Comp, no comp, an elephant?

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Hey, the comp/does balance matter thing has (mostly my fault) taken over Auticus' fine thread regarding his chosen form of comp.
SO now it's here.
I've been plying a couple of games a week using the "from the box" game since it came out, and I don't see the need.
The following has been used for all of my games so far;
No duplicate Named Characters on the table, unless they're also used as a substitute character (e.g. Luthor Huss)
Turns limited to 8 (To prevrnt a game taking over the entire shop)
A unit must be part of your STARTING force, either on the table or in reserve, in order for you to use any summoning spell in that unit's warscroll.
The only change-up that's not an interpretation of the existing tules here is the turn limit, but we've found it excellently balances unmatched force sizes when combined with Sudden Death.
What's everyone else doing?
Well apart from Auticus, we know what he's up to.

[Path Walker]

We play pretty much exactly how you do and it works really well, the expectation is on everyone to be decent opponents and the odd bad match up where people haven't balanced well are usually still enjoyable games where people manage to have fun without the winner being the important factor. We're coming in to the second week of a narrative campaign, everyone is just having a laugh together, even when total strangers have played each other.

I think the emphasis added by AoS on being a decent opponent and understanding sportsmanship really helps keep the game fair.

[Mr Mystery]

Yep.

Though philosophically speaking, there's always comp. 'Don't be a dick about it' is comp of a kind.

Other than that, leave me free to field pretty much whatever.

[Alaric]

Elephant.

[Ray Rivers]

Well...

One time, long ago, I was playing a large, balanced ACW game with a group of mates (4 vs 4). Our side decided to "refuse" our left flank and for the entire army to push diagonally to the right. The tactic worked so well we annihilated our opponents... and almost destroyed our gaming group. We had a great time during the battle until we released afterwords that our opposing friends felt humiliated.

After that, we moved more towards "objective based" games. What I found was that in objective based games, no matter who wins or by how much, each side would almost always have a good time. There was always an "out" for the loser... bad dice, larger force, you were suppose to lose (history), etc.

Objective based games just made more sense to us as well. War, most times, comes down to attacking or defending an objective. Of course as folks like Clausewitz would say the objective of war is to destroy the enemies ability to resist (destroying his army), he would also say that war (from a political standpoint) is a means to make another country bend to our will. So history teaches us that folks don't go out and agree to have a battle at your friends house with even forces and see who is the better general.

I guess that is why I never even thought about tournament or competitive play. I've had my share of folks bringing killer armies to play or pull out the "gotcha" rule from some obscure part of the rule book... to ensure they won. I don't like playing with these kinds of folks, so I don't.

I much prefer having a good time with friends and that is why I prefer objective based wargaming. It is not just more historic, it is also almost always more fun.

[Kaptain Badrukk]

Elephant.

I'm so glad someone chose elephant.

[AoS Noob]

Any game that doesn't have EXTREMELY clear cut rules where luck plays no part (like chess, or go etc) will end up having some people sore at the rules as written and they will change the rules to make the game more fun for them. I sometimes think I have mild undiagnosed Asperger's syndrome, but I'm the kind of guy who calls out people using house rules when playing crazy 8's... I don't have a lot of friends you may be guessing; you are guessing right.

It is interesting to me that games of pure skill and no luck, like Chess and Go are not popular games to play in a social setting for most people. But, at most any party, let the people wind down and sit around a table first most times people would be willing to play some crazy 8's, and probably no one around the tables plays the same way. It's part of what makes the game interesting; you feel ownership and belonging. They are YOUR house rules!

I have no idea, I can't count the number, of how many fights I've seen break out, I mean full on fist fights, over house rules across a beer-pong table. I mean that is powerful stuff!! You know what I'm talking about here, don't leave me hanging.

Now I don't know if any of what I've written makes any sense, and I always get bad grades on English papers for jumping ideas too fast, but what I'm trying to say is house rules are powerful, moving stuff. And, I don't believe a perfect rulebook, or comp, or errata or whatever exists. Make up your own crap and play it at your house. When you go to someone else's house, play their way. If their way really makes you that pissed off, fight the ******* old school, and then finish your game over a beer, cause you've obviously taken it too seriously.

I never got into war games because the rules have always been way too restrictive for me. I mean what do you mean the dudes can't see that guy and charge at him? He is an inch away, I mean they can feel it's breath! ... Really? Cause they wheeled and one dude was in the tree the whole unit suffers a movement modifier?

Now I can do whatever whenever I feel like. Shoot at anyone in range, charge at anyone in range, field whatever models I want. It's great! It's liberating. i don't care if anyone wants to put a few house rules and clean up whatever flaw they see in the game because this rule set is fun.

I personally think it's really weird how you can only"pile in" toward the nearest enemy model. So I play, "pile in" whatever damn direction you want. Haha whatever man. Go play and have fun !

