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.

Tell me what TO had every codex and used them to check lists? That argument is bogus. At best they used army builder, and guess what? Army Builder will update eventually with the new stuff. Someone some where will make it.

I agree with Pretre. This does feel a lot like 3rd edition with Chapter Aprroved everything.... Go back and look at posts from just a year ago and you will see people asking for this! More units, More rules, Faster releases.......

We got what we asked for... Lets see how they all play first.

I usually just assume that the person is trying to play a fair game. If they are the type who cheats I will learn and do my best to never play them again.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
Tell me what TO had every codex and used them to check lists? That argument is bogus. At best they used army builder, and guess what? Army Builder will update eventually with the new stuff. Someone some where will make it.

I agree with Pretre. This does feel a lot like 3rd edition with Chapter Aprroved everything.... Go back and look at posts from just a year ago and you will see people asking for this! More units, More rules, Faster releases.......

We got what we asked for... Lets see how they all play first.

I actually use codices to check lists, as army builder has been know to be wrong. I have every current codex. But not currently every supplement.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
Tell me what TO had every codex and used them to check lists? That argument is bogus. At best they used army builder, and guess what? Army Builder will update eventually with the new stuff. Someone some where will make it.

I agree with Pretre. This does feel a lot like 3rd edition with Chapter Aprroved everything.... Go back and look at posts from just a year ago and you will see people asking for this! More units, More rules, Faster releases.......

We got what we asked for... Lets see how they all play first.

I have access to every codex and supplement, but not even my friends will get every formation. People wanted more units and faster releases, but what htye wanted was having their 4th edition codex updated with new units faster, not pay to win type of dlc 's.

Experiment 626 wrote:
My big gripe with e-codices is that the run on devices with a limited battery power. So now I'm at the mercy of hoping my opponent isn't a dick/forgetful nob who has ensured they have a full charge on their device, otherwise it'll crap out and then you can have fun taking them at their word that they know their codex.

I would hope that a TO would then kick them out (or auto rule in your favour) the same as they would if they went off to lunch and left their paper book behind leaving no copy of it in the venue

My hope is that the TO would have a copy of the rules (or maybe a charger.)

 Centurian99 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

I think there is no choice. No matter how many issues or problems you see with them, they exist and must be acknowledged. If a player pays his hard earned money to buy a $50 electronic book and you tell them they can't use that to play in your tournament then you're burying your head in the sand and getting trampled by the reality of the situation.

There are plenty of digital-only 40k rules out there now (like the SOB) which have no caveat of being any less official than any GW print publication is. So if people are paying money to get these data slates, digital-only codexes, etc, they are building their armies to include these models, then tournaments which try to drag their feet and ban all digital publications are going to anger a lot of people who want to play with their official rules that they paid for but can't because a T.O. has a techo-phobia.


Will there be some manipulation of digital files? Of course. Will there be some confusion at some stealth update? Yep.

But such is the state of things in GW-land now. There simply is no other realistic alternative.

My personal advice is: if you take 40k seriously as a competitive tournament game, you probably need to dial things back a notch now and expect a bit of wackiness, because it seems like we're going off the deep end now.

I agree with Yak, things are going into Bizzaro land right now and GW seems to have said feth it, and it throwing everything in.

We're talking about a lot of ideas right now in TO land. Some folks propose a Feast of Blades style format with a "serious" event with restrictions and a "casual" event where pretty much everything goes.

Like Yak said though, we can't ignore this stuff as for example Bel'Akor, people are stoked on and want to use for sure. I know folks will not be happy if they can't use their special guy but then how do you draw the line?

Goatboy suggests a ban list, which, while flying in the face of our "no comp" stance may help a lot to bring things into a better sense of balance.

Or maybe all this OTT stuff will bring balance as every army will be crazy broken?

 Reecius wrote:


Or maybe all this OTT stuff will bring balance as every army will be crazy broken?

