AOS comp system? Nay or yay?

[Jesper77]

Do any of you play AOS with restrictions or a comp system on tournaments?

Where Im from, Sweden, the tournaments often use some restrictions when your building your army. Max 30 arrowboys, not more then X hunters and so on. Do people like this? 

 

Personaly I dont mind as long as its not to hard restrictions. I preffer tournaments that let you play as much as possible by the rules. But I understand why they put some restrictions on to broken stuff. For me the most inportant stuff is not killimg of a faction completely just becuase they got some hard units. 

I havent seen a pure comp system yet and I wonder if AOS need something like that? 

 

 

[someone2040]

There shouldn't be a need for comp if GW embraced change a bit more.

The problem is, there are some problem units in the game. We know it, GW surely knows it also. But GW refuse to change it. They're just waiting for this yearly update to fix the system.But really, why wait for a year to fix a unit that's clearly an issue? 

I think GW need to get with the times a bit. Either publish errata that changes points, or just stick to purely digital points where it's more common and therefore less of an issue that things change more frequently.

They seem to be stuck in their old mentality a bit, where once things are in print, unless it's broken they won't fix it. We shouldn't have to wait a year for Kurnoth Hunters (Which started the whole ranged arms race) to get increased in points. And I think everyone's a bit sick of how undercosted Skyfires are at the moment. Personally I feel 3 months is probably enough time to determine whether or not there are issues with units, and their points should be 'patched' to fix them.

 

That being said, GW is foraying into new ground. A yearly update is better than what we got before (Where we generally had to wait an entire edition!), but it could definitely be better.

[Siegfried VII]

In my opinion the game is fine as it is and we don't need any comp systems. I also think that the annual update is good enough to correct a few undercosted/overcosted units.

[Fungrim]

GW are doing really well at the moment, the meta is changing with new battletome releases and the impending GHB release will also shift things. I think jumping too quickly to start manually comping things is a bit of a rabbit hole at this point to be honest

You're also expecting GW to look at this game a bit too altruistically for a massive £££ company. They release something like Kurnoths and Skyfires, they want people to buy it. The only way people will buy it is if they can fit multiples of them in their lists. It's grim I know, but at the end of the day the in-game power to real-world profit ratio has to fit their business model.

[Naishy]

We need to remember as well that you need a certain amount of time to accumulate data and then there is always a development lag in terms of publishing new material.  I think a few points tweeks, a revision of maxium unit sizes for some warscrolls will restore the balance a little.  That and a few new match play scenarios and we are good to go.

[Aeon]

I've been a fan of comp in the past for previous editions of Fantasy and 40k, however in this age of GW community involvement, I'll let GW tell me the rules for constructing a list. I'm happy for once a year updates; more often than that I'm not though, otherwise it will get too frustrating for casual gamers to constantly change armies due to updates every month or two.

[Dibdab]

Nay for me

I have always felt that comp gamers are the loudest voice at the thin end of the hobby wedge.

Where as us who play at the wide end of the wedge just get on and play and find work arounds if any become to over powered.

 

As Aucticus said top end comp players are all about busting the game and min maxing where they can to get the power army/list.

What you really need to decide is if you are a competitive tournament player of a tournament player that goes for the fun. Or if you just enjoy the games with your friends

I used to be a very competitive tournament player but that style of gaming burnt me out and now I plan for the lolz me wow you brought that to the table!!!!!

[SuperHappyTime]

Nay*

*Opinion may change after GHB2 Points are spoiled on the Internet.

[daedalus81]

15 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Spoiler

 

There shouldn't be a need for comp if GW embraced change a bit more.

The problem is, there are some problem units in the game. We know it, GW surely knows it also. But GW refuse to change it. They're just waiting for this yearly update to fix the system.But really, why wait for a year to fix a unit that's clearly an issue? 

I think GW need to get with the times a bit. Either publish errata that changes points, or just stick to purely digital points where it's more common and therefore less of an issue that things change more frequently.

