Aussie Comp

11 years?

I was wondering if everyone that attended Octocon could forward me their lists that they used there?
I would like to run them through a couple different comp systems and see where they come out.

send them to:
rbf911AThotmailDOTcom
Thanks,
Rob

I'll see if i can fire you a copy of mine tonight. I know I would have likely comped my army not too highly. The big scary lord on a wyvern kind of lowered the score I would give myself. Still, apparently O&G aren't that strong on the tourny circuit. I wonder why? My fav armies I've always felt were pretty competitive with the rest of the books (Excepting some of the newer ones).

11 years?

That isn't a long time? You would have been 4 or 5....

Oh good come back.

I'll fire off my list you tonight......would be cool to see how I faired with VC...........still can't figure out how they rate VC as "tougher" than Daemons?

It's gotta be down to their summoning thingy again. Remember you can still cook up a list with the blood knights maxed out, min core, and have a 3000 point army built up by your second magic phase. And with the breaking into enemy units auto killing you the summoning little units of zombies is even better then before.

squalie wrote:

11 years?

That isn't a long time? You would have been 4 or 5....

I wasn't saying it's not a long time, I was specifying how many years your vague descriptor of "few" was standing in for.

ScottRadom wrote:It's gotta be down to their summoning thingy again. Remember you can still cook up a list with the blood knights maxed out, min core, and have a 3000 point army built up by your second magic phase. And with the breaking into enemy units auto killing you the summoning little units of zombies is even better then before.

They've said that their ranking serves only to reflect the tournament standings in Australia before they instituted the system. They found they were being dominated by Vampires a little more than Daemons so that's why they're ahead in the race to the bottom.

Also they can't find the example lists, but said that their examples of the worst (-2) lists were basically just a random handful taken from the UKGT.

So things like the following would be a bad list:

Kairos Fateweaver [General]
Twin Heads, Tzeentch Will and Daemonic Robes

Blue Scribe w/Disc of Tzeentch

Tz Herald
Wings & Power Vortex

Tz Herald
Wings & Power Vortex

10 Horrors w/ Changling
10 Horrors
10 Horrors

3 Screamers
3 Screamers
3 Screamers
3 Screamers

6 Flamers
6 Flamers

Hey youngblood, you save your fancy math's n' such for schoolin'. Allow us from the Kennedy era our own misbegotten reccolectin'.

And by Kennedy era I do of course mean Jamie Kennedy. Man is that kid unfunny.

[quote]I wasn't saying it's not a long time, I was specifying how many years your vague descriptor of "few" was standing in for.[quote]

Sorry, Eric, that's just how old people talk. Everything starts to turn grey around 35. By the way, that reminds me of a story.......

I was reading through a battle report of the UK GT heat 2. What a bunch of trash, really an embarrassment to the hobby to see a tournament composed of army lists like that. Out of a 6 round tournament the writer had to play against 6 waac armies.......ex. 3 double treeman lists that were min max. 2 deamon min max lists that featured special characters, a high elf teclis list backed up by the infamous battlebanner, etc.

I don't think I would ever go to tournaments in the UK, the style they play there leaves little doubt as to why GW has problems with some books.

Oh yeah, one of the opponents with a waac list was a notable GW designer....I think Phil Kelly, can't remember now.

What the hell is waac?

Win At All Costs.

That's whack.

Waac a guy, off a guy...

Tim, you never post and that's what you come up with?! Man, we need to work on you a little...

squalie wrote:Tim, you never post and that's what you come up with?! Man, we need to work on you a little...

Maybe you could whack him off.

Sometimes a guy just sets himself up.

BTW, is that really a nose? -->

Just wondering if you guys fired me off your lists yet? (did not see them in my hotmail acct: rbf911 @ hotmail . com ) Let me know if they bounced or some other issue.

Later,
Rob

B1B wrote:Just wondering if you guys fired me off your lists yet? (did not see them in my hotmail acct: rbf911 @ hotmail . com ) Let me know if they bounced or some other issue.

Later,
Rob

No, sorry Rob. Forgot. Army builder OK?

army builder would be perfect

This almost seems too simple...

That being said, best system I’ve encountered to date?

5 opponents? Cool.

Finish all 5 games, and then rank them (1 to 5), based on which game was more enjoyable for you. No duplicate scores allowed, and if all 5 games were awesome, you’re still gonna have to decide which game was the most awesome, and which game was the least awesome.

No checklists, minimal paperwork, prevents sports from turning into a mutual admiration society (or a mutual slagfest) because even the most bitter, angsty, self-loathing Daemon player is going to have to give someone a 5.

Interesting Idea, but their ideas of what armies are cheasier than others is way out of whack!

However comp has to be applied to the players tendancies, which vary from region to region. Comp boils down to trying to get everything and the only one I saw ALMOST do this was the old warcon comp system that was 5 pages long.

A panel of judges on comp would be fine, but hard to do since: 1) You would have to have experience from all armies. 2) Not have a bias that may affect the outcome of the tourny i.e. judges who are playing.