Thats been my opinion too, bust the system for everyone and that way no one can complain. I've never once seen a comp system that actually worked and wasn't gamed by the people who wanted to win anyway. I think if you look at the game truly objectively and without personal bias that's the best answer, as any comp will inherently be derived from what one or more people find subjectively broken or problematic. I've been there with comp and even had a hand in some comp development for events, and its led to some really terrible decisions that people later regret.

Just my two cents.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that sentiment, too.

The thing though is, the rise of the dumb, dumb, dumb 2+ reroll save is what kills it for me. Tau firepower is annoying, but you can at least fight against it.

 yakface wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

I think there is no choice. No matter how many issues or problems you see with them, they exist and must be acknowledged. If a player pays his hard earned money to buy a $50 electronic book and you tell them they can't use that to play in your tournament then you're burying your head in the sand and getting trampled by the reality of the situation.

There are plenty of digital-only 40k rules out there now (like the SOB) which have no caveat of being any less official than any GW print publication is. So if people are paying money to get these data slates, digital-only codexes, etc, they are building their armies to include these models, then tournaments which try to drag their feet and ban all digital publications are going to anger a lot of people who want to play with their official rules that they paid for but can't because a T.O. has a techo-phobia.


Will there be some manipulation of digital files? Of course. Will there be some confusion at some stealth update? Yep.

But such is the state of things in GW-land now. There simply is no other realistic alternative.

My personal advice is: if you take 40k seriously as a competitive tournament game, you probably need to dial things back a notch now and expect a bit of wackiness, because it seems like we're going off the deep end now.

I agree. We are going this way and any TO who try's to stop digital dex's is just going to look like Canute. More and more people are going to only have digital dex's. IMO asking them to have hard copies, buying something twice, is unfair. The people who insist on having a copy of every rule so they can get an edge probably need to look a little at how seriously they are taking a game. IMO no digital is much more unfair on the first group than having digital is on the second. I also don't buy the idea that physical is better because people have more access as they can look through the books in the shop. That's just abusing the shop owners hospitality and someone else's property.

People complained GW were stuck in the past. The bring publishing up to date and use it to the full. People complain about that. As they say, you can't please all if the people all of the time.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

I think there is no choice. No matter how many issues or problems you see with them, they exist and must be acknowledged. If a player pays his hard earned money to buy a $50 electronic book and you tell them they can't use that to play in your tournament then you're burying your head in the sand and getting trampled by the reality of the situation.

There are plenty of digital-only 40k rules out there now (like the SOB) which have no caveat of being any less official than any GW print publication is. So if people are paying money to get these data slates, digital-only codexes, etc, they are building their armies to include these models, then tournaments which try to drag their feet and ban all digital publications are going to anger a lot of people who want to play with their official rules that they paid for but can't because a T.O. has a techo-phobia.


Will there be some manipulation of digital files? Of course. Will there be some confusion at some stealth update? Yep.

But such is the state of things in GW-land now. There simply is no other realistic alternative.

My personal advice is: if you take 40k seriously as a competitive tournament game, you probably need to dial things back a notch now and expect a bit of wackiness, because it seems like we're going off the deep end now.

I agree. We are going this way and any TO who try's to stop digital dex's is just going to look like Canute. More and more people are going to only have digital dex's. IMO asking them to have hard copies, buying something twice, is unfair. The people who insist on having a copy of every rule so they can get an edge probably need to look a little at how seriously they are taking a game. IMO no digital is much more unfair on the first group than having digital is on the second. I also don't buy the idea that physical is better because people have more access as they can look through the books in the shop. That's just abusing the shop owners hospitality and someone else's property.

People complained GW were stuck in the past. The bring publishing up to date and use it to the full. People complain about that. As they say, you can't please all if the people all of the time.

I think the issue is that GW's releases are so disorganized. There's very little rhyme, reason, or announcement of releases and changes, and a lot of the releases we're getting now are so outside the mold of what's been standard for so long that it's highly disorienting (games with up to 4 different FoC's in play for a single army plus formations, etc).

