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.

So I'm from an area where erm.. zero comp is in compliance, and I came into the community knowing this and fully accept it, hell i even enjoy it. I could go on and on about the talking points on how anyone can do well if they play well, and that rules don't always effect that, but that's for a different thread. I'm wondering how the rest of the internet feels about certain styles of comp, I may end up at a small tourney this weekend which not only restricts you from running 1 flyer/flying MC, but it also restricts force org and puts negative comp points on people who: spend too much on vehicles, spend too much on named IC's, people who spend too little or too much on certain FOC sots, they also do not use mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, rulebook missions or warlord traits.

How does everyone else feel about this. coming from an area fully accepting of pretty much the entire book, i feel like i'd be going to a really negative place with these rules in place. I've made a example to friends that this is like be going to my old, slightly racist Grandfather's house with a lady of a different ethnicity and feeling the awkward tug of needless judgment.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
... which not only restricts you from running 1 flyer/flying MC,

To some degree, I can understand this ... Eldar & tau don't have fliers/FMCs ... and it will 'even' the playing field. No Cron Air, etc. Every army getting access to an ADL with Quadgun, balances the one Flier/FMC.

I wouldn't have these restrictions if *I* were running a tourney though. As long as the TO posted the restrictions well in advance, the no one should complain as they had time to prepare.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
but it also restricts force org and puts negative comp points on people who: spend too much on vehicles, spend too much on named IC's, people who spend too little or too much on certain FOC sots,

Care to print out the restrictions?

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
they also do not use mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, rulebook missions or warlord traits.

Mysterrain is often forgotten in pretty much every game I've played, so no biggy. MsyObjectives are often forgotten too, but they're rarely GameChangers. And Warload traits *also* seldom offer a GameBreaker option, so the 'loss' or exclusion of these items shouldn't effect things overall. Just a ... tad bit of flavor left off, quite unlike the exclusion of Flier/FMCs.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
How does everyone else feel about this.

Well, report back here after your tourney and let us know how it went.

The FoC and no-Flier restrictions are rather imposing IMHO, but I'd still prolly go as I'm still fielding foot-slogger lists.

There are generally 2 schools of thought about comp.

#1. It is a necessary evil.
Comp is needed to level the playing field with GWs rules because they really have no interest in creating a balanced game. For example banning flyers.

#2. Comp is bad.
Learn tactics and strategies to counter tough builds and everyone is playing with the same rules and access to the same codexes.

The problem I have with comp (and where you are talking about and their comp system) is that most comp systems are bad. There is no way to have a blanket comp system that changes the rules around that does not hurt some armies, and makes others better. For example, any comp system where you have to take a lot of troops helps those armies that have good troops, and penalizes those armies that have bad ones.

So what a lot of comp systems do is just hurt some armies (sometimes unfairly) while just switching around who the power builds are.

Also there are other types of comp that stress theme but that is not what you are talking about.

It really comes down to if you don't like the rules for the tournament then don't go. There is no point in asking about how people feel about comp because the question has been brought up over and over and over and over again.

Brothererekose wrote:

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
... which not only restricts you from running 1 flyer/flying MC,

To some degree, I can understand this ... Eldar & tau don't have fliers/FMCs ... and it will 'even' the playing field. No Cron Air, etc. Every army getting access to an ADL with Quadgun, balances the one Flier/FMC.

I wouldn't have these restrictions if *I* were running a tourney though. As long as the TO posted the restrictions well in advance, the no one should complain as they had time to prepare.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
but it also restricts force org and puts negative comp points on people who: spend too much on vehicles, spend too much on named IC's, people who spend too little or too much on certain FOC sots,

Care to print out the restrictions?

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
they also do not use mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, rulebook missions or warlord traits.

Mysterrain is often forgotten in pretty much every game I've played, so no biggy. MsyObjectives are often forgotten too, but they're rarely GameChangers. And Warload traits *also* seldom offer a GameBreaker option, so the 'loss' or exclusion of these items shouldn't effect things overall. Just a ... tad bit of flavor left off, quite unlike the exclusion of Flier/FMCs.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
How does everyone else feel about this.

