Community Comp

[MOMUS]

Hey

Are there any tournament comp packs in the UK?

I know the communication between the community and GW is stronger than ever and certain things get fixed by the designers pretty sharp nowadays but I would still be interested in playing under a comp environment. 

I'd love a Swedish style comp pack for AoS, would be really interesting to see the armies played.

Anyone else miss comp?

[Lousy Beatnik]

Yuck, not at all.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, MOMUS said:

Hey

Are there any tournament comp packs in the UK?

I know the communication between the community and GW is stronger than ever and certain things get fixed by the designers pretty sharp nowadays but I would still be interested in playing under a comp environment. 

I'd love a Swedish style comp pack for AoS, would be really interesting to see the armies played.

Anyone else miss comp?

I don't understand why it would be needed. Not trying to be dismissive, I genuinely don't understand. What would a set of community rules that modifies the official rules be used to achieve? If there's something about the game you think could/should be tweaked surely you just go ahead and play it that way with your club/group/friends/tournament - why would you want or need some guy in Sweden to do this on your behalf?

Anyway, isn't Swedish Comp just a holdover from the long-gone days when GW games (supposedly) stayed so broken for so long that a certain section of players preferred to play with the rules equivalent of fan fiction? Seems totally unnecessary to me in this day and age (of Sigmar).

[AaronWilson]

To be fair BOBO (A large event in the U.K, the first major AoS 2 singles event) will have a comp pack, with the following -

Rule of one for spells, & command abilities (A.k.a no stacking command abilities on one unit) 

No movement after summoning 

Engine of the gods free summon change 

No realm of battle rules, just Realm artefacts 

Something about spell portal I believe 

Roll for turn one 

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, AaronWIlson said:

To be fair BOBO (A large event in the U.K, the first major AoS 2 singles event) will have a comp pack, with the following -

 

Tournaments and other events making their own tweaks, sure. But a comp system created centrally by some self-appointed community gatekeeper that becomes the de facto standard for every event? Why would we subject ourselves to such a thing?

[MOMUS]

3 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

Tournaments and other events making their own tweaks, sure. But a comp system created centrally by some self-appointed community gatekeeper that becomes the de facto standard for every event? Why would we subject ourselves to such a thing?

 

Comp packs were created to promote better play and penalise negative play.  They were an extra level to the game created by the community to keep armies in check.

They came in a variety of form, Swedish comp was perhaps an extreme example but was quite a fun (and complex) system. It involved a seperate power point system which allocated a penalty or a bonus depending on units selected it accounted for the huge discrepancy in power level from unit to unit which may not be reflected in the points.

Comp pack were community driven, one of the more popular was SCGT comp which was created by the very people that helped create and play test the GHB.

[amysrevenge]

Yeah we definitely subjected ourselves en masse to SCGT comp in the first half of 2016 before GH2016 came out.  The SCGT folks didn't approach it as creating a community standard, but it pretty much instantly became one.  (And then was pretty much instantly abandoned within 5 minutes of GH2016 coming out haha).

That said, there isn't the hole in the ruleset now that there was in 2016.  Even the 2017 version of community comp (measure to bases) is now in the main ruleset.

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, MOMUS said:

 

Comp packs were created to promote better play and penalise negative play.  They were an extra level to the game created by the community to keep armies in check.

They came in a variety of form, Swedish comp was perhaps an extreme example but was quite a fun (and complex) system. It involved a seperate power point system which allocated a penalty or a bonus depending on units selected it accounted for the huge discrepancy in power level from unit to unit which may not be reflected in the points.

Comp pack were community driven, one of the more popular was SCGT comp which was created by the very people that helped create and play test the GHB.

Cool, thanks for the clarification, but I still don't understand why this kind of thing would be needed with the game being in such a good place right now.

And even if there is a discrepancy in the points, it's such a complex balancing act I don't think I'd necessarily trust anyone else to do a better job of it than GW.

[VBS]

I think that an experienced group of gamers can very well be capable of  offering a more balanced version of a game, more so when basic company concerns are not an influence. Wouldn't be unprecedented, happened before!

