Can comp make things better?

[DaemonReign]

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.

Amen to that. I couldn't have said it better myself.

As far as ETC goes I certainly hope the intent of that comp isn't 'diversity' because from what I've seen so far the opposite is exactly what they're achieving.
And the whole Team-thing is something I haven't really understood to be honest, it feels like a smoke-screen its advocates will throw out to masque the fact that a lot of the ETC-comps are completely arbitrary and impossible to defend in any 'scientific' manner.

But hey, what do I know really.. It's not like I'm ever setting my foot in an environment like that anyway.

[Lord Inquisitor]

As far as ETC goes I certainly hope the intent of that comp isn't 'diversity' because from what I've seen so far the opposite is exactly what they're achieving.
And the whole Team-thing is something I haven't really understood to be honest, it feels like a smoke-screen its advocates will throw out to masque the fact that a lot of the ETC-comps are completely arbitrary and impossible to defend in any 'scientific' manner.

I have to say that soft comp does a lot to improve intra- and inter- army diversity, but ETC hard comp does at least improve inter-army diversity. Beastmen are a lot more attractive under their rules, for example.

However, my understanding (which is limited, I've not played in true ETC format) is that both teams can put up a player for a given match, so it may be advantageous to have a player in the team with a list designed to stalemate the most dangerous opponent in the opposing team (only the top scores for each team are used, so you can throw one match away on a stalemate). Therefore things like unit caps are sensible to prevent megablob units and so on.

[Asensur]

Main issues with tournaments.

1-Always battleline as pitched battle.

2-Always same terrain placement (2 hills, 2 forests), and always fixed and mirrored one.

3-Rule houseruling.

4-Army restrictions.

5-Only most battle points as an award.

I will talk about all issues.

1. Pitched battle

Why is it a problem?

Fixed battle objectives and deployment only means specifically made army builds. This means not all armies are equally prepared for that kind of scenario as other. This means unbalanced armies.

How to solve it?

Each round a different pitched battle. Just it. Doesn't need to be random, can be fixed prior to the event itself. But, do not repeat the same scenario all rounds. Also, don't hesitate to include Blood or Glory and/or the Watchtower scenarios (warmachines zergs are a problem? here are the fixes)

2. Fixed and mirrored terrain

Why is it a problem?

As issue 1, this only means specifically made army builds and unbalances. Also, there is not challenge if you know you are gonna play always at the same battlefield. And, above all, is boring.

How to solve it?

Do not repeat terrain pieces on the same battlefield. Place a building (now you can play watchtower if you want), place obstacles, place just one hill and forest. Place a minimum of 5 terrain pieces on the battlefield. Make both players decide side of the table first, and then make them to alternate deployemnt of the scenery wherever they want.

This makes deployment even more tactical, as you have to sacrifice some terrain advantages for others. Also, it could be nice if you let your players bring 1-2 terrain pieces of their own, who benefits them most, and lets them add fluff for their armies (last Warhammer Doubles weekend is a great example of deployment).

3. Houseruling.

Why is it a problem?

Confuses players. Merges issues. Unbalances a game even without noticing it.

How to solve it?

Do not houserule events. No fixed LOS, no fixed Magic Phase, etc. You should use the Rulebook as a companion, not as an enemy. Does players have an argument about TLOS? Just bring a laser pointer with you to determine (it's cheap, it's easy. period).


4. Army restrictions

Why is it a problem?

Doesn't eliminate overpowered armies. Just substitutes them with another ones. Even chess "armies" are unbalanced. Take some combination or unit, another one will replace it to get the thrones. The only real restriction is diversity.

How to solve it?

Do not break more what is already broken.

5. Awards

Add painting, army list, and deportive awards. Doing that the tournament won't be filled with just rules' exploiters, dodgers or cheaters. Also, add an overall award (and make it better than the best general's one) with a system of battle points with minimums on the other categories.

By giving an overall award, everybody will try to be nice, to have a balanced army list and to have an incredibly painted army (and believe me, everybody hates to face an unpainted army at a tournament).





