EDIT: This post will be updated with analysis of SCGT pack.
I like Age of Sigmar, but using the amount of models as a mechanic for victory conditions or deciding sudden death only works when both players are building their armies with a similar mind set. This is why there have been multiple comp systems developed, all of which have pros and cons:
Comp by Models: Simple and quick to set up, but very easily unbalanced whether accidentally or intentionally.
Comp by Wounds: Also simple and almost as quick, but can be still be unbalanced. However, unless you specifically attempt to build an unbalanced army, it is a valid method.
Comp by Points: Similar to Warhammer Fantasy list design, which brings familiarity. It takes in to account all aspects of the model, and usually aided by a math formula. However the values given can be subjective to the type of game or tournament the system is originally designed for.
Comp by SDK points: Also similar to Warhammer Fantasy in appearance, it uses a math formula to return a point value for each model, which is weighted in some areas. The formula represents offensive and defensive ability of the unit with some modifiers for keywords. It doesn't allow for command abilities, external abilities to the unit or varying levels of wizard power and there is also no cost for Warscroll Battalions. It does have the benefit of www.Scrollbuilder.com as an online list building tool.
Comp by Pools: Each Warscroll and Warscroll Battalion is assigned a value which is routinely adjusted by a community effort as a result of feedback from tournaments and online. It allows for a unique approach to list design for Warhammer and opens up more possibilities for comp packs. The balance should increase over time and there is the possibility to weight in certain areas to keep the meta changing. Also has the benefit of www.Scrollbuilder.com as an online list building tool.
Recently I have compiled a spreadsheet to compare different comp packs and see where they are weighted and whether they are relatively balanced. The chart below shows the deviation between armies when comparing SDK, UK Pool and Wounds, displayed as a relative percentage above or below the average. The SDK/Pool column data is found by taking the average of all Warscrolls maximum SDK cost divided by current Pool cost. The Wounds column shows the same but also divided by wounds.
| SDK/Pool | Wounds | |
| Beastmen | 93.68% | 97.24% |
| Bretonnia | 94.69% | 89.76% |
| Daemons of Chaos | 107.93% | 104.72% |
| Dark Elves | 101.82% | 104.72% |
| Dwarfs | 96.73% | 112.20% |
| Fyreslayers | 104.88% | 119.69% |
| High Elves | 95.71% | 97.24% |
| Legion of Azgorh | 116.08% | 119.69% |
| Seraphon | 89.60% | 89.76% |
| Ogre Kingdoms | 97.75% | 82.28% |
| Orcs & Goblins | 92.66% | 97.24% |
| Skaven | 85.53% | 97.24% |
| Stormcast Eternals | 109.97% | 119.69% |
| Tamurkhans horde | 103.86% | 67.32% |
| The Empire | 90.62% | 89.76% |
| Tomb Kings | 91.64% | 82.28% |
| Vampire Counts | 108.95% | 104.72% |
| Warriors of Chaos | 104.88% | 97.24% |
| Wood Elves | 113.02% | 127.17% |
This presents us with a relative power level between each army when using Pool or Wounds as a comp system. Both are similar, with a few outliers but generally are within a reasonable range. The individual army entries have extremes of units on both ends, but not to a game breaking level.
From my analysis I have been able to see which comp system favours which areas:
Wounds: Heroes, Monsters, High Wound Per Model Warscrolls in general.
SDK: Wizards, Buffing Heroes, everything else is mixed.
UK Pool: Infantry, Cavalry, Heroes, MonstersAn interesting point to note is that the average Pool and SDK ratio of all armies is 1:98. So a 20 pool army is roughly equivalent to a 2000 SDK point army.
Summary
Each comp system is fairly similar. Each army has comparatively weak and comparatively powerful units in each type of comp but the average over the entire armies aren't too dissimilar from each other, probably no more than Warhammer Fantasy was.
Comments
Post a Comment