OFCC Announcement

[thatdave]

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.

[Failed Charge]

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.

With all those comp packs out there, especially ones with 10's if not 100's of tournaments of play time, my real question is why didn't Ofcc just pick the one best suited for there event rather than go with subjective comp with a bizarre hard comp restriction?

[dkieft]

With all those comp packs out there, especially ones with 10's if not 100's of tournaments of play time, my real question is why didn't Ofcc just pick the one best suited for there event rather than go with subjective comp with a bizarre hard comp restriction?

Because reasons.

[Burk]

we like to blaze our own path :)

[MexicanNinja]

Because reasons.

Torque plays warhammer!? OMG THIS IS AWESOME!

[King Mekhet]

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.

I play warhammer practically weekly, and I can honestly say that I have no idea what a '3' looks like, or how I'd even go about deciding that.

 

This is because, quite frankly, I don't know what you folks mean when you talk about "WAAC lists." Or, more specifically, what it means for a list to NOT be "WAAC."

 

To me "WAAC" has always been more a function of the player than the list itself. These are people who build and play to win, but do so in a way that is decidedly un-fun for their opponent. Leadership bomb lists, for instance. Or skirmish-trap lists that lock you in place with double-fleeing MSU so that your army does functionally nothing the whole game while they take you apart bit by bit. Or tough-as-nails WoC armies that hit you harder and faster than you can respond. It isn't the list that's a problem, it's the effect.

 

 

But I don't actually like those lists, because I think they're all one-dimensional. They're "skew armies," that win games by loading up on one element of the game at the expense of others. They'll overwhelm some opponents, but against other prepared opponents they'll dismantle you with laughable ease.

 

And that's the issue I'm having, here. I build lists that I feel are balanced and well-rounded, but I do so because I think that's more competitive. So when someone says "don't bring a WAAC list" I think...well does this apply to me? It's a list designed to win games? Should I build one designed to lose? What's being asked of me here?

 

If someone posted a list and said "Look, here. This is a '3'," then I'd know what to deal with. But as it stands I really have no idea what an OFCC '3' shoud look like, having never played in this tournament before. My goal is to come out and have fun games, and I don't want to jeopardize that, but I also think that my standard list offers a fun game...

 

[Chappy]

Torque plays warhammer!? OMG THIS IS AWESOME!

AT THE SOUND OF THE EXPLOSION, IT'LL BE TORGUE O'CLOCK!!!

MOWOWOWMEEDLEYMEEDLEYMEEEEEEERRRROOOOOOWWWWWWWW!!!

[dkieft]

stuff...

 

To me "WAAC" has always been more a function of the player than the list itself. These are people who build and play to win, but do so in a way that is decidedly un-fun for their opponent. Leadership bomb lists, for instance. Or skirmish-trap lists that lock you in place with double-fleeing MSU so that your army does functionally nothing the whole game while they take you apart bit by bit. Or tough-as-nails WoC armies that hit you harder and faster than you can respond. It isn't the list that's a problem, it's the effect.

 

 

But I don't actually like those lists, because I think they're all one-dimensional. They're "skew armies," that win games by loading up on one element of the game at the expense of others. They'll overwhelm some opponents, but against other prepared opponents they'll dismantle you with laughable ease.

 

other stuff...

 

First off, Yes! Exactly. Avoid those steam-roll-a-phase armies. Those are like 99% of what is not welcome at OFCC. The other 1% don't worry about it so much. (I am making numbers up here). If you build a balanced list, that is probably good enough. Do avoid things like unkillable units/characters, spamming certain choices (mostly taken care of with the restriction list), and avoid making the selection that "guarantee's a win". Really thats about it. 

 

Another helpful way to think about it is this:

 

A) Imagine a list that has no chance of winning against a balanced list... no chance... this list really sucks. Honestly, it was hard to make a list this bad. Lets call it list A.

 

List A is rated a 0. Do not bring list A to OFCC... ask friends for help building a better list.

 

B) List B, is hard as nails made of admantium and can win a game against a balanced list with out even trying. Probably due to making bad match ups with at least 75% of armies, steam rolling phases, etc.

 

List B is rated a 6 because it will probably win 6 out of 6 games in an event. Do not bring this list, it makes you look bad.

 

C) List C is balanced, it will give a good fight to most opponents and have a fair chance to win (barring bad dice) in most match ups. It will not ruin the enemies magic phase, not destroy the enemy in it's own. The enemy will not feel he has no hope against X,Y, and Z units (he may well have a rough go at it, but not "no hope").

 

List C, against other balanced lists should win (baring dice issues, and considering the generals are about equal in know-how) about 50% of its games (ties are good too). If you walk out of OFCC with a win, a loss and 3 ties, you just found out how to have the best OFCC ever.

 

List C is a 3, list C is your goal.

 

Hopefully that helps a little. Fact is, we can't say "3 is X,Y and Z" because until all the lists are in, we don't know exactly where 0 and 6 are this year. All the lists, are rated against each other... for the event, for that year... it is a moving target even for veteran raters.