 So if some random guys want to twitch a few things to make the game "better" for their tournaments or whatever, and make it available for other who are also interested in a more balanced version..... why not? It's optional. It might even be positive for GW, who might learn a thing or two and implement such ideas in the future. 

 

*I don't care about comp packs but I see how it can be positive and useful for people.

[Asensur]

In my gaming group we are making a comp for open play, just to avoid abuses on one side and have a quick army builder.

It is based on the matched play charts but without points.

Pick Army Size per side

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 slots (or other quantity)

 

Each unit/model fills a slot.

Each Behemoth option fills 2 slots instead of one.

 

Units have a number of maximum models, you can increase that maximum for that same initial quantity for each improve point spent (up to improve maximum).

Each unused slot gives you one improve point, and each Horde option gives you one additional improve point.

 

25% of your slots (rounding up) must be filled with Battleline options.

50% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Leader option. You must have a Leader, that will be your general.

25% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Artillery options.

25% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Unique options.

25% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Ally options.

 

For each 4 slots (rounding down), you can pick a battalion, a command point or an endless spell. These do not fill slots.

 

Open, Narrative and/or Matched play rules can be used.

 

SYLVANETH example

 

10 Dryads (battleline, horde, +2 improves max)

5 Spite-Revenants (battleline*, horde, +5 improves max)

5 Tree-Revenants (battleline*, horde, +5 improves max)

3 Kurnoth Hunters (+3 improves max)

Treelord (behemoth)

 

Branchwraith (leader)

Branchwych (leader)

Spirit of Durthu (behemoth, leader)

Treelord Ancient (behemoth, leader)

Alarielle (behemoth, leader, unique)

Drycha (behemoth, leader, unique)

 

*sylvaneth allegiance only

 

Building examples for 4 slots:

 

-10 Dryads

-10 Dryads

-3 Kurnoth Hunters

-Branchwych

-Emerald lifeswarm

We have 2 improve points thanks to the dryads, each one gives an additional maximum of +10 to one of the dryads unit or an additional maximum of +3 to the kurnoth hunters.

 

-10 Dryads

-3 Kurnoth Hunters

-Treelord Ancient

-1 command point

We have 1 improve point thanks to the dryads, it gives an additional maximum of +10 to one of the dryads unit or an additional maximum of +3 to the kurnoth hunters.

 

-5 Tree-Revenants

-Branchwych

-(unused)

-(unused)

-Emerald Lifeswarm

We can give an additional maximum of +15 to the tree-revenants, thanks to the  2 unused slots and the horde option.

[Sleboda]

7 hours ago, MOMUS said:

Anyone else miss comp?

I don't. 

It's one of the Great Evils of Warhammer, in my opinion.

It never worked, was always biased, often reactionary, created an elitist mindset, and backfired by making the gap between skilled players and those just learning even greater.

On its own, comp kept me from attending several events I would have otherwise loved to attend.

Leave it on the ash heap of history, I say.

[Bellfree]

3 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

Cool, thanks for the clarification, but I still don't understand why this kind of thing would be needed with the game being in such a good place right now.

And even if there is a discrepancy in the points, it's such a complex balancing act I don't think I'd necessarily trust anyone else to do a better job of it than GW.

The game isn't really in that great of a place atm. It probably will be in a week or two though. Most of the issues appear to be oversights that are easily fixed(making CAs once per unit, lens of refraction to 'wholly within' fixing some of the crazy nonsense seraphon can do), but a new edition release is very rarely in a good place right off the bat. Even games like x-wing and warmahordes have transition pains.

Also, historically, point balance has been one of the things GW isn't very good at. I would trust a lot of people more than GW in that particular regard.

[chord]

I think the pool choices that were used prior to the GHB worked better than points

[Slayerofmen]

I think that comp packs not only get a generally bad wrap but are also viewed the wrong way. In australia east coast during 8th we played under, scgt, etc, panel comp, no comp and swedish and it was great not because it balanced the game but because it moved the goal posts and made people change up there lists and reconsider the choices they made which kept the game very fresh right till the end

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Bellfree said:

The game isn't really in that great of a place atm. It probably will be in a week or two though. Most of the issues appear to be oversights that are easily fixed(making CAs once per unit, lens of refraction to 'wholly within' fixing some of the crazy nonsense seraphon can do), but a new edition release is very rarely in a good place right off the bat. Even games like x-wing and warmahordes have transition pains.

