Can comp make things better?

[Sexiest_hero]

I was looking at nerfs to daemos from another thread ad thought to myself Why cant comps be more like patches and less like banning things some people don't like. If Daemon princes were lowered slightly in points, or allowed to be lvl 4s or hae chaos armor. Ow having canasaurs lowered slightly in points so they could fit into games? Beastmen rares and other monsters get a 5+ scaly ski or use SOM costs. Maybe a slight tinkering of points cost in bsb and book items to up usage of unused items. I do believe that instead of ripping out units items and wreaking whole armies while just giving others a free 200 points slight adjusting to points costs of items and units would be a better patch, if you will.

[The Low King]

I agree entirely, i always think that if you want to go for full on Comp (ie, ETC) you should actually change prices and stuff rather than just adding restrictions and rules. It does require quite a bit of playtesting though.

[Ronin[XiC]]

If GW fixes a whole it's ok.
If the community does exactly the same thing it's bad and does not fix anything.....................

[enygma7]

The arguement often made against comp is that if you remove one broken thing you simply create a new most broken thing, moving the problem rather than solving it. This doesn't really get much sympathy from me - just because you can't make something perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make things better. So, on the grounds that a) current game balance is highly imperfect and b) it can therefor be made better, yes, comp clearly can make things better.

The problem is, you'll find it hard to find two people who agree on how wide ranging comp should be, how draconian it should be and what exactly needs to be comped. Also, a lot of people don't like unofficial 3rd party alterations to the game - and if they don't fully agree with any changes the unofficial source is all that is needed to dismiss them. No matter how well thought out any comp system is, it will still be contraversial because lots of people will think you should have done it differently or not at all.

[Snowflake]

I agree entirely, i always think that if you want to go for full on Comp (ie, ETC) you should actually change prices and stuff rather than just adding restrictions and rules. It does require quite a bit of playtesting though.

Second this. I would actually be ok with comp if people really went all out with it and started tinkering with points costs. Instead we get these lazy blanket restrictions that are obviously aimed toward one or two particular things, but do more harm to other things in the process.

Comp should man up and start tinkering with points costs, doing the testing required to find out what works and what doesn't.

[tmarichards]

Comp should man up and start tinkering with points costs, doing the testing required to find out what works and what doesn't.

Seeing as comp isn't a single entity, but instead a blanket term for any sort of restrictions on the game, you can't treat it as such (I suppose the closest you can get is to consider the SCGT comp the "UK standard" as a lot of tournaments adopt it, but off the top of my head fully half the tournaments that are in the next few months are running their own comp system).

As soon as you start getting into changing points values it becomes way too subjective- for example, I've seen it argued in one place that Bloodletters are a bad unit choice yet at some tournaments most daemon players ran 3 units of 30 of them. I've also seen arguments for Glade Guard to be dropped down to as little a 7pts per model, whereas I consider them to be very fairly costed at 12pts (for the record I think they're fine and that other similar choices are just too cheap) and one comp pack I saw changed them to 13pts per model.

On the other hand, if you just apply restrictions you get a much simpler approach- are certain parts of the game allowing players to get wins they don't deserve due to imbalance (this is my understanding of what comp should be- stopping people winning games that they do not deserve simply because they have found an abusable game mechanic or list by balancing out those bits of the game)? If so, then you can limit them and change the meta and then go from there without having to sit down and run over and recost every single unit in the game, every command group option, every upgrade option and every magic item in the game, and then go through the necessary playtesting to work out what works and what doesn't, as well as working out what now needs to be changed. This is the kind of job that presumably GW employs people to do when writing a book, letting alone rewriting the points cost of the entire game and then playtesting it all.

Then, when someone else wants to run a tournament and they disagree about even a handful of points costs, they have to do the exact same thing all over again because as soon as you change a handful of points costs you will inevitably change the whole metagame which will require more playtesting. On top of that, you can reset this process every 2-3 months when a new army book comes out.

To be honest, I agree that a "better" solution would be to recost parts of the game, but when you factor in the amount of the time it would take it's simply not feasible and so instead applying restrictions is a much better solution and one that does, to a certain extent, work.

[theunwantedbeing]

Isn't comp just short for composition?

Which means setting up restrictions for everything, then banning anything that upsets the balance of those restrictions.
So...no buffs or adjustments.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Comp can greatly enhance the tournament experience if done well. It serves to keep the game fresh, to discourage no-brainer lists or encourage diversity. We had a thread on this recently, but it's important to realize the breadth of comp options, from tweaking points allotted to armies, hard restrictions to soft comp council or objective comp score systems. Comp score systems can be used to funnel like lists together, to apply a discrete score as a form of handicap system or to adjust the win/loss/draw points according to the caliber of the list.

