lordy
03-12-2011, 09:55
Don't have sex without condoms, don't play Warhammer without comp, play safe people.

Djekar
03-12-2011, 10:24
I'm not a fan of comp, but then in my area there aren't a whole lot of abusive lists. I imagine if people ran really crazy things (Teclis in the Folding Fortress comes to mind) as more than a one off lark, my opinion would change.

I think my biggest concern is one that jind brought up, which is the way that biases play into comp creation.

Artinam
03-12-2011, 10:30
I can see the use of comp, but I think its nearly impossible to balance. If you don't apply comp at least you know what to expect.

yabbadabba
03-12-2011, 10:35
Comp is for people who can't handle reality ;).

You can look at comp in a variety of ways, but one of the reasons why I think its fine should you wish to adopt it, is because its an example of the community taking GWs product and then house ruling it to fit their on needs. This cannot be a bad thing, but its not the only way to play the game.

bildo
03-12-2011, 11:15
comp is for the players that arent good enough generals. a true general will abuse everything at his disposal for the win. In reality a general wont send unarmed soldiers in against the taliban just to even things out for them. he will send so much armour in that they dont know what to do about it, and continue to cram it down their throats till they give in or arent there anymore. I shouldnt be penalised because i want to win enough to take 'crutches'. its in the army book because gw saw fit to put it there, so its my right to use it in my endevours to win. if my opponant doesnt want to take them and limit his list he wis welcome too, but that shouldnt stop those who want to take it.

Grocklock
03-12-2011, 11:19
My issue with comp is that it doesnt solve any thing. I like to play warhammer without my opponent doing it with onehand behind his back.

Also when yuo start comping you start having to tone down other things. When they took out big spells, then death stars where really good, as well as your big monsters.

You tried to solve a problem but created another, now you have to limit the amount of monsters and units, and so the cycle goes no and on.

bildo
03-12-2011, 11:21
when the comping starts you might aswell start playing a new game, they should try warmachine, none of these "issues". clearly fantasy isnt for these players, someone needs to let them know

narrativium
03-12-2011, 11:40
Done right, tournament composition makes new challenges for the players so they're not automatically taking the same units they use every other game (often because internet lists say they're good), and encourages players to take armies which opponents will enjoy playing against.

The goal of the game is to have fun; the goal of the host of the event is to ensure everyone playing has fun; composition is a responsibility of the host, even if it's "use the army books as they are".

That takes a lot of work on the part of the tournament organisers to know how the game works, to treat all armies fairly and to anticipate the new abuses available when their restrictions are put into use, and most importantly, to convey that diligence to all the players.

It's very easy to see composition as interference or meddling with an existing ruleset, but Games Workshop's rules are a starting point that all players will be familiar with. For the games you want to play, or the gamers you want to welcome, some tweaking may be appreciated. Just make sure everyone knows the adapted rules in advance so they're not caught unawares on the day.

Pyriel
03-12-2011, 13:28
I disagree with comp totaly. the idea behind comp is to fix imbalances-grow up, its a numbers game with luck in it, no game is ever gonna be exactly fair. imbalances cannot be fixed and will always exist. live with them. abuse them.

the most healthy attitude, imho, is the following:
friendly games are for fluff players, dont bring your best builds and try for a relaxed game and fun. fluffy players have a right to play the game their way.

tournaments are for hardcore competitive players wanting a very TENSE game, not beers-and-pretzels in any way, but a supertense and competitive experience. if you cant play like that, you got no business going to tournaments;

If a class of 17-year old computer freaks decides to enjoy soccer and go play in the Premier League, strong tackles WILL be commited and hard, exhausting game will take place. if some of the 17-year olds get crippled for life cause they couldnt handle it-they shouldnt have done it; they should know they aint athletes.

"playing" is one side of the game; "competing" is another. both relaxed/fluffy players and hardcore competitive players have a RIGHT to their own kind of fun.

hence, tournaments should be without comp. if you cant handle it, tough luck. play friendly games in your FLGS, or pickup games in random games fairs instead of large tournaments,or themed campaigns with restrictions, whatever. thats great-but you got NO business invading other people's games and changing them to fit your own desires. they have rights too.

Quinzy
03-12-2011, 13:48
Depends on the sort of comp. No double-rares seems to be a decent tourney comp. Stops double Hydra, and other such army book issues.

bolshie
03-12-2011, 14:02
I'd like to see more imaginative ways of imposing comp.

For instance a set of cards that shut down the magic phase for a turn, give combat bonuses, dispel IF, add dice to the pool, force a figure or unit to take a dangerous terrain test etc... jokers if you will.

Each player can use each card only once during the tournament, and there is a penalty for using them. But, it does get round the issue of bad match ups, or playing 'that guy'.

Bodysnatcher
03-12-2011, 14:03
I like special characters and most comps start with a 'No SC' rule.
This is even more of a shame because it splats variety by taking out some of the alt army types (e.g. Centigor armies with Ghorros, or monster armies with Throgg) and can further reduce options if you want to play to a tight theme.

I don't think I have ever owned an army that would (have) pass(ed) the comp conditions anywhere at the time. Yet I've never had anyone call my armies cheesy or beardy.

I always build my armies: Theme first, Aesthetics Second, Function Third and Comp Fourth. It's hard to get past the third one if you prioritise the first two :p

w3rm
03-12-2011, 15:19
Ok first of all I hate the no special character ban. I love running Prince Apophas with my Tomb Kings. Is he crazy overpowered? Nope but he's useful and cool as hell.

There are only a few really game breaking SC. Kairos, Masque, The Fay Enchantress, Skulltaker, Teclis and Thorek. All the others are perfectly fine.

Lordy
03-12-2011, 15:27
And Kouran, Whulfrik and a few others.

Dreadlordpaul
03-12-2011, 15:30
How is Kouran game breaking

Skyth
03-12-2011, 15:31
No comp leads to bad matchups and games decided more by army list than by skill.

Lordy
03-12-2011, 15:31
He's way too cheap.

DaemonReign
03-12-2011, 15:33
I dislike comp principally.
Better balance would be the good argument for it, but in all honesty All the comps I've seen so far just reaks of poorly hidden personal bias and generally unfair or plain daft restrictions that does next to nothing for balancing the game.
When it comes to insulting individual players and making the game less varied, on the other hand, most comp-systems seem to excell.
In our group we've never used any comps (except we don't use SC's) and it has never been a problem at all.
The predominance of comp is the foremost reasons why I'll probably never play outside of our group. It just has no appeal for me to follow the whims of some random joe being bitter because he's not writing Army Books for GW..

logan054
03-12-2011, 15:36
I dislike comp principally.
Better balance would be the good argument for it, but in all honesty All the comps I've seen so far just reaks of poorly hidden personal bias and generally unfair or plain daft restrictions that does next to nothing for balancing the game.
When it comes to insulting individual players and making the game less varied, on the other hand, most comp-systems seem to excell.

So you think is more varied without them? I actually can't stand warhammer without some sort of comp but I would be interesting in know what armies you collect and which comps are full of hidden bias.

narrativium
03-12-2011, 15:41
I disagree with comp totaly. the idea behind comp is to fix imbalances-grow up, its a numbers game with luck in it, no game is ever gonna be exactly fair. imbalances cannot be fixed and will always exist. live with them. abuse them.
Requirements for 25%+ core and a general are army composition restrictions. 'No comp' is a misnomer, since it doesn't mean "take whatever you want", it means "follow the rulebook", which is comp.

Imbalances may always exist. But giving a player different imbalances to exploit gives them variety.

Lordy
03-12-2011, 15:42
Me too Logan, Warhammer without comp is terrible, every list is the same, every item set up, yawn.

Me and our club don't really play without Comp, too many stupid items in the game alone without ubber units and set ups that walk forward and win.

IcedCrow
03-12-2011, 15:44
Comp is good to mix up the meta. Comp rules invalidate internet wisdom lists by not allowing them. Comp makes you find another way to abuse the rules. You can abuse any comp system just as you can the RAW system, but at the very least it puts some new configurations on the table.

For fantasy, the only real "comp" that I think is needed is a way to curb the bloated 100-200 man units and prevent someone from loading all their characters into the unit to exploit the no vp unless you kill it all dead rule.

Special character wise, most are fine with the exception of a couple(TECLIS).

That's just my opinion. I no longer play in tournaments though so I dont' have to deal with these things anyway.

Dark Reaper
03-12-2011, 15:53
And Kouran, Whulfrik and a few others.

Please tell me you actually mean Kholek.

yabbadabba
03-12-2011, 16:00
Me too Logan, the people I play Warhammer with are terrible without comp, every list is the same, every item set up, yawn. There, fixed that for you ;)

Lordy
03-12-2011, 16:03
Please tell me you actually mean Kholek.

Nope, Kouran the ridiculous champion upgrade for the already underpowered Dark Elves!

Lordy
03-12-2011, 16:04
There, fixed that for you ;)

I'm more than confident the worst player at my club would crush your little apologistic behind!

Of course then you would make him play no comp and continue to blast him off the table with Teclis or a Chosen star because you're actually a far greater tactician!

Right?

yabbadabba
03-12-2011, 16:09
I'm more than confident the worst player at my club would crush your little apologistic behind!

Of course then you would make him play no comp and continue to blast him off the table with Teclis or a Chosen star because you're actually a far greater tactician!

Right? I am sorry, did my comment hit a nerve?

Dark Reaper
03-12-2011, 16:12
Nope, Kouran the ridiculous champion upgrade for the already underpowered Dark Elves!

Kouran is absolutely crap. If you comp him away, you are doing the DE player a great favour.

Lordy
03-12-2011, 16:15
What's crap about 50pts for a S6 weapon, makes the unit unbreakable, have to pass a tougness test to even attack him.

He's attacking before most characters and he re-rolls to hit every round.

50pts man, he's just gonna challenge and earn some sweet sweet points.

50pts crap..... yeah

Dreadlordpaul
03-12-2011, 16:19
Hes 90 points the same price as isabella

Dark Reaper
03-12-2011, 16:20
He is t3 w1. Any decent cc-character will kill him easily.

Lordy
03-12-2011, 16:22
He's 75pts actually yeah, you already have the Blackguard in the unit wether you're taking him or not.

Still he is a raper of souls for 75pts.

DaemonReign
03-12-2011, 16:29
So you think is more varied without them? I actually can't stand warhammer without some sort of comp but I would be interesting in know what armies you collect and which comps are full of hidden bias.

We've got Daemons, VC, DE, Empire, Dwarves, and Orcs&Goblins.

Since I've never played with any comps my opinion is just based off an impression. It seems obvious to me though that if you're not allowed more than (say) 2 Warmachines then the "alternative" of making a gunline is forfreit. Gunlines are awesome sometimes and useless other times.. So I don't see how it helps balance. It just decreases the variety.

Then you've got stuff like Daemonic Gifts being "0-1" - and that I would say is an unfair nerf to Daemons in 8th Ed for starters, second it just looks like some disgruntled wannabe being 'jealous' that Gifts arn't "magic items".

Not allowing Herald BSBs to pick both Gifts and Icon is another one. Just petty jealousy. Doesn't add to balance at all.

And then when they start capping the pointsize of all units, but drop an 'extra' cap on actual model-count on one army.. Well that's where I just *stop taking things seriously*.

Daemons is the focus here because it's 'my' army first and foremost. But really, it's not about Daemons but rather that I don't like the idea of comps to begin with.

I could understand if you "ban" "The Book of Hoeth", "Siren Song", possibly that you make Loremaster a 0-1 per army - things like that - the main problem with comp seems to be that they never manage to stop themselves at what is reasonable but always continue to stick their buttery little fingers into places that need no fixing at all.

Duke Ramulots
03-12-2011, 17:33
Comping the game is peoples way of not wanting to play every part of the game. If you dont like long combats just limit unit size and force MSU armies. If you don't like uber spell, delete them. After all the comp you guys like to play with are you even playing warhammer anymore?

narrativium
03-12-2011, 17:53
Comping the game is peoples way of not wanting to play every part of the game. If you dont like long combats just limit unit size and force MSU armies. If you don't like uber spell, delete them. After all the comp you guys like to play with are you even playing warhammer anymore?
I'm wondering how many tournament packs you've looked at. The examples of what you suggest that I've seen are unit size limits of 40 models or 450 points - hardly MSU - and the most I've seen for a spell limit is that some of the uberspells take one wound from a character rather than insta-kill it (sadly for myself, an Ogre player, this list has never yet included Purple Sun).

I've played tournaments of 'timmy comp' where restrictions have been set but where organisers will permit lists which break those extra restrictions but which are not excessively fulness for an opponent. And I've played tournaments where army book restrictions have been lifted or points costs reduced to encourage variety.

The objective should not to simply eliminate items an organiser doesn't like, but to make the game more fun for all.

Warhammer isn't written for tournament players, it's written for gamers in general, whether they're casual gamers or campaign gamers or competitive players. Background and character comes first. Comp is, in general, an attempt to address that overgeneralisation.

Duke Ramulots
03-12-2011, 17:56
Interesting that you bring up campaigns because I think this game works far better in a campaign setting than a tournement one.

Snowflake
03-12-2011, 18:03
So you think is more varied without them? I actually can't stand warhammer without some sort of comp but I would be interesting in know what armies you collect and which comps are full of hidden bias.

ALL comps are biased, whether it's hidden or not. I have yet to see one that actually attempted to balance the game better, because it's a huge undertaking. Contrary to popular opinion, slapping a couple of generalistic restrictions on all the army lists that come adds more imbalance, not less. Some examples :

Every single comp has the anti-Special Characters bias. Every one of them.
Anti-magic bias, usually by limiting dice or by nerfing vortices
Anti-shooting bias (for example limit of 40 or so ranged weapons in the army, regardless of strength or effectiveness)
Anti-tarpit bias (limit of 45 models per unit is extremely common)

Really, when you get right down to it, almost all comps have a PRO-deathstar bias, even if they don't realize it. Warmachines, shooting, magic, tarpit-and-ignore, these are all tools that limit the effectiveness of that 1000+ point unit. When you comp them away, and they are almost always comped away, it's no wonder we see nothing but lists with 2x huge infantry blocks and a couple of other random things.

Comping is basically saying that you can balance the game better than GW, so if you think that, then do it right. Don't slap some lazy general restrictions on that hurt armies that don't need hurting, pick up the army books, and really look at them. Double Hydra or HPA a problem? Probably because they're too cheap, up the cost. Nobody taking monster mounts for characters? They're terrified of cannons, make the cannon only hit the mount. Think magic is too strong? People aren't scared of miscasts at all, beef up the miscast table and have it ignore ward saves on the wizard, and up the cost or remove the items that ignore or redirect miscasts. Trust me, if an IF has a better than even chance of murdering your wizard and his unit, nobody will throw more than 3 or 4 dice at a spell.

I could go on, but you get the point. These generalistic restrictions that are out there mostly end up hurting the lesser-used armies a lot more than the big offenders, and they almost always end up encouraging deathstars.

Jind_Singh
03-12-2011, 18:06
BUT if army books follow:

Orcs & Goblins
Tomb Kings
Ogre Kingdoms

Then banning special characters/comping will be thing of the past - as the three books are actually really well balanced - not just internally but against each other.

If the newer army books follow the same vein then comping is gone!

Yeay!

logan054
03-12-2011, 18:08
Since I've never played with any comps my opinion is just based off an impression. It seems obvious to me though that if you're not allowed more than (say) 2 Warmachines then the "alternative" of making a gunline is forfreit. Gunlines are awesome sometimes and useless other times.. So I don't see how it helps balance. It just decreases the variety.

I have played with a few, some are good and some are pointless like the previous SCGT one, I actually think the warmachine limit is usually no more like two of the same type and 5 in total. Gunlines are boring to play all time and boring to play against all the time, we have a dwarf player locally and all he does is sit on the table edge, he always loses so really playing against it is a waste of my time.


Then you've got stuff like Daemonic Gifts being "0-1" - and that I would say is an unfair nerf to Daemons in 8th Ed for starters, second it just looks like some disgruntled wannabe being 'jealous' that Gifts arn't "magic items".

You appreciate that daemons singularly broke 7th ed and are still very powerful, apart for dwarfs no army can duplicate magic items so doe so does this not just bring them in line with other armies? I had a daemons of chaos army back when it came out and it was just plain wrong, part of the issue is being able to spam broken items. If we are honest not being able to spam items shouldn't be a massive issue, I can see a few like armour of khorne being abit unfair on heralds of khorne so perhaps it should just be certain ones that can't be spammed. I guess it depends if you are using a army that is likely to use more than one herald of Khorne.


Not allowing Herald BSBs to pick both Gifts and Icon is another one. Just petty jealousy. Doesn't add to balance at all.

Your right it doesn't, I haven't seen that one come up, I thought this was a pretty standard rules pack:

http://www.spikyclub.com/e107/e107_files/public/winter_war_2012_rules_pack_final.pdf


its based on the SCGT one


And then when they start capping the pointsize of all units, but drop an 'extra' cap on actual model-count on one army.. Well that's where I just *stop taking things seriously*.

I've seen this done with lizardmen, like limiting skinks so that poison shooting is limited, you have to ask yourself which armies are being limited and why rather than ranting about it.

Daemons is the focus here because it's 'my' army first and foremost. But really, it's not about Daemons but rather that I don't like the idea of comps to begin with.


I could understand if you "ban" "The Book of Hoeth", "Siren Song", possibly that you make Loremaster a 0-1 per army - things like that - the main problem with comp seems to be that they never manage to stop themselves at what is reasonable but always continue to stick their buttery little fingers into places that need no fixing at all.

All I can say is perhaps you should actually give the comp a try and see what effect it has one your games, I personally agree with the limit on flamers, two units of 6 flamers isn't fun, its a tool of powergamers.



ALL comps are biased, whether it's hidden or not. I have yet to see one that actually attempted to balance the game better, because it's a huge undertaking. Contrary to popular opinion, slapping a couple of generalistic restrictions on all the army lists that come adds more imbalance, not less. Some examples :

I don't think its the people writing the comps are the only ones with have a bias here, it is interesting that you believe a comp could make things worse, without a comp you may as well just turn up with DE, Lizards or skaven.


Every single comp has the anti-Special Characters bias. Every one of them.

How does that excluding special characters create imbalance?


Anti-magic bias, usually by limiting dice or by nerfing vortices

Really? are you sure? I was under the impression that items/abilities that add PD or DP are on the way out because they are not designed for 8th ed, they are designed for 7th, as for nerfing vortexs I assume you mean purple sun so it doesn't take out a wizard on a lucky double 6, maybe dwellers below as well? those spells can end games for people very early one, the nerfs also don't effect their ability to deal with horde deathstars.


Anti-shooting bias (for example limit of 40 or so ranged weapons in the army, regardless of strength or effectiveness)

usually 90 and throwing weapons don't count


Anti-tarpit bias (limit of 45 models per unit is extremely common)

Yeah its terrible how they do that, you know trying to get people using more than two units.. wait if they pro deathstar then wouldn't not have the model limit and points limit?

The Low King
03-12-2011, 18:11
only comp i play is that anyone who doesnt want to have a fun game i wont play with. If its just about winning then tell you what, lets call it a win before the game.


The biggest problem with comp is that everyone disagrees on what should be comped.

For example, i dont like teclis because unless i take a unit specifically designed to deal with him i cant beat him. On the other hand, a dark elf player for example might find it easier.

Then many people think thorek is OP....yet to me he is just a much more expensive and slightly better version of the anvil (wich think is a bit weak anyway).

Hence why many Comps ban all SC, chosing between them creates problems.

yabbadabba
03-12-2011, 18:15
Interesting that you bring up campaigns because I think this game works far better in a campaign setting than a tournement one. It has never specifically been designed for torunaments. The closest it got was 7e and the Daemon army book, with VCs and DE a close second. Funnily enough despite everything that a shift like tha brings (balance, competitivenes etc), I think it caused more damage than the move from RT to 2e40K.

There are some crucial issues here. Warhammer is playable on its own unaltered. It can fulfil a variety of gaming needs when different comps are applied - even campaigns can come with comps. Due to the non-restrictive nature of the game it allows people to tailor it to the own designs relatively simply. WFB works best with a gaming group working together to produce a desired result, and its at its most creatively explosive when complete strangers get together for a game for the first time.

What is key to all aspects of playing any GW game is the nature and spirit of the people you are playing against; if you are a competitive player and you fall in with a group who prefer campaigns and non-optimum army lists then the game is going to feel like rubbish, and vice versa.

The people you play with make the game.

tmarichards
03-12-2011, 18:16
BUT if army books follow:

Orcs & Goblins
Tomb Kings
Ogre Kingdoms

Then banning special characters/comping will be thing of the past - as the three books are actually really well balanced - not just internally but against each other.

If the newer army books follow the same vein then comping is gone!

Yeay!

Dunno, 3x4 Skillfangs is a little OTT...

But overall, I agree- really like the power levels of the new books.

yabbadabba
03-12-2011, 18:17
BUT if army books follow:

Orcs & Goblins
Tomb Kings
Ogre Kingdoms

Then banning special characters/comping will be thing of the past - as the three books are actually really well balanced - not just internally but against each other.

If the newer army books follow the same vein then comping is gone!

Yeay! I stopped banning SCs shortly after GW made us. It seemed totally wrong.

Besides SCs come with no variety so you can always have a strategy to kill one :evilgrin: unlike the generic character!

bildo
03-12-2011, 18:30
3x4 skill fangs still die when a mangler lands on them, or a bone giant takes a liking to them

Jericho
03-12-2011, 18:34
comp is for the players that arent good enough generals. a true general will abuse everything at his disposal for the win. In reality a general wont send unarmed soldiers in against the taliban just to even things out for them.

When was the last time you played a game of Warhammer vs. the Taliban?

russellmoo
03-12-2011, 18:54
Double Hydra or HPA a problem? Probably because they're too cheap, up the cost. Nobody taking monster mounts for characters? They're terrified of cannons, make the cannon only hit the mount. Think magic is too strong? People aren't scared of miscasts at all, beef up the miscast table and have it ignore ward saves on the wizard, and up the cost or remove the items that ignore or redirect miscasts. Trust me, if an IF has a better than even chance of murdering your wizard and his unit, nobody will throw more than 3 or 4 dice at a spell.

This actually looks like pretty good comp to me.

The only comp needed on the 8th ed books is "No special characters" These are the only choices in them that are game breaking

I also think a 40 model count limit- is biased against low initiative armies, or weak units- and favors elite armies over horde-

Really the focus should be on limiting the amount of points in a unit, limiting characters and other magic items that are very powerful- there are several ways to do this- and comp is just one way, tournament scoring, and running scenarios will also limit these things-

DaemonReign
03-12-2011, 20:53
@Logan54:
Not that you have any reason to care what I think but I looked at that linky you gave me and those comps were actually not that bad. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'd still rather play the game just 'straight-up' but at least those comps don't flat out infuriate me. The examples I was drawing up in my own post to you were based - I believe - on some ECT comps that I glanced over a couple of months ago (which made me snarl and spit and rant and troll quite badly I might add).

Also, let's not start this debate again but I don't think Daemons ruined 7th Ed. In our group they got their ass kicked by Dark Elves almost every time in 7th, and almost every time in 8th too for that matter.

And not that I actually care but I have seen other people saying that Skaven 'took over' as the top-dog in 7th already - and that's appearantly based on Tournament results.

What it comes down to, for me, is that Fantasy Battles simply isn't a competative game. Like Yabba was saying a few posts up Warhammer turns out the best when a group of people come together and try to set up some kind of narrative, some kind of fluff-framework to work within.

My gaming group plays alot of campaigns. Alot of houserules for the campaign as such but no 'caps' inserted into actual list-building. My Daemons were never close to winning any of those campaigns.

And there are *fun* comps too. Like playing MonoGod. I bet you wouldn't mind facing some more Flamers if the prerequisite for fielding them was that Screamers and Horrors were the only other units allowed in the list. Right?

