Can comp make things better?

[enygma7]

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.

Agreed. The introduction of 8th in itself went a long way towards reducing the imbalance between armies. The army books released so far in 8th also show a greater effort towards balance. Once all the books are redone then comp may no longer be needed.

The greater balance brought about by 8th has made limited simplistic comp a lot more viable in my view - its mostly a case of restricting a few badly thought out magic items and overpowered special characters and units (hellpit and hydra, I'm looking at you!). I think where comp often fails is when people go to far and start trying to turn 8th into the game they wish it was.

[Karak Norn Clansman]

Army composition points systems came into being because of the ridiculous powercreep of 7th edition army books. 8th edition army books on the other hand have great balance versus each other. As GW phase out the 7ths to 8ths army composition will no longer be required, in the condition that GW refrains from powercreep.

[DaemonReign]

Army composition points systems came into being because of the ridiculous powercreep of 7th edition army books. 8th edition army books on the other hand have great balance versus each other. As GW phase out the 7ths to 8ths army composition will no longer be required, in the condition that GW refrains from powercreep.

I'm really fine with what you're saying here but it isn't the Whole Truth.
7th Edition books are just as balanced toward 8th Ed Army Book as those 8th Ed Army Books are toward each other.
There's 'something else' that have changed with 8th Edition that isn't inherent to the supposed 'power' of individual books.

As Mercules was saying:
If you 'play by ALL the rules' the game is balanced. Period.
You may not like how the game runs, still - but that's another issue all together compared to whether or not it is balanced.

[Torga_DW]

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.

This may just be me (it usually is), but that seems to be the impression people get at the start of every new edition. 7th was going along fairly well, until the daemons appeared. As for the intra and inter army balance, i still see a lot of obvious units (in say ogres) that are subcompetitive choices.

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.

Well, what i hear about out of the box warhammer is instant-death spells and laser-guided cannons. The top issues that spring to mind, doubtless there are more if i were to look for them. My question is, if the game is designed for 'fun', how do you quantify success? How can a game that pits two players against each other not be competitive?

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

Really? My impression was pp was growing from strength to strength. When they moved to version 2, they updated all the army books within like a year, so that people could concentrate on the game. Myself i thought the cygnar battle engine was the inspiration for the hurricanum, but thats just my opinion.

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 agree, although i'm not sure if they're balancing the rules in this way, or merely upping the imbalances to such a degree that it sort of balances out. But it can work, look at a game like magicka, its full of instant death attacks and situations, yet still is very playable (with at least 2 people or more, solo is virtually impossible) and highly fun. I'd be interested to know if tournaments use all the above, or just plonk down battlelines on planet bowling ball.

Agreed. The introduction of 8th in itself went a long way towards reducing the imbalance between armies. The army books released so far in 8th also show a greater effort towards balance. Once all the books are redone then comp may no longer be needed.

Well as i said before, i'm still seeing imbalances, both intra and inter army books. Different rule changes and interactions, but overall much the sameness from when i started actively paying attention, around 6th edition.

[DaemonReign]

... or merely upping the imbalances to such a degree that it sort of balances out... *etcetera*

Does it matter?
If we're talking about Balance.. Doesn't that simply mean that you have no idea how a certain game is gonna go when Deployment begins?
That's really 'it' isn't it: Everything else is just how we choose to describe it in detail(?)
Whether a certain faction gets the upper hand because of a killer spell, a lucky charge with a deathstar, or simply an obstacle being placed in a certain way on the board - doesn't really matter.
Or rather: Of course it matters - but not for the sake of balance.

Balance is just that - if you can 'win' the game at the list-building stage it's unbalanced, if you can't then it isn't.
That's at least how I view it.

[Snowflake]

Does it matter?
If we're talking about Balance.. Doesn't that simply mean that you have no idea how a certain game is gonna go when Deployment begins?
That's really 'it' isn't it: Everything else is just how we choose to describe it in detail(?)
Whether a certain faction gets the upper hand because of a killer spell, a lucky charge with a deathstar, or simply an obstacle being placed in a certain way on the board - doesn't really matter.
Or rather: Of course it matters - but not for the sake of balance.