[Snowflake]

Seeing as comp isn't a single entity, but instead a blanket term for any sort of restrictions on the game, you can't treat it as such (I suppose the closest you can get is to consider the SCGT comp the "UK standard" as a lot of tournaments adopt it, but off the top of my head fully half the tournaments that are in the next few months are running their own comp system).

As soon as you start getting into changing points values it becomes way too subjective- for example, I've seen it argued in one place that Bloodletters are a bad unit choice yet at some tournaments most daemon players ran 3 units of 30 of them. I've also seen arguments for Glade Guard to be dropped down to as little a 7pts per model, whereas I consider them to be very fairly costed at 12pts (for the record I think they're fine and that other similar choices are just too cheap) and one comp pack I saw changed them to 13pts per model.

On the other hand, if you just apply restrictions you get a much simpler approach- are certain parts of the game allowing players to get wins they don't deserve due to imbalance (this is my understanding of what comp should be- stopping people winning games that they do not deserve simply because they have found an abusable game mechanic or list by balancing out those bits of the game)? If so, then you can limit them and change the meta and then go from there without having to sit down and run over and recost every single unit in the game, every command group option, every upgrade option and every magic item in the game, and then go through the necessary playtesting to work out what works and what doesn't, as well as working out what now needs to be changed. This is the kind of job that presumably GW employs people to do when writing a book, letting alone rewriting the points cost of the entire game and then playtesting it all.

Then, when someone else wants to run a tournament and they disagree about even a handful of points costs, they have to do the exact same thing all over again because as soon as you change a handful of points costs you will inevitably change the whole metagame which will require more playtesting. On top of that, you can reset this process every 2-3 months when a new army book comes out.

To be honest, I agree that a "better" solution would be to recost parts of the game, but when you factor in the amount of the time it would take it's simply not feasible and so instead applying restrictions is a much better solution and one that does, to a certain extent, work.

This really is exactly my point. I refer to comp in blanket terms because I have never seen a comp system that I liked, therefore to me, all comp systems observed thus far can be referred to in the same breath in my eyes, as all are bad.

Your reasoning is exactly why I think they are all bad. Essentially, what you and everyone else is saying is that to actually dig into points costs and do a real balancing is too hard and too much effort. So instead, a "simple" approach is taken by slapping on some blanket restrictions. It is this that makes no sense to me. In one breath, you acknowledge that balance is enormously complex and requires a great deal of effort, yet in the next you presume that by enacting simple blanket restrictions you can make things better. Do you not see the disconnect here?

Yes, I fully agree that balance is HARD. If it were simple then we'd have it already. It seems to me that people are not willing to do the work required to strive for balance, so instead they have the arrogance to assert that they can take a simple approach and that it makes it better, ignoring that in effect all that really happens is you have replaced one overpowered army with a different one. The scales are not balanced, they are just tipped in a different direction, and often such changes have the effect of shafting armies that are struggling to begin with. For an example, you need look no further than the oft-used restriction of "max 40 (ish) shooting weapons per army." Such a restriction is obviously aimed toward Dark Elves, and possibly Dwarven/Empire gunlines, yet has the unintended side effect of invalidating any Wood Elf army other than nearly full tree, and severely hamstringing armies with low-cost low-strength shooters, such as Tomb Kings (who are also already struggling). Other blanket restrictions have similar effects.

Until I see a comp system that is not taking the arrogant position that incredibly complex balance issues can be fixed with simple restrictions, I will continue to dislike comp. Man up, spend the time and the effort, and get some real balance work done.

[Torga_DW]

This really is exactly my point. I refer to comp in blanket terms because I have never seen a comp system that I liked, therefore to me, all comp systems observed thus far can be referred to in the same breath in my eyes, as all are bad.

Your reasoning is exactly why I think they are all bad. Essentially, what you and everyone else is saying is that to actually dig into points costs and do a real balancing is too hard and too much effort. So instead, a "simple" approach is taken by slapping on some blanket restrictions. It is this that makes no sense to me. In one breath, you acknowledge that balance is enormously complex and requires a great deal of effort, yet in the next you presume that by enacting simple blanket restrictions you can make things better. Do you not see the disconnect here?