People are all for electronic media and fast paced releases. What's bad is when nobody has any idea of what's incoming until almost the day it arrives, and when new content basically up-ends long established fundamentals like the FoC, it gets to be rather messy.

There's so many threads going right now with basically the same focus. I just made a big one that hits on more of my personal opinions in the "Single foc" one, but in short I don't think you can go around banning supplements and things people spent large sums of money on.

The $5 formation dataslates? Maybe.
Radical characters everyone wants to use rules for re: models they've had forever that don't have major impacts on the game? Who cares?

If you're going to do anything, it has to be with consensus and at a VERY fine point level. You can't go around swatting hammers at the FOC and you can't go around banning supplements and codices helter skelter. IMO it's either extremely minor and carefully thought-out surgical tweaks by a TO consensus or nothing.

Also, even at the pinnacle of tournament play, it's about FUN. Fun for the majority of even semi-competitive players is all about reasonability and fairness, as well as a clear expectation that can be understood going in from a gaming perspective (you can't ever control social expectations). We shouldn't give two craps about whether Reece or I can beat up a Jetstar. We should give a crap about whether Broadside formations flying about helter skelter are going to depress the fun and fairness for the average gamer at a broad swathe of events. Both just examples.

Yeah, Goatboy and I were talking about that last night. While some of us may have the inclination to try and figure out how to beat the crazy stuff in the game, most people don't. They just want a fun, challenging game, not a game where they feel like they had no chance from the start. And while in some cases that is inevitable, some of the stuff in the game right now makes that more likely to happen.

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, Goatboy and I were talking about that last night. While some of us may have the inclination to try and figure out how to beat the crazy stuff in the game, most people don't. They just want a fun, challenging game, not a game where they feel like they had no chance from the start. And while in some cases that is inevitable, some of the stuff in the game right now makes that more likely to happen.

You're spot on there. That's the heart of it. I went up against DeFranza's jetcouncil at BFS final / top table, and had the tools and skill to nearly table it. I lost ANYWAY (and I didn't mind, Matt's an awesome guy) b/c he had 6 models left (1 warlock, 2 wounded farseers, baron, 2 swooping hawks) and bottom 5 moved to objectives / quarters, then rolled a "1" for game end ... despite having a preponderance with which to table him on 6. Point is ... even as a higher tier player with the tools to tackle the list and the pleasure of playing someone I knew personally and enjoyed ... I didn't really enjoy that game all so much.

En route, he played several other folks, many of whom were just rolling their eyes and facepalming as they realized they had no chance against the type of list presented.

That said, I'm not sure there are really THAT many of these combos. IT's almost exclusive to screamerstar/jetstar, and maybe the style of FMC list that doesn't really spend any time on the board at all / feels like you're just waiting for turn 5. These VERY minor things may be worth looking at from a TO group perspective ... but only IF Tyranid don't put the stops on it (shadows), only IF the 25-days of Advent are actually ridiculous as a whole, etc. etc.

(Reiterative note: DeFranza is used here b/c he's a sporting, awesome guy and I know him personally ... our final game at BFS was epic, I was happy to take home Battlemaster and have a great tournament experience as a whole. It's a good example when a great guy who has been playing a Jet Council since before they were good treats his opponents with class and all, yet still many feel a little like "what am I supposed to do?!" against this narrow band of units.)

Yeah, the Jetseer Council is the least enjoyable thing in the game at present. I hate that damn thing, hahaha! A guy on our team plays it and it is like pulling teeth. Even when you beat it, it still just annoyed you to death. Frankie seems to have gotten the knack for it though, he can handle that list with his DE pretty well, but I digress.

If I were to look at a Ban list, personally, and this is purely speculative and just off the cuff, not something we're even considering seriously over here at Frontline yet, I would say the following:

Grimoire can't improve an invul to better than 3++
Baron can't join a Seer Cuncil.
Tau Commander can't join a RIptide.

