Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Boss Salvage wrote:There are some of us who believe tournaments (and warhammer fantasy in general) are not just about taking the hardest crap possible and kicking in teeth, and that list building should be an involved process seeking balance and theme as well as tactical flexibility and indeed raw power.

Quit your whining [joke]
Seriously though, soft comp is more than enough IMO after all obvious asshats can be hindered by it and competent judges, at least in smaller tourneys. Guess i would be less pissed for hard comp if i had at least one tourney in range that didn't use it, i don't want to run the uber stomp list all the time but i'd appreciate a chance to use it in a competetive enviroment at leat once, against new players (which is not to sa the local players are bad it just gets monotonous), also the ETC rules used here actually bombed my theme list, in fact i think it's against forum rules for me to post what i think of the ETC guys.

Hard comp = you CANNOT take X

I detest this. You're telling people what army they are allowed to play.

Soft comp = fine. When done well.

Trouble is decent soft comp takes time.

HoverBoy wrote:Guess i would be less pissed for hard comp if i had at least one tourney in range that didn't use it ...

And here in America I only know of one upcoming GT that does use ETC (Onslaught GT near Providence, RI), or another version of really hard comp. Lots of banning of power scroll but that's about it. Even soft comp has been axed post-8th, which is pretty mindblowing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Hard comp = you CANNOT take X

I detest this. You're telling people what army they are allowed to play.

Soft comp = fine. When done well.

Trouble is decent soft comp takes time.

But then I hear endless complaints about biased soft comp, or that said comp either plays too much of a role or not enough. As far as hard comp dictating what army people can play, I think of it as telling them how abusive they are allowed to be and asking them to look at the rest of their book for a change. If you really want to play two hellpits or a bloated-as-feth life slann, hard comp is a stern suggestion that that particular event may not be for you.

I think it should be said that the reason we need comp in the first place is because GeeDub is incapable of balancing their armybooks, especially after 8th landed. It becomes a question of how to view players' ability to practice self-control: optimistically (soft comp) or pessimistically (hard comp). Increasingly I find myself in the latter camp, though fantasy has not yet passed into the generalized WAAC situation of 40k.

- Salvage

I dont wan't the damn Slaan, especially the lame life version, i want my 6 freaking stegadons so the herd can stampede on the battlefields like it does in my army fluff.

I think the main problem here is that human beings are biased and, at times, selfish creatures.

If we really want to solve this comp. problem, we'll have to set our sights on ethics and trying to increase the general level of compassion and good will in mankind. Then, the comp. stuff will solve itself.

Warpsolution wrote:
If we really want to solve this comp. problem, we'll have to set our sights on ethics and trying to increase the general level of compassion and good will in mankind.

Right after I bench-press the moon!

Yet at least with Soft Comp you get a biased system that lets you take the army you want to take, as opposed to a biased system that doesnt let you take what you want or have in your army which is what Hard Comp gives you.

With soft comp, you have the bias and the passive-agressive response from the people you play if you don't play 'right' which makes an unfun game.

You also have the extreme mis-matches which lead to unfun games.

Which is where soft comp redresses the balance - if you start the equivalent of a major loss down then you have to work a lot harder to even get back into a draw position.

Hard comp stops you from taking the army you take at the whim of the TO. Not being able to take your army is more inconvenient than taking a hit on comp points.

Soft comp leads to less enjoyable games overall which was the basis of my statement.

Plus with Soft comp, it's possible starting a tournament being unable to win regardless of what you do.

Only with badly designed soft comp. Name an army that cannot compete, at all, with soft comp - even Ogres could in 7th!

Objectively soft comp is better because it allows more people to play a game at all. Hard comp says, unless you have the cash to break the current comp system, which ALL HARD COMP has as a flaw - every hard comp system has and will be broken by players, which is another reason it sucks - you simply replace one broken system for another, but in doing so prevent some people from playing.

It also does not lead to less enjoyable games in comparison to being unable to play at all because TO-arbitrary decision X means you dont have a "legal" army any longer, unless you spend more cash and time in order to buy the m odels in order to compete, despite having a book legal army.

The arrogance of hard comp is the final nail in its coffin. You are telling people that, despite the designers of the game saying they have a legal army you dont want to play them, so you wont.

8th does not need hard comp. The gap between the top and bottom tier is much narrower than in 7th, and every army out there CAN compete now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Only with badly designed soft comp. Name an army that cannot compete, at all, with soft comp - even Ogres could in 7th!

