Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I figured I'd start this up for a bit of interesting discussion; what comp do you use for Age of Sigmar? Why that comp as opposed to other comp systems? And please, lets all remember that every comp will have its benefits and drawbacks. If you don't use any comp at all... well that's probably a discussion for another thread, and IMO it's been done to death so lets leave that elsewhere.

As for me, I use Project Points Cost (PPC). I quite disliked AoS because of its utter lack of balance (even with initial comping that I tried), but PPC has made it among my favorite games. While it doesn't get everything perfect there are no glaring imbalances and it deals quite well with the varied game-breakers except for excessive extra-attack combos (PPC's solution to summoning I find particularly elegant). But really it comes down to balance and options; everything is balanced to the point where there aren't underpowered unit options that are inferior to other choices, and the level of customization is maintained. If I want a unit of 13 plaguebearers with two musicians and no other command, I can do that and it will be just as balanced as a unit of 29 plaguebearers that has a champion and banner (the latter obviously costing more points).

That said, I also like Azyr comp as a more rough-and-ready comp. While I don't have much personal experience with it I like the simplicity it has and the decent balance it achieves despite that.

Clash Comp is what I have used in the past which was good. Recently, I have been using the SCGT pack which so far has been my favorite. I really love it's missions and points values which as led to some of my closest games.

I like SDK probably because www.scrollbuilder.com is so convenient. With a comp I simply want a points system to scale armies against one another, the turn off with PPC is the alterations it makes to the rules (such as the new summoning spells) and if everything is costed accordingly it doesn't make it useful as a "ready reckoner" really.

 Bottle wrote:
I like SDK probably because www.scrollbuilder.com is so convenient. With a comp I simply want a points system to scale armies against one another, the turn off with PPC is the alterations it makes to the rules (such as the new summoning spells) and if everything is costed accordingly it doesn't make it useful as a "ready reckoner" really.

I find the issue is how exploitable the summoning rules are without modification. For example, a single Herald of Tzeentch can summon another herald with a ~95% success rate, who can then summon another herald, and so on. I have looked at SDK but didn't see anything to deal with stuff like that, is there a portion I missed?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I like SDK probably because www.scrollbuilder.com is so convenient. With a comp I simply want a points system to scale armies against one another, the turn off with PPC is the alterations it makes to the rules (such as the new summoning spells) and if everything is costed accordingly it doesn't make it useful as a "ready reckoner" really.

I find the issue is how exploitable the summoning rules are without modification. For example, a single Herald of Tzeentch can summon another herald with a ~95% success rate, who can then summon another herald, and so on. I have looked at SDK but didn't see anything to deal with stuff like that, is there a portion I missed?

Not really, SDK simply assigns point values to units and nothing more. They way around it is to have the player purchase each of those summonable heralds with points before the game begins. It leaves the summoning rules unchanged but stops armies from spiralling out of control.

broxus wrote:
Clash Comp is what I have used in the past which was good. Recently, I have been using the SCGT pack which so far has been my favorite. I really love it's missions and points values which as led to some of my closest games.

The scenarios are really cool in that pack, I'll probably be playing them for funsies at some point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I like SDK probably because www.scrollbuilder.com is so convenient. With a comp I simply want a points system to scale armies against one another, the turn off with PPC is the alterations it makes to the rules (such as the new summoning spells) and if everything is costed accordingly it doesn't make it useful as a "ready reckoner" really.

I find the issue is how exploitable the summoning rules are without modification. For example, a single Herald of Tzeentch can summon another herald with a ~95% success rate, who can then summon another herald, and so on. I have looked at SDK but didn't see anything to deal with stuff like that, is there a portion I missed?

Not really, SDK simply assigns point values to units and nothing more. They way around it is to have the player purchase each of those summonable heralds with points before the game begins. It leaves the summoning rules unchanged but stops armies from spiralling out of control.

So basically summoning is just a deployment mechanism? If you have to pay for the models you summon it seems like it would be better just to deploy them at the start.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
deployment mechanism? If you have to pay for the models you summon it seems like it would be better just to deploy them at the start.

Generally yes, but summoning can let you

1) place a sacrificial unit in the way of an impending enemy flanking maneuver to buy time, without having to guess which direction the enemy's fast units will be coming from during deployment and without letting the enemy have much opportunity to clear the unit away in advance.

2) can put a short-ranged unit or character within striking distance of the opponent without that opponent having any opportunity to respond to them before they strike (think summoning a banshee or terrorgheist within scream range)

3) a fast summoner can move up a flank and start summoning slower units into a flanking position they would otherwise have been unable to reach.


There are other uses, as well. But here's the main thing. Play a few games with daemons or lizards or undead utterly without summoning. I think you'll find that they do just fine, playing perfectly up to par with other, non-summoning factions. Summoned units are not, as a rule, weaker than other forces if you just deploy them normally. Which means if you let them be stronger when summoned (as they would be if summoning let you field more models/points/whatever than you let your opponent deploy), then they would be too strong. Unbalanced & unfair. Something I've seen backed up in games both with and against summoning forces under formats that made summons 'freebies', even if they were limited in some way (only X per mage, or per battle, etc).

@Ninthmusketeer Pretty much. Although that's just one way of doing it and no way an "official" SDK method. I wouldn't say it's useless, but it's akin to Deep Strike in 40k which has its uses.

I've tried other methods, such as "infinite refills" (summoning only units which have been slain in the game), or another, halving the points cost of summoned units - but I think it is easiest just to require them to be paid for in full just like you would any other unit that begins the game in reserve such as the celestant prime, night goblin fanatics or dwarf miners.

CLASH COMP

I prefer clash, but SCGT is pretty good too. I like SCGT's pool costs better, but I don't think the way they handle summoning is as good as clash.

Both are pretty similar in the sense of being pool-based comps where you bring a 'total army' that you choose a limited subset of during deployment, for a reactive sort of sideboard effect that I like.

I'm running an Escalation Campaign starting next week using the Independent UK Pools comp. We're going to use it with our own house rules, not the ones from the Clash Comp tournament.

I like this comp because it's fairly simple to write up lists with it, since everything is fairly low numbers and you don't have to worry so much about tweaking every little point.