OFCC list examples

[thatdave]

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:

 

dragons_lair04, on 18 May 2014 - 2:47 PM, said:

Total Roster Cost: 2798

Vampire Lord
   1 Vampire Lord + Level 3 Upgrade + Heavy Armour + Shield
      1 Zombie Dragon
      1 Sword of Anti Heroes
      1 Nightshroud
      1 Red Fury
      1 Fear Incarnate

Wight King
   1 Wight King (Battle Standard Bearer) + Shield + Battle Standard Bearer
      1 Wailing Banner

Necromancer
   1 Necromancer + Master of the Dead + Level 2 Upgrade
      1 Corpse Cart + Balefire
      1 Book of Arkhan

Zombie Horde (40)
   40 Zombies + Musician Mus + Standard Bearer Std

Skeleton Warriors (30)
   29 Skeleton Warriors + Musician Mus + Standard Bearer Std
      1 Skeleton Champion

Crypt Ghouls (30)
   29 Crypt Ghouls
      1 Crypt Ghast

Dire Wolves (5)
   5 Dire Wolves

Dire Wolves (5)
   5 Dire Wolves

Hexwraiths (5)
   4 Hexwraiths
      1 Hellwraith

Grave Guard (27)
   26 Grave Guard + Musician Mus + Standard Bearer Std
      1 Seneschal
      1 The Banner of the Barrows

Crypt Horrors (6)
   5 Crypt Horrors
      1 Crypt Haunter

Terrorgheist
   1 Terrorgheist

 

 

AgentP, on 02 May 2014 - 8:15 PM, said:
LORDS

Daemon Prince of Tzeentch, Lv 4, Lore of Metal, Wings, Greater gift, Lesser gift - I wanted a daemon prince for three reasons.  First, I had the model already.  Second, I'm not a big fan of the big chicken model.  I'm mounting my guy on the pillar of fire arcane fulcrum.  Finally, he's a lesser seen Lord choice, and I thought it would be good to use something off the beaten path for OFCC.

HEROES

Herald of Tzeentch, Lv 2, Lore of Tzeentch, Exalted locus
Herald of Khorne, BSB, Exalted locus, lesser gift

CORE

31 bloodletters, full command - I'm running this unit 8x4.  Why not horde you ask?  Well, you see, I love the warriors of chaos shrine model.  And I'm using it as a centerpiece for this unit, converting it to have a bloodletter on top, with the unit standard.  So I need to unit 4 deep to match the base size.  Would be better in horde, but will look cooler with the centerpiece. 
10 pink horrors, standard
10 pink horrors, standard
10 pink horrors, standard

SPECIAL

6 Screamers of Tzeentch
3 Bloodcrushers of Khorne, standard

RARE

1 Skullcannon of Khorne
1 Burning Chariot of Tzeentch
1 Soulgrinder, mark of tzeentch, daemonbane claw - I honestly expect this unit to suck.  I would be far better off with a second skull cannon or more bloodcrushers.  But again, I like this model, and I feel like I need a big monsterish thing.

HeroZero posted:

Wizard lord, level 4, Lore of Fire, Dispel Scroll
Archlector, war altar, charmed shield
Captain BSB, full plate, Enchanted Shield, Talisman of Protection
Witch Hunter, Brace of Pistols, Glittering scales, ring of Ruby Rhuin

20 Handguns
-10 archer detachment
40 State Troops, FC
- 20 man detachment
12 Knights, FC

Great cannon
Mortar
40 Flagellants
10 Pistoliers
3 Demigryphs

Giant

 

 

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:

 

thatdave posted:

1 Slaughtermaster
  Magic Level 3,Beasts,Charmed Shield

1 Butcher
  Magic Level 2,Great Maw,Iron Fist
1 Hunter
  Iron Fist,Beastkiller,Dragonhelm
1 Hunter
  Longstrider,Enchanted Shield,Dragonbane Gem

7 Ogres
  Look-Out Gnoblar,Iron Fist,Full Command
7 Ogres
  Look-Out Gnoblar,Iron Fist,Full Command
20 Gnoblars
   Trappers
21 Gnoblars
   Trappers

4 Leadbelchers
  Musician
4 Yhetees
4 Yhetees
4 Sabretusk Pack
4 Sabretusk Pack

1 Stonehorn
  Harpoon Launcher
1 Giant
1 Giant

Models in Army: 84
Total Army Cost: 2798.5

 

 

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:

 

thatdave, on 30 May 2014 - 6:18 PM, said:

The best piece of advice I think I've given out is this:  Don't build your list to try to win.  Build your list to put up a good fight.  That is, to me anyway, what the OFCC is supposed to be about.  Good, close games with fun, sporting opponents where the game itself is more important than the bottom line of the final outcome.  Awards are an afterthought, except Sportsmanship of course!  Prizes, while nice, are not my goal.  I have too many models already!                                                                                                                                                                                   The advice I gave one of my guys starts with an adage synonymous (to me anyway) with the OFCC:  Bring what you want to play and let the rating fall where it will.  If you are concerned that you might get rated higher than you are aiming then you might want to scale back your list.  Sportsmanship is where it's at at this event, NOT winning.  If you are hung up on winning then your list is likely to land higher than you wanted.  Remember that this is the OFCC, not your run of the mill tournament. 