Well, report back here after your tourney and let us know how it went.

The FoC and no-Flier restrictions are rather imposing IMHO, but I'd still prolly go as I'm still fielding foot-slogger lists.

I find the mysterious objectives do make a fair difference. Especially if you get the one that halves the charge distance of people charging you and your making a last ditch effort to hold an objective. Thats pretty game changing.

I'll say it this way. A good player can play any type of game, with any type of rules and/or bylaws that are being enforced at the tournament he/she is going to be in and win.

And if you win in that tournament while being within the "Spirit of the Game", then you are a true professional, a pillar to the hobby we are in and someone that when he or she speaks, people will listen.

 Xeriapt wrote:


I find the mysterious objectives do make a fair difference. Especially if you get the one that halves the charge distance of people charging you and your making a last ditch effort to hold an objective. Thats pretty game changing.

I find people who play armies based upon stability and reliability really tend to try to forget terrain and objectives, some not intentional, some intentional but you can see they have been playing without them at home.

And in the same breath, people who are anti-comp who are playing meta armies are the first to ask me what I am doing when I am attempting to roll a random objective hoping for skyfire. To them, no benefit gives them an edge as they really don't need any of those. I find as an ork player, being able to randomly skyfire with my lootas on my objective or grots in terrain squatting being hard to assault has made the difference.

Removing an element from the game or changing the missions is comp. Almost 100% of tourneys even the ones touted as the most competitive version of 40k have comp.

GW gave us an unplayable game not meant for tourneys. Every TO has to take steps to make the ruleset work so every single one needs comp.

And to say we all have access to the same codexes really isn't fair... that means the only valid way to play the game is to boy 500$+ of models every 6 months to be the next big thing and we all know for most people, that is not possible. Those who may have picked a specific codex shouldn't be punished with 2 edition old codexes and crippled balance simply because they can't or won't "pay" for wins. Don't pretend tactics or skill can overcome the gross imbalance and out of date points and rules for some of the codexes.

You can say it is 'good enough' or 'best it will get' but don't say it is 'fair' or 'balanced' and that people should just play better because that is insulting and wrong.

Lootas can't make use of a Skyfire mysterious objective. Any unit can discover what one is, but only a Scoring unit can hold and make use of it.

You have some perfectly valid points, however, that all tournaments make some kinds of alterations to the game, which inevitably affect the balance. Even events trying to hew strictly to the rulebook have to add things in order just to run the event. Like adding a tournament scoring system, and time limits, both of which inevitably impact people's decisions about what kind of armies to take and how to play them.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
I'm wondering how the rest of the internet feels about certain styles of comp, I may end up at a small tourney this weekend which not only restricts you from running 1 flyer/flying MC, but it also restricts force org and puts negative comp points on people who: spend too much on vehicles, spend too much on named IC's, people who spend too little or too much on certain FOC sots, they also do not use mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, rulebook missions or warlord traits.

Since every event diverges from or adds to the rulebook rules at least a little, it's really just a question of degree. This sounds like it might be a little extreme, but I tend to look at this sort of thing as an interesting new challenge. A fun variation and a nice change of pace from the usual.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
I could go on and on about the talking points on how anyone can do well if they play well, and that rules don't always effect that, but that's for a different thread.

It sounds like you should listen to your own talking points. Just as in "unrestricted" competion, in an event with rules changes and restrictions, anyone can do well if they play well, and adapt to the challenges at hand.

Go back to the days of old when GW sponsored tourneys then go back another 10 years. There used to be an official comp sheet where at least 35% of your total points had to be spent on troops, then no more than 20 on HQ and 25 on Elite/FA/HS. Numbers may be off but there were minimums and max's. I think it went out with the early Chaos Dex that introduced iron warriors and night lords that could drop a FOC to gain extras in others.

~Ten years ago GW Rogue Trader tournaments had a ten question, 20pt comp/theme scoring checklist.

