PDA

View Full Version : Best of the Best- Comp'd?



Dark Side Duke
20-01-2014, 17:46
I was recently invited to a supposedly "best of the best" being run by wargamersusa.com. In short, I discovered the use of the "Swedish comp" system and I was quite disappointed. I understand having a comp system for a fun little back water tournament to change things up. A comp system is not warhammer. Can someone explain to me why anyone would use a comp (a heavy comp at that) for a best of the best tournament? Frankly, I find that tournament to be a joke because of it. Queue the east coast "purest"!

TsukeFox
20-01-2014, 17:53
It is to encourage non optimal builds and imagination instead of going for the easy "Internet list" for victory

Dark Side Duke
20-01-2014, 18:12
I would understand that if you didn't add your comp score to your battle points after each game like this tournament does. Which makes taking anything less that a 18-20 comp list is a joke. If everyone takes that high of comp then, by the comp system, everyone will have cookie cutter vanilla lists with no imaginations.

Ok so you have a hard time beating WoC with Tk. I get it, but internet list aren't the end all be all. If you search hard enough you can find a variation of almost everyone way to run each book. You want to cut down on "internet" list and the "hardest" builds, make more involved scenarios that favor command and objectives rather than tabling your opponent. Don't tell me I can't take multiple lords and heroes on discs, just make it harder to capture bonus points.

Despite the tournament being a bit of a mess, the DaboyzGT's scenarios did a great job of attempting to balance games out.

Seriously, I know I'm ultra-competitive. I know its in my nature. So when I see the "best of the best" I want to play against the best players and the best lists.

shakedown47
20-01-2014, 18:24
Well actually, if you want a "best of the best" tournament then of course you'll want comp, and plenty of it. In a game that was designed to be anything but strictly competitive and balanced, the notion of a 'best man wins" tournament is ludicrous. There are vast disparities between the power levels of various books, and lots of rock/paper/scissor interaction between whole armies, not just whole units. Whether or not you agree with something as heavy-handed as Swedish comp is one thing, but to deride all comp systems as being out of place in a tournament setting is just delusional.

The one and only argument a person could make for an uncomped tournament is that every participant has an equal opportunity to purchase and collect any of the armies in the game, thereby leveling the playing field, and anybody who chooses to bring anything but one of the three or four empirically strongest armies to a tournament is intentionally nerfing themselves and deserves whatever bad matchup they get. That's certainly a douche outlook to have, but it's one that's factually flawless and I suppose I can't argue.

Me? I like that people can bring an army they like to a tournament, not just whatever book is strongest at the moment. I'm all for limited comp.

Spiney Norman
20-01-2014, 18:26
Most tournements operate some kind of comp system because they are trying to level the field to a degree which is just unnecessary in standard play. There are some tournaments that run totally uncomped, such as Throne of Skulls, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Personally I don't see any need for comp in warhammer at the moment, its far more balanced than 40K is and the power gaps in the various armies aren't as vast as people like to make out they are, with the possible exception of Bretonnians and wood elves, which are now 2 editions old.

SteveW
20-01-2014, 19:09
I've found that in this community the people that decry their tournaments as the pinnacle of warhammer are the very same people that cannot handle playing by the rules of the game they say they have "mastered". It's boggling isn't it?

Dark Side Duke
20-01-2014, 19:27
I will agree that your best odds will come from playing with one of the top 4 armies. There is a serious rock/paper/scissors system to the game right now. I don't have a particular issue with comp as sometimes it is fun. But a comp system is not warhammer "as written", it is the subjective opinion of the comp writer/tournament organizer. I understand that warhammer itself is not a truly and completely balanced system but neither is any comp system because they will always be subjective rather than objective.

"Best of the Best of Warhammer" cannot be comp'd as warhammer itself does not come with a comp system. If uncomp'd tournaments are the exception (everywhere outside the midwest USA I guess), then shouldn't the best of the best tournament be an exception to the norm?

shakedown47
20-01-2014, 19:40
I've found that in this community the people that decry their tournaments as the pinnacle of warhammer are the very same people that cannot handle playing by the rules of the game they say they have "mastered". It's boggling isn't it?
Do you encounter people playing with house rules and army comp restrictions very much? I never have, but I've only played in the same geographic area since I've been into the hobby. I don't really see any need for it in a standard game. Tournaments in my area don't run comp per se, but they do retain "veto" power on any submitted list that they deem too abusive or OP. At the local GT, Buckeye Battles, i think they generally receive 1-2 lists, out of 110 or so attendees, that they deem overpowered. I've also never met any person that has claimed to have mastered the rules of the game, and if I did I would probably laugh and then leave them to their sad lives. I guess I just can't relate to what you're talking about, because I've never seen it. If that's what the community is like in San Diego, treat yourself this summer and fly out to Ohio for BB and we'll make sure to show you a good time.

shakedown47
20-01-2014, 19:56
I will agree that your best odds will come from playing with one of the top 4 armies. There is a serious rock/paper/scissors system to the game right now. I don't have a particular issue with comp as sometimes it is fun. But a comp system is not warhammer "as written", it is the subjective opinion of the comp writer/tournament organizer. I understand that warhammer itself is not a truly and completely balanced system but neither is any comp system because they will always be subjective rather than objective.

"Best of the Best of Warhammer" cannot be comp'd as warhammer itself does not come with a comp system. If uncomp'd tournaments are the exception (everywhere outside the midwest USA I guess), then shouldn't the best of the best tournament be an exception to the norm?

I understand what you're saying, I get your viewpoint, I just disagree. Professional, grandmaster-level chess has all sorts of rules tacked on to it, but I don't think for a minute anyone wouldn't consider the game they're playing to be chess. I've played in heavily comped tournaments, very lightly comped tournaments, and no comp at all in standard play; each time, it definitely felt like I was playing Warhammer. Saying that Warhammer isn't Warhammer if it's comped because comp doesn't exist in the BRB is a contradictory statement if you apply it to tournaments, because the BRB doesn't give any provision for round-robin play, Swiss pairings, finite rounds, etc. The whole concept of tournament play is completely alien to the Warhammer Fantasy Battles basic rule book and to every army book currently in print. So, when you put the game in a tournament environment, I certainly don't see anything wrong with the organizers of that tournament introducing rules they deem necessary to make some effort to ensure that the best player wins, not the best army.

And that's what comp comes down to. It's not a punishment for strong or overplayed armies, it's not a boost for older books or weaker armies, it's simply a measure taken by the organizers to help balance the game in a way that they feel will help steer the outcome of each game to the best player's favor. In the case of Swedish comp, I personally think they go completely overboard (especially in allowing extra points for armies) but I recognize and appreciate the thought that went into it and the notion behind it. If you've seen pictures of tables from the ETC and it looks like they're playing Warhammer, it's because they are.

Dark Side Duke
20-01-2014, 20:02
Its an ETC thing Shakedown, the Yankees of American warhammer. The midwest area doesn't generally comp, i.e. Buckeye battles, Bits, Adepticon etc. The rest of the country usually has some sort of system in place to mimic how the European circuit works. We're technically the odd men out.

Food for thought:
Imagine a warhammer where the following things took place.
Cannons' bounce line scattered d6 inches via scatter dice.
Mark of Tzeentch gave a reroll of ones (the daemon of tzeentch rule) rather than a +1
Ogres Rune Maw Banner bounced on a 4+ rather than a 2+ and only if there was a viable target to bounce to.

That pretty much the three most unbalanced things in the game. You don't have to kill the idea of taking fun lists with a heavy comp. And yes I realize this is MY opinion.

SteveW
20-01-2014, 20:04
Do you encounter people playing with house rules and army comp restrictions very much? I never have, but I've only played in the same geographic area since I've been into the hobby. I don't really see any need for it in a standard game. Tournaments in my area don't run comp per se, but they do retain "veto" power on any submitted list that they deem too abusive or OP. At the local GT, Buckeye Battles, i think they generally receive 1-2 lists, out of 110 or so attendees, that they deem overpowered. I've also never met any person that has claimed to have mastered the rules of the game, and if I did I would probably laugh and then leave them to their sad lives. I guess I just can't relate to what you're talking about, because I've never seen it. If that's what the community is like in San Diego, treat yourself this summer and fly out to Ohio for BB and we'll make sure to show you a good time.

No, I only see that attitude online. Around here we just play by the rules and have a good time. Many of the tournaments though run ETC and sweedish comp, I don't attend those and just go to the uncomped ones.

Spiney Norman
20-01-2014, 22:16
Do you encounter people playing with house rules and army comp restrictions very much? I never have, but I've only played in the same geographic area since I've been into the hobby. I don't really see any need for it in a standard game. Tournaments in my area don't run comp per se, but they do retain "veto" power on any submitted list that they deem too abusive or OP. At the local GT, Buckeye Battles, i think they generally receive 1-2 lists, out of 110 or so attendees, that they deem overpowered. I've also never met any person that has claimed to have mastered the rules of the game, and if I did I would probably laugh and then leave them to their sad lives. I guess I just can't relate to what you're talking about, because I've never seen it. If that's what the community is like in San Diego, treat yourself this summer and fly out to Ohio for BB and we'll make sure to show you a good time.

I've never met anyone in real life who demanded composition rules in a casual game, you do find a few dedicated to that on warseer however (mainly in the 40K part of the forums because external balance among the 40K armies is truly horrendous). I would personally be extremely suspicious of anyone who insisted you follow their own personal comp restrictions or house rules, they're probably just trying to swing the game against you.

Montegue
20-01-2014, 22:25
I'm headed to that tournament as well. I don't agree with some things (their line of sight changes are irritating to me) but the comp system is more or less balanced, and will keep the tournament from being a complete cheese fest. Generally, the worst offenders of 8th edition are expensive, comp wise.

The way it works is, when all is said and done, you compare com scores, and the underdog gains victory points accordingly. For example, if you are a 10 list (middle of the road) and your opponent is playing a list comped at a 5 (pretty rough list), you start the game 500 vp up on the hard list. Now, that list is likely going to be very hard to overcome for the weaker list, so those 500 points aren't likely to turn the tide, but if you play well you might win small or even draw where you would have otherwise been tabled.

I think it's a good way to help regulate things that aren't very fun. The USA masters tournament isn't just a best of the best. The goal is to bring the various Indy GT regions together into a more national community. When hashing out the details, the various TOs from around the country eventually settled on Swedish comp as a compromise between them relative to their local tournament culture. Swedish basically came the closest to how everyone plays.

I play dwarfs, and will be fielding a 5 comp list. Line of sight rules and rules on hills are gonna make it tough for me to win, but i think it's going to be a great time none the less. If you're truly a great Warhammer player, comp rules shouldn't be too much of an obstacle. Bring your really hard list and just table the opposition with your mad skills.

Lord Inquisitor
20-01-2014, 22:46
I would understand that if you didn't add your comp score to your battle points after each game like this tournament does. Which makes taking anything less that a 18-20 comp list is a joke. If everyone takes that high of comp then, by the comp system, everyone will have cookie cutter vanilla lists with no imaginations.
Then bring that 18-20 list and rock our worlds. Judging by the players I've been talking with I think you're dead wrong on your assessment of the comp scores people will be bringing - most people are likely to consider a 20 point list in danger of being crucified by a low comp list regardless of the victory point bonus.

Personally I think Swedish opens up a whole host of additional tactics without actually changing the rules of the game directly. A tournament with a variety of unique builds is more interesting than the usual uncomped builds and I don't see why the masters needs to be different. As Montegue says, the best players will adapt and overcome whatever the comp.

(Did you see that Monty, I agreed with you on something there!)

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
20-01-2014, 23:25
Its an ETC thing Shakedown, the Yankees of American warhammer. The midwest area doesn't generally comp, i.e. Buckeye battles, Bits, Adepticon etc. The rest of the country usually has some sort of system in place to mimic how the European circuit works. We're technically the odd men out.

Food for thought:
Imagine a warhammer where the following things took place.
Cannons' bounce line scattered d6 inches via scatter dice.
Mark of Tzeentch gave a reroll of ones (the daemon of tzeentch rule) rather than a +1
Ogres Rune Maw Banner bounced on a 4+ rather than a 2+ and only if there was a viable target to bounce to.

That pretty much the three most unbalanced things in the game. You don't have to kill the idea of taking fun lists with a heavy comp. And yes I realize this is MY opinion.

Really? THOSE are the most unbalanced things in the game? What about unkillable, unbreakable demon princes that soulfeed back any wounds you do to them? What about the banner of the freaking world dragon?

Xerkics
21-01-2014, 00:21
If they want a best of the best game of player skill they should play chess now that's balanced :-p

underscore
21-01-2014, 00:44
Generally I've observed that the main reason for comp is that people are bored of playing the standard lists of each army and want something different, but against skilled opponents who are still trying their best to win.

Outside of a handful of sensible rule-tweaks (most of which aren't as relevant the more armies get updated), boredom seems to be as important as balance (and rightfully so, imo).

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 00:48
What I find interesting is how much players gripe about balance and wanting zero or next-to-nothing randomness or even trying to control it. I simply don't understand why it's so necessary for these players when the game clearly isn't designed for it unless they don't want to be playing Warhammer. Having comp in any Warhammer tournament isn't playing Warhammer.. it's playing a game subjectively tweaked by people using Warhammer models, not playing the game as it's meant to be played. It's black and white in that either you are playing the game or you're not. Any comp simply isn't playing the Warhammer game.

