Comping Ogres

[Drongol]

As for the D&D analogy, it actually works perfectly, as both I(and virtually all game systems) are houseruled from location to location and the 1st edition DMG (the Gygaxian Bible if you will) even has a section on taking your character to other groups and why you should expect to conform to their houserules if you want to do so (apparently this was much more common back in the day) and since I am pretty sure that taking a character to play in other groups has not been addressed by subsequent DMG's at all, the 1st edition rule would still seem to stand.

D&D came out in what, 1977? That would be 35 years ago, and you're quoting something from then to justify your point?

The game has changed so much from its origins so as to be virtually unrelated, especially in the shift from 3.5-4.0.

Let's just admit Drongol, that you will not accept any analogy that may prove to be counter to your opinion that you should be able to bring your deathstar list into any game group anywhere in the country and bash heads, even if those groups do not like to play that way. You must remember that YOUR FUN should not be put above anyone else's when traveling. If you want to play abroad, then it is you that must adapt, not them.

If there was a valid comparison, sure, I'd agree with you. However, as of right now, nobody's brought one up. Instead, they're trying to make flawed assumptions to justify their own houserules rather than playing the game with the rules on the books. Go figure.

[Gradek]

If there was a valid comparison, sure, I'd agree with you. However, as of right now, nobody's brought one up. Instead, they're trying to make flawed assumptions to justify their own houserules rather than playing the game with the rules on the books. Go figure.

The point is though, that many people (just as with many other games) believe that the rules themselves are flawed (or that their houserules make the game more fun). So, again, why should they change the way they enjoy playing the game just to accommodate the traveling drongol and his army that they find less than fun to play against? I am simply arguing that if you are the traveling one, it is you who should conform to them, not them to you.

[Lord Zarkov]

Certainly if you went to a GW store you'd expect to be able to play by the GW rules.

Even elsewhere if you had a visiting player who only had a standard army, because he didn't know in advance the weird and wonderful comp system you were using (or couldn't justify splashing out to do so for one short visit), one would hope you'd accommodate them for a few games while they were there, rather than flat out telling them they can't play.

The change from the norm should be fun for both players, and otherwise frankly it wouldn't say much for your hospitality.

After all it doesn't cost you much to play without comp, whereas your poor guest wouldn't get a game at all.

[linuvian]

I don't think it needs to be so black and white as both of you are suggesting. We have a local forum\message board for our area and we occasionally get people traveling through that want a pick up game while they are here on business or visiting family, or what-have-you.

All we do when arranging the game is 'Hey, we use these houserules (show link to said houserules), that work for you or do you prefer the rulebook RAW'? Once he answers what kind of game he is looking for, people who respond and want to play that type of game know what they are getting into. Some people want to do RAW, others want the houserules.

Our houserules are only for the league we run, but are used about 60/40 for local pickup games depending on what the people want.

It is quite simple really, and we've never had any arguments or anything over it.

[yabbadabba]

Why should they? You are coming into their territory and if you want to play, it is YOU that should have to conform to their rules, not them play the way you want. If they enjoy playing with certain comp then why should they curtail their enjoyment just so you can play a one-off while out on business.

Never said people should have to do anything, only to bear in mind that there is already a system in place which is common to everyone. People make their own mind up how friendly and accomadating they want to be.

And for the FLGS', since it is highly unlikely that you are going to purchase wares from them, why should they care what comp is used in the store.

FLGSs are a different kettle of fish altogether. I have an opinion on this but I don't think it's relevant here.

Again, Drongol plays the way he likes in his store and if he goes somewhere else, he will (and should) conform to their houserules or not expect to play (just as someone from a heavy comp environment would (and should) expect to see double hydra/unkillable dark elf lord lists at Drongols store.

I think that comment is all about how you choose to view the word "community" mate.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Sorry, but I'm thinking that your opinion of comp isn't really held by the majority, including the people who are setting it. I think you'll find a lot of people believe comp is there to bring balance to WHFB or to make it so that the "nasty" armies don't run roughshod over the "fluff" armies. Of course, those three are pretty much linked--promoting balance keeps people from getting curbstomped so badly and furthermore allows an opponent to bring, say, Wood Elves or whatnot. If it's done perfectly.

Right. So the objective is to allow someone to bring Wood Elves or similarly "fluffy" build without feeling like they're handicapping themselves. In other words, increasing the variety of builds present.