1) Was the army list handed in on time and in the correct format?
2) Is the army list correct?
3) Does the army have more Troops choices than any other single category?
4) Do troop selections make up AT LEAST 40% of the total points of this army?
5) Are there at least TWO squads that are at maximum size?
6) Has the player spent less than 10% of their total points on wargear?
(NOTE: This includes all weapons and wargear for characters and all vehicle upgrades. Everything on the Armory page. For Tyranids you count mutations and psychic powers.)
7) Do all individual characters, squads, and the army itself have names?
8) Does the army have a theme or background to it?
9) In YOUR OPINION is this a cool army that would be fun to play against?
10) Is this army one of your top three picks?

At my first GT, in Baltimore 2001, there was a MUCH tougher and more comprehensive comp scoring checklist.

 Blackmoor wrote:

So what a lot of comp systems do is just hurt some armies (sometimes unfairly) while just switching around who the power builds are.

Spot on.

I agree with the intent of comp, but in practice it never works out right. It just becomes another layer of the game some armies are able to game better than others.

The worst is when people use the old troop heavy mindset in their comp system that requires/rewards people who take lots of troops. The armies that won in 5th, and I think 6th will shake out the same way, were the ones with rock hard and/or numerous troops. If you force everyone to play heavy in the troops slot you reward the armies that are already in the lead for doing what they were already doing to win.

Long story short, however good the intent behind comp, I've almost never seen it actually make the game better.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
The worst is when people use the old troop heavy mindset in their comp system that requires/rewards people who take lots of troops. The armies that won in 5th, and I think 6th will shake out the same way, were the ones with rock hard and/or numerous troops. If you force everyone to play heavy in the troops slot you reward the armies that are already in the lead for doing what they were already doing to win.

That's a legit concern. That's definitely been an issue in some systems I've seen.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

So what a lot of comp systems do is just hurt some armies (sometimes unfairly) while just switching around who the power builds are.

Spot on.

I agree with the intent of comp, but in practice it never works out right. It just becomes another layer of the game some armies are able to game better than others.

How is that not a good thing, though? Creating a new challenge and shaking up the usual order varies the play experience, allowing players to display adaptability and encouraging them to field different stuff.

Here ya go fellas,

Comp is a sticky subject.

In my opinion there are two trains of thought...

1. Comp is needed to tone down the "Power Gamers" in a FUN tournament. i.e. the old "Rogue Trader" style tournaments.

2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Reason 2 is why the "Ard Boys" tournament was created. The organizers of a tournament try to show everyone a good time and that one jerk wrecks it for ALL his opponents.

The current thrust of tournaments is that Comp is BAD. IMHO Comp is a good thing. And it is really easy to accomplish with just one rule.

NO NAMED CHARACTERS.

The named characters change armies too much.

For example...

When I attended the First Bugeater Grand Tournament in Omaha, NE two years ago I fought Belial FOUR times!!! FOUR!!! In six games!!! That was not the TO's fault. That was the way the game was designed by Crapatore' and competitive players knew that.

In an effort to appeal to the few "Power Gamers" Tournament Organizers have thrown out Comp. I will tell you guys this much. For every jerk power gamer that goes to tournaments, there are five "regular" gamers who wont go because they dont want to face "That Guy".

So if we want Comp to come back to our tournaments, make a statement with your attendance.

Andyman

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
The current thrust of tournaments is that Comp is BAD. IMHO Comp is a good thing. And it is really easy to accomplish with just one rule.

NO NAMED CHARACTERS.

The named characters change armies too much.

Which seems to be their actual intended purpose, at this point. Making that statement akin to saying 1/4 or more of possible builds are just too much. Not really even the best/most powerful 1/4 even.

/boggle

FarseerAndyMan wrote:


The current thrust of tournaments is that Comp is BAD. IMHO Comp is a good thing. And it is really easy to accomplish with just one rule.

NO NAMED CHARACTERS.