Balance is just that - if you can 'win' the game at the list-building stage it's unbalanced, if you can't then it isn't.
That's at least how I view it.

Can't agree with this enough, really. People decry the "killer spells" and "laser guided cannons" as imbalances, but at the core of it, it's because they are saying that they lost the game because of that one thing when they should have won. If you drill that down, it's them saying "my list was better and should have won, but you wipe out my power unit/character with cheese." It's them trying to win it in the list building stage.

To phrase that a little differently, I don't particularly care about the killer spells or the cannons. There is no one single unit or character I have on the board that you can kill to win the game right there. Which is really what it's about, to me. If you put all your eggs in one basket, and someone breaks the basket, you just lost. If there WEREN'T ways to break that basket, THAT would be imbalance.

[IcedCrow]

I think any system can be busted, and in competitive games WILL be busted for the sake of winning the competition.

Why I dislike comp - if not done correctly does little to address the issues. Also hard to do fairly.

Why I like comp - even if it cuts one broken thing and introduces another, it is mixing up the broken things, thus making army lists that are different instead of the same thing over and over again. So the lists are still busting the system or attempting to, but at least they are different from comp system to comp system and I dont suffer burnout from having to face the same things over and over again.

[Snake1311]

Does it matter?
If we're talking about Balance.. Doesn't that simply mean that you have no idea how a certain game is gonna go when Deployment begins?
That's really 'it' isn't it: Everything else is just how we choose to describe it in detail(?)
Whether a certain faction gets the upper hand because of a killer spell, a lucky charge with a deathstar, or simply an obstacle being placed in a certain way on the board - doesn't really matter.
Or rather: Of course it matters - but not for the sake of balance.

Balance is just that - if you can 'win' the game at the list-building stage it's unbalanced, if you can't then it isn't.
That's at least how I view it.

That is balance based on luck.

What we pro-compers are after is balanced based on skill

This means lower the unpredictability and the massive 50-50 swings of some aspects of the game. Mainly, spells,but also deathstars.

And you should have an idea of what will happen after deployment. If the game is completely out of your control, you might as well play a quick round of rock-paper-scissors and call it a day.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I'm really fine with what you're saying here but it isn't the Whole Truth.
7th Edition books are just as balanced toward 8th Ed Army Book as those 8th Ed Army Books are toward each other.
There's 'something else' that have changed with 8th Edition that isn't inherent to the supposed 'power' of individual books.

In several areas 8th edition seemed to be designed to actually improve army book balance but it isn't necessarily such a good thing. Re-rolls for always strikes first was a patch to help out armies like High Elves who paid a high premium for ASF that was worth little in 8th ed, the rule that you can only take regen or ward seemed designed to reign in nurgle daemons. The problem is that now we're stuck with ASF being rather a lot like Hatred for the rest of the edition even after the army books have been redone and even worse the new books are pointed with the re-rolls in mind so it's a vicious cycle. Not necessarily better than writing the core rules as they should be and correcting the issues.

As Mercules was saying:
If you 'play by ALL the rules' the game is balanced. Period.
You may not like how the game runs, still - but that's another issue all together compared to whether or not it is balanced.

That was true in 7th as well. The game was entirely balanced at every point in 7th. Every player had access to every army. Even if daemons were more powerful than any other army, that's okay from a competitive perspective, since all players can potentially play daemons so technically the game is balanced. I'm not being facetious about this, I mean that seriously. The game is balanced, period. You just might not like how it runs.

Now if you're saying that all army books and all units and options are equally competitive in 8th, I think that's flat out false.

This may just be me (it usually is), but that seems to be the impression people get at the start of every new edition. 7th was going along fairly well, until the daemons appeared. As for the intra and inter army balance, i still see a lot of obvious units (in say ogres) that are subcompetitive choices.

Time will tell I guess but the 8th ed books seem different and with an attention to internal balance that wasn't present even in the early 7th books.

