On the Saturday evening of the recent NZTC I had a conversation with a number of the Australian players as to whether heavier comp makes you a better player.
I've always been of the opinion that comp just shifts the goalposts from one place to another. This view is predicated on my absolute adherence to the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" that for any given set of circumstances and situations, there exist a set of optimal solutions. In the risk markets these are known an "efficiency envelope" and you try to approach this barrier where you maximise reward for risk.
How does this manifest itself in Warhammer? Essentially for a given set of rules, scenarios, victory conditions, terrain, a normal distribution curve and a given set of composition rules, there are a series of optimal armies.
This generally is the whole premise behind netlists - and the key reason why netlists don't necessarily work (parameters change as does player skill).
Obviously when applied to Warhammer it is a very imprecise science as the sample size is not big enough at any one event. But you can see why it works in a more closed system like "Magic the Gathering".
So let's look at the view put forward by our Australian visitors. Does harder comp make you a better player? The general premise was that having to work with less optimal lists, the player has to rely more on their inherent skill and so develops into a better player. When the comp shackles are removed then that inherent talent blooms and suddenly you have an unstoppable force.
First of all, winners are grinners. Having acquitted themselves extremely well at the NZTC you'd be foolish not to consider their views and determine whether they have merit. I'm pretty sure they won because they were good players. However I'm not sure you can then draw the conclusion that they are good players because they generally play under harder comp. The second premise doesn't necessarily support the first.
I understand their argument - that without what they perceive to be sledgehammer they have to develop scalpels - but don't necessarily think it supports their conclusion. I believe instead that you can say that for any given "system" there is a different set of sledgehammers and scalpels i.e. shifted goalposts. I'm unconvinced with the premise that harder comp = better player. What I think may be supportable is that playing under a variety of comp system leads to a more flexible or rounded player. This is because they are used to adapting to a new set of situations.
In the end I think this may be a key learning. That variety in comp is better than playing under one single system - be it hard or soft comp.
I listened to the Aussies conclusions on the dwellers podcast, and largely dismissed them. It sounded like they were grasping to justify the heavily comped system they generally run under, going as far as suggesting that light comped events were not warhammer???
ReplyDeleteHowever near the end of their segment, they did make one point that I think rung true. New Zealand has a very dispersed playing field and we have no one large concentration of good players. They mentioned that they would have more players in Victoria than all of NZ. This easily gives an advantage being able to get more games in and practice. They also spoke about how they put a lot of effort into list building and practice games building up to the event. These last two things alone explain the successes more than anything IMO.
Lightly comped events are obviously still Warhammer, although I guess it can evolve into a subset of the game, where many things remain unused because they're too far from the optimal choices/play style.
DeleteThe point is, Warhammer is Warhammer, when you add comp it changes the game. The less comp the closer the game is to its origin. Claiming that NZ runs a subset of the game is grasping since we play it closer to the book than most
DeleteI agree with Pete in that heavy comp, regardless of it's type, will simply lead to a different set of optimal solutions; i.e netlists. You could require everyone to play Swedish comp with a score of 15 or more, and over time, a set of optimal armies, units and character builds would likely emerge. It might be a broader range, but it might not.
DeleteIf you wanted to really comp things to get a set of balance, you'd have to do something about the points values, and possibly the rules for some units. These are things that no comp pack has really ever set out to do. Without that degree of interference, I'm not sure that a near-universal degree of balance is possible.
The rulebook doesn't say you have to play with hard or soft lists. Sure some 'comps' are actually just house rules or non-rulebook hard restrictions on what you can take (unit sizes and the like). But saying folks need to run softer lists isn't less Warhammer than folks playing hard ball with the same rules.
DeleteDave (OwaR)
I haven't listened to TDB for over six months so not aware of that conversation.
ReplyDeletePopulation density can be a problem but not always. The Warlords dominance of 40k in Australasia 8-15 years ago wasn't hampered by low population. But picking up on that point of competition in those days you probably had 7 of the top 10 Australasian players playing each other every week. So that is valid point.
Interestingly though prior to the last year or so Victoriam WHFB hadn't been regarded in Oz as a powerhouse. So I think it is individuals rather than pure population
Yeah fair statements there Pete. I think NZ has a good number of good players but few are concentrated in one place.
ReplyDeleteHaving a look over all the NZ teams this year and there were several teams that had one or two top ranked players and several "fill in's". The ones that did well featured all players from the top end of the rankings.
I think pushing around only powerhouse/netlists can damage play. Conversely I think good players who play weak armies tend to get focussed and learn to focus on more challenging elements of lists.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting doing match ups that all the net lists we knew how to beat, new who we wanted to play them etc. Made those teams much easier to plan against.
I think there are a few true statements in here.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly true that some good players made the trip over to the NZTC, and I wasn't surprised that they did well. Some of these guys have played an enormous amount of warhammer, and consistently perform pretty well in the Australian scene.
