A Different Take On Comp

http://us.cnn.com/2012/06/12/opinion/grand....html?hpt=hp_c1

For those who don't want the read the whole thing, the best quote is:

Go ahead, make everything so soft and vanilla that nobody ever has to learn to counter the tough stuff. Fictional-God bless America. We are a nation of wimps and losers where winning is punished and losing is rewarded.

To be fair, Comp is far more heavily used in other countries, ETC being a prime example .

Yeah, I posted the same thread over on TWF. Yeesh! You should see the haters over there. I'll bet most of 'em are dang ferriners.

I particularly like this one:

"In a contest of player skill, the game should not be slanted in the favor of whoever can buy the best toys. Period."

Umm...jousting? You have a buy a better horse/armor who will greatly assist your win. This argument has fallen flat for centuries, if not millennia.

good speech, good teacher.
Still, let me try to spin this the other way:

You could see comp as filtering out some of the easiest ways to win. I think it's clear that it is the magic phase that nearly always suffers from comp, which is incidentally the phase in which you can make the most kills with the least skill involved(which is not to say that you can't employ skill in the magic phase, it's just that brute uniaginative force works very well too for some lores/races)

In that sense, I can't help but look to the game Magic the Gathering. As you might or might not know, that game effectively has 10 or so official 'formats' which are basically comps telling you what cards you can use or not. The reason for this is that as the number of cards increased, several "best options" were so much better so obviouly that: A. everybody played them and B. they won the game within 1 turn. In that sense, limmiting the original game actually enriches the resulting game experience, letting more being decided by skill, strategy and originality.

but I do not attend enough comped warhammer tournaments to judge if comp has ever bee succesfully implemented in this game.

=> You could. I've more often seen it as a way to remove tools from players that need them so that the more skilled players have an easier time rolling over them.

=> You could. I've more often seen it as a way to remove tools from players that need them so that the more skilled players have an easier time rolling over them.

Ah yes, what a nice way to put it :-)

I read about that teacher's speech before, can't argue against it :-)

=> You could. I've more often seen it as a way to remove tools from players that need them so that the more skilled players have an easier time rolling over them.

just grasping at straws here, but isn't that another way of saying "comp makes that it is skill instead of net-decking (copying your magic deck from internet) that defines the outcome of the game"?

There isn't some monopoly on skill after all.

Now if a certain organizer would just hate his brother and therefore penaltalize the empire army very severly, that would be bad. But I do believe that sensible addendums to the BRB rules can be made, for instance.

=> I can see that perspective. I'm not sure what you may or may not know about my stance on comp, though, so I'll give a little insight.


I think comp is needless, pointless, an expression of arrogance, selfish, petty, stupid, dumb, and poopy.

I believe that most people who want to apply comp to any game are doing so, whether they are aware of it or not, because they just plain don't want to adapt their armies. The banner they wave says "Comp for Variety!" but when you apply a little heat to the flag, the hidden lemon juice message appears and it says "Comp Because I Don't Like What The Other Guy Used to Beat My Build!"

That's where it starts for most people. You'll never hear a bitch or moan about wanting to get an opponent to stop using that one unit of 20 gobbos that he brings to every...single...game. Most people only become comp champions after they first expereince a "holy hell" moment. You know the ones. It's the games where the doomwheel didn't misfire and killed your dragon and your hydra in turn two. Or it's the games where Dwellers killed your BSB, general, L4 wizard, and 30 greatswords (never mind that you were the idiot for putting all your eggs in one basket). Or it's the games where your Colossus killed 30 white lions with Unstoppable Assault (ok, ok...that never happens, but a guy can dream). Or...you get the point.

Something like this happens and the cry of cheese goes up. It happens to them one more time and they say something like "Man, do you have to bring that thing _every_ time? If you use it all the time, it must be too good for its points. Let's comp it so that you are forced to try other stuff every now and then."

The delude themselves into thinking that the moment of comp-introduction was based on wanting variety. In truth, they just wanted to stop getting their ass kicked without having to figure out how to stop the beating through their own improvement.

It's _always_ easier to knock someone else down than it is raise yourself up.


Comp is evil. It retards player growth, denies people the right to play with the toys they spent their money on, fractures the playing environment, and is, as I said at the top, just plain poopy.




So, all that said, you can see why I would not support the statement that "comp makes that it is skill instead of net-decking (copying your magic deck from internet) that defines the outcome of the game." While I totally understand the validity of that conclusion, the premise with which I start makes it one that does not follow. What _does_ follow from my premise is this:

In a competitive environment, where all options are on the table, a player will need to take into account many factors. This can be everything from the scenario to the contents of the opponent's army. A highly skilled player is usually better at dealing with the variables, but even he or she can strain to build a solid well-rounded list than can deal with both hydras and k'daii destroyers (for example). A less skilled player either is not as good at developing all-encompassing plans or simply has not thought things through that completely. He likes his hydra for whatever reason (it looks neat, he imagines the sounds it makes, or it helps his army do better) so he takes it. Maybe he even takes two because he is a rich kid and can afford two finecast failed abortions...I mean two model kits.