Stank 0-1, Flamers 0-1, Hydra 0-1, Abomb 0-1, only 50 models per unit, ban this item, restrict that combo - yeah ok I see what they're shooting for so to speak, I'm not gonna sit here and be a child about it. Just saying I'd prefer the uncomped game. For me I'd prefer a 'comp' along the lines of 'Bring whatever you like as long as it's really well painted and be a good sport.'

I mean there's a divide between the Tournament-camp and the camp of 'Fluff Before All' that I belong to. Alot of times when I see these topics (tiers, comps whatever) being discussed I just want to go 'Why sooo serious!?' like the Joker..

But I think I get it, at the same time, as soon as you start treating the game as though it's actually meant to be competative then your priorities shift.

And even our group has a ban on Special Characters.. Not because of any balance-concerns.. We just prefer making our own characters!

yabbadabba
03-12-2011, 21:20
When was the last time you played a game of Warhammer vs. the Taliban? Did SAS vs a Necromancer with Zombies and Skeletons. Does that count?

@Tae - you don't need comp to make WFB safe. And may I ask, do you have personal knowledge of the sexual health of your club :D

Just kidding.

logan054
03-12-2011, 22:28
What it comes down to, for me, is that Fantasy Battles simply isn't a competative game. Like Yabba was saying a few posts up Warhammer turns out the best when a group of people come together and try to set up some kind of narrative, some kind of fluff-framework to work within.

I actually 100% agree with you, the game isn't designed for competitive play, this is however why comp is needed, I also happen to agree that fun fluffy lists based around a campaign or some sort of narrative is really the way to get the most out of warhammer!


And there are *fun* comps too. Like playing MonoGod. I bet you wouldn't mind facing some more Flamers if the prerequisite for fielding them was that Screamers and Horrors were the only other units allowed in the list. Right?

I actually do this myself however with Khorne it is very hard to go to a game without atleast a sorcerer with a dispel scroll which kinda kills the theme :( Still I don't think is a thread about what is the correct way to play but rather if comps allow for competitive play to be more balanced. I think it really boils down to the comp itself, I would seriously love to take the attitude of bring what you want and have fun but then you always play one guy whos list is about as much fun as watching paint dry.

Xbox360<PS3<PC
03-12-2011, 22:39
I disagree with comp totaly. the idea behind comp is to fix imbalances-grow up, its a numbers game with luck in it, no game is ever gonna be exactly fair. imbalances cannot be fixed and will always exist. live with them. abuse them.

the most healthy attitude, imho, is the following:
friendly games are for fluff players, dont bring your best builds and try for a relaxed game and fun. fluffy players have a right to play the game their way.

tournaments are for hardcore competitive players wanting a very TENSE game, not beers-and-pretzels in any way, but a supertense and competitive experience. if you cant play like that, you got no business going to tournaments;

If a class of 17-year old computer freaks decides to enjoy soccer and go play in the Premier League, strong tackles WILL be commited and hard, exhausting game will take place. if some of the 17-year olds get crippled for life cause they couldnt handle it-they shouldnt have done it; they should know they aint athletes.

"playing" is one side of the game; "competing" is another. both relaxed/fluffy players and hardcore competitive players have a RIGHT to their own kind of fun.

hence, tournaments should be without comp. if you cant handle it, tough luck. play friendly games in your FLGS, or pickup games in random games fairs instead of large tournaments,or themed campaigns with restrictions, whatever. thats great-but you got NO business invading other people's games and changing them to fit your own desires. they have rights too.
You sire, are my new hero.


Depends on the sort of comp. No double-rares seems to be a decent tourney comp. Stops double Hydra, and other such army book issues.
Trust me double hydras at 2500p are nothing compared to what people normally take to tourneys. All the top armies and players normally deal with them easily. Where it gets scary is 2 at 2000p. At 3000p its even worse.

Try taking down 2 hydras+ 6 chariots. Now thats what i call scary.


My worse problem with comp is it does the opposite to what it wants to do. It wants to make the game fair, but there are always armies it puts in a better position than the rest.

"• No special characters.
• Max 2 of the same Special choice (No Triplication)
• Max 1 of the same Rare choice, unless the total cost is less than or equal to 150pts
This compensation DOES NOT ALLOW double Hellcanons, Screaming Skull Catapults, Treemen or other similar choices. Further more, 2 for 1 choices count as a single selection. Units that are upgraded count as a single unit, for example Longbeard Rangers, Wood Elf Scouts and similar options.
• Max 4 warmachines. This includes Daemon Engines, Steam Tanks, Hellcannons, Anvils of Doom and any other similar models that fire a missile weapon that is significantly more powerful than normal. Salamanders and Stegadons count as a single Warmachine slot. Thus 3 Salamander models/bases will count as 3 warmachine slots.
• In addition, for Skaven Players, a single Hellpit/Screaming Bell/Furnace/Warp Lighting cannon/Plague claw catapult/Doom Wheel are treated as a single Warmachine slot. The selection of a single weapons team does not count to this restriction. HOWEVER two weapon teams count as 1 warmachine slot (3 teams=1 slot, 4 teams=2 slots, 5 teams=2 slots, etc, etc.).
• Max 45 models with ranged attacks. Models with a range of 18”
or less count as a model. These allowances DO NOT include warmachine slots described above.
• Max 4 chariots or units of chariots. This includes characters mounted in a chariot.
• Only 1 unit may cost between 400-500 pts. No 501 pts+ units, This DOES NOT includes characters.
• Only 2 units may have between 40-50 models. No units 51 or more models.
• A MAXIMUM of 12 POWERDICE may be used in a single magic phase, regardless of the source.
• If you wish to go beyond these limits and you have a valid reason please contact the TO."

Thats my local comp. As pyriel said, tournaments are supposed to be competitive. Sorry but with rules out chariot spam which is like beastmen and orcs best build. So a max 45 ranges guys. I dont know anyone scared whos scared of wood elf archers or high elf ones. It was obviously aimed at dark elves crossbowmen but it hits others as bad or even worse.
12 Powerdice hard cap is fine, obviously aimed at dark elves again, but if some one wants to invest heaps of points in dark elf sorcerer spam let them. They will screw some builds over, but others will screw them in return.
Warmachines cap is way to low. Its one of the few things that makes empire or dwarves competitive.

The point cap on units is fine, but who actually takes heaps of deathstars to a tourney and comes out well?

Double rare ban is rubbish as well. Sure they are great, but they are expensive. Tourney lists are build to be able to deal with two.

No triplication is ******** as well. Some units are good, but really are specials considered broken. So a lot of armies whos main strength is in their specials are screwed over.

No special characters, as if anyone was scared of Throgg.

To me comp seems to encourage battleforce lists.

zoggin-eck
03-12-2011, 23:10
I see comp as trying to "fix" somehting that isn't broken.

Warhamer isn't supposed to be %100 balanced or "fair". It is meant to be a game where you play with little toy soldiers and make up a story. Take a look through interviews with Rick regarding 1st to 5th ed, or even Jervis or the current rules writers. Comp just seems absurd when applied to the game as they see it.

If even/fair competition was what I was after, I certainly wouldn't be playing this game.

Bob Arctor
03-12-2011, 23:18
Well I've been to comped and uncomped tournaments and all I can really say is I enjoyed the uncomped ones a lot more.

The comped tournament I went to used ETC restrictions, which are the ones DaemonReign were describing above. The restrictions didn't affect my usual army too much, but all the same I wasn't overly impressed with them. They could at least have been a bit more creative instead of just dull blanket bans on certain things that didn't really need it.

It may surprise some of you but the armies that took part in the uncomped tournaments were generally more balanced. We came to the conclusion that the very act of putting a comp in place gave players a 'green light' as it were to push the restrictions to their limit and try to break them, whereas in the uncomped people just took what they liked and sort of regulated themselves for the most part.

I think part of the problem with assuming Warhammer HAS to be comped to be played (even in a friendly environment) is based on a false assumption that people will only take the hardest lists possible all the time, and that if they don't they are just there to take part and should expect to get pasted most games. If thats true then its a pretty depressing viewpoint and rather at odds with the spirit of the game (whatever that is).

Bodysnatcher
03-12-2011, 23:47
The only time uncomped got frustrating for me was playing 'oh look yet another Dark Elf no touch army' in 7th.
I agree with Bob Arctor that basically, if you treat people like adults, 99% of them will self police. The more you baby them, the more they'll push boundaries. It's basic psychology.

DaemonReign
03-12-2011, 23:58
I actually 100% agree with you, the game isn't designed for competitive play, this is however why comp is needed..

I'm not sure about that. :) But if there are people who prefers playing under comp-restrictions then that's really not my problem.
I guess I'd much prefer the kind of Tournament Scoring I've heard about from time to time: One third of your score is based on your actual wins/losses, one third is based on what your army actually looks like, and the last third is a general ruling on your sportmanship and whether or not your opponant's enjoyed playing against you on average.

Now THAT would be a 'comp' I'd enjoy immensely - even if playing Daemons automatically meant I'd get a bottom scoring on the "Sportmanship Category". ;)


I actually do this myself however with Khorne it is very hard to go to a game without atleast a sorcerer with a dispel scroll which kinda kills the theme

As long as we're talking about uncomped MonoKhorne Daemons (you don't mean Warriors by any chance?) there's always the Thirster to carry Dispels and the Sundering Icon is another pretty obvious pick I guess. But no.. You must be talking about Warriors here right?

In either case, you're right, I perhaps derailed a little from the subject of this thread. To make a long story short:

No, except for never fielding SC's, we don't comp. :angel:

Wishing
04-12-2011, 00:06
Warhamer isn't supposed to be %100 balanced or "fair". It is meant to be a game where you play with little toy soldiers and make up a story. Take a look through interviews with Rick regarding 1st to 5th ed, or even Jervis or the current rules writers. Comp just seems absurd when applied to the game as they see it.

I think you are very correct. However, I also think that it's impossible to force the average modern gamer (who actually gets annoyed when things seem unbalanced rather than feeling that balance is irrelevant) to see things like the game designers do, so comping and the like is a way of getting the game to work better for the many many people that like the game despite fundamentally disagreeing with its designers.

Why the game attracts so many players that disagree with the designers is an odd thing, but I guess the game is just a victim of its own success, which is based on them making really cool miniatures and nothing to do with the game itself.



I guess I'd much prefer the kind of Tournament Scoring I've heard about from time to time: One third of your score is based on your actual wins/losses, one third is based on what your army actually looks like, and the last third is a general ruling on your sportmanship and whether or not your opponant's enjoyed playing against you on average.

I'm not an expert, but I think that "soft scores" (scores you get from things other than winning, ie. painting and sportsmanship) are very common in GW tournaments, and are normally there in addition to comp restrictions, not instead of them. :)

ihavetoomuchminis
04-12-2011, 01:00
I don't like comp. It's too subjective and it tends to favour some armies more than others. It's better to assume that the game won't be balanced until all 8th edition books get released (if they keep doing the good job they've done with the hardcover books) and be relaxed. And if you don't want to face some nasty combos, you better don't play tournaments. It's not like if it was a necessity or something like that....

Said that, the only thing i would ban from tournaments (and in fact, from the game entirely) are the SC's. Not all of them are Teclis or Kairos, but as other poster said...where to put the limit? It's safer to ban them all. SC's are like magic items. The main contenders for unbalance.

Snowflake
04-12-2011, 03:08
This actually looks like pretty good comp to me.

The only comp needed on the 8th ed books is "No special characters" These are the only choices in them that are game breaking

I also think a 40 model count limit- is biased against low initiative armies, or weak units- and favors elite armies over horde-

Really the focus should be on limiting the amount of points in a unit, limiting characters and other magic items that are very powerful- there are several ways to do this- and comp is just one way, tournament scoring, and running scenarios will also limit these things-

The problem is, nobody actually comps like that. It's all general comp that tends to actually hurt the low and mid armies worse than the top armies they're aimed at.

Oh, and to say 8th ed books need a no special characters comp means you actually haven't read an 8th ed book. None of them have OP SC's, and in fact most of them are flavorful but not particularly good. They do great for themed armies, but in general are overcosted for what they do.

Snowflake
04-12-2011, 04:08
How does that excluding special characters create imbalance?

I never said in any of my examples that it creates imbalance. I said that it CAN create imbalance, or have a larger negative impact on lesser armies than on the offenders it's aimed at. For the SC's blanket ban, generally people only care about a shortlist of about a half dozen that most people agree are a little over the top. A blanket ban on the rest simply serves to limit the diversity and make armies more vanilla. It also impacts the 8th edition books harder, because many of their magic items and effects were moved to SC's.


Really? are you sure? I was under the impression that items/abilities that add PD or DP are on the way out because they are not designed for 8th ed, they are designed for 7th, as for nerfing vortexs I assume you mean purple sun so it doesn't take out a wizard on a lucky double 6, maybe dwellers below as well? those spells can end games for people very early one, the nerfs also don't effect their ability to deal with horde deathstars.

Don't know WHERE you got that impression. I don't have that much familiarity with OnG or Ogres, but TKs Casket of Souls begs to differ. The limitations on PD/DD generation are aimed almost solely at the DE base spell, and end up making a lot of other armies struggle instead. Dwarves in particular kind of get screwed by limitations on DD generation and usage of spellstoppers.


usually 90 and throwing weapons don't count

Don't know where you play, but I've not once seen one like that. They're usually 40 or 45, and weapons with less than 18" range don't count. Which does a great job of limiting the amount of Xbows and handguns, while simultaneously rendering stock 24" bows kind of pointless. Also longbows, but clearly nobody even remembers Woodies exist anymore.


Yeah its terrible how they do that, you know trying to get people using more than two units.. wait if they pro deathstar then wouldn't not have the model limit and points limit?

Way to misinterpret what I said. About half of the comps that have model limits have no points limit whatsoever, and the rest generally set the points limit at something like 450 points. That does very little to limit some of the better Deathstars, since the limit doesn't take Characters into account. 450 points will get you plenty of most things other than Chosen or Ironguts, and even then you can still get a hefty amount. What it DOES do is limit some of the great tools that horde armies have to counter Deathstars. 40 or 45 models of cheap infantry is pretty pointless in trying to bog down a deathstar for more than a turn. When you're losing 10+ models a combat round, those 40 slaves, goblins, MaA, Swordsmen, Skeletons, Spearelves, etc, are pretty much going to lose steadfast in the second round (or evaporate to crumble in the case of skellies). 40 model units are little more than 1-round speedbumps to even 300 points of elite infantry, let alone 450.

But really that's just an illustration of what I'm talking about. You're claiming that your comp balances the game better and encourages diversity. If you actually look at list comparisons between comped and uncomped events, you'll see that there really isn't any more diversity in the comped events than there is in uncomped. Moreover, the "top armies" tend to win in both comped and uncomped events anyway, so unless you have some way of proving that comped is better balanced, that doesn't hold water either. You simply trade the perceived imbalances of the base rules for a new set of imbalances.

Lord Inquisitor
04-12-2011, 05:33
tournaments are for hardcore competitive players wanting a very TENSE game, not beers-and-pretzels in any way, but a supertense and competitive experience. if you cant play like that, you got no business going to tournaments;
Missing the point of comp entirely. Comp is not there to make fluffy players happy. It might help them have a good time, but that's a bonus. Comp's purpose is not to make the game perfectly balanced - it won't be. But any improvement towards balance is a bonus.

Comp's purpose is to promote variety.

There's nothing wrong with zero comp games per se. Are they unbalanced? Yeah but so what? Everyone has access to all armies at least in principle if not in practical terms so who cares? There is tolerable balance in 8th between armies what's the issue?

The problem is things get stale. When you go to a GT and play the same army with the same list 4 times out of 5 games (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5144603&postcount=591), that takes something away from the experience. What was wrong with the 7th ed days of "bring daemons or lose"? Aside from frustrating for anyone with any desire to play one of the other 14 armies, it was booooring.

Comp is there for the top players. If you give beastmen or brettonians bonus points, kick away the crutches people use, particularly ones that are no-brainers (Book of Hoeth, stubborn crown, pendant), you'll see top players taking all sorts of rarely-seen builds/armies and it forces people to rely more on tactical play than gubbins and that's great for the sort of high-tension top-end play we're talking about.

Comp moves the goalposts and adds to the skill required. It encourages diversity and puts the challenge back in list building - we all know what "the" empire list or "the" vampire list looks like. But take away the usual suspects and what's the optimum list now?

Obviously eventually any given comp system gets stale too. Fortunately there are quite a few variations out there. Recently I've been to Ard Boyz (zero comp), Southern Assault GT (minimal comp) and Border Raids GT (very heavy comp). All have been very enjoyable and I say that as someone who takes competition seriously (I placed in the top three for all three events). Heavy comp was the most interesting to try and predict the metagame outcomes. All are fun, all are suitable for competitive play.

Sh4d0w
04-12-2011, 06:39
Ok first of all I hate the no special character ban. I love running Prince Apophas with my Tomb Kings. Is he crazy overpowered? Nope but he's useful and cool as hell.

There are only a few really game breaking SC. Kairos, Masque, The Fay Enchantress, Skulltaker, Teclis and Thorek. All the others are perfectly fine.

How the hell is skulltaker game breaking, I would never take him in a competitive list neither would any good daemon general. Sure he has a 5+ killing blow but only in challenges, all you have to do is deny his challenges and he turns into an expensive khorne herald that doesn't give the unit hatred.


Also as my solution to increasing variety in the comping what TO's should do is every player that comes should be told to bring all their models for the army their using for the tourney. The TO then says you have 5 minutes to read the comping guidelines then they have 10 minutes to write a list ;) Stops people testing out maximised lists before the tourney and I'm sure would create some unusual lists. Our local gaming club has been doing this since 7th edition and I remember one time an ogre player won it amidst daemons and dark elf players, such a good and fun system :)

yabbadabba
04-12-2011, 10:28
Comp's purpose is to promote variety. While I don't disagree with what you have said here, it sounds to me like comp in tournaments actually negates two factors:

People are too boring and bring boring armies because
Isn't the idea of a tournament to bring you 'A' game and if there is only one fit for that, so what?

On the 'one-fit' idea doesn't this then lead to the collapse of that particular army list as it gets so popular that at some point someone works out how to beat it consistently? Anyway.

It sounds like, according to this, comp is there to stop tournament players getting bored with their version of the hobby (their choice) and to impose the same challenges that those of us who mostly play campaigns get everyday - variety, unpredictability, fresh challenges, etc.

So why not just play a competitive campaign?

WarmbloodedLizard
04-12-2011, 10:52
-good comp cuts the largest spikes

-no, it doesn't give you new overpowered stuff. just because a lot of people claim this nonsense doesn't mean it's true. these 'newly overpowered' things where there before, they just didn't stand out because they are not as overpowered

-with the nobrainers weakened or gone, it also shakes things up a little, depending on comp.

-some comp also changes the design to a tactically more interesting game.

-what comp usually doesn't do is to completetly balance the game, but it pretty much always makes it a bit more balanced than games without comp

Bodysnatcher
04-12-2011, 11:11
I've been playing uncomped tournaments for over ten years (regular UKGT attendee).
I've never had the problem that people keep bringing up of staleness or repetition (with the one exception of the DE notouch in 7th). Even the 7th ed daemon armies were all different. They may have been MSU with magical dominance but there was a lot of variety in unit selection, appearance and playstyle.
You can break most staleness by the use of scenarios - it means you can't have an optimum for every mission. If a tournament has no scenarios and comp I do sometimes wonder if they would be better off playing chess...

logan054
04-12-2011, 14:56
I never said in any of my examples that it creates imbalance. I said that it CAN create imbalance, or have a larger negative impact on lesser armies than on the offenders it's aimed at. For the SC's blanket ban, generally people only care about a shortlist of about a half dozen that most people agree are a little over the top. A blanket ban on the rest simply serves to limit the diversity and make armies more vanilla. It also impacts the 8th edition books harder, because many of their magic items and effects were moved to SC's.

If either does or doesn't create imbalances, this isn't 40k and SC's work very different, SC's in 40k tend to allow more themed lists, generally in warhammer they are either really good for the points or really bad and not worth using over a generic character. If we are talking about competitive play then who is going to take the less cost effective ones? People wouldn't ban SC if people didn't just take the over powered ones, you will see exceptions to this but it isn't the norm outside of the local gaming club.


Don't know WHERE you got that impression. I don't have that much familiarity with OnG or Ogres, but TKs Casket of Souls begs to differ. The limitations on PD/DD generation are aimed almost solely at the DE base spell, and end up making a lot of other armies struggle instead. Dwarves in particular kind of get screwed by limitations on DD generation and usage of spellstoppers.

Screwing over dwarfs? you serious, heres a example of the kind of thing a dwarf player might try, I don't really rate it as a list but it would be about as much fun as watching paint dry to play.

Dwarven Gunline List:

Master Engineer, Rune of Stone, Handgun, Shield
Master Engineer, Rune of Stone, Handgun, Shield
Master Engineer, Rune of Stone, Handgun, Shield

Rune Smith, Shield, x3 Rune of Spell Breaking

Thunderers x10, Mus. Std Bearer
Thunderers x10, Mus. Std Bearer
Thunderers x10, Mus. Std Bearer
Quarrellers x10, Mus, Std Bearer
Quarrellers x10, Mus, Std Bearer
Quarrellers x10, Mus, Std Bearer

Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon, Rune of Burning

Bolt Thrower, Rune of Penetration, Rune of Burning
Bolt Thrower, Master Rune of Immolation
Bolt Thrower

Grudge Thrower, x2 Rune of Penetration, Rune of Accuracy
Grudge Thrower, Rune of Penetration, Rune of Accuracy, Rune of Burning
Grudge Thrower, Rune of Penetrating, Rune of Accuracy
Grudge Thrower, Rune of Burning, Rune of Accuracy

Organ Gun
Organ Gun
Organ Gun
Organ Gun

Looks fun hey! I think I would be tempted to concede that game and head to bar for a couple of hours, now as for limiting powerdice I effects far more than DE. Lizardmen, skaven (with tokens), Daemons (power Vortex), Empire (lvl4 wizard + priest dispel dice spam). Now I have played dwarfs with very little comp and without it I managed to cast a single spell all game, I mean I get they need a decent magic defense but I don't think they should be able to shut down a magic phase completely! It doesn't screw them over, they just have to do what everyone else does, prioritize what they dispel, I think with most comps can still get a 4 dice swing, +2 dispel + rune of steal a powerdice.


Don't know where you play, but I've not once seen one like that. They're usually 40 or 45, and weapons with less than 18" range don't count. Which does a great job of limiting the amount of Xbows and handguns, while simultaneously rendering stock 24" bows kind of pointless. Also longbows, but clearly nobody even remembers Woodies exist anymore.

I thought that was a pretty standard now, would I be that upset if more tournaments were limited to 40-50 shoots a turn, I can't remember the last time I came across a list with more shooting than that outside of tournament. Still I am not surprised to see such comps, I remember I was at a practice tournament for the SCGT last year and some guy told about a DE player who was taking so much shooting simply so the game wouldn't get past turn 3. Thats the reality of uncomped tournaments, people will try stuff like that, hey its legal, nothing in rules stops you doing that! Wood elves? people still play them? I think you see like one or two guys at tournament, GW screwed them over when they changed the skirmish rules, not comps.


Way to misinterpret what I said. About half of the comps that have model limits have no points limit whatsoever, and the rest generally set the points limit at something like 450 points. That does very little to limit some of the better Deathstars, since the limit doesn't take Characters into account. 450 points will get you plenty of most things other than Chosen or Ironguts, and even then you can still get a hefty amount. What it DOES do is limit some of the great tools that horde armies have to counter Deathstars. 40 or 45 models of cheap infantry is pretty pointless in trying to bog down a deathstar for more than a turn. When you're losing 10+ models a combat round, those 40 slaves, goblins, MaA, Swordsmen, Skeletons, Spearelves, etc, are pretty much going to lose steadfast in the second round (or evaporate to crumble in the case of skellies). 40 model units are little more than 1-round speedbumps to even 300 points of elite infantry, let alone 450.