Problem is, as mentioned, all those Wood Elf armies look pretty much the same. As do all the Lizardmen. And all the Ogres, and so on. Whereas before you might have had an Ogre Hordestar, MMU-style, and some kid with three Stonehorns, now they're all going to be forced to conform to whatever the comp rules say they can bring.

Depends entirely on the comp. Good comp will reward multiple playstyles.

Frankly, I would accept a comp system if it were actually a system as opposed to just a set of restrictions. Something like the following (long-winded and not terribly thought-out, sorry, I'm tired):

-Each army begins with 10 composition points. An army can go as low as 0 or as high as 20 points (or whatever a massacre gives you for points, scaled appropriately.)
-Composition points are not calculated into Best General, but do count for Best Overall.
-Award points for taking things that make sense (Empire Halberdiers, Ogre Bulls, "fighting" generals, etc.)
-Deduct points for things that would otherwise tend to be comped, like Special Characters, duplicated rares, etc.
-Composition Scores are used as "tiebreakers" to determine matches in each round. IE, in the first round, the guys with 0 points play eachother and so on. In additional rounds, if four players each have 2 massacres, the two with the lowest comp scores play eachother.

Basically, this allows people to bring whatever they want to bring, but adds a reward to those who play in a manner consistent with what the TO thinks is appropriate. Let knuckleheads like me slug it out for Best General and give Best Overall to the guy who can mop up the competition with a list that doesn't scare an opponent to death right at the start. The harder you make your list, the harder your opponent's lists will be. Of course, I can see this system being gamed, but I think it provides a lot more diversity than a list of no's.

Excellent suggestion!

This sort of system was widely used in 7th edition and you do see such systems in 8th. I like this sort of comp because it means you can take exactly what you want but the penalties to your comp score will make the netlists unattractive for competitive players. Done WELL this sort of system is amazing. Back in the "bad ol' days" of 7th when comp was practically a necessity unless you want wall to wall daemons, several well established systems existed and they really worked well, giving competitive players a range of strategies and a real variety of armies at the top tables.

This kind of comp is typically referred to as "soft comp" (as opposed to "hard comp", which outright bans things). There are two main ways this can be achieved:

1) "Comp council" - basically the TO and a couple of veteran players sit down and rate everyone's list. Usually there's some form of basic rubric they follow and everyone gets a subjective rating. This sounds woolly but it works very well - get a few experienced tournament gamers together and they can usually pretty accurately judge the power level of a list. This has the nice effect of really giving an incentive to take those suboptimal choices and make them work because it'll look good on your army roster for scoring. The downside to this is people will always complain about their score - especially if two people with similar lists get different scores or if there's any suggestion of judge bias. But by and large it works well.

2) Objective system - essentially a group of players decide on a list of scoring bonuses and penalties for specific units. This has the advantage of being objective. The downsides are that it gets very complex (two steam tanks are more than twice as good as one, and the scoring systems typically try to accommodate this), people get huffy if they don't agree with X, Y, Z and that people can game the system. There are several of these systems out there, here's one (I'm not in any way endorsing this one in particular, I've no idea really whether it's good or not or whether they have a newer one - I just wanted to show you an example of this sort of thing, since it's similar to what you were suggesting).

I would be able to make an army. I would be unable to make an army I'd want to play, or a fully-painted army, or an army that is entirely on resin bases (all of these, mind you, are important to me).

So - just to be clear, this is "I don't want to play a different list" not "I can't play a different list". Not that it's not important but the complaint "I won't be able to play my army!" is not actually a matter of not owning the right models.

Now I know to a degree how you feel. I'm going to buy my second Ironblaster because, yeah, they're awesome. The first one took me an age to build and paint though and it's a lot of effort to build a second when I know I won't be able to use it at most of the GTs around here.

Additionally, if I were just traveling through a city, I certainly wouldn't have my entire Ogre collection with me--why would I?

If you're traveling to a grand tournament, spending hundreds on accommodation and entry and food - you'll probably check the comp rules before you go!

I, personally, enjoy fine-tuning my army before a tournament to whatever comp they impose and painting up the new units I need for it. That's a big part of the fun for me, the more extreme the comp is, the more I need to go back to the drawing board to build something that works. It's part of the challenge. I can understand why some people are happy with their list as-is but I enjoy the variety. Which, again, is the point of comp.

