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.

This thread is a travesty. Regardless of whether the OP wanted to or not, any discussion on comp will have to also talk about the pros and cons of comp in a tourney setting. The short answer is, "Only the TO knows for sure, so ask him". He's the one that ultimately calls the shots for his tourney.

As to everyone else, including the mods, Reecius and MVBRandt are the only ones that have added anything useful at all to this thread, and yet they get told to pack it in and not drag the thread off topic (Which it isn't BTW).

I hate to say it, but this is exactly the type of thing that Dashofpepper was talking about in his thread, and I'm no Dash fan.

EDIT:

WTH is wrong with the add reply button today .

And for the record, I don't think a diversified unit should be dinged for comp. The claim by Darth Diggler that newer codicies cannot take advantage of wound allocation is false. All army lists have the ability to diversify wound allocation in their favor. Nob Bikers are an extreme example for sure, but there are plenty of counters to them in the current meta anyway. Thunderwolves, Bloodcrushers and Nobs are the easiest example of diversification, and the most poignant maybe, with 2 wounds a piece, but any squad that can take alot of different wargear can greatly benefit from wound allocation. Deathwing Terminators, Chaos Terminators, Chosen, Wolf Guard, etc, etc, etc all benefit from wound allocation. It's a fundamental part of 5th edition.

Reecius wrote:Hahaha, perhaps I did take it too personally. It was just like, dude, you said what you wanted to say, I acknowledged that I was in the wrong to derail the thread when the OP asked for that not to happen, then he turns around and says it...again.

sorry, missed your post in between. nothing personal (heck, you tried to suggest a comp alternative and i poked holes in it) until the name calling starts...

Reecius wrote:Anyway, you obviously have strong feelings on the subject and seem to be coming at me combatively, but I will assume that since this is the internet, I am only imagining you being a dick and that you are not actually being a dick.

oh snap.. it's on! imaginarily at least! in all seriousness, my post (even the one i posted after missing yours in the meantime) didn't devolve into name calling (unless you take particular offense at being called long winded). insinuating phallic relationships doesn't help the anti-comp cause. luckily, i'm wearing my condom shield of +5 vs flame baiting today.

whitedragon, just my opinion here, but I disagree. If the answer to every question about comp (which belongs in this forum) is "Don't play events with comp" or "Comp doesn't belong in tournaments" that is not on-topic.

No one's being told to pack it in. But there's got to be room in this forum to discuss the ins and outs of comp events, without it being written off or dragged into the same fundamental disagreement ("To comp or not to comp?") in each thread.

To do otherwise would be just like arguing about interpreting the rulebook by RAI or by RAW in every thread in YMDC. It just wouldn't work!

If it's a thread about comp, you've got to assume the comp is there and go with it to have a helpful discussion. If it's a thread about an uncomped event, then the same holds true. We can't go back and forth about the two in every thread... and that's about both sides! Personally, I play both kinds of events, as do a lot of people, and it's helpful to read things about both.

Again, just my $0.02...

My opinion - if you have a comp requirement I like it when it is in the hands of the opponent's and kept simple.

1. This is pure cheese and not fun to play against. It is win-at-all-costs use of their codex.

3. This is a thematically well carried out list and for all its strengths it takes on some weaknesses.

2. Something in between.

I dislike when a judge does a comp score and would rather trust a player's ratings. As a judge just emphasize you expect most people to average a 2 don't be easy. As an example I personally have no problem with a Vulkan list that sports a lot of meltas and flamers but then also doesn't cover the short range nature of such a list with a bunch of long ranged crap.

If an ork list runs a complex multi-wound list so what? My personal pet peeve would be something like this from chaos - 2 x DP (Lash or Warptime) 3-4 x Plague Marines and 3 x Obliterators. OTOH 2 x DP w Lash, 3-4 Noise Marines and 3 x Oblits would be fine and thematic to me - all slaanesh.

No mater what - comp is a very subjective thing and I just prefer either a well documented comp (old Rogue Trader comp in 3rd and 4th ed) or consensus of all my opponents. I do not appreciate an unannounced comp based on the subjective likes and dislikes of one person.

It seems most comp is not judged on theme at all, just based on the unit's appearence of power in general (and usually in a vacuum).

In this example, a bunch of Nobz all having the same gear would actually be thematically wrong, but they are stronger with different gear so it would be marked down. Theme does not enter into it at all, except to support the 50% of the cases where it concides with strength evaluation comp.

As all have said though, none of our guesses matter. Some TO has decided to run his tournament this way and it will be his personal opinion that makes this choice alone. Talk to him about it (best case: he pre publishes the criteria that armies will be judged by).

@Warboss
No worries man, I figured it was a misunderstanding.

Comp aside... Many people see WAC as something that is an exploit or loophole in the rules. As an ork player, in our discussions between ork players it is often referred to as 'exploiting WAC' in unit design.

Example: Take a unit of MANZ with rokkits and skorchas to exploit WAC.

Is it exploiting? no, it is legal. Is it tongue in cheek? Sometimes, some people really were bent out of shape about it (especially at the beginning of 5th edition)

Not all people at these events are experienced players that are highly versed in the metagame who understand the WAC issues and to them 'it just feels wrong'.

I would say if you choose to participate in a comp event, I think purposefully designing a unit to minimize wounds via WAC is one of the 'larger' things I would expect to see on a COMP judge list, just how SPAMMING units is also on lots of judges lists.

But it all basically boils down to... If the event has comp, ask the TO. Accept the ding or take something else that doesn't rely on a rule or tactic some see as exploitative. (or don't go to the event if it bothers you that much :( )

nkelsch wrote:Comp aside... Many people see WAC as something that is an exploit or loophole in the rules. As an ork player, in our discussions between ork players it is often referred to as 'exploiting WAC' in unit design.

