AOS comp system? Nay or yay?

[Ollie Grimwood]

I don't mind a bit of comp, after all that's what Matched play is. It's a big world with lots of people playing AoS in different ways and events should represent this. Of course any comp or alterations should be made clear in the pack.

It important to remember that even the biggest tournament has only 200 players that's a mere drop in ocean when considering the amount of people who play. Your experiences and wishes may not be universal as you believe.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sleboda]

2 hours ago, Lysandestolpe said:

I don't believe comp will ever take over most tournaments.

It will. It overran WFB. It will do the same to AoS.

 

TOs can't help themselves because they get bored, they cave to pressure,  or they think they are smarter than the pros.

[Arkiham]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

It will. It overran WFB. It will do the same to AoS.

 

TOs can't help themselves because they get bored, they cave to pressure,  or they think they are smarter than the pros.

well, a few major TO's the worldover helped write the generals handbook.. so they kinda are the pro's 

 

[Lysandestolpe]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

 

TOs can't help themselves because they get bored, they cave to pressure,  or they think they are smarter than the pros.

Haha wow, this sure shows your bitterness. Since these are the claimed three options, why don't the people that are against comp host tournaments? I'm sure there can't only be pro comp players who are willing to go through the work of TO. 

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

well, a few major TO's the worldover helped write the generals handbook.. so they kinda are the pro's 

 

Good for them. Now,  if the others would realize their kind have had a voice and fall in line,  the AoS world would be better for it,  but they won't.   Most (not all) TOs are what they are because they have a personality that tells them they can lead.  Leaders by necessity lead because they feel they need to herd the herd.  You dint step up and say "I will be in charge" if you don't think you have a better vision than others. 

 

It's almost not their fault that they want to tweak. They are wired to do so.  It does,  however,  mean we get a thousand versions of the game, and that often comes through comp.

[Sleboda]

12 minutes ago, Lysandestolpe said:

Haha wow, this sure shows your bitterness. Since these are the claimed three options, why don't the people that are against comp host tournaments? I'm sure there can't only be pro comp players who are willing to go through the work of TO. 

As an anti-comp player, I don't feel a need to change things for others,  and thus I don't need to run an event that is an extension of my ego/will. The game as-is works for me and I play that way with others already.

[KnightFire]

2 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Good for them. Now,  if the others would realize their kind have had a voice and fall in line,  the AoS world would be better for it,  but they won't.   Most (not all) TOs are what they are because they have a personality that tells them they can lead.  Leaders by necessity lead because they feel they need to herd the herd.  You dint step up and say "I will be in charge" if you don't think you have a better vision than others. 

 

It's almost not their fault that they want to tweak. They are wired to do so.  It does,  however,  mean we get a thousand versions of the game, and that often comes through comp.

I think that is incredibly insulting to the vast majority of TOs out there who run events because they enjoy sharing their hobby with people and giving back to the community that nurtured them during their early days. I really don' t think that kind of attitude is appropriate. 

[Sleboda]

Ok, so, telk me.  How many events have you attended where the rules were just "play x number of games using the full on standard rules with just the GHB matched play scenarios"?

Going back through multiple editions of Warhammer,  and dozens of events,  I have never,  not once,  encountered a TO who could resist changing the game for his or her event.  Not a single time.

[KnightFire]

1 minute ago, Sleboda said:

Ok, so, telk me.  How many events have you attended where the rules were just "play x number of games using the full on standard rules with just the GHB matched play scenarios"?

Going back through multiple editions of Warhammer,  and dozens of events,  I have never,  not once,  encountered a TO who could resist changing the game for his or her event.  Not a single time.

The matched play section of the GHB introduces house rules, (the rules of 1 for example) and suggests that tournaments should also add other house rules, so adding house rules is something that the rules themselves say TOs (and NEOs) should be doing. The WHW events I have attended have themselves used house rules (measure to base for example).

I will also not count narrative events, as obviously not a single narrative event I have been to has done that (but they are still events). 