Comps restrictions don't solve things and add "diversity". Different scenarios do. Different terrain pieces do. Unrestricted rules do. Unrestricted armies do. Different awards do.

[IcedCrow]

I find the best way to mix up army lists is to:

1) have interesting tables with interesting terrains. not the two forests two hills malarky.

2) have various scenarios. Not just line up and fight for victory points.

Doing those two things by itself goes a very very long way.

[DaemonReign]

@ Lord Inq: Right. Thanks for reminding me about 'picking one's opponant' and all that. All right so some of the restrictions make a little more sense in light of that. But still.. if everyone could make a point-denial army then a part of the Challange [of the Tournament] would be to 'beat the other Team's denial list, wouldn't it?! I mean - yeah - you can argue that point-denial is 'boring' and that this is the reason for comping that venue of play out of a Tournament, but the problem is that it's being sold as better (i.e. more balanced) by its advocates and that simply does not fly with me.

@ Acencur: I bloody well hate facing unpainted armies all together! That's why for the last year or so I've resorted to painting my friends' collections rather than my own.
Seriously though, I'd personally sign off on every single one of your reflections.. I can understand however that people would try to pull things in a more sports-like competative way - but then that's exactly where I simply conclude they're simply playing the wrong game. As tough a realisation as that may be..

@ IcedCrow: +1 (put simply)

[Torga_DW]

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.

I wasn't intending to come off as damning it. I'm very aware of the realities of casting the big spells vs the doom and gloom theory. My point was i've been reading warseer since it was portent, and with 8th came the issues i mentioned. I'm not so much interested in the specifics of the problem, as i am seeing other people voicing their concerns about it. For example, the current thread on cannons is up to 29 pages now i believe.

For the record, i only ever play out of the box anything. Because no-one in my area is interested in doing it any other way.

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.

I don't know that i love the game, but i still like it. I also like conversations where contentious issues of the day are discussed in a civilized manner, which is partly why i come here. On the other hand, 40k which i started in rogue trader days and was my first love, i simply won't play anymore. I don't tend to read or post in the 40k forums anymore. The minis are still cool, but i expect 6th edition will be more of the pulp drivel that it has been now for quite some time. The ruleset is literally that bad to me that i derive no pleasure at all from playing it, and so actively avoid it.

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.

This is something that most people don't seem to think about. What if your mates are only interested in a super competitive game of kick about? What if all the people in your area are like that? Individual behaviour needs to be matched to the context of the group dynamic. Personal attitudes only go so far, then you have to start interacting with the attitudes and beliefs of other people around you.

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.

Their individual performance is highly situational, just like anything else. In my city, the store that focuses primarily on gw has very low activity and no games that i've seen, despite having multiple tables. Whereas the pp store is always full and active when i go in.

What i look at is what the actual company is doing. Right now they're releasing their colossals expansion, which means they must have some level of money to be able to do that. I don't tend to follow their pricing and rises, but i notice that they have multiple plastic starter sets available now. They must be doing fairly well in my opinion.

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.

Thats a question i won't be able to ask my local big gw stockist much longer, he's a couple weeks away from closing down. On the up side, i won't feel obligated to buy local anymore, and can start getting my stuff from america where it's about half price including postage.

edit: minor formatting

[Mercules]

I find the best way to mix up army lists is to:

1) have interesting tables with interesting terrains. not the two forests two hills malarky.

2) have various scenarios. Not just line up and fight for victory points.

Doing those two things by itself goes a very very long way.

Which also can bring about the balance we all want. If you have to build your army to take a scenario into account you often can't just have 2 huge hordes and chaff or a gunline you have to consider a slightly different build.

I still want to play on a "Dwarven Hall" board which has pillars you have to maneuver around. Place them close enough and smaller units can still maneuver well, but Hordes and Long units will be restricted. Charges will also need some more careful consideration to be certain you can slip past the pillar and still hit the unit with a single Wheel.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Main issues with tournaments.

1-Always battleline as pitched battle.

2-Always same terrain placement (2 hills, 2 forests), and always fixed and mirrored one.

3-Rule houseruling.