Yes, I fully agree that balance is HARD. If it were simple then we'd have it already. It seems to me that people are not willing to do the work required to strive for balance, so instead they have the arrogance to assert that they can take a simple approach and that it makes it better, ignoring that in effect all that really happens is you have replaced one overpowered army with a different one. The scales are not balanced, they are just tipped in a different direction, and often such changes have the effect of shafting armies that are struggling to begin with. For an example, you need look no further than the oft-used restriction of "max 40 (ish) shooting weapons per army." Such a restriction is obviously aimed toward Dark Elves, and possibly Dwarven/Empire gunlines, yet has the unintended side effect of invalidating any Wood Elf army other than nearly full tree, and severely hamstringing armies with low-cost low-strength shooters, such as Tomb Kings (who are also already struggling). Other blanket restrictions have similar effects.

Until I see a comp system that is not taking the arrogant position that incredibly complex balance issues can be fixed with simple restrictions, I will continue to dislike comp. Man up, spend the time and the effort, and get some real balance work done.

I agree, and will go further. Comp sprung up because a large number of people saw fundamental problems with the core rules, which are a paid product. If the rules need that much comp to make them 'fair', why are we paying for them in the first place? Why isn't there a mainstream push to come up with a balanced ruleset? Why is game design seen as so arcane and complex, comparable to rocket science?

[Lord Inquisitor]

There are a lot of possible answers to that but it basically boils down to the fact that people like warhammer and want to play it competitively. This doesn't require comp, but it helps. Even at the worst point of 7th you could play uncomped, but the game boiled down to play daemons or don't bother showing up. What comp did was provide incentive to play the bottom tier armies and increase the diversity on the field.

[Grocklock]

I understood the need for some comp in 7th edition but only a little, some comp packs are in my view going to far at it is no longer fatasy but some warped version of it. Where i need to rethink everything. But I truly think that 8th edition has balanced out alot of the books, and the new books coming out are really well balanced against one another.

I agree, and will go further. Comp sprung up because a large number of people saw fundamental problems with the core rules, which are a paid product. If the rules need that much comp to make them 'fair', why are we paying for them in the first place? Why isn't there a mainstream push to come up with a balanced ruleset? Why is game design seen as so arcane and complex, comparable to rocket science?

Why is rules making so arcane and complex? your answer is simple, the comunity has made this idea up, that it needs to be so. Not GW. Are the rules GW make perfect, no but neither is the pages upon pages of tweeks the comunity drum up, which differs from tordement to tordement.

I for one are happy to pay for the rules GW produces and will contine too for along time.

Do I feel that changing points costs is a bad move? yes, yes it is, but the game is ours to do with as you please, and if a tordiment came up where the points had been changed Id take a look at it and make a desission from there.

what i really whant to see is a comp pack will tells you why they made the changes. and when they reviewed the changes they made.

[Gradek]

I think it is becoming more obvious with each book/edition that GW does minimal (if that) playtesting. Just look at the current 8th edition books and explain to me how with any amount of playtesting, GW thought it would be balanced to give ogres mournfangs AND ironblasters. And somehow mournfangs are only 2 points more than demigryphs? Or something like the dragon banner, which removes ogres big weakness (initiative) on a charge (along with damage).

Comp is needed (and likely to become more so) because GW doesn't do adequate playtesting AND makes no effort to fix things in the rules/points when it becomes obvious that they are broken (unlike say magic, where card bannings are common).

[The Low King]

I think it is becoming more obvious with each book/edition that GW does minimal (if that) playtesting. Just look at the current 8th edition books and explain to me how with any amount of playtesting, GW thought it would be balanced to give ogres mournfangs AND ironblasters. And somehow mournfangs are only 2 points more than demigryphs? Or something like the dragon banner, which removes ogres big weakness (initiative) on a charge (along with damage).

Comp is needed (and likely to become more so) because GW doesn't do adequate playtesting AND makes no effort to fix things in the rules/points when it becomes obvious that they are broken (unlike say magic, where card bannings are common).

Mournfangs charge you and they do a hell of a lot of damage. On the other hand they are very vulnerable to being charged/countercharged and cant break steadfast infantry. Small units of them just bounce off a horde.

Ironblasters arnt that great...they are just cannons that are able to move but a much bigger target.

Oh, and you are playing the Dragonhide banner wrong i think, a unit hit by the breath weapon strikes last, but the breath weapon goes in initiative order.....meaning that if you are Initiative 2 or higher you strike before it (although it does last two rounds of combat).

