Does the Hobby Want--or Need--Army Composition Scoring?

Scoring for an Army's Composition in organized Warhammer 40,000 (or Warhammer Fantasy) play--especially tournaments. Is it needed? Does it have a role, if not? Is there a way to do it fairly?

The answer to the first question is, simply, no: it is not necessary to the success of play. The codices for each army, a construction framework such as percentages or the Force Organization Chart--and a determined points value--are the only essential tools for composing armies. And there are numerous organized events and tournaments which do not feature any scoring for Army Composition, or otherwise address the issue beyond the requirement that a participating army be codex-legal and adhere to the indicated points value and Force Organization.

The answer to the second question is the meat of the subject, really. If Army Composition scoring is not necessary, and some events succeed quite satisfactorily without it--why add it? It is undeniably extra work for a moderator, to score and ensure compliance, and there are clearly significant portions of the player base which do not embrace it. The reason for Army Composition scoring in organized play is simply that the game is not an abstract construct, like chess; it--and the codices which allow army construction within it--attempt to do more than balance each army for competition, they also attempt to help players create a simulation on the tabletop, and tell a compelling story. Allowing army builds from codices without prejudice can be likened to allowing chess players to build their side with as many knights, rooks or queens as they choose instead of pawns (thus creating 'power armies' or 'tiered codices' or whichever descriptive phrase of your choice indicates that in the Hobby not all codices and not all entries in codices are evenly balanced, competitively): it wouldn't be 'fair' in chess so chess doesn't allow it--and providing some scoring for Army Composition in organized play attempts to address it insofar as possible, for 40K. In that light, it would seem that yes, scoring for Army Composition has a role...especially as long as there are also events available wherein it is *not* used, as well, for those who do not enjoy or appreciate such restraints.

That role can only be properly filled if the scoring for Army Composition seems to participants to accomplish its intent. Thus, the third question--can it be scored fairly? Of the two reasons players tend not to like scoring for Army Composition (the first being not liking any penalty being assessed for building an army other than how one prefers), it is experience with unfair Army Composition scoring in organized play that leaves the most distaste. We've all heard the horror stories: armies identical in build receiving different scores; armies built to a given judge's hard-and-fast notion of what is 'right' getting high scores when they seem to fly in the face of the game's background; not knowing what judges wanted in a build before--and often after--getting scored.... Army Composition was always a component of Official GW GTs in the 90s and early 2000s--and was always controversial, because they rarely told you what their build criteria were, and/or how they had applied it. You got your score, at the end of the GT--you just never knew why. Things came to a head when a particular judge answered an interview question about ideal Army Composition by saying that his perfect vision of a 1500 point army was 100 space marines on foot; while reasonable players knew what he was driving at (a representation of a company of space marines), a simple application of this Army Composition to the then-extant rules revealed there was no physical way to get a hundred marines into such a list, never mind within a Force Org chart and never mind that such a force, denied mobility or heavy/special weapons or leadership, would get pasted in almost any mission imaginable. Even as this pronouncement raised the already ire-filled argument about Army Comp to new levels, competitive players began trying to apply the philosophy in GTs--reaching the height of ridiculousness when one such was awarded 'Best Army Composition' at one Grand Tournament for a Chaos Space Marine army which featured the then-legal composition of six 50-strong infantry Chaos Cultist hordes and multiple Great Unclean Ones of Nurgle. Not a single actual Chaos Space Marine in sight.

It was in light of such antics that Army Composition went away completely in many events, or took on radical refining in others, the latter in an effort to continue to allow it to fill its role but to do so fairly. The best such--then and still--is Astronomi-Con's Army Composition: it presents players with guidelines that try to address the role indicated above, but does so completely voluntarily--so that a player can break the Army Comp guidelines for a modest scoring penalty if they think they can make up those points in battle with their higher-end performing army--and completely transparently--so that every player knows how his choices will affect his score.

Is it perfect? No--no more than the game itself is perfect, or perfectly balanced. Very often, players have to 'break' the Army Composition guidelines for a simulation- or story-based reason, as much as in an attempt to power-up their build; the best example I can think of from the recent AstroDallas was a Tyranid player whose love for that army has always been built around large monstrous creatures, especially carnifexes, and who had to take big hits to his Army Comp to get those monsters on the table even though almost no one fears Tyranid 'godzilla' builds under the current codex, *especially* the grossly neutered carnifexes. But the important thing is that 1) he knew what doing so was going to do to his Army Comp score in advance, and was able to decide if that penalty was enough that he needed to go out and start adding hordes; and 2) when he decided it wasn't and he'd rather play the army he liked, he could do it anyway.