Also, historically, point balance has been one of the things GW isn't very good at. I would trust a lot of people more than GW in that particular regard.

There are one or two silly aberrations discovered by a minority within a minority who were deliberately trying to create broken lists. For 99.9% of people in 99.9% of circumstances, this nonsense isn't even on their radar. The game is in a great place. End of.

Maybe historically GW were bad at points, but the key word there is 'historically'. They have a whole team of seasoned professional game designers working on this as a full time, paid occupation. And they now rebalance the points at least once a year. Maybe some arrogant grognards who judge GW by a set of prejudices that are no longer relevant think they can do a better job on their own in their spare time. I disagree.

[Marc Wilson]

God no, it's totally unwarranted outside of minor pre FAQ snags, and certainly dicking around with points or dictating what models a player can play with outside of what's laid down in print is an awful notion. There is no direct comparison to be made between AoS and 8th Ed WFB.

[AaronWilson]

17 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

Tournaments and other events making their own tweaks, sure. But a comp system created centrally by some self-appointed community gatekeeper that becomes the de facto standard for every event? Why would we subject ourselves to such a thing?

I mean, that's all "comp" is. A optionable set of rules that you can play to help comp the game, so in any case players can choose to just not use it. 

[heywoah_twitch]

19 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

To be fair BOBO (A large event in the U.K, the first major AoS 2 singles event) will have a comp pack, with the following -

Rule of one for spells, & command abilities (A.k.a no stacking command abilities on one unit) 

No movement after summoning 

Engine of the gods free summon change 

No realm of battle rules, just Realm artefacts 

Something about spell portal I believe 

Roll for turn one 

 

If I lived in the UK I'd love to attend BOBO with smart changes like that.

[Nubl0]

BOBO has some really simple nice changes. Not sure on the spell portal one but the rest I would expect in an FAQ anyway tbh.

[AaronWilson]

Yeah, sadly I heard about it too late or I'd be going for sure

[Skreech Verminking]

16 hours ago, Asensur said:

In my gaming group we are making a comp for open play, just to avoid abuses on one side and have a quick army builder.

It is based on the matched play charts but without points.

Pick Army Size per side

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128 slots (or other quantity)

 

Each unit/model fills a slot.

Each Behemoth option fills 2 slots instead of one.

 

Units have a number of maximum models, you can increase that maximum for that same initial quantity for each improve point spent (up to improve maximum).

Each unused slot gives you one improve point, and each Horde option gives you one additional improve point.

 

25% of your slots (rounding up) must be filled with Battleline options.

50% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Leader option. You must have a Leader, that will be your general.

25% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Artillery options.

25% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Unique options.

25% of your slots (rounding down) can be filled with Ally options.

 

For each 4 slots (rounding down), you can pick a battalion, a command point or an endless spell. These do not fill slots.

 

Open, Narrative and/or Matched play rules can be used.

 

SYLVANETH example

 

10 Dryads (battleline, horde, +2 improves max)

5 Spite-Revenants (battleline*, horde, +5 improves max)

5 Tree-Revenants (battleline*, horde, +5 improves max)

3 Kurnoth Hunters (+3 improves max)

Treelord (behemoth)

 

Branchwraith (leader)

Branchwych (leader)

Spirit of Durthu (behemoth, leader)

Treelord Ancient (behemoth, leader)

Alarielle (behemoth, leader, unique)

Drycha (behemoth, leader, unique)

 

*sylvaneth allegiance only

 

Building examples for 4 slots:

 

-10 Dryads

-10 Dryads

-3 Kurnoth Hunters

-Branchwych

-Emerald lifeswarm

We have 2 improve points thanks to the dryads, each one gives an additional maximum of +10 to one of the dryads unit or an additional maximum of +3 to the kurnoth hunters.

