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.

The Green Git wrote:If you really, *REALLY* want to see a tournament where power lists are not the norm, emphasize something else besides battle points.

Exactly.

Fluff trivia quiz FTW!

I have a pretty good, but rather rough idea on a great new way to run competitive tournaments that would help balance out the ticket for all players.

I think an inherent flaw with the 40k tournament setting is this: The codeces allow for extremely lopsided lists that your average balanced list can't deal with. If your average balanced lists goes all out to take care of power lists like nob bikers or something, they'll probably get their asses kicked by a balanced lists, and so on and so forth.

I think that perhaps a substitution rule that would allow players to bring up to 3 lists using the same core amount of points (say 1500/2000 must be apart of the core points and the other 500 would be whatever the player wanted.) This may sound confusing so let me explain it a little more, because I think it truly would be a grand idea:

Let's say the tournament is for 2000 points.

Everyone brings 3 army lists, but with the following restrictions:

-Each of the 3 army lists must be based off of identical 1500 point lists:

-Each of the 3 army lists (which are created and handed into the TO before a tournament) must pick 500 points of additional troops from their codex.*

(*This could even have a maximum amount of possible substitution points that the 500 can be drawn from, such as 1000 i.e. You would be able to make up to 3 lists picking the last 500 points out of a pool of 1000points maximum.)

-Before each battle and before picking which army list each of the players are going to use, they must show each other their 3 possible lists. Then, privately before the deployment/roll-off is begun, or in some other discreet matter that would still be time-efficient within tournament time constraints, the players would choose which of the 3 lists they are going to use:

-Example: a space marine player and an ork player are paired up with eachother. They review eachothers possible lists. The space marine player notices that the orks core 1500 points are spent on 2x nob bike squads/2xwarbosses. He had expected this, so thankfully one of his 3 subsitution lists came chock full of (insert anti-nob biker stuff here--I'm guessing vindicators, lascannons, meltas, etc?) to help supplement his list. Perhaps the ork player chose a list with some anti-meq stuff, whatever.

This would give the balanced space marine player much more of an edge against the power build nob bikers.

This style of tournament would really promote balanced lists that have their "back-ups" prepared for different situations, while it would hurt players that tried bringing overly lop-sided power lists that are spamming certain elements of the game, while lacking in others. This would also help discriminate (while not screwing them in a meta-game sense) against power lists because most of the intelligent competitors would probably bring one variation with a common power build in mind. This isn't as unfair towards those sorts of lists as meta-game comp judges or bastards chipping off comp scores because they are sore losers, but it would still make it rougher on them and a little easier on a balanced list.


This would eliminate the need for comp, as just about every army would have to take a pretty wide and fair selection of unit from their respective codex, and would keep the focus of the tournament on who the better player is, not who is the best painter/modeller or who is the best list builder.

What do you guys think? I don't see how this would hurt anything at the very least.

It is stupid to say that "oh, people that bring min-max lists that don't use completely different selections for each force organization charts aren't being fluffy!" This is warhammer 40k! It's never-ending warfare, and thats what these guys do all day in their little imagination land. It's not that hard to imagine that your army is a small battalion split off of a larger force specifically sent to take care of an intended opponent.

Say your space marine leader dude sends you and your group of marines out to go take care of orks off in the distance, he's going to suggest you bring extra anti-infantry such as flamers and stuff. He's not going to be like "HAY! Take lots of random stuff that looks cool/fluffy so that the judge-gods in space give you favor in this battle!" NO, he's gonna want you to beat those orks asses, and those orks are going to want to do the same!

SmoovKriminal wrote:
-Before each battle and before picking which army list each of the players are going to use, they must show each other their 3 possible lists. Then, privately before the deployment/roll-off is begun, or in some other discreet matter that would still be time-efficient within tournament time constraints, the players would choose which of the 3 lists they are going to use:

In a perfect world, this isn't a terrible idea. But when you introduce the time element, this thing breaks down pretty quickly. It takes a little while to study an armylist, much less three, and with "extra" models on the sideline everybody's going to be watching carefully to make sure that no mistakes, honest or otherwise, are made during deployment. Even if that's only 10-15 minutes extra per tournament round, you just ate up 30-45 minutes over the day. In a tournament, that's a bad thing, especially if people have to travel before/after.

lambadomy wrote:
On a more serious note...while there has been a lot of (legitimate) complaining about specific comp rules and pointing out their flaws...do you players that really really don't like comp actively avoid comp events?

