What is comp? (Or, for Sigmar's sake just get on with it)

How do?

Random brain leakage here. I was in the Random Observance thread, and I got thinking about the various takes Warhammer has had on army building over the years.

Rather than go through those individually, I'll deal in broad strokes. Initially when I started, it was percentage based. Then came the Force Organisation. After that, 8th Ed combined both.

But now GW have done what they've pretty much always wanted to do - leave it us as individuals. Certainly Jervis is on record repeatedly saying he's not a fan of 'artificial' restrictions (such as Flagellants being a 0-1 choice once upon a time)

Me, I'm enjoying the freedom of AoS....except I'm still comping. I may not use one of the various points systems worked on by the community. But I'm still making sure I'm only deploying an army which will give both my opponent and I a fun game. Sometimes it's what I consider to be a 'fluffy' army (so for Ogres....Tyrant, Bruiser, Butcher is my own character limit, and more Ogres than Ironguts). Sometimes it's 'themed', such as my old Dark Elf army which took advantage of their high monster count.

But it's all still artificial restrictions I've imposed on myself.

So chill. Don't worry about it. Just do what thou wilt (oh no! I've gone all Crowley!). If your opponent proves to be an arse and deployed 12 Nagashes....it's still just a game. Relax. There's no money at stake, and only the pride equivalent of playing for match sticks. Yes, even in a Tournament. Just go to it and play the best you can. It's game, we're all here to enjoy it :)


Right. Think that's plugged up the brain leakage, or at least stymied it for a bit :)

Well, you *do* have to spend a lot to partake in the hobby, and you have to put in the time for a game, so it's fair enough to want the experience to be as enjoyable as possible.

While freedom is good, it's not a bad thing either to have some kind of structure, such as points. The freedom of what units from what force you want to take could still be done in 40K, which has points. Just go Unbound. (Though there's still a Unique label for named characters, preventing the aforementioned 12 Nagash force.) Points are handy for pick-up games, where it's a simple matter of saying, "Want to do a game of X points?" And then you just have at it. If, in those points, you want to have Ogres, Beastmen, and Undead all together, points wouldn't prevent that, but in theory they'd present a relatively balanced match.

If people didn't want to use points, they could just opt to ignore them, and it'd all be good. If you're into freedom anyway, why treat points as a restriction rather than an option?

It all just comes down to the playing-games-with-strangers thing. There's a player at the local GW store, I think to build a force that could have a reasonable go at his typical army, I'd have to throw together some stuff that he might not agree is an equal power level. There's no way to even guess on which of us is right. And if I take a bunch of lower-level infantry to deal with elite infantry or larger models, he could get a bonus in the form of an easy to complete objective to instantly win the game... so I'm encouraged to take the best models I can matching the number of opposing models.

Freedom isn't bad, but neither are guidelines. And, for the people who say "Just ignore the sudden death rules," why couldn't you treat points that way? Try a round of 40K, agree to just ignore points completely, bring models you feel are equal, and determine what upgrades they have without ever looking at how much any of it costs. It might work better for you, you might introduce your mates to a new system they like... and then you could play Unbound with no points despite the game having points and structure, proving that at the end of the day, points are just a useful option and don't prevent you from doing whatever you want. Unfortunately, that option doesn't exist in AoS, so for the people who would like such guidelines, they don't have the ability to use them.

Different strokes for different folks and all that...

My General overview

Personally I have always found that I enjoy most working with a strict set of restrictions and trying to do the most I can: this is the case when stating a character for a pen and paper rpg, when building a force for a wargame and perhaps the best example when playing Elder Scrolls games. As you get deeper into various systems it becomes easier to break them, if I take this and add in that I get more a much bigger benefit, and personally I find that to be less enjoyable than it would other wise be. how much fun is it in Skyrim to stack modifiers to deal [dagger damage]*[sneak attack talent (15)]*[back stab enchant (2)]*[one handed damage (1.4)]^3 (or 82 times base damage); yes you can do that but it quickly grows stale.

On another point of note, when introducing someone to an rpg it never helps to tell them they can be anything, often they will struggle to come up with a character concept at all. offer them choices "do you want to play someone who is good with a weapon, or with magic? would you rather play a character who is strait forward or sneaky?" restrictions and choices help to narrow down ideas into something that can then be fleshed out though even small variations.