But really that's just an illustration of what I'm talking about. You're claiming that your comp balances the game better and encourages diversity. If you actually look at list comparisons between comped and uncomped events, you'll see that there really isn't any more diversity in the comped events than there is in uncomped. Moreover, the "top armies" tend to win in both comped and uncomped events anyway, so unless you have some way of proving that comped is better balanced, that doesn't hold water either. You simply trade the perceived imbalances of the base rules for a new set of imbalances.

I believe they have model limits so to stop people abusing steadfast because funny enough a unit of a 100 skaven slaves is pretty damn hard shift, yeah its a viable tactic for sure, great fun for my WoC to play against. Ok so I'm going to lock your 400pts units in combat with my 100pts unit and then just spam dreaded 13th! Thankgod we are adding diversity to game! not that every single skaven player does that! they still do that with a 50 model limit, difference is you actually have a chance of breaking that ld10 steadfast before you lose your unit to magic and shooting.

Not sure why you even mention skeletons, I can't remember the last time I came across a VC army that wasn't all ghouls anyways, I'm sorry but alot of the stuff you seem to think is fair game really can ruin a gaming experience.

Skyth
04-12-2011, 15:31
The problem is things get stale. When you go to a GT and play the same army with the same list 4 times out of 5 games (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5144603&postcount=591), that takes something away from the experience. What was wrong with the 7th ed days of "bring daemons or lose"? Aside from frustrating for anyone with any desire to play one of the other 14 armies, it was booooring.


I mostly agree, but I will say that comp can do that too sometimes. I've been at a (40k) GT with heavy soft comp where I basically played 4 copies of the same Marine list...*yawns*

I do think hard comp makes the game more balanced. Say you have a 1-5 ranking of list power (5 being high). You take away the ability to do a level 5 list. That makes the max difference in power be 3 instead of 4, moving the balance closer together. It's not perfect, but it's better. This leaves the results of the game determined more on generalship than the list or the chance of a bad matchup (Which is made less likely under comp as extremely mono-dimensional lists are what are generally restricted.)

T10
04-12-2011, 17:41
So this my personal view on comp.

Most TO's know there's going to be tricky stuff no matter what you do. For every build you ban, there's always one that will abuse the comp rules. So I think the point of comp is that it's supposed to ban the same old lists you always see. It's to give some other armies a chance and to play something different and fun.

So how do you guys view comp?

I think usage of the term has changed: I seem to recall it was used to rate the armies in terms of fluff/abusiveness. Nowadays it seems to be used for the more proactive army list restrictions that limit what you can actually take.

The most solid army composition limit scheme I've heard of is the use of army lists designed by the tournament organizers.

The smoothest army composition rule I've heard of is to limit individual units to a maximum of 15% of the game size, except for one single-model unit or character that costs more than this limit. For example, a 1000 points army can consist of any number of characters or units that each costs up to 150 points (within the normal lord/hero/core/special/rare limits), but one single-model unit can cost more than this, e.g. a Lord character costing up to 250 points, or a Rare monster.

DaemonReign
04-12-2011, 18:22
Dwarven Gunline List:

Master Engineer, Rune of Stone, Handgun, Shield
Master Engineer, Rune of Stone, Handgun, Shield
Master Engineer, Rune of Stone, Handgun, Shield

Rune Smith, Shield, x3 Rune of Spell Breaking

Thunderers x10, Mus. Std Bearer
Thunderers x10, Mus. Std Bearer
Thunderers x10, Mus. Std Bearer
Quarrellers x10, Mus, Std Bearer
Quarrellers x10, Mus, Std Bearer
Quarrellers x10, Mus, Std Bearer

Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon
Cannon, Rune of Burning

Bolt Thrower, Rune of Penetration, Rune of Burning
Bolt Thrower, Master Rune of Immolation
Bolt Thrower

Grudge Thrower, x2 Rune of Penetration, Rune of Accuracy
Grudge Thrower, Rune of Penetration, Rune of Accuracy, Rune of Burning
Grudge Thrower, Rune of Penetrating, Rune of Accuracy
Grudge Thrower, Rune of Burning, Rune of Accuracy

Organ Gun
Organ Gun
Organ Gun
Organ Gun

Looks fun hey!

Well that's the thing man, and sorry for stumbling in like a drunkard into the conversation here ..
I really [i]do think that list looks just 'fine' to play against. Like you say yourself it's not necessarily a 'great' list in competative turns - I mean, unless all that shooting works like a clockwork something is gonna get through and just flat-out slaughter all those useless units..
All those Quarrellers and Thunderers could of course be summed up in fewer (bigger) units to mitigate this somewhat, but I really don't get why this list would be more or less fun playing against compared to whatever other list we might be talking about..
OK so it got no magic (dwarves) and rellies on Shooting (and nothing else)..

All I'm saying is: If I saw you heading for the bar I'd be all over the table going Nooo.. Leave the models on the table.. I'll play.. Just let me play!! *lol*

Just saying.. But still, those comps you showed me were alot more reasonable than those ECT ones I saw a few months ago because they really pissed me off.. :)

Lord Inquisitor
04-12-2011, 20:54
While I don't disagree with what you have said here, it sounds to me like comp in tournaments actually negates two factors:

People are too boring and bring boring armies because
Isn't the idea of a tournament to bring you 'A' game and if there is only one fit for that, so what?

On the 'one-fit' idea doesn't this then lead to the collapse of that particular army list as it gets so popular that at some point someone works out how to beat it consistently? Anyway.

It sounds like, according to this, comp is there to stop tournament players getting bored with their version of the hobby (their choice) and to impose the same challenges that those of us who mostly play campaigns get everyday - variety, unpredictability, fresh challenges, etc.

So why not just play a competitive campaign?

I don't know... the thing is, I like campaigns because they're noncompetitive. When I was part of a local gaming group, we'd gear up for a big tournament and play super-competitive for a while fine-tuning our lists. After the tournament we'd switch gears and play a map campaign involving small and limited forces as an excuse to break out all the sub-par units as much as anything with some kind of escalating forces. The whole point was to get out of the competitive mindset for a bit. A competitive campaign feels sort of wrong to me.

But even then, most campaigns will involve hard or self-imposed restrictions to fit the storyline or map anyway.

Yes, tournaments are designed to bring your "A" game but there's no reason that "A" game needs to be the same every time. If you ... I don't know ... swim competitively, do you only have competitions freestyle and have total speed the only criteria? Why do the olympics have events like the 100 meter breaststroke when front crawl is faster?

Comp is like breaststroke. Just because the power level has been turned down, doesn't make it less competitive. Indeed, it's if anything more competitive because (if done well) it opens out more armies and builds to competitive players.

yabbadabba
04-12-2011, 21:03
If you ... I don't know ... swim competitively, do you only have competitions freestyle and have total speed the only criteria? Why do the olympics have events like the 100 meter breaststroke when front crawl is faster?

Comp is like breaststroke. Just because the power level has been turned down, doesn't make it less competitive. Indeed, it's if anything more competitive because (if done well) it opens out more armies and builds to competitive players. I don't think your analogy works there mate. Comp would be like saying to some swimmers you can't use your all in one suits all the time. Comparing Breast stroke to Front crawl is more akin to comparing different rulesets aka WFB and KoW.

Lord Inquisitor
04-12-2011, 21:26
I don't think your analogy works there mate. Comp would be like saying to some swimmers you can't use your all in one suits all the time. Comparing Breast stroke to Front crawl is more akin to comparing different rulesets aka WFB and KoW.

Uh, I don't think so. It's comparing freestyle (take any stroke you like, winning is all that matters) to breast stroke (winning is what matters but you are restricted to using a particular stroke). The rules can otherwise be the same for the two swimming events (same distance swam, lanes, acceptable swimsuits etc.). We're not comparing entirely different games/sports even if they are similar in some ways (e.g. Rugby and American Football vs 40K and FoW).

But whatever, it was just intended to illustrate. I knew this would happen - any analogy posted on Warseer will immediately be attacked and nitpicked to death. :rolleyes::p

Any possibility my actual point made it across? ;)

VoodooJanus
04-12-2011, 21:47
Uh, I don't think so. It's comparing freestyle...

I think the problem with your analogy is that crawlstroke and freestyle are the same thing.

I think what you're trying to say is that if you're allowed to use any stroke, it's just as competitive as if you're only allowed to use a specific one. It just changes the nature of the competition. Which I totally agree with

Lord Inquisitor
04-12-2011, 21:58
Well, freestyle is used synonymously with front crawl because it's the fastest. I believe in olympic freestyle (FINA rules) you are indeed allowed to use any stroke, but since front crawl is the fastest that's what people use.

Which is kind of my point. If you want to see a variety of swimming strokes, you need to make variations on the competition which restrict the anything-goes freestyle. Which I think we agree on.

yabbadabba
04-12-2011, 22:21
Any possibility my actual point made it across? ;) You made your point ages ago. I just disagree with you. That's just the way it goes.

Comp is houseruling; it has nothing really to do with balance, fairness or variety, it has everything to do with someone enacting their vision of how a game should be played. I have no issue with that as I do it all the time, I just don't agree with all the other justifications that go along with that.

You will disagree with that.

logan054
04-12-2011, 23:39
Well that's the thing man, and sorry for stumbling in like a drunkard into the conversation here ..
I really [i]do think that list looks just 'fine' to play against.

If you like watching paint dry then I imagine it great list to play against, thing is how damn boring is that game going to be! I am for one glad of comps that kinda say

"look stop a second, you may not want to enjoy your game but the other guy might, maybe look at your list a second"

To be honest started ignoring the etc comps some time ago, they seemed very much like "hey we wanna play 7th ed" rather than trying to remove the things that really just waste people time. I feel like that whenever a i play a skaven player, it a race against time to see f I can kill the grey seer before he kills my army. Its not fun to play against and it doesn't matter how nice a guy you are. If i spend the game just removing units I'm not going to want to repeat the experience, that isn't the players fault, its the writer of armybook. We can all sit about saying warhammer is fine how it is, we need need any other restrictions other than those printed in the army book, problem is we ended up with a glorified version of rock, paper scissors.


I think the problem with your analogy is that crawlstroke and freestyle are the same thing.

Who cares, you all get his point, argue about rather than what is the correct analogy to use....


Comp is houseruling; it has nothing really to do with balance, fairness or variety, it has everything to do with someone enacting their vision of how a game should be played. I have no issue with that as I do it all the time, I just don't agree with all the other justifications that go along with that.

I don't agree it has nothing to do with balance, while yes it is house ruling, it house ruling that people feel will make for better games and hopefully stop the top dogs dominating the event, its like with the shooting limit I mentioned earlier, can you actually believe people will take mass shooting just so the game takes so long it hard to get anything more than a draw, you see that happen a few times and your going to do something about it, I know a tournament is about winning and everything but I turn up for a game of warhammer, I don't turn up to prance about.

yabbadabba
05-12-2011, 00:06
I don't agree it has nothing to do with balance, while yes it is house ruling, it house ruling that people feel will make for better games and hopefully stop the top dogs dominating the event, its like with the shooting limit I mentioned earlier, can you actually believe people will take mass shooting just so the game takes so long it hard to get anything more than a draw, you see that happen a few times and your going to do something about it, I know a tournament is about winning and everything but I turn up for a game of warhammer, I don't turn up to prance about. Somebody decides something isn't balanced. Someone else disagrees. That's an opinion and as such makes it a houserule and not about balance. I know is pedantic but its important. Lots of people manage to play every day without enforced comps and have plenty of fun. So its an entirely subjective phenomena.

Again, I don't disagree with it but lets not dress it up for anything more than it is; houserules.

ewar
05-12-2011, 00:18
I disagree with comp totaly. the idea behind comp is to fix imbalances-grow up, its a numbers game with luck in it, no game is ever gonna be exactly fair. imbalances cannot be fixed and will always exist. live with them. abuse them.

the most healthy attitude, imho, is the following:
friendly games are for fluff players, dont bring your best builds and try for a relaxed game and fun. fluffy players have a right to play the game their way.

tournaments are for hardcore competitive players wanting a very TENSE game, not beers-and-pretzels in any way, but a supertense and competitive experience. if you cant play like that, you got no business going to tournaments;

If a class of 17-year old computer freaks decides to enjoy soccer and go play in the Premier League, strong tackles WILL be commited and hard, exhausting game will take place. if some of the 17-year olds get crippled for life cause they couldnt handle it-they shouldnt have done it; they should know they aint athletes.

"playing" is one side of the game; "competing" is another. both relaxed/fluffy players and hardcore competitive players have a RIGHT to their own kind of fun.

hence, tournaments should be without comp. if you cant handle it, tough luck. play friendly games in your FLGS, or pickup games in random games fairs instead of large tournaments,or themed campaigns with restrictions, whatever. thats great-but you got NO business invading other people's games and changing them to fit your own desires. they have rights too.


Oh man, I wish I could play warhammer like you. You must push those little plastic soldiers round the table like a real man - shirt off, chewing a stogie, hot girls waiting on your every word.

Can you crush dice with your bare hands?

Not like the rest of us nerd pussies, trying to get a balanced game in, where skill counts a bit more than a netlist with Teclis in.

DaemonReign
05-12-2011, 00:30
I repeat that I have no experience of the Tournament scene, if you [Logan54] are sure that a Tournament without comps would mean - by definition - that every Dwarf list would look like that and that every Skaven list would be exactly the same thing too - then sure, if people are really that boring (and hellbent on WinningAtAllCost) I do understand the 'need' for comp.

But - and despite being an avid painter hehe - I maintain that that Dwarf List you used as an example would be completely fine to face [for me] from time to time. I really don't put that valuation into it, it's just another 'variant' of Dwarves. I don't think it's more or less fun than playing the "Hordes of Great Weapon Warriors"-list, or whatever other specific Build they might have.

But yeah, I see your point too - I wouldn't want to face that Dwarf-list every single game I ever played either.

Glad to see we at least agree on the ECT comps. I might dislike 'comp' in principle but those restrictions gave me allergic reactions..

logan054
05-12-2011, 00:43
Somebody decides something isn't balanced. Someone else disagrees. That's an opinion and as such makes it a houserule and not about balance. I know is pedantic but its important. Lots of people manage to play every day without enforced comps and have plenty of fun. So its an entirely subjective phenomena.

Again, I don't disagree with it but lets not dress it up for anything more than it is; houserules.

Massive difference between playing at home with your mates having a few beers and a curry and popping down to a tournament, when your with your mates you tend to have alot of unspoken rules and generally you are playing with like minded people. Thing is certain things are not balanced within the game and create for a unfun gaming experience, removing these elements may be a house rule but in my experience they make for a better gaming experience. You quibble about the words if you really like but for me it makes for a more balanced game, you may not agree and thats your right.

GW games will never be balanced, not while the rules are designed to sell models, it really is down to the players to decide how to the make the most off it.


I repeat that I have no experience of the Tournament scene, if you [Logan54] are sure that a Tournament without comps would mean - by definition - that every Dwarf list would look like that and that every Skaven list would be exactly the same thing too - then sure, if people are really that boring (and hellbent on WinningAtAllCost) I do understand the 'need' for comp.

I am not saying that all dwarfs would be the same, I am just saying people when it comes to competitive play tend to stretch the list as far as possible, list like the one posted doesn't even seem that fun to play, someone gave me a link to a ards boyz blog http://companyofthedamned.blogspot.com/2011/05/warhammer-ard-boyz-2011-semi-finals-may.html

yabbadabba
05-12-2011, 00:45
~snip~ Any chance we can keep this vaguely civil please?

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 01:10
Oh man, I wish I could play warhammer like you. You must push those little plastic soldiers round the table like a real man - shirt off, chewing a stogie, hot girls waiting on your every word.

Can you crush dice with your bare hands?

Not like the rest of us nerd pussies, trying to get a balanced game in, where skill counts a bit more than a netlist with Teclis in.

LOL!! is it hard to crush dice in your hand? Also if you're at your house who cares if you play warhammer with your shirt off?

DaemonReign
05-12-2011, 02:14
Massive difference between playing at home with your mates having a few beers and a curry and popping down to a tournament
...
someone gave me a link to a ards boyz blog http://companyofthedamned.blogspot.com/2011/05/warhammer-ard-boyz-2011-semi-finals-may.html

That's true. While I wouldn't mind getting a shot at beating a gunline like that, my Dwarf opponant in our closed off little gaming group have never fielded a one-sided list like that, ever. And I even suspect it's because he wouldn't enjoy it regardless of me cheering him on or not.

So yeah, you've got a point.

I guess I'll have to go back to ranting and raving about how this game should never be about 'winning' (strictly). Who's the poster here who's got the sig that says the "Objective of the game is to win, the objective of playing is to have fun.." Or something like that, I don't remember.

They should design "Tournaments" where being nasty/cheesy simply wasn't the point. Oh well, I've got a more multi-facetted view on this issue certainly! Thanks for that.

The Low King
05-12-2011, 02:47
As a dwarf player i find that dwarf gunline amusing....

Its illegal under 3000 points so i assume you are playing 3000+ with it....

That means most people will simply have too many troops for you to possibly kill....

And a single runesmith wont be enough magic defence.....

And any scenario/use of ambush would seriously screw it....

And all your warmachines would have misfired by the end of the game..


Frankly my 2400 point dwarf combat list (ie, no ranged weapons) could run that gauntlet and survive.....(maybe). Its really not that hard to beat at 3000+ points.

The 'standard' dwarf list consists of 3 hordes of GW armed troops (one hammerers) backed up by a runelord (because a runesmith isnt enough even at 2400), a BSB, 2 organ guns, 2 cannons and a grudge thrower. Dwarf gunlines are generally agreed to not be worth it.

IcedCrow
05-12-2011, 03:30
This is to those that say comp is for people who have no real skill and can't handle "real warhammer"... if one has real skill then they should have no problem playing in any environment since their skill will enable them to win regardless of what list they take.

DaemonReign
05-12-2011, 04:22
This is to those that say comp is for people who have no real skill and can't handle "real warhammer"... if one has real skill then they should have no problem playing in any environment since their skill will enable them to win regardless of what list they take.

I personally don't think "skill" or "being able to handle real Warhammer" plays into it.
It's clearly a question of fundamental 'mindset'. This thread has made me realize it's not a question of 'right or wrong' but rather differing taste (and we all got one of those...) while even the pro-comp camp seems to agree - basically - that while they concider Comp necessary for Tournaments it's still the fluff-driven friendly games where WHFB really comes into its own right.

I think the idea of strangers coming together and enhancing the hobby makes sense, I even get the idea that - in that environment - you gear the game toward some kind of Tournament-style. It makes sense because not everyone in the room are childhood friends. It's just a shame that it leads to abuse, and the proposed need for comp, but I guess that's just human nature. Maybe you can't have one without the other..

Lord Inquisitor
05-12-2011, 04:57
You made your point ages ago. I just disagree with you. That's just the way it goes.

Comp is houseruling; it has nothing really to do with balance, fairness or variety, it has everything to do with someone enacting their vision of how a game should be played. I have no issue with that as I do it all the time, I just don't agree with all the other justifications that go along with that.

You will disagree with that.
So your feeling is that comp, even when decided upon by committee and play tested thoroughly, even if widely welcomed by tournament players, is nothing but an ego-centric power trip for the tournament organisers?

Yeah, I disagree. They're house rules alright, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose and one beyond the organisers' gratification.

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 05:04
So your feeling is that comp, even when decided upon by committee and play tested thoroughly, even if widely welcomed by tournament players, is nothing but an ego-centric power trip for the tournament organisers?

Yeah, I disagree. They're house rules alright, but that doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose and one beyond the organisers' gratification.

If I ever see comp that doesn't swing the ballance of power towards one style of game play I would agree with you.

ewar
05-12-2011, 07:54
Any chance we can keep this vaguely civil please?

Ah come on, it was hardly malicious?! Have these boards become that dry that we re not even allowed to poke a little fun? :shifty:

Echunia
05-12-2011, 07:55
I'd like to just come in and refer to what Dan Heelan once said:

Comp is not about creating the perfect balance. Comp is about cutting away the extremes to make the game more enjoyable.

The thing is, when you calculate the cost per game of going to a tournament, the cost really racks up. There's travelling, hotel rooms, food and tournament fees. In the end every game you go for is valuable and it's not ok if one of those games is a non-game. In a non-comp system you are very likely to face a list, in one of those 5 games, that just blows you out of the water.

Yes comp shifts the balance and there will always be "the list". But the fact of the matter is that with comp you actually cut away a lot of the stuff that destroys the enjoyment of the opponent. If anyone recalls Malorians hordestar thread I think what you know what I mean.

When I go to a tournament I pay upwards 50 euros for each game with all costs totalled, I do not want to go there and face something so filthy that it's not even a game. That is why I like comp.

Late
05-12-2011, 12:36
I always build my armies: Theme first, Aesthetics Second, Function Third and Comp Fourth.

I follow the same school of thought. I play with the same crew since 1994, we play mostly narrative campaigns. Only time I played in a tournament was in one that was organized by people from my university, and in the end people got so drunk that no-one cared who won :D

boli
05-12-2011, 13:21
Personally I have thought that comp rules restrict playstyles more than having none-comp rules. I mean if you put dozens of restrictions in; can't do this can't do that etc.... to be even vaguely competative most lists will be approximatly the same. The only changes I would make to any of the GW lists would be one thing:

- Victory points awarded for partial kills

I think that the compititions would open up a lot more; and you would have a lot more interesting games than simply oh its a skaven army...ahh I see he's done war machines right that's tactic #6. But if you came across a player who decided to field a unit of 200 stormvermin or a wood elf player who decided to field 80 glade riders in a single unit or a dwarf who invested heavily in his gunline.

I mean most of these "armies" would invalidate most comp rules; but it would force you to think more creatively. Whilst their "hordestar" and "perfect net lists" are a powerful force; in general they tend to be very one-dimentional in tactics and a good general can defeat them.

Without comp the good generals would still win out... but the variance in the battle they fought would be such that it wasnt a case of using the same 3 or 4 tactics to win... but actually having to think a lot more.

eron12
05-12-2011, 14:23
I'd like to just come in and refer to what Dan Heelan once said:

Comp is not about creating the perfect balance. Comp is about cutting away the extremes to make the game more enjoyable.

The thing is, when you calculate the cost per game of going to a tournament, the cost really racks up. There's travelling, hotel rooms, food and tournament fees. In the end every game you go for is valuable and it's not ok if one of those games is a non-game. In a non-comp system you are very likely to face a list, in one of those 5 games, that just blows you out of the water.

Yes comp shifts the balance and there will always be "the list". But the fact of the matter is that with comp you actually cut away a lot of the stuff that destroys the enjoyment of the opponent. If anyone recalls Malorians hordestar thread I think what you know what I mean.

When I go to a tournament I pay upwards 50 euros for each game with all costs totalled, I do not want to go there and face something so filthy that it's not even a game. That is why I like comp.

So comp is about catering to the middle? Taking out the lists that blow some players away rather than making them strive to overcome?

Artinam
05-12-2011, 14:47
You can' t really overcome them to be honest. Some lists and units are just better then others. Dark Elfs tooled to the extreme or specialised Demon armies just destroy any 'hardcore' Bretonnian army I put across them (in 7th and 8th). Unless my tactic of rolling a lot of 6+ Wardsaves works out.

It cuts out the lower tier lists eventually if you dont use comp. But as I said before tournaments consist out of competetive players test each other and compete to be the best at a dice game not intended for competetive play (which isnt bad, its what they like and want to do and I respect that), who in a higher comped tournament that tries to chase away the lists these players simply adjust their list to 'use' the rules the comp set up end result is the same. The other group are casual/fun/non-competetive players who want to meet new people and play a fun game of warhammer without employing the most optimal build out of various reasons. All players are somewhere between the two archtypes, or change inbetween.

I think the best way of solving this dillemma is determining beforehand if someone is a competetive player who is here to test his or her skills or a 'fun' (for a lack of a better word) player who just wants to play with others to see other armies. You can adjust the rules and prices to this (Id simply minimise prices, or make it something not valuable as a medal).

logan054
05-12-2011, 16:10
That's true. While I wouldn't mind getting a shot at beating a gunline like that, my Dwarf opponant in our closed off little gaming group have never fielded a one-sided list like that, ever. And I even suspect it's because he wouldn't enjoy it regardless of me cheering him on or not.