However, let's turn this around on its head, Lord Inquisitor: if your enjoyment more important than mine? Should I not be allowed to play so that you can have more fun in facing another opponent?

The question is not whether my idea of fun is more important than yours. It's about a TO providing an environment that people want to play in. Some tournaments have zero comp and some people don't like that. Others have extreme comp and some people don't like that. Most go somewhere in between because that's attractive to the most players.

That said, most people will agree that the level of annoyance, say, Teclis brings out in opponents means that for the most part, it's safe to ban him even though I bet there are plenty of Helf players that enjoy using him. I like my Slaanesh Ld bomb army - but I know it's infuriating to play against. So there's a time and a place for that sort of thing. For me, it's Ard Boyz and other zero comp environments. And I do enjoy breaking out the cheese and some of my most memorable games ever have been in that sort of format - but I wouldn't want to play it all the time.

Certainly, either of us can refuse a game for any particular reason, but hiding behind a group of composition restrictions doesn't make someone a great player.

And again, you undermine all your very reasonable points with a throwaway snide comment, whether you put a smiley on the end or not. The suggestion that comp is something poor players use to hide behind is insulting to be honest to anyone who likes comp.

Comp does not help poor players. Full stop. A good player will beat a bad player whether there is comp or no comp. If anything it prevents poor players with netlists doing better than they should by virtue of the build alone.

[Drongol]

Right. So the objective is to allow someone to bring Wood Elves or similarly "fluffy" build without feeling like they're handicapping themselves. In other words, increasing the variety of builds present.

Depends entirely on the comp. Good comp will reward multiple playstyles.

Perhaps. I haven't seen "good comp," then. I've seen "You can't take hordes, so you take Deathstars" (ETC) and I've seen "Just about anything goes, but SCs are BROKEN!"

This sort of system was widely used in 7th edition and you do see such systems in 8th. I like this sort of comp because it means you can take exactly what you want but the penalties to your comp score will make the netlists unattractive for competitive players. Done WELL this sort of system is amazing. Back in the "bad ol' days" of 7th when comp was practically a necessity unless you want wall to wall daemons, several well established systems existed and they really worked well, giving competitive players a range of strategies and a real variety of armies at the top tables.

I've seen something like it before and I thought it was neat, although honestly, I've yet to see it get brought up in this sort of conversation. It seems that "comp" is being used as a substitute for the ETC rules in a lot of discussions. Funny, that.

So - just to be clear, this is "I don't want to play a different list" not "I can't play a different list". Not that it's not important but the complaint "I won't be able to play my army!" is not actually a matter of not owning the right models.

No, in a very real sense, if I were to bring my army to a store and told "Oh, we use ETC rules," I would not be able to play. Full stop. I could, theoretically, go back home, dig through my boxes of random models, pull out some unassembled/unpainted Ogres, and hopefully put something together. And I suppose I could just take far more models than I ever plan on using, but that just increases the risk of modelanche.

If you're traveling to a grand tournament, spending hundreds on accommodation and entry and food - you'll probably check the comp rules before you go!

Note that I am not really talking about traveling in terms of a GT. Rather, I'm talking about finding myself in, say, Austin one day and thinking "Oh, I'll pop down to the FLGS and try to get a game in." You'd assume that someone would prepare for any tournament and at least know what he or she was getting into--although, again, a universal ruleset would help there.

That said, most people will agree that the level of annoyance, say, Teclis brings out in opponents means that for the most part, it's safe to ban him even though I bet there are plenty of Helf players that enjoy using him. I like my Slaanesh Ld bomb army - but I know it's infuriating to play against. So there's a time and a place for that sort of thing. For me, it's Ard Boyz and other zero comp environments. And I do enjoy breaking out the cheese and some of my most memorable games ever have been in that sort of format - but I wouldn't want to play it all the time.

We also may be speaking from very different experiences here. I am lucky to get in four tournaments a year, and perhaps 20-30 games outside of tourneys. When the opportunity arises, I want to be able to play with what I want to play with, because who knows when I'll get the chance again?

If I were able to get to the FLGS every Friday and get a game or two in, well, that's a whole other story. But as it stands, I haven't played a single game since shortly after Ogres came out and I'm chomping at the bit.

And again, you undermine all your very reasonable points with a throwaway snide comment, whether you put a smiley on the end or not. The suggestion that comp is something poor players use to hide behind is insulting to be honest to anyone who likes comp.