Those three changes would, IMO, make the game so much more fun almost by themselves.

Again, just spit-balling ideas, but for me, that seems to solve a lot of the worst abuses.

It's all tweaky at that point ... my spit-balls would be:

Any time you are allowed to re-roll a failed save, the re-rolled target number cannot be better than a 2+

A Tau Commander may only select up to 2 Signature Systems, which also take 1 each of the Commander's Support System slots.

The first weakens Seers/Screamers from 1/36 fail to 1/12 fail, which is sufficient in the present torrenty-meta to make people think twice about basing entire lists around them, and also prevents any other odd ball shenanigans from arising (like someone fortuning a Tau super unit instead).

The second keeps you from having Hit and Run and T5/2+/4++ alongside Puretide/MSS, while still letting you have either a Puretide/MSS Commander or a tank commander, or a softened version of one/the other.

Yeah, actually saying a 2+ of any kind with a reroll counting as a 3+ reroll is a better, all inclusive fix. The 2+ reroll is balls.

Or saying you can only ever use 1 signature system at a time, that helps a ton, too.

Altering the wording to saying, an IC cannot join a RIPtide would be better as it stops Farseers from joining them, too.

Just ideas, but we're aligned here in principle. I know a lot of the other folks I've talked to feel the same way.

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, actually saying a 2+ of any kind with a reroll counting as a 3+ reroll is a better, all inclusive fix. The 2+ reroll is balls.

Or saying you can only ever use 1 signature system at a time, that helps a ton, too.

Altering the wording to saying, an IC cannot join a RIPtide would be better as it stops Farseers from joining them, too.

Just ideas, but we're aligned here in principle. I know a lot of the other folks I've talked to feel the same way.

Do it for LVO. All of it!

MVBrandt wrote:
It's all tweaky at that point ... my spit-balls would be:

Any time you are allowed to re-roll a failed save, the re-rolled target number cannot be better than a 2+

A Tau Commander may only select up to 2 Signature Systems, which also take 1 each of the Commander's Support System slots.

Those aren't all that tweaky. Those are pretty huge changes in my opinion.

Tweaky would be subtle mission changes that favor a certain army more or less than others. If you really think screamerstar / jetseers are a problem, write missions that are hard for them to exploit would be my suggestion.

The one thing I find extremely frustrating about this ban/alteration discussion is that nothing about this is new. GW has written crappy unbalanced rules forever. I will agree in some ways it's worse than before. But it's a bit maddening to see people who traditional exploited/benefited from the imbalance now all of a sudden complain about it because it finally surpassed their personal threshold of chicanery.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
It's all tweaky at that point ... my spit-balls would be:

Any time you are allowed to re-roll a failed save, the re-rolled target number cannot be better than a 2+

A Tau Commander may only select up to 2 Signature Systems, which also take 1 each of the Commander's Support System slots.

Those aren't all that tweaky. Those are pretty huge changes in my opinion.

Tweaky would be subtle mission changes that favor a certain army more or less than others. If you really think screamerstar / jetseers are a problem, write missions that are hard for them to exploit would be my suggestion.

The one thing I find extremely frustrating about this ban/alteration discussion is that nothing about this is new. GW has written crappy unbalanced rules forever. I will agree in some ways it's worse than before. But it's a bit maddening to see people who traditional exploited/benefited from the imbalance now all of a sudden complain about it because it finally surpassed their personal threshold of chicanery.

Screamerstar/Jetstar in their current iteration are actually quite unprecedented. Good luck w/ writing a mission that ISN'T good for low-KP, hyper fast, mass contesting, kills-anything, 35/36 success-rate-on-saves units, however. Both armies also have incredibly useful scoring troops.

And no ... I would argue those are as minor as it gets. Suggestions that people make like "Broad composition changes" that affect every single army are huge. Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

I would start w modified kill points like adepticon does. You need to kill half of the armies starting value to achieve the objective.

I might de-emphasize so many objectives and go for just one central non relic objective. It doesn't matter if they can contest 28 when there's only one.