[DaemonReign]

@Snake - The logical conclusion of what you're saying is Chess. I guess what pro-compers want is less dependance on 'luck' and more dependance on skill. That's fine. Depending on who one asks comp has varying success in that department. Personally I find that 'mistakes' are properly punished in the Core game, and stuff like über-spells, deathstars and cannons rarely (if ever) have the definitive power of Victories and Losses that is often argued.

@Lord Inquisitor - Everyone being able to play the same faction is not what I was getting at and you know it. 8th Ed Army Books have been more or less swell so far, but the important thing is still the core mechanics they are inserted in. I personally have no problem with using the best out of Regen OR Ward, and ASF should mean something as far as I am concerned. If it also means Plaguebearers are no longer grossely undercosted and High Elves remain competative then I really see no reason to be grumpy about it. I think it's good that Warhammer is a 'living thing' in this respect, currently stretching between 6th Ed books that are supposed to compete with last month's release of Empire etcetera. Oh well.. [and I'm not gonna bite on the implicit bs about 'daemons in 7th', sorry]

[GodlessM]

That is balance based on luck.

What we pro-compers are after is balanced based on skill

This means lower the unpredictability and the massive 50-50 swings of some aspects of the game. Mainly, spells,but also deathstars.

And you should have an idea of what will happen after deployment. If the game is completely out of your control, you might as well play a quick round of rock-paper-scissors and call it a day.

As someone relatively pro-comp and a regular tournament organiser, I can say that this statement sums up the sudden surge of anti-comp that has shown up over the last year. The likes of the ETC are no longer running comp; they are running Warhammer 7.5 edition. Comp is short for composition, and that's what it is about, changing the composition of army lists to try and balance the game at that level. Making fleeing units count for VPs again, limiting dice thrown at a spell on a lore by lore basis, and in some extremem cases blanket banning whole armies is ridiculous and doesn't balance the game, it just turns it full circle. What's worse is that a lot of these problems come from one prominent TO making a biased call based on the army he uses and setting a precedent that unsure TO's may follow; last year's ETC letting the Dark Elves off the hook was a good example. 3 of the 5 main organisers played DE or something like that, so they got little comp, and then other people started catching on and it spread.

The best comp keeps it light. Restrict as little as possible while striving to create a balance. Over here one of the more prominent players in the community came up with an idea called SCALE based on an old idea used years ago where instead of restricting what you could take, it just effected your score coming out of a game; broken lists were docked point, while fluffy ones gained points. It has become both popular and very successful over here.

[DaemonReign]

instead of restricting what you could take, it just effected your score coming out of a game; broken lists were docked point, while fluffy ones gained points. It has become both popular and very successful over here.

This is the sort of comp I would personally have no problem what-so-ever playing under. Competition with an incentive for 'theme' and 'fluff'? - Where do I sign up?!

I'm sorry Snake (& all pro-compers I guess) but I've seen the argument about 'skill vs luck' many times and then we all pick up the same damn dice. Don't we?

When it comes to ETC I think that apart from these rumours of 'bias' coming from different sources (GodlessM mentions this and it's not the first time I've heard it - evil tongues speak of ETC essentially being a bunch of buddies making up favorable 'compositions' for their friends' fav-armies... now that just mustn't be true, given the 'following' they're getting!) - anyway, apart from that I just think they've gotten too creative.

Like if you told me that in a game between Wood Elves and Daemons the WE will get a nice chunk of extra points to spend, I'd be completely fine with that.
But it's when they go in an start 'playing Jervis' that I just.. well.. stop taking it seriously really. It's just houserules after all, so they'd do themselves a favor in keeping with 'changes' that can be easily understood.

I actually posted a little rant about Daemons and ETC in a completely incorrect thread the other night when I was too tired to look at what where my clicks were going.. There's just so much in there that doesn't really 'nerf' Daemons (for example) while on the other hand it just seems hellbent on making the boring and 'one-way-or-no-way'.

Now perhaps that is balance too. But then why not take it ALL THE WAY and have the TOs write up an Army list for you..Hell, everyone could even play with the same List.. And then you can use stastics instead of dice.. That would make it all about Skill wouldn't it?!

