Upcoming North Carolina Tournaments

Friday, January 8, 2010

Comp Systems: The Charlotte 01/09 Approach

I'm headed down to Charlotte in the early a.m. tomorrow for two days of Warhammer Fantasy tournaments.  The second day (1/10) is a state league championship tournament which I've been working my way into for a couple months.  The first day (1/9) is a store RTT at Parker, Banner, Kent and Wayne, a great store down that way. 

They've come up with an interesting approach to composition down there.  Basically, they use a checklist, and any army that shows up can play.  Any army that scores higher than a 12, however, can't earn any points, and thus can't win anything at all, really. 

I'll give that it's easy, and it's fine for a one day RTT, but I wouldn't use this anywhere else.  It's a bit too broad, and too punishing in some areas while easy in others.  For instance, my Dark Elf army can skate through with a variety of builds, while my buddy's VC is hard pressed to score well.  I think the idea that 12+ can't play is the hardest part though.  I've never thought that any legal list should be eliminated, although some can be heavily penalized. 

There is no easy or correct way to do composition, although I'm a fan of the WPS system, if I had to choose one.  Any ideas on different composition systems that you like?


  1. I'd also say that the WPS is the one I like the most out of the comp systems I've seen. I really think that with some tweaking (especially on the side of the 'lower tier' armies), it could be a really effective system. As it is right now I think it just gives too much of a penalty for units/items that are moderately outdated due to 'newer' armies that have answers to the 'older' builds (like Treemen or mounted O&G). Downsides? It is a little complicated, which I think can discourage new or more 'casual' wargamers. It also discriminates against certain item or unit combos that I admit are fun to play with, which also may discourage players ("oh what? I can't bring my suped-up Thane build? That's bogus..."). I think these cons can be ammended by encouraging this system on a more 'hardcore' level, (i.e. with a Masters tournament, or for instance the Charlotte league playoffs) where you have more experienced players who will be more willing to put the time into their lists so it does well with the system.

  2. That is the current downside of WPS: it continues to punish a lot of old and no longer quite so effective builds. Treemen are a very good example. Still, it has a certain flexibility and specificity that other systems don't.

  3. I hate WPS. It really hurts the middle tier armies by crushing the only things that make them competitive. Meanwhile top tier armies can rely on the basic stengths of their units. I really like the Austrlian Masters tiered army structure (Daemons, VC, DE, Lizards in top tier where VP are harder to get, Rares limited, etc). I do think it is a little too punitive to the top armies, hurting them in multiple ways. But toned down a little, I think it is the best at targeting the armies that are at the top and aligning them to the other armies as best as can. Less chance for loopholes in this method.

    Just so you know, the Charlotte system is what was used for Brawler Bash last year except for the 12 pt limit. For Brawler Bash they had anything a certain number got negative top, any under 7 get a good comp score, etc. I'm not sure where the 12 points or less or its illegal rule came from. Probably trying to keep things simple.

  4. I'm aware. This is Rich's system, and I don't think it's a bad one. I think the black and white line at 12 is a little odd. But I completely understand it for a little RTT action, and think it makes perfect sense. I was trying to look at it in terms of overall quality for tournaments.

    I hate the tiered system myself more than any of the others. Check out Larry Mottola's article on "The Big Three" and such. To me, an Empire army can be crazy soft or crazy hard, but not according to the Australians. It is ridiculously simple to implement.

    I do like having a panel look at submitted lists before a tournament and scoring them based on individual content, but that one is hard to implement.

    In the end, comp is like taking medicine. People might like it more in various flavors. It's good for us, and we should do it. But it can taste pretty bad regardless, and sometimes be really painful.