If there's a plentiful tournament field, it doesn't matter because there are alternatives.

If there isn't, though, then suddenly it starts to matter. Imagine you live 40+ minutes away from the tournament venue and it's one of three offered per year within 180 miles of your home. Driving an hour and a half, paying your $20, playing to the best of your ability, and getting knocked down from 3rd place to 6th because you took a special character, two of the same Elite choices, only one type of troop, and two Predators instead of one Predator and a Thundercannon, and suddenly it starts to matter a little bit more.

sourclams wrote:

SmoovKriminal wrote:
-Before each battle and before picking which army list each of the players are going to use, they must show each other their 3 possible lists. Then, privately before the deployment/roll-off is begun, or in some other discreet matter that would still be time-efficient within tournament time constraints, the players would choose which of the 3 lists they are going to use:

In a perfect world, this isn't a terrible idea. But when you introduce the time element, this thing breaks down pretty quickly. It takes a little while to study an armylist, much less three, and with "extra" models on the sideline everybody's going to be watching carefully to make sure that no mistakes, honest or otherwise, are made during deployment. Even if that's only 10-15 minutes extra per tournament round, you just ate up 30-45 minutes over the day. In a tournament, that's a bad thing, especially if people have to travel before/after.

It wouldn't be that hard actually. Each of the lists would start off with the same 1500 points, so once you look at it once, you know what they are going to be running for the most part. Then you would just have to skim over the 3 substitution groups at the bottom of the page (that they would need to print out in some sort of pre-described format before showing up to the tourney) and guess which one he was most likely going to use against you. Call a judge over if you think something fishy is going on. Also, it's not that hard to make a rule where you can't keep extra models sitting right next to the board, that is something that could be abused in any tournament, not just this one.

I don't see how this would take that much longer, if any at all. Even if it did take a little bit more time, that would essentially end all the bitching and moaning about comp scores and powerbuilds. It would be net-gain for the 40k world. Wouldn't you rather spend a couple extra minutes before each battle to ensure that the tournament is more fair and more interesting for everyone?

Well first, because the only time I experience comp bitching is on the internet, I don't really care if it ends it or not. I don't consider it a net gain or loss because Comp is largely dead in an official sense, so this would be just another nail to make sure that coffin lid is *real tight*.

Second, it wouldn't really reduce the power lists, simply give you slightly tweaked power lists. As you yourself said, if the core 1500 points is unchanged, the list is unchanged. You're still playing Double Lash and Oblits, but now you have some Khorne Berzerkers in a Land Raider instead of two big Daemon bomb squads.

In short, what you're suggesting is to let optimized lists optimize themselves even further. If I'm a lash chaos list and I know I'm fighting what looks like massed Horde Orks that might have two squads of lootas, two squads of Deffkoptas, or Snikrot and Kommandos added, I *know* that the majority of models are going to just be Boyz, and I pick the Khorne Berzerkers because they'll tear through Boyz with no problem while the rest of my army can counter whatever the "500x" unit is.

The optimizing player now has even greater advantage, because he's good at maximizing and you're giving him more variables to maximize with. The non-optimizing player now has an even fuller plate than before, and a time limit telling him to digest it in 5 minutes or fewer. I think your system would raise the bar of competition a slightly bit higher, but in a way that favors competitive people. The General Hobbyist isn't going to benefit.

People have tried this before - I've never played in a tournament like this, but it was talked about elsewhere...maybe in this thread. Some percentage of your army is in a sidebar where you have multiple choices.

An easier way to describe it is to just have one 1500 point list, and three 250 point sidebar lists, of which you choose one for the game.