I am on record as preferring not to have an Army Composition score in events I run. I recognize the inherent imbalance in the codices, and choose to address it by allowing actual participants to include their perception of the opposing army build as an element of their Sportsmanship scoring. This is where I have always believed it belonged, because the relative 'funness' or 'unfunness' to play of an army construction is almost always a reflection of the relative 'funness' or 'unfunness' of an opposing player to play--and on the occasions I encounter someone who has power-built an army but who is really fun and sporting to play against and has put a great deal into the simulation aspect of that army as well, I am if anything inclined to score him the higher for it, Sportsmanship wise, because that is not very common (the inverse, of someone who shows up with a very thematic army they've invested tremendously in the simulation aspect of but who winds up being a complete douche to game against happens, too--and Sportsmanship *still* seems to be a reasonable area to address that, in scoring). Is this perfect? Of course not--the most obvious flaw being, as in any player-scored aspect, that often the least Sporting players will use that very element of the overall scoring in manipulative ways. Play your buddy, who is obviously a jackass to everyone in the room with his contentiousness, and who has tweaked his army to match, and give him perfect marks for Sportsmanship including his build? Yeah--you've beaten the system. Bravo to you, a-hole...but don't think everyone doesn't know you did it, and don't be shocked when *your* Sportsmanship scoring seems lower from your opponents other than your buddy than you thought you deserve, and maybe costs you a placing.

The important thing to remember in either case is that players know this aspect of scoring will be present in advance; it at least presents the opportunity for addressing imbalance, and achieving a higher level of competitive fairness, and if it isn't their cup-of-tea, hobby-wise, there are plenty of 'harder' organized play events out there, for their investment of time, effort and expense. That is 'fairness' at its most balanced.

The Ard Boyz events come under a lot of criticism in discussions of any aspect of the Hobby other than tabletop results--but in my view they shouldn't. They are to gameplay what Golden Daemon competitions are to the painting aspect of the Hobby: an organized event narrowly focusing on that part of the overall Hobby, not a replacement for organized events which fully embrace and celebrate as many aspects of the Hobby at once as possible. Just as Golden Daemon should not diminish the accomplishments of a Best Painted or Best Army trophy winner at a broad-hobby event, Ard Boyz play should not dictate to broad-hobby play. Let them all exist, and let hobbyists decide where they are happiest participating.

And if, in a given area, there *aren't* enough events of any one type or another, and a hobbyist has a very strong feeling about it...there are always plenty of retailers looking for events, and someone with the commitment to run one. Doing so is biting off a chunk of work, to be sure, but will have a much longer-term impact that simply talking about it or posting about it. In the ongoing matter of scoring for Army Composition, as in the rest of the hobby, as in life...effort trumps opinion. I know Astronomi-Con was formed from a challenge to its moderators, after an unsatisfactory organized play experience, to 'see if you can do better'...and they have.
CEA
+++

The Wrath of the Norse!

Interesting in-scale little plastic kit on offer from Warlord Games:

http://www.warlordgames.co.uk/?p=7385

The application for 28mm historicals is obvious; what occurs to me as well is that it would make a great centerpiece for a Warriors of Chaos army in Warhammer Fantasy Battles--and (for those willing to chop something this cool up a bit) an even cooler terrain/objective!

Tales of Battle

'Tales of Battle' is a high-production-value fanzine devoted to Warhammer Fantasy Battle--specifically the WHFB Grand Tournament Circuit--which has just reached its milestone sixth issue...no small feat for what is essentially a two-man operation.

Each issue covers the latest developments in the Warhammer world, via reviews of such things as recent army book releases, through the prism of what has happened on the GT circuit. There are, as well as reviews, frequent army showcases and occasional modeling workshops--but even these are geared toward the GTer. An excellent example is local hobbyist Matt Mayer's article about Dwarf entrenchments in issue five: although Matt does a great job expanding on the basics for building the model (presented in an earlier issue), making it 360 and addressing a defect in one of the recommended building materials, and the article would stand as valuable from that perspective alone, the remainder of the article elaborates on how the entrenchment played at the Alamo GT.