Regarding balance, in wars and battles, there is very seldom any resemblance of "balance". If someone wants balance, then why the heck are they playing table-top war games? checkers and chess.. that is absolute balance - anything that has absolute mirroring in rules and game pieces. Sounds incredibly boring to me but to each their own. Being a good general isn't about being on absolute equal mirrored settings, it's about using what you got to your advantage while understanding your enemy's movements and capitalizing on mistakes while having a reaction plan ready when yours doesn't work out.

So, while this post seems utmost of a rant (and in some regards it is), it is following the same understanding as the OP in that if you are wanting to be the "Best of the Best" then why is there any comp because if there is, it isn't Warhammer and it isn't proving that you are the better general if you need a handicap to start out with or worse yet.. handicapping someone else.

- Lord Cedric

underscore
21-01-2014, 00:55
I don't think I've ever seen a comp address the random nature of the game - most of the time they're tying to iron out some of the rough edges. It's kinda understandable that if players have taken all the time to prepare their armies that the games should be made as satisfying to play as possible.

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 01:21
I don't think I've ever seen a comp address the random nature of the game - most of the time they're tying to iron out some of the rough edges. It's kinda understandable that if players have taken all the time to prepare their armies that the games should be made as satisfying to play as possible.

I have seen some locally. But that's not really my purposed intent of meaning. It's more about certain tourney players in-general that min-max their lists to exploit the comp rules themselves and then whine about why their army has suffered the nerf bat. It is perhaps that these people alone are the reasons that I simply can't go to another tournament - they take the fun out of the entire process. If there was no comp (as, in my opinion, should be) then there wouldn't be any grounds for these types of people to stand on at least in tourney-rules wise. Assuredly they will still have complaints and remarks on the game system itself as there wouldn't be much else they could rant on, but at least that much I could handle as would be expected. It just seems to me that adding comp not only takes away from the game's original design (unless, like you said, it is ONLY there for making clear concise raw rule definitions and not taking away or restricting certain army functions and rules), but also adds more reasons for rants and griping.

- Lord Cedric

logan054
21-01-2014, 01:46
What I find interesting is how much players gripe about balance and wanting zero or next-to-nothing randomness or even trying to control it. I simply don't understand why it's so necessary for these players when the game clearly isn't designed for it unless they don't want to be playing Warhammer. Having comp in any Warhammer tournament isn't playing Warhammer.. it's playing a game subjectively tweaked by people using Warhammer models, not playing the game as it's meant to be played. It's black and white in that either you are playing the game or you're not. Any comp simply isn't playing the Warhammer game.

Some could say they don't understand the need to play tournaments when the game clearly isn't designed to play in a competitive way, the whole idea of the best of the best makes little sense when some books are clearly better than others. As Warhammer is designed as a casual fun, it seems logical that people who want to play the game in a more competitive way would want to make the armies compete on more of a equal footing, regardless of if it achieves this, you do tend to see a much variety of armies attend these events, which only makes for a more varied gaming experience. If I wanted to play a game that lacked variety I would play chess of checkers. I also remember one of the designers (Jervis I think) making a comment on comp in WD and talking about its merits, make what you will of that.

As for the way it's meant to played, it isn't meant to played with the rulebook used as a rigid tomb, it's designed so people start to be a little more creative with the rules rather, adding to the game in anyway doesn't stop it being warhammer.

Montegue
21-01-2014, 01:51
I have seen some locally. But that's not really my purposed intent of meaning. It's more about certain tourney players in-general that min-max their lists to exploit the comp rules themselves and then whine about why their army has suffered the nerf bat. It is perhaps that these people alone are the reasons that I simply can't go to another tournament - they take the fun out of the entire process. If there was no comp (as, in my opinion, should be) then there wouldn't be any grounds for these types of people to stand on at least in tourney-rules wise. Assuredly they will still have complaints and remarks on the game system itself as there wouldn't be much else they could rant on, but at least that much I could handle as would be expected. It just seems to me that adding comp not only takes away from the game's original design (unless, like you said, it is ONLY there for making clear concise raw rule definitions and not taking away or restricting certain army functions and rules), but also adds more reasons for rants and griping.

- Lord Cedric

I've taken a long look at the comp pack, and it's more or less balanced across the board. I think there's some holes - daemons, for example, can build some very strong lists and still have a fairly soft comp - but it's pretty fair.

The rules pack makes many rules changes, and does rule on some of the more contentious problems folks come across in competitive play. I do think some of their choices help some aspects if the game while unduly harming others, but the system isn't bad.

forseer of fates
21-01-2014, 01:55
While Logan is right about the lack of balance, boo and hiss to those who put restrictions on their tournaments. If you cant win with the options/units/stuff available to you by the letter of rules, then tuff chukies... is what my Teclis hugging highelf m8 would say:P

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 02:13
Some could say they don't understand the need to play tournaments when the game clearly isn't designed to play in a competitive way, the whole idea of the best of the best makes little sense when some books are clearly better than others. As Warhammer is designed as a casual fun, it seems logical that people who want to play the game in a more competitive way would want to make the armies compete on more of a equal footing, regardless of if it achieves this, you do tend to see a much variety of armies attend these events, which only makes for a more varied gaming experience. If I wanted to play a game that lacked variety I would play chess of checkers. I also remember one of the designers (Jervis I think) making a comment on comp in WD and talking about its merits, make what you will of that.

As for the way it's meant to played, it isn't meant to played with the rulebook used as a rigid tomb, it's designed so people start to be a little more creative with the rules rather, adding to the game in anyway doesn't stop it being warhammer.

I can respect what other people want to play as it varies from person to person. And they have their own right to do so - after all, in the end it's all about having fun right? I can be lenient or creative on rules and perhaps my above posts didn't show much signs of that. Much like D&D in that the rules are a "guide". I get that. But to change or alter a games rules isn't playing that game at all... it's playing an interpretation of it. And my apologies if this seems to be going off topic.

As for comp allowing a more variety of army lists and putting them on a more equal footing.. there isn't a army out there that can't beat another playing the game rules as written. Sure there are tough matchups.. but isn't that what war games are about? To do the best with what you have in lieu of your opponent. Strategy is huge, but so should luck, creativity, and the ability to use your army and given rules to best match your play style. Not having to resort to comp and purposely nerf certain armies or rules just so you have to rely less on some of those things just boggles my mind. I guess it's really hard for me to wrap my head around that some players don't have much to any care for certain aspects of the hobby other than acting out a chess match using Warhammer models. Having two equal mirrored armies isn't competitive to me and makes for a game that exemplifies a dumbed-down version of what a war game is. But, that is my opinion. There are obviously others who enjoy comp. I've had bad dealings with it and some of their tournament players type of waac attitudes that exploit some comp rules that would normally not be there in the first place.. but only to make a game more "balanced and equal". It seems that there are some tournaments that are lightly comp'd just to have certain clarity on "gray area" rules. I guess I just wished that those types of tournies were around here.

Either way, I thank you for your thoughts and input. Maybe some day I'll give comp tournaments a try again. But until I get to that point, I'll just keep playing book rules.

- Lord Cedric

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 02:25
I've taken a long look at the comp pack, and it's more or less balanced across the board. I think there's some holes - daemons, for example, can build some very strong lists and still have a fairly soft comp - but it's pretty fair.

The rules pack makes many rules changes, and does rule on some of the more contentious problems folks come across in competitive play. I do think some of their choices help some aspects if the game while unduly harming others, but the system isn't bad.

And this is one of my main points. Why is there such a need to have to change/alter rules? Why is there a need for some players to want to have absolute equal fairness in all aspects of the game. It really takes intended options out of the game, forcing players to change or weaken their lists just because the organizers are in the opinion that B army is weaker than A army. It's purposely handicapping the rules to make it fit for a game system that it's original is not intended for.

Like I've said, if this is the type of games that some players enjoy.. then they have the right to do so because having fun (in their own way) is the most important rule. But these are the types of players that take the enjoyment out of the game for me which is why I don't attend comp'd games.

- Lord Cedric

Montegue
21-01-2014, 02:57
And this is one of my main points. Why is there such a need to have to change/alter rules? Why is there a need for some players to want to have absolute equal fairness in all aspects of the game. It really takes intended options out of the game, forcing players to change or weaken their lists just because the organizers are in the opinion that B army is weaker than A army. It's purposely handicapping the rules to make it fit for a game system that it's original is not intended for.

Like I've said, if this is the type of games that some players enjoy.. then they have the right to do so because having fun (in their own way) is the most important rule. But these are the types of players that take the enjoyment out of the game for me which is why I don't attend comp'd games.

- Lord Cedric

I think they did it to try and square the general warhammer culture in the various regions. Some regions do heavy comp, some regions (like mine) do very little. Some regions have always had altered line of sight rules because they designed their terrain for a different edition, some regions don't. Essentially, it was a series of compromises among the TOs doing the work to organize the event.

I think they should have just gone with rules as written and the sweedish comp system, that way the game plays normally and the only thing they're doing is trying to pull the throttle back on the WAAC lists a bit. But, they did this to ensure that we'd all be playing the same game, instead of some playing in a world they were completely comfortable in while others had to radically adjust. Now everyone has to adjust.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 03:29
First off, I did not mean to offend the other players attending this event. I chose not to go because "I" believed it wasn't an accurate portrayal of the best of the best. I was made aware that the midwest was way in the minority on the comp choice. Everyone has their opinion on this matter clearly. Doesn't make for or against more right on the matter. I was, however, voicing my opinion.

Comp can be great to change it up and dispel the variety, I just don't feel it belongs at the very top level of gaming.

Also I would read the rules pack again. You do add the difference in comp to VP at the end of the game but you also add you comp to the battle score. A 20 comp gives you an automatic 100 points. I could be wrong but that's how I read it.

Comp had too much of an affect on the tournament for me.

Warhammer isn't balance and they claim it isn't meant for tournaments but I'm going to call bull on that one. When was the last time GW did something "for the hobby". Its easier to win with specific armies, but its not guaranteed. Comp doesn't cure everything. Just makes you feel better about the crap you're taking.

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 03:33
If you don't like the comp system of a tournament - don't attend :) Attend the ones that are uncomped if that's how you have fun. Problem solved.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 04:06
If you don't like the comp system of a tournament - don't attend :) Attend the ones that are uncomped if that's how you have fun. Problem solved.

Pretty much exactly how I start this thread haha.

Lord Inquisitor
21-01-2014, 04:09
While Logan is right about the lack of balance, boo and hiss to those who put restrictions on their tournaments. If you cant win with the options/units/stuff available to you by the letter of rules, then tuff chukies... is what my Teclis hugging highelf m8 would say:P

This really is not the motivation for most people when it comes to comp. Top players can usually win regardless of whether there's comp or not. It's just boring. I know what the optimum strategy is for my army and for most others and while there's some variation, it usually isn't that much. A comp system like the Swedish comp lets me bring units like giants without feeling like I'm making a big concession to competitiveness. I like comp because it lets me vary up which toys I play with not that it helps me win in any way.

Montegue
21-01-2014, 04:24
First off, I did not mean to offend the other players attending this event. I chose not to go because "I" believed it wasn't an accurate portrayal of the best of the best. I was made aware that the midwest was way in the minority on the comp choice. Everyone has their opinion on this matter clearly. Doesn't make for or against more right on the matter. I was, however, voicing my opinion.

Comp can be great to change it up and dispel the variety, I just don't feel it belongs at the very top level of gaming.

Also I would read the rules pack again. You do add the difference in comp to VP at the end of the game but you also add you comp to the battle score. A 20 comp gives you an automatic 100 points. I could be wrong but that's how I read it.

Originally, that's how it was supposed to be. Battle points plus comp score at the end of the day. However, they made a change to go with just the VP difference. Could be an oversight if it's still in the rules. I'll ask.

I think if there were no comp it would wind up just wall to wall beasts of nurgle and light choruses to fight them. Might be fun for a dwarf player (We tend to mess with tournaments that go in that sort of direction), but there wouldn't be a lot of variety.

Lord Inquisitor
21-01-2014, 04:41
Also I would read the rules pack again. You do add the difference in comp to VP at the end of the game but you also add you comp to the battle score. A 20 comp gives you an automatic 100 points. I could be wrong but that's how I read it.
I think the comp packet right now has been accidentally replaced with an earlier version. It should just be a victory points bonus per round. For each point you are above your opponent you get 100vps to a maximum value (800 vps? Something like that.) No battle points adjustment at all.

underscore
21-01-2014, 09:53
It's purposely handicapping the rules to make it fit for a game system that it's original is not intended for.
Nothing wrong with handicapping, it means I can go out on the golf course and stand a chance of beating anyone if I play well and they play poorly, generally I think that most comps have similarly noble intentions.

Spiney Norman
21-01-2014, 11:51
While Logan is right about the lack of balance, boo and hiss to those who put restrictions on their tournaments. If you cant win with the options/units/stuff available to you by the letter of rules, then tuff chukies... is what my Teclis hugging highelf m8 would say:P

Lol, Teclis really isn't all that in the new army book, I've played probably a dozen games against my friend's high elves with him trying to get Teclis to 'work', but I've won more than 3/4 of them, he eventually gave up and moved on to Alarielle, and she is a much better investment for the points.