[Lord Inquisitor]

There has been a big improvement between 7th and 8th in terms of both intra and inter army book balance. The level of imbalance between the top 8th book and the bottom (Ogres vs TK) is pretty managable especially if special characters are allowed. Compare that to the situation in 7th where with no restrictions a match up between daemons and one of the bottom lists (e.g. Ogres or TK) was just absurd in the extreme, almost a forgone conclusion. Things have come a long way towards uncomped play being at least vaguely balanced.

As to your other points, mournfangs are actually 12 points more when you count their kit and while they do about 25% more damage than gryphs on the charge against baseline human infantry, gryphs do have higher WS, I and most critically Ld. I think they stack up pretty well even if MF are a bit cheap. Dragonhide doesn't help MF to strike first on the charge at all and costs a hefty 50 points.

[Grocklock]

I think it is becoming more obvious with each book/edition that GW does minimal (if that) playtesting. Just look at the current 8th edition books and explain to me how with any amount of playtesting, GW thought it would be balanced to give ogres mournfangs AND ironblasters. And somehow mournfangs are only 2 points more than demigryphs? Or something like the dragon banner, which removes ogres big weakness (initiative) on a charge (along with damage).

Ogres are expensive army, points per model. so there is not alot of them, so are easily out minovered. And as far as the dragon banner goes, there is only 1 in the army and in a standard 1500 point game the unit carrying it is around 650 to 700 points. over a third of the over all army. in one unit, talk ablut all your eggs in one basket.

Comp is needed (and likely to become more so) because GW doesn't do adequate playtesting AND makes no effort to fix things in the rules/points when it becomes obvious that they are broken (unlike say magic, where card bannings are common).

out the box warhammer is achually really good, and requires little comp, but I feel the need again to say GW is ment to be played as a fun game with your mates. That is why comparing models points in one book to another is pointless, as Gw have said time and time again the books are balanced within themselves are are designed to build balanced lists for fun games, not competive games. It is not a tordiemnt game. Alot of the tordiments that GW produces are fun games which is more about enjoying the game then the competative nature of the game.

It is the comunity which has said we want to make it competative. Which GW has said is fine, do with it as you will. This in turn has created it own problems as the comunity has made comp packs which allow yoyu to play the game differently It doesn't solve the problem it just moves the problem to a different area.

yes game design is not rocket sience, but it is an ongoing process, look at privater press, they are forever fixing there sinking ship.

[DaemonReign]

(unlike say magic, where card bannings are common).

I get what you're saying and you're probably right about GW playtesting too little, above all their 'checks and balances' seem to be lacking at times (the most flagrant example of late is the Steadfast Detachment mess which has no RAW resolution if we're honest to ourselves!).

However, I think we should praise our lucky stars they don't do 'card bannings' and such things because that would be even more of a detriment compared to the minor issues of balance that 8th Edition may-or-may-not have. They make money on selling models. If models became 'extinct' from one month to the other because of a sudden whinefest on the interwebz GW would lose money exponentially.

Can Comp Make Things Better?

I'd say probably, under the right circumstances, if you have the right motives for the 'comp' - and above all if it's a mutual agreement driven by 'both sides' of the gaming table.
Under those settings 'houserules' can really add flavor to the game, creating new 'variety' and new exciting scenarios to adapt your game-play to.

Other than that, I can't help feeling it's like most comps have lost touch with what the game 'is' and necessarily must be. It looks like self-deception to me. Which is why, in the end, I've never explored 'comp' in the traditional sense of the word. Let's just say I 'doubt it' at a comfortable distance.

[yabbadabba]

House rules are fine as long as everyone agrees.

[Duke Ramulots]

The Idea of comp is fine, the execution is where it seems to go off the trail.

[Mercules]

Dang it... you guys didn't give me time to make popcorn.


My take on the whole issue. A good deal of people have pointed out that out of the book Warhammer is actually getting more and more balanced as things go on. If you use ALL the rules then it tends to even things out. When I say, "All the rules." I mean scenarios, random terrain, wacky forests that eat people or move around, and more things actually balance out. If all you play is Battleline with 3-4 small pieces of terrain tucked in out of the way places then yeah, certain builds and armies are going to have a strong advantage.

I was a strong supporter of Composition but more and more I see that the randomness that tournament players hate with a passion actually adds to the balance of the game. If you have to account for Blood and Glory and bring enough banners then you can't have just one big Horde and some warmachines and expect to do well at it, but that might play just fine in straight up Battleline.