[Mercules]

Now if you're saying that all army books and all units and options are equally competitive in 8th, I think that's flat out false.

It is true that all Army Books and all choices within the books will never be completely balanced.

In part this is due to the fact that Warhammer is a complex game. There are no squares or hexes for the models, you don't move straight ahead, 90 degrees, 45 degrees, or anything like that you can actually move 1/4 of an inch, make a 5 degree wheel, move another 1/4" and make another 5 degree wheel. There are no fixed armies from each book, heck the points you play are not even fixed and somethings in each book work better at various point levels. There are just so many variables that things will never be ultimately balanced perfectly.

In addition GW has chosen about the poorest way to achieve balance ever. Army books are not updated when the core rules are, some books that were updated for 7th are receiving updates now, while some that haven't been updated since 6th are still waiting. The books are not written by a core team, but each book is handed to a specific writer or two. They started to use "key words" but they still need to expand them and define things that they haven't like "Ranged Attack" if they are going to write rules/FAQs that include them.

So yeah, things will never be completely balanced. I'm not looking for complete balance because I understand it is un-achievable. Instead I am looking for a narrow of the range. I don't want to look across the table with my 7th edition Ogres and see 2 Hydras, 1 unit of spears with a Sac Dagger sorceress, additional crap-tons of magic and shooting; and realize that the game is nearly over turn 1. I played those games out and tried to have some fun, but really... it was a bit like the last mile of a marathon when I know everyone else has already crossed the line. At this point I could just walk it out.

I think 8th edition really narrowed the band. The extreme ends of the scale are not so far apart and a lot more armies now hit the "norm" range. Even if certain armies are still uphill battles for others they are not as steeply tipped the one way. That is what I mean when I say things are much more balanced than they were.


EDIT: Oh, one thing I wanted to say but didn't get around to yet. One of the things ~I~ personally think could go a long way towards balance would be to provide other scenarios at tournaments. Things that like Blood and Glory will force you to alter the army composition a bit. It would take careful thought as to what would alter composition a bit without putting too much emphasis on the scenarios, but I think that would be more of a carrot than a stick. Encourage people to play with certain things instead of preventing them from bringing other things.

[Lord Inquisitor]

This is the sort of comp I would personally have no problem what-so-ever playing under. Competition with an incentive for 'theme' and 'fluff'? - Where do I sign up?!

A simple comp score assigned by the tournament organisers can do the trick. Really that is in some ways the best system for assigning a value on something as subjective as theme and fluff. Alternatively there are a few pre-assigned comp score systems out there.

I'm sorry Snake (& all pro-compers I guess) but I've seen the argument about 'skill vs luck' many times and then we all pick up the same damn dice. Don't we?

There are two ways we can reduce the game to an extreme. At one extreme, we have chess or go. Zero luck, lots of skill. At the other extreme, roulette. All luck, no skill (excepting, perhaps, knowing when to quit!). Clearly if we reduced warhammer to a game without dice, it would be tactical, but if it just involved the two players rolling off for the win, clearly there's no skill there. Simply put, the more randomness in the game, the less skill. Why do we want randomness at all? Well, it simulates uncertainty of war and the possibility of freak events. In a nutshell, it forces the players to adapt to an uncertain game. However, very few parts of the game are truly random, we deal in various levels of probability.

Too much randomness is very bad for the game very quickly. Too little is by contrast hardly an issue. It's pretty easy to see which side of the line it is better to err on.

Now perhaps that is balance too. But then why not take it ALL THE WAY and have the TOs write up an Army list for you..Hell, everyone could even play with the same List.. And then you can use stastics instead of dice.. That would make it all about Skill wouldn't it?!

That would actually be a lot of fun. However, another neat possibility is play at a smaller points value, say 1500, and play each opponent twice. Once with your list and army, then for the next game swap lists and armies. I'd love to play that format.

[Mercules]

Too much randomness is very bad for the game very quickly. Too little is by contrast hardly an issue. It's pretty easy to see which side of the line it is better to err on.