But assuming you are talking about allowing the GHB house rules, I would say about 50% of tournaments that I attended have done pure GHB with no real other house rules (not including any rules on painting, and how the event is scored) other those that WHW themselves use, which is up from about 20% during 8th, however I prefer to go to tournaments that use custom scenarios, so there is some selection bias in that (against the use of pure GHB). If I wanted to do pure GHB tournaments only I think I could probably find one every weekend that was within a reasonable travel distance, however my preference is for more narrative and story driven events (whether matched play tournaments or narrative play events).

[Arkiham]

39 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Stuff

People host tournaments as they wanna see it played a certain way, people goto them as they either agree with that house rule or like competing.

Scgt for instance, they do it a certain way as they didn't like the way other people do things.

If peoole don't like it don't go....

There's two options for you.

1) quit moaning, as it's not going to change, people host their own tournaments as they want to tinker with the rules.

2) quit moaning, and host your own with the rules being literally nothing other than the generals handbook, find people who want to do it also.

Have fun with that 2nd option, as matched play is a end result of house rules from tournament organisers coming together to make a standard to work off of.

You'll also be happy to hear that again many tournament organisers helped in shaping the basic aos rules... 

So your casual disrespect for them an what they do, which makes this game what it is is incredibly ironic as those same people are the ones who shaped the game that you think is "fine as is"

[Lysandestolpe]

35 minutes ago, Auticus said:

What no one really should ever do is belittle or troll or denigrate people that give their time to the community to run events because they aren't running them the way we want them and then accuse those people of being super egos that are out of control.

Well said!

45 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

As an anti-comp player, I don't feel a need to change things for others,  and thus I don't need to run an event that is an extension of my ego/will. The game as-is works for me and I play that way with others already.

So basically because you don't feel the need to change rules you don't feel the need to put down work for others as it would be an extension of your ego? This is a complete bullshit argument, dude. Stop complaining and contribute to your community in the way you like to play. Since you don't like comp, be part of what you believe is the solution and host such events. I'm sure you will gain players to it that are likeminded. It is a waste of time to argue online that you want others to do what you want them to do.

FYI, I host tournaments every month that so far has been without comp rules and besides the last one, all has been missions straight out GH. 

As a TO, although small scale, I ask all participants a lot of questions and get a feel for what they would like to see. I know other TO's who do the same. It is thus not an extension of their ego their decision is made off, but the voice of their community. 

Since your experience is different, I will say again, be part of the solution!

[Ben]

GUYS.  

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPNIIONS.  AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, BE NICE!!!!

I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF POSTS REPORTED IN THIS THREAD AND I DON'T WANT IT RUNNING INTO A SHOUTING MATCH.  

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, KnightFire said:

If I wanted to do pure GHB tournaments only I think I could probably find one every weekend that was within a reasonable travel distance

Jealous!  ?

[Trout]

Apologies for using an example from so far out of left field, but that's just how my brain works.

 

Prior to the advent of Mixed Martial Arts, the dominant styles of kickboxing in the in the USA and UK were: "full contact" and "freestyle", both of which still exist today.

 

Full contact kickboxing requires that all kicks be above the belt and requires fighters to attempt at least 6 kicks every round. As a result of these rules, action in these fights tends to be more exciting, often resulting in great highlights as matches quite often end with a kick to the face.

 

Freestyle kickboxing allows kicking to the legs and places no restriction in the punch to kick ratio of the fighters. Leg kicks are far more effective than kicks above the belt, so when fighters fight under this ruleset, the matches tend to be filled with far fewer highlight-worthy moments. This may be the true test of who is the better kickboxer, but it makes for less exciting fights.

 

What I'm getting to is that both co-exist; historically, there has been a lot of overlap between the two with the top fighters often agreeing to fights within one ruleset or the other on a per-bout basis. I think that's great and I think the same can and should be done with this hobby. I think an unmodified ruleset would be our version of "freestyle" and a comp system would be our version of "full contact" and I see no problem with both existing simultaneously and people participating in both kinds of matches depending on the venue.