I like the idea personally...but it is far from a panacea. A 250 point change out for a lot of armies is not going to allow them to kill nob bikers or, say, let a footslogging army fight off dual lash. Of course, that is still the list builders problem, not necessarily the organizers. What it may do is allow armies that are optimized to take out what they feel the "top" builds are to also be able to adjust to win against the balanced armies, which i think may be more your point.

I also have to agree with sourclams - this will just make the competitive more competitive. Sometimes we're talking about people (or people using codexes) where they're already maximizing their 1750 points from the units available or the codexes available, and having room to change stuff out won't help them. it will definitely help the power gamers.

Sounds like the general underlying concept is don't play against arses and expect to potentially be offered games against arses in tourney and non-tourney settings.

fatal_GRACE wrote:

While there is no problem with the fact that you might choose to play this way, that doesn't mean every player wants to see the same armies over and over again, regardless of other variations. Even if you are satisfied with the repetition of a few army lists, it isn't fair to expect every player to feel the same way.

In heavy comp areas, you have the same problem...All the lists tend to look alike and play alike. I've gone to a couple tournaments at Harrisburg, and all the lists just blur together because they were so similar.

sourclams wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor can be applied to people, attitudes, and lists. And there's nothing that says that a WAAC list cannot be played by a fun person with a sporting attitude. A WAAC list just means that all of the stops were taken out in list building. That is accurate and fair.

I don't think referring to you as JohnnyWango is demeaning or patronizing,.

Bull. You know for a fact that is patronizing and you're doing it.

Dakkadakka: the forum where every thread ends in a lock.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
- Is there something that is inaccurate about applying the "WAAC" label to a maximally-optimized list?
- If the list is constructed this way, isn't it constructed only for winning, taking anything to win?
- If it is indeed the "best list" for trying to win, then how is that not a WAAC list?

So I have to ask you to be a little less sensitive, and recognize that I only describe what you take to the table (WAAC), not how you play it (fun, sporting).

To "win at all costs" suggests far more than simply "bringing the best list you can construct." It carries connotations of poor sportsmanship, a hint of perfidious rules manipulation, and a whiff of abuse of the other player's inferior knowledge of some specific scenarios.

In short, I read it as a perjorative. It is, in fact, a four-letter word.

If you want a four-letter descriptor, why is "hard" insufficient?

If that's inadequate, why NOT type out "maximally-optimized?" The cost to type & transmit the extra letters doesn't come to a whole lot.

I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor can be applied to people, attitudes, and lists. And there's nothing that says that a WAAC list cannot be played by a fun person with a sporting attitude. A WAAC list just means that all of the stops were taken out in list building. That is accurate and fair.

I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor as applied to a list infers a negative conotation to the player as well. A WAAC list does not just mean all the stops were taken out of list building. A WAAC list implies that the player wants to win at the expense of all other considerations (rules, sportsmanship, enjoyment of the game for themselves and the opponent). That implication is impolite. Stop it.

kadun wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor can be applied to people, attitudes, and lists. And there's nothing that says that a WAAC list cannot be played by a fun person with a sporting attitude. A WAAC list just means that all of the stops were taken out in list building. That is accurate and fair.

I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor as applied to a list infers a negative conotation to the player as well.

A WAAC list does not just mean all the stops were taken out of list building. A WAAC list implies that the player wants to win at the expense of all other considerations (rules, sportsmanship, enjoyment of the game for themselves and the opponent).

Only because they choose to take such a list. But that *is* the list that was taken. And if you're not comfortable about taking such a list, then don't do it.

How do you get that implication from the list to the person? Is it impossible for TFG to play a "Fluffy" list?

Oh, yeah, I'm done with you.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

kadun wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor can be applied to people, attitudes, and lists. And there's nothing that says that a WAAC list cannot be played by a fun person with a sporting attitude. A WAAC list just means that all of the stops were taken out in list building. That is accurate and fair.

I completely disagree. "WAAC" as a descriptor as applied to a list infers a negative conotation to the player as well.