They seem to be stuck in their old mentality a bit, where once things are in print, unless it's broken they won't fix it. We shouldn't have to wait a year for Kurnoth Hunters (Which started the whole ranged arms race) to get increased in points. And I think everyone's a bit sick of how undercosted Skyfires are at the moment. Personally I feel 3 months is probably enough time to determine whether or not there are issues with units, and their points should be 'patched' to fix them.

 

That being said, GW is foraying into new ground. A yearly update is better than what we got before (Where we generally had to wait an entire edition!), but it could definitely be better.

 

 

I think rather they are all hands on deck for the massive amount of stuff they're doing for 40K right now.  Once that is out and has hada month we'll prbobably see GHB2 among other things.

[Rhellion]

Nay

[Sigwarus]

I am all for a few restrictions and rule clarifications in tournaments. If you limit the numbers of certain power house models like the skyfyres, kurnoth hunters, thundertusks and savage orruk arrowboyz the game gets more fun. People will start to show up with a greater variety of units and lists and different factions will be fielded. That also adds more to the competative game. Its not skill to spam a good unit and point and click. In open games of course there is room for those kind of crazy lists but in a tounrament it has not place.  

[Gauche]

I've spoken on this before but I don't think Tournaments should ever be comped. If the game isn't broken as much as possible then the owning company cannot fix it, obfuscation doesn't resolve issues. Comp systems also never become widespread enough to be the standard, even ITC which is very popular isn't the ruling body in the US or other countries. This leads to annoying issues where you constantly have to re-tool your army for the constraints and even with them, something will be busted. You now won't have the reps or experience to counter it since you're playing an altered game.

Comp is fine for narrative or casual events, such as a tournament for new-comers or fluffy players. But there should always be a hard as nails option at any convention for players like myself. The only time comp is acceptable is if it's handed down by the company who makes the game i.e. Privateer Press' way of doing things.

I cite the new 40k Edition as a prime example of this. Broken things are being fixed, if they were just hand-waived the new Edition might not be looking as good. Most calls for comp, in my experience, come from players who want to enter tournaments with whatever they like and don't want to get stomped. This is an issues of event variety which SHOULD be focused on by TOs and not an excuse to throw shackles on everyone.

[Sleboda]

20 minutes ago, Gauche said:

This leads to annoying issues where you constantly have to re-tool your army for the constraints and even with them, something will be busted. You now won't have the reps or experience to counter it since you're playing an altered game.

A-freakin-men.

I want too play AoS,  m not AoJimmy, AoTimmy, or AoAnything else. 

[Sigwarus]

I guess this discussion boils down to different view on the meaning of a tournament. For me a good tournament needs two importent components: The games should be fun and challenging. AoS, without a few (mind you, not to many) restrictions and rule alterings, is neither. I have said this many times but spaming a unit is not skill - dont even think about it. And it is certainly not fun. I´m not talking about bringing whatever and demanding a fair fight. I´m talking about having to think before, and while, I´m playing. 

Whats wrong with having to change your list sometimes? Not being able to take the netlist again and again? Needing to think different and try something new?

I guess you play ecactly by the rules and measure model to model too?

When I play wargames I want a fair fight and a sort of balanced game. The current AoS-version can´t give me that without some alterations. I hoping for balance in GH2 though.   

[Gauche]

9 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I think so long as the hard as nails folks understand that not everyone wants to play that way in every event that there really will never be an issue.

The only time I see this as an issue is when a guy rolls into a casual event that is explicitly defined as casual and drops his kunnin rukk or whatever SCGT/LVO list down and then throws a fit when he's told the event is comped for casual play that comp should never be allowed ever and it "teaches people wrong".

I'm also rebuilding a busted list for this fall to play busted AOS with because I recognize that it works both ways.

Full agreement. I come from a background of other games where conventions run a variety of events, not one size fits all. That means narrative, that means "Youngbloods", that means comps. There's also a Masters type event where you smash all your cheese together and see who's best.