This post shows why comp fails to achieve it's purpose. Far too often, it's an overly simplistic plan that completely ignores the law of unintended consequences.

Eliminating named characters will only help the best armies. IG, Necrons, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves can all build killer lists without a single SC. They all have good SCs, but they are simply some of the many, many good units in the codices. Armies like Eldar, Sisters, Space Marines, and Orks rely far more heavily on specials.

And that's a solidily recurring problem: nearly all comp rules "make the rich richer," in that by eliminating options, the armies with most options will continue to rise to the top.

For the record, I have no problem with Comp. In full disclosure, I play IG. No matter what comp restrictions you place, I can build a nasty list.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:


2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Reason 2 is why the "Ard Boys" tournament was created. The organizers of a tournament try to show everyone a good time and that one jerk wrecks it for ALL his opponents.



Andyman

'ard boyz is one of the most COMPed events during 5th edition. Mission comp is still comp and 'add boyz had some of the most extreme missions I have seen in a tourney.

 Polonius wrote:


IG, Necrons, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves can all build killer lists without a single SC.

Whoah there. Hold on. A GK army without Coteaz? I thought he was 1+ in the GK codex like Fire warriors in the Tau book. Also correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Njal won every Nova best General award.

I'd be up for eliminating all SC's.

The ETC had no SC's for a long time and last year they allowed them. IMO the diversity of armies took a dive with that one.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


IG, Necrons, Grey Knights, and Space Wolves can all build killer lists without a single SC.

Whoah there. Hold on. A GK army without Coteaz? I thought he was 1+ in the GK codex like Fire warriors in the Tau book. Also correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Njal won every Nova best General award.

I'd be up for eliminating all SC's.

The ETC had no SC's for a long time and last year they allowed them. IMO the diversity of armies took a dive with that one.

Than you fully kill SoB's only effective HQ's, leave them at the mercy of a D6 faith system, and generally bring them down quite a few notches. Sisters NEED their SC's compared to other factions just to get a decent HQ in

 Mannahnin wrote:
[

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
I agree with the intent of comp, but in practice it never works out right. It just becomes another layer of the game some armies are able to game better than others.

How is that not a good thing, though? Creating a new challenge and shaking up the usual order varies the play experience, allowing players to display adaptability and encouraging them to field different stuff.

It just depends on what your goals are in designing your comp system.

If your goal is to create diversity, and you reward people for building in diversity or taking things not commonly seen then its successful.

If your goal is to truly balance the game (which I think it is for most people who defend comp), then rearranging the power rankings doesn't get you anywhere.

But just encouraging diversity across every army does not equate to more balance. Some armies function better without redundancy than others. Those armies will rise to the top of the pack in a heavy comp environment.

Not just diversity within a given army, but diversity of the builds and codices you see in general.

Truly balancing the game is an unattainable goal; even Chess isn't perfectly balanced. Although if a given system tightens the spread a bit, reducing the gap between the very top couple of armies and the ones in the "middle of the pack", it can create a more level playing field and a better play experience.

That's still difficult to do, but IME even if you miss, a careful system can still increase diversity in builds seen, which (as we've covered) I do think makes the tournament more interesting and fun.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
Here ya go fellas,

Comp is a sticky subject.

In my opinion there are two trains of thought...

1. Comp is needed to tone down the "Power Gamers" in a FUN tournament. i.e. the old "Rogue Trader" style tournaments.

2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Reason 2 is why the "Ard Boys" tournament was created. The organizers of a tournament try to show everyone a good time and that one jerk wrecks it for ALL his opponents.

The current thrust of tournaments is that Comp is BAD. IMHO Comp is a good thing. And it is really easy to accomplish with just one rule.

NO NAMED CHARACTERS.

The named characters change armies too much.

For example...

When I attended the First Bugeater Grand Tournament in Omaha, NE two years ago I fought Belial FOUR times!!! FOUR!!! In six games!!! That was not the TO's fault. That was the way the game was designed by Crapatore' and competitive players knew that.