My Age of Sigmar part

One of my problems with Age of Sigmar* is that at this point there's not a lot of lore for most of the old races and I can do anything. this puts me in that same place as the novice(rpg), there little to guide me in forming an army other than rules. Am I choosing this because it fits into my army, because I like the model or because I think the rules are stronger than something else? I know its not the first one, because I don't know how that race is meant to be so it's going to be a mix of the second and third. Even without lengthy lore sections restrictions can help, I can know just by the tittle that Core/Troops are the most common units and Rare/Elites are some the least common. this can give that focus in building a force - choose a Core unit you like and then use Rare units to flavour it to personal tastes

*on a side note the loss of points doesn't really bother me overly, although I would have liked some intrinsic way to work out how different units compare without having to open Excel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

I may not use one of the various points systems worked on by the community. But I'm still making sure I'm only deploying an army which will give both my opponent and I a fun game.

---

I only have very limited first-hand experience of AoS, but the lack of points was certainly one thing that put me off (although not the only thing). Perhaps with more experience is possible, as you say, to devise roughly balanced armies. But as someone with no experience of the game, I wouldn't know how to start. Of course now there are various comp systems out there, I suppose I could simply use one of those. But, otherwise, it looks like you have to suffer through many unbalanced games before you can play with a semblance of balance.

The common response seems to be not to worry so much about balanced, as unbalanced games can still be fun. Well, I agree in a sense. There's nothing wrong with playing out something like a 'last stand' scenario, where one force faces off against another that's something like three times its values. But, with points costs, you can set that up if you want to. Without points costs, it's again hard to know how much superior one force is to another anyway.

Comp for me is an agreed upon set of clarifications and rules tweaks. For Age of Sigmar, comp is largely rules clarifications since the rules in many places are very ambiguous.

Comp can also be point values but does not have to be.

For me its always good to clarify rules before the game begins instead of letting that be sprung on you after the game has begun. That is the source of 9 out of 10 rules blowups and butthurt feelings in my experience.

Why I will never play pointless Age of Sigmar: my free time is precious to me and I've seen how my community eyeballs things (people in general are very bad at it). I do not want to play a blow out game on either side of the fence and nearly all eyeball it games I've ever seen since July have been blowouts because one side has a vastly superior force.

That can be fun for a scenario when you are intentionally doing such but its not good for most people for standard games, because I know very very few people in my life over the past thirty years of doing tabletop wargaming in general that enjoy playing blowout games.

As one of my goals is to help build AOS in my community, I find pointless games are counter to that desire as it repels most people away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auticus

Comp for me is an agreed upon set of clarifications and rules tweaks. For Age of Sigmar, comp is largely rules clarifications since the rules in many places are very ambiguous.

Comp can also be point values but does not have to be.

For me its always good to clarify rules before the game begins instead of letting that be sprung on you after the game has begun. That is the source of 9 out of 10 rules blowups and butthurt feelings in my experience.

Why I will never play pointless Age of Sigmar: my free time is precious to me and I've seen how my community eyeballs things (people in general are very bad at it). I do not want to play a blow out game on either side of the fence and nearly all eyeball it games I've ever seen since July have been blowouts because one side has a vastly superior force.

That can be fun for a scenario when you are intentionally doing such but its not good for most people for standard games, because I know very very few people in my life over the past thirty years of doing tabletop wargaming in general that enjoy playing blowout games.

As one of my goals is to help build AOS in my community, I find pointless games are counter to that desire as it repels most people away.

---

Yep. Mr. Mystery states above that the game is played for nothing so you have nothing to lose even when it is a going to be a blowout. He must value his time much less than I do. Playing a war game is going to take up several (if not more) hours of time. I lose that time in a game that was never a real game, and I don't get my jollies railroading other players or getting railroaded by them. If someone wants a "happy ending" they can go to a Massage Parlor.

On a total side note, I'm imagining "What is Comp?" being asked in the form of the song "What is Love?"

I think people have misconstrued the nature of this thread.

It's not knocking comp.

It's celebrating it, and suggesting people not worry about exactly who is doing what, and just get on with their hobby.

If you play for keeps, play for keeps. If you play for Lols, play for Lols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Mystery

I think people have misconstrued the nature of this thread.

It's not knocking comp.

It's celebrating it, and suggesting people not worry about exactly who is doing what, and just get on with their hobby.

If you play for keeps, play for keeps. If you play for Lols, play for Lols.

---

I think someone may have misconstrued on purpose, and fancied a personal dig.

Edit: apologies I should add something the thread. I feel that comp is so subjective that it is best left to the player to find what suits them best depending on how they play the game. Things as simple as the amount of scenery used can wildly affect the effectiveness of individual units. A very strict imposed comp across levels can also have a negative on a communities growth, I'd certainly never bother with Warmachine simply because it is so restricted. There are lots of ways to comp AoS and this is a good thing.

Meh. Easy enough to keep the thread on track.

In the meantime, I really should crack on with me Undead!