[KnightFire]

Jealous!  [emoji16]

It's a great position to be in, and a great testament to the wide appeal of aos. I don't think there were this events at the peak of 8th.

What's more exciting to me is that I could probably do a narrative event every month if I wanted.

I have a family and a job though, so I limit myself to 3-4 events a year, and club nights when and where I can.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Jesper77]

I know this is a hot topic but please try to keep the drama down. I can only say for my self that Im fine with a restriction here and their but if their would be a system forcing me to play with units I dont like in a way I dont want to besides the ones in the rules I wouldnt attend that tournament or play that game. Becuase then I belive you have moved away from doing good things to beeing buly and thinking that you know whats best for everybody

[Bradifer]

I haven't played Warhammer (40k/WFB/AOS) long enough or any wargames for that matter to actually encounter real comp rules.

But my honest impression is that if a game was so badly balanced or the rules were unclear, I would just leave and play something else.

There are so many tabletop games, war games, card games, video game card games, tactical VG's, shooting VG's, action VG's, action + strategy VG's, etc/etc.... That I would have not seen a reason to stick around with a bad game.

For some of you, you came here for the hobby aspect, I came for an interesting game with a brand new hobby side to it. But honestly, if the game sucked I would just move on to the countless other pieces of entertainment competing for my attention.

[Killax]

As @Trout also mentioned, play how you like is as much as AoS is. This means that if you feel obliged to add rules, do so and play with them. What we see is that there is no consensus on how to play Age of Sigmar and this is logical because Games Workshop didn't give us a consensus on how to play Age of Sigmar.

We have players who like Open play
We have players who like Narrative play without points, thus making it a blend of Narrative and Open play
We have players who like Narrative play with points, thus making it a blend of Narrative and Matched play
We have players who like Matched play straight out of the General's Handbook's rules 
We have players who like Matched play straight out of the General's Handbook's rules and apply it to an Competative play standard
We have players who like Matched play with GH rules and House-rules
We have players who like Matched play with GH rules and House-rules and apply it to an Competative play standard

*Competative play for me is a social agreement that both players play the game 'to win'. This applies to every game ultimately but there is a strict difference in creating your army for fun/hobby and creating your army for winning (tournaments). This difference comes in applying synergies to a certain point. For example, if you add a +1 armour modifier, it's still a regular synergy, the moment you can add +2 and end up with 2+ armour saves, play becomes vastly different. If your opponent didn't thake that into account it can cost him the game. 

All of this is possible and nothing is wrong. All you need to know is that what you 'sign up for' is also known to you.
What I mean by this is that commonly speaking it's not cool to use Open play as the way to scare players away with the ammount of models you have and can technically field under one army Alliance. In that same vein it's often not considered a cool thing to apply your most competatively designed list to Narrative games. Your army might end up that way eventually but shouldn't start out that way. Lastly we have areas where it's completely accepted to play spam-lists, lists that have combo's that whipe armies away in 2 turns and generally speaking can keep games really short. These are the types of armies you bring to tournaments if your intend is to win them. Not all players who attend to tournaments intend to win the tournament. Some just really like to find their blend of army and see how well it plays into an high competative setting.

Play as you like is Age of Sigmars moral. I like House-rules and don't mind playing with them. If some don't like that, by all means, don't play like that. It's like sparring, you can both choose how far you want to go. A sparring session is absolutely not the same as entering the ring for a belt.  If you get knocked out during sparring you have a reason to complain. You can't do that if your in there to win and knock out your opponent aswell.

[KnightFire]

To me, I think a big factor is variety. I like playing events with custom scenarios because they give me different "problems to solve", I don't really like playing the same games over and over again, and I think this is probably why I lean towards narrative style games quite a lot. I wouldn't really enjoy just playing the same 6 GHB scenarios with the same WHW house rules over and over, and house rules (and even comp) help shake that up a bit. 