Glad you see it, I do like the quote from mr Heleen, I think it spot on, I personally hate these gimik lists, and I think what said you about your mate really highlights it, people will just take lists that they don't enjoy using and many people would simple not enjoy playing against but of the lack of a actual challenge in the game. I'm the kind of person who enjoys chaos hounds over chaos warriors :)


They should design "Tournaments" where being nasty/cheesy simply wasn't the point. Oh well, I've got a more multi-facetted view on this issue certainly! Thanks for that.

Well I am glad I am have open your eyes as to why people may impose a comp, people see the world tournament and for some reason think they are trying to be Olympic medalists or something.


As a dwarf player i find that dwarf gunline amusing....

Its illegal under 3000 points so i assume you are playing 3000+ with it....

That means most people will simply have too many troops for you to possibly kill....

Whats all this you business? I collect WoC, DE and VC thankyou very much :P as I said I don't think its a good list, just a boring list that makes for a enjoyable gaming experience, its going to win some games certainly but its going to be through luck more than anything, people will however do this kind of thing in a non-comped tournament, I'm sure it just so you look at it and say "you know what, I can't even be bothered to play you" and walk away. I think a good point was raised earlier, if you spend all this money on (for me atleast) getting a train to nottingham, paying for a hotel, paying for you ticket, buying drinks and food the least you can expect is a fun gaming experience. Fact is people throw sportsmanship out the window and bring these daft lists that suck every ounce of enjoyment from your weekend, you only really need to play one list like that and its ruined the experience.


So comp is about catering to the middle? Taking out the lists that blow some players away rather than making them strive to overcome?

sadly the basic balance is very much rock paper scissors, fact is if you play a certain list with your list your only chance of winning is pure luck, its not testing you or your opponent, a common example is if I play against a skaven dreaded 13th spam list with my WoC, it really doesn't matter how good my list is, fact is my units are going to removed turn after turn, If I am lucky then I will be able to deal with the grey seers before they do any real damage, chances are that won't happen. What if I play against a slann that can redirect his miscasts to me, discards my rolls of a 6 to cast and get a extra free powerdice for every spell and is using lore of life? that isn't enjoyable to play against, it isn't a challenge for me or my opponent, its simply a unbalanced combination. Sure I might win because I was lucky but I think Lizards are doing very well for a reason, it has nothing to do with player skill.

Duke_of_Krondor
05-12-2011, 16:54
Firstly, and most importantly, comparing Warhammer (or any table top game) to professional sport is ludicrous. Professional sport is there, as a fan, to exhibition hours of training, honed skills and a fair dose of natural talent for the masses - allowing entertainment for the fans. As a cynic, you could say it's there to make money for everyone involved. Personally, it's a bit of both.

Warhammer is a hobby (that encompasses modelling, painting and gaming) is designed (as with sports) to have fun. Some people have fun with all the hobby, some with individual aspects. It is, however, based on luck. There are no dice in football and, even a more statistically measurably sport like baseball, can't be compared to the whim of fortune. Statistics in sport can point towards the reliability of a player and whilst comparisons can be drawn, no amount of determination means a dice rolls well. It's a game designed to let people stretch their mind a little and tell stories. I think it's fantastic that people have found new ways to play/compete/grow the hobby with comp, challenging themselves and others. I'm not saying all comp is designed without individual experience (I've heard one T.O. say that one thing was included because the club had a bad experience with it) but, on the whole, TOs want people to turn up so 'bad comp' isn't prevalent from my knowledge.

To the point, referencing the above. I've played comped tournaments, I've played fluffy campaigns, I've played pickup games and I've played games where we've mixed up the rules/fluff a lot just to have a massive game. Comp can be nice to keep things fresh and there seems to be enough variety in tournaments to satisfy everyone. If you like comp, that's fine....if you don't then you don't. It's the absolute nature of some peoples opinions or the assumed over importance of a game of dice that seems to get people all heated. I first tried tournaments to see if I liked how they were run....and, fot the most part I did. Some people cared a bit too much but it's their hobby. I also love playing random games (helping kids in the store get better at their game, too) or just throwing some dice around against a friend. It never feels like the 'safety wheels' being on, just a different emphasis.

Man, I'm waffling now. Enjoy your game your own way, let people play it their way but, for the love of the dice gods, experience it all before having a go and then, if you don't like it, move on.

Poker may be televised and have lots of money, warhammer will never be. It's a game.

P.S. I appreciate my opinion is contrary to the point of teh interwebs, where every thinks they are right and that there are n00bs/hardcore/etc. I don't think people who play WAAC are hardcore, I don't think people who are starting off have any less valued opinions....and this is all just my opinion. Enjoy the game the way you want to because it's just that...a game.

Echunia
05-12-2011, 17:02
So comp is about catering to the middle? Taking out the lists that blow some players away rather than making them strive to overcome?

Well not really, comp is about this:

Getting a look out sir test vs dwellers

Say a VC players turns up and the first thing that happens to him is a dwellers to his general's bunker. He fails his strength test and his army crumbles. This person has not had any fun. His game that he paid 50 euros for is ruined. He could have had an hard as nails army but it just didn't matter. That is what comp is there to prevent.

In the end of the day you can't make warhammer super competitive as it's not a strict rule set. There are major flaws in how it's written and so on...

I know most of you US gamers have big communities and love hard boys and whatever. But let me try to make you understand how the situation is for me.

In my gaming group there are 1 or 2 other active warhammer players. We go to tournaments to have a good time and to play other people. There just is no more people in my area that like warhammer atm.

Most people I know like to go to tournaments to be competitive AND have fun, the two are not exclusive. In a non comp environment you will have to take a boring list with many armies to compete. If it isn't fun to play then why go?

So yes, comp is there to make the tournament more enjoyable to everyone. Like many have stated there is still the best choices and people who want to be WAAC can still take what is best. But at the middle tables, we normal people, will also have fun.

Lord Inquisitor
05-12-2011, 17:21
If I ever see comp that doesn't swing the ballance of power towards one style of game play I would agree with you.
Different comps can promote different styles of play indeed but to some degree that's the whole point. I think that's not the same as saying it's an ego-trip for the organisers. Of course style of play is going to be affected.


Firstly, and most importantly, comparing Warhammer (or any table top game) to professional sport is ludicrous. Professional sport is there, as a fan, to exhibition hours of training, honed skills and a fair dose of natural talent for the masses - allowing entertainment for the fans. As a cynic, you could say it's there to make money for everyone involved. Personally, it's a bit of both.

Warhammer is a hobby (that encompasses modelling, painting and gaming) is designed (as with sports) to have fun. Some people have fun with all the hobby, some with individual aspects. It is, however, based on luck. There are no dice in football and, even a more statistically measurably sport like baseball, can't be compared to the whim of fortune. Statistics in sport can point towards the reliability of a player and whilst comparisons can be drawn, no amount of determination means a dice rolls well. It's a game designed to let people stretch their mind a little and tell stories. I think it's fantastic that people have found new ways to play/compete/grow the hobby with comp, challenging themselves and others. I'm not saying all comp is designed without individual experience (I've heard one T.O. say that one thing was included because the club had a bad experience with it) but, on the whole, TOs want people to turn up so 'bad comp' isn't prevalent from my knowledge.
:eyebrows: People don't play sports for fun? Or have competitions that aren't international televised events?

I'm not saying WH tournaments are comparable in terms of dedication or watchability or physical skill or anything like that to professional sports. The point was about comp and that if you want to promote a style of play in any competitive game or sport, you have to impose restrictions or people will use the most effective method.


Comp can be nice to keep things fresh and there seems to be enough variety in tournaments to satisfy everyone. If you like comp, that's fine....if you don't then you don't. It's the absolute nature of some peoples opinions or the assumed over importance of a game of dice that seems to get people all heated.
I agree. I like comp. I also like no comp. I wouldn't really want to play 100% one way or the other. Some people seem to take comp as a personal affront, rather than a new challenge. Others seem to regard zero-comp tournaments as the height of *************. Which I also don't get - if we're playing zero comp then I expect the cheesiest list you can come up with - bring your Ld-bomb, chosenstar, mindrazor FTW. Personally I like the Ard Boyz for the sheer cheese-infested fun lists you see (empire with 18 warmachines, etc). But I don't want to play like that all the time and heavy comp really increases the challenge to be had in my opinion.


Poker may be televised and have lots of money, warhammer will never be. It's a game.
Be a lot more interesting to watch! :p

logan054
05-12-2011, 17:54
I agree. I like comp. I also like no comp. I wouldn't really want to play 100% one way or the other. Some people seem to take comp as a personal affront, rather than a new challenge. Others seem to regard zero-comp tournaments as the height of *************. Which I also don't get - if we're playing zero comp then I expect the cheesiest list you can come up with - bring your Ld-bomb, chosenstar, mindrazor FTW. Personally I like the Ard Boyz for the sheer cheese-infested fun lists you see (empire with 18 warmachines, etc). But I don't want to play like that all the time and heavy comp really increases the challenge to be had in my opinion.

I personally dislike the notion that zero comp is how warhammer should be played and any other way is wrong, I generally avoid such events because I simply don't enjoy them. I've played them and I find the top tables are about as much fun as watching paint dry while the bottom tables are to easy (but much nicer guys). If that makes you happy then knock yourself (speaking generally here and not at you before you get your knickers in a knot :P), just don't act like someones attempt to make a game more fun is some sort ego trip or enforcing a play style on anyone. Its for those people who actually like playing with armies rather a bunch of small units (I don't find the look that appealing).

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 19:28
Well not really, comp is about this:

Getting a look out sir test vs dwellers

Say a VC players turns up and the first thing that happens to him is a dwellers to his general's bunker. He fails his strength test and his army crumbles. This person has not had any fun. His game that he paid 50 euros for is ruined. He could have had an hard as nails army but it just didn't matter. That is what comp is there to prevent.

In the end of the day you can't make warhammer super competitive as it's not a strict rule set. There are major flaws in how it's written and so on...

I know most of you US gamers have big communities and love hard boys and whatever. But let me try to make you understand how the situation is for me.

In my gaming group there are 1 or 2 other active warhammer players. We go to tournaments to have a good time and to play other people. There just is no more people in my area that like warhammer atm.

Most people I know like to go to tournaments to be competitive AND have fun, the two are not exclusive. In a non comp environment you will have to take a boring list with many armies to compete. If it isn't fun to play then why go?

So yes, comp is there to make the tournament more enjoyable to everyone. Like many have stated there is still the best choices and people who want to be WAAC can still take what is best. But at the middle tables, we normal people, will also have fun.

So you agree with comping out the one major disavantage to an army? That is exactly whats wrong with comp. Hell I want to not have to roll for animosity with my orcs, lets comp that out as well. Do you also want all things that snipe or that can issue challenges to be compd out to, they can kill your general as well. :cries:

Echunia
05-12-2011, 19:30
So you agree with comping out the one major disavantage to an army? That is exactly whats wrong with comp. Hell I want to not have to roll for animosity with my orcs, lets comp that out as well. Do you also want all things that snipe or that can issue challenges to be compd out as well, they can kill your general as well. :cries:

Well now, let's not be silly...

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 19:32
Well now, let's not be silly...

Comp is silly.

Echunia
05-12-2011, 19:46
Comp is silly.

Your silly :p

But on a serious note. There's a reason that look out sir for the character kill spells are in almost every tournament in the UK. Even when they have no further restrictions. It's just not fun and it's not the only way to kill a general.

Dwellers as I see it is to kill big hordes and deathstars, not to gibb generals on the first turn. As some one said previously, you might as well go look at paint dry.

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 20:03
Your silly :p

But on a serious note. There's a reason that look out sir for the character kill spells are in almost every tournament in the UK. Even when they have no further restrictions. It's just not fun and it's not the only way to kill a general.

Dwellers as I see it is to kill big hordes and deathstars, not to gibb generals on the first turn. As some one said previously, you might as well go look at paint dry.

The spell only has a boosted range of 24", why is the VC player allowed to be dumb enough to get him sniped on the first turn and not made to pay for it by losing his general. Its not like you can hit across the table with it.

Lord Inquisitor
05-12-2011, 20:07
I personally dislike the notion that zero comp is how warhammer should be played and any other way is wrong, I generally avoid such events because I simply don't enjoy them. I've played them and I find the top tables are about as much fun as watching paint dry while the bottom tables are to easy (but much nicer guys). If that makes you happy then knock yourself (speaking generally here and not at you before you get your knickers in a knot :P), just don't act like someones attempt to make a game more fun is some sort ego trip or enforcing a play style on anyone. Its for those people who actually like playing with armies rather a bunch of small units (I don't find the look that appealing).
My knickers aren't in a knot - I've been largely a proponent for comp in this thread ;). However, my experiences with no-comp and comp tournaments don't lead me to believe there really is much difference in the niceness of player you face. Top table players tend to be a bit more serious, but I've had some absolutely great opponents in zero comp tournaments and paint-dry ones in heavy comp. I haven't really seen a difference in the ratio. I don't think comp keeps the "bad apples" out and that shouldn't be a key reason for it.


So you agree with comping out the one major disavantage to an army? That is exactly whats wrong with comp. Hell I want to not have to roll for animosity with my orcs, lets comp that out as well. Do you also want all things that snipe or that can issue challenges to be compd out to, they can kill your general as well. :cries:
It isn't just vamps. The thing about dwellers and the like is that, well, it just isn't fun having your characters toasted by a IF spell - it is just annoying. There's nothing you can do about it, no Wards or Magic Res will help. Last tournament I had both my Level 4 and General killed by an IF dwellers on my unit and it's certainly frustrating. "Because it's annoying and takes no skill" is certainly an argument for a house rule. Given that it's perhaps the most common "tournament house rule" it has a lot of favour.

The magic gets heavily comped often because, frankly, it's a bit much. It's pretty easy to see that the game designers have recognised this if you look at the unique Lores in the last three books. Ogre gut magic is just embarrassing compared with Lore of Life! Many of the spells are directly comparable - flesh to stone +2T 24" range vs the ogre +1T 12" range spell is just not even funny.

Stuff that can, with a little luck but not much thought, effectively end a game tends to get comped. The old powerscroll was almost universally banned even from tournaments that had no comp of any kind other than that because it could, with the right matchup achieve a turn 1 win.

Tournament organisers and players tend to want games to be about combat between mighty armies. They don't want to face Teclis+100 archers + banner of world dragon in Folding Fortress (and 2 eagles) because that sucks. It's not a fun game. And, weirdly, tournament organisers tend to want their events to be fun.

mbh1127
05-12-2011, 20:12
comp is for the players that arent good enough generals. a true general will abuse everything at his disposal for the win. In reality a general wont send unarmed soldiers in against the taliban just to even things out for them. he will send so much armour in that they dont know what to do about it, and continue to cram it down their throats till they give in or arent there anymore. I shouldnt be penalised because i want to win enough to take 'crutches'. its in the army book because gw saw fit to put it there, so its my right to use it in my endevours to win. if my opponant doesnt want to take them and limit his list he wis welcome too, but that shouldnt stop those who want to take it.

ugh

way off

I started playing WHFB waaaaay back at the start of 4th edition and I felt just like this. I was also 12 or 13 at the time.

I'm totally on the other end at this point and it has nothing to do with my level of skill. It's just silly that you equate not wanting to play with cheese as being a bad player.

I really just don't find the ultra serious tournament play to be appealing at all.

You also touch on the intent of the game makers in your post. I can't say for certain but it seems that warhammer was created as a garage game for friends and not really a tournament game.

But the nice thing about this game is that you can play any way you want. I have nothing against serious tournament players, but I do appreciate that some tournaments have comp for other side of the coin.

Echunia
05-12-2011, 20:18
"snip"

What he said :rolleyes:

rodmillard
05-12-2011, 20:35
The thing with Comp systems is that they don't stop people being WAAC fethwits, they just shift the goal posts so people who are going to abuse the system do it in different ways. The last tourney I attended at my LGS just had no SC, 0-2 of each special and 0-1 of each rare. I think they banned the power scroll as well (this was before the ammendment), and while it levelled the playing field somewhat it didn't stop people trying to abuse the system.

When I was running tournaments at uni we used list scoring and matched the players up for the first round based on their list scores (list scores were only used to determine the winner in the event of a tie, which never happened IIRC). Its by no means perfect, but it did mean that the hardcore competetive gamers tended to end up against each other, while those who brought fluff lists and/or were there for the game not the prizes faced off against people who felt the same way so everyone got the kind of event they wanted.

So while I don't particularly like comp systems, they are necessary to level the playing field between (say) Skaven and Wood Elves - they also make sure players (and judges) know what they are getting into when they sign up. From what I've seen of the 8th ed army books so far, GW is doing a pretty good job of levelling the playing field without the need for comp, but we're not there yet. Maybe by the time every army has an 8th ed standard book people will say we don't need comp, but by then we'll be into 9th ed and that's a whole new can of worms...

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 20:51
It isn't just vamps. The thing about dwellers and the like is that, well, it just isn't fun having your characters toasted by a IF spell - it is just annoying. There's nothing you can do about it, no Wards or Magic Res will help. Last tournament I had both my Level 4 and General killed by an IF dwellers on my unit and it's certainly frustrating. "Because it's annoying and takes no skill" is certainly an argument for a house rule. Given that it's perhaps the most common "tournament house rule" it has a lot of favour.

It would appear you made a collosal mistake and "put all your eggs in one basket", people being very poor strategists and generals should not affect the rules.





Stuff that can, with a little luck but not much thought, effectively end a game tends to get comped. The old powerscroll was almost universally banned even from tournaments that had no comp of any kind other than that because it could, with the right matchup achieve a turn 1 win.

Tournament organisers and players tend to want games to be about combat between mighty armies. They don't want to face Teclis+100 archers + banner of world dragon in Folding Fortress (and 2 eagles) because that sucks. It's not a fun game. And, weirdly, tournament organisers tend to want their events to be fun.

I can see why you would not want too see that list, if you have all your characters(and most likely your points) in one slow moving unit, you would want to gear the game against any sort of ranged attacks.

Skyth
05-12-2011, 21:09
There seems to be a huge misunderstanding. That army is comped out not because it can't be beat, but rather because it's a rock-paper-scissors army that isn't fun to play or play against.

Lord Inquisitor
05-12-2011, 21:33
It would appear you made a collosal mistake and "put all your eggs in one basket", people being very poor strategists and generals should not affect the rules.
Ah, I see. I'm just a poor strategist and a poor general for putting two characters in one unit (shock!) and WAAH IT'S NOT FAIR I WANT THAT BANNED. :rolleyes:

I still won the game and the tournament. :shifty:

I suggest you re-read what I'm saying. Addressing "overpowered" stuff is not an end in and of itself. It is a means to creating a more fun playing environment.


I can see why you would not want too see that list, if you have all your characters(and most likely your points) in one slow moving unit, you would want to gear the game against any sort of ranged attacks.
My max-cheese ard boyz tournament daemon army would eat that build for breakfast. However, most armies cannot. If I came across it with Ogres - with ANY build of ogres - I would simply put my whole army in the corner and go for a draw because there is no way for ogres to crack that building. Flat out. It can't be done, not with shooting or combat because I can't apply enough attacks even if I were in combat all six turns to kill everyone in the unit or bring attacks to bear on Teclis, so I'd have to break them. That means - assuming I was actually in combat all six turns, and I win combat six times (most unlikely with Teclis in there!), probability of them failing a test on Ld 10 with a re-roll = 0.04 (total probability for 1 or more of 6 tests failing). There's a less than 1 in 20 chance that I can get that unit out of the building if I win combat 6 times!. Bugger that, I'll sit in the corner and hope the opponent can't kill anything and get a draw because there is NOTHING ogres can do to beat that build. Don't insult my intelligence by telling me it's my tactics that won't beat that build.

That's what comp is needed for. To prevent matchups like that or non-games where both players refuse to move. The knock-on effect is that I wouldn't bring my Ogres to a comp-less tournament because if I run into a build like that, there's just nothing I can do. So I'll bring daemons. An event that allows me to bring ogres OR daemons is, to me, more fun, because even with restrictions, it encourages variety on the tabletop and enhances the fun of the event.

Edit: Exactly what Skyth says, the Teclis tower is Rock. Certain Warrior, Daemon and Skaven lists are Paper and can take out the Teclis list without much trouble at all. Most armies are Scissors and just literally can't beat that build.

logan054
05-12-2011, 21:48
My knickers aren't in a knot - I've been largely a proponent for comp in this thread ;). However, my experiences with no-comp and comp tournaments don't lead me to believe there really is much difference in the niceness of player you face. Top table players tend to be a bit more serious, but I've had some absolutely great opponents in zero comp tournaments and paint-dry ones in heavy comp. I haven't really seen a difference in the ratio. I don't think comp keeps the "bad apples" out and that shouldn't be a key reason for it.


lol no I know you have, I was taking the **** slightly and letting you know the post wasn't aimed at yourself as you have been pretty pro comps :p


There seems to be a huge misunderstanding. That army is comped out not because it can't be beat, but rather because it's a rock-paper-scissors army that isn't fun to play or play against.

No, I think most people here know that without a comp warhammer can be a over glorified version of rock, paper, scissors, I personally list examples of someones paper to my rock (ie skaven and the dreaded 13th), I think most lists based around MI will do really well against such a list, my list based around crazy barbarians won't :( stupid rat men


It would appear you made a collosal mistake and "put all your eggs in one basket", people being very poor strategists and generals should not affect the rules.

I was unaware putting a your general in a unit was putting all your eggs in one basket, I always put my characters in units, just seems like the normal thing to do, I guess I must be doing something wrong....

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 22:04
I was unaware putting a your general in a unit was putting all your eggs in one basket, I always put my characters in units, just seems like the normal thing to do, I guess I must be doing something wrong....

He said he had his general and level 4 in the same unit. That is pretty dumb to do when there are spells that can(and did) kill them both at once. That is putting all your eggs in one basket.

Good players adapt to the game they play, bad players adapt the game to the way they play.

Skyth
05-12-2011, 22:09
This has nothing to do with good players or bad players. It has to do with fun and not creating bad matchups.

logan054
05-12-2011, 22:09
He said he had his general and level 4 in the same unit. That is pretty dumb to do when there are spells that can(and did) kill them both at once. That is putting all your eggs in one basket.

lol I thought he was still talking about vamps :p still I think the point on vampires is very valid, IF force dwellers, kill the unit. get a lucky kill on the vampire, its game over really, army starts to fall apart, you could just stand on the back line and watch as his army crumbled walking towards. Even if it had been just his wizard that could seriously damage his chances at winning the game, why a lucky roll. I've had it happen to me, just debuffed to shadow magic, was enjoyable....


Good players adapt to the game they play, bad players adapt the game to the way they play.

I must just be a terrible player then, i guess I could go back to my Tzeentch list and using the pandemonium hellcannon combo which still isn't reliable way of doing it, fact of the matter is lucky roll on the dreaded 13th will kill my magic defense in a turn, just takes a double 6 on turn 1, then again i could get a double 6 with my gateway, well damn, thats it! if I spam gateway and hope for S11-12 or get lucky with my hellcannon and pandemonium I have suddenly become a better player!! Well thanks, because of your inspiring words I had a revelation! wait no I didn't, I just realized that for me to beat skaven regularly I have to use magic as a crutch and hope I'm lucky ;) kinda like have skaven players have to use dreaded 13th as a crutch to beat armies.

Before you mention puppet, I have to be alive to use puppet, if I am taken out by dreaded 13th (as the spell is worked out first) then I can modify the result, I know the skaven player is going to be aiming for him and his unit first.

The Low King
05-12-2011, 22:09
I still dont like comp in general, it all seems to cut out much of what i like about 8th (hordes and steadfast units) without dealing with what i dislike (deathstars).

Most warmachine comps also prevent me being able to take a gyrocopter or two as i need to take the cannons, grudge throwers and organ guns first...they also usually prevent me being able to take the (weak) anvil if i want to..

Most ranged units comps hurt my skink heavy lizardmen army and my almost entirely ranged woodelf list....both fluffy yet disallowed.