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 11:58
Nothing wrong with handicapping, it means I can go out on the golf course and stand a chance of beating anyone if I play well and they play poorly, generally I think that most comps have similarly noble intentions.

Right... but players can achieve this without having comp. In other words, everyone has a chance of winning. But I can respect noble intentions.

- Lord Cedric

N1AK
21-01-2014, 12:01
If you search hard enough you can find a variation of almost everyone way to run each book.


Great, thanks for making the argument for comp. As you can find a variation you won't have any trouble with comp as it almost universally punishes the common power builds.



You want to cut down on "internet" list and the "hardest" builds, make more involved scenarios that favor command and objectives rather than tabling your opponent. Don't tell me I can't take multiple lords and heroes on discs, just make it harder to capture bonus points.


Plenty of tournaments try this and I'm yet to find one that works. Short of a Scenario that says all ward saves in the game are reversed you're still going to see people spamming 3+ saves and scenarios that specific are basically comp in scenario form.

Furthermore it seems pretty hypocritical to claim that 'comp' isn't Warhammer because it changes the game but be pushing for using something other than the scenario system from the book which is changing the game.

N1AK
21-01-2014, 12:14
I guess it's really hard for me to wrap my head around that some players don't have much to any care for certain aspects of the hobby other than acting out a chess match using Warhammer models. Having two equal mirrored armies isn't competitive to me and makes for a game that exemplifies a dumbed-down version of what a war game is. But, that is my opinion.

What I find interesting is that one of the reason I prefer comp is that, done right, it leads to more varied armies and a less chess like feel. Every non-comp tournament seems to have a massive bias towards 1-3 armies and each of those armies will a variant on the powerbuilds. When Ogres came out you could go to an 80 man army with ~10+ Ogre armies that were different in one or two ways.

Players learnt to use the best builds, planned for the current meta and practised against the power-builds they'd be facing. That sounds a lot more like 'chess' to me than the comp situation where players have constantly shifting choices when building an army and where what they will face is hard to predict.

Obviously you're entitled to an opinion and I'm perfectly happy with the current situation where both comp and non-comp tournaments are available. It just seems odd to me that you see comp as making the game like chess (where both players start with the same army) when it's very purpose is to increase the variety of armies.

N1AK
21-01-2014, 12:21
Right... but players can achieve this without having comp.

Not if you want the tournament to decide who is the 'best' player. If you're playing non-comp then unless you are considerably better than anyone else at the tournament then you will not win unless you take a top tier army for the current meta and have reasonable luck. Sure, someone like Jack Armstrong could turn up to a store 20 man tournament with just about anything and win but if he turned up to an non-comp 200 player tournament his ability alone might get him into the top 20 even with a weaker army but he won't beat the other top players.

It's a bit like if you gave Andy Murray a $100 tennis racquet. He could still win every game in straight sets at a county level tournament but no matter how hard he tried he wouldn't win any Grand Slam tournaments.

logan054
21-01-2014, 12:31
As for comp allowing a more variety of army lists and putting them on a more equal footing.. there isn't a army out there that can't beat another playing the game rules as written. Sure there are tough matchups.. but isn't that what war games are about? To do the best with what you have in lieu of your opponent.

No comp will ever make a match that has two armies on equal footing perfectly, the uncomped environment doesn't so much breed the best opponent, it tends to breed who has the best list, bar some terrible luck or really stupid moves these matches will usually play out as your expect.


Strategy is huge, but so should luck, creativity, and the ability to use your army and given rules to best match your play style.

But does not restricting certain auto choices breed creativity? like with the old DE and the double hydra nonsense, going to an event that say "look, you can't do that today, it's been done to death" simply mean players have come out of their comfort zone and try new strategies? that's the thing with a comp, it can be whatever you want, you could simply have something like no double rares, no tripple specials and see what people come up with. From what I have seen of non-comped tournaments, the lists don't look massively different, when you see a chaos list more often than not you see a nurgle daemon prince, lvl4 death mage, it will have the standard loadout, it will have some juggers backed up by chimera's and/or chariots with a tzeentch BSB on a daemonic mount with a 3+ wardsave that rerolls 1's. You might see some warriors, you will see some hounds, you will probably see some chariots in the core section and maybe the special depending on if the person prefers what chimera's bring. I don't see anything creative about that and I can guess how it that army will play. This games comes down to more what I've brought with me and dice rolls.


Not having to resort to comp and purposely nerf certain armies or rules just so you have to rely less on some of those things just boggles my mind. I guess it's really hard for me to wrap my head around that some players don't have much to any care for certain aspects of the hobby other than acting out a chess match using Warhammer models.

Using a nerfed army and winning is more challenging than using your typical net list and winning, one could say that people who use the net lists only really care about the winning side of the game rather than the actual playing of the game or the enjoyment the other person receives, I liked games that I have to fight for, with two equally skilled players, I don't have issues going to uncomped tournaments, but it's nice to have others that offer different lists to play against. Like others have said you don't have to attend the uncomped ones who knows, you might even enjoy using a different list. Warhammer has room for both types, one is better than the other, every negative thing said about one can easily be turned around on the other. It's simply people with a different mindset having a slightly different format to play in.


Having two equal mirrored armies isn't competitive to me and makes for a game that exemplifies a dumbed-down version of what a war game is. But, that is my opinion.

Then that simply makes you look very narrow minded, you could always go to one, see how you like it and then makeup your mind rather than making some very uniformed views on something you have never tried. I think you would of hated the change from 5th to 6th as it seems you dislike is more about restrictions, restrictions are not always bad, GW has slowly been increasing them over the years (with 8th being a slight step backwards).

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 12:32
What I find interesting is that one of the reason I prefer comp is that, done right, it leads to more varied armies and a less chess like feel. Every non-comp tournament seems to have a massive bias towards 1-3 armies and each of those armies will a variant on the powerbuilds. When Ogres came out you could go to an 80 man army with ~10+ Ogre armies that were different in one or two ways.

Players learnt to use the best builds, planned for the current meta and practised against the power-builds they'd be facing. That sounds a lot more like 'chess' to me than the comp situation where players have constantly shifting choices when building an army and where what they will face is hard to predict.

Obviously you're entitled to an opinion and I'm perfectly happy with the current situation where both comp and non-comp tournaments are available. It just seems odd to me that you see comp as making the game like chess (where both players start with the same army) when it's very purpose is to increase the variety of armies.

Fair enough I suppose. Perhaps it's demographics and local tourney scene. Honestly, I can only attest to what I have been a part of and influenced by directly so there are bound to be differences in tourny's elsewhere. It just seems a bit different to me that in order to have more varied lists that a comp needs to be in effect when it is restricting what can and can't be constructed army-wise - limiting choices rather than allowing maximum rules allowance. It's quite contradictory. Perhaps it's the waac players that spoil the scene?

- Lord Cedric

Tae
21-01-2014, 12:34
I'm not going to contribute anything to this thread other than this one small point in relation to the OP:

Have you ever considered that the 'best of the best' in terms of generalship is more likely to cone from a comp tournament than a non comp? Since surely if all armies are 'reduced' accordingly to try and level the field then the only thing to distinguish you from everyone else is your skill? Whereas at non comp lists if you crack out the cheese against someone who hasn't you're at an immediate advantage due to nothing you've done.

Only though I'd ask as this is the view (and I'm not one of them, but know a couple) held by several of Europes 'elite' players.

Lord Cedric
21-01-2014, 13:04
Ok - for the record, I am not trying to persuade anyone in changing their minds on comp vs. non-comp. I respect everyone's opinion on the subject matter and I thank everyone who has taken the time to respond to my opinions.

That said, I'd just like to say that I guess I see this subject quite differently than some of you. And that's great as that is what makes for good discussions. We can agree to disagree. It does not, however, make me narrow minded because I won't conform to another's opinion nor does it make my opinion less informed. Of course I've tried it - thank you for not asking. I have been playing since 4th edition, so I have had lots of ins and outs with the rules, local meta, and power armies.

I do understand where most of you are coming from and I can see the points laid out in front of me. Thanks to those who did so. But I don't agree with the restrictive outcomes that comp imposes - to a larger degree. List building is part of being a player. I do agree that playing the "same internet list" over and over is quite dull. But then again, I have yet to have the same opposing lists play out exactly like they did a previous game. My opinion is that you can have a net list but that alone doesn't guarantee an auto-win.

- Lord Cedric

Snake1311
21-01-2014, 13:17
Swedish comp is used fairly rarely.

Having it used for a supposedly 'elite' event favors those who are more skilled at listbuilding on their own, as there would be no time for netleists to leak out in preparation for the tournament, nor for excessive testing which would then mean copying off others.

It also makes pro-compers reasonably happy (its a fairly extensive and detailed comp pack), and makes anti-compers happy, because beyond listbuilding the game isn't altered in any way on the actual table. Means neither are at a competitive disadvantage if they are playing against each other, with varying levels of experienced in either comped or uncomped.

Seems pretty clever to me!

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 13:20
I think the comp packet right now has been accidentally replaced with an earlier version. It should just be a victory points bonus per round. For each point you are above your opponent you get 100vps to a maximum value (800 vps? Something like that.) No battle points adjustment at all.

Well if I had known it was only VP and not both VP and battle points I probably would have gone. As I had read it, comp determined way too much. Just VP would have been fine.

But that was why I said a 18-20 comp was so important, the additional battle points. If that's true, that it doesn't actually work that way, then its not really that bad.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 13:28
I'm not going to contribute anything to this thread other than this one small point in relation to the OP:

Have you ever considered that the 'best of the best' in terms of generalship is more likely to cone from a comp tournament than a non comp? Since surely if all armies are 'reduced' accordingly to try and level the field then the only thing to distinguish you from everyone else is your skill? Whereas at non comp lists if you crack out the cheese against someone who hasn't you're at an immediate advantage due to nothing you've done.

Only though I'd ask as this is the view (and I'm not one of them, but know a couple) held by several of Europes 'elite' players.

I'll concede that maybe you're correct. My argument was that a comp system is subjective. The opinion of the comp writer(s) or tournament organizer. I realize Warhammer isn't balanced but at least its GW's system. Their rules, their game. Not somebody else's modified system.

If GW came out and posted a "tournament" comp system, then I would argue that we should use that.

And to whoever mentioned that Jervis encourages comp systems I would also like to bring to light that they also encourage house rules, new units, and terrain for games with your friends. Do we really want people to show up to a tournament with their interpretation of what a hydra's stats and special rules should be?

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 13:42
I will also contribute something in regards to skill:

When I was a tourney player back in 5th and 6th edition, I accumulated a dozen tournament trophies, Rogue Trader griffons, and a couple of league championships all in uncomped tournaments. I traveled to Chicago and Baltimore to play in the GW grand tournaments and my fear bus of doom even placed high there, though I never won one of those guys. A high placing was still pretty good IMO and my gaming room has all my little plaques and trophies on display to this day. It was a pretty fun seven year run, but... I know it wasn't because I was skilled at the game - I was skilled at exploiting the game and its horrible balance (fantasy in particular back then I exploited the hell out of fear and autobreaking)

When it came to comped tournaments, I couldn't win a single one because the things that I was exploiting in uncomped tournaments wasn't allowed, and I was only an average player and in an environment without my crutches, I couldn't get to the top tables because I lacked the skill to do so. I also railed heavily against comp because of this.

Now granted that was almost twenty years ago now and today my opinion is similar to what Lord Inquisitor posted - comp lets me see a more varied set of armies at an event instead of them all being mirror builds with minor variation here and there. It also kicks away the common crutches and makes you run on your own two feet.

So my own personal opinion is that you can rely less on an army list at comped events typically (in my experience) and more on your skill as opposed to uncomped events where you rely more on your list which takes a lot of pressure from needing your skill.

shakedown47
21-01-2014, 14:13
This is OT as far as comp vs. non-comp, but it's meant to support the notion of a "balanced" play environment facilitating the cream rising to the top.

The same guys that organize Buckeye Battles also do an invitational tournament called Path to Glory. Basically, it's a year-long look at the local tourney scene (any tournament larger than 12 people that uses Warscore) where they take the top-scoring 20 players for the year and pit them against each other using pre-built armies. So, if you're invited, you show up with your rulebook and some dice and that's it. Each table has two fully-built, fully-kitted armies complete with army list and army book for reference. The players dice off to choose which of the two armies they'll use at that table, then table sides, etc., and then play a game. Each table has a different set of armies, and the two armies are balanced against each other as decided by a large panel of judges. One table might have Wood Elves vs. Brets, one table HE vs. DE, Chaos vs Empire, etc. Each player will play three different armies over the course of the tournament, armies which are quite likely not to be ones that they personally own and certain not to be exact lists that they use. The ultimate goal, of course, is to truly find the best player among the 20, not just the best BOTWD/Fozzrik's player or the best player who got lucky with favorable matchups, but the best player with the broadest knowledge of all aspects of the game. The player response to this setup was unanimously positive.