Then he is told he cannot use his hydras. Suddenly the highly skilled player just got even better while the lesser skilled player got needlessly neutered. The highly skilled guy doesn't have to take as many variables into account, making it easier for him to craft a deadly force. The other guy is at a loss as to what to do to make up for his TO-imposed deficiencies.


I'll shift the scene a little bit to highlight what I mean via an example from another thing compers have done. There are events where Blood & Glory is not won or lost based on banners. They just give extra VPs instead. This totally defeats the entire point of the scenario. If I don't have to account for the possibility of losing by breakpoint when I am designing my lists, I can radically change my army. I can stop taking banners and stop taking big blocks to place them in. I can go MSU ('cuz, you know, _everyone_ just loves playing against MSU armies...not). I have freed up points I would have spent on banners and can drop them into another cannon instead. Good job, Mr. Tournament Organizer! You've just made my army more powerful!

Or how about we eliminate the scenario where your units might get placed randomly (Dawn Attack?)? Were I a VC player, I would be happy as hell! I no longer have to factor in the problem of getting troops near my general so they can march. Fabulous! This lets my build the One True Way when making my list so that my games can truly just be a mechanical exercise (first I place this, then I cast that, then I go there, then I flank with these....job's a good 'un).
The variety of the experience is tossed aside by a blundering TO's well-meaning but mistaken action.

This same thought process applies to comping armies.

If I know I don't have to face Teclis, for instance, I don't need to plan on bringing a suicide squad/model that goes after him. I can spend the points I would have spent there on other things that sharpen the blade of my army even more finely. Fewer variables = less need to bring a variety of things in my army. EDIT: By the way, we've seen this recently here. You may recall my recent thread where I was seeking suggestions on how to deal with the Unkillable Frog. The presence of that one model in the gaming environment has me looking at builds and options I would _never_ have considered otherwise. I mean really, who the hell thinks about taking a lone herald with a magic weapon on a horse? Not me! Not unless I may be facing the Frog...Yeah, comp him out...and I won't have to change my plans at all. Nice variety encouragement there.

I say to hell with comp. It always is trumpeted as encouraging variety, yet does nothing of the sort. When you remove options from armies, you remove possible variations in list design. It sucks. It just plain effing sucks. The good players are more free to build devastatingly focused lists and the poor players are denied the tools they could have used to give the better players a good game.

F comp. Play the effing game you bought, learn from your defeats, and don't be an arrogant twit who tells other people that they know what's best for the game and the best thing would be for you to not play with your favorite toys. Grrrrr!!!!!




Note: None of the above was directed at any particular individual. I just hateses me some comp. Hateses it!

Your battle against comp is a losing one little Slebedies.

It would be much better to take the "if you can't beat em, join em" road.

Comp is a good thing and it's popularity increases every week, I even see more comp tours in America now than uncomped and that's a great thing.

Once you accept it, it's extremely hard to play Warhammer without comp because the game is so broken, it's near unplayable imo.

Can't learn how to defeat Teclis if you never play against him. I played against him once in 8th, got rofl-stomped, and learned what would have been better. Now I take that kinda thing whenever I go to a tournament, because if you know it's gonna rain you should bring an umbrella, not demand that God (or whoever) makes it sunny all the time. That's a bit presumptuous and gives the demander (comper) a bit of a high-on-himself kinda air.

@ Lordy - Really? Because all I see are more and more un-comped, un-restricted tournaments here. Ones that had it before have dropped it in favor of playing real Warhammer. Comp around here is starting to become a dirty word.

Very intriguing thoughts here!
I will be attending my first tourney with comp in a few months.
I can see a few adjustements. And here's why.

Half of the armies are playing a different game or rule set.

We have 5? "8th edition" books out now right? And we have oh 6 or whatever 7th. Both sets were designed, at least somewhat in mind of different rules.

Such as, fear from fear causers was more dangerous, along with auto-break if they outnumbered you. Se we enter 8th and that is not the case. Some books seem to take that into account, such as skeles now being in the 5-6pt range for both undead armies. So what about other armies not yet redone? They are still getting benefits or penalties based on a different ruleset.

I see this, in a more simplified manor. Suppose we played chess. You get one queen. Suppose your opponent has an older version or ruleset from um-teen hundred years ago that allowed you to take 2 additional queens in place of bishops. Whoa.... Hey! that would royaly suck!
Obviously the fix is simplier in that you dont use the older ruleset. I dont know anyone that would allow you to use an older ruleset of a game in a tourney.

Yet, GW has this. One book is from 6th yea? Wood elves? SO there are several different rule sets being used for a game. Nothing will truely get better until they get ALL in one edition, and played for several years. Will that happen? Probably not.

I think a VERY limited amount of comp is reasonable. Course, then the issue becomes, who decides? Well, like anything else in life, someone who thinks they know better.

Jay

@ Veritas.

What you're saying is impossible, comp has hardly ever even exist in America until 8th edition, there is no way it could have decreased.

I get why you don't like it, it's American nature to take the biggest most powerful toys and crush the little guys, just how you guys are, nothing wrong with it I guess if you're into that sort of thing.