One of the main reason that hardcore tournament players like comp is that it shakes up the metagame, they also get bored of playing the same lists against each other over and over, and comp mixes up the metagame by trying to stop people taking the same old net-lists, and forcing them to come up with something different. I think the metagame in AoS moves quite a bit quicker than it did in 8th edition, which is why we are seeing a lot less TOs feel that they need to do something to shake things up.

[Killax]

@KnightFire the latter absolutely playes a big factor aswell. The prime reason for that in my eyes is the ammount of Battletomes and Battalions that have been released in the couple of years that Age of Sigmar is around. I remember quite well that WFB having 2 Army books a year was quite normal. Sometimes 3, maby 4, most certainly not 6-8 as we see with Age of Sigmar. What this does is change up the metagame.

In addition it's also very important to keep in mind that AoS seems very much build up from narrative and designs of the past. Doing this also means that in certain cases it does not reflect too well in game balance. For example, the Bloodthirster initially was quite unique in terms of a Greater Daemon with his 14 wounds, dicey but possibly great damage output and now those same 14 wounds have become a new norm. 
In certain cases designs remain like they where from the WFB/AoS transition PDFs and in other cases GW updates Warscrolls, which often makes them better as past designs.

So I believe that GW is fully aware that AoS is not competatively balanced perfectly. They know some players dont mind this and some do. The ones who do are free to use any additional rule they see fit. The ones who dont mind this can also do as they like. It's an easy solution that both makes AoS easy to play but also not the best game system out there to play a game that is balanced so well that every match up is close to a 50/50 game. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

I've always found it a little bit surprising how hot a topic this is. Certainly given GWs official line which is pretty much, comp and house as much as you like. They even do it for their own tournaments. They've always been somewhat live and let live when it comes to rules.

 

 

I very much agree with the mixing it up point made above (and I'm no hardcore tournament fellow), it one of the things I really liked pre GHB with each of the different community systems providing a different approach.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Asensur]

With battalions it is easy to comp.

In my gaming group we use to:

0-1 all warscrolls

0-1 all battalions

Battalions trumps other battalions/warscrolls restrictions.

 

F.e. you can only take 1 unit of prosecutors normally.  You must/can take 3 units in a vanguard wing.

[Kaleb Daark]

I walked away from fantasy to avoid conversations like this.

lets all remember one very important thing...

the rules support the models not the other way around like fantasy and 40k 7th did.

@Ben, @Chris Tomlin, and others all remember fantasy and the one list to rule them mentality that was rife in it, and the various comps that floated around trying to band aid everything as a result.

 

this thread isn't about comp and rules it's about individuals who play in the spirit of the game and sportsmanship and story vs that guy who sees the rules and tries to snap them in two.  CCG MIGRANTS as was referred to in another thread, where winning at all costs to the point where your opponent wants to just throw his stuff in the bin and leave the game.

 

at our local Gw we had a manager who was just that. He'd played at ultra competitive level and his pleasure was opening an opponent up and turning him inside out.  When AoS landed he poisoned an entire community against it by just bringing the extreme filth to the table.

 

in another thread I posted a game move which was thematic and fitting- I had a huge rant about it from another member about how this and how that.  Needless to say I didn't have to read it or bite on it.

the rules are there as guidelines to have a fun game.  It's as simple as that. If a tournament organiser Wants things in a certain way then that's their prerogative.  However it is also the prerogative of players to use the rules as guidelines to forge amazing narrative and epic games with their own twist on what is or isn't acceptable.  Neither is right or wrong.

its players that make the game, not the rules.  They're just there as a framework.

 

to quote Gaiman's sandman,

"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor"

 

and if Gw is that emperor...

[Ollie Grimwood]

If we're going to get philosophical I'm going to quote a little Bruce Lee from Enter the Dragon. "It's (the rules) like a finger pointing at the moon. Do not concentrate too hard on the finger or you will miss all the heavenly glow".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Menkeroth]

Exactly. It's the problem of sports which in our hobby becomes a catastrophe - too much obsession with rules, numbers, pride and length of your masculine power and too little attention to the process itself.