It isn't in any way a criticism to point out this emphasis; and in fact much of 'Tales of Battle's' success is probably due to it's catering to a specific potential audience. It is just something potential customers should know: there are frequent uses without elaboration of abbreviations and terminology which have become commonplace over the course of GT play which a non-GTer may have difficulty deciphering, and a general sense of familiarity amongst the circuit's top players (which understandably include 'ToB's' staff) which can leave readers interested in Warhammer but less a part of the GT subculture scratching their heads.

It might be fair to suggest clarity in such matters could be improved by judicious explanatory editing...and it is also fair to warn readers in advance that if they are bothered by the presence of other errors one expects to be cleaned up by professional editing--such as spelling or punctuation errors, mid-paragraph changes in tense, etc--such things are too common in issues of 'ToB' to ignore. 'Tales of Battle' is a fanzine; as it's colour, graphic design and photo reproduction have improved from issue to issue, it is easy to forget that it's creators and contributors are producing it out of affection for the subculture, and by definition are professionals at something else. Nevertheless, five bucks is five bucks; some readers won't stand for muddy or inaccurate photos or diagrams at that price, and others may not for muddy english...

Each issue of 'ToB' can be counted on to include regular features: those present from the start have included in-person coverage of the most recent GTs, Masters of Battle interviews with hobby (meaning circuit) notables, Table One (a fully-diagrammed battle report from climactic tables at recent GTs, a particularly impressive, labour-intensive piece of work) and The General's Tent, offering playing advice. I have found something of merit in all these regular columns; I learned more about Wasteland Wars and it's tireless promoter on the Adeptus North Texas mailing list, Brent Collins, in issue 4 than I had known, for example (all of which makes me want to get out to Lubbock someday even more), and the General's Tent on GT Etiquette in that same issue should be something every hobbyist reads.

The irregular features have been spottier--short WHFB-ish fiction, painting and building articles and army showcases increase the zine's appeal beyond the GT circuit players circle, while commentaries from such players and/or about activities on it can be so insular as to be offputting. Issue 5's At The Crossroads of Overlord is a fine example: an article about four East Coast players' attempts to claim a season-overall championship through play in the last tourney event was fascinating, once into it--but with far too little explanatory set-up about who they were or how they reached that point to be very clear. Doubtless for others on the circuit who know them or know the whole story, it was sufficient; for the remaining potential WHFB-loving audience it took a lot of inference while reading-through, to get satisfaction.

In particular, I would enjoy seeing more reviews: the format in issue 5 which judged the Skaven Army Book by familiar letter grades for Imagination/Excitement, Balance (which it did well on) and Rules Clarity (where it nearly failed) was enlightening.

'ToB's' newest feature will be as an outlet for 'unofficial' WHFB playlists. This started as a well-received, fan-created army list for the long-officially-unavailable Chaos Dwarves, which has been accepted for official play at certain GTs (the 96 page PDF can be downloaded at http://www.warmongers.ziggyqubert.com for the interested); author Kevin Coleman adds the Fimir (for the true WHFB grognard) in issue 6. It is a neat idea, and the initial impression the list makes upon this Black Orc player is positive, ruleswise--but it's credibility is, if not destroyed, badly undermined by the worst case of the aforementioned amateurish proofing/editing yet seen in an issue...

'Tales of Battle' is the brainchild of North Texas' own Ben Burns, ably assisted by Matt Birdoff. Copies are available locally at The Gamers Realm and Area 51 for $5 each; subscriptions can be had for $25 at http://www.talesofbattle.com and, while I am no WHFB GTer, I felt I got my five bucks worth of entertainment and am happy to have found all six issues through local retailers. I anxiously await the seventh.
+++

Despatch: Plastic Minotaurs

Acknowledging that I am probably a hard-sell--I love the existing Citadel pewter Minotaur models, they were the core of my previous edition Beastmen army for Warhammer Fantasy Battle, and I had a small hand in creating the Minotaur HQ option for same (what became the Doombull) so I have a certain entirely-unearned-but-real-nonetheless emotional sense of ownership toward them--my initial reaction to the all-plastic, multipose Minotaurs released along with the all-new Beastmen Army Book was *not* enthusiastic.