You can't get rid of an armies killing power, but you can make your terrain in such away that people can play to stall, hide, and run away from the death stars.

There are options, many options. None of them perfect. But why now after years and years of imbalance is this unkillable unit finally got you? Sure there hasn't been anything as mathematically powerful before, but there have been plenty of things practically as powerful given the tools available to deal with it at the time.

Hahaha - love that comment about calling a spade a spade with competitive players. I rarely play the crazy broken nonsense during any regular game. The last time was Feast and I hated every game I "voltroned" out and really should have brought a dif list. But hey - if you don't know me it is easy to give me crap.

Small changes are what we need. Playing something that isn't fun is just a waste of time. Which means the event is a waste of time. Which means people won't go, the TO's will lose a good deal of money, and the game as a whole goes to the pooper.

But really - this is only in talks with the events. We want people to have fun games. I know we like the challenge of beating someone - especially a tough build - but it only is fun if we have someone enjoyable to try and play with. As soon as the best lists stay out, stay the best, and things become stagnant it won't be that much fun.

Meh I like games where everyone has stuff dying. Those games are fun. I don't like games where it feels like someone is just slapping you in the face with some stinky junk for 5-7 turns. That wasn't a good use of my time.

TO's need to come together and just figure out what minimum stuff would be needed to make things better. That is it. We evaluate ever release, see what is bad, and go from there. Things are going to slip through and that will be dealt with. Just like Magic we have some events dominated by one design.

Can't we all just be friends and all just play grot armies?

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
I would start w modified kill points like adepticon does. You need to kill half of the armies starting value to achieve the objective.

I might de-emphasize so many objectives and go for just one central non relic objective. It doesn't matter if they can contest 28 when there's only one.

You can't get rid of an armies killing power, but you can make your terrain in such away that people can play to stall, hide, and run away from the death stars.

There are options, many options. None of them perfect. But why now after years and years of imbalance is this unkillable unit finally got you? Sure there hasn't been anything as mathematically powerful before, but there have been plenty of things practically as powerful given the tools available to deal with it at the time.

Those solutions don't actually ... help against Jetstar. It's a massive space-consumption enough unit (With hit and run) that it can keep you from getting there, and jet bunches of jetbikes from corners that Scrier's Gazed off the board until 4 onto it at game end.

And this unit hasn't gotten to me. It has gotten to a LOT of players, and is creeping into the tournament scene. High placings at NOVA, then won BFS, then nearly won 11th, then 1/2 at DaBoyz; it'll continue to creep in.

I don't have ANY DESIRE to change ANYTHING presently. If any changes are made, "they" should be ... at most ... 1 change, to how 2+ re-rolls work. Nothing else. Even making that change needs to wait until - AT LEAST - the end of the Advent Calendar and the release of Tyranids. Also, it should only happen if a large # of TOs can agree on it. The only impetus here is nipping in the bud something that's creeping quickly onto the tourney scene and is broadly "unfun" to play against.

I'll play...

Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

Sure it is. You're changing the abilities of the unit (that one could argue is included in their points cost) for no reason other than to give everyone else a better chance against those lists.

Its been mentioned elsewhere, but one of the big gimmicks in the game right now is all the combos that people can pull off. You want to mitigate that somewhat, make a ruling as a TO to ban allies, or treat battle brothers as allies of convenience. Then watch the Jetseer armies operate without the baron, or the centurion units work without a tau commander, or a riptide lose the obligatory farseer attachment...

 The Everliving wrote:
I'll play...

Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

Sure it is. You're changing the abilities of the unit (that one could argue is included in their points cost) for no reason other than to give everyone else a better chance against those lists.

Its been mentioned elsewhere, but one of the big gimmicks in the game right now is all the combos that people can pull off. You want to mitigate that somewhat, make a ruling as a TO to ban allies, or treat battle brothers as allies of convenience. Then watch the Jetseer armies operate without the baron, or the centurion units work without a tau commander, or a riptide lose the obligatory farseer attachment...