A WAAC list does not just mean all the stops were taken out of list building. A WAAC list implies that the player wants to win at the expense of all other considerations (rules, sportsmanship, enjoyment of the game for themselves and the opponent).

Only because they choose to take such a list. But that *is* the list that was taken. And if you're not comfortable about taking such a list, then don't do it.

How do you get that implication from the list to the person? Is it impossible for TFG to play a "Fluffy" list?

Oh, yeah, I'm done with you.

I am very comfortable taking a list optimized for the greatest chance at winning, please don't assume I am not, it is insulting and impolite.

The implication comes from the label.

No, although the question is a backhanded implication that I am TFG, that is impolite.

Your last statement was impolite. Stop it.

lambadomy wrote:On a more serious note...while there has been a lot of (legitimate) complaining about specific comp rules and pointing out their flaws...do you players that really really don't like comp actively avoid comp events?

It's not an active avoidance, more of a passive one. I only play pick-up/store games because they're all I can fit in.

I do my best to avoid comp events.

If they happen to be an event i go to I handle that fine.

I disagree with the Label WAAC. It carries the implication of being a not fun game.

John, I don't feel like reading the rest of the posts cause there are 10 pages. Can you please tell me how you decide if a list is good compositionally or if it is optimized. Where do you draw the line?

An ork list with 180 shoota boyz with rokkits, a big mek with a kustom force field and ghazzie is very fluffy yet most would say abusive now.

As an ork player, I know my deffskullz would love to feild 45 lootas. The entire army is supposed to loot vehicles and weapons... so is 45 lootas and 3 looted vehicles abusive? What if I made this list with the last codex... in fact I have that list from the last codex.

How about Nob bikers? I ran an all ork biker list in 4th ed... (with the addition of a looted russ of course... deffskull after all) Would my speed freaks list be abusive then? How about now?

The problem is every person has a different idea of what is fun. You can't define it for me. I can't define it for you. To impose composition on a tournament goer is just as bad as to have the most power gaming lists possible.

You should be less focused on winning the tournament via comp, and more concerned with having fun.

Calculate as follows

Add up for every different unit type you take:
# of X unit you take * # of X unit in all armylists in the tournament * # of different units in that slot in your codex

Then divide by number of units you took

The higher your number the lower your comp. Gives great diversity. Wouldn't punish the ones who get punished, too hard.

BillTheManiac wrote:Calculate as follows

Add up for every different unit type you take:
# of X unit you take * # of X unit in all armylists in the tournament * # of different units in that slot in your codex

Then divide by number of units you took

The higher your number the lower your comp. Gives great diversity. Wouldn't punish the ones who get punished, too hard.

wtf? so if everyone comes with 6 units of tac marines you all score bad comp? that makes no sense to me

whitedragon wrote:

lambadomy wrote:If people didn't want someone else touching their minis...wouldn't lash be banned?

Do lash players and opponents really have a problem with this? When playing lash, I always let my opponent move the models, I just indicate where I want them moved and arranged, and vice versa when I am being lashed myself.

At the ard bpoys, nearly every army I faced was lash.

Nearly every opponent was TFG. (read: a HUGE roosterfish)

I wanted to throttle them every time they attempted to touch my models. Normally I wouldn't mind, but if you don't have enough respect for me to be even the slightest bit civil during a game, how am I supposed to beleive you will treat my models with respect?

I always moved the models for them. One piped up saying that it was in the rules for them to do it. I told him we could discuss the matter outside if he didn't like me moving the models. Get a judge, do whatever you have to, but your stinking nerd fingers aren't touching my gak.

The judges sided with me (only because they also knew the opponents were being TFG and they didn't blame me one bit).

I like comp/hobby events and I like ard tournaments. Both of them offer a different aspect of the hobby.

One geared around list building and kicking arse and the other around model building, painting and getting some games in.

I don't normally enjoy big games with multiple people on a side so I would prefer to have individual games during a hobby event, so to get that if I have to call it a tournament fine.

I think it's healthy for an area to have both available to their players. If you notice nobody attending one or the other then you ditch it.

Oh yeah, in before lock!!!