Having assembled my first unit of three, however, my opinion has modified, to the positive.

The negatives remain: I do not like how oversized they've become compared to the existing metals, I do not like some of the strange anatomical decisions made by the sculptors (chiefly the weird non-hooved hybrid feet and the 'bubble-muscle' look), I do not like how fur/pelt detail has become stylized rather than realistic (an aesthetic choice across the new Beastmen line which looks cartoonish and fake and doesn't work at all, for me), and I do not think the heads resemble either the existing Citadel Minotaur look or real bovine creatures. It has been suggested there is a World of Warcraft influence....

Those points made, I observed in building the actual models that much of these (admittedly subjective) aesthetic issues could be pretty-easily modified by a painting approach which geared the Minotaurs either toward the existing GW look, or just toward a more subdued, realistic approach generally; it appears the Eavy Metal versions seen in advance of their release in White Dwarf uniformly opted to accentuate the design choices made in the sculpts (an admittedly understandable marketing decision). This is particularly true of the heads, which are more recognizably Minotaurish in bare plastic.

And as has been the case with GW's multipart plastic figure kits for some time now, the technical execution is impeccable (sharply-cast details in high-quality plastic with little flash and outstanding fit) and the parts value is high (after assembling my three Minotaurs I had two heads, three sets of horns, four sets of arms, almost a dozen weapons and myriad optional extra detail bits left over). Particularly impressive is the ability to model full command, or three hand-weapon-and-shield, two-hand-weapon or double-handed great weapon armed Minotaurs in each box.

Will they replace my mighty pewter beasts, if I ever return to fielding Beastmen? No. But might they augment those worthies? That they might...
+++

Wrath of the Norsemen

'O Sigmar Preserve Us From The Wrath Of The Norsemen'
--Unknown Imperial Priest, Town Cryer 13

The Hordes of Chaos are gone. The Warriors of Chaos are among us. And that little change in wording means everything.

Games Workshop's latest Army Book for the Warhammer Fantasy Battle system goes a long way toward rectifying the distress created when, with the publication in early 2008 of Daemons of Chaos, GW veered away from their much-lauded prior approach toward Chaos army-building--that of allowing hobbyists to use elements of *all* the Chaos forces, whether mortal or daemonic or beastmen, so long as their army emphasized one as primary--and enforced a 'choose an army book and stick to it' model upon the masses. To say it wasn't broadly well-received would be understating; however, the new Warriors of Chaos book presents such a wealth of choices under its one stunning Adrian Smith cover--and does it so well--that most players will be mollified. Unless they wanted to include daemons, of course.

The primary credited author of Warriors of Chaos is Phil Kelly. Any Warhammer Armies book or Warhammer 40,000 Codex is necessarily going to be a product of the entire design studio...but it is always worth noting where the buck ultimately stops: if one name begins to be associated with a run of unsatisfactory codices, players should recognize that--and the converse is true. In Phil Kelly's case, he is the author of record of a number of really-well-received force books (Eldar and especially the hilarious new Orks for 40K amongst them), so hobbyist expectations are high...and with Warriors of Chaos, he has delivered again.

There are three things I look for in a new force book; a fourth, if it is a new edition of an existing book (as is the case here): 1) Does it reflect a proper grasp of the force covered; is it 'convincing?' 2) Does it do enough with that force's rules to make a new edition worthwhile, whether by tightening, focusing or expanding? 3) Does it do both with a proper respect toward what has gone before? And 4) Is it at least as good a version of the force book as the edition it replaces (and preferably, is it better)?

Warriors of Chaos succeeds wildly in almost every category.

One of the things best things about this Army book is that it hammers home who (or perhaps more accurately what) Chaos Warriors really are--and then builds the entire army list around that concept. Kelly has infused the book with a Norse feel, from the specific--an excellent background section detailing the Old World's northernmost climes, and the history of those who descend from it upon the civilized races of the south--to the general--especially in the grim worldview of those Old World tribes, so very like the outlook of our Scandinavian cultures of the eighth-eleventh centuries, upon whose Viking exploits this aspect of the Warhammer world is clearly based. Kelly's Warriors of Chaos are not paper-thin caricatures come screaming down with pointy-horned helmets and over sized axes...they are a people from a landscape always one extra-harsh winter away from starvation, for whom, because of the fountain of Chaosstuff warping reality at the Old World's pole, supernatural powers are not abstract concepts--they are real. They interfere with the world. They bring power, real power--but power which always comes with a price. Death is everywhere--so life should be seized, and all the glory possible wrung from it.

