thatdave

I still do not buy into End Times being the new face of Warhammer. "Remember that in the End Times, you can spend 50% of your points on Lords!" Is that saying that only in End Times games you get the change, or is it implying that all games of Warhammer are now in the End Times? Until I get a clear and concise clarification from GW I am not convinced either way.

Me too. Only it's daemons and dark elves for me. I also hope that GW clarifies whether or not this is the new face of Warhammer. I suspect it is leaning that way, but it would be nice to get the word from the top plain and clear. I'm not counting on it though. Excited nonetheless.

I humbly relinquish Shane's challenge to you, good sir.

@quickfuze: what lore was your level 4 on?

I too gave my pin to someone who beat me.

YOUR list got a -32?!?

Yeah, I had the feeling that most of the field was average to slightly tougher as an overall. There are a handful that you will find that score a bit tougher than that (a handful of nails too I suspect), and one or two that are much softer. Overall I'd say a decent OFCC field.

I was meaning this: If we leave the starting value alone (300) but increase the list size (from 2400 to 2800 let's say) then the lists will end up softer than if we were to increase the starting point (350 has been out forth). Taking into account that the lists must fall within a given range, of course. Is that assessment incorrect? I am basing it on the fact that there are fewer comp points to spend in relationship to the list size.

I'm with JMGraham. Besides, by leaving it where it is the lists will be slightly softer. Right? Sounds to me to be on the right track for the OFCC.

Win-win as Greg happens to have a pair of boobs!

You cannot base a statistical analysis on assumption. I think we all know that. Most of your theory is based on suppositions and assumptions, never a strong foundation for valid arguments. That not withstanding you are incorrect in this case. Granted I can only speak for my team, but we finished 7th in Battle with a team record of 11-9. Barely over .500 and still a top 1/3 position. We also received a number of pins - over a third of our total opponents graced us with their pins (if not their votes :roll:). My speculation would be that there are both similar and differing records and positioning situations. Burk has already stated that the sports scores were close and pins were the difference. This year seemed to me to be pretty close in overall team battle scores as well. It didn't seem to me that any one team ran away with it his year, which I personally find great. Assuming my supposition is correct.

Beasts are difficult for armies to deal with at nearly any level, even 2 singles. A unit of 3 at 1k is going to be harder than you might be thinking I suspect.

I'll have a go with you, Shane! IT. IS. ON!!

Thanks! And you are correct in my erroneous identification of the DC teams, but I remain in disagreement with your assessment. I put the above lists in a spreadsheet and found, with the exception of 4 of the teams, that the teams in the top 2/3 of sports are also in the top 2/3 of battle. EDIT: as a further observation I notice that, of the 11 teams appearing in both columns above, it is an even split between those finishing higher in their sports/battle placement as compared to the battle/sports placement (if that makes sense). There is a difference of one (as there is an odd number (15), but CHOP! is in virtually the same place on both lists and is essentially a wash. I contend this is further evidence that your assessment and assumption is incorrect. At least in this case.

And let's not ignore the fact that sports 1-2-5(3rd in actual points barring the tie) were 7-8-9 in battle. Further proof that your gut feeling might be something else

My team won the Marshall Johnson award and our team had a 3-2 get one pin, a 0-5 get two and a 4-1 get 4. While your theory might be true for most events I don't think it holds true for the OFCC.

Great info, thanks Burk!

I would encourage you to contact the 40k LRC chair. I can't help but think you would be welcomed with open arms.

And as to lists: due to some measure of outcries and dissatisfaction with the system that was in place lists were reduced to pass/fail. There were a number of rejections, many of which were sufficiently adjusted to the committee's satisfaction to fit in with the field. Others were eased down to what I would refer to as squeezing by, and these seemed to be done grudgingly. I will not name names nor point fingers, but to imply all lists are a-ok because they were approved by the Rating Committee is a misrepresentation. There were obviously a wide variety of power levels across the lists, even within teams themselves. I don't think any ludicrous lists were present, but some were obviously better than some of the others.

I don't buy the above theory. Looking at the battle scores 3 of the top 5 sports teams were right at the top third (top half for sure) of battle.

My Ogre list from this year comes in at 19.2. Not sure how that calculates at 2800, but I'm gonna guess not too good.

I am in agreement with BroG, Romes and NtK here. Well, except NtK's point about a HoG ruling being necessary as it looks clear to me. I suppose it's best to be crystal clear though, so perhaps that ruling might be best. But with 9E looming it might be moot. All the rules-backed points above not withstanding just the fact that it appears hinkey and takes an unclear combo of rules to pull off would stop me from doing it. ESPECIALLY at the OFCC. I respect NtK's stance and appreciate his letting it go. Good on ya, brother!

Thanks Burk! And NtK is correct - posting individual scores never ends well.

Well done to everyone!

Thanks to AgentP, for sure! I too exceeded scoring expectations (just out of the top 3 ) and enjoyed it a lot. It brought back memories of when GW gave a crap about more than our money.....