I agree that having to adapt to shifting goalposts in terms of varying comp systems will undoubtedly help you improve as a player. Being able to play under a consistent comp system allows you to settle into a habit of using the same thing without changing, and therefore you are not encouraged to expand your skills.
I do also think that (to some extent at least) playing under a relatively heavy comp system at least occasionally will help you improve as a player. The whole point of some of these systems is to make more units viable rather than leaving everyone looking at the optimal choices, so there tends to be more variety in the lists. It also will sometimes force you to use less than ideal units for your purposes, which forces you to adapt, look more into contingency plans, or consider alternative methods. If you have the scope to use whatever you want every time, players have a habit of choosing the perfect units for a given style of play, and getting used to having an incredibly potent tool for their chosen purpose.
As for the whole Victorian thing, there has always been a core of good players here, however for a long time the largest events were in NSW and QLD, and the rankings reflected this. For the last couple of years we saw this shift to VIC, and a lot more Victorians started making it to the Masters etc. This is starting to change again with tournaments like Castle Assault gaining momentum.
In the scheme of things there are good players in QLD, NSW and VIC (and probably elsewhere). In each case, they tend to be centred around a particular club which supports the theory that population density (or perhaps more accurately, player density) can make a big difference. If you start with a small group of top level players and then others play them (and each other) regularly and learn, you can wind up with a fairly large concentration of good players.
It's also obviously true that individuals play a part in these things. There are plenty of terrible Warhammer players in Australia who could have made the trip to NZ. However, generally the keener players are some of the better ones (not always true), so a travelling party like this will normally be above average.
That's so not true....Trent told me all Victorians are shit
DeleteThat does indeed sound like something Trent would say.
DeleteI should also say that if you're regularly playing in an environment that allows "net lists", then you will get people who are relying upon the assistance of the internet to hone their armies. Generally speaking, people who do so will have a weaker understanding of their armies (and others) than someone who figures out their army on their own. People who are constantly changing their army lists and working out what works for them will develop into better rounded players. Net lists do not make good players.
ReplyDeleteGood players win more than weaker ones regardless of armies. Give me an uber horrible DoC list and ill still lose with it as while I enjoy playing I am not that great at it. You can see it in the results with many of the top ranked players getting good results with multiple armies and frequently with wide variations in army lists. Wellington WHFB events are good because there is always a reasonable variety of armies - have noticed a drop off in some though and a big swing toward DE, Empire, DoC and WoC; the dominance of the NZTC playing field by these armies was pretty obvious. Comp is a necessary evil to a certain extent and I think Pete Lite which is used most often locally is better than systems like ETC, SWC etc - but sometimes doing things differently is fun/interesting. If you really wanted to shake things up you could have simple rule events like 'No Lords, No Rares' or 'Infantry Only' just for shits and giggles.
ReplyDeletePersonally I find net lists boring and unimaginative - whats the point of having an army book if your going to take the same thing every game? I mean I take pretty much the same stuff every time anyway but at least its what I want to take (i.e. the models that I think are cool regardless of whether they work or not) vs. what the internet tells me to.
"Efficient Market Hypothesis" sounds like economist for 'evolution'. It makes sense though, and in far more fields than just money markets and biology. Why does every battle tank in the world have a turret with a single main gun, rather than sponsons or double guns like 40K might suggest is a good idea (it's really not...); it's the optimal solution, at least at the moment.
ReplyDeleteThis debate does argue for a range of comps to be used throughout the year though, simply to keep players looking at their army books from different angles, and forcing some flexibility into army design.
I pretty much believe everything that Tane has said (but will not be voting for him).
ReplyDeleteI suspect that a variety of comp makes for better players. In the NZ scene though I think that this greatly overshadowed by the geographical dispersion of players. Realistically my local gaming group is 4-5 players and my hardest games are at tournaments or when I am able to get down to your place Pete.
That's all right, when I was young and stupid(er) I voted National. Three times, in the mistaken belief that National were good for the military. It took nine years of a steadily shrinking army budget to teach me I was wrong.
DeleteI think you're right about the dispersion of players. I'm very lucky to be in Wgtn with a lot of good to very good players nearby. The practice is what prevents me being even worse than I am.
The narrower you make the parameters the easier it is to make an optimised solution. If you only play battle line as opposed to the full range of scenarios, if you then drop out the high end magic, cap warmachines etc etc you end up with an optimum solution and then all armies gravitate to it. If you only have one ecological niche, you will only get one dominant predator. The more complex an ecosystem the more options for successful solutions you create and ths the more variety.
ReplyDeleteAh variety, you spice of life you! Great comment and great topic. You can't make everyone happy all the time - let everyone pick their favorites (or favourites). Your event is YOUR event. If no one comes... maybe that will let you know you've gone too far (but perhaps even that won't!).
Delete