Depends on the bias in how the soft comp is scored, and every single system of soft scoring has biases.

Hard comp says, unless you have the cash to break the current comp system, which ALL HARD COMP has as a flaw - every hard comp system has and will be broken by players, which is another reason it sucks - you simply replace one broken system for another

The same arguement can be made about soft comp. It can be broken, which ALL SOFT COMP has as a flaw. So you're just replacing one broken system with another.

It also does not lead to less enjoyable games in comparison to being unable to play at all because TO-arbitrary decision X means you dont have a "legal" army any longer, unless you spend more cash and time in order to buy the m odels in order to compete, despite having a book legal army.

I'd bet in a lot of situations, that when the fluff-bunny comes up against the dirty powergamer under a soft comp system, the fluff bunny (And possibly the dirty powergamer) would have rather not played the game.

8th does not need hard comp. The gap between the top and bottom tier is much narrower than in 7th, and every army out there CAN compete now.

It now needs it more than ever. The game is just (or possibly more) broken in 8th than 7th.

Not to mention, that if you have a lump 'comp score' added at the end, it makes matchups even more important to see who wins. If you have two players under a (0-20) comp system, where one scored a 5 in comp and the other a 15 and both had an equivalent W-L record. Even if the 5 comp player played against all 2 comp armies and the 15 comp player played against all 20 comp armies (IE the 15 comp player had easier games), the person with the 15 comp scores higher overall. That is a fundamental fatal flaw with soft-scoring.

The game is just (or possibly more) broken in 8th than 7th

I am genuinely curious as to why you feel this way, and what you mean by more broken. Do you mean strictly in a competitive environment?

I would love to discuss this further, but I am not sure this is the correct forum for that kind of discussion.

There is still the wild power swings between units/armies. Before, good play could make up some of the difference, but the randomness in charging, steadfast, and two ranks to break ranks takes that away to a bit.

Wel, Red Zeke. Get to it. Since the moon's in space, though, it shouldn't be that hard.

Skyth - yet all hard comp has Bias. EVERY system arbitrarily applied on top has a bias - every single one.

So do you have a Biased system which prevents people from playing the game at all, or one which doesnt? Accepting that BOTH systems ARE biased, Soft comp is objectively a better system. It is also far, far easier to avoid players "breaking" - as it can be tuned more effectively without requiring 8000 pages of rules and restrictions.

Who said a lump comp score? The *relative* scores between players is, in a "good" soft comp system, used in the match up to determine the game itself - there is no points added on the end. The overly simplistic "you get +5 battle points at the end of the day" is NOT what I'm advocating*

I disagree, VERY STRONGLY , that 8th is in worst shape than it was in 7th. It realy, really isnt - the power 3 have gone, for example. The gap between army books has *reduced*, heavily, between editions. This has been vindicated in local and regional tournaments, repeatedly. Variable magic and charging HAS helped this, and steadfast means single monster mash no longer rules the roost.

*For example: 2200 point tourney; one army scores -300 VP, as it is HORRID. Another fluff bunny list scores +700, as it is wonderful. The fluff bunny player starts the game 1000VP UP against the opponent - i.e. if the game ended turn 1 the fluff bunny player would get a decent score - normally about 14-6 in a 20 point system. (from the top of my head, cant find our usual tourney pack for the tourney I'm next running)

nosferatu1001 wrote:Skyth - yet all hard comp has Bias. EVERY system arbitrarily applied on top has a bias - every single one.

Can't disagree with that. It's jsut that all soft comp has just as much Bias.

So do you have a Biased system which prevents people from playing the game at all, or one which doesnt? Accepting that BOTH systems ARE biased, Soft comp is objectively a better system. It is also far, far easier to avoid players "breaking" - as it can be tuned more effectively without requiring 8000 pages of rules and restrictions.

It's just as hard to avoid a player 'breaking' the system and requires the same amount of effort. Not to mention that with the majority of soft comp (IE judged rather than matrix) that the biases are passive-agressive so you can't be sure what you'll get before hand. As for the BS that it keeps people from playing, unless you have only the models to create one list, period, and that list is unbalanced then you shouldn't have any problem actually making a list to play. If you want to do well in a soft-score tournament, you're just as likely to be able to play your list as with a hard-comp tourney.