4-Army restrictions.

5-Only most battle points as an award.

Are these really common issues? What area are you looking at Asensur? I certainly don't find them that bad in my neck of the woods.

1. Always battleline? Really? I have literally never been to an 8th edition tournament that didn't use the rulebook pitched battles at an absolute minimum and usually with bonus objectives or additional special rules thrown in. Even Ard Boyz, the epitome of competitive gaming, used quite a range of scenarios right up to the downright game-dominating (anyone who suffered the "end of the world" scenario last year will know what I mean!). Every GT I've been to has a lot of thought put into the scenarios. The last tournament I traveled to (Grail Quest in NC) involved: Game 1, killing Gary Busey (killed by being run over by an ogre bus), Game 2: rescuing hostages from towers, Game 3 blowing a building up sky high (with large amounts of collateral damage). Certainly not just battleline!

2. Same terrain. Again, not in my experience. I have a lot of sympathy for tournament organisers, particularly the really big tournaments and often corners have to be cut to make sure every table has at least some terrain, sometimes the tables are a bit meagre. However, I don't find that it's always the same on each table, nor do I find it always mirrored. The best terrain I've seen at a tournament is at Border Raids GT (showcase has some phenomenal themed tables, e.g. khorne table complete with river of blood or tomb kings tables with pyramids and sphinxes), but every GT I've been to has made an effort for a range of tables.

3. Rule houseruling. This is not a problem in my experience. Everyone gets the rule pack, everyone can playtest out the rules. If you're serious about the tournament you can get used to any (reasonable) amount of houseruling. Border Raids last year had some extreme comp and a fair few house rules and it was pretty easy to get the hang of it. In fact, it was a bit weird after the tournament getting used to "normal" Warhammer. Many house rules are a good idea and can really shake the game up (1/2 points for 1/2 strength is an easy one and really changes people's lists as it make points denial harder).

4. Army restrictions. Not going to get too much into this, but presuming that the game will be magically balanced with restrictions is not anyone's false impression (I hope!). The objective is to make more armies viable, more builds viable. This is, in my experience, exactly what happens. Maybe not perfect, but if it is just better, that's a success. Note that comp doesn't necessarily restrict anything but provide an incentive to take the less-seen stuff.

5. Awards. Again, people run tournaments with just battle points? Never seen it myself, outside of Ard Boyz. Best overall, best general, best painted, best sportsman are the staples and most GTs will have more than these.

Leaving 4 and 5 aside (since they're the subject of this thread), I have really not seen issues with 1, 2 and 5. I don't disagree that they would be issues and I've seen all of these things in the past, particularly with some 40K tournaments a long while ago and back in 7th I did see a lot of "one wood, one hill per side" boards, but I haven't seen any of it in 8th edition. Perhaps I'm just lucky but from what I can tell about tournaments in other areas, it's not that different.

I will say, however, that with interesting and varied scenarios, a good selection of terrain, a wide variety of awards I still find comp a good idea. I don't think that having nice terrain and playing a scenario really makes the discrepancy between Wood Elves and Daemons any less.

[pippin_nl]

Enforcing diversity is actually quite easy, but as a result a bit more difficult for building armylists. Example:

Monsters & chariots: First steam tank 250 points, second steam tank +20% = 300 points
Infantry & cavalry: first 100 points no penalty, 100 - 200 points 10% penalty, so 20 empire spearmen will cost 100 points, but 40 spearmen will cost 100 + 110 points= 210 points
You could apply the same to other units. Voila more diversity.

Creating better comp is also easy, just put all results in one gigantic database and then hand out extra points for armies that have bad results, which will mean that that army will do better, a temporary equilibrium will be reached, until new rules come out.

[Asensur]

Talking about GT

Sir, it is my honour to present you the typical tournament of my homeland:


Nope! no terrain outside the table either


Drinking beer due to watching forest trees...


Minimum painted armies


random guy asking himself where is the hill


Opponent faded away when realized 8th uses TLOS

[Ronin[XiC]]

No one uses unpainted miniatures in private games. NEVEEEEEER

Right?