[Path Walker]

Chess has luck and so does Go, mainly based on who goes first, Go tries to mitigate it by giving an advantage to the player to go second but both can have a very different outcome depending on who gets to go first. Some players can't make back the disadvantage of going second, good ones can. Look at Naughts and Crosses, its a very simple game but everyone knows it, if you go first and know what you're doing, its impossible to lose. If you go second the best you can hope for against such an opponent is to force a draw.

Pile in towards the nearest enemy is great, means position can really make a massive difference and is an important part of the tactical play of the game that many seem to think is lacking. But if you don't care about that side of the game, and there is nothing to say you should, then yeah, ignore it, play how you enjoy playing, its a hobby not a sport.

[AoS Noob]

who goes first I guess is luck, but the gameplay is not affected by it at all. Your personal tactical decisions will be moderately shaped by it, but the game is not. Your argument Involves circular logic, because If I go first as black, my decision may be different than if I go as white, but it is a reaction to whites first move. The same argument goes to the opponent so the argument is null.

So although technically you are right that it is "luck of the draw" who goes first it does not effect the out come of the game... The knots and crosses game is a perfect example, I think we call it tic-tac-toe here though. In tic-tac-toe every game (should) end in a "cats game", a tie or stalemate of sorts, as long as the players have enough experience or logical reasoning skills.

I will further this discussion by elaborating on "balance" in a game, and how it affects game theory. I believe that most people's idea of what balance means, if it could be achieved perfectly in complex games such as war gaming, would mean every game (should) end in a sort of "cats game" or stalemate. If every unit was a perfect point value to every other unit then every game could theoretically end in a tie. I see a lot of threads about how exciting it is when play comes down to the last model, and I'm not sure why that makes it a fun game to them, as I'll discuss later. However, game theory shows that only a limited number of nodes of play can result in a tie in most games, and in fact the fewer end-nodes ending in a cats game is indicative to the weight of significance a move a player has in making a certain move. We would call this a strategic or "good" move if the nodes leading cats game or failure were reduced. If the moves you are making cannot change the fact that the game is balanced and your moves carry no weight of significance to the outcome, then why play?

People don't want balanced games. They are BORING. No one plays tic-tac-toe after they develop enough reasoning skills, but tic-tac-toe is a perfectly balanced game. People want games that have A LOT of nodes which are very evenly split between victory and defeat.

- - - Updated - - -

Piling in toward the nearest enemy is fine, I just have a problem with the bottlenecking effect of piling in toward the nearest "model". Very restrictive.

[Path Walker]

Its not reallycircular logic, its one of the things about chess and why players will often replay a match with swapped sides to determine the most skilled player. Most good chess players can turn around a white advantage to force the opponent into revealing their intentions, meaning they have the advantage after a few moves, this one piece of chance can effect the whole game as, unless it was being played perfectly (impossible for humans) there is now a distinct advantage in going second, yes the White player can and must compensate but it then becomes their focus, same as in Tic Tac Toe when the focus of the player going second is not to let their opponent use their advantage win, their mistakes can let the Black player win more easily. Almost all games, especially good ones, involve some form of luck, games at their heart are systems to reflect the real world and luck plays a part in that, luck is important for a game.

But yeah, people scream about balance, normally what they mean is "I don't like this company and I want to criticize them for not making the game how I want it", it becomes easy enough to tune out but because so many people repeat the same nonsense, you have new players making the same assumptions, because they hear it everywhere online, that "balance" is important for an enjoyable game. Yes, currently 40K can revolve around a single die roll to win the game, its a rarity but its possible to lose through no fault of your own just the crucial dice roll didn't go your way, but then, war is like that, life is like that.

Sometimes, the circumstances don't turn out how you wanted it to even though you tried your best.

Maybe that's the appeal to the "competitive" crowd who always seek to reduce the effects of random chance on the game? They want to have somewhere where life doesn't screw them over for no perceivable reason?

[AoS Noob]

Haha it would be quite a haven to find a place where life, for once, doesn't seem to get the better of us all, eh?!

I see what you mean that by playing first or second you may have a better chance of winning, and it would certainly make sense to play both ways if you truly must know who is better, but I stay with my original stance that it does not affect the game. That comes off a bit screwy so let me try to explain what I mean agin, if I can't say it right, then I admit I'm less than Plato, and we can all move along merrily anyhow...

Completely theoretically, since not realistically possible in complex games, If two players of equally high experience and logical skill start a game of chess then it may be likely that white will win more of the time... But the game would be played exactly the same way if the two players flip-flop sides. That is not a matter of luck per-se, it is a matter of purely incidental statistics. I'm tip-toeing here, admittedly, but what luck is to me in a game is when a "good" decision is made, it can turn out for the worse! If going first were luck, then I argue that sometimes it should turn out for the worse, but in our scenario it never can. White is always the better.

Luck is like you're describing that 40K 1 dice roll wins scenario. If you make a good decision and decide to fire you "ultra-death-laser-destroy" cannon at some evil blob monster, let's call it a good decision because 5 out of 6 of the nodes lead to victory, and only 1 does not, and let's say that 5/6 is the best chance possible for winning the game given all other moves and nodes available.... But you roll a 1, and your "ultra-death-laser-destroyer" blows itself to pieces! GOOD SHOW! You just lost, to luck.