Dispell dice comps weaken my dwarfs dispell abilities yet at the same time leave some builds at the same strength.


Comp is an idealistic approach, it assumes that what is 'too good' or 'broken' is clear cut and easily defined. It also assumes that comp will have either the same effect on all armies or more of an effect on the better ones...


Im sure knights found the invention of the crossbow or musket very over powered.....

Lord Inquisitor
05-12-2011, 22:20
He said he had his general and level 4 in the same unit. That is pretty dumb to do when there are spells that can(and did) kill them both at once. That is putting all your eggs in one basket.

Good players adapt to the game they play, bad players adapt the game to the way they play.

Again, I'm a bad player and I want to adapt the game to suit me, eh?

I won the Southern Assault GT this year (very little comp) and Brawler Bash GT last year (comp scored). I placed 3rd overall at the Border Raids with heavy comp (how about banning Daemons and Lore of Shadow altogether?) and I placed (joint) 3rd at this year's Ard Boyz final in Media (no comp). I'm ranked 36th in the USA according to Rankings HQ. I'm not claiming to be best but dammit I reckon I'm not bad.

Sod off, basically. I went 9 wins out of 9 games at Ard Boyz this year, 5 of them massacres. I can play zero comp. I enjoyed it too (it's fun to break out the cheese once in a while) but can you get it into your head that I actually like comp because it makes the games more fun not because I can't handle it? Jeez. :mad:

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 22:31
Again, I'm a bad player and I want to adapt the game to suit me, eh?

I won the Southern Assault GT this year (very little comp) and Brawler Bash GT last year (comp scored). I placed 3rd overall at the Border Raids with heavy comp (how about banning Daemons and Lore of Shadow altogether?) and I placed (joint) 3rd at this year's Ard Boyz final in Media (no comp). I'm ranked 36th in the USA according to Rankings HQ. I'm not claiming to be best but dammit I reckon I'm not bad.

Sod off, basically. I went 9 wins out of 9 games at Ard Boyz this year, 5 of them massacres. I can play zero comp. I enjoyed it too (it's fun to break out the cheese once in a while) but can you get it into your head that I actually like comp because it makes the games more fun not because I can't handle it? Jeez. :mad:

You seem really proud of those accomplishments, congrats on your win(s).

I do find it perplexing though as you write about making collosal mistakes and then still winning, how bad were your opponents? When I win tournements(not in warhammer) and the competition was bad I feel kinda bad about even putting those wins on my resume.

logan054
05-12-2011, 22:36
Most warmachine comps also prevent me being able to take a gyrocopter or two as i need to take the cannons, grudge throwers and organ guns first...they also usually prevent me being able to take the (weak) anvil if i want to..

You could just take one less warmachine, if you really want to use it that much, maybe take one less grudge thrower or skip the anvil, if your not doing that then you don't want to use it that much. I take one less unit of chaos warriors with halberds because I want to use my chaos warriors with great weapons.


Most ranged units comps hurt my skink heavy lizardmen army and my almost entirely ranged woodelf list....both fluffy yet disallowed.

So your moaning that you can't use your poison spam list, damn, thats a shame, they are so fun to play against! whats that 60 poison shoots on your dragon lord/greater daemon, whats that, I just killed the dragon/greater daemon ( I don't use dragon lords or greater daemons). You know your poison spam list makes most monsters unusable, I mean you say its fluffy but it seriously is just a poison spam list.

8th ed made WE unplayable with the nerf to skirmishes long before people started writing comps, they need a new book.


Dispell dice comps weaken my dwarfs dispell abilities yet at the same time leave some builds at the same strength.

Yes they do, some builds completely shut down magic phases, its rather annoying, especially for my WoC, so you can still shoot me but I can't use magic, wish I had a counter to shooting like that.

Duke Ramulots
05-12-2011, 23:00
Yes they do, some builds completely shut down magic phases, its rather annoying, especially for my WoC, so you can still shoot me but I can't use magic, wish I had a counter to shooting like that.

It's called cavalry and you do have it.

logan054
05-12-2011, 23:11
It's called cavalry and you do have it.

Cavalry doesn't shut down a entire shooting phase from turn one, it can pick it apart piece by piece over several turns, not even in the same league, my old mono Khorne army used to generate masses of dispel dice back in 6/7th, before the WoC book, I thought that was pretty OTT as well, I actually had to make a conscious effort not to take to many dispel dice.

Skyth
05-12-2011, 23:59
And having access to calvary doesn't fundamentally change the argument. It is still showing a failure to even understand the argument for comp that is being presented.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 00:16
And having access to calvary doesn't fundamentally change the argument. It is still showing a failure to even understand the argument for comp that is being presented.

He said he wanted a counter to shooting. If the opponent spends points to have anti-magic , then you can spend points to counter the inevitable shooting you're going to run into. In the given example of WoC vs. Dwarfs, the anti-magic is gonna run around 400 points for an anvil, runelord, and runesmith. That's a whole lot of marauder horsemen to counter any shooting that you might be worried about. With a vanguard move and then charge(given ou dont go first) you have a free run across the field with your killy units. But, if you run your standard chosenstar, yes you're screwed if the other guy plays a gunline, so just comp out shooting to once again adapt the game instead of the player.

Skyth
06-12-2011, 00:23
And again, you fail to even understand the argument.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 00:29
And again, you fail to even understand the argument.

Then enlighten me.

logan054
06-12-2011, 00:31
He said he wanted a counter to shooting. If the opponent spends points to have anti-magic

Actually never said anything about wanting a counter to shooting, I was making a analogy, a whole lot of marauder horsemen would also mean the list would struggle against anything with large blocks of infantry, however taking a runelord and a runesmith with a rune of stealing powerdice will not effect the armies ability to compete in other phases, it will just give them a decent magic defense for minimal points, another point is those characters will still make perfectly fine combat characters. You saying the comp screws over dwarfs, it simply doesn't, it prevents them shutting down magic phases, no other army has such a hard counter for a phase they cannot compete in (hence the use of WoC), A anvil also isn't require to for anti-magic, a Lord and smith with stealing power dice will create a 4 dice swing in your favor, with the army dispel rule you should be in a good position to counter enemy magic phases.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 00:35
Actually never said anything about wanting a counter to shooting, I was making a analogy

Yep, an analogy about anti-magic + shooting > WoC. I just posted that it was a poor anology. Silly me for giving you a way around the shooting that gives you a fair chance of success.

logan054
06-12-2011, 00:39
Yep, an analogy about anti-magic + shooting > WoC. I just posted that it was a poor anology. Silly me for giving you a way around the shooting that gives you a fair chance of success.

Its a very good analogy actually, you are taking two armies that cannot compete in a phase and looking at the counters, I didn't ask you for a counter to shooting, I have my own counters which seem to work fine, they however do not completely counter enemy shooting from turn one which is what your missing.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 00:52
Its a very good analogy actually, you are taking two armies that cannot compete in a phase and looking at the counters, I didn't ask you for a counter to shooting, I have my own counters which seem to work fine, they however do not completely counter enemy shooting from turn one which is what your missing.

No I am not "missing" that point, Im debating it.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 01:00
You could just take one less warmachine, if you really want to use it that much, maybe take one less grudge thrower or skip the anvil, if your not doing that then you don't want to use it that much. I take one less unit of chaos warriors with halberds because I want to use my chaos warriors with great weapons.

Bad comparison. At 2400 point dwarfs generally have to take either a killy lord or a pair of cannons to have a good counter to monsters. Cannons are usually the better option. Even if i scrapped both in favour of my gyros i still need something to support them, usually a pair of grudgethrowers and an organ gun/bolt thrower. There are some warmachines most dwarf lists just need to be able to deal with certain things (that you can still get with comp).


So your moaning that you can't use your poison spam list, damn, thats a shame, they are so fun to play against! whats that 60 poison shoots on your dragon lord/greater daemon, whats that, I just killed the dragon/greater daemon ( I don't use dragon lords or greater daemons). You know your poison spam list makes most monsters unusable, I mean you say its fluffy but it seriously is just a poison spam list.

Was thinking more of my javalin skink units actually....seeming as ETC only counts 20"+ weapons so for that you can still do poison spam. Also, its really only unarmoured monsters poison works against.


8th ed made WE unplayable with the nerf to skirmishes long before people started writing comps, they need a new book.

No, it just made them difficult to play. Shooting skirmishers are still really good. My 2400pt list has like 60 ranged guys in there.



Yes they do, some builds completely shut down magic phases, its rather annoying, especially for my WoC, so you can still shoot me but I can't use magic, wish I had a counter to shooting like that.

you do:
-Ward saves
-Warmachine hunters
-Cavalry
-Skirmishers
-cheap blocks
-anything that can fly

I spend 300 points to block maybe 70-80% of a decent magic phase (by that i mean a level 4 with an item of some sorts). That costs about 400 points. A 50pt eagle can kill all my warmachines .

In order to compeltely shut down a magic phase (ie, have more DD dice than you no matter what) i need to spend somewhere in the region of 600pts.

logan054
06-12-2011, 01:07
No I am not "missing" that point, Im debating it.

You are? I haven't seen you explain why they are not a valid comparison, thing is magic dice generation is a rule based on a old magic mechanic which no longer works. I don't see why a army that does not compete in a phase should have hard counters to it such as dwarfs have for magic, I actually haven't seen a single reason why other than they need it. My WoC can't compete in the shooting phase, they do not have the same sort of counter, obviously armies don't need it. That isn't to say they shouldn't have counters but they shouldn't deny another army the ability to use a phase they do not compete in, take the edge off certainly.

The reason for shooting is its something dwarfs rely on rather than magic, if armies had the ability to shut down dwarf shooting the same way dwarfs can with magic people would scream bloody murder.

I guess I will just repeat, dispel dice and power dice generation is not something designed for 8th, its designed for 6th and 7th ed, dwarfs generated dispel because enemy wizards generated powerdice. Anyone who even attempts to say its balanced for 8th or even needed is joking, restricting it just stops people abusing old mechanics which should been errated.


Bad comparison. At 2400 point dwarfs generally have to take either a killy lord or a pair of cannons to have a good counter to monsters. Cannons are usually the better option. Even if i scrapped both in favour of my gyros i still need something to support them, usually a pair of grudgethrowers and an organ gun/bolt thrower. There are some warmachines most dwarf lists just need to be able to deal with certain things (that you can still get with comp).

So your saying that could just take a killy lord rather than the cannons and have your gyros correct? you just said dwarfs usually take a killy lord of a pair of cannons ;)


Was thinking more of my javalin skink units actually....seeming as ETC only counts 20"+ weapons so for that you can still do poison spam. Also, its really only unarmoured monsters poison works against.

right so you can get round it then and have your "fluff" poison spame correct? poison seems to work on most monsters die to sheer number, hence why it annoys people


No, it just made them difficult to play. Shooting skirmishers are still really good. My 2400pt list has like 60 ranged guys in there.

That would be fine in plenty of comps, I stopped paying attention to the ETC comp ages ago, no idea what it was, basically you have taken a single bad comp and decided they are all the same and ruin your hobby


you do:
-Ward saves
-Warmachine hunters
-Cavalry
-Skirmishers
-cheap blocks
-anything that can fly

Nothing in that list shuts down a shooting phase from turn one, now we are just turning this into something its not, jesus, my point wasn't "I need better counters to shooting" my point was "Dwarfs don't need the counter to magic they have" no one else has the same kind f counter to a phase they do not compete in, your just twisting this into something its not.


I spend 300 points to block maybe 70-80% of a decent magic phase (by that i mean a level 4 with an item of some sorts). That costs about 400 points. A 50pt eagle can kill all my warmachines .

A 50 pts eagle cannot kill all your warmachines from turn one, seriously now, it can maybe kill one on turn two but its more than likely bein combat for two turns, if you have 6 warmachines then you need 6 eagles to kill them in a turn unless it has some magic stretching base of doom.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 01:11
it is not balanced FOR 8th but it is balanced IN 8th.

Dwarfs are good at dispelling because it is in their fluff.

Also, you clearly havent been on the end of a purple sun rolling through you warmachines or a bunch of warmachine hunters making it through your lines. I rarely get a game where my warmachines all survive.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 01:15
Countering it is competing in it. When you spend 400+ points to counter it, you have a huge investment to competing in it.

If you spend 400+ points in dealing with shooting, you will defeat the shooting with about the same efectiveness that they cancel out your magic.

logan054
06-12-2011, 01:24
it is not balanced FOR 8th but it is balanced IN 8th.

Dwarfs are good at dispelling because it is in their fluff.

Also, you clearly havent been on the end of a purple sun rolling through you warmachines or a bunch of warmachine hunters making it through your lines. I rarely get a game where my warmachines all survive.

Not saying they shouldn't be good at dispelling, your twisting what I said, I said they shouldn't be able to shut down a magic phase, slight difference, so your saying every game, every single warmachine dies turn one?

Purple sun isn't exactly a reliable way to kill warmachines, has to get into position first, if its on a flying wizard I assume they are dead within a turn.


Countering it is competing in it. When you spend 400+ points to counter it, you have a huge investment to competing in it.

thing is with how magic works, it doesn't matter how much you spend on magic, past your first wizard all you are really doing do is spending points on a better variety of spells, with dwarfs or any army that generates dispel dice, the more you spend, the more powerful your magic defense becomes.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 01:49
Nothing in that list shuts down a shooting phase from turn one, now we are just turning this into something its not, jesus, my point wasn't "I need better counters to shooting" my point was "Dwarfs don't need the counter to magic they have" no one else has the same kind f counter to a phase they do not compete in, your just twisting this into something its not..

Ok then, back to your OP. Why not? warmachines are infinitly easier to kill than a wizard hiding is some chaff unit. They also do far less damage.

Ive tried taking less magic defence in games. I took a runesmith at 2400 points rather than a runelord. A single level 4 dark elf sourceress with the dagger managed to pretty much destroy my army. Since then i refuse to go less than a 4 dice swing (runelord+MRoBalance) as i simply cant protect my army.

Every other army can take a wizard. If the enemy drops a purple sun on you, you can do the same to them. dwarfs cant.

Every other army also has the advantage that if the enemy doesnt take a wizard they can do something; with dwarfs we have 300 pts sitting around doing nothing because we have to take lots of defence for those 90% of games with an enemy wizard.


Not saying they shouldn't be good at dispelling, your twisting what I said, I said they shouldn't be able to shut down a magic phase, slight difference, so your saying every game, every single warmachine dies turn one?.

They cant. My 300 pt, geared up runelord manages to completely shut down a magic phase (only a phase, not the entire game) every so often due to luck (low PD roll, failed concentration first spell etc) but fails to stop anything an equal amount of times.


Purple sun isn't exactly a reliable way to kill warmachines, has to get into position first, if its on a flying wizard I assume they are dead within a turn..

Its an example, a warmachine fails all characteristsic tests. lone models can easily get ward saves vs dwarf wrmachines.



thing is with how magic works, it doesn't matter how much you spend on magic, past your first wizard all you are really doing do is spending points on a better variety of spells, with dwarfs or any army that generates dispel dice, the more you spend, the more powerful your magic defense becomes.

the more you go for the more costly it becomes. At 300 points i can get a 4 dice swing. At 500 a 5 dice swing. 600 a 6 dice swing. 800 for a 7 dice swing.

Casters lose efficiency after about 2 of them (average of 7 dice no longer enough). Ive never seen a dwarf player take more than a runelord and a runesmith at <3000pts.


Btw, the two main arguments i have as a dwarf player are about their cannons and about their dispelling ability. Ive heard all the same arguments before for both and still disagree. In fact, my personal veiw is that runelords/smiths shouldbe slightly more expensive (like 20 points more) but do something aswell as generate dispel dice. You will find many dwarf players with similar veiws. I hate the fact that every game the first thing i have to add is 300 points of runelord in order to make a list playable.

logan054
06-12-2011, 02:33
Ok then, back to your OP. Why not? warmachines are infinitly easier to kill than a wizard hiding is some chaff unit. They also do far less damage.

Ive tried taking less magic defence in games. I took a runesmith at 2400 points rather than a runelord. A single level 4 dark elf sourceress with the dagger managed to pretty much destroy my army. Since then i refuse to go less than a 4 dice swing (runelord+MRoBalance) as i simply cant protect my army.

Every other army can take a wizard. If the enemy drops a purple sun on you, you can do the same to them. dwarfs cant.

Every other army also has the advantage that if the enemy doesnt take a wizard they can do something; with dwarfs we have 300 pts sitting around doing nothing because we have to take lots of defence for those 90% of games with an enemy wizard.

I assume you mean 300pts of characters sitting in large blocks of GW warriors waiting for the opponent to come to you, how is that any different to a dwarf lord? yes he is weaker in combat but he is still WS6 and can pump out S6 attacks with T5.

You realize I class the dagger as exactly the same thing, I have said many times generating additional power dice and dispel dice is a mechanic from a outdated system. The dagger would also be effected by the same comp that brought about this discussion in the first place! You shouldn't be able to protect you whole army from magic! if I take a lvl4 wizard I can't protect my whole army from magic either. Now even with a 4 dice swing on average dice that 7 dice (7PD, 4 DP) becomes 6PD and 8DP, you should be able to stop most of the magic.

Hey I don't even pretend magic is balanced, i personally hate some of the mega spells, everyone else has to suffer them, just because you collect a army that doesn't use them shouldn't really mean you don't have to suffer them either.

Again not saying every army shouldn't have a advantage, dwarfs should be able to counter important spells, just not shut down magic phases, its a big difference.


They cant. My 300 pt, geared up runelord manages to completely shut down a magic phase (only a phase, not the entire game) every so often due to luck (low PD roll, failed concentration first spell etc) but fails to stop anything an equal amount of times.

But you don't just take a geared up runelord do you, their counter magic needs to be changed to reflect the nature of 8th, currently is gear towards 7th. Back when it was created every army got a stronger magic phase the more it spend, that isn't how it is now and that is how the dwarf counter magic is balanced. You can't say its balanced, it isn't, they simply need a new book like so many others, this is part of the reason for comps, so many books are still in need of new books, items and abilities that may have been fine in 7th are just abusable in 8th.


Its an example, a warmachine fails all characteristsic tests. lone models can easily get ward saves vs dwarf wrmachines.

Certain models can get wardsaves against warmachines, its not like every single unit in a army can have a 4+ wardsave against shooting, it can reduce it, then again once you shoot them you know not to shoot them again.


the more you go for the more costly it becomes. At 300 points i can get a 4 dice swing. At 500 a 5 dice swing. 600 a 6 dice swing. 800 for a 7 dice swing.

Which shows its designed for 7th ed and not 8th, you know I hate the fact I have to take a wizard in every game so I don't get stomped by magic, 8th ed is what it is.

Skyth
06-12-2011, 03:26
Then enlighten me.

The argument is not that there aren't counters to monodimensional lists and that they can't be beat. In fact, the argument isn't about winning at all really. It's about fun and not having the game being decided (one way or the other) effectively from turn 1. It's about not having a bad matchup, which is what monodimensional lists often cause.

That is the biggest reason for hard comp...That you're less likely to run into a rock-paper-scissors matchup, which isn't really fun for either player. Having the game decided turn 1 due to a lucky die roll (dwellering the vampire lord) isn't really fun for either player.

Shutting down a magic phase (Or any other phase) doesn't let the other player use their toys and have fun with them as well.

It doesn't matter if you can change your list to being lopsided another way so you can deal with a monodimensional list.

You keep on concentrating on what to add to a list to counter builds that are generally eliminated by hard comp...But that totally misses the point.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 04:01
The argument is not that there aren't counters to monodimensional lists and that they can't be beat. In fact, the argument isn't about winning at all really. It's about fun and not having the game being decided (one way or the other) effectively from turn 1. It's about not having a bad matchup, which is what monodimensional lists often cause.

That is the biggest reason for hard comp...That you're less likely to run into a rock-paper-scissors matchup, which isn't really fun for either player. Having the game decided turn 1 due to a lucky die roll (dwellering the vampire lord) isn't really fun for either player.

Shutting down a magic phase (Or any other phase) doesn't let the other player use their toys and have fun with them as well.

It doesn't matter if you can change your list to being lopsided another way so you can deal with a monodimensional list.

You keep on concentrating on what to add to a list to counter builds that are generally eliminated by hard comp...But that totally misses the point.

I didn't even consider you were debating from the super arogant stance of "I decide what fun is", sorry for my ignorance.

Skyth
06-12-2011, 04:08
It's not a super arrogant position unlike assuming that everyone is a crybaby that just can't beat the lists found in a non-comped environment. This is besides the point that people have been advocating a mix of event types...comped and not comped.

Quite frankly, having the game decided on turn 1 or before isn't fun. What's the point of even playing the game? A tournament is supposed to be a test of skill, not of luck (which involves both rolling extremely well/badly and having rock-paper-scissors matchups).

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 04:11
I have never had a game decided on turn 1 and I only play warhammer(thats uncomped), and have played for 15 years. So maybe im lucky, or I dont make lists that can fall apart from any single action.

Sh4d0w
06-12-2011, 04:57
I have never had a game decided on turn 1 and I only play warhammer(thats uncomped), and have played for 15 years. So maybe im lucky, or I dont make lists that can fall apart from any single action.

Gotta agree with you here aye, never had one and I've been in about 10 tournaments by now. To all the people hating on dwarfs magic defense....get over it, we have ZERO magic which means we can do ZERO damage in the magic phase to the enemy. Other armies do and can do ALOT of damage no matter how many points we spend in magic defense. There argument settled

eron12
06-12-2011, 06:01
Well not really, comp is about this:

Getting a look out sir test vs dwellers

Say a VC players turns up and the first thing that happens to him is a dwellers to his general's bunker. He fails his strength test and his army crumbles. This person has not had any fun. His game that he paid 50 euros for is ruined. He could have had an hard as nails army but it just didn't matter. That is what comp is there to prevent.

Okay, so we give a look out sir vs. dwellers. Same situation, the general fails his look out sir. Only a 1 in 6 chance I know, but that's the same chance as him failing his strength check and you already presumed that happened. So the general still dies turn 1. Did the VC player have more fun making that extra roll? Is his game not ruined this way?

I'm not saying losing an undead general turn one doesn't suck. It does, but the point is it will always suck, no matter how many extra changes, or compensations you add on. It's no consolation that that player to be told, "It's okay, we compted it so you would have fun!"


I know most of you US gamers have big communities and love hard boys and whatever. But let me try to make you understand how the situation is for me.
In my gaming group there are 1 or 2 other active warhammer players. We go to tournaments to have a good time and to play other people. There just is no more people in my area that like warhammer atm.

I think you have a misconception and over generalization of American gamers. I dislike comp for two reasons. First because of the biases in most/all comp systems that make the game more about the TO's vision of the game than anything else.

Secondly, and more germane to the current topic, is that I've never been in a situation where I have felt the need for comp. Not all American warhammer is about building the biggest list and trying to win at all costs. I play to win and have fun, and I've never felt that I needed to add army composition restrictions to achieve either.


Good players adapt to the game they play, bad players adapt the game to the way they play.

I'm tempted to sig this, but I think it over generalizes those who adapt the game. As Yabba likes to point out, people shouldn't be limited by what is in the rulebook. However, I think your sentiment is accurate within the context.


Gotta agree with you here aye, never had one and I've been in about 10 tournaments by now. To all the people hating on dwarfs magic defense....get over it, we have ZERO magic which means we can do ZERO damage in the magic phase to the enemy. Other armies do and can do ALOT of damage no matter how many points we spend in magic defense. There argument settled

I'm a relative newby, with just a couple years and one tournament, but I also have never seen a game decided turn 1. I've had games where I could correctly identify the winner after both the first turns, but there was always room for a reversal.

Echunia
06-12-2011, 08:09
I think you have a misconception and over generalization of American gamers. I dislike comp for two reasons. First because of the biases in most/all comp systems that make the game more about the TO's vision of the game than anything else.

Secondly, and more germane to the current topic, is that I've never been in a situation where I have felt the need for comp. Not all American warhammer is about building the biggest list and trying to win at all costs. I play to win and have fun, and I've never felt that I needed to add army composition restrictions to achieve either.