In an effort to appeal to the few "Power Gamers" Tournament Organizers have thrown out Comp. I will tell you guys this much. For every jerk power gamer that goes to tournaments, there are five "regular" gamers who wont go because they dont want to face "That Guy".

So if we want Comp to come back to our tournaments, make a statement with your attendance.

Andyman

And if SCs hadn't been allowed you'd still have faced Deathwing 4 times. On the other hand you'd reduce the variety in builds in C:SM, C:SW, C:GK and a whole lot of other Codices, while completely hamstringing Eldar, SoB and Dark Angels.

 Mannahnin wrote:

Although if a given system tightens the spread a bit, reducing the gap between the very top couple of armies and the ones in the "middle of the pack", it can create a more level playing field and a better play experience.

I agree just tightening would make the game better. It’s hard to evaluate without seeing the exact comp system, but in central IL where I play I would argue the couple of comp systems I run into regularly increase the spread between armies not decrease. It’s not destined to work that way every time, but it is part of why I come to the conclusion comp often makes the game less balanced, which is the exact opposite effect most TOs want it.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Not just diversity within a given army, but diversity of the builds and codices you see in general … a careful system can still increase diversity in builds seen, which (as we've covered) I do think makes the tournament more interesting and fun.

I would generally agree different is fun. But I would preface it with two points:
1. If it’s different but no more balanced I think a lot of people would rather stick with the known meta. I know people say they want to shake things up, but when push comes to shove many people prefer consistency and familiarity. Radically changing the meta means more money, more painting, more time relearning the game. Most players don’t play so often that they need that shake up to counter burn out. And I would guess all the extra work would create a lot of grumbling.
2. I think you have to have the same comp system in place for a long time before it really starts to change what people bring. My FLGS comps their regular monthly tournaments and we have all adjusted, but they ran the same system for 3 of the 4 years of 5th ed. But when I go to one off comp tournaments it seems like people are just bringing their normal armies and playing through the comp. The cost/benefit of radically altering your army for one tournament just isn’t there IMO.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Truly balancing the game is an unattainable goal; even Chess isn't perfectly balanced.

Agreed. Even if comp just made it more balanced it would be worth doing. And this is all anecdotal, but in my experience comp makes things no more or even less balanced than before.

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Wait, you think that people who play Deathwing are WAAC power gamers? So, using one of the oldest, and worst points:efficiency codexes, and taking the only viable, semi-competitive build in that codex is WAAC powergaming?

 nolzur wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Wait, you think that people who play Deathwing are WAAC power gamers? So, using one of the oldest, and worst points:efficiency codexes, and taking the only viable, semi-competitive build in that codex is WAAC powergaming?

Yeah, weird that you'd see soo many all over the place BEFORE the WD update that made them better....

First Deathwing wasn't a WD update. It was an FAQ. And second the FAQ made them playable, not OP. Some of us just like our deathwing.

In fact, FarseerAndyman probably played me as I was one of the 4-5 Deathwing players at the Bugeater and I think I was the only one that finished with a winning record so yeah, Deathwing is for WAAC players

keithb wrote:

 nolzur wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Wait, you think that people who play Deathwing are WAAC power gamers? So, using one of the oldest, and worst points:efficiency codexes, and taking the only viable, semi-competitive build in that codex is WAAC powergaming?

Yeah, weird that you'd see soo many all over the place BEFORE the WD update that made them better....

Ah yes, the FAQ update that made DA and BT playable in 5th, rather than a complete joke.

 nolzur wrote:

FarseerAndyMan wrote:
2. Comp is unneeded in a "WAAC" tournament. Win at all Cost is a tournament that rewards the "Power Gamer". You know the guy.. he plays the Draigo wing or Deathwing.

Wait, you think that people who play Deathwing are WAAC power gamers? So, using one of the oldest, and worst points:efficiency codexes, and taking the only viable, semi-competitive build in that codex is WAAC powergaming?

Comp would be better if there was a good way to implement it.