You may have a better chance to win going first, but it's not luck. (Tip-toeing in my Jordan's....)

[Mr Mystery]

Well, I've been playing GW games now for oooh....24 years, perhaps 25? And I can genuinely count on one hand the number of times I've won or lost a game entirely down to a single dice roll.

It's one.

Old old oooooold version of Warhammer, where Vampires, inexplicably, weren't immune to fear and terror. Opponent had taken my army apart very quickly - Screaming Skulls had knacked my Chaos Hounds, who fled, panicking three out of four Chariots. My best hope was to go and job the Vampire Lord in the face with my tooled up Slaaneshi Lord on Manticore, who was already flying high (told you this was an old game) I charged. My opponent fluffed his Terror test, and the Vampire ran off the board. General gone, all his units fell apart and the game was mine.

And that's it. Once. In 24, possibly 25 years of gaming.

Don't get me wrong, I get why some want a perfectly balanced system. I just don't know why they can't accept that GW don't want to write that sort of game.

I can think of very, very few games with anything close to the balance they seem to demand. And when I say very few, I can't actually think of any I've tried. MtG and X-Wing? If I've got deeper pockets than you, the advantage is mine as I'm more likely to have the ming cards and upgrades to push a synergy you just can't match. Warmahordes? I regularly see new units for the game complained about as 'garbage' - that kind of suggests no real balance either.

Doesn't mean the games aren't enjoyable though. Far from it. I love MtG and X-Wing meself.

[Path Walker]

I lost once in 5th edition 40k running to contest an objective, that's about it over hundreds of games.

Balance doesn't exist in games realistically, especially if they're going to be interesting, you can try and many people do but the return for the effort really isn't worth it for most.

[Mr Mystery]

True, but I can see the value in going for it.

From slight tweaks for a Tournament (say, no more than two of each unit type), right up to the Azyr points values - it's all part of the hobby, there to be taken or left as the player chooses. Those that swear by metagaming and mathshammering their way to victory? Whatever floats their boat.

I think sometimes we all (and I mean all, so very much myself included) just need to step back, take a breath and leave each other be.

[AoS Noob]

Amen, Mr Mystery! Like really, the different rules everywhere keep stuff exciting, and the frustration ironically makes it fun. If you think frustration can't be fun just ask anyone who plays golf! Hahaha GO TO YOUR HOME BALL!

We could really snowball this discussion into some esoteric talks about what fun is and the pursuit of happiness, but none, or few, of us will come to a full consensus. It's one of those debates worth debating for the sake of debate. I liked how the munchkin rule set coyly put a statement "or just ignore this rule and do it anyway, like we could stop you"... Something like that I don't know it verbatim ha! But, what they are saying is they realize you're going to probably make your own house-rules anyway, cause that's what gamers do.

Basketball to four square, beer pong to warhammer, gamers are gunna game, and they gunna game their way.

[nsc]

I mean, some people still play diplomacy ;) so no matter how bad your game is, someone will play it

I kid I kid

As far as the actual discussion we basically run the game out of the box uncomp'd, we keep wounds mostly in line, sometimes people play objectives and scenarios from the lore books, often it's just a pitched battle to the death, never is it "push your guys into the middle and hope you win"

I don't think you need comp, but I do think you need comp in a tournament, but I don't think tournaments are necessarily good for wargaming.

I've seen lots of tourney games, I've been a tourney gamer, but people who churn out one list for one tourney, then flip the army on ebay and move on to the next. They're not really hobbyists, they just take a game and abuse it until it works for them. They're frowned upon in tabletop RPGs as "munchkins" or "min-maxers", we call them "WAAC", we call them "rules lawyers" etc etc.

I do like how things are moving away from this extreme, with some really awesome events being run in the UK and even nova's story-campaign-"casual"-event.

But what do I know, I play "imbalanced" historical wargames all the time. I must be weird for thinking that it's not about winning or losing in a game, but how many of those jerks you take down with you ;)

As a side note the game becomes super fun when things happen like my opponent pulls out an aracknarok that he's only recently built saying it's his first game, so I don't shoot it with my ranged troops so he can play with it :P


As far as Mr Mystery is going yeah Warmahordes has no balance at all. They argue "you can play with any model you like!" but if you're talking top-level tourney tables there are very clear "best" units, which is the same in warhammer (whether you like swords or bolters) and malifuax and x-wing and just about every game ever there are units and pieces that are better than one another. Then in chess you have the timing advantage of going first (which also exist in wargames). And it becomes a huge explosion of complexity that can never truly be balanced.

Even in Starcraft there are units that are worthless and optimal strategies. It's a fact of games with complexity that balance isn't a realistic outcome.

That said I also pick the elephant, lets best out some ancient wargaming rules and rampage over pike blocks with elephants :D