thatdave

I disagree! How about: Effectively non-competitive? Effectively non-existant at tournaments? Effectively useless? Effectively bad? See, all kinds of effective!

Will this arrive before the OFCC? If so, I am interested in a couple of items. A assuming it's not too late to get in on this.

What are we looking at for a retail value/asking price?

I'm a few episodes behind, but they are on my DVR.

DMBz: Nut Punch is all paid up now!

The beard is an extra bit that could be added. Mine is beardless as well, though not nearly as nice to look at as LoF's.

Yeah, seems like a case of something sticking to the wall if you toss enough at it to me........

I've been watching and am not sure how I feel yet. I'm still watching, so there's that I guess.

Having played a similar list I can tell you that you are solid. While not optimized this list is competitive in most environments.

Once you get 3 or 5 posts you can send and receive PMs. I live not too far from CDA and my brother lives in CDA. We both play lots of different games, including WHFB. Once you can PM we can exchange info.

Many good points there, KM, all of which will be considered by the Rating Committee. I would want to see the final list before I speculate.

That is pretty much the exact list I had in mind before I traded you those Stegs, lol. I have more Carnisaurs in my list though and no Slaan. Two Bastiladons as well. Man, I love monster mash lists!

I don't think anyone wants that, Dan. I, and most everyone else I'm guessing, enjoy and appreciate you and your guys. I think know there are WAAC players in all areas and don't know that many of them come to the OFCC. There are a few to be sure, but I'd say that the ratio greatly favors us non-WAAC players at the OFCC. Certainly amongst the longtimers. My point is not about the win/loss records and competitive play in the sense of "I'm better than you!". I've been on both ends of being tabled and I don't like either one. Losing a close, hard fought game is more engaging and enjoyable the putting a beatdown on someone. By a longshot. The day 2 pairings matching teams in a more traditional fashion is with the goal of making better games by pitting teams whose abilities and/or lists might be more similar than they might be with a random selection of opposition.

PMed you.

Record matching is done on day 2 (day 1 is grudges and/or random). This matching isn't about records as much as it is about getting good games by looking to get teams of similar skill levels (or list levels) against one another. I doubt it is coincidental that these teams are doing well overall.

Wins and loses need to be tracked for matching purposes, but I would agree with eliminating the Overall award.

Some other points, some of which are in agreement with you, are these: Yes, bring the good choices if you need to. But not all of them. Do not build your army of all, or even most, of them. Do take some of the "bad" units and/or characters. Do not focus on being points-effecient. Bring something out of the ordinary. Don't be afraid of going out on a limb with your list and the choices within your book. Don't be afraid of losing - some of my most fun games have been loses. Just because I lost doesn't mean I had a bad game or a bad time. But most players don't like to feel like they didn't much of a chance from the outset and that they lost to the list and not the player.

I think we can all agree that any list has a chance to win. I can have a lowly Goblin and you can have a full kit wanker Nurgle DP and if I make every roll I attempt and you fail yours I'm going to win, simple as that. You are on the right track though. I doubt anyone builds a list to lose or has the goal of losing the game from the outset (I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has ever encouraged building a list to lose). Even at the OFCC players try to win their games - I do as have all my opponents. But this is not a wins based tourny, and winning should not be at the expense of both players' enjoyment of the game. No one likes to get rolled. The OFCC, at it's core, has never been about rolling over the opposition on your way to a podium. It has always placed Sportsmanship (the most prestigous award at the event) above all others.

Okay, this is only my opinion. I am speaking only for myself and in no way am I representing anyone else afiliated with the OFCC. Unless someone happens to agree with me. Here are a few examples, already posted by other OFCC participants, that I would consider to be in the elusive '3' neighborhood: The lists above, in my mind anyway, range the 3-3.5 area. That's just a couple, but there are several lists on this very forum with OFCC guidance feedback included in most of the threads. Most of them fall in the 3-4 range and are OFCC friendly. A '3' is the goal, but I think everyone knows that expecting all the players to hit that is a bit unrealistic. That is why we have a range of acceptability. My hope is that each team has a bit of variety in power level. My list, in case anyone has missed it: I think my list is sub-3; more in the '2' range. I don't care where my list rates. I am going to play that different (and dare I say rarely, if ever, seen) list, give my opponent a good game (heck, I might even win one or two with a bit of luck) and have a good time. That has been my aspiration at every OFCC I have ever been to and will continue to be my OFCC goal for as long as I attend. In closing I will leave this:

I am outright amazed by the fact that so many Warhammer players, especially so many experienced ones, can't come up with a median list. I can hardly believe the assertions that building to a '3' is so difficult. If it can't be sorted solo perhaps checking out some of the more widely utilized comp packs could lend some help. Run the list thru the Swedish comp and see if you land around a 10 (middle of the road). If you land much lower than an 8 then you are on the tough side and if you are below a 6 then you might rethink that list as OFCC friendly. There are other comp packs out there as well - check out the ones used at multiple events as measuring sticks. Don't get me wrong, I am not elevating any single comp pack as the end all be all. In fact, I think that there are a number of players out there who consider gaming the comp part of their game and further consider that part of the WAAC attitude discussed above.

You can name your army list entries to your heart's content. Just don't do it on the list that gets submitted to the Rating Committee - there is enough information on 80-100 army lists without having to sort any extraneous items. And you are correct in that WAAC lists will not be allowed , even if one somehow slips by a captain the Rating Committee will not let it through. But in a friendly environment like the OFCC a WAAC list may not look like what many players might have in mind. The overall list power level is lower at the OFCC and as a consequence it takes less power gaming to get to the domination level than it would at a typical tournament. Players themselves should be the first line of defense against this, team captains should be second and the RC is the final line.

You must go through a lot of soap.....

Lists still must pass the scrutiny of the Rating Committee. The fabled '3' grey area is now larger with the pass/fail system, but there are likely to be a few lists that get rejected. The captain submits the lists to the RC and has the responsibility to make sure the lists meet the basic requirements prior to submission: 1. Formatted correctly? 2. Legal list? 3. Math correct? 4. Fit the spirit of the event? The team is penalized for any infractions.

Gratz you, AgentP!

I believe this is a typo. The list deadline is August 1st. http://www.ordofanaticus.com/index.php?/topic/21903-ofcc-announcement/