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.

In a competitive tournament where players rated 'comp', such as the 40k Championships at Adepticon would you score someone as being:

" ____ My opponent's army was abusive and totally over the top. It was certainly not fun to play against and was built to win at all costs."

if they were to play with 3 Eldar tanks, either all falcons, all Fire Prisms or a mix of the two? There are no hard rules for comp like in the fantasy section such as how many units of each type, do they min/max the units, are the number of characters representative of the fluff. Rather it is just a judgment question.

Cogito

From my experience, it's all a judgement call from your opponent. I've run across all types: from those giving max points regardless to those who zero me out after losing. It's difficult to figure out if you will take hits on army comp. However, for Eldar, you will probably run a higher probability getting a lowered comp score if you are running 3 Falcons with all their toys.

To be completely honest I would not give any one less than top comp unless their army is to soft (ie. gets tabled in 2-3 turns) or is illegal. I have found that I rather enjoy playing against rock solid armies that will cause me to think and out play my opponent. Having a Compy army is very subjective and I personally don't like to see soft armies in a tournament environment.