However, 8th has started creeping into American, with the death of your premier tournament (That awful hard boyz) event, the comp tours are picking up nicely.

You will all improve as players greatly as a result of comp, you will not be playing against the same lists every tournament, you will enjoy Warhammer more, if you just give comp a fair shot.

Hey Lordy -

Do you prefer birch or oak?

I'm thinking of crafting a new stick for you to use when poking Americans.

Whichever will hurt Americans the most!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because apparently you don't live here, but...you don't live here, which means you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. WHFB has always featured some heavy comp here, and nearly every tournament during 7th, at the very least, had "No Special Characters" as their comp, in addition to the various comp scores and unwritten rules. Come 8th, those rules and limitations are all starting to vanish as people realize just how self-regulating 8th is in various ways.

Hmm...I'm thinking you have a much bigger problem than just with little plastic toys as far as Americans go, and I'd go so far as to say you really don't like Americans, and you're bringing your attitude into this game against nice people who actually just like having fun rolling dice. That's really rather rude, no?

Again, your lack of knowledge on the matter here shows. GW stopped 'ard Boyz because they didn't like the thought of their games being considered a "tournament" or "hardcore" game, instead wanting it to be known as a beer'n'pretzels kinda game. It has nothing to do with comp, in and of itself. It had everything to do with audience perception of the game.

Did. It sucked. Everyone used the same list with the same lack of creativity, with every square ounce of power eeked out of the smallest cracks in the system. Now with a blissfully comp-free environment, I have never seen so many variations in list-making! The creativity people are allowed to exercise has really come into its own, and I'm learning far more during these wonderful 8th edition years than I ever did in 6th or 7th. Every tournament I go to I use a different list and see different lists, and different things happen. SC are in. Tamurkhan and Dogs of War are in. Everybody has a bunch of entertaining fun as the forest eats their troops and their wizards blow up. Even an annual tournament once labelled "Core Comp" that really stressed the nambi-pambi lists has opened the doors to the goodness of 8th.

Sure, there are still a couple around here that have some sort of comp, but they are thankfully a dying breed these days.

Really, I think it's that pro-compers keep their heads in the 7th edition sand, and non-compers have gotten with the times and embraced 8th edition as a whole.

Take TK, for instance. No SC? Oops, there goes your army's theme. Limited bow carriers? Oops, there goes nearly all your Core options. Limited unit sizes? Oops, there goes your close combat capability...like, completely. Limited power dice? Oops, there goes the major component that TK need to be competitive. Limited monsters? Oops, there goes your theme and your flavor. And in return, here's +200 points that you can't use to do anything effective.

No thanks.

You know what I can't even be arsed to respond, i'll just stick to poking americans once Sleboda has made me my stick

But if he doesn't? What will you do, WHAT WILL YOU DO??

I'll just find the most broken stick I can and beat you all with it, it will be balanced...

Ok, on beforehand, very sorry that I'm not up for writing a worthy (and lengthy) response to your very excelent points. suffice to say that hating things out of the game is something I would consider awfull too.

So let me instead ask another question:
GW didn't put very much thought into their garrison-building rules. the rules atually are incomplete, ambivalent and stupid. that said, how would you look at a tournament amending the building rules?
(my local gaming group, for instance, decided to turn scenario 6 into king of the hill instead of king of the watchtower quite literally, just because we hate the terrible job GW did.)
Do you believe this is the same weakness, and that GW actually DID put effort into thinking things through? Or is that just not called comp?

Veritas-

I've learned over the years (from TWF mainly) that Lordy is a tongue in cheek American hater. I take it as a badge of goofy-honor that he's said I'm "not so bad...for an American."

It's a weird relationship, but I've learned to appreciate Lordy's quirks.




Mainly I think he's just upset that we kicked his countrymen out and then got waaaaay more successful than his little bucktoothed island-dwellers ever thought we could be without the guiding hand of the monarchy keeping us in line.




It's ok, Lordy, come on over. I'll give you asylum.

OH HELL NO!

I see comp as a way of fixing problems with rules. A bad tournament makes changes that go too far and hurts players for having whatever army, a good one only makes the little but needed changes (like the king of the hill thing mentioned above). If you think a tournament has screwed your army, write a nice letter to the TO about why you think what they've done hurts your army to the point it's (almost)unplayable and that you won't be playing in their tournament unless they fix it.

Warhammer isn't a perfect game and has never been perfect, so a couple of little changes here and there are good. Just telling people "if you want a good chance to win you all have to use the same few 'powerful' armies and if you don't want to do that, then suck it" is kind of terrible.

The thing I have the biggest problem with is player allocated sportsmanship scores that actually have an effect on who the winner is. I've seen a large tournament where one entire club gave their friends max sports and everyone else minimum, effectively skewing the tournament in their direction. The TO did nothing because he couldn't think of a fair way of removing their negative impact on the scoring. Then you get the guy who gives you a bad score because he rolled his dice badly. Or someone who gets angry with you because he forgot you had a catapult. Or whatever. That stuff is stuff you don't know about before you enter and you can't plan for it or make an informed decision to simply not go.