I would never want to play in a casual event, I would never want a casual player to play in my preferred events. One size fits all never works. In fact there was an event in my my local area recently that they explicitly put as Beginner/Casual friendly on Facebook, I didn't attend. It isn't worth a small amount of store credit to bash someone's face in and ruin their enjoyment on a Saturday.

[wayniac]

40 minutes ago, Gauche said:

Full agreement. I come from a background of other games where conventions run a variety of events, not one size fits all. That means narrative, that means "Youngbloods", that means comps. There's also a Masters type event where you smash all your cheese together and see who's best.

I would never want to play in a casual event, I would never want a casual player to play in my preferred events. One size fits all never works. In fact there was an event in my my local area recently that they explicitly put as Beginner/Casual friendly on Facebook, I didn't attend. It isn't worth a small amount of store credit to bash someone's face in and ruin their enjoyment on a Saturday.

If only more people thought this way.

[thediceabide]

Oh god please no.

[fiZZycoke]

please never bring back comp

[Killax]

I like House rules. It allows the organiser to shape the event. Even to narrative tournaments and competatuve tournaments. Use as much House rules as you feel inclined to, as long as its clear and widely available :).

[Jesper77]

I must say I agree with alot of the answers. I think one should wait for GH2 to be realesed before starting to comp stuff out. One year may feel long but its not that long. And if something is hot and strong atm you may have to work hard to find and anse and a counter to it. Alomst everything got some sort of counter. Some say comp is needed to change the variaity of lists. I dont agree with this statement. I come from a background of 40k and in sweden we had a well developed comp system swecomp. In my opinion the only thing it did was shift the power from one type of list to another. Many people started to look for holes in the comp and bought the units and armies that was favored by the comp. So the best players was often the guys who had afford to buy alot of different armes. And in many cases people ended up playing list they didnt realay wanted to play but was forced to becuase of the komp. This is soo wrong imo. So for me the comp is something I hope we all can avoid. 

How about restrictions then? Well That I can understand. Not allowing dual kunnins, khunroth/skyfire spam is understandable: But in the same time the people making the restrictions should have some undertanding of playing the differens things they restrict and know how much and why. Some people are fast to complain about Kunnin for example and say its to easy but have they realy played a unit of 40 arrowboys? I have and can say the following. The unit has 18" range so its means you have to move it up and x40 32mm bases leaves a huge footprint so its not easy getting em all to be in range of the target they want to shoot at. There are often terrain blockning the movement so its not often they all get to shoot at the target. Its like pocket parking a buss. Its duable but hard. Also keep in mind that often those attacks even if they are many seldom leaves many wounds on larger target with good saves. At the same time I fully support the choise to restrict the use of dual Kunnins due to beeing to powerful. Two of those units negate the problems you have when you just have to control one of the blocks of arrowboys. What I mean by all this is you have to have some sort of knowledge of why you restrict stuff and not just listen to "complains" from people who just want to make their own road to the top of the tournament as easy as possible. Do restrict but think about why and what you want to accomplish with the restriction. 

[Gauche]

I have been around Wargaming for nearing on 13 years, and I'm a pretty young man. It has been consistently frustrating that, from a competitive standpoint, no company realizes that many broken lists come from spam. Oh somethings broken? I guess I'll spam it. Kurnoths, Skyfires, Thundertusks, and Longstrikes are the four big power units that go into power armies right now. They're all spammed.

3 Thundertusks

5+ units of Kurnoth

18-27 Skyfires

12+ Longstrikes

 

None of these feel like they were intended to be taken in the above quantities. GW has attempted to limit Unit sizes but they aren't low enough and there's no inability to spam min-sized units that aren't Behemoths or something.

If GW starts doing more accurate limitations, the game is balanced. The game is SUPER balanced outside of the big four lists. Those are very likely to get toned down in the next GHB, at least three of them. But the underlying sickness will remain, as it does in 40k, Warmachine, and many, many other games.