 

-10 Dryads

-3 Kurnoth Hunters

-Treelord Ancient

-1 command point

We have 1 improve point thanks to the dryads, it gives an additional maximum of +10 to one of the dryads unit or an additional maximum of +3 to the kurnoth hunters.

 

-5 Tree-Revenants

-Branchwych

-(unused)

-(unused)

-Emerald Lifeswarm

We can give an additional maximum of +15 to the tree-revenants, thanks to the  2 unused slots and the horde option.

Well it doesn’t sound bad, and it was a good system for Warhammer fantasy.

but in aos it is a little bit hard to use, since some army’s only own a kind of battle line now a days.

for example, if your trying to build a skaven army,  25procent of it has to be filled with clanrats, since this is the only battleline option you have right now.

in the old edition, you had more than just clanrats as a standard troop choice.

 

[Dead Scribe]

My personal preference is that fan comps not be a thing anymore.  I would rather there only be one set of rules, and those should be written by Games Workshop.  Armies are very expensive to collect, and take a lot of time to paint.  When I buy models, I buy them because I know they will perform very well in the matched play framework that Games Workshop created.  It is bothersome to me to collect my army that should perform very well at matched play events only to have to deal with a fan comp from someone that is not a professional games designer making my army not perform so well because they have a different idea of what is or is not appropriate for the game.

I don't want to have to buy and paint an army that has to adhere to a fan comp, and then go play at a different event and have a different army that is good at whatever rules that event is using.  I want every event to use the same rules because it is very expensive otherwise to paint and collect to keep a viable force.

 

 

[Asensur]

4 hours ago, Skreech Verminking said:

Well it doesn’t sound bad, and it was a good system for Warhammer fantasy.

but in aos it is a little bit hard to use, since some army’s only own a kind of battle line now a days.

for example, if your trying to build a skaven army,  25procent of it has to be filled with clanrats, since this is the only battleline option you have right now.

in the old edition, you had more than just clanrats as a standard troop choice.

 

To be fair with mixed Skaven, you can field 1-20 clanrats per slot (minimum of every unit is always 1 as we play open system with wounds for sudden death, what we try to avoid is 20 units of 1 "champion" clanrat), and you must field one unit for each 4 points (rounding up). So, if you want, with a box you can field 20 units of 1 clanrat (for a 80 slot match)

Also, they give each one a size improve to any unit of the army because of having the horde keyword (any unit with a maximum size discount in matched play has it).

For example, at 8 slots, you can perfectly have:

1-20 clanrats (gives 1 improve)

1-20 clanrats (gives 1 improve)

Thanquol (occupies 2 slots, leader, unique)

1-9 stormfiends (2 improves spent)

1-9 stormfiends (2 improves spent)

Empty slot (gives 1 improve)

Empty slot (gives 1 improve)

2 endless spells.

If you pick a specific clan, other battlelines options open (stormvermin in verminus for example).

What we essentially decided was to use the pitched battle profiles as a "rigid" base, without specific amendments.

We tried to obtain these objectives with this comp:

-Avoid character/artillery abuse (specially "unique" options).

-Avoid infinite armies.

-Reward for fielding some "weak" battlelines.

-Battalions/endless spells abuse.

This is not meant to be balanced, but to be enjoyable for both sides. A mix between rigid matched play and absurd open play.

[Sleboda]

10 hours ago, AaronWIlson said:

I mean, that's all "comp" is. A optionable set of rules that you can play to help comp the game, so in any case players can choose to just not use it. 

The problem with the "optional" part is that it ends up not being so, at least in my experience. During the height of the Dark Days of Comp, I struggled to find a game in my area where someone didn't want to use one of the in-vogue comp systems of the time.

It's why I often voiced my concerns in threads about comp systems being used half a world away at events I would never attend. I would be told that I should shut my yap since I am not affected by their comp and I should just let others play that way if they want. Well, sadly, we have the internet and their rules infected my games thousands of miles away.

[Dead Scribe]

Well hopefully there will never again be a need for fan comp.  The way the current environment is, most people are pretty much ok with sticking to the rules that Games Workshop wrote and not adding unofficial fan material in our standard games.  The narrative groups do that, but please event organizers keep unofficial rules out of your events.