Now I'm certainly not advocating that all tournaments adopt this scheme, for very obvious reasons. I mention it to point out that a setup like that is obviously going to be better at rewarding a great player than a setup that doesn't restrict any unit or any build in any way. The point of a tournament for me is to play three or five great games against people I don't get to play with often, or ever. It's about seeing people you only see two or three times a year and showing off your newly painted minis and congratulating them on theirs. I also play to win, insomuch as I recognize that I, at best, have as likely a chance at winning as any other attendee. I get as competitive as anyone else during the actual gameplay, and I also get salty over a particularly bad loss and sometimes just over matchups. As a WoC player, if I could play all of my tournament games against VC, Brets, or OK I would be ecstatic because my win/loss record against those armies is overwhelmingly on the win side. I would argue that army matchups have a bearing on tournament outcome almost as great as individual player skill or overall army composition. I have attended tournaments where I know I could have likely tabled the winner's army, based strictly on his army list vs. my army list, if we had played that one single game it would have drastically altered the tourney standings by lowering his overall score and elevating some other person to the top spot. Likewise, I've won tournaments sure in the knowledge that it was likely because I never got matched against Player X.

TL;DR: Tournaments are always going to have a large element of luck to them, an element that goes beyond the randomness of dice. You get bad matchups, you get good matchups. To get back on topic, I'm happy to play in any tournament someone wants to take the time to organize, comp or no. I'm even happier to play in a tournament where the organizer has taken some steps to ensure a more even field; that can be as simple as implementing Swiss pairings or as complicated as re-writing both the BRB and every army book as the SWC has done. No two people will ever completely agree on these things, but a basic recognition among the players that the game was not created for "fair" competitive play can go a long way toward putting the notion of tournaments in perspective.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 14:23
I will also contribute something in regards to skill:

When I was a tourney player back in 5th and 6th edition, I accumulated a dozen tournament trophies, Rogue Trader griffons, and a couple of league championships all in uncomped tournaments. I traveled to Chicago and Baltimore to play in the GW grand tournaments and my fear bus of doom even placed high there, though I never won one of those guys. A high placing was still pretty good IMO and my gaming room has all my little plaques and trophies on display to this day. It was a pretty fun seven year run, but... I know it wasn't because I was skilled at the game - I was skilled at exploiting the game and its horrible balance (fantasy in particular back then I exploited the hell out of fear and autobreaking)

When it came to comped tournaments, I couldn't win a single one because the things that I was exploiting in uncomped tournaments wasn't allowed, and I was only an average player and in an environment without my crutches, I couldn't get to the top tables because I lacked the skill to do so. I also railed heavily against comp because of this.

Now granted that was almost twenty years ago now and today my opinion is similar to what Lord Inquisitor posted - comp lets me see a more varied set of armies at an event instead of them all being mirror builds with minor variation here and there. It also kicks away the common crutches and makes you run on your own two feet.

So my own personal opinion is that you can rely less on an army list at comped events typically (in my experience) and more on your skill as opposed to uncomped events where you rely more on your list which takes a lot of pressure from needing your skill.

On the other side of that coin. There are people who only ever play comp, do very well, and struggle when it comes to playing without comp. Comp or no comp everyone is looking to exploit the system to come up with the best list or the best combos or the best rules manipulation to win with. NOBODY enjoys losing, its not in our natures as wargamers, although you can have fun games and lose but there is a difference.

I had a solid 2013 season, where it was my most successful year. That being said, every other year I played I would do very well but would always lose or draw one game. Since I'm an abysmal painter, I rely on battle scores. I do about the same in comp or non-comp, although my comp'd tournament experience isn't nearly as deep. I think part of being a dominant gamer is your ability to overcome the cheesiest of builds. Personally I would rather play against a hard as nails warriors list just to know if I could beat it.

I understand the want for a comp but I feel pre-released scenarios would have been the proper way to tone to internet builds and warhammer-meta

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 14:25
This is OT as far as comp vs. non-comp, but it's meant to support the notion of a "balanced" play environment facilitating the cream rising to the top.

The same guys that organize Buckeye Battles also do an invitational tournament called Path to Glory. Basically, it's a year-long look at the local tourney scene (any tournament larger than 12 people that uses Warscore) where they take the top-scoring 20 players for the year and pit them against each other using pre-built armies. So, if you're invited, you show up with your rulebook and some dice and that's it. Each table has two fully-built, fully-kitted armies complete with army list and army book for reference. The players dice off to choose which of the two armies they'll use at that table, then table sides, etc., and then play a game. Each table has a different set of armies, and the two armies are balanced against each other as decided by a large panel of judges. One table might have Wood Elves vs. Brets, one table HE vs. DE, Chaos vs Empire, etc. Each player will play three different armies over the course of the tournament, armies which are quite likely not to be ones that they personally own and certain not to be exact lists that they use. The ultimate goal, of course, is to truly find the best player among the 20, not just the best BOTWD/Fozzrik's player or the best player who got lucky with favorable matchups, but the best player with the broadest knowledge of all aspects of the game. The player response to this setup was unanimously positive.

Now I'm certainly not advocating that all tournaments adopt this scheme, for very obvious reasons. I mention it to point out that a setup like that is obviously going to be better at rewarding a great player than a setup that doesn't restrict any unit or any build in any way. The point of a tournament for me is to play three or five great games against people I don't get to play with often, or ever. It's about seeing people you only see two or three times a year and showing off your newly painted minis and congratulating them on theirs. I also play to win, insomuch as I recognize that I, at best, have as likely a chance at winning as any other attendee. I get as competitive as anyone else during the actual gameplay, and I also get salty over a particularly bad loss and sometimes just over matchups. As a WoC player, if I could play all of my tournament games against VC, Brets, or OK I would be ecstatic because my win/loss record against those armies is overwhelmingly on the win side. I would argue that army matchups have a bearing on tournament outcome almost as great as individual player skill or overall army composition. I have attended tournaments where I know I could have likely tabled the winner's army, based strictly on his army list vs. my army list, if we had played that one single game it would have drastically altered the tourney standings by lowering his overall score and elevating some other person to the top spot. Likewise, I've won tournaments sure in the knowledge that it was likely because I never got matched against Player X.

TL;DR: Tournaments are always going to have a large element of luck to them, an element that goes beyond the randomness of dice. You get bad matchups, you get good matchups. To get back on topic, I'm happy to play in any tournament someone wants to take the time to organize, comp or no. I'm even happier to play in a tournament where the organizer has taken some steps to ensure a more even field; that can be as simple as implementing Swiss pairings or as complicated as re-writing both the BRB and every army book as the SWC has done. No two people will ever completely agree on these things, but a basic recognition among the players that the game was not created for "fair" competitive play can go a long way toward putting the notion of tournaments in perspective.

I have always liked this idea for a tournament. Unfortunately it seems only feasible on a small scale. Never the less, a really cool idea.

Lord Inquisitor
21-01-2014, 16:03
Well if I had known it was only VP and not both VP and battle points I probably would have gone. As I had read it, comp determined way too much. Just VP would have been fine.

But that was why I said a 18-20 comp was so important, the additional battle points. If that's true, that it doesn't actually work that way, then its not really that bad.
Yeah I double checked and they've corrected the error here:

http://www.wargamersusa.com/showthread.php?tid=1764

BTW the old system was just to add your score at the end of the tournament, not each round (So 100 max for battle and 20 max for comp). This was changed to the VP system precisely because it promoted low comp lists. You're right adding it each round it would have been ridiculous!


I'll concede that maybe you're correct. My argument was that a comp system is subjective. The opinion of the comp writer(s) or tournament organizer.
Bear in mind that most comps are made by a committee of experienced players. Most of us agree on what is good and what isn't, at least in broad strokes. Not that we don't feel there's biases in the Swedish comp (daemons get off too easily, ogres seem over-comped), but these are relatively minor and the overall effect is more variety of builds than uncomped warhammer. A comp system doesn't need to be completely perfect in every way to be successful, just better than without it.


If GW came out and posted a "tournament" comp system, then I would argue that we should use that.
I'd argue before we even saw it that it'd probably be awful. GW have a habit of trying to go for something they don't normally do and making a half-assed attempt and screwing it up. It'd be terrible because TOs would feel they should use the "official" tournament rules even if their own rules would be better. Besides, they have control of the ultimate comp, the army lists themselves. If the books were balanced we wouldn't need comp.


And to whoever mentioned that Jervis encourages comp systems I would also like to bring to light that they also encourage house rules, new units, and terrain for games with your friends. Do we really want people to show up to a tournament with their interpretation of what a hydra's stats and special rules should be?
What's wrong with house rules or new terrain or new scenarios in a tournament? Providing these are the tournament's house rules and they're clearly listed in the player pack, it's no problem. Indeed most tournaments I know have some kind of house rules (e.g. 12 dice cap, infinitely high hills, etc).


The same guys that organize Buckeye Battles also do an invitational tournament called Path to Glory. Basically, it's a year-long look at the local tourney scene (any tournament larger than 12 people that uses Warscore) where they take the top-scoring 20 players for the year and pit them against each other using pre-built armies. So, if you're invited, you show up with your rulebook and some dice and that's it. Each table has two fully-built, fully-kitted armies complete with army list and army book for reference. The players dice off to choose which of the two armies they'll use at that table, then table sides, etc., and then play a game. Each table has a different set of armies, and the two armies are balanced against each other as decided by a large panel of judges. One table might have Wood Elves vs. Brets, one table HE vs. DE, Chaos vs Empire, etc. Each player will play three different armies over the course of the tournament, armies which are quite likely not to be ones that they personally own and certain not to be exact lists that they use. The ultimate goal, of course, is to truly find the best player among the 20, not just the best BOTWD/Fozzrik's player or the best player who got lucky with favorable matchups, but the best player with the broadest knowledge of all aspects of the game. The player response to this setup was unanimously positive.
I'd love to play in an event like this. My only criticism is that it really tests your memorisation of the game, arguably more than naked tactics. But other than that I would love to try something like that. Another I've heard of is allow players to bring their own armies, slightly smaller than usual. Opponents play each game twice, once with their own armies and once with their opponents'.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 16:32
Lord Inquisitor- I agree with you on GW's ability to truly mess up rulings or what fair is. I'll concede that. Call me a purest or elitetist, I don't care. The best of Games Workshop's warhammer. My only issue is the best of the best mentality. If this was just another GT tournament, Adepticon for example, I wouldn't really care.

My point, my only point, is that a best of the best (in my opinion) should be warhammer from the BRB. No comp, no house rules, and no addition FAQ beyond the most basic of unanswered questions. Got a rules question or dispute, solve it on the spot as the BRB intended it to happen. Or I'll concede and on the spot judges ruling. We play an extremely random and unbalanced game, don't change anything if you want to see who's the best at THAT game.

Also, please stop comparing warhammer to chess or checkers. Its like comparing bowling to hockey. The only similarity is that you can have an opponent to compete against.

underscore
21-01-2014, 16:47
I'm not sure if that was meant to be rhetorical, DSD, but of course the point is that proving that you're the best at uncomped Warhammer isn't seen as much of a boast, thus the need for comp to make things a bit more interesting.

Phazael
21-01-2014, 16:48
I am not a fan of comp systems either, but I also like soft scores so that you see something other than Daemons, Elves, and WoC all over the place. That said, the Swedish system was a sort of compromise between the regions because a certain region wanted to play ETC style and were violently opposed to anything resembling a soft score. After talking to some of these people, I quickly learned why and decided not to go. I hope the event is a success, but I have played that no holds barred style of warhammer with rules lawyers dominating the discussions and its not for me. Perhaps if things move more to the center next year, I will give it a go, but I already have seven or so GTs I attend that fit my style, so I am fine taking a pass on this one.

Having said all that, no holds barred BRB only Warhammer creates a massive garbage game of unpainted proxy armies where only the same three optimal net builds get used and whoever six dices their kill spell first wins. No event running in that style has survived more than a year or two. As much as I disagree with large parts of their FAQ, when you have people from all over trying to play the same game, its important to have a clear answer on things so that was a very necessary evil for this event to work, it would just be nice if they had not decided to outright change so many rules but that's the ETC thing creeping in again. It is what it is and this is year one. Mistakes will be made and things will be improved next time around. Outside of a couple loudmouth jackasses, the people running this are very respectable players and good people.

yabbadabba
21-01-2014, 17:19
A comp system is not warhammer. Actually it is. The rules make it quite plain that you should play the game how it suits you, as such comp systems and house rules are just as valid an interpretation as sticking to a single army book or army background.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 17:57
Ok lets try and do this metaphorically.

By your guys' thought process the following scenario would take place:
The Superbowl is will be played as non-contact flag football game, cause Heaven forbid someone could use ALL of their abilities. The underdog of the match will be given a certain amount of points to start off with to balance the championship game according to the over-under.

You have Manning and Welker? Sorry that's too good of a combination. You have to use their back ups because its just more fun that way, isn't it?

Hmmm I'm really wondering why we don't see this every year for the Superbowl. Strange huh? (Substitute every major sport, heck including soccer and the point is still valid)

"Huehue we're more sophisticated than athletes huehue". What a joke this is becoming...

underscore
21-01-2014, 18:00
That might work is one handegg team were allowed extra players, all of whom were super-robots and the other team had no ankles. That wouldn't be fun to watch (for long).

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 18:12
That might work is one handegg team were allowed extra players, all of whom were super-robots and the other team had no ankles. That wouldn't be fun to watch (for long).

Give it time, that's going to be a movie soon I'm sure.

I exaggerate but the message is still there. I would still rather watch the Broncos put up 100 points against the seahawks than watch the game where Denver had to sit their first sting offense. Not really proving who's best there.

Lord Inquisitor
21-01-2014, 18:22
Ok lets try and do this metaphorically.