The Green Git wrote:

kadun wrote:

JohnDD wrote:Excuse me, but where did I say that WAAC was "somehow morally deficient"?

Green Blow Fly wrote:It's obvious that comp is not dead based on the feedback in this thread. There are two sides of the coin:

Power gamers with WAAC armies that don't want to be penislized at tournies

Weak players that want to be able to ding the top players

G

Please do not use the term WAAC (Win At All Costs) to refer to optimized lists that give you the best chance at winning. It implies that the player cares nothing for fun and only cares about winning. That they would do anything to win. Its impolite. Stop it.

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Exactly! It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

G

man, I'd just take my lists as is. most of my lists have a theme, so many of them ain't the best. but there's nothing wrong with wanting to win. I mean, if you take the lash prince/oblits, you won't see my cryin "waah, he took a good combination/ unit that i'm having a problem with!" I'd give the dude props for finding that dead 'ard combo.


I'd take a dead 'ard lists to tournies of course, but I rarely go to them (i 'aint the Sun Tzu of warhammer, lolz. I lose lotsa times)

frgsinwntr wrote:John,

Can you please tell me how you decide if a list is good compositionally or if it is optimized. Where do you draw the line?

An ork list with 180 shoota boyz with rokkits, a big mek with a kustom force field and ghazzie is very fluffy yet most would say abusive now.

As an ork player, I know my deffskullz would love to feild 45 lootas. so is 45 lootas and 3 looted vehicles abusive?

How about Nob bikers? I ran an all ork biker list in 4th ed...

To impose composition on a tournament goer is just as bad as to have the most power gaming lists possible.

You should be less focused on winning the tournament via comp, and more concerned with having fun.

Hiya!

I was going to stop posting in this thread, because a lot of the WAAC list guys want to prove the point about WAAC being pejorative by acting like TFG, and quite frankly it's becoming offensive. As it takes 2 to fight, I'm bowing out.

However, as you ask a reasonable set of questions, I will answer them as best I can, forewarning that some (many? most? all?) will likely not be the answer you want.

I don't really decide or draw a line, but rather prefer to give guidelines and let players choose for themselves. Notionally, the a list has "good" Comp if has a variety of things, and more Troops than anything other type. That seems to be the common denominator across Comp themes, successful or otherwise. In the previous thread, I posited something with this as the ideal sort of skeleton: 1 HQ, 1-2 Elite, 4-5 Troops, 1-2 Fast, 1-2 Heavy. On the other hand, "WAAC" lists tend to have max the "best" stuff at the expense of the "less good" stuff, and tend to look more like this: 2 HQ, 2-3 dupe Elite, 3-4 Troops, 0-1 Fast, 3 dupe Heavy.

I don't believe there is a specific line that you cross, but rather that there is a series of steps, or shades of gray going from one to the other. That is the mere presence of 2 HQs doesn't brand as into having a WAAC list, but as one optimizes for more and more duplicates and maximizes categories out for synergy and redunancy, the farther one gets from the Comp ideal and the closer one gets to a WAAC list. That is, just as one can progressively optimize and tune a list for winning ability, so too does that list move away from the Comp ideal.

Also, I think that 5E's focus on Objectives and having only Troops Scoring has done a lot to improve things Comp-wise, so a lot of this self-corrects. I wouldn't be surprised to see WFB8 change things so that only Core units count for capturing Objectives or table quarters, but I digress...

So with respect to your examples:

1. Having lots of Boyz is Fluffy, I agree, but 180 Boyz with Ghaz and a Mek KFF *is* abusive because it has a lot of duplicate Troops and appears to omit some categories entirely. But maybe a Theme bonus probably covers the minor penalty.

2. Max lootas and Max looted vehicles? Yeah, you max two categories with all duplicates, so that's not good Comp. You might make it up on Theme, though.

3. A unit of Nob Bikers in a army with many Biker Boyz isn't abusive, and probably gets a Theme bonus. Duplicate Nob Bikers as the only Troops and duplicate, max HQs probably is abusive.