Example: Take a unit of MANZ with rokkits and skorchas to exploit WAC.

Is it exploiting? no, it is legal. Is it tongue in cheek? Sometimes, some people really were bent out of shape about it (especially at the beginning of 5th edition)

Not all people at these events are experienced players that are highly versed in the metagame who understand the WAC issues and to them 'it just feels wrong'.

I would say if you choose to participate in a comp event, I think purposefully designing a unit to minimize wounds via WAC is one of the 'larger' things I would expect to see on a COMP judge list, just how SPAMMING units is also on lots of judges lists.

But it all basically boils down to... If the event has comp, ask the TO. Accept the ding or take something else that doesn't rely on a rule or tactic some see as exploitative. (or don't go to the event if it bothers you that much :( )

MANZ is a much weaker choice then regular nobz... and is your Idea of WAAC is in fact: "my opponent brought something completely legal but good?"

WAAC is someone who cheats, lies, manipulates scores, and generally will DO ANYTHING to win.

WAAC is NOT someone that brings a legal list and plays it correctly and completely by the rules.
/

HOWEVER your last statement is 100% correct : )

Edited (i came off a lot harsher than intended)

frgsinwntr wrote:
MANZ is a much weaker choice then regular nobz... and is your Idea of WAAC is in fact: "my opponent brought something completely legal but good?"

WAAC is someone who cheats, lies, manipulates scores, and generally will DO ANYTHING to win.

WAAC is NOT someone that brings a legal list and plays it correctly and completely by the rules.
/

HOWEVER your last statement is 100% correct : )

Edited (i came off a lot harsher than intended)

WAC = Wound AlloCation

WAAC = Win at all costs

Different terms used differently.

WACing nobs is explicitly equipping them to maximize wound groups to control and minimize instant death by avoiding removing full models.

Many people feel WOUND ALLOCATION with multiple wound models is an unintended loophole in the 5th edition rules which at the time of the launch of 5th, Orks pretty much used to really trounce the metagame with Nob bikers. MANY PEOPLE took the stance that it was against what was intended, an exploit and rude, much how people felt deffrolling with BWs was exploitation. I feel like much of that has softend as other codexes came out that spread the advantage to other armies, but there was a huge backlash about it when 5th edition launched.

Not saying it is or it isn't... Just saying that many people used to feel and possibly still feel that it was exploitative.

My god, the 'color blue' analogy is true, especially here. The issue is Dakka is not a valid cross-section of the gaming community as most people who play this game never access an online message board. What may be the majority or consensus here online is not reality on the ground in many places. Of course if you post a thread in a sub-forum designed around highly competitive tourneys *of course* people will rail against things that that focused subgroup dislikes. The OP asked 'Is wound allocation frowned upon by some.' and the answer regardless if you like it or not is 'yes, some think it is bad'.

nkelsch wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:
MANZ is a much weaker choice then regular nobz... and is your Idea of WAAC is in fact: "my opponent brought something completely legal but good?"

WAAC is someone who cheats, lies, manipulates scores, and generally will DO ANYTHING to win.

WAAC is NOT someone that brings a legal list and plays it correctly and completely by the rules.
/

HOWEVER your last statement is 100% correct : )

Edited (i came off a lot harsher than intended)

WAC = Wound AlloCation

WAAC = Win at all costs

Different terms used differently.

WACing nobs is explicitly equipping them to maximize wound groups to control and minimize instant death by avoiding removing full models.

Many people feel WOUND ALLOCATION with multiple wound models is an unintended loophole in the 5th edition rules which at the time of the launch of 5th, Orks pretty much used to really trounce the metagame with Nob bikers. MANY PEOPLE took the stance that it was against what was intended, an exploit and rude, much how people felt deffrolling with BWs was exploitation. I feel like much of that has softend as other codexes came out that spread the advantage to other armies, but there was a huge backlash about it when 5th edition launched.

Not saying it is or it isn't... Just saying that many people used to feel and possibly still feel that it was exploitative.

My god, the 'color blue' analogy is true, especially here. The issue is Dakka is not a valid cross-section of the gaming community as most people who play this game never access an online message board. What may be the majority or consensus here online is not reality on the ground in many places. Of course if you post a thread in a sub-forum designed around highly competitive tourneys *of course* people will rail against things that that focused subgroup dislikes. The OP asked 'Is wound allocation frowned upon by some.' and the answer regardless if you like it or not is 'yes, some think it is bad'.

My bad I read WAC as WAAC.

I just get frustrated when people see wound allocation as a rules abuse...

Da Grand Waaagh! was my first tournament. I had no real idea what the composition score was, much less it was so contraversal. Seeing the final breakdown of the tournament, I see that the significance of the score was pretty small. However, this is an interesting conversation, and I don't dislike its turns.

Diversifying politely is really a matter of the gears use. I believe the nob-unit composition which Dashofpepper supports uses two ammo runts to essentially no purpose other than to diversify two units. My own composition is identical to his except I have replaced the two ammo runts with combi-rokkits or with combi-skorchas. What separates my composition from his is actual utility: I'll use the scorchas, and I'll use the rokkits; will Dashofpepper really bother to reroll a miss of a shoota with an the ammo runt? I doubt he would even remember.

Above I have given a sample deffkopta-unit composition. It really isn't "polite," I think. The upgrades for the deffkopta are pretty poor, really, and certainly overpriced: the Big Bomb is less than exciting; the buzzsaw is OK-ish, maybe. But it does allow me to use the wound-allocation magic....

Hmm, I rely on the Dakka dictionary pop-up too much. I, too, was thinking WAC was WAAC