By your guys' thought process the following scenario would take place:
The Superbowl is will be played as non-contact flag football game, cause Heaven forbid someone could use ALL of their abilities. The underdog of the match will be given a certain amount of points to start off with to balance the championship game according to the over-under.

You have Manning and Welker? Sorry that's too good of a combination. You have to use their back ups because its just more fun that way, isn't it?

Hmmm I'm really wondering why we don't see this every year for the Superbowl. Strange huh? (Substitute every major sport, heck including soccer and the point is still valid)

"Huehue we're more sophisticated than athletes huehue". What a joke this is becoming...

Oh god a sports metaphor. :p

Well the issue here is that the players rules and equipment is the same, leaving the difference between the players being down to skill and strength. It's not like one side doesn't get helmets and the other can use baseball bats in football.

To put it as a better analogy, car racing. There typically are rules as to exactly what you're allowed to do to your car. It isn't no holds barred bring any vehicle you like, there are specific rules for different races, covering what kind of engines you can have, what the maximum RPM and minimum weight and so on. You can't just build the fastest car. That's not to say the construction of the car isn't important (and maintenance, etc) but certain regulations exist to make it an even field between competitors to keep the race a matter of driving skill and not just engineering.

underscore
21-01-2014, 18:32
the game where Denver had to sit their first sting offense.
You people and your weird sports...

Okay, my weird analogy: it's like saying that the manager of Manchester City is better than the manager of Hartlepool FC because City win more Premiership titles (it might be true, but it might also be because City are owned by a multi-billionaire). A comp would be like what the NFL do with drafts and whatever to keep competition high and the game interesting.

Lord Solar Plexus
21-01-2014, 18:33
That's your prerogative. However, the people and teams who attend the ETC for example are all *very* competetive. They're not a bunch of sissies who need warm cushions. That comp is there to ensure a more tactical play. Six-dicing Purple Suns isn't.

The same applies to C.O.M.B.A.T. 8, a system very popular here in Germany. It isn't some subjective set of changes a couple of TO's or tournament players invented for their own sake. It's discussed and debated openly and regularly modified. It clearly states that it cannot and doesn't intend to remove all inequalities or save the world...and it is most definitely still Warhammer - because this game has not just one face.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 18:41
That's your prerogative. However, the people and teams who attend the ETC for example are all *very* competetive. They're not a bunch of sissies who need warm cushions. That comp is there to ensure a more tactical play. Six-dicing Purple Suns isn't.

The same applies to C.O.M.B.A.T. 8, a system very popular here in Germany. It isn't some subjective set of changes a couple of TO's or tournament players invented for their own sake. It's discussed and debated openly and regularly modified. It clearly states that it cannot and doesn't intend to remove all inequalities or save the world...and it is most definitely still Warhammer - because this game has not just one face.

Watch it now, YOUR opinion is that it is a more tactical game. I just disagree. My experience is that tactics get easier the softer the lists are forced to be.

Helmets and gear could be equated to rules from the BRB. I was metaphorically comparing teams to army books. Teams follow NFL rules (BRB) while teams have individual players and play schemes, or game plans (Armybook units and special rules)

underscore
21-01-2014, 18:44
I think it's more accurate to think of the NFL as a comp system for the rules of American Football. There's a reason that the AF 'metagame' (i.e. financial fair play, drafts etc) is regulated, even if the game on the pitch is 'pure' there are always other factor that need to be fixed.

Dark Side Duke
21-01-2014, 19:01
I think it's more accurate to think of the NFL as a comp system for the rules of American Football. There's a reason that the AF 'metagame' (i.e. financial fair play, drafts etc) is regulated, even if the game on the pitch is 'pure' there are always other factor that need to be fixed.

I would consider college football more of a comp system of the NFL. But to each their own. Regardless, I was using the NFL as my standard.

kramplarv
21-01-2014, 19:25
anyone interested in discussing swedish comp with the swedish players and compt auuthors just click in here, register and fire away :)

http://swfbr.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=6

(it is a swedish forum, but all people in Sweden can read and write english quite well so you can discuss in english with no need to speak swedish at all :D )

The swecomp is updated 2-3 times a year, and a new version will come in a few weeks. The current discussions are that Ogres are to heavy comped, same with WoC. So those armies will probably lighten up.

Karak Norn Clansman
21-01-2014, 19:50
Try the Swedish composition system tournament. It works over here, in Sweden!

Strong or outright cheesy lists will still turn up, and they will still crush the weaker lists as a rule, but the powerbuilds won't be fully as overpowering as on usual bring-your-cheese tournaments. The comp system aims to pick down the game towards skill and the eternal luck, away from the most heinous, game-winning army list builds.

Myster2
21-01-2014, 20:13
Winning a lot in an uncomped environment mostly has to do with what matches you pick up. Most tournaments have people that want to play a list because of the fluff or because it looks cool. To win those tournaments (best general awards) one generally only has to bring a top 4 list and get matched up correctly. The mistakes made can often time be resolved by the strength of the army to come to a win.

Sometimes this leads the player to feel that they are very "good" at the game. This may at times lead to anger about comp'd lists as the game has to change and the person may feel inadequate about adapting to the changes.

Because of the above i'm all for a comp'd list for "best of the best"

IcedCrow
21-01-2014, 20:17
I can relate to this. When I rolled people for years using power lists I thought I was good at the game. Then when I stopped using min/max lists and started to lose as much as I won, I had to take a few months to really reflect and understand that a lot of my success came down to stacking math in my odds and exploiting match ups. I used to hate comp for that very reason. I couldn't do well with a comped list, but I could steam roll people with my uncomped list, so naturally as a tournament player I wanted the uncomped list.

underscore
21-01-2014, 20:22
Regardless, I was using the NFL as my standard.
Surely the standard should be the rules of American Football?

Lord Inquisitor
21-01-2014, 20:59
Helmets and gear could be equated to rules from the BRB. I was metaphorically comparing teams to army books. Teams follow NFL rules (BRB) while teams have individual players and play schemes, or game plans (Armybook units and special rules)
Fine, look at it this way. If we assume differing teams represent our armies. Trying to sort players by player skill is like looking at the skill of the coaches. While the best teams typically have the best coaches as well, it's hard to differentiate between a great coach with decent players and a mediocre one who just has some of the best players in the world.

If you were organising a competition to see who was the best coach, it would indeed make sense to standardise the players they have at the start of the season or some kind of handicap based on how good the players of that club are. Of course sports fans are usually not interested solely in how the coach does and the players are not just game pieces.

Phazael
21-01-2014, 21:59
Any descent tournament has to have either some degree of soft scores or comp. Most use a mix of both, with certain targeted bans and limited soft scores. Without these, you end up with a stale game where only the three most broken armies get to contend, no matter what the player skill. Those of us who sat through the WE/Brett dominated years of 6th, the DoC/VC/DE circle jerk of 2007, or the early stages of 8th with the DE/Skaven/Lizard dominated metas know this well enough. Speaking as someone who has won either overall or best general in over a half dozen GTs over the years, believe me when I say the overall I won with super soft MMU goblins is the one I treasure the most, because it required the most of me. No one respects or remembers someone who wins an event using EZmode netlists or lucky matchups.

leopard
21-01-2014, 22:02
Always thought the solution was play each scenario twice, once with your army, once with theirs. average the results

Lord Inquisitor
21-01-2014, 22:15
Always thought the solution was play each scenario twice, once with your army, once with theirs. average the results

Yeah I think I said this earlier in this thread. I ran a tournament recently and I was really tempted to try and get people to do this. The overwhelming response was people didn't want others touching their models unfortunately.

leopard
21-01-2014, 22:18
Ran in one here, bring a list for others to use, obviously you get the worst of the worst, but i think a two way solves a lot of issues, incentive to have a list that needs skill and brains to use and is not one trick broken.

Dark Side Duke
22-01-2014, 12:40
Fine, look at it this way. If we assume differing teams represent our armies. Trying to sort players by player skill is like looking at the skill of the coaches. While the best teams typically have the best coaches as well, it's hard to differentiate between a great coach with decent players and a mediocre one who just has some of the best players in the world.

If you were organising a competition to see who was the best coach, it would indeed make sense to standardise the players they have at the start of the season or some kind of handicap based on how good the players of that club are. Of course sports fans are usually not interested solely in how the coach does and the players are not just game pieces.

Funny you mention that actually. Coaches, historically, have had their caliber measured by how well they do with the team they were given. Lombardi never had any real talent on his team but his coaching philosophy and game "tactics" used what he had to the fullest potential. He won a lot, despite facing teams with a clear advantage in player talent.

On the other side, Belichick is quietly being talked about as one of the best coaches of all time and his teams have be completely stacked with talent during his tenure.

Its all about how you do with what is given to you. Neither coaches required a balanced playing ground to excel in their careers.

Lord Inquisitor
22-01-2014, 16:58
Right, so the analogy would be that winning a GT with wood elves is more impressive than with warriors. No doubt. But the key thing here is "how well they do with the team they were given", comp systems like Swedish give us a way of measuring the quality of the team you have relative to the others.

Analogies with sports inevitably only take you so far (each coach cannot have the same team, whereas in WFB they can - footie would be a dull sport if every team was manchester united). The car analogy I gave earlier is much closer - each driver has a car and the specs of the car are limited to make driver skill more important than just engineering. In this case every driver does have the best car that fits within regulations. Saying that Formula One would be better if people could bring anything they wanted to try and win, death race style, is fair enough but clearly the sport is considered more entertaining by many if drivers are kept within strict regulations.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 17:04
Yeah I think I said this earlier in this thread. I ran a tournament recently and I was really tempted to try and get people to do this. The overwhelming response was people didn't want others touching their models unfortunately.

ITs funny, but for years I ran a "Mirror Universe" scenario where people could trade armies for extra battle points. The responses were always the same, no matter what I did to accommodate certain people. The sporting guys were always into it. The power gamers absolutely refused to face their own cheese. The three years I ran the scenario I never once had an incident where models were damaged as a result and we had copious amounts of drinking at these events, so I chalk it all up to hypocrisy on part of some people.

SteveW
22-01-2014, 17:08
Footie is a dull sport no matter who is on any given team...haha!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Using pro sports to support an anti-comp stance isn't a good idea because after every season the controlling entity decides upon new comp for the league to drive the game in the direction desired. Example(American football), when the passing game was decided to be more exciting to watch than a running game they changed the rules to protect both the passer and the receiver to entice more passing in a run first environment.

Don Zeko
22-01-2014, 17:15
I'd add that what bothers me about the initial post here isn't so much the content (although I do disagree with it, and think that comped events bring a lot to the game), so much as the tone. I know several of the guys involved in setting up the US masters event, and they've worked their asses off to create an event with a rules pack that is as broadly acceptable to different sets of players in different areas of the country, many of whom have wildly different ideas about things like comp. So even if the swedish comp system had serious problems (and personally I think that a mix of uncomped and swedish comp events is the ideal way to play competitive warhammer), the fact that is is what they managed to compromise upon counts for a lot, because it allows us to have a truly national tournament scene which didn't exist before.

Montegue
22-01-2014, 17:46
Gotta agree. I downright hate some of the rules changes, but those guys busted ass and are sacrificing a lot to create this. I don't think of it as a best of the best so much as an attempt to build a national community. I'd like the US to come up with its own system, to be honest. Maybe that will come of this.

Dark Side Duke
22-01-2014, 17:55
I'd add that what bothers me about the initial post here isn't so much the content (although I do disagree with it, and think that comped events bring a lot to the game), so much as the tone. I know several of the guys involved in setting up the US masters event, and they've worked their asses off to create an event with a rules pack that is as broadly acceptable to different sets of players in different areas of the country, many of whom have wildly different ideas about things like comp. So even if the swedish comp system had serious problems (and personally I think that a mix of uncomped and swedish comp events is the ideal way to play competitive warhammer), the fact that is is what they managed to compromise upon counts for a lot, because it allows us to have a truly national tournament scene which didn't exist before.

I realize their hard work and I never doubted their resolve. In all honesty, they did too much. I don't think the people who are in love with Comphammer would have attack the Masters tournament if it had been established as uncomp'd.

I know I was harsh in my approach. I also conceded that I was in the minority on the comp system. I don't particularly hate comp, I don't particularly like how unbalanced warhammer can be but call me crazy, comphammer is not warhammer.

Montegue
22-01-2014, 18:48
If there was no comp system, I wouldn't have bought tickets. No interest spending that much money to watch the Beast of Nurgle Olympics.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 18:56
Gotta agree. I downright hate some of the rules changes, but those guys busted ass and are sacrificing a lot to create this. I don't think of it as a best of the best so much as an attempt to build a national community. I'd like the US to come up with its own system, to be honest. Maybe that will come of this.

Agree with the first part, but not the second. Basically, the system for the masters this year is the SE Swede approach with NE dominated FAQs and rules changes. What is going to be played there next month bears very little resemblance to what any warhammer west of the Appalachian Mountains is played like. I really do not want to see warhammer dictated by a magical council of Warhammer Super geniuses, like what ETC has more or less turned the bulk of Europe into. Look at what has happened to the national 40k scene from a couple of internet celebrities forcing their playstyle on the community and you get a good picture of what I want to avoid. Having a unified "language" to play a community building event is one thing. Trying to create some sort of gold standard, especially when its clear that the obnoxious people win all the debates by default, is quite another. I have tried to explain this to people on the Masters site and basically got ad homonym ridiculed to death for my efforts, often by the guy running the actual site. In fact, these people simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of any other form of the game beyond their own when having even simple discussions, so I really do not want them dictating anything beyond their own thunderdome version of warhammer.

