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.

Hi there! I'm just looking for a few opinions, and can't find anything online. Not sure if this means my google-fu is weak, or that there just isn't anything about yet, but what do you guys think is the fairest way to score army composition at a 40k tournament of about 1000 points? Do you think the means of judging this have changed with the meta shift from edition to edition? How much weight do you think should be placed on this based on a 4 round tournament with between 12 and 16 players?

Any opinions, or indeed links to examples, are welcome.

1-2 HQs, 2-6 Troops, 0-3 Elites, 0-3 Fast, 0-3 Heavy, 0-1 Fortifications, optional allied detachment of 1 HQ, 1-2 Troops and up to 1 of each Fast/Elite/Heavy.

Anything that fits the comp gets full points, anything that doesn't must be resubmitted to comply with the restrictions.

This is a controversial concept and a tough thing to do well.

The first step to having any chance of success is to make clear what kind of armies you want to encourage or discourage with your scoring system? Is your desired outcome...

A) To encourage thematic / "fluffy" armies?
or
B) To attempt to make more balanced matchups between unbalanced codices?

Or something else?

Some armies will always be better than others within the limits of the rules. Adding rules for army composition changes which armies are better within those new rules. Comp does not "even" the field.

For example, saying armies should have X number of units from Y FoC slot is an advantage for armies with good units in that FoC slot and makes it harder for armies with bad units in the FoC slot.

I also don't care for comp because many powerful builds can be made while staying "fluffy". Then ofcourse there's the fact that there's no true way to judge how fluffy an army is because it is so open to interpretation.

I 2nd Chumbalaya's response.