I ofc realise that not all americans play ard boys style all the time, I was just making a generalisation to make my point. ( that might have been a little stupid sry :rolleyes:). The reason thou is that there is a trend in people arguing for no comp. I think this is because the American scene is largely uncomped (from what I know, not an expert).

As for the vampire still dying, it's a lot more unlikely but sure it can still happen. The point of it is making it so unlikely that it statistically is not worth it for the other player to cast dwellers on the unit every turn. But i agree with you people to a certain extent; I don't really want to change core rules, and that's why I'd rather have the look out sir instead of say, it doesn't affect chars. It's still there but a lot less likely.

Well the thing is that a lot of the time, the comp isn't created out of the blue. In sweden the general comp is created by a group of the top tournament players that understand the game well. It is then put on the forums to be continually improved. So it is a lot of the time a community consensus, not just one guy who really doesn't like x army.

And lastly, Duke Ramulots, you've made your point that you think no one who likes comp can play or is skilled at all. So please stop making personal attacks now.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 08:20
And lastly, Duke Ramulots, you've made your point that you think no one who likes comp can play or is skilled at all. So please stop making personal attacks now.

I have not made any personal attacks.

If I say "I ran out in the street to get run over", and you say "that was stupid" it isn't a personal attack. It's an observation. People on here look for reasons to be offended it seems, grow a thicker skin.

Echunia
06-12-2011, 08:48
I have not made any personal attacks.

If I say "I ran out in the street to get run over", and you say "that was stupid" it isn't a personal attack. It's an observation. People on here look for reasons to be offended it seems, grow a thicker skin.

Well the point I'm trying to get across to you is that we understand your stance, now your just clogging up the thread with accusations that noncomp players must be bad players:



I do find it perplexing though as you write about making collosal mistakes and then still winning, how bad were your opponents?



It would appear you made a collosal mistake and "put all your eggs in one basket", people being very poor strategists and generals should not affect the rules.




Good players adapt to the game they play, bad players adapt the game to the way they play.

Now if I also can throw all reasonable argument out the window:

The reason why comp is awesome is that it takes more skill to play in a comped environment. In no comp people can take the hordestars malorian was talking about, with unlimited hordes that are super big and just trounce their opponents.

It is not hard to play non comp, it's easier because of the cheese. Cheesy armies often run on auto pilot and as such are bad for the game.

Take my TK for example. The most "competitive" build for me in a non comp environment that will actually give me a chance to win is this:

100 archers + khalida and flaming banner
3 sphinxes
casket
2 skull chuckas
some chaff

Sure, not unbeatable, but sure as hell one of the best (if not the best) list for TK uncomped.

Now a "competitive" build for TK with comp:

3 sphinxes
2 * 20s of archers
some necro knights
a unit of chariots
2 skull chuckas
chaff

Which do you think takes more skill to play? -.-'

The Low King
06-12-2011, 11:40
I assume you mean 300pts of characters sitting in large blocks of GW warriors waiting for the opponent to come to you, how is that any different to a dwarf lord? yes he is weaker in combat but he is still WS6 and can pump out S6 attacks with T5.

How is it different? a dwarf lord has 125 points of combat gear, a runelord has 100 points of anti-magic gear and maybe 50 pts of defensive gear (armour). My dwarf lord for the same price can kill dragons...my runelord has 2 attacks...even with a GW thats about as good as two hammerers.


You realize I class the dagger as exactly the same thing, I have said many times generating additional power dice and dispel dice is a mechanic from a outdated system. The dagger would also be effected by the same comp that brought about this discussion in the first place! You shouldn't be able to protect you whole army from magic! if I take a lvl4 wizard I can't protect my whole army from magic either. Now even with a 4 dice swing on average dice that 7 dice (7PD, 4 DP) becomes 6PD and 8DP, you should be able to stop most of the magic..

And when there is a level 4 casting they get +2 over me, thats nearly an extra dice. Generally, on an average PD roll i have to use 1-2 more dice than the caster used when i try to dispell it depending on its threat level. Ive thrown 3 more dice before when someone rolled high for mindrazor and still failed to dispell it.

That means i DO have to dispell only the important spells because i simply cant afford to go equal dice on every spell.....


Hey I don't even pretend magic is balanced, i personally hate some of the mega spells, everyone else has to suffer them, just because you collect a army that doesn't use them shouldn't really mean you don't have to suffer them either..

I do have to suffer them, dwarfs are one of the armies hurt most by many of them. Everyone else can cast them back, we cant, so we need a way of reducing how many we get hit by.


Again not saying every army shouldn't have a advantage, dwarfs should be able to counter important spells, just not shut down magic phases, its a big difference.

You have a really hyped up veiw of dwarf dispelling ability. We cant stop every spell, its simply not posssible. Even without factoring in how easy it is for someone to just throw 6 dice at a spell , get an IF, an the get round all our magic defence.


But you don't just take a geared up runelord do you, their counter magic needs to be changed to reflect the nature of 8th, currently is gear towards 7th. Back when it was created every army got a stronger magic phase the more it spend, that isn't how it is now and that is how the dwarf counter magic is balanced. You can't say its balanced, it isn't, they simply need a new book like so many others, this is part of the reason for comps, so many books are still in need of new books, items and abilities that may have been fine in 7th are just abusable in 8th..

What do you mean? the 'internet' build always relies on a single geared up runelord to block all magic, any more and its just too much investment.


Certain models can get wardsaves against warmachines, its not like every single unit in a army can have a 4+ wardsave against shooting, it can reduce it, then again once you shoot them you know not to shoot them again.

Characters can have a wardsave. Many armies can get a 2+ vs shooting. a few more can get a wardsave vs magical attacks. My characters cant get a 2+ save vs magic....

Which shows its designed for 7th ed and not 8th, you know I hate the fact I have to take a wizard in every game so I don't get stomped by magic, 8th ed is what it is.[/QUOTE]

Your wizard gets to cast those nuke spell back...my runelord doesnt. There is the difference.


@Echunia:

WOC can still generally take a small chosenstar. Dark elves can take powerful magic still + the pendent. Im sure if i looked at any one comp i could design an army that 'breaks' it.

Not everyone takes those stupid lists, in fact ive only ever played one game against a list i catagoried as broken.......this was in an entirely uncomped environment.

The simple fact is that no matter how carefully you limit something there will always be a loophole for someone to find.

Also..i would rather face the first of those TK lists than the second. I can deal with the casket, archers and sphinxes fine...chariots and knights added in will be much harder. If you added a unit of TG with a TK it would become evern harder.

Adder007USA
06-12-2011, 11:43
My opinion...

Personally I like light comp. One of the best one's I've ever attended was one were the comp rules were simple.

1. No special LORD characters. Hero characters were fine.

2. Watchtower only has a capacity of 30 standard sized models or 10 monstrous infantry

3. Limit of 2 characters of any kind per unit

4. Either your biggest "special" unit must be smaller than your biggest "core" unit (unit size, not points), or you must have more core models on the table than special models. "Chaff" core choices such as skavenslaves or gnoblars don't count for this (there was a specific list for certain armies, those were the 2 that I remember), so for example that big 100 strong slave block didn't permit a stupid huge plague priest unit, but having a large unit of clanrats did allow for one of significant size.

5. No conga lines

Other than that, there were no major restrictions. It prevented a lot of specialstars, stupidity like the teclis/watchtower list, the goblin big boss front line spam, and the lordpedos. It was interesting to see several of the special characters that no one ever took prior, there were barely any cookie cutter lists, and I don't think I heard cheddar mentioned once.


Was noticing some talk about vampires and the purple sun. The reason we hear a lot about that is because it's pretty much a "Roll a D6, on a 1 out of 6 you lose the game". No other scenario that I can think of has the game events hinge on just one dice roll once the spell hits. Even for war machines, you have to roll to wound, you have a look out sir, and you usually have some kind of armor or ward save as well. For someone who said it was stupid to put all your eggs in one basket with your level 4 caster and general in the same bunker....for vampires, our level 4 and our general are usually the same model, kinda hard to avoid that one without spending max points on lord characters. And it's not as easy to hide the guy as you'd think, I've seen a few purple sun lists where the caster is sitting on a flying mount or can move pretty darned quickly in some way or another to get to where he's hiding.

logan054
06-12-2011, 12:30
How is it different? a dwarf lord has 125 points of combat gear, a runelord has 100 points of anti-magic gear and maybe 50 pts of defensive gear (armour). My dwarf lord for the same price can kill dragons...my runelord has 2 attacks...even with a GW thats about as good as two hammerers.


So your saying your dwarf lord runs across the table then? No I didn't think, he sits about doing nothing just like a runelord, difference he is actually doing something, hes providing magic defense. He's not bad in combat, he's just not as good as a dwarf lord, not that he should be, not really sure the point your making. Poor me, I have to take magical defense, something like that?

I assume this 100pts of magic defense is rune of balance + 2 runes of spell breaking? looks like you have the first 2-3 turns covered, partly because they are bound to roll a bad winds of magic in 3 turns. Thats the other thing, while the winds of magic can be good, average or terrible constant dispel dice means your dispel dice will always be good, once you hit turn 4 targets will be limited.



And when there is a level 4 casting they get +2 over me, thats nearly an extra dice. Generally, on an average PD roll i have to use 1-2 more dice than the caster used when i try to dispell it depending on its threat level. Ive thrown 3 more dice before when someone rolled high for mindrazor and still failed to dispell it.

so basically +2 swings it back the other way slightly, You should only need to roll a extra dice on average roll (BTW this is based around a single runelord rather than standard magical defense). First turn nothing happen, 2nd turn you should be aiming to stop the important spells, reality is you don't, you spam dispel dice because thats how it use to work, dwarf players all around claim it balanced, it not, considering channeling on a 5+ is worth 15pts I wonder what auto channeling is worth? 60-75pts per dice per dice?

Bad luck is not a excuse for needing more dispel dice "I failed because they rolled high", that has nothing to do with game balance at all.


That means i DO have to dispell only the important spells because i simply cant afford to go equal dice on every spell.....

Depends on the lore, you should only be up against one decent spells per turn, if you always up against lore of metal or shadow then perhaps you guys need to do what comp players do. Write you lore on you list and only use that lore for the tournament. Its interesting because plenty of people seem to think a lvl2 with a scroll is enough of a magic defense to stay competitive, how its difference for dwarfs?


I do have to suffer them, dwarfs are one of the armies hurt most by many of them. Everyone else can cast them back, we cant, so we need a way of reducing how many we get hit by.

Clearly they don't suffer from it as badly as everyone else, hence why they can spam dispel dice, again nothing wrong with dwarfs having magic defense, it case its based on a old system, just at the DE daggers or the slanns free powerdice, those kind of things should have been changed for 8th ed. Adding power of dispel dice to a pool is a mechanic from 7th, the mechanic in 8th is random, its a static system vs a random system, how many of the new books add masses of power or dispel dice?


You have a really hyped up veiw of dwarf dispelling ability. We cant stop every spell, its simply not posssible. Even without factoring in how easy it is for someone to just throw 6 dice at a spell , get an IF, an the get round all our magic defence.

throwing 6 dice and getting double 6 is about 50% if it was that easy then why even argue, if all people are going to do is IF the big spells surely dwarfs don't need that great a magical defense ;)


What do you mean? the 'internet' build always relies on a single geared up runelord to block all magic, any more and its just too much investment.

Oh so you personally use internet builds? is this correct? I said you don't personally and what what people do on the internet, so you can't think for yourself and just follow the advise of people online? so I assume all your dwarf anti magic opinions are the same then? some dwarf players told you what to think? so your just repeating what your told right?


Characters can have a wardsave. Many armies can get a 2+ vs shooting. a few more can get a wardsave vs magical attacks. My characters cant get a 2+ save vs magic....

Many armies? are we talking about cavalry here which are generallys small units? you know its a common misconception, not all magic ignores armour saves. Lore of metal does, good thing you can have a 2+ wardsave vs that for 5pts (I assume dwarfs have that) or you character can have a 4+ wardsave while the unit could have MR1 so giving hima a 3+ wardsave against magic that ignores armour. Guess we have death as well, based spell is against ld (so 10), then one is against S(so 4) and another is against T(so5).

Thats about the only things that can target characters, if your playing against a shadow mage then your going to dispel pit and a dark mage needs to get close to use the spell, just take a dispel scroll (which you can spam unlike other armies, another throw back from the previous editons).

Which shows its designed for 7th ed and not 8th, you know I hate the fact I have to take a wizard in every game so I don't get stomped by magic, 8th ed is what it is.[/QUOTE]


Your wizard gets to cast those nuke spell back...my runelord doesnt. There is the difference.

A wizard can also nuke himself and/or his own unit, I haven't ever seen a runelord place a large S10 template over his own unit.

Echunia
06-12-2011, 12:35
@Echunia:

WOC can still generally take a small chosenstar. Dark elves can take powerful magic still + the pendent. Im sure if i looked at any one comp i could design an army that 'breaks' it.

Not everyone takes those stupid lists, in fact ive only ever played one game against a list i catagoried as broken.......this was in an entirely uncomped environment.

The simple fact is that no matter how carefully you limit something there will always be a loophole for someone to find.

Also..i would rather face the first of those TK lists than the second. I can deal with the casket, archers and sphinxes fine...chariots and knights added in will be much harder. If you added a unit of TG with a TK it would become evern harder.

Yes the thing is I'm fine with a breaking a system really, the point is that even if they break the comp it won't be as broken as it would be if it was no comp.

I don't think you understand the scope of the first list, Khalida sits in archers giving them 4+ to hit ALWAYS and poison. This combined with multiple shots spell will delete units., literally! Say you put those archers 30 wide, and shoot at say a unit of bloodletters. With multiple shot spell that's: About 75 * 2 shots, so 150 shots. Hitting on 4s with 6s poison, so there we have 25 wounds already and 50 hits. With 4s to wound we have 25 more wounds so a grand total of 50 wounds. Bloodletters save 1/3 so that's 33.33 wounds. This unit deletes stuff, there's a reason it won Throne of skulls handily.

It's not the best army in the world but it's very powerful.

IcedCrow
06-12-2011, 13:14
Any player who feels that they have "real skill" should be able to do well in a tournament comped or uncomped.

Duke_of_Krondor
06-12-2011, 13:26
It seems the conversation is derailed somewhat about specifics and the internet forum tendency to make 'this has happened a few times/once' to 'this happens all the time, everyone buys the same models and uses the same builds' seems to be taking hold. I feel it's used to back up points but in the 15 years of hobby I've played (including various tabletop games) - I've encountered optimisation/cheese, but never totally.

@Lord Inquisitor

Sorry to jump back a couple of pages, but you commented on a point I made. Being a tad philosohpical, I could say sport/etc doesn't matter either :-) Ofcourse people play (and get into sport) for fun and I totally agree that codification is required for true competition. It's just about what you codify and why (I guess)? These things should be fun but it's where people can derive enjoyment from (like some baseball fans and statistics). In a quantum reality, maybe Warhammer is a professional competition.

Generalship is a MASSIVE misnomer as generals are responsible (although with advisors and commands to effect this) logistics, training, morale, strategy, tactics, etc, etc but to use it in it's traditional warhammer sense of using what you have on the table to beat what your opponent has on the table. Generalship could be competed by using set lists (dull as hell but the most comped way).

I'd argue that professionalism in this hobby is difficult due to the variety of factors. The 'ultimate competition' would include modelling, painting, 'generalship' and list building. These are all important factors and skills in the hobby hence why comp, in some cases, restricts these skills (mostly list building) but the knowledge base in now huge (thanks to teh interwebs) so makes it difficult to separate skill from mimicry. Maybe issuing a new Ravening Hordes list in the tournament pack? (But that's a load of work).

I think the easiest way is to just enjoy your hobby your way and let everyone do the same. I think the thing that causes the most arguments is the 'hardcore>fluffy' debate. One is not better than the other, they are just different. Measurably, one group may win more than the other (maybe not) but it's a hobby, so surely enjoyment if the 'soft statistic' that measures how successful you are at it? Do you enjoy Warhammer? Yes? Awesome, you are doing it right...

I see comp having it's place for those (including me) who like to compete from time to time. And when I do, most like that codification and will then play my game in that framework. If you want to compete without comp, that's cool too...but do it for enjoyment, otherwise what's the point in paying all this money?

Wishing
06-12-2011, 13:52
Sorry to jump back a couple of pages, but you commented on a point I made. Being a tad philosohpical, I could say sport/etc doesn't matter either :-) Ofcourse people play (and get into sport) for fun and I totally agree that codification is required for true competition. It's just about what you codify and why (I guess)? These things should be fun but it's where people can derive enjoyment from (like some baseball fans and statistics). In a quantum reality, maybe Warhammer is a professional competition.

On the topic on wargaming played like a sport, the main difference between sports and wargames as I see it is that sports (and sport-like games like chess, where being a champion means something) aren't mean to simulate anything. They are simply a set of rules, the only justification for those rules being "whatever makes for the best form of competition/viewing".

Wargames, however, are meant to simulate warfare - a fictional and idealised form of warfare for sure, but the kind we see in films like LoTR. The rules aren't just rules for the sake of competition, they are rules for the sake of letting the hobbyists try and simulate what a fantasy battle might function like using their little plastic mens. Wargame rules are just as much a question of simulationist aesthetics as they are about competition. Hence why the whole competition focus of tournaments (and competitive players) somewhat warps the game experience from its conceptual basis.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 15:40
Yes the thing is I'm fine with a breaking a system really, the point is that even if they break the comp it won't be as broken as it would be if it was no comp.

I don't think you understand the scope of the first list, Khalida sits in archers giving them 4+ to hit ALWAYS and poison. This combined with multiple shots spell will delete units., literally! Say you put those archers 30 wide, and shoot at say a unit of bloodletters. With multiple shot spell that's: About 75 * 2 shots, so 150 shots. Hitting on 4s with 6s poison, so there we have 25 wounds already and 50 hits. With 4s to wound we have 25 more wounds so a grand total of 50 wounds. Bloodletters save 1/3 so that's 33.33 wounds. This unit deletes stuff, there's a reason it won Throne of skulls handily.

It's not the best army in the world but it's very powerful.


Then aim at a unit such as my ironbreakers. you will get maybe 40-45 wounds. My armour will lower that to 15. My 5+ ward save will mean 10 wounds. How many rounds of shooting do you get again?


So your saying your dwarf lord runs across the table then? No I didn't think, he sits about doing nothing just like a runelord, difference he is actually doing something, hes providing magic defense. He's not bad in combat, he's just not as good as a dwarf lord, not that he should be, not really sure the point your making. Poor me, I have to take magical defense, something like that?

Actually, my dwarf lords tends to rush forwards and get stuck in as soon as possible. Runelord cant kill anything. 2 S4 attacks will kill myabe one clanrat...

The Lord is far better in combat.

The point im making is that the amount armies spend on magic varies between 0 and 600 points. So i take 300 points of magic defence because if i didnt then anythng above about 300 points of magic would murder me. If they take less than 300 points its a waste of an investement.


I assume this 100pts of magic defense is rune of balance + 2 runes of spell breaking? looks like you have the first 2-3 turns covered, partly because they are bound to roll a bad winds of magic in 3 turns. Thats the other thing, while the winds of magic can be good, average or terrible constant dispel dice means your dispel dice will always be good, once you hit turn 4 targets will be limited.


whenever the enemy has more PD than i have DD my runelord struggles. That happens everything above average rolling. So below average i stop most magic, above average i stop much less. it balances out.

Also, i tend to save one of the runes till the last turn because a nuke spell or mind razor in the last turn can turn a victory into a defeat.


so basically +2 swings it back the other way slightly, You should only need to roll a extra dice on average roll (BTW this is based around a single runelord rather than standard magical defense). First turn nothing happen, 2nd turn you should be aiming to stop the important spells, reality is you don't, you spam dispel dice because thats how it use to work, dwarf players all around claim it balanced, it not, considering channeling on a 5+ is worth 15pts I wonder what auto channeling is worth? 60-75pts per dice per dice?

Ok, say i go for the 'standard' build, 4 dice swing. Average roll, i get 8 DD vs 7PD. with that you could go for 3-4 spells. That means the equivelent of 3-4 extra dice in total.

60pts for a single dice? i like than, makes my runesmiths who give me one dice cheaper.....


Bad luck is not a excuse for needing more dispel dice "I failed because they rolled high", that has nothing to do with game balance at all.

a game comes with ups and downs. One turn i might get lucky and stop everything. The next turn unlucky and everything gets through. You seem to think i can stop everything every turn.


Depends on the lore, you should only be up against one decent spells per turn, if you always up against lore of metal or shadow then perhaps you guys need to do what comp players do. Write you lore on you list and only use that lore for the tournament. Its interesting because plenty of people seem to think a lvl2 with a scroll is enough of a magic defense to stay competitive, how its difference for dwarfs?

lets see...oh right, thats what the people i play do, when the write a list the caster gets his lore.

A level 2 with a scroll works because he can cast spell back, dwarfs cant.


Clearly they don't suffer from it as badly as everyone else, hence why they can spam dispel dice, again nothing wrong with dwarfs having magic defense, it case its based on a old system, just at the DE daggers or the slanns free powerdice, those kind of things should have been changed for 8th ed. Adding power of dispel dice to a pool is a mechanic from 7th, the mechanic in 8th is random, its a static system vs a random system, how many of the new books add masses of power or dispel dice?

what? we spam DD BECAUSE we suffer from spells...not the other way around

Also, i know TKs and O&G got items that add power dice...are they 7th edition books?


throwing 6 dice and getting double 6 is about 50% if it was that easy then why even argue, if all people are going to do is IF the big spells surely dwarfs don't need that great a magical defense ;)

that just sounds stupid, they IF BECAUSE i take magic defence...if dwarfs didnt then people wouldnt just IF spells


Oh so you personally use internet builds? is this correct? I said you don't personally and what what people do on the internet, so you can't think for yourself and just follow the advise of people online? so I assume all your dwarf anti magic opinions are the same then? some dwarf players told you what to think? so your just repeating what your told right?

Um...no, i was pointing out that the supposedly 'most effective' dwarf build only has a runelords rather than the +1000000000000 DD you seems to be suggesting. I personally have got my expirience for playing lots of games both as dwarfs and agaisnt them. For someone who has a good understanding of how to maximise dispelling ability (you need to to play dwarfs) i find it easy to make a dwarf player run out of dice...


Many armies? are we talking about cavalry here which are generallys small units? you know its a common misconception, not all magic ignores armour saves. Lore of metal does, good thing you can have a 2+ wardsave vs that for 5pts (I assume dwarfs have that) or you character can have a 4+ wardsave while the unit could have MR1 so giving hima a 3+ wardsave against magic that ignores armour. Guess we have death as well, based spell is against ld (so 10), then one is against S(so 4) and another is against T(so5).

Every Nuke spell does. Comet does. Lore of Metal Does. A great deal of spells go against initiative....we are I2.


Thats about the only things that can target characters, if your playing against a shadow mage then your going to dispel pit and a dark mage needs to get close to use the spell, just take a dispel scroll (which you can spam unlike other armies, another throw back from the previous editons).


The FAQ let us spam runes of dispelling, not 7th edition. If im playing agaisnt a shadow mage they will have a good wardsave (pendent) and find it easy to IF the spell or get it through.


A wizard can also nuke himself and/or his own unit, I haven't ever seen a runelord place a large S10 template over his own unit.

A wizard can nuke an enemy unit aswell, i hevent seen a runelord manage that.

Echunia
06-12-2011, 15:49
Then aim at a unit such as my ironbreakers. you will get maybe 40-45 wounds. My armour will lower that to 15. My 5+ ward save will mean 10 wounds. How many rounds of shooting do you get again?


Well probably 4-5 rounds with chaff and sphinxes blocking the movement up. And ironbrakers is not what this list i worried about. It would shoot at the thing in the dwarf army with 5+ save and suddenly your still killing about 30, wiping out units hither and tither.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 15:52
Shinxes will die to my cannons, chaff units just generally die/alow me to overrun

Goldenwolf
06-12-2011, 16:05
I actually see comp as an issue that someone has. If it's the same old list, you should know how to beat it. Comp is usually someone saying that something is "broken", or trying to up the value of an army that they have not figured out how to play well.