I strongly applaud the effort being put in by Jerrod, Ben, and Eoin, but frankly they are too nice to deal with people like that. Until the event represents an actual true cross section the entire country (rather than SE Comp and NE house rules), I am not going to attend. I travel enough to events all over the country to know where I stand in the scheme of things and my epeen is not going to get any smaller by passing on a round of dickpunchhammer with the NE crowd treating it like a WWF match. I would encourage anyone with an interest in seeing a metagame not their own to give it a shot, because the West Coast, Texas, and Central guys that are going are all great to party with and great to play. I already get to play the bulk of these guys semi regularly, even Ben, so the idea of going and facing someone like Larro running a netbuild Khurgle list does not excite me, even though I desperately want to play Eoin in person at some point, if only to get mocked in one of his Youtube batreps.

These guys are putting a thankless effort to run this, though, and I expect changes down the road. On this basis, I have nothing less than total respect for the organizers.

kylek2235
22-01-2014, 18:56
If there was no comp system, I wouldn't have bought tickets. No interest spending that much money to watch the Beast of Nurgle Olympics.

That there was going to be some sort of comp system was a no brainer. How much and how to do it was debated. The fact that the heads of all of the major tournaments in the US voted to increase the comp regulations several times is telling.

Army list diversification for an event like this was important.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 19:03
Edit- Soft Scores would have solved the Beast of Nurgle spamfest, among other many issues. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the feeder events to this thing use them, they were shot down hard by the NE crowd (who basically never use them), which does not shock me much given their take on the game and general behavior when at the table (in my experience). If I acted like those guys, I would not want sportsmanship scores, either. Plus even though I am a mediocre painter myself, there needs to be some incentive to have painted stuff on the table, even if its done by Ping the Chinese Sweatshop Painter. The last two times I went to a NE GT there were more unpainted armies than completed armies and if you actually make good painting a part of the overall score, you don't get flavor of the month proxyhammer, or at least cut down on it a ton.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 19:08
That there was going to be some sort of comp system was a no brainer. How much and how to do it was debated. The fact that the heads of all of the major tournaments in the US voted to increase the comp regulations several times is telling.

Army list diversification for an event like this was important.

Yeah, we will see what Swede Komp and the rules alterations do to that. My guess is that outside of the odd Goblin Gunline or someone bringing a weaker army because they plan on getting drunk, the majority will likely be HE World Dragon, DoC Khurgle, and WoC Nurgle DP just like the SE masters ended up. I hope I am wrong, of course, but being a cynical person I have to acknowledge the obvious likelihood. There is a good chance DE Light Choir will replace WoC DP lists, at least, I guess.

kylek2235
22-01-2014, 19:15
I don't recall the Texas Tournaments having much in the way of mechanisms (short of sports scores) that prevented lists like the Nurgle spam fest. I remember seeing armies with Epi sitting in his portal and I recall plethoras of Nurgle Daemon Princes still in attendance and I recall them not getting tanked for sports. They didn't get any best game votes, but neither did they get bad ones. More like a set of cultural differences there.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 19:19
They do comp bracketed pairings (judge based comp scores) and they have a soft score system that combines comp and sports into one vote (I prefer them split, but anything is better than nothing). I went to Alamo with a mono Slaanesh Cacobomb list and did the best of any of the DoC armies, by far and away, with only my painting being mediocre. I even got two favorite votes. Top guy was a very tame ABC Vampire list and second place went to a guy with a no Banner HE army. So top five were: ABC VC, tame HE, Khurgle DoC, mono Slaanesh DoC, and no knight Empire. And that was a rough room by West Coast standards. I think that is pretty good diversity.

kylek2235
22-01-2014, 19:20
Yeah, we will see what Swede Komp and the rules alterations do to that. My guess is that outside of the odd Goblin Gunline or someone bringing a weaker army because they plan on getting drunk, the majority will likely be HE World Dragon, DoC Khurgle, and WoC Nurgle DP just like the SE masters ended up. I hope I am wrong, of course, but being a cynical person I have to acknowledge the obvious likelihood. There is a good chance DE Light Choir will replace WoC DP lists, at least, I guess.

I'm a big fan of the swedish comp system, not a huge fan of some of the rules alterations, but it's an event that everyone is clearly interested in tinkering with. That's a good thing.

kylek2235
22-01-2014, 19:34
They do comp bracketed pairings (judge based comp scores) and they have a soft score system that combines comp and sports into one vote (I prefer them split, but anything is better than nothing). I went to Alamo with a mono Slaanesh Cacobomb list and did the best of any of the DoC armies, by far and away, with only my painting being mediocre. I even got two favorite votes. Top guy was a very tame ABC Vampire list and second place went to a guy with a no Banner HE army. So top five were: ABC VC, tame HE, Khurgle DoC, mono Slaanesh DoC, and no knight Empire. And that was a rough room by West Coast standards. I think that is pretty good diversity.

I remember, some of them were opponents of mine. I was the guy with the themed snow goblins (which batted .500 for the weekend woot). Alamo is always a tougher crowd. Guys play to win, but we all end up drinking at the same place later. That's a result of the atmosphere, not the comp rules. Did we have comp based pairings this year? I thought we suspended it this year. Maybe that was just Bayou. I know Bailey did the Swedish comp, but I didn't think he used it for anything other than informational purposes.

And the Sports/Comp vote? Notice the number of bad game votes. It's not really a deterrent. Adepticon has a similiar one and they still had the whole Brian fiasco.

Montegue
22-01-2014, 19:41
I remember, some of them were opponents of mine. I was the guy with the themed snow goblins (which batted .500 for the weekend woot). Alamo is always a tougher crowd. Guys play to win, but we all end up drinking at the same place later. That's a result of the atmosphere, not the comp rules. Did we have comp based pairings this year? I thought we suspended it this year. Maybe that was just Bayou. I know Bailey did the Swedish comp, but I didn't think he used it for anything other than informational purposes.

And the Sports/Comp vote? Notice the number of bad game votes. It's not really a deterrent. Adepticon has a similiar one and they still had the whole Brian fiasco.
Those snow gobbos are one of my favorite armies.

We did Swedish comp at Alamo, but only as an experiment to show who had what under that scoring style. It may or may not have impacted first game match ups, but it had no impact on overall scoring. I like the comp system, but would prefer to play things by the 8th ed book. That, at least, is universal. With Swedish you can take whatever the heck you want, but there's an advantage to being better with a less broken list. Granted,fashion dictates some choices, as does internet wisdoms.ma Runelord with anti magic is no where near as useful as a level 4 on death, but they cost the same.

Dark Side Duke
22-01-2014, 19:46
Gotta agree. I downright hate some of the rules changes, but those guys busted ass and are sacrificing a lot to create this. I don't think of it as a best of the best so much as an attempt to build a national community. I'd like the US to come up with its own system, to be honest. Maybe that will come of this.


Absolutely. It was pitched as a best of the best so there in lies my problem. The very idea of the tournament itself is what I've been looking for for a long time and I was really excited when I first found out.

SteveW
22-01-2014, 19:53
Absolutely. It was pitched as a best of the best so there in lies my problem. The very idea of the tournament itself is what I've been looking for for a long time and I was really excited when I first found out.

A proper title would have been "Best of the best of a group of handicapable rules adjustments"...lol

Dark Side Duke
22-01-2014, 20:09
A proper title would have been "Best of the best of a group of handicapable rules adjustments"...lol

HaHA Or "Best of Softhammer"

Just to reign everyone in, Swedcomp is not a terrible system. When I was given the rules packet, I read that comp was added to battle point and there was a victory points addition at the end of the game based off of the difference in opponents comp. I felt that the comp had way to much of an effect on the tournament. Other than that, which appears to have been a typo and is changed now, the tournament looked real sharp.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 21:11
I guess you must like playing a DoC/HE/WoC circle jerk, because that is what unfettered warhammer ends up degenerating into. The holy trinity might change with editions, but it always boils down to 2-3 armies dominating and anyone not taking one of _the_ builds getting bodied. Crap like that is what led to the game almost dying entirely in 7th. I get it, you like playing with the cheat codes, but no one is impressed by a netlister following a flowchart and six dicing their way to victory, so something has to give.

yabbadabba
22-01-2014, 21:29
A proper title would have been "Best of the best of a group of handicapable rules adjustments"...lol And yet handicapping is an established and recognised form of providing a greater challenge, not lesser.

SteveW
22-01-2014, 22:54
And yet handicapping is an established and recognised form of providing a greater challenge, not lesser.
Other than not getting the joke you also missed the point of hadicaps. A handicap in sports is to even the skill gap between players. Like if you were to come in last enough times you'd get an extra score to even the odds between your average play and the other players average play. A comp would be if we were playing golf and I said you are not allowed to use your sand wedge because I didn't like how sand wedges made the game play.

Phazael
22-01-2014, 23:01
And the Sports/Comp vote? Notice the number of bad game votes. It's not really a deterrent. Adepticon has a similiar one and they still had the whole Brian fiasco.

Look at the points separating the top five people and then reconsider that. Maybe painting had more of an impact, but bad game votes definitely affected standings.

Tae
22-01-2014, 23:02
Other than not getting the joke you also missed the point of hadicaps. A handicap in sports is to even the skill gap between players. Like if you were to come in last enough times you'd get an extra score to even the odds between your average play and the other players average play. A comp would be if we were playing golf and I said you are not allowed to use your sand wedge because I didn't like how sand wedges made the game play.

That's nothing like how comp works.

Comp is more like having a car race to decide who the best driver is and then limiting both cars to the same top speed.

It has nothing to do with personal preferences (as you suggest) but rather is an attempt yo even out an unlevel playing field

kylek2235
22-01-2014, 23:37
Look at the points separating the top five people and then reconsider that. Maybe painting had more of an impact, but bad game votes definitely affected standings.

Look at the whole tournament and tell me the scores are inherently different from all the others. I'm not criticizing the sportsmanship at the alamo. My wife and I have a blast every year and I would change nothing. I'm just saying their sports scoring system (at most tournaments to be honest) is not a deterrent to guys taking d*** lists. My tough Ogre lists get the same decent sports score that my super fluffy Goblins get. Players have different opinions on what a bad game is (whether it requires just a super tough net list, an obnoxious opponent, or if they have to be an absolute cheating d***). That's a subjective score that depends entirely on the whims of who you play.

Not that I have any actual numbers to back this up, but from what I've observed based on my own group- personality has more to do with lower sports scores than army builds, thus not making it a good deterrent for certain lists.

To the no comp guys here, do any of you remember the second 'Ard Boyz Tourny which really just devolved into everyone taking a couple of Kairos Fateweaver Daemon lists? What a mess that was

Phazael
22-01-2014, 23:43
Except that generally people with poor personality traits tend to take meaner armies. It more or less goes hand in hand. If the point differences are minor while still affecting the outcome enough to create that kind of diversity, I would call that working as intended.

yabbadabba
22-01-2014, 23:49
Other than not getting the joke you also missed the point of hadicaps. A handicap in sports is to even the skill gap between players. Like if you were to come in last enough times you'd get an extra score to even the odds between your average play and the other players average play. A comp would be if we were playing golf and I said you are not allowed to use your sand wedge because I didn't like how sand wedges made the game play.I did get the joke, but saw it as an opportunity. I don't think you understood my point.

Gradek
23-01-2014, 00:05
Other than not getting the joke you also missed the point of hadicaps. A handicap in sports is to even the skill gap between players. Like if you were to come in last enough times you'd get an extra score to even the odds between your average play and the other players average play. A comp would be if we were playing golf and I said you are not allowed to use your sand wedge because I didn't like how sand wedges made the game play.

Actually, wouldn't it be more like if golf say banned belly putters because they thought those particular putters required less skill and made the game easier. Oh wait, they did that.

kylek2235
23-01-2014, 00:28
Except that generally people with poor personality traits tend to take meaner armies. It more or less goes hand in hand. If the point differences are minor while still affecting the outcome enough to create that kind of diversity, I would call that working as intended.

I find less skilled and/or poor personality traits. They're lower in both cases. As you pointed out, the painting was more influential here. Agreed to disagree on this minor point as we appear to agree on all others?

Shadowsinner
23-01-2014, 01:39
here are my two cents. I think if any player has to pay a small fortune to play the game, then a system of balance needs to be implemented in order to create an environment that allows both players to use some fun toys, but also while having to sweat. See here is why the sports analogy doesn't work, because despite how much advantage or disadvantage some teams have against each other when comparing overall build, coaches, or individual players, the games are scheduled ahead of time, so despite the Chargers being just awful compared to the Patriots or Broncos, they still have the opportunity to focus their tactics on the specific team and may have a chance of winning if they can successfully manipulate the weaknesses of the opponents defense or offense style. You will never see a team with an "All Comers" playbook nor will you ever see a random matchup to where the teams didn't have time to make changes... now lets compare this to warhammer. If I played TK and had scheduled a match with a warriors player in advance, then uncomped isn't so bad because it gives me a chance to specifically tailor my list to stand a chance against the warriors. I know that the most broken TK list is nowhere near as formidable as the most ott Woc, but I get a small advantage of adjustment. In a tourney scene however, I have to make an all comers list which is intended to have teeth but also minimize massive disadvantage against different list types (most of which will try to abuse the scariest toys they have which can be a variety of cannons, monsters, chariots, characters etc) Some armies not only have more top tier cheese builds than others, but also perform generally with better advantages than others. It is because of this imbalance that in order to determine skill, we need comp for all lists, or something like swedish system where it stabilizes itself by making sure both players still have a reasonable chance of winning.