[Lysandestolpe]

I am very fortunate that my FLGS have a very casual friendly tournament scene where you play what you want and nobody spams OP units to be able to 'autowin' their opponents. But for larger tournaments and around players who needs a build up for their narcissistic ejaculatory needs, I think a very minimal comp restriction can allow for players who like the challenge, new players who hope they can do something good in a game, and players who like to play cool units and armies to have a chance of playing an army where, as stated above, one can use their intellectual power to play the game. When you have 160 arrows, and 18 mortal wounds a round coming at you on a standard AoS open field, it gets a little tricky to do just that if you are not bringing a list of similar broken intent.

I don't believe comp will ever take over most tournaments. If you do believe comp ruins all the fun you can have, because your list isn't legal, then don't attend the tournament. I attend tournaments without comp and hope I only play lists that are similar to mine: good punch but without intent to limit myself to the most competitive options.

In the end, I think the most important concept of the tournament is as stated above: as many players as possible should have a great time. I believe very minor restrictions can aid that to be an end result. Lastly, as stated above by @Gauche and @Auticus, that's why I don't count on GW taking out or rectifying those units without making others take their place. GW is a business first and a community secondly, and rightfully so. But as they state themselves, all rules are guidelines and you as player or community may do as you wish to adjust them.

[Killax]

13 hours ago, Gauche said:

I have been around Wargaming for nearing on 13 years, and I'm a pretty young man. It has been consistently frustrating that, from a competitive standpoint, no company realizes that many broken lists come from spam. Oh somethings broken? I guess I'll spam it. Kurnoths, Skyfires, Thundertusks, and Longstrikes are the four big power units that go into power armies right now. They're all spammed.

None of these feel like they were intended to be taken in the above quantities. GW has attempted to limit Unit sizes but they aren't low enough and there's no inability to spam min-sized units that aren't Behemoths or something.

If GW starts doing more accurate limitations, the game is balanced. The game is SUPER balanced outside of the big four lists. Those are very likely to get toned down in the next GHB, at least three of them. But the underlying sickness will remain, as it does in 40k, Warmachine, and many, many other games.

This is all true, which is why I like House rules.

There are some things I'd like to see changed in the Core rules (such how Missle Attacks work) but other than that think that different Tournament House-rules actually make the game more interesting.

As an example I do think that taking the same units in quantities of 3 could be a max. If you wanted to adress the spam issue. But the truth of the matter is that AoS doesn't have 1 issue to tackle, it has multiple if you want to go for improved balance.

Tackeling all these issues can be done but would also further restrict army composition with every step, to the point where if GW even decided to eventually make one army in that design your back to square one again...

[wayniac]

9 hours ago, Auticus said:

Yep thats true.  But it sells models.  Which is why they allow it.

Precisely.  Back in the day, they had hard limits on things.  0-1 of X.  Up to 3 of Y.  One Z for every one A you took.  Then they realized that meant people might only buy one of X, instead of 3.  They might only buy one box of Y, instead of two or three boxes.  So hard restrictions went out the door, and it's been all but proven that the competitive crowd will do anything and everything possible to eke out any sort of perceived advantage short of outright cheating.  And, since it's also been all but proven that the competitive mindset trickles down and infests everything else (see: Matched Play subsuming the other styles as the de facto way to play AOS, with likely the same thing to happen in 40k despite the fact there will be an alternate way to get something close to a fair fight), it becomes a domino effect.

[Killax]

Absolutely, we can't change mindsets. What you can do is border things in such a way that it becomes a real puzzle to find the 'weaknesses' in a system.
This is why I like House-rules, ideally House-rules that change on a yearly basis. 

As an example the SCGT House Rules really borders Abilities really well, no real crazy stacking there.
What it completely doesn't do is adress the Missle Attack Units/Battalions that have been on the competative top since they where released.

It's also the prime reason as to why I like the fact that Warscrolls dont have point costs, because they might change in the future and this way your harcopy Warscrolls will never be invalid for that edition. Granted some editions might want to change profiles completely