Too many times I see people trying to "comp" a ruleset, and thus creating a new Uber army. 8th seems very well balanced in the first place, not perfect, but better than any other set. Some armies play better at 2000, some at 2500, others at 3000.

If you know the VC are bringing the Grave Guard with banner of the barrows, and regen banner, then kill the BSB. If someone brings Kairos, pit of shades him. There is always a way to smash someone. Might it require some working knowledge and some work on your part? hell yes, but isn't that part of the game we all enjoy?

logan054
06-12-2011, 16:29
Actually, my dwarf lords tends to rush forwards and get stuck in as soon as possible. Runelord cant kill anything. 2 S4 attacks will kill myabe one clanrat...

The Lord is far better in combat.

So your honestly telling me you don't give your runelord a great weapon? please, I don't believe that for a second, dwarf lords are also S4 so i guess they kill nothing as you are clearly talking about models without upgrades. WS6 A2, S6(yes we know you give him a great weapon, every dwarf who carry a great weapon has one), its not amazing but its not poor either. Its good enough considering he also magic defense bases as well.


The point im making is that the amount armies spend on magic varies between 0 and 600 points. So i take 300 points of magic defence because if i didnt then anythng above about 300 points of magic would murder me. If they take less than 300 points its a waste of an investement.

That simply isn't true, that magic defense in a standard game of warhammer is enough to counter magic for a couple of turns unless your going to start talking about other abilities that are clearly throw backs from the old edition. I think your missing the point, the point was how PD/DP caps effect dwarfs and screw them, they don't, they just prevent dwarf players from shutting down magic phases just as they prevent DE and lizardmen players dominating it. It really doesn't matter if someone spends a 1000pts on magic in 8th ed, they will still only have 7 dice to play with on average and with your 300pts you will have 8 DP to 6 on average with only a -2 on your rolls, so unless they cast 3 spells you should be able to counter it.


whenever the enemy has more PD than i have DD my runelord struggles. That happens everything above average rolling. So below average i stop most magic, above average i stop much less. it balances out.

Are we talking about DE and Slann, this really isn't the bar we should be using the establish is something is balanced, their magic isn't designed for 8th and they need to adjusted for 8th, if designers use them as a bar then magic will continue to be out of whack.


Also, i tend to save one of the runes till the last turn because a nuke spell or mind razor in the last turn can turn a victory into a defeat.

Thats your choice, you should still be able to stop pits every turn unless your opponent gets lucky


Ok, say i go for the 'standard' build, 4 dice swing. Average roll, i get 8 DD vs 7PD. with that you could go for 3-4 spells. That means the equivelent of 3-4 extra dice in total.

8 vs 6 and you steal a powerdice


60pts for a single dice? i like than, makes my runesmiths who give me one dice cheaper.....

well is +1 to channel is 15pts I imagine being able to auto channel (which is what it really is) must be worth atleast 60pts, so a runelord give you atleast 240pts worth of dice every turn, what a terrible waste of points.


a game comes with ups and downs. One turn i might get lucky and stop everything. The next turn unlucky and everything gets through. You seem to think i can stop everything every turn.

You can with the right investment, I don't think many armies can boost the same thing in reverse.


lets see...oh right, thats what the people i play do, when the write a list the caster gets his lore.

I was told tournament players in the states can change the lores every game so I just assume this is why you have been bitching about magic.


A level 2 with a scroll works because he can cast spell back, dwarfs cant.

He can? guess he gets a double 6 ;)


Also, i know TKs and O&G got items that add power dice...are they 7th edition books?

You mean the TK one use per game item? O@G do, I thought they had a ability with goblin shamans that might add a dice?


that just sounds stupid, they IF BECAUSE i take magic defence...if dwarfs didnt then people wouldnt just IF spells

I think the sarcasm was lost on, how surprising :rolleyes:


Um...no, i was pointing out that the supposedly 'most effective' dwarf build only has a runelords rather than the +1000000000000 DD you seems to be suggesting. I personally have got my expirience for playing lots of games both as dwarfs and agaisnt them. For someone who has a good understanding of how to maximise dispelling ability (you need to to play dwarfs) i find it easy to make a dwarf player run out of dice...

I have? I've been saying you can generate more than 12 DD, really, damn, i was unaware you could generate more DD than the pool cap, well no, I don't think I have made any such suggestion. I have pointed out I happen to agree with the comps on PD and DD to stop people taking advantage of systems designed for a different set of magic rules, perhaps this is a little complex for you? Let me guess, you know how make dwarfs run out of DD with DE, Lizards and HE right? wait a second, these are 7th ed books, what was it I said again??


Every Nuke spell does. Comet does. Lore of Metal Does. A great deal of spells go against initiative....we are I2.

Who uses lore of metal? I have only ever seen it on a lvl1-2 wiard which is usually the base spell, interesting thing about the nuke spells, comps kinda cover them with the LOS rolls, but you seem think comps are evil or something. 2 spells use I, one is a vortex so has to either be really close or roll really high (as you place them in B2B with the wizard). The other one scatters.


The FAQ let us spam runes of dispelling, not 7th edition. If im playing agaisnt a shadow mage they will have a good wardsave (pendent) and find it easy to IF the spell or get it through.

Funny, I'm pretty sure you could take multiples in 7th ed, what edition was dwarf written for 6th/7th (basically the same), pretty sure you have always been able to take multiple of them, wasn't it just master runes limited to one a army.

Pendent? I assume you talking about DE again! imagine that, its ok for use to have this stuff because DE are unbalanced! what a way to promote balance for 8th ed, lets just repeat the same mistakes over and over again and watch he armybook creep get out of control again!


A wizard can nuke an enemy unit aswell, i hevent seen a runelord manage that.

Only if they have right spell, if its getting past your magic defense because IR force chances are it will do alot of damage to its own unit, I actually don't like the mega spells, that is however another topic.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 17:15
. Might it require some working knowledge and some work on your part? hell yes, but isn't that part of the game we all enjoy?

I would say yes, if I hadn't ever converced with the people on these forums.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 17:30
So your honestly telling me you don't give your runelord a great weapon? please, I don't believe that for a second, dwarf lords are also S4 so i guess they kill nothing as you are clearly talking about models without upgrades. WS6 A2, S6(yes we know you give him a great weapon, every dwarf who carry a great weapon has one), its not amazing but its not poor either. Its good enough considering he also magic defense bases as well.

No, i dont. Giving him a great weapon means at best i get a 3+ armour save in exchange for only 2 S6 attacks (not a massive difference). It also means i cant stick and cheap runes on his axe (such as flaming attacks, the only way he can really help his unit). Clearly you dont play dwarfs.



That simply isn't true, that magic defense in a standard game of warhammer is enough to counter magic for a couple of turns unless your going to start talking about other abilities that are clearly throw backs from the old edition. I think your missing the point, the point was how PD/DP caps effect dwarfs and screw them, they don't, they just prevent dwarf players from shutting down magic phases just as they prevent DE and lizardmen players dominating it. It really doesn't matter if someone spends a 1000pts on magic in 8th ed, they will still only have 7 dice to play with on average and with your 300pts you will have 8 DP to 6 on average with only a -2 on your rolls, so unless they cast 3 spells you should be able to counter it.

Sure, i can use all my runes in the first 2 turns to almost completely stop the magic phase for those 2 turns (although usually something gets through)...but then i have the next 4 turns with a level 4 casting augments into key combats. I save my runes for those mindrazors or wildforms tha arrive about turn 3-4.



Are we talking about DE and Slann, this really isn't the bar we should be using the establish is something is balanced, their magic isn't designed for 8th and they need to adjusted for 8th, if designers use them as a bar then magic will continue to be out of whack.

no. A roll of 4 and 3 will give me more dice (assuming NO +PD items). A roll of 4 and 4 or even 3 and 3 wont. In fact, most rolls above 7 (so half of them) will leave me with equal or less DD than my opponant. They usually have the +2 aswell there.



Thats your choice, you should still be able to stop pits every turn unless your opponent gets lucky

only by not blocking anything else that turn.

Say my opponant has 6 PD and i have 8 DD. They throw 4 dice on a spell that i have to stop.....the average for them would be 18 (4d6+4). For that i would have to use 5 dice to have an above average chance of dispelling it (my average is 19). That gives me about a 60-70% chance of dispelling it.

Unfortunatly, usually that isnt enough to risk the game on so i will throw 6 dice at it, giving me about an 90% chance of stopping it.

Say my opponant rolls well and gets 18 (total of 22). To have that large chance of success i need to use 7 dice.

Even on an average roll my opponant will be at an advantage for his next spell


8 vs 6 and you steal a powerdice

sorry, my bad. standard roll of 4 and 3 gives me 7 DD to 6 PD



well is +1 to channel is 15pts I imagine being able to auto channel (which is what it really is) must be worth atleast 60pts, so a runelord give you atleast 240pts worth of dice every turn, what a terrible waste of points.

A runelord with master rune of balance costs 200 points. For a race that is supposed to have a massive advantage is dispelling that sounds fine.



You can with the right investment, I don't think many armies can boost the same thing in reverse.

i can if i take a runelord with and anvil and two runesmiths...costing about 800 points.....yeah, thats definatly worth it.



I was told tournament players in the states can change the lores every game so I just assume this is why you have been bitching about magic.


Im in the Uk, local Comp (if any) tends to be ETC.


He can? guess he gets a double 6 ;)

Not against dwarfs because a level 2 with a scroll costs less than 200 points whilst my runelord costs 300....obviously you should be shut down there.



you mean the TK one use per game item? O@G do, I thought they had a ability with goblin shamans that might add a dice?

yep. And the Castket. and the Titan. casket give +D3 PD each phase doesnt it? surely thats even worse than +2 from a runelord?



I think the sarcasm was lost on, how surprising :rolleyes:

Obvously you are too clever for me.... <-sarcasm



I have? I've been saying you can generate more than 12 DD, really, damn, i was unaware you could generate more DD than the pool cap, well no, I don't think I have made any such suggestion. I have pointed out I happen to agree with the comps on PD and DD to stop people taking advantage of systems designed for a different set of magic rules, perhaps this is a little complex for you? Let me guess, you know how make dwarfs run out of DD with DE, Lizards and HE right? wait a second, these are 7th ed books, what was it I said again??

I know how to, and have, made dwarfs run out of DD with Woodelves, Lizardmen, Tomb Kings and in SOM...

Lizardmen was with a single skink priest vs a runesmith and with 2 skink priests vs a runelord.



Who uses lore of metal? I have only ever seen it on a lvl1-2 wiard which is usually the base spell, interesting thing about the nuke spells, comps kinda cover them with the LOS rolls, but you seem think comps are evil or something. 2 spells use I, one is a vortex so has to either be really close or roll really high (as you place them in B2B with the wizard). The other one scatters.

Ive seen them.

The ease at wich casters can get a ward save and fly is crazy.



Funny, I'm pretty sure you could take multiples in 7th ed, what edition was dwarf written for 6th/7th (basically the same), pretty sure you have always been able to take multiple of them, wasn't it just master runes limited to one a army.

yes, thats was in the BRB. In 8th they specifically added in the FAQ that dwarfs could take more than one as the new BRB suggests they cant.


Pendent? I assume you talking about DE again! imagine that, its ok for use to have this stuff because DE are unbalanced! what a way to promote balance for 8th ed, lets just repeat the same mistakes over and over again and watch he armybook creep get out of control again!

Ok. Woodelf 4+ vs shooting, 3+ one use, regen.
BRB: 2+ vs fire (ie, most dwarf warmachines), 4+, 2+ one use only
Lizardmen: 2+ for first wound, 5+

WOC i know can get insade ward save

Not sure about the newer books



Only if they have right spell, if its getting past your magic defense because IR force chances are it will do alot of damage to its own unit, I actually don't like the mega spells, that is however another topic.

2 of the miscasts are templates, others arnt.

Tactical augment can be just as devestating, runelords cant do those either.

Lord Inquisitor
06-12-2011, 17:48
Okay, so we give a look out sir vs. dwellers. Same situation, the general fails his look out sir. Only a 1 in 6 chance I know, but that's the same chance as him failing his strength check and you already presumed that happened. So the general still dies turn 1. Did the VC player have more fun making that extra roll? Is his game not ruined this way?
I have to respond to this because it's so fallacious. The probability of failing a look out sir and dying to Dwellers is not the same as failing it without Look Out Sir. With S5, the probability goes from 1/6 to 1/36, that's six times less likely. There's an immense difference there. It's rather worse with things like S3 wizard lords. The odds go from 50-50 to 1-in-12. Those aren't essentially the same in any way!


It seems the conversation is derailed somewhat about specifics and the internet forum tendency to make 'this has happened a few times/once' to 'this happens all the time, everyone buys the same models and uses the same builds' seems to be taking hold. I feel it's used to back up points but in the 15 years of hobby I've played (including various tabletop games) - I've encountered optimisation/cheese, but never totally.
Agreed. I don't even know what the discussion on dwarfs is about. Comp typically limits magic AND war machines. Last GT I went to was won by a Dwarf player despite the most stringent hard comp I've ever played in. How much Dwarfs benefit or are penalised by any given comp system is entirely a matter of specifics of the comp system in question.


@Lord Inquisitor

Sorry to jump back a couple of pages, but you commented on a point I made. Being a tad philosohpical, I could say sport/etc doesn't matter either :-) Ofcourse people play (and get into sport) for fun and I totally agree that codification is required for true competition. It's just about what you codify and why (I guess)? These things should be fun but it's where people can derive enjoyment from (like some baseball fans and statistics). In a quantum reality, maybe Warhammer is a professional competition.
Thanks for an intelligent post and dragging this topic back on thread. I had given up on it entirely.

Ultimately any game or sport that is antagonistic can be taken to a competitive level. People play competitive tiddlywinks after all.


Generalship is a MASSIVE misnomer as generals are responsible (although with advisors and commands to effect this) logistics, training, morale, strategy, tactics, etc, etc but to use it in it's traditional warhammer sense of using what you have on the table to beat what your opponent has on the table. Generalship could be competed by using set lists (dull as hell but the most comped way).
One interesting tournament format I've heard of is people bring small lists (1000 points or so). They then play two games against each opponent (so six games in a day). One game uses your army and one game uses their army. Fascinating idea. Aside from wargamers' general dislike of other people touching their models I think it's a truly cool way of generating perfect balance. Bring a power list and you'll have to play against it with whatever your opponent brings! It also means you need to adapt to new builds on the fly and truly tests your knowledge of the game system.


I'd argue that professionalism in this hobby is difficult due to the variety of factors. The 'ultimate competition' would include modelling, painting, 'generalship' and list building. These are all important factors and skills in the hobby hence why comp, in some cases, restricts these skills (mostly list building) but the knowledge base in now huge (thanks to teh interwebs) so makes it difficult to separate skill from mimicry. Maybe issuing a new Ravening Hordes list in the tournament pack? (But that's a load of work).
What you're talking about are "soft scores" (painting, modelling, knowledge, etc.) I personally like them very much but then I paint and model to a decent standard and they tend to do me well. Oddly enough, other people dislike soft scores vehemently, and feel that a warhammer tournament should be about how people play and that's it. There are plenty of competitive players who don't like the modelling or painting aspect. Things get stickier when these players often have well-painted commission built/painted armies. Should they get the points for that when they didn't paint them? They spent a lot of money on those paintjobs, etc.

In general, I see paint scores as a necessity, but again, like comp it is a means to an end. Comp promotes a variety of armies and builds, which enhances the enjoyment of the event. Paint scoring provides an incentive for each player to bring the best-looking army they can (whether they painted it or not), which means the tables are covered in nice-looking armies. Again, the purpose is to enhance the quality of the event. Most people would agree that they'd like to play against and with a variety of well painted armies.


If you know the VC are bringing the Grave Guard with banner of the barrows, and regen banner, then kill the BSB. If someone brings Kairos, pit of shades him. There is always a way to smash someone. Might it require some working knowledge and some work on your part? hell yes, but isn't that part of the game we all enjoy?
Strangely enough I feel the exact opposite. These "same old" power lists get boring. I've crushed Kairos and Masque builds at Ard Boyz, I've defeated chosenstars, I went through no less than 4 Teclis builds this year.

That's just the thing you see. It doesn't require much hard work for me. My list is optimised - I might not win every game but there's not much I'd change about my list and I'm familiar with all the power builds. If you apply heavy comp on the other hand, the goalposts change. This requires MORE working knowledge (I don't need to worry about Bretonnians at Ard Boyz but in heavy comp like the Lowhammer rules they get downright dangerous all the more so because I might not have as much practice against them!) and MORE work (I need to playtest my builds to see if they work in the new environment and I need to predict the new meta!).

It's precisely because comp requires more working knowledge and hard work that makes it fun.

IcedCrow
06-12-2011, 18:03
The advantages of comp: You see different army builds.

The disadvantages of comp: there will always be people who can break systems who break your comp rules.

The advantages of soft scores: It encourages the hobby aspect

The disadvantages of soft scores: hardcore tournament players will spend a lot of money to get their army professionally painted and then win awards for it. Of course, that does mean you will see very nice armies on the table, so that's kind of a draw ;)

logan054
06-12-2011, 18:09
No, i dont. Giving him a great weapon means at best i get a 3+ armour save in exchange for only 2 S6 attacks (not a massive difference). It also means i cant stick and cheap runes on his axe (such as flaming attacks, the only way he can really help his unit). Clearly you dont play dwarfs.

So you wouldn't do this then?

2x rune of spell breaking
1x master rune of balance
master rune of Gromril
rune of preservation
Great weapon

As you said 2S4 attacks is going to do nothing so whats the point in giving him flaming attacks, are you now saying that 2S4 attacks will do something? No I do not play dwarfs but I do know how they work ;)


Sure, i can use all my runes in the first 2 turns to almost completely stop the magic phase for those 2 turns (although usually something gets through)...but then i have the next 4 turns with a level 4 casting augments into key combats. I save my runes for those mindrazors or wildforms tha arrive about turn 3-4.

4 turns? I thought you rushed forward trying to get into combat? surely you should be in combat by turn 3 which actually reduces what spells can effect you, thats cutting out all the direct damage straight away.


no. A roll of 4 and 3 will give me more dice (assuming NO +PD items). A roll of 4 and 4 or even 3 and 3 wont. In fact, most rolls above 7 (so half of them) will leave me with equal or less DD than my opponant. They usually have the +2 aswell there.

So for starts are saying you don't take the master rune of balance? that causes a two dice shift on its own, as it is taking one dice from the enemy pool they are down to 6 dice on a average roll. This is also assumping that a 3 and 4 is rolled, if a 5 and 2 is a rolled is 6PD vs 9DD, if a 6 and 1 is rolled then ts 6PD vs 10 DD. I was also remind that you said the +2 is worth about 1 dice.


only by not blocking anything else that turn.

That is simply false, if they only have 6 dice (on a average roll) then that is all they will be casting unless they split the dice, if they have more than that then perhaps they have a extra spell, chances are they are putting 4 into pits and 2 into another spell, even with pits unless the center is places over your characters heads it has a fair chance of scattering off them.

If you however fear pits that much (well you should) I think I would be using my rune of spell breaking on that allowing me a couple of turns to concentrate fire on the unit with the wizard.




Unfortunatly, usually that isnt enough to risk the game on so i will throw 6 dice at it, giving me about an 90% chance of stopping it.

Say my opponant rolls well and gets 18 (total of 22). To have that large chance of success i need to use 7 dice.


my bad. standard roll of 4 and 3 gives me 7 DD to 6 PD

Yeah my bad, I was adding 4 rather than 3,


A runelord with master rune of balance costs 200 points. For a race that is supposed to have a massive advantage is dispelling that sounds fine.

Again, you seem to blanatly ignoring this, the dwarf counter magic isn't designed for 8th nor is 8th designed with it in mind, it is designed for 6th and 7th, removing a mechanic and just dropping it in another cannot be considered balanced. Next your going to tell me DE and slann magic is balanced for 8th as well :rolleyes:


Im in the Uk, local Comp (if any) tends to be ETC.

Maybe trying suggesting a different comp? you speaking to your TO, showing them the comp I posted earlier? who knows, it might help? last time I read the ETC one I thought it was stupid and I actually like comps. Some comps are bad, some are ok, others seem pretty good, just because one is terrible doesn't mean they all are!


yep. And the Castket. and the Titan. casket give +D3 PD each phase doesnt it? surely thats even worse than +2 from a runelord?

Casket does, Titan adds D3 to casting results of its bound magic, the casket isn't cumulative, its says if you have one or more caskets on the table add D3 not "if you have a runelord add 2 per runelord, 1 per runesmith, 1 per anvil"


Obvously you are too clever for me

I'm sure your used to that


The ease at wich casters can get a ward save and fly is crazy.

so 4+ wardsave unless DE which means 2 cannon balls should kill them


WOC i know can get insade ward save

Yes models with the MoT can have a 3+ wardsave, I personally think thats a broken but again thats something because the book was designed for 7th ed and not 8th! even so Tzeentch sorcerers do not have access to lore of shadow or death, just lore of Tzeentch which is kinda alright.


2 of the miscasts are templates, others arnt.

2 templates, models in base 2 base take hits, all wizards on the same side take hits, model takes hit, wizard dies, wizard loses levels, plenty of nasty results

Lord Inquisitor
06-12-2011, 18:18
The advantages of comp: You see different army builds.

The disadvantages of comp: there will always be people who can break systems who break your comp rules.

The advantages of soft scores: It encourages the hobby aspect

The disadvantages of soft scores: hardcore tournament players will spend a lot of money to get their army professionally painted and then win awards for it. Of course, that does mean you will see very nice armies on the table, so that's kind of a draw ;)

Exactly! :)

Although with the "disadvantages of comp" you do often find that it's harder to break a good comp system (take away the power builds and the 2nd best builds are usually closer together in power) and even when people min-max to the new system (at least initially) you'll see a variety of armies on the table so I'd count that one as kind of a draw too. ;)

IcedCrow
06-12-2011, 18:26
To me, seeing different builds is win. That's why comp doesn't bother me. I get bored when everyone shows up all the time with the same builds, and in uncomped environments, it is my own personal experience that that is what happens, which is one major reason why I don't do tournaments anymore.

belgarath97
06-12-2011, 18:33
No comp leads to bad matchups and games decided more by army list than by skill.

I disagree with the premise here. I firmly believe a superior general will win over a superior list or army book.

I'm in the comp camp though, because I hate facing the same list over and over.

Lord Inquisitor
06-12-2011, 18:40
I disagree with the premise here. I firmly believe a superior general will win over a superior list or army book.
Up to a point but it can be impossible to win in certain circumstances. Teclis + Folding Fortress + World Dragon + 100 archers is literally unbeatable barring extraordinary luck to some armies.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 18:41
So you wouldn't do this then?

2x rune of spell breaking
1x master rune of balance
master rune of Gromril
rune of preservation
Great weapon
As you said 2S4 attacks is going to do nothing so whats the point in giving him flaming attacks, are you now saying that 2S4 attacks will do something? No I do not play dwarfs but I do know how they work ;)

No, i wouldnt take that for two reasons:
1) It stops me being able to take Master rune of Gromril on my BSB, who needs it more.
2) it doesnt include rune or Resistance wich gives me the ability to reroll armour saves

The flaming attacks are to cause fear in cavalry (and so make me immune to fear vs them) and to have a chance of being able to break regen.


4 turns? I thought you rushed forward trying to get into combat? surely you should be in combat by turn 3 which actually reduces what spells can effect you, thats cutting out all the direct damage straight away.

Hence why i said 'augments' rather than all spells. The wizard can be healing back his troops of buffing them for the last 4 turns of a game if i use up all my runes. I would much rather take a hit turn 1 and have a chance to adjust my plans than have a key unit destroyed turn 5.