That being said I have played in both types of tournies and I tend to take upper middle of the road lists where they have some punch, but can field a bit of everything. I have always found it amazing how there are more people in favor of comped lists who will enter uncomped tournaments, than power gamers who hate to relinquish their... well power. I think its got to be a psychological thing. Possibly with a hint of some sociopathy ;) at least for the ones who bring the broken stuff and refuse to admit theyre gaming the system

Shadowsinner
23-01-2014, 01:43
personally I feel dirty when I take stuff I know I shouldn't. And while I am a competitive player and dream big of one day getting that 1st prize gift card, I don't think I could justify my cause at the cost of intentionally making anyone have a bad gaming experience. but that's just me

Phazael
23-01-2014, 02:50
I find less skilled and/or poor personality traits. They're lower in both cases. As you pointed out, the painting was more influential here. Agreed to disagree on this minor point as we appear to agree on all others?

Fair enough.

N1AK
23-01-2014, 12:54
It just seems a bit different to me that in order to have more varied lists that a comp needs to be in effect when it is restricting what can and can't be constructed army-wise - limiting choices rather than allowing maximum rules allowance. It's quite contradictory. Perhaps it's the waac players that spoil the scene?

- Lord Cedric

Oh absolutely it is player behaviour that leads to the issue. If people weren't spamming the best couple of WoC/DoC builds at uncomped or lightly comped events then I'm sure more people would be interested in those events and thus more would be run.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the anti-comp crowd. I want to play 'warhammer' thus have little time for fundamental changes like in the ETC and personally I'm not a fan of banning things, I can also understand why people don't like having to make armies in the more confusing and time-consuming way required when you have to follow the book and the comp.

I've run a couple of tournaments in the past and I focused the comp on points bonuses and penalties. You can take what you want, but if you took certain choices you got more points or less. I've actually taken that further with the comp I'm considering for a tournament later this year. Your army starts with a points limit and you can take whatever you want. You could never read the comp pack and you would have a legal list. The comp pack gives bonus points for not taking powerful choices or taking weak choices. So for example if you were taking Warriors of Chaos you could take any 2500pt list, or use the comp and maybe get more points (limited to 2750):

50pts for taking a Slaughterbrute
25pts for having 0-4 Skullcrushers


So you can turn up with your Daemon Prince, Jugger, Chariot etc filth if you want to but players who want to take units rarely seen at tournaments get a slight benefit to balance it out.

Lord Cedric
23-01-2014, 13:09
Oh absolutely it is player behaviour that leads to the issue. If people weren't spamming the best couple of WoC/DoC builds at uncomped or lightly comped events then I'm sure more people would be interested in those events and thus more would be run.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the anti-comp crowd. I want to play 'warhammer' thus have little time for fundamental changes like in the ETC and personally I'm not a fan of banning things, I can also understand why people don't like having to make armies in the more confusing and time-consuming way required when you have to follow the book and the comp.

I've run a couple of tournaments in the past and I focused the comp on points bonuses and penalties. You can take what you want, but if you took certain choices you got more points or less. I've actually taken that further with the comp I'm considering for a tournament later this year. Your army starts with a points limit and you can take whatever you want. You could never read the comp pack and you would have a legal list. The comp pack gives bonus points for not taking powerful choices or taking weak choices. So for example if you were taking Warriors of Chaos you could take any 2500pt list, or use the comp and maybe get more points (limited to 2750):

50pts for taking a Slaughterbrute
25pts for having 0-4 Skullcrushers


So you can turn up with your Daemon Prince, Jugger, Chariot etc filth if you want to but players who want to take units rarely seen at tournaments get a slight benefit to balance it out.

Thank you for such a constructive response. You, sir, have persuaded me to actually consider to a comp system that, if implemented right, would seem fair in a compromise. I'd be willing to try this out if it was near my local store. In other words... While I still stand on a preference of zero comp, I can compromise to playing this system in a local tourney.

- Lord Cedric

Sent by my Samsung Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

Dark Side Duke
23-01-2014, 13:17
That's nothing like how comp works.

Comp is more like having a car race to decide who the best driver is and then limiting both cars to the same top speed.

It has nothing to do with personal preferences (as you suggest) but rather is an attempt yo even out an unlevel playing field

Driver A is better at sub-200mph speeds
Driver B is better at 200+mph speeds

Dictating the the maximum speed through vehicle capabilities may work for the majority of drivers (average tournament players) but it doesn't prove that Driver A is better than driver B in anything other than THAT format. Vehicle regulations=comp where as show up and race= GW warhammer

Lord Solar Plexus
23-01-2014, 14:16
Watch it now, YOUR opinion is that it is a more tactical game. I just disagree.

I did in fact already entertain that suspicion. ;) Once again, that's your prerogative. Just play as you prefer.

Dark Side Duke
23-01-2014, 14:50
I did in fact already entertain that suspicion. ;) Once again, that's your prerogative. Just play as you prefer.

Opinions aside, no one has proved that comping adds tactics.

It proves that you get a larger diversity of units because you need to make up for lost tactics because of the comp but you add no new tactical maneuvers to the game. Personally, I don't have the time or desire to paint 3 units to do what one unit should be able to do in the game of warhammer.

Also, as long as everyone is content with being lazy and unoriginal by copying everything the ETC does then so be it. Thought it wasn't our style but sure, lets put the European training wheel program on a pedestal.

'Merica!

IcedCrow
23-01-2014, 15:34
I don't think that you can prove tactics are added or removed simply via text, you'd need to demonstrate several games uncomped vs several games comped and point out the tactical trees in both games.

I'm not necessarily sure you get more tactics vs comp you just eliminate the common crutches for something else. If the same comp is used regularly, a new set of crutches will emerge. That's the nature of the beast.

Tae
23-01-2014, 15:40
Driver A is better at sub-200mph speeds
Driver B is better at 200+mph speeds

Dictating the the maximum speed through vehicle capabilities may work for the majority of drivers (average tournament players) but it doesn't prove that Driver A is better than driver B in anything other than THAT format. Vehicle regulations=comp where as show up and race= GW warhammer

Whereas allowing the drivers to race in whatever car they can afford proves nothing in terms of driver skill but everything in terms of driver bank balance size.

Fact (and it is one) is that the best general is the one who performs the best given the same tools. Out if the box WFB doesn't give everyone the same tools.

SteveW
23-01-2014, 15:47
Whereas allowing the drivers to race in whatever car they can afford proves nothing in terms of driver skill but everything in terms of driver bank balance size.

Fact (and it is one) is that the best general is the one who performs the best given the same tools. Out if the box WFB doesn't give everyone the same tools.
Why do people write "fact" and then produce opinion? I have never in my life seen someone write "Fact", then actually produce one.

As for your opinion, I don't agree. I think the better general chooses the tools that best fit what he wants to do.

Shandowner
23-01-2014, 15:55
Agree with the first part, but not the second. Basically, the system for the masters this year is the SE Swede approach with NE dominated FAQs and rules changes. What is going to be played there next month bears very little resemblance to what any warhammer west of the Appalachian Mountains is played like. I really do not want to see warhammer dictated by a magical council of Warhammer Super geniuses, like what ETC has more or less turned the bulk of Europe into. Look at what has happened to the national 40k scene from a couple of internet celebrities forcing their playstyle on the community and you get a good picture of what I want to avoid. Having a unified "language" to play a community building event is one thing. Trying to create some sort of gold standard, especially when its clear that the obnoxious people win all the debates by default, is quite another. I have tried to explain this to people on the Masters site and basically got ad homonym ridiculed to death for my efforts, often by the guy running the actual site. In fact, these people simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of any other form of the game beyond their own when having even simple discussions, so I really do not want them dictating anything beyond their own thunderdome version of warhammer.

I strongly applaud the effort being put in by Jerrod, Ben, and Eoin, but frankly they are too nice to deal with people like that. Until the event represents an actual true cross section the entire country (rather than SE Comp and NE house rules), I am not going to attend. I travel enough to events all over the country to know where I stand in the scheme of things and my epeen is not going to get any smaller by passing on a round of dickpunchhammer with the NE crowd treating it like a WWF match. I would encourage anyone with an interest in seeing a metagame not their own to give it a shot, because the West Coast, Texas, and Central guys that are going are all great to party with and great to play. I already get to play the bulk of these guys semi regularly, even Ben, so the idea of going and facing someone like Larro running a netbuild Khurgle list does not excite me, even though I desperately want to play Eoin in person at some point, if only to get mocked in one of his Youtube batreps.

These guys are putting a thankless effort to run this, though, and I expect changes down the road. On this basis, I have nothing less than total respect for the organizers.

Q,
First, I own the site, and don't ever remember ridiculing you, but in fact the opposite, tried to get you to se pass the guys being jerks on the forum. (although I did add a lololo, because someone called you a sophisticated spambot. But that wasn't a slight at you, that was because it was a funny post. (hell dude could have been talking about me and I would have thought it be funny)

Secondly, the SE region had exactly 2 out of 5 events last year as swede comp, and only 1 of them planned this year! Being the guy who spent countless hours in finding the middle ground, I can tell you that exactly 2 things that the NE region wanted to get pushed through, got pass the other 4 regions.
1. mundane equipment on older book BSBs (hink WE and Brets)
2. getting LOS for up to 2 characters in a unit.

The rest were a combination of EVERY Regions TOs including Hengl and Bailey, (from WC and TX respectively and the TOs for the two largest GTs not named adepticon)
and even if the SE and NE had some sort of evil intentions, the fact is the other 3 regions outnumbered them, and in fact aside from maybe voting aligned with TX typically, I can confirm that the WC reps were the most similar to the NE in terms to voting ballots then ANY other region.

Also we expect at least 2 more regions next year, meaning the event will have a even larger diluted voting pool vs some areas if that is your concern.
Try to be open minded to the staff, who are trying to make a format that everyone can live with, and give us the benefit of the doubt, and ignore the dudes that need to be ignored.

We are trying our best, and we will not be governing with some select and pre determined regions holding traditionally more power then the others like the Denmark/Poland/Germany ETC thing that people think exists. If we keep working together, we can make this thing work.

Jerry P

Dark Side Duke
23-01-2014, 16:02
Whereas allowing the drivers to race in whatever car they can afford proves nothing in terms of driver skill but everything in terms of driver bank balance size.

Fact (and it is one) is that the best general is the one who performs the best given the same tools. Out if the box WFB doesn't give everyone the same tools.

Well by that logic we should all just play the exact same beastmen army. Seems only fair and incredibly fun. Comping doesn't give you the "same tools".

Phazael
23-01-2014, 16:49
@Jerrod
I was led to believe Keith owned the site (he is the admin), so sorry about that misconception. But the fact remains that even trying to have civil discourse in the non masters area of the site has usually resulted in internet tough guy epeen jousting from most of the NE guys. Sadly, this did not greatly surprise me given my past tournament experiences in the region and I am not terribly shocked by the push back on soft scores from them, either. For me the tipping point wax reached when Keith got so antagonistic that I ended up putting him on ignore when the FAQ stuff was being discussed. As I said, having played in every region, other than SE, I have little incentive to sit through guys running net lists and pushing the envelope of acceptable behavior, just so they can brag about how awesome they are like 15 year holds after the fact; we already have adept icon for that sort of experience. I would be better served simply hitting up a SC event at some point to get to play the SE guys.

Just to be clear, this has zero to do with the comp and everything to do with the behavior of that chunk who are (at least in perception) largely dictating the tone of the event. I know Ben and LI to be good guys, plus you have a great rep with a lot of people I respect. But you are, for lack of a better term, too diplomatic towards that group and how they have been treating others. I am not the only person who feels this way or passed on going for those reasons, just the only one tactless enough to acknowledge it publicly. My hope is that next year things become more representative of the national scene as a whole and that the loudest people do not win all the discourse.

For people who do not travel outside their own bubble a lot, I still strongly recommend going. You will get to meet the best players in that country and get exposure to other metagames, which is always good. My only reason to go would by to meet Eoin and represent the west coast, but I would prefer to avoid having a Larry David moment, so I have opted to root from the sidelines instead. I get to play with most of these guys 4-6 GT s a year (I am in fact flying to waaghpaca as I type this), so I am fine exercising some discression here.

IcedCrow
23-01-2014, 16:59
Being an event organizer is tough esp when the obnoxious guys raise holy hell when they dont get their way

Lord Solar Plexus
23-01-2014, 17:25
Opinions aside, no one has proved that comping adds tactics.


Au contraire. I did; you just adapt a relativist position and disagree. :)



Also, as long as everyone is content with being lazy and unoriginal by copying everything the ETC does then so be it. Thought it wasn't our style but sure, lets put the European training wheel program on a pedestal.


As usual, you're painting the picture in very broad strokes. Not everyone copies ETC. Germany has C.O.M.B.A.T 8, Little and Big Horus, SKA and a host of local inventions. Phazael illustrated very eloquently that the USA does not use one single system but that East and West and Midwest and so on can differ considerably, not to speak of any variations on either side of the Mason-Dixon line. ;)

If ETC is the US's role model, then people are obviously voting with their feet by still attending those tournaments. I don't think there's no variety though, that's hard to believe.