If you don't like the Comp rules, don't attend the event. If I don't like the no-Comp rules, I won't attend that event. Nothing wrong with that for either of us. It's the same as choosing bracket racing, in which anyone can compete, vs. top fuel which is limited to Funny cars. Or spec car racing vs Le Mans prototypes. Different events for different people is healthy variety, and some people actually want Comp tournaments.

Finally, I think the discussion focuses too much on winning, when Comp is really designed about how the games will be played rather than the final result. Comp is about everybody stopping to have some fun together along the journey, rather than one person selfishly racing to the destination as fast as possible.

Anyhow, hope this helps.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I was going to stop posting in this thread, because a lot of the WAAC list guys want to prove the point about WAAC being pejorative by acting like TFG, and quite frankly it's becoming offensive. As it takes 2 to fight, I'm bowing out.

Bull. The dakka forums are perfectly capable of perpetuating feuds and arguments completely without an opposing viewpoint. It's like the nerd version of shadowboxing.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

The Green Git wrote:If you really, *REALLY* want to see a tournament where power lists are not the norm, emphasize something else besides battle points.

Exactly.

Fluff trivia quiz FTW!

You are never allowed to speak of the fluff trivia quiz ever again under pain of Wet Willy!!!

1. Having lots of Boyz is Fluffy, I agree, but 180 Boyz with Ghaz and a Mek KFF *is* abusive because it has a lot of duplicate Troops and appears to omit some categories entirely. But maybe a Theme bonus probably covers the minor penalty.

Respectfully, I disagree utterly with that statement, and express why "comp" is a problem.
1. Preface by I understand issues with TFG/WAAC. I personally can't deal with tournaments as after game II I am done, and inevitably run in TFG.
2. How do you determine comp? According to fluff a bunch of bayz with a bigboyz is exactly what its about to be an ork. Anything else is except a deviation.
3. If its no based on fluff then what? I've seen comp lists that put the greatest weight on troops, yet this would penalize troops. I've seen composition espeoused on this list penalizing elites etc, but the above knocks that out.
4. Some codexes literally have sucky items in different areas. A requirement of variety only helps codexes with lots of valuable options. I'd put Tau, Nids, DE, and current Guard as NOT in that category. Inversely, I'd proffer eldar need a full slate of FA and Elite to be effective as that is how the codex was designed to be used.

frgsinwntr wrote:

BillTheManiac wrote:Calculate as follows

Add up for every different unit type you take:
# of X unit you take * # of X unit in all armylists in the tournament * # of different units in that slot in your codex

Then divide by number of units you took

The higher your number the lower your comp. Gives great diversity. Wouldn't punish the ones who get punished, too hard.

wtf? so if everyone comes with 6 units of tac marines you all score bad comp? that makes no sense to me

If everyone comes with 6 units of tac marines, everyone would get exactly the same comp score, since everyone would be playing with the same list.

I really like this idea. It would reward people who thought about bringing some of the less popular units from their codex, and bringing some of the more 'classic' builds means you run the risk of low Comp points.

People seem to be knocking list-based comp because their 'flufy' example armies don't get full marks, but Comp scores should only be judged in comparison to other Comp scores at that event. So if your fluffy Tau is only scoring 16/24, this is fine if duel lash oblit filth is only scoring 4/24.


Also, I think WAAC gets banded about too much and does have nasty connotations regarding sportsmanship etc which is not applicable to pure Comp scoring. Why don't we just call it "Efficient" lists compared to "Inefficient" lists. I believe tournaments should have well designed list-based Comp to increase the number of potential "Efficient" lists that can be brought.

*Lurk Mode - Off*

This thread's awesome.

Brave Sir WRONGBADFUN ran away!

(/Monty Python)

*Lurk Mode - On*

Mannahnin wrote:

Hellfury wrote: Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that by bringing one or none of Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices, that I would receive 2 bonus points in each of those categories and if I bring at least two Elite, Fast Attack or Heavy Support choices that are not identical, that I would receive 4 points for each pf those categories?