It is a helluva compelling ethos, for putting toy soldiers on a table spoiling for a fight.

If in its 'iron and steel' emphasis Warriors of Chaos succeeds admirably in evoking the 'force concept,' the way it proceeds to translate that concept into effect via tabletop rules is arguably even better. One of the strengths Kelly has demonstrated in previous force books is a knack for finding ways to massage the existing rules to make the covered army play the way it should, without forcefeeding hobbyists only one way to build armies within that framework. He plies that skill again here: without question, the focus of the majority of armies built from this force book will be Chaos Warriors, as stout a Core choice as is available in any army in the game. But players who like monsters will be able to build an effective--and evocative--army by emphasizing such creatures, and players who preferred to emphasize the 'hordes of frothing northmen' from the previous edition army book will find that an army of primarily Marauders can still be put together with this one, and must still be reckoned with on the tabletop. Where Warriors of Chaos shines, however, is in the rules applications and variations for said unit type: Chaos Warriors and upgrades thereto--from mounted Chaos Knights on Daemonsteeds to elite Chosen to the spectacular heroes at the very pinnacle of such status, the Exalted Heroes and Lords (and the Chaos Spawn which shamble about to illustrate the fate of those who reach for such heights of glory, and fail)--are the heart of this army book, and are evoked masterfully.

Throughout, there is clear appreciation for what has gone before. As he did in the Eldar Codex, where he was tasked with combining what had become, essentially, a half-dozen army lists into one and somehow show proper respect for them all, Kelly always keeps his particular emphasis on the grim-norsemen-become-something-more at the fore, without excluding important aspects of Chaos lore which have been with Warhammer--which have arguably *made* the Warhammer World something unique, something more than just another Tolkien filter--from the start. Almost every major Chaos figure who has ever made an impact in Old World history at least gets a mention in the copious background, and a fair few of them return as newly-statted special characters (including, admittedly, a personal old favorite, in the fallen Scylla Anfingrim).

As well-done as this aspect of the new army book is, it is also where the likeliest objections to the new edition will arise: in keeping with GW's approach toward Chaos as evidenced in both the Daemons books for Fantasy and 40K, traditions of long standing regarding the four Ruinous Powers are no longer in evidence. There are no sacred numbers, no animosities between specific Dark gods...in fact, Warriors of Chaos enthusiastically endorses mixing Marks and Gifts and Magic Items not only within armies, but on individual characters. Chaos is now a true pantheon, in the GW cosmology, and there is nothing amiss for a Champion of Khorne to now possess a Slaaneshi soporific musk to overwhelm with sensation those from whom he intends to take skulls. As a purist, I freely admit this drives me crazy; and I think in the long run, it encourages a 'genericizing' of GW's background, atmosphere and 'feel' which will be bad for the game, and by extension the hobby. Fortunately, there is nothing actively preventing traditionalist hobbyists from restricting characters, units and entire armies to one power, or numbering their soldiers in multiples of six, seven, eight or nine, using Warriors of Chaos. As time goes on, continuing to do so will simply mark out the old grognards, who will smile and acknowledge each other knowingly while the Old World goes on....

A new force book addressing the mortals of Chaos in the Warhammer world was absolutely needed, once Daemons set the new alliance paradigm. That necessity in place, Warriors of Chaos meets the challenge and surmounts it: it is a better army book than the very good editions which it supersedes, well-written, better designed rules wise, broader of choice than anyone could have expected (a new *female* Khornate champion? a positively kaiju-esque super shaggoth? a flying ghost-longship?)...and most importantly, accompanied by an onslaught of beautifully-sculpted new iron-and-steel-clad miniatures, to bring the grim pursuit of martial glory to Warhammer Fantasy Battle tabletops everywhere.

The Hordes are no more. But in their place come the Warriors. The Wrath of the Norsemen is preserved.
+++