Shandowner
23-01-2014, 17:47
@Phaz

Well, unfortunately it is a necessary evil to have to be uber diplomatic in the first year of a event like this. The hope is once we have a year behind us, and all the players actually can put a name with a face, that some of this epeening will go away.

Trust me, I have my own opinions just like anyone does, but my sole objective currently is to create a national community like all the other countries have done first, the fine tune it as we progress.

But I agree, there can be players from every region that can make the silent majority look bad. (see Don Vs Moyer at A-Con)
It sucks at times

BTW GL at Waaghpaca brother!

Dark Side Duke
23-01-2014, 18:27
@Phaz

Well, unfortunately it is a necessary evil to have to be uber diplomatic in the first year of a event like this. The hope is once we have a year behind us, and all the players actually can put a name with a face, that some of this epeening will go away.

Trust me, I have my own opinions just like anyone does, but my sole objective currently is to create a national community like all the other countries have done first, the fine tune it as we progress.

But I agree, there can be players from every region that can make the silent majority look bad. (see Don Vs Moyer at A-Con)
It sucks at times

BTW GL at Waaghpaca brother!

Boy was that an interesting game to be near! Crazy to think that O&G made it to table one in the final game without comp. Although best overall and general were WoC so I realize that hurts my argument.

Dark Side Duke
23-01-2014, 18:48
Au contraire. I did; you just adapt a relativist position and disagree. :)



As usual, you're painting the picture in very broad strokes. Not everyone copies ETC. Germany has C.O.M.B.A.T 8, Little and Big Horus, SKA and a host of local inventions. Phazael illustrated very eloquently that the USA does not use one single system but that East and West and Midwest and so on can differ considerably, not to speak of any variations on either side of the Mason-Dixon line. ;)

If ETC is the US's role model, then people are obviously voting with their feet by still attending those tournaments. I don't think there's no variety though, that's hard to believe.

... this has all be relativistic...

Let me ask you this, do Nurgle DP, cannons, and world dragon banner not have a place in tournaments?

yabbadabba
23-01-2014, 18:52
Well by that logic we should all just play the exact same beastmen army. Seems only fair and incredibly fun. Comping doesn't give you the "same tools". Actually the greatest challenege would be for everyone to play the same army, with that army being released only for that tournament. Then nothing but tactical choices, rules knowledge and the vagaries of probability will be on display. I would argue that for GW games, if money and personal taste was not factor for the tournament attendee, then you would in essence see everyone with the same army as there is usually one army list that is more competitive than all the others - even if by a gnats doo-dah.

IcedCrow
23-01-2014, 19:07
Actually the greatest challenege would be for everyone to play the same army, with that army being released only for that tournament. Then nothing but tactical choices, rules knowledge and the vagaries of probability will be on display. I would argue that for GW games, if money and personal taste was not factor for the tournament attendee, then you would in essence see everyone with the same army as there is usually one army list that is more competitive than all the others - even if by a gnats doo-dah.

I agree. If you are competing to showcase actual skill, then you need a format where skill is the most important factor. List building unfortunately may be validly considered a skill in that if you are good at understanding the game mechanics, you can stack the deck in your favor, but in terms of skill in playing the game, you have in essence created the most forgiving list you can to mitigate mistakes.

Its like playing chess where you get to pick what pieces you want to use.

This isn't a personal knock on anyone, its that as I posted earlier, list building removes a lot of the skill in the game as there are a couple of really exploitable lists you can take that circumvent most of the game and stack the game heavily in your favor.

If we want to showcase skill, the armies should be similar so that the skill is what is required to play them, not leaning on imbalanced rules to carry one through (and again for those that may not have read my previous posts, I had a ridiculous W/L record in the past with heavily min/maxed lists, and it was not because I was skilled at the game, it was because my list was broken)

EDIT: this also means that if you have two players with broken lists playing each other, that skill will be more important.

Dark Side Duke
23-01-2014, 19:17
Actually the greatest challenege would be for everyone to play the same army, with that army being released only for that tournament. Then nothing but tactical choices, rules knowledge and the vagaries of probability will be on display. I would argue that for GW games, if money and personal taste was not factor for the tournament attendee, then you would in essence see everyone with the same army as there is usually one army list that is more competitive than all the others - even if by a gnats doo-dah.

I'll agree to that. But the whole point of this thread was the best of warhammer. While carbon copy beastmen lists COULD meet up in a tournament, dictating that everyone do so in a preordained manner is a comp. In warhammer, you choose your army and what's in it then play a scenario versus an opponent.

Not my fault you can't deal with the cheesiest stuff. 8th edition at least gave every army a chance of dealing with most of the nastiest stuff. 7th was a more broken system or at least VC were worse than anything now.

IcedCrow
23-01-2014, 19:22
7th ed demons and vc were a good reason why i stopped going to tournaments.

Gradek
23-01-2014, 19:29
I'll agree to that. But the whole point of this thread was the best of warhammer. While carbon copy beastmen lists COULD meet up in a tournament, dictating that everyone do so in a preordained manner is a comp. In warhammer, you choose your army and what's in it then play a scenario versus an opponent.

Not my fault you can't deal with the cheesiest stuff. 8th edition at least gave every army a chance of dealing with most of the nastiest stuff. 7th was a more broken system or at least VC were worse than anything now.

Except GW doesn't design the rules with competitive/tournament play in mind and thus it is perfectly reasonable for tournaments to adjust the rules (which is actually recommended in the rulebook) to facilitate competitive play better.

Lord Inquisitor
23-01-2014, 19:53
I would be better served simply hitting up a SC event at some point to get to play the SE guys.
If you want to pick one, I'd recommend Brawler Bash. No comp, 3K, fun times. It's the biggest event we have right now.

I said before and I'll say again, much of the perception of NE focus was incidental. The rules committee chose the ETC FAQ as the basis for the masters FAQ purely because it was the most comprehensive FAQ out there and we didn't want to reinvent the wheel. There was no pressure on us from anyone to pick it. We actually used the Swedish FAQ over the ETC one (since we were using Swedish Komp we wanted to make sure we were playing the rules the same way they did) but Swedish and ETC don't differ much.

The NE are by far the most vocal on the forum but I've seen no evidence of them "taking over".

yabbadabba
23-01-2014, 21:28
I'll agree to that. But the whole point of this thread was the best of warhammer. But that situation can also be the best of WFB. The argument is perspective and therefore personal, not fact. I would argue that the best of WFB is when both opponents come away enthusiastically looking forward to their next game, while animatedly being nostalgic about the one they just played. Everything else is just gravy really.

While carbon copy beastmen lists COULD meet up in a tournament, dictating that everyone do so in a preordained manner is a comp. In which case finances are comp as well.

In warhammer, you choose your army and what's in it then play a scenario versus an opponent. That is one way to play it, yes, but there are others. Warhammer is also playing with pre-selected armies which GW have modelled plenty of times in the past. It can also be blind armies. Again, its a personal choice thing so there are no universal definites.

Not my fault you can't deal with the cheesiest stuff. The flip side of that is its not anyone else's fault that you feel you cannot show your abilities without having to take the crutch of the cheesiest stuff you can put together. The best player is not the one who wins with the cheesiest army, but the one who wins with the most sub-prime army, and still helps his/her opponent enjoy every dice roll.

Shimmergloom
23-01-2014, 22:28
I think this game is balanced for 3k, no grand armies(simply saying no grand armies, is in effect a form of comp). So if you are in a large 2 day tournament and aren't playing 3k, then you need comp.

Even in 1 day tournies you need to ban folding fortress and at least some of the special characters. The problem is agreeing which ones, which just means most people will just ban them all to avoid arguments over which special characters are ok and which are not.

SteveW
23-01-2014, 22:38
I think this game is balanced for 3k, no grand armies(simply saying no grand armies, is in effect a form of comp). So if you are in a large 2 day tournament and aren't playing 3k, then you need comp.

Even in 1 day tournies you need to ban folding fortress and at least some of the special characters. The problem is agreeing which ones, which just means most people will just ban them all to avoid arguments over which special characters are ok and which are not.

I agree with the game being balanced at 3k. So my gaming group is going to start playing 2.999k with a 1 point allowance.

Shimmergloom
24-01-2014, 01:49
That's fine, really no different than 3k no grand armies. But it sounds cooler to be 3k than 2999.

Shadowsinner
24-01-2014, 02:15
How would you guys feel about restrictions based on army size? Example you have to make a 3k list but with min/ max restrictions for a 2400 point army?

Shimmergloom
24-01-2014, 02:58
Ok lets try and do this metaphorically.

By your guys' thought process the following scenario would take place:
The Superbowl is will be played as non-contact flag football game, cause Heaven forbid someone could use ALL of their abilities. The underdog of the match will be given a certain amount of points to start off with to balance the championship game according to the over-under.

You have Manning and Welker? Sorry that's too good of a combination. You have to use their back ups because its just more fun that way, isn't it?

Hmmm I'm really wondering why we don't see this every year for the Superbowl. Strange huh? (Substitute every major sport, heck including soccer and the point is still valid)

"Huehue we're more sophisticated than athletes huehue". What a joke this is becoming...

This was a few pages back, but your analogy is faulty. Because the NFL does have comp. It's called the salary cap, revenue sharing, roster limits and so on. Uncomped sports are like Major League Baseball, where the Yankees(aka nurgle dps) can just buy up every player they want and small market teams(wood elves) can never compete and are lucky to go to the World Series once every 30 years(even wood elves can win a major tourney every 30years).

Instead the NFL forces an even playing field, creating parity and creating a league where a small market teams can compete with the large market teams.


How would you guys feel about restrictions based on army size? Example you have to make a 3k list but with min/ max restrictions for a 2400 point army?

I'm not sure what you mean, but this sounds exactly like what '3k no grand armies' means.

SteveW
24-01-2014, 05:04
This was a few pages back, but your analogy is faulty. Because the NFL does have comp. It's called the salary cap, revenue sharing, roster limits and so on. Uncomped sports are like Major League Baseball, where the Yankees(aka nurgle dps) can just buy up every player they want and small market teams(wood elves) can never compete and are lucky to go to the World Series once every 30 years(even wood elves can win a major tourney every 30years).

Instead the NFL forces an even playing field, creating parity and creating a league where a small market teams can compete with the large market teams.



I'm not sure what you mean, but this sounds exactly like what '3k no grand armies' means.

I think he means 3000 point limit while only having 600 for lords/heroes/rares instead of 750.

And yeah the NFL analogy was horrid because they comp after every season to direct the game where they want it. Where the comparison should be made though, is GW is the NFL and they make the changes, not us.

Lord Solar Plexus
24-01-2014, 06:59
... this has all be relativistic...

Let me ask you this, do Nurgle DP, cannons, and world dragon banner not have a place in tournaments?

Of course they do. I already said you should play as you prefer. It would be a shame if you or anyone else could only find tournaments whose style he did not like.

There are a few offenders that people complain about, namely big spells, cannon, some doubles (Chimera, HPA...), and some items. Comp often (not always) addresses exactly that by limiting PD, WM, MC and so on. I don't claim to know whether a majority of players dislikes these things but they're the ones who are certainly mentioned when and if someone complains. I don't quite see what is tactical about generating dozens of extra PD with uncomped Lore of Death or one-shotting stuff turn 1 from double Stanks + cannon.

logan054
24-01-2014, 10:54
I was recently invited to a supposedly "best of the best" being run by wargamersusa.com. In short, I discovered the use of the "Swedish comp" system and I was quite disappointed. I understand having a comp system for a fun little back water tournament to change things up. A comp system is not warhammer. Can someone explain to me why anyone would use a comp (a heavy comp at that) for a best of the best tournament? Frankly, I find that tournament to be a joke because of it. Queue the east coast "purest"!

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/an-interesting-conversation-with-gw-rep.html?m=1

might be an interesting read for you and the other anti comp guys.

Lord Inquisitor
24-01-2014, 15:03
And yeah the NFL analogy was horrid because they comp after every season to direct the game where they want it. Where the comparison should be made though, is GW is the NFL and they make the changes, not us.

...Because GW watch the tournament scene closely and adjust and refine the game once a year?

GW rotates the updating of books and never has a state where all the books are looked at together (well not since Ravening Hordes). They don't care about the tournament scene or where the competitive game should be directed. If you want an analogous body, the ETC do what you're describing: look at the state of the game once a year and direct the game where they want it.

Shimmergloom
24-01-2014, 15:18
I think he means 3000 point limit while only having 600 for lords/heroes/rares instead of 750.

And yeah the NFL analogy was horrid because they comp after every season to direct the game where they want it. Where the comparison should be made though, is GW is the NFL and they make the changes, not us.

I'm not sure I agree with this either. Because the NFL definitely is known to listen to the fans. Just last week there was a terrible call where it should have been a turnover to give the ball to the 49ers, but the rule stated it was not reviewable. I fully expect the outcry from this from the fans and media will mean that the NFL in the offseason will look at this rule and change it.

Meanwhile GW ignores the feedback from its fans and just does whatever they want. They'll let poorly written rules and loopholes linger for years. They don't care. That's why people are forced to come up with comp and comp packs and you just can't play the game out of the box, lest you want to just see the same 2-3 builds over and over.