Sorry, the comment was meant to be as joking as the smiley. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously or as any sort of insult, and if it was taken as such, then I do apologize sincerely.

[w3rm]

This is the best comp I've ever seen.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum...st/402401.page

It adresses all the weaknesses and shortcomings of the magic phase and army books. Stops deathstars but you can still plenty of the nasty stuff without it all becoming too much.

[Drongol]

This is the best comp I've ever seen.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum...st/402401.page

It adresses all the weaknesses and shortcomings of the magic phase and army books. Stops deathstars but you can still plenty of the nasty stuff without it all becoming too much.

Wow. That's some serious comp.

I immediately dislike the no duplicate rares and the limitation on specials because, again, that's a throwing the baby out with the bathwater situation. Likewise, capping a unit at 400 points seems a little low, but that's neither here nor there.

I predict High Elves really suffering under these rules, for example.

And seriously, no Daemons? This was an 8th Edition tournament, right?

[TsukeFox]

COmp comp them-!!! Bwhahhaha--!!!

Amazed this thread has gone one this long.

[dimetri1]

Daemons are already capped with the comp. The only other restriction I could see is not allowing Fateweaver.

[BEARO]

All 8th Ed. books don't need to be comped. At all. They're the most balanced Fantasy books GW has ever published.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Perhaps. I haven't seen "good comp," then. I've seen "You can't take hordes, so you take Deathstars" (ETC) and I've seen "Just about anything goes, but SCs are BROKEN!"

Each individual comp is to be taken on its own merits. But since for me it just represents a new challenge, I've never played in any comp that I didn't find fun.

However, I will agree with you that I prefer "soft" comp to "hard" comp. Let people take what they want! But make it a serious handicap in comp score and early-round pairings if you take a netlist.

I've seen something like it before and I thought it was neat, although honestly, I've yet to see it get brought up in this sort of conversation. It seems that "comp" is being used as a substitute for the ETC rules in a lot of discussions. Funny, that.

This sort of thing was more common in 7th. The fact that 8th is more balanced means that "hard" comp is adequate and a lot less work for the TOs.

ETC is generally a decent set of rules but it should always be remembered that they are designed for their tournaments, not casual play.

No, in a very real sense, if I were to bring my army to a store and told "Oh, we use ETC rules," I would not be able to play. Full stop. I could, theoretically, go back home, dig through my boxes of random models, pull out some unassembled/unpainted Ogres, and hopefully put something together. And I suppose I could just take far more models than I ever plan on using, but that just increases the risk of modelanche.

Okay has this actually happened to you or anyone you know? If I turned up with a fully painted legal warhammer army to a new store and was told no one would play with me because of their comp that applies to casual games as a rule - I think I'd be pretty sure I wouldn't want to play them anyway!

I've NEVER seen this happen. I had one bad experience with a douche of a GW store owner and his store rules when traveling but that wasn't a comp issue.

Finally, remember that comp is designed for tournaments. If people want to use it in their private games, fair enough - but that's an issue for the people in question. This is not an argument against comp! I can't stress this enough - comp is a specific tool for tournaments. Now, it may also happen that it's a good guideline for playing without excessive levels of cheese and tournament players often like to hone their lists so will play in prep for a tournament, but both of those are incidental.

We also may be speaking from very different experiences here. I am lucky to get in four tournaments a year, and perhaps 20-30 games outside of tourneys. When the opportunity arises, I want to be able to play with what I want to play with, because who knows when I'll get the chance again?

If I were able to get to the FLGS every Friday and get a game or two in, well, that's a whole other story. But as it stands, I haven't played a single game since shortly after Ogres came out and I'm chomping at the bit.

Probably not that much more than you. But still, I'm staggered that tournament comp systems are impinging on your casual games.

Sorry, the comment was meant to be as joking as the smiley. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously or as any sort of insult, and if it was taken as such, then I do apologize sincerely.

Okay no worries - it's just these threads degenerate into pro-compers saying "you can't play properly so you hide behind Teclis!" and the anti-compers saying "you just can't deal with Teclis!" etc.

Wow. That's some serious comp.

I immediately dislike the no duplicate rares and the limitation on specials because, again, that's a throwing the baby out with the bathwater situation. Likewise, capping a unit at 400 points seems a little low, but that's neither here nor there.

I predict High Elves really suffering under these rules, for example.

And seriously, no Daemons? This was an 8th Edition tournament, right?