So for starts are saying you don't take the master rune of balance? that causes a two dice shift on its own, as it is taking one dice from the enemy pool they are down to 6 dice on a average roll. This is also assumping that a 3 and 4 is rolled, if a 5 and 2 is a rolled is 6PD vs 9DD, if a 6 and 1 is rolled then ts 6PD vs 10 DD. I was also remind that you said the +2 is worth about 1 dice.

worth about 1 dice per spell attempted.

3&3 gives me 6DD to 5PD
4&4 gives me 7DD to 7PD
5&5 gives me 8DD to 9 PD

thats assuming no additional power dice gained


That is simply false, if they only have 6 dice (on a average roll) then that is all they will be casting unless they split the dice, if they have more than that then perhaps they have a extra spell, chances are they are putting 4 into pits and 2 into another spell, even with pits unless the center is places over your characters heads it has a fair chance of scattering off them.

If they use 4 dice i have to use 6. If they use 5 i have to use 7-8. Either leaves them with an advantage over me for their next spell.


If you however fear pits that much (well you should) I think I would be using my rune of spell breaking on that allowing me a couple of turns to concentrate fire on the unit with the wizard.

ok, two turns of stopping pits (even assuming he uses it) when im shooting at a wizards who will probably have a good ward save and have lined up to cause my own troops to be in the way of my cannons. Even on his own its like a 20% kill chance on a wizard lord. (50% hit chance, 85% wounds chance, 66.7% kill chance, 4+ ward).



Again, you seem to blanatly ignoring this, the dwarf counter magic isn't designed for 8th nor is 8th designed with it in mind, it is designed for 6th and 7th, removing a mechanic and just dropping it in another cannot be considered balanced. Next your going to tell me DE and slann magic is balanced for 8th as well :rolleyes:

it isnt designed for it but it works fine


Maybe trying suggesting a different comp? you speaking to your TO, showing them the comp I posted earlier? who knows, it might help? last time I read the ETC one I thought it was stupid and I actually like comps. Some comps are bad, some are ok, others seem pretty good, just because one is terrible doesn't mean they all are!

I dont play ETC, i was just pointing out that it tends to be the most common i see localy


Casket does, Titan adds D3 to casting results of its bound magic, the casket isn't cumulative, its says if you have one or more caskets on the table add D3 not "if you have a runelord add 2 per runelord, 1 per runesmith, 1 per anvil"

casket does something else aswell. D3 bonus is also a massive boost. so? defence should be easier to stack as you dont HAVE to take offence.

Titan adds D3 to all wizards within a certain distance.



so 4+ wardsave unless DE which means 2 cannon balls should kill them

two successful wounds. They you have to roll 3 or more on a d6. You also have to hit...wich is difficult vs small models.


Yes models with the MoT can have a 3+ wardsave, I personally think thats a broken but again thats something because the book was designed for 7th ed and not 8th! even so Tzeentch sorcerers do not have access to lore of shadow or death, just lore of Tzeentch which is kinda alright.

gateway?


2 templates, models in base 2 base take hits, all wizards on the same side take hits, model takes hit, wizard dies, wizard loses levels, plenty of nasty results

plenty of nasty results but only 2 templates



sorry for derailing this thred slightly but i think this is key evidence that comp seriously doesnt work as a great deal of people will have this kind of disagreement over it.

vorthrax
06-12-2011, 19:03
Assuming "comp" is defined as limiting what a player can legally bring to a game, I have to come down on the side of little to no comp. In my opinion, comp is a slippery slope. If taken to extreme lengths, a game might as well be played with identical, generic lists.

Gradek
06-12-2011, 19:45
It seems to me that the whole comp argument could be settled if GW simply updated certain rules/points with greater frequency. It seems insane that you would have a game in which you have an 8th edition of rules, but many of the army books were written for the 6th edition of the rules.

Lord Inquisitor
06-12-2011, 19:56
Assuming "comp" is defined as limiting what a player can legally bring to a game, I have to come down on the side of little to no comp. In my opinion, comp is a slippery slope. If taken to extreme lengths, a game might as well be played with identical, generic lists.

Only assuming that the goal of comp is to restrict. It is not the goal. Indeed, restrictions or penalties to the overly-good stuff allows players to indulge in taking the less-good stuff without feeling penalised. If the goal of comp is to promote diversity, then your reductio ad absurdum scenario has no danger of appearing.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 20:05
Up to a point but it can be impossible to win in certain circumstances. Teclis + Folding Fortress + World Dragon + 100 archers is literally unbeatable barring extraordinary luck to some armies.

Have ever played against that list? I only ask because it is an incredibly easy list to get a win against and hard to lose to. Before anyone goes off saying I'm just trying to stir the pot or whatever,The guys in the fortress only get 5 shots a turn per floor and them all being one unit they die pretty easy to dwellers. They also wont win any combats against incomming assaults and warmachines with regular shooting can easilly cause enough wounds to get them to flee.

Bodysnatcher
06-12-2011, 20:20
It isn't just vamps. The thing about dwellers and the like is that, well, it just isn't fun having your characters toasted by a IF spell - it is just annoying. There's nothing you can do about it, no Wards or Magic Res will help. Last tournament I had both my Level 4 and General killed by an IF dwellers on my unit and it's certainly frustrating. "Because it's annoying and takes no skill" is certainly an argument for a house rule. Given that it's perhaps the most common "tournament house rule" it has a lot of favour.

This is one of the example where people go wrong. It might not take skill - but it entails the caster taking a risk/benefit decision *AND* dedicating a number of dice to the spell.
The amount of times I've seen IF dwellers do more damage to the casting army than the intended target is absurd.


Have ever played against that list? I only ask because it is an incredibly easy list to get a win against and hard to lose to. Before anyone goes off saying I'm just trying to stir the pot or whatever,The guys in the fortress only get 5 shots a turn per floor and them all being one unit they die pretty easy to dwellers. They also wont win any combats against incomming assaults and warmachines with regular shooting can easilly cause enough wounds to get them to flee.

*psst* World dragon.

But yeah the way to deal with that list is to bugger off and zap everything else.

eron12
06-12-2011, 20:25
So your honestly telling me you don't give your runelord a great weapon? please, I don't believe that for a second,

I don't give my runelord a great weapon. I don't know of any dwarf players who do. I'd rather have the +1 AS from a shield.



[COLOR="Magenta"]I have to respond to this because it's so fallacious. The probability of failing a look out sir and dying to Dwellers is not the same as failing it without Look Out Sir.

Then it's a good thing I didn't say that. I said a Vampire lord has the same chance of failing his look out sir as his strength test. This is true. I never said failing the look out sir and the strength test had the same chance as just failing the strength test. I simply said that since he was already presuming a 1 in 6 chance of something occuring, it was only fair I had my 1 in 6 chance occur.


So you wouldn't do this then?

2x rune of spell breaking
1x master rune of balance
master rune of Gromril
rune of preservation
Great weapon

Of course I wouldn't. Again, I don't know any dwarf player that would. We normally put the MR of Gromril on our BSB.


The advantages of comp: You see different army builds.


I disagree with the premise here. I firmly believe a superior general will win over a superior list or army book.

I'm in the comp camp though, because I hate facing the same list over and over.

I've never played with comp and I've never had a problem facing the same lists over and over.

The Low King
06-12-2011, 20:29
Face the same lists over and over and you find ways to beat them, change your lists every battle and you throw people off balance. Simple tactics.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 20:38
*psst* World dragon.

But yeah the way to deal with that list is to bugger off and zap everything else.

Oh yeah, beat them in an assault first and the banner is gone, forgot to put that in the post.

Lord Inquisitor
06-12-2011, 20:46
*psst* World dragon.

But yeah the way to deal with that list is to bugger off and zap everything else.

"Everything else" is 2 eagles, not enough for a win.

Breaking the unit is near impossible without Ld-modifying abilities (not spells). Even if you force 6 break tests over the course of a game won't bring the cumulative probability to 1 in 20.

Originally this build had a tower 20 stories high but often this is capped by tournament organisers to 3 or 4 (the size of the GW tower). This limits the utility of the build but it still works against most armies.

Some builds can beat this (daemons have a number of tricks as do Skaven and warriors can actually bring enough attacks to bear against a building to grind through. Ogres simply can't win.

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 20:51
Lol, if someone plopped down a 20 story building I would laugh seeing that 4' tall monstrosety, and he would have earned the advantage it yeilds with the effort he put into it.

Dark Reaper
06-12-2011, 21:48
Oh yeah, beat them in an assault first and the banner is gone, forgot to put that in the post.

He is not going to put the BSB in the assault party. Sure he will lose the combat, but then he is stubborn ld10 with reroll.

Bodysnatcher
06-12-2011, 22:13
Wulfrik makes that game interesting. 'Come here mr wizard.' *spank* 'come here mr banner' *spank*.

What would you say is the main daemon trick?

Duke Ramulots
06-12-2011, 22:20
He is not going to put the BSB in the assault party. Sure he will lose the combat, but then he is stubborn ld10 with reroll.

Lol, I needs to brush up on my elves as well. Its been so long since ive seen any I forgot what the banner even did.

Lord Inquisitor
06-12-2011, 23:08
Wulfrik makes that game interesting. 'Come here mr wizard.' *spank* 'come here mr banner' *spank*.

What would you say is the main daemon trick?
Ld bomb. Masque + Icon of Dispair, both are non-spell effects. Stubborn with the re-roll isn't all that when you're Ld5. Still have to win combat but it should do the trick. The "easy mode" answer is Siren Song but that would probably require a judge's ruling.

Warriors have Wulfrik or might actually be able to dish out enough attacks over 5 combat rounds to kill all the elves. Need to kill an average of 25 a turn if you get in combat turn 2... doable, just about with the right equipment and warshrine rolls, if they're not shadow debuffed. Of course if you actually get close to killing the whole unit they can bail from the tower but then things just get interesting. Chaos have Ld-reducing abilities too.

Skaven are probably the only army that can crack the building without gearing up specifically with this list in mind - they can crack's call or bell it. They also have Ld-reducing abilities.

Actually Ogres do have a (single) answer in the new book in the form of sniper Maneaters.

I think that's about it in terms of a typical build that can work. There are a few more options (I guess Empire could load up on hochlands but doubtful that would work as well as sniper maneaters) but they're getting more esoteric and would hurt the rest of the build.


Lol, if someone plopped down a 20 story building I would laugh seeing that 4' tall monstrosety, and he would have earned the advantage it yeilds with the effort he put into it.
... made of Lego. :shifty:


Lol, I needs to brush up on my elves as well. Its been so long since ive seen any I forgot what the banner even did.
Are you starting to understand the issue here? There are going to be a minimum of 125 archers in that tower, assuming the HE player spends max hero and max lord points. You have to kill 115 elves before the opponent needs to stump up any characters. The unit is immune to all magic and you can't pick out the banner bearer in combat. You have to attack in combat with one unit at a time and only in your turn. That gives you a maximum of 6 combat rounds to do it even if you can charge turn 1 (most unlikely!), while the archers and wizards are free to rain death down. Shooting at the unit has to kill 120 archers before hitting the characters, suffers the heavy cover and war machines only hit D6 models and you can't shoot and charge! The two eagles elsewhere are going to be hiding as best they can and even if you catch them - 100 vps for the two eagles isn't enough for a win. Even if you can beat them in combat with Teclis interfering they won't break - the odds are 1 in 144 that this unit will break if it loses combat unless you can reduce their Ld by non-spell means.

Most standard tournament armies simply cannot win against this army. Best you can do is go for a draw.

Shockingly, now the powerscroll has been errata'd, the one item I see most commonly outright banned at GTs is the folding fortress.

BEEGfrog
07-12-2011, 02:35
My opinion on comp is that it highlights how bad GW are at putting the right points costs on models to balance out the game. In general core troops are overpointed and rares underpointed. Specifically certain models are hideously over or under pointed, e.g. Teclis underpointed, all Lizardmen special characters overpointed.

The second issue with GW's pointing is that it doesn't account for synergies very well, there are a whole host of items/abilities that are taken together because their combined effect is far greater than their combined cost.

The third and most damning issue with GW's pointing is that they never acknowledge their mistakes and fix points costs before issuing the next version of an army book. The classic example of this is the DE hydra: the SoM version is worse and costs a lot more but the DE hydra is still available better and cheaper to all DE players.

Finally most comp schemes have their own abuses, often worse than the standard rules and often affecting weaker armies worse than the abusive ones.

popisdead
07-12-2011, 17:10
I've not seen a good comp system yet.

They tend to be just opinion, complaining, and subjective views. To follow that as soon as someone comps something, people fine something to counter what is allowed within the boundaries, in some army.

Accept that the GW ruleset is a beast and near impossible to balance as people want and just play the game.

tanglethorn
07-12-2011, 17:59
Ok lets put this all back in perspective. We all know that a casual game is just that, its casual. You can take whatever your book allows and sometimes there might be a little fuss or some eye rolling when someone takes 2-3 HPAs, but its not a serious game. If someone repeatedly brings a broken list to a casual game and I know I'm not going to have fun, I have the option to avoid that player in the future. Just because GW allows certain choices, doesnt mean that GW is good at game balancing. Most of us at my old LGS were pretty good at creating lists that were fun and challenging, but not abused.

Now, moving on to tournaments at our LGS. Unfortunetly we had problems with people coming in and abusing loopholes, creating lists around those loopholes or just spamming the same powerful unit type over and over in the same list.

So instead of banning certain units or restricting them, we came up with a rating system. Whenever you played a game in a Tourney we passed out cards and you got to rate your opponent on the following topics:

Sportsmanship
Army List
Painting\Modeling

There might have been a few more. but I cant remember. The point was that sure you can bring a real cheesy list and get points for winning, but if the list was abusive or min\maxed your opponent had the option to rate you low for bad army comp.

At first we were worried that the Rating system would be open to abuse, but that really never happened. It encouraged people to be cool and to have fun while being competitive because if you were a sour player and created lists that looked awful, you might get docked by the people you played against.

Of course you still had players show up with spamming HPA's and what not, but the point is that player could still play and try to win on just victories alone, but then he ran the risk of getting low comp scores from his opponents. Could he still win the tourney with bad comp scores? Yes he could, but he had to weigh the risk with the list he was bringing.

The system worked incredibly well and we used it at every Touney. (It also encouraged people to bring painted armies and to bring a fun but competitive attitude).

But in regards to some of the posters here saying that comp is stupid because GW designed the book to build whatever list I wanted using the books rules...well I get the impression that you havent been playing GW games for very long. They are infamous for imbalance, Power creep and poorly written rules. Unfortunely, that leaves us players to make some comp decisions. Look at it this way. A lot of online games eventually come out with patches to nerf or re-balance something that was not tested very well before it went live. GW does a really poor job of admitting they made mistake and trying to errata those said mistakes. Basically they don't really patch thier games, so we do it and GW has said in the past they don't have a problem with it. I dont agree with it, but what can you do?

Anyway, thats just my 2 cents.

Dark Aly
07-12-2011, 18:20
After reading Lord Inquisitor's posts I find myself leaning towards a balanced approached. That is to say surely it is better for all players that there are some events with no-comp, some with a little, some with lots and others with a different slant (painting, theme etc) and therefore the players can decide which they prefer. This approach also allows for more variety and afterall variety is the supposed spice of life.

Funnily enough this appears to be the modus operandi of the current tournie scene. Just choose the events that suit your own style.

march10k
07-12-2011, 21:58
~shrug~ specific comp penalties for cheesy choices might make sense for the more popular armies, but there's great danger in having those penalties designed , especially for fringe/unpopular armies, by someone who doensn't know the army inside and out. Frinstance, at adepticon 09, (so, using the old BRB and the old army book, under which the army just could not compete, come what may!) I got raped on comp for having a second scorpion, more than one caster (and princes/kings counted as casters, so you get penalized right off the bat even though you're forced to take at least a general and a heiro!), and the casket. Seriously? Horrible comp system, there. Fatecrusher, it wasn't, but that's the sort of comp score it got!

The flip side, rewarding people for taking garbage units, is even more idiotic. Seriously, anything that influences a WoC player to consider fielding forsaken is wrong on its face and DOESN'T facilitate fun!

I think forcing players to rank their opponents in terms of sportsmanship from best to worst (not just scoring them on a scale where everyone ends up getting a max score), in combination with painting scores, goes a long way towards limiting powergaming. And if a guy goes to the trouble to nicely paint the cheese army of the month, maybe his efforts should be rewarded... whereas a zero paint score is punishment aplenty for the dirtbag who drops in with a gray plastic 500-model skavenhorde, since it, while he may win every game, will keep him from winning top honors so long as a painted army also wins out.

Lord Inquisitor
07-12-2011, 22:01
I don't believe how well you paint your army or how cheesy your list is should have ANY bearing on a sportsmanship score.

Duke Ramulots
07-12-2011, 22:21
I don't believe how well you paint your army or how cheesy your list is should have ANY bearing on a sportsmanship score.

Neither do I, if there is a score for sportsmanship it should be limited to how you act as a sportsman. But I think he meant he would like you to have to score your opponents for sportsmanship and painting, but seperatly. You could have a scorring system that has a catagory for both of those and list compesition.

Hunter13
07-12-2011, 22:55
I have no issues with Comp. I view it as following the general views that the game designers put out, which is basically making the game “yours”. To me, a “Comp” tournament is basically a scenario. You adjust the rules. I like to go to a game store and play a regular rules game, but good campaigns and scenarios are also quite fun as you can use units considered “not good/terrible” and/or use models that you like and try different tactics and playstyles.

The only line I really disagree with is when someone tries to claim Comp “balances” the game. That “balance” is personal opinion only. If your group agrees to the new rules then fine, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to agree, and usually there will be folks that disagree. I have not seen a set of rules that creates “balance”. Every list of rules I have seen only serve to shift the balance of power. Again, I’m not saying this is bad, because it’s not. It causes folks to think differently and if done correctly can still be fun.

This leads me to the talk on variety. If unit “A” is the cream of the crop, and everyone takes that unit, it can get a bit boring yes. But when unit “A” is now limited in some way to degrade it, now unit “B” is at the top. If every tournament had the same comp rules, you would not get the variety people claim is the reason they like comp because now every player is taking unit “B” (Yes, this is a vastly oversimplified example, but you could also replace ‘unit’ with ‘army list’ or just ‘army’ and it still be applicable). So in the end, if you want lots of variety, then you have to continuously change the rules.

I do believe everyone plays the game to have “fun”. I just think the definition of “fun” is different depending on the player, group, area, what-have-you. There are some comp rules that would cause me not to go to that tournament, but others seem ok. In the end, it’s up to each individual to decide for himself if it would be worth it and fun. I also agree with the folks that mention different scoring systems in a tournament, as I believe that is a better way to increase the fun factor instead of hard comp.

If you want an almost completely balanced tournament scene, play chess. It has the same units with the same rules for each player. I say almost completely balanced because white has higher Init.

Freak Ona Leash
08-12-2011, 05:29
I wouldn't want to play in a tournament with comp. I get the idea behind it, and it is a noble idea but far too often it seems like comp just serves as a way for one set of players to dictate how others have fun. And that is the antithesis of what a game, especially ones such as Warhammer and 40k, should be.

However, I also don't agree with the idea that tournaments should be "tense." Competitive? Yes, I should think so. The objective IS to win after all, how can that not be competitive? But competitive is NOT synonymous with "jerk" to me. I can compete against you, but still respect you. I want to have fun, and the moment the game stops being fun is the moment I stop playing. If players respect one another, they can still have a competitive game. What kind of army list someone brings to the table has NO bearing on what kind of person they are.

Lord Inquisitor
08-12-2011, 16:27
I wouldn't want to play in a tournament with comp. I get the idea behind it, and it is a noble idea but far too often it seems like comp just serves as a way for one set of players to dictate how others have fun. And that is the antithesis of what a game, especially ones such as Warhammer and 40k, should be.

I don't really understand this. Firstly, ultimately the game is what a group of people decide it to be (the designers) and if a group of players choose to change the focus ever so slightly, why is this dictating how people have fun? This isn't an antithesis of what WFB and 40K should be at all indeed tinkering with the rules is encouraged by both rulebooks.

Secondly, no-one is "forced" to go to a tournament. The tournament advertises comp before anyone buys a ticket. The organisers aren't "forcing" their idea of fun on anyone. They provide a variation on the game. If the comp isn't your idea of fun, don't go! But on the other hand, for a lot of people, comp is more fun. A TO provides an environment for the games. It's like complaining that Warmachine is a much better game at a 40K tournament. Uh, if you prefer that, there are Warmachine tournaments, but that doesn't mean the tournament organisers were "forcing" you to play 40K by putting on a 40K tournament.

Lastly, "no comp" is dictating how people have fun too. Some people like playing with Teclis, Kairos, double-steam-tanks whathaveyou but it severely limits the amount of fun people with Wood Elf or Beastmen armies have at such an event. Every comp system I've seen attempts to encourage lesser-seen armies and units or penalise the overpowered stuff. Typically they succeed to a greater or lesser extent. Rarely exactly balanced, I've seen comp that makes Brets and Beastmen overly good but so what? Perfect balance is an ideal and all comp needs to do is make it better to be a success. I understand "I don't like comp system X because of reason Y" but I find a dislike on principle of all comp systems bizarre.

Wargamejunkie
08-12-2011, 19:40
I tend to prefer light comp settings, so no special characters ect.

I have found I almost always prefer no-comp to heavy comp as I feel the organizers tend to get it wrong when they get too involved with game balance.

Either way as long as the rules are posted ahead of time there should be no reason to complain. If you don't like it, don't play. Now, if it was sprung on you after you arrived that is a different matter entirely.

march10k
08-12-2011, 20:56
~shrug~ The only thing I'm particularly fond of in terms of comp is "no SCs." For WFB, it would drop the chance of seeing Teclis in a HE list from 100% to 0%, and Wulfrik in a WoC list from 80% to 0%. IMHO, if you see more than 1/3 of the lists from a given book field a certain SC, he's too good. Maybe nowhere near auto-win, but something about him smells...probably just the points cost. I see a lot less of that in 40k... There are some disgusting ork SCs, but there are enough of them, and their points efficiency is even enough, that you don't always see the same one. Pretty much the only two I can think of system-wide that I see virtually every time I face a certain army are Eldrad (and usually with another farseer for 5 spells a turn!) and Marbo. Marbo isn't broken, just undercosted. Eldrad is broken, although I've had my way with him a few times, once smacking him with a thunderhammer (no insta-death immunity, IIRC) and once dropping his LD to 7 and laughing at his pitiful attempts to keep casting. In any case, I think WFB has a problem with "no-brainer" special characters in a general sense (though maybe not in the more recent army books?), while 40k has two or three offending SCs...so I'd not be against a "no SCs" comp in WFB tourneys...but beyond that, let boys be boys.

march10k
08-12-2011, 21:09
I don't believe how well you paint your army or how cheesy your list is should have ANY bearing on a sportsmanship score.

I agree on the painting part, and that was indeed a separate point. The only crossover would be in that MAD SKILLZ POWA GAMERZ FTW!!!!PWN!!!, who tend to earn lower sportsmanship scores by challenging everything their opponents do while fudging the rules themselves, then pleading innocent ignorance when caught, tend not to paint, or at least not well.

As for incorporating comp into a player's sportsmanship ranking (as I said, I don't believe in sportsmanship scores, they don't work, the sporting thing seems to be to give a max score unless the guy's a total jerk...while the ones who deserve a reduced score smile to your face while cutting your score in secret), I think it's appropriate. Frinstance, all else being equal about them, if I face two DE players, and one takes one hydra and the other two, I'm going to rank the guy who didn't spam the cheese unit above the guy who took "as many as the rules will allow me to cram in there". JMHO, you're not forced to agree. Or, same situation, but high elves...the guy without Teclis gets the nod (again, all else being equal about them).


Neither do I, if there is a score for sportsmanship it should be limited to how you act as a sportsman. But I think he meant he would like you to have to score your opponents for sportsmanship and painting, but seperatly. You could have a scorring system that has a catagory for both of those and list compesition.

t-tauri
09-12-2011, 00:48
A number of posts removed. Please post in accordance with the posting guidelines without resorting to name calling or bickering.