I don't personally really want to impact the game at all, Alex. IF there IS going to be an impact, I'm by nature more likely to push the minimalist than the broad-spectrum (i.e., banning allies / treat all BB as Convenience). The only thing I'm really talking out now from MY point of view is TOs as a rule need to come to a consensus on any changes if any are made ... otherwise we're just doing a disservice to attendees who have to build different lists for different events to even be legal, at high cost either way.

But banning allies is changing the game a LOT more than anything else. And as Brandt said, no one wants to change the game, really. It causes confusion in the attendees.

I think the question we need to ask our selves is do we want to play a game with 2+ reroll saves dominating everything and sucking the fun out of tournaments? At DuelCon we had a Screamerstar on Screamerstar finals...lame.

Da Boyz GT was 1st and 2nd Seer Council.

Adepticon two years ago was 8/16 Grey Knights in the finals...so lame! Do we want it to be 15/16 Psychic Deathstars and 2 Taudar players this year? haha, I think that is what we are talking about here. And geez, a 2+ reroll army against another 2+ reroll army would be about the lamest thing I can imagine in terms of an enjoyable game.

Again, this is all talk at this point. Perhaps Nids will help but GW nerfed the damn Anti-Psyker gun the Sisters had to not work as well. Gah, that almost fixed the issue.

How about this,

The Everliving and ArctcllyFlvrd

Do you go to tournaments now (Alex, I know you do, but for everyone else's knowledge), have you played these types of lists, do you think they're a good thing in the game, and what would you propose to do about them, if anything?

And screamer star won the doubles event.

 Ravenous D wrote:
And screamer star won the doubles event.

Doh!

Yes, I forgot about that.

So, how would everyone feel about a broad rule, just one, that says:

Any save of a 2+ that is rerollable is treated as a 3+ rerollable save of the same type.

That is easy, and impacts all armies equally. As an idea, how does that strike people?

Do you go to tournaments now (Alex, I know you do, but for everyone else's knowledge), have you played these types of lists, do you think they're a good thing in the game, and what would you propose to do about them, if anything?

I've played with them and against them. I took a jetseer list to the 11th Company GT and had three games out of six where it could have gone either way and I only won because either the game ended when I needed it to or that I got a lucky hallucinate off against a rampaging centurion unit. The final wasn't even close - I got blasted off the board by a flying circus build. Only one other seer council list made it to the top 8 and he lost his first two games of the last day. A screamerstar list came close to getting in the top 8 but didn't.

I've played against screamerstar multiple times in events and it is what it is. Sometimes its a pain to deal with and sometimes you just focus on the mission and win the game that way.

Whether I think its a good thing in the game is a moot point. They are both perfectly valid builds (as is the FMC daemon circus which I feel is just as annoying) which means we should expect to see them in tournaments. 2 years ago you couldn't move for seeing grey knight spam and those of us who didn't join the bandwagon had to figure out ways to beat them. Right now the meta is some form of Eldar, Tau or Daemon build. I genuinely don't think most tournament attendees care - those folks turning up to try and win know that they're likely going to be facing opponents running top tier builds and prepare accordingly. The vast majority of tournament attendees are there to play 40K first and maybe have a shot at doing well second and don't care what they play as long as their opponent isn't a tool.

I wouldn't do anything about them. The point I was trying to get across by mentioning allies is that you shouldn't mess with what's legit. Yakface said it best; we're off in the deep end of crazy land with GW now and we should go along for the ride and see where it takes us.

It's only a feeling but I do think that if we saw more tournaments running a battle point system which also rewarded painting, sportsmanship and maybe theme as part of the overall score well as the points for winning and losing you'll get a _lot_ more variety in the armies that get to the top and win events. At the 11th company event I played against a couple of armies that I would be ashamed to put on the table and although their painting score was appropriately terrible, it had no impact on who won the event as we were playing a straight win/loss tournament.