LOL yes, it was some serious comp. w3rm and I were both at the Border Raids GT that used those rules.

It was a heap of fun. I'm not going to say I think it was the best comp ever (I wouldn't want every tournament to be like that - I'd like to run my daemons!), and the cap on specials and rares can impinge on themed lists but there was a nice spread of armies. Lots of beasts, warriors, brets, empire, orcs, some wood elves, etc., and a decent range of builds too. Every army was represented, other than Daemons (obviously) and, yes, High Elves. But it should be noted that Mike (the TO) wasn't looking for perfect balance but to really kick people out of their comfort zones. Which worked! It was a lot of fun testing those rules and trying to find ways that worked. I thought deathstars would be the way to go (and I did okay with a deathstar build) but the 1/2 points for wounded/half strength units really hurt deathstars a lot more than I expected.

All 8th Ed. books don't need to be comped. At all. They're the most balanced Fantasy books GW has ever published.

"Most balanced GW have ever produced" and "balanced" are not quite the same thing .

[w3rm]

Wow. That's some serious comp.

I immediately dislike the no duplicate rares and the limitation on specials because, again, that's a throwing the baby out with the bathwater situation. Likewise, capping a unit at 400 points seems a little low, but that's neither here nor there.

I predict High Elves really suffering under these rules, for example.

And seriously, no Daemons? This was an 8th Edition tournament, right?

It's a good comp because it stops the monotony of tournament playing. I don't really think high elves would really suffer that much, I can take 3 units of 21 swordmasters and a lore of light wizard lvl 4 and 2 bolt throwers with core to flavor. I feel a list like that would do fairly good.

Maybe best wasn't the word to use but comp for what I want it to to do, it worked very well.

[Drongol]

Each individual comp is to be taken on its own merits. But since for me it just represents a new challenge, I've never played in any comp that I didn't find fun.

I'll say that I have, but that it wasn't so much the TO's fault as it was the players in the area griping about how "cheesy" it was to have a unit of 50 Night Goblins, etc.

This sort of thing was more common in 7th. The fact that 8th is more balanced means that "hard" comp is adequate and a lot less work for the TOs.

Problem is, if it's balanced, why do we need comp anyways?

Okay has this actually happened to you or anyone you know? If I turned up with a fully painted legal warhammer army to a new store and was told no one would play with me because of their comp that applies to casual games as a rule - I think I'd be pretty sure I wouldn't want to play them anyway!

It has, but admittedly, that wasn't so much the store owner's fault as it was my own--I was traveling and stopped in a city with a game store and found out that the only way they would play WHFB was with a very heavily-comped system. Admittedly, it was more my fault than anyone else's, but it was a bit of an annoyance.

Probably not that much more than you. But still, I'm staggered that tournament comp systems are impinging on your casual games.

Like I said, the environment in my area is extremely pro-tournament. It's likely just this one store, but unpainted, half-assembled plastic abounds as everyone jumps on the bandwagon of the latest Nasty Army Build. I'm somewhat strange in that I've been playing Ogres, and only Ogres, ever since the book came out. Go figure, huh?

In regards to Border Raids, like I said, it's some serious comp. I'm glad you had fun, but it's definitely not my cup of tea, and something I wouldn't participate in unless it was in my backyard. And certainly not something I would want to leak into my more casual games.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Problem is, if it's balanced, why do we need comp anyways?

I didn't say balanced I said balanced enough that if you just comp out the worst offenders it'll do. So a lot of tournaments just run with "hard" comp because it's adequate and it's easy. However, it has limitations.

It has, but admittedly, that wasn't so much the store owner's fault as it was my own--I was traveling and stopped in a city with a game store and found out that the only way they would play WHFB was with a very heavily-comped system. Admittedly, it was more my fault than anyone else's, but it was a bit of an annoyance.

Bizarre. I've never come across anything like it. I wouldn't have faulted you myself - I'm perplexed at a store that doesn't have any leeway for a new player with a legal army. I guess you ought to check even just to find out how many points they play (or bring a bit extra) in case they play 3K or something but it's still odd.

In regards to Border Raids, like I said, it's some serious comp. I'm glad you had fun, but it's definitely not my cup of tea, and something I wouldn't participate in unless it was in my backyard. And certainly not something I would want to leak into my more casual games.

That's fine and I don't think anyone would say the comp there should be taken as a template. It's for a certain crowd of people and not for others.