Who said a lump comp score? The *relative* scores between players is, in a "good" soft comp system, used in the match up to determine the game itself - there is no points added on the end. The overly simplistic "you get +5 battle points at the end of the day" is NOT what I'm advocating*

*For example: 2200 point tourney; one army scores -300 VP, as it is HORRID. Another fluff bunny list scores +700, as it is wonderful. The fluff bunny player starts the game 1000VP UP against the opponent - i.e. if the game ended turn 1 the fluff bunny player would get a decent score - normally about 14-6 in a 20 point system. (from the top of my head, cant find our usual tourney pack for the tourney I'm next running)

My opinion of broken is vastly different than most others. I understand players putting importance on being competitive in a competitive environment, but ultimately this game is about having fun. I think 8th has vastly improved the ability to have fun, and this is done through the "Step up" rule. Go through my posts, its pretty obvious I play High Elves. No army was hit worse by Step up than High Elves, but even I recognize the importance of this rule. Players can actually, you know, fight stuff with their armies now.

No longer can I charge into a massive block of infantry with a tooled up Lord riding with a unit of Dragon Princes and completely trounce someone to where they 1) cannot fight back that round, and 2) lose that round so horribly that unless they were stubborn, have no chance of sticking around in the fight. I have to adjust my tactics, but it means more people will get more enjoyment out of the fight. Even I find more enjoyment out of winning a drawn out combat than simply charging and knowing the fight was over. Charging is still a bonus, but it isn't the end all of the game. I like the fact that massive blocks of infantry have returned to the game, and tooled up super heroes have taken a bit of a back seat.

As far as big blocks of elite infantry, each army has access to those, and 8th has opened up new combinations that work across all books. This wasn't the case in 7th. Unless you had access to stubborn, a big block of elite infantry was begging to be charged and wiped off the table.

In terms of a competitive environment, no longer can VC, DoC and DE dominate the game like they did in 7th. The fact that more army books have become viable in a competitive environment means the game is less broken to me. There will always be a "rock, paper, scissors" nature to the game. All 8th did was allow some of the codex's to actually play the "rock, paper, scissors" game when in 7th they couldn't. A poor general will still lose to a good general regardless of the lists, and that is as it should be.

Skyth - that was an extreme example. Plus a truly hard army is likely to have the tools to negate "keep away" - flying creatures, excess of warmachines, etc. So to win you would still have to engage.

Plus passive aggressive is more likely in soft? No. Not rteally. Every attempt at hard comp has to work at armybook level (otherwise it is even MORE worthless than usual) and that is where the real biases show up. Same as in soft comp, but you're stopping people taking anything so they can still at least play - and normally know how they will score before the competition comes around. Requires work on part of the TO [team, we always have 3 people to run our tournaments], but it makes a better system.

And you would still have a game, as opposed to not being able to play the army you WANT to play. Which hard comp prevents. Almost all the time. [I've yet to see *any* hard comp system that ever lets you take your "usual" army, whether you're a fluff bunny or not]

As for other things ruling the roost: EVERY book can have a mage lord, EVERY book has access to big blocks of elite infantry. As opposed to 7th, where only SOME books had access to big flying terror causers. You have not come up with any credible reason why 8th is more broken than 7th, whereas myself and Lehnsherr have come up with credible, backed up with real tourney experience, reasons why the game is better.

Unless you can demonstrate a set of books that are as patently broken in 8th as the power 3 were in 7th, your point is provably false.

Actually, passive agressive is impossible in a hard-comp scoring. What is allowed is posted before hand. I've found in many soft-scored situations devolve into 'You can play if you want, but we'll make sure you don't win anything'. That is the very definition of passive agressive. Especially when it isn't posted before hand.

I've also seen too many people surprised by judges comp scores (even panel ones) to say that people will know how they will score before hand. Especially if you're not a local.

Soft comp also prevents you from bringing the army you 'want' to play. And quite frankly, if the army you want to play doesn't mesh with what the TO wants to see in the tournament, you're better off knowing in advance (via hard comp) and not playing. I know I would rather know...Saves me the time, money, and fustration of finding out after I get there that I won't be having a fun time because of the comp expectations of other people.

And just because every army book has access to a broken build, doesn't mean that the game is less broken. You have to take those things if you want to be competetive. That shows how truely broken the game is. There is still the huge power differential between a tooled-up army and a 'normal' army. As long as you have the 'must includes', that means that the game is broken.

Hence why its published beforehand. You can then ask the reasoning behind something.

I dont agree with soft comp on the day - which is why I said it takes work from the TO, as it has to be in advance

Soft comp never prevents you from bringing an army you want, you just may get penalised for it. As opposed to Hard comp wher you will NOT be able to bring your normal army, ever.