I agree too much is bad for the game... however too little is JUST as bad for the game. Computers can beat humans at chess simply because they can predict out the possible moves so far in advance that they can calculate the "best" move. There isn't enough chance of failure in there to bring it back to where non-bianary processing becomes needed. It's all "if - then" and "Yes - No" and it needs some "maybe" put into it. That is what dice and randomness put into Warhammer. 8th, despite some people's opinion, isn't to the point where it is so random you can't make educated decisions and expect certain outcomes. However, it is random enough that you can no longer win a game by being able to measure 1/2" by eyeballing it. Combat went from, "If I charge then I win that one and that one." to something a bit more interesting.

[yabbadabba]

House rules always makes things better because it moves the synergy of the game closer to a personal interpretation of what the game should be. The only issue with this approach becomes when a person believes their interpretation is better than someone elses.

For me at the moment 8e does several things: it walks the fine line between competitive and fluff players wants; it is complex enough to provide a challenge for all players no matter what level; it has almost got the balance between all aspects of the game right, although it still manages to allow players to decide the manner in which they want to play. Finally the opportunities to convert the game to represent more of what the individual wants is far easier than in any other edition, provided the players take the time to understand the internal synergy.

[Grocklock]

Well, what i hear about out of the box warhammer is instant-death spells and laser-guided cannons. The top issues that spring to mind, doubtless there are more if i were to look for them. My question is, if the game is designed for 'fun', how do you quantify success? How can a game that pits two players against each other not be competitive?

Ok to start off from the sound if it you haven't played out of the box warhammer, I would surgest you do, before you start daming it. Are some of the spells good, yes but you have to pay for a wizard, hope you get the spell, roll for the amount of dice to hope to get the required amount, then cast it and hope the opponent doesn't dispel it. These big spells don't go off as much as you would think and whne they do that tends to be all you are doing that magic phase. The problem is alot of the time you hear about the extreams and then assume it happens all of the time. How to quantify success same way as everyone else in sales, if a product is selling then oviously people like it, In my experiances the neay sayers and floggers of dead horses, thend to kick up a fuss but stay with the game, due to the love of the game.

as for being competative what i mean is the difference between playing a five a side kick about with your mates in the park and the FC. a five a side in the park is how I see GW. its competative but people are not so concerned about the result but more the enjoyment of the game.

Really? My impression was pp was growing from strength to strength. When they moved to version 2, they updated all the army books within like a year, so that people could concentrate on the game. Myself i thought the cygnar battle engine was the inspiration for the hurricanum, but thats just my opinion.

Really really, I often hear how great privaterr is then, I drop some cash on them play the game and reallise, what a waste of time that all was. I have moved across the UK and everywhere I go, Privatee Press is the game people pick up as a side, when they want a break from GW. the rules are clunkie, the models are ok but so is macdonalds. The game micanics are very simplistic and genrally a bit dull, people tend to flick to it for a mounth of two before they are dropped.

As for sales of the product, when you talk to shop owners it tends to be a case of yes it sells but not as much as GW.

[Grocklock]

To bring it back on point, comp can make things different, better is a point of view and one I do not hold. In my experiance of using comp packs all it is doing is makeing a problem somewhere else, This si not a problem but its not making it better

[Lord Inquisitor]

It needs to be reiterated that the primary purpose of comp for most tournaments is to encourage diversity. If it succeeds in improving the diversity of armies brought to the table, then it can largely be considered a success. Improving balance is a necessary tool to achieve this, but a lot of people seem to be of the opinion that unless it achieves perfect balance it is a failure. This is not the case because this is not the ultimate goal of comp.

Not every comp necessarily has this as the only goal, ETC is designed for team tournament play so they have other considerations like trying to limit things like stalemate armies.

[Mercules]

Not every comp necessarily has this as the only goal, ETC is designed for team tournament play so they have other considerations like trying to limit things like stalemate armies.

This is why I really hate non-team tournaments copy and pasting ETC rules. They are not designed for 100 individuals to do a swiss style tournament but instead for their specific team play mechanics.