The fact is that if you do strait formulas that will penalize armies that do not deserve to be penalized (like having 40% troops hurts Tau and they are not a power build to begin with).

The other problem is with players or judges scoring comp. The popular opinion is that deathwing are not a powerful army and do not deserve any type of comp, but you play Farseer Andy and you take a comp hit for no good reason because he thinks they are OP.

Hey Fellas,

Great feedback!

Let me be clear.. I dont begrudge the "WAAC" player, its nice to play someone who can figure his list out and give me a challenge ( BTW -- GREAT GAME HULK ) , I just dont want to see the same list four times in a Tournament. I like going to tourney's to meet new people and see new lists. One of the previous posts mentioned that he could build a nasty army without using any SC...AWESOME!! I love seeing players make cool lists without using SC's. And a good player will be able to see past the obvious "Internet Spam" lists and build something unique and fun to play. Those are the guys I want to meet and game with!!

And as far as special characters are concerned with sisters. Its not the players fault that the list is so "beardy". And I agree that if you take away their SC , they are hurt in a competitive setting, no doubt. And players shouldnt be "penalized" for their choice of armies. If some players want to play SC heavy armies, thats cool with me in a friendly pick up game or grudge match, but tournament settings are a little different. Players usually have to pay some sort of entry fee and when money gets involved, people have a tendency to get a little "edgy" I think would be a polite way of putting it... Like I said before, I want to meet new people and see different army builds than what my circle plays with. Takin on the sisters would have been a welcome change!!

Its not a knock on the Deathwing guys, I like them too. I remember seeing them progress from a submission in an old White Dwarf as alternative sculpts a guy did to his Space Hulk Terminators to what they are today. I Like em'. Just not FOUR times in one tourney

Now maybe Im just from the old school, but I like seeing Composition in tournaments. But, I have had to kinda swallow the bitter pill and accept that asking a TO to swap up and change an established system is a little too much for me to ask. I just try to make the best of tournaments nowadays...Ive met some really cool guys and some real turds, but OVERALL...my tournament experience has been positive.

 IronfrontAlex wrote:
So I'm from an area where erm.. zero comp is in compliance, and I came into the community knowing this and fully accept it, hell i even enjoy it. I could go on and on about the talking points on how anyone can do well if they play well, and that rules don't always effect that, but that's for a different thread. I'm wondering how the rest of the internet feels about certain styles of comp, I may end up at a small tourney this weekend which not only restricts you from running 1 flyer/flying MC, but it also restricts force org and puts negative comp points on people who: spend too much on vehicles, spend too much on named IC's, people who spend too little or too much on certain FOC sots, they also do not use mysterious terrain, mysterious objectives, rulebook missions or warlord traits.

How does everyone else feel about this. coming from an area fully accepting of pretty much the entire book, i feel like i'd be going to a really negative place with these rules in place. I've made a example to friends that this is like be going to my old, slightly racist Grandfather's house with a lady of a different ethnicity and feeling the awkward tug of needless judgment.

Your analogy is flawed. This game store isn't your family, and they don't have to accept your ethnic girlfriend. If you come from a community in the bay area where zero comp is in compliance, why bother going to an event that doesn't cater to your playstyle? Just to piss in some one else's wheaties? You are in the bay area, there are plenty of places to play I'd imagine that are more your style.

Why not just not go to the tournament and not worry about it.

If your playing 4 of the same Army builds in a single event thats less of an issue of WAAC builds and more of an issue with the TOs not taking things like that into account and adjusting the matchups to compensate.
At one event I fought GKs 3 out of 5 games. However one was a Purifier list, one went with 3 Dreadnights, and the other had one unit of everything. They were different enough that each game was unique and fun. And I won 2 of those (epic dice fail against purifiers). Not Draigo-Draigo-Draigo.
On the other hand I also went to an event where I faced all 3 of the DE armies present...Lance Spam, Ravagers, and dudes in Venoms. And I played Deathwing. That event boiled down to how many 1s I could roll each turn trying to prevent a tabling. Not fun at all.