It seems odd to me that there is a greater reward for bringing two non identical choices than it is to bring one or none of those choices if it is indeed true that my reading comprehension has not failed me. Its almost as if points for 6, 8 and 10 are reversed for 7, 9 and 11. That's merely my opinion of course, but I am curious as to what situation incited that decision and why it was implemented that way.

The idea was that an army having one or no units from a given category hasn’t loaded up on that category to the exclusion of others, which is something I was trying to avoid. The codices vary a lot, and if there are none in one category, the points will be spent somewhere. 7, 9 and 11 are to reward armies which invest in one of these categories (often armies with sub-par Troops) but don’t load up on three identical choices. Again, the focus of this checklist is primarily on variety.

I kinda figured as much regarding variety but wanted to be sure.

Mannahnin wrote:

Hellfury wrote:If you thought that you had to change anything about this comp score sheet to integrate it into 5th edition, what would it be?

Hrm. I haven’t given it any serious thought yet. And I’d want to give it serious thought before running another event using a checklist. I might want to award some small bonus to armies that include units from all three optional areas- FA, HS, and Elite choices. I might actually award bonus points to armies which have unusually low numbers of scoring units, or (more likely) unusually high numbers of kill points, since those armies are weaker in the usual mission structure.

This is what was done with ard boys and it is the one thing they did in the missions that made any sense, by giving bonuses for armies that utilized all aspects of the FOC.

This brings me back to the point of variety and how it is rewarded.

Would it not be better to reward armies that take a single unit choice more than multiple non-identical units of that choice?

Say for instance modified as such:
Does the army have at least one but no more than one Elite unit? (if yes, then 4 points)
Does the army have at least two Elite units but no more than two of the same Elite unit? (if yes, then 2 points)

This would reward armies that restrict themselves by not taking multiple entries of a single slot, but still reward armies for at least taking entries of a specific slot. Whereas if you load up on a single entry to the exclusion of all others (tons of HQ and Troops), then you wont gain the comp benefit for rewarding variety and for rewarding armies that try not to stock up on merely taking all scoring Troops units.

I am still against comp, but I think there is a way to integrate it somewhat as Centurion 99 mentions in the missions. The KP for 'ard boys was ridiculous for IG, but how they tried to promote variety amongst the FOC was a bit clever.

Cryonicleech wrote: I'd give the dude props for finding that dead 'ard combo.

So you're giving people "props" for having an internet connection?

SmoovKriminal wrote:Gorgon, look at the first quote. NOB BIKERSE ARE NOT THAT HARD TO KILL. The WAC really doesn't make them that hard to kill, they have the same weaknesses as ever and still die hard to templates, ordnance, meltas, plasmas, lascannons, krak missiles, venom cannons, barbed stranglers, particle whip, heavy gauss, tyrants (implant attack anyone?), carnifex, wraithlords, firedragons, bright/darklances, etc etc etc etc. You just aren't prepared for them, and there have been many competitive players in this topic alone that express that nob bikers just aren't that hard to take down when you are prepared for them as well as other top tier lists. They catch newbs by surprise and certain poor army builds by surprise too. I for one think that the current WAC rules, nobs included, are FAR superior than mixed armor or mixed toughness. They sucked ass and were just a lazy, unrealistic way of streamlining the game for chillens.

Take a breath, turn off your rant mode and actually read what I said. I used the double lash experience as a simple example of how I needed to adjust my list to be better able to deal with things.

But I have to say that putting Nob bikers in the "not that hard to kill" category is pretty much a joke. Space Marine Scouts are "not that hard to kill." Same goes for Fire Warriors, Guardians and Lesser Summoned Daemons.

Nob bikers *are* hard to kill. Unstoppable? Of course not, and I never even implied such a ridiculous thing. But they are hard to kill. And that's mostly because a trick using the wound allocation rules in the 5th edition rulebook.

lambadomy wrote:People have tried this before - I've never played in a tournament like this, but it was talked about elsewhere...maybe in this thread. Some percentage of your army is in a sidebar where you have multiple choices.

They actually did this during one USGT season. I think it was 2001.