[King Mekhet]

 

 

The best piece of advice I think I've given out is this:  Don't build your list to try to win.  Build your list to put up a good fight.  That is, to me anyway, what the OFCC is supposed to be about.  Good, close games with fun, sporting opponents where the game itself is more important than the bottom line of the final outcome.

 

Perhaps I'm just being dense, but isn't "build a list to put up a good fight" still building a list to win? Or, at least a list that CAN win?

 

I'm starting to get a sense that what people are getting at isn't so much "don't build to win" but "don't build a list that wins in a way that is un-fun, or which has elements that people will simply not be able to deal with."

 

So you can bring a demon prince so long as he's not kitted out to be unkillable. You can bring demigryphs so long as you're not spamming 1+ armour. Bring magic a strong magic phase so long as its not overwhelmingly so.

 

At least, this is the sense that I'm getting?  Because "don't build to win" doesn't make much sense to me: either you're building a list that CAN win, or building a list that CAN'T. If the goal is to "build a balanced list that you think is fun to play against" then that's an entirely different thing.

 

Edit: Thanks for the examples, though. This really helps to give me a target of what I should be shooting at. :)

[thatdave]

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.  

[thatdave]

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.

[BeaverBeliever]

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.  

 

Then why keep track of teams winning/losing at all?  I know this has been brought up before, and it may be too late for this year, but if the focus is to take away incentive to get to the podium, then why keep track?  Just award for sports, paint, and whatever else seems like fun (scenarios, secret objectives, bingo cards of random achievements, etc.).  And we may say that sports is the most prestigious award, and I think most strive for it, but there is a best overall award which inherently says that it has a higher place.  Anyway, I just think that all of this comp and list debate is small change compared to the bigger money of the current structured team competition.

[KJTW]

Then why keep track of teams winning/losing at all? I know this has been brought up before, and it may be too late for this year, but if the focus is to take away incentive to get to the podium, then why keep track? Just award for sports, paint, and whatever else seems like fun (scenarios, secret objectives, bingo cards of random achievements, etc.). And we may say that sports is the most prestigious award, and I think most strive for it, but there is a best overall award which inherently says that it has a higher place. Anyway, I just think that all of this comp and list debate is small change compared to the bigger money of the current structured team competition.

+1

[thatdave]

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

[Drak]

I disagree that wins and losses need I be tracked at all. if there is no longer an incentive to win and playing is what it's about then it doesn't matter who you play, just that you are. you only need to pair or match similar win/loss records if you are tryin to ascertain who is the "best general".

 

get ride of the whole structure of pairing teams by their records and let teams face off based on other factors (ie challenges, names out of a hat, etc).

 

then it becomes for about playing fun games (sportsmanship) maybe getting objectives but not "winning" and painting/hobbying really nice armies.

[thatdave]

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.

[Drak]

"good games by looking to get teams of similar skill levels against one another" is just another way to following the mentality that competitive games are better than random pairings. it's a symptom of competitiveness and byproduct of keeping track of win/loss records. in short I consider it a thinking error that keeps competitive play the focus.

 

OFCC is one of the only forums for playing that I'm aware of that cares not who wins but about what kind of experience you had. with that as the foundation of the event structure you could comfortably do away with all the trappings of competivite "win/lose" play.

 

doing so may disencourage some people from participating given that they could think "why spend the large sum of money to effectly play in a home-game environment." but it could better ensure the spirit of OFCC permiates all aspects of the event.

[MexicanNinja]

I just want to roll dice, drink beer, laugh, and enjoy the army display.

[Drak]

+1 to MN

[BeaverBeliever]

disencourage

 

I've been at work for almost 13 hours today and this took me a moment too long to process; brain no compute   But well said, otherwise.  I need to go home now....

[Veskit]

Most of you that know me, know I take very toned down lists all the time (even in no comp, WAAC environments).  Even being that type of player I'd have to say, many of us come down from up north for the bragging rights that comes from winning (and to drink and be rowdy on top of it of course).  Does that mean we're WAAC players?

 

I think enough is done to dissuade the WAAC players by making prizes be independent of where you place (ie raffling prizes), but don't take away the bragging rights IMHO.  You'd likely get only 1 team from up in Canada as a result, although if you think we're a problem then I guess that's a good thing.

[thatdave]

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.

 

"good games by looking to get teams of similar skill levels against one another" is just another way to following the mentality that competitive games are better than random pairings. it's a symptom of competitiveness and byproduct of keeping track of win/loss records. in short I consider it a thinking error that keeps competitive play the focus.

OFCC is one of the only forums for playing that I'm aware of that cares not who wins but about what kind of experience you had. with that as the foundation of the event structure you could comfortably do away with all the trappings of competivite "win/lose" play.

 

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.

[MexicanNinja]

All I can hope for are some fun-close games. Unfortunately, we all know what happens when the dice start rolling. There's always the game when dice are favoring one army. You just can't do anything but laugh about it.

[KJTW]

All I can hope for are some fun-close games. Unfortunately, we all know what happens when the dice start rolling. There's always the game when dice are favoring one army. You just can't do anything but laugh about it.

Also beer