Broken - You dont have armies that cannot play competitively without comp at all. This is vastly different to 7th. An entire army cant be wiped by one monster, like in 7th.

There will ALWAYS be a power differential *within a book* between a power build and a less than optimal build. ALWAYS. The requirement for comp is significantly less than in 7th, the argument for hard comp has been heavily reduced in tournament results and in everyday use, and with the gap between books so incredibly reduced now EVERY army CAN compete, an entirely untrue statement in 7th.

However, an army can be wiped out by a super deathstar or a mage now. Just because what used to be powerful before isn't doesn't mean that new things don't replace it as the broken.

And bring the army you want, but we'll make your games miserable is worse than you can't bring that army.

The doom wheel is awesome for killing monsters, against a horde, you get no use out of it (or very little) to be honest, the same points worth of chaos warriors is twice as effective

Umm...yes.

At Nosferatu and Skyth: you've both got some valid points, rooted in the fundamental flaw of human nature. Neither system is perfect; both are biased. This game isn't and is as well, respectively, 'cause it was also made by, ya' know. People.

What is less fun, to bring the army you want and be penalized, or to bring an army you don't...this is a straight-up opinion, unable to be proven, and completely futile to debate. You might as well be arguing about which of the army lists is the coolest. But if you're havin' fun, don't let me stop you.

Or not be able to play at all, because you dont already have the models / dont have the time / dont have the money to make an army that conforms to the random opinions of a TO.

Versus being able to play, knowing the penalties you will suffer, *no matter what army you have*

Out of the two systems of comp, hard comp IS demonstrably worse. Note that this does not take into account the people you play against, which appears to be Skyths main beef - but given they can be the same in both systems (especially when you break hard comp, and note when not if) they should be removed as a factor in deciding the superior system.

Skyth - and armies could be wiped by deathstars previously. And by mages (GoI anyone?). So what?

My argument: EVERY ARMY BOOK *CAN COMPETE*

Your argument is about the power level *within* books. Which is irrelevant. Comp should be about letting every army out there have a chance - and 8th has that built in. 7th, not so much.

All in all it boils down to this:

Hard comp = Epic fail.
Soft comp = Big fail.

In the end it's about choosing the lesser evil.

No, comp should be about army power level, not army book power level.

Before, it was much easier to keep away from the infantry (and other) death stars, and mages were not as powerful. 8th edition did the standard GW pendulum swing making some things a lot better and other things a lot worse.

Like I said previously, your 'you can't take your only army' argument is bunk. Unless you only collect the most broken army and nothing else, then you should be fine. A level 4 and a level 2 share the same model, same as a mage with a power scroll and a mage without a power scroll. You can turn your death star into two separate units.

Quite frankly, I'd rather know ahead of time that I shouldn't go rather than going to a tournament, spending my time and money and then finding out I shouldn't have gone.

Soft scoring is an epic fail because either who wins is extremely matchup dependant or because it'stoo easy to get a win by playing keep-away instead of trying to engage.

Combine that with the fustration involved, playing under soft comp leads to less fun games and tournaments. That makes it flawed worse than any hard comp system.

Yet you do find out ahead of time - I've made that point already, you just keep avoiding / ignoring it.

In both systems you find out ahead of time. In both cases you can determine if you want to go. So both are equal in that case.

Hard comp means you cannot play the army you want to play, unless you somehow match on whatever random "no no"s the TO has decided on for that tournament.*

Hard comp is an epic fail, and you have nothing that can counter that. Preventing someone from taking the army they WANT to play, that is 100% book legal, automtically makes it less fun, before you even get to the tournament!

Soft scores published ahead of time, with discussion entered into, results in a closer competition, a larger pool of players, and more variety in armies. As opposed to hard comp where you get the same 3 broken army lists - that are broken under the totally imperfect hard comp, remember - from the people who can afford to / have the time to tailor lists to the tournament, while everyone else gets stomped on.

*Your assertion that only those with the "most broken" models cant play under hard comp is UTTER bunk. If you have only collected 2500 points, and the tournament is 2200 and you cant take 800 point because of *insert random personal dislike here* then you CAN play, possibly. But you're at a massive disadvantage before hand.

skyth wrote:Quite frankly, I'd rather know ahead of time that I shouldn't go rather than going to a tournament, spending my time and money and then finding out I shouldn't have gone.

And what if you can't affort what the TO says is fair, i'd rather get games and rank bad than get no games at all.

PS: Can anyone else hear that?

I thiknk this is another point Skyth and myself disagree on.

I'd rather have games than not be able to go.