[Lord Inquisitor]

Yikes, they seem a bit on the sparse side, eh? Where is it that you come from?

For comparison:

This is a report from Border Raids (not mine, just googled it). It shows some of the great tables at Border Raids. I've got a few more (bad) shots of the tables.


This is a table from Brawler Bash GT (okay, it was one of the best tables there, but still)


Also from BB


Finally, here's one from Grail Quest (not one of their best tables to be sure, but shows some of the terrain.)


Heh, at a recent local tournament we actually called over the judge to remove some impassable terrain because in the battle for the pass scenario we were playing, it was pretty much impossible for our armies to get into contact!

[Asensur]

Beautiful battlefields that made me cry

I wish we had more of those at southern Spain.

*sigh* I guess that I will do some terrain myself for the tournament scene near my city and promote better battlefields.

[Duke Ramulots]

I will say, however, that with interesting and varied scenarios, a good selection of terrain, a wide variety of awards I still find comp a good idea. I don't think that having nice terrain and playing a scenario really makes the discrepancy between Wood Elves and Daemons any less.

I refuse to believe that there is a discrepancy between woodelves and daemons.

After reading your post I do have a bit of a more sympathetic view on the terrain on the tables. Never thought that TO's would be running 50 tables when they only have terrain for 8, maybe they should run smaller tourneys until they beef up the terrain they can supply.

[DaemonReign]

Let's see how this works..
I want to show you guys a pic of a game I played recently..

Since the table was a bit bigger than 'normal' (4000pts game as well) we rolled D6+5 terrain pieces.

[Duke Ramulots]

Let's see how this works..
I want to show you guys a pic of a game I played recently..

Since the table was a bit bigger than 'normal' (4000pts game as well) we rolled D6+5 terrain pieces.

That looks like an average board for us. Sometimes we use the d6+4 random pieces but usually we just have one person set up the table and the othere pick sides.

[Lord Inquisitor]

That looks quite similar to the kinds of terrain set-ups we have at our local tournaments (although that board is nicer looking).

[DaemonReign]

I meant to insert that pic from our local club as an example how terrain do a lot to 'balance' the game if you actually use it. And I am not saying you guys arn't.
Like if you roll up a forrest you put an actual Forrest on a relevant chunk of the table - not just 3 trees on a little board..
If you roll up a river or two, make it something that's actually in the way, so you have to concider it during deployment.
Make the choosing of side matter etcetera. That's all. It's meant to be a part of it.

I actually agree with you Lord Inq about that thing I mentioned before: TO could make an Army List from One faction for everyone to use at a Tournament (and yes you could even use Statistics instead of dice!) - that would take the 'randomness' out of the game. I wouldn't personally want to play like that, like, ever - but I would respect it more than the endless chasing of ghostly tails that I fathom some of these 'more advanced' comp-packs to be. A lot of fuss for ending up in roughly the same place you began.
And all seen from a distance of course, I'm actually humble to the fact.

[T10]

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.

Agreed.

The kind of gamer that thrives on predictability is the power-gamer. His prey: the casual gamer.

At first glance, giving the power-gamer freedom to choose is the worst idea. With free access to all the tools and toys, he will be able to forge a soulless death-machine out of any army book and kill the game for everybody else, one victory point at a time. So it makes sense to cut away at that freedom, to take away the tools and toys and level the playing field.

Well, it isn't that simple.

Taking away his tools and toys does not change the core attitude of the power-gamer: He makes the hardest list possible within whatever ruleset available, and any restrictions just means there are less options to use against him. Ultimately you can take away all the choices and write his army list for him, but I think the very game itself is lost to all at that point.

Random terrain (and more!) and random scenarios is the way to go if you want to cater to the casual gamer.

[IcedCrow]

Just to note... power gamers aren't bad soulless people (not saying anyone said that, it's just that they get a bad rep and some are pretty cool people). It's a way of approaching the game that is perfectly valid.

One can be a power gamer and still be a lot of fun to play against. On the flip, one can be a soulless dick that is a fluff gamer and be equally annoying to play against.

Carry thee on