Composition, sometimes referred to as Selection, is the combination of units and models that makes up your army list in a given game or tournament. There are several factors that go into Composition, some of them a bit contradictory. These factors generally boil down to Fluff, Effectiveness, Friendliness/Fun and Theme. I bring this up because many of the Grand Tournaments seem to be dropping this category and I feel that it's a shame.

Fluff. This covers the background of the army and whether or not certain combinations of units or the number of certain units makes sense from the published background material for the army in question. For example, it doesn't make sense for a light scouting force to have a bunch of heavy tanks, they would hinder the standard operations of a scouting army. Another example would be having two high-ranking officers leading two small squads of troops, as their talents should be used with larger forces. Additionally, if the fluff describes something as rare, it would be unlikely that a small detachment of troops would have access to more than one of them. Finally, if the background material suggests that two units or models do not like or work with each other, then including them both in an army wouldn't make sense either.

Effectiveness. This covers how effective the units and models of the army are, both by themselves and in combination. Some units are only effective in certain roles, so including them in a general list (like for a tournament, where you don't know what you'll be facing) is not necessarily a good investment of your points. Other units are particularly effective in combination with another unit, so not including one part of the equation will hinder your success. Finally, some units are so strong that they are "Must Haves" and will appear in almost any list made for that army. Obviously, taking these units will tend to give you more battlefield success, while leaving them out typically weakens your list.

Friendliness and Fun. Sometimes you may want to include a unit or model simply because it is different or you enjoy having it in the army, even if it isn't the most effective use of your points. You may also decide that using less effective units makes you a better general. Alternately, you may feel that taking an extremely competitive army takes some of the fun out of the game, or that bringing that ultra-competitive army to a friendly game or tournament will make it less fun for your potential opponents.

Theme. Themed armies are usually based on a particular part of the fluff or a subset of the army as a whole. Intentionally limiting your army to a particular theme can be very rewarding. By limiting your options, you are reducing some of the effectiveness of the army, which can make a themed army very challenging to play. On the other hand, that same theme may give you some advantages due to a higher concentration of a particular kind of unit or model. (Kult of Speed Ork armies and Trukk Boyz, for instance.) One drawback to themed armies, however, is their subjectivity. If you don't use a published subset of the army (Kult of Speed Orks, for example, or Dark Eldar Wyches) then some players may not view your theme as legitimate. They may instead feel that you are simply trying to create an army focusing on one thing and then writing the story to explain it. This is more likely when the theme you choose gives you an advantage, or a perceived advantage over your opponent.

Many of the larger tournaments have had Composition scores as part of the overall score for each player. The concept here is to reward players that limit their army list and take units that fit into the background well, rather than simply taking the most effective set of units possible. Typically this is seen as leveling the playing field between those players that choose the most competitive army and those that do not, for various reasons. However, this only works if the number of points received or lost due to Composition makes up for the number of points received or lost for winning or losing the game. (In other words, if you can gain 25pts by taking a less effective army list, but you can lose 75pts because it doesn't win any games, it's not a great incentive.) Regardless of the points differential, there are some players that will always take the most winning list, because winning games is that important to them. By the same token, there are some players that will always take a less effective army list, because they just don't feel they'd have fun playing with an army that was that competitive. It's the people in the middle, however, that are more important here. If they feel that there isn't enough incentive to play an army that is less effective, they will only play really competitive armies, which has a tendency to create a sort of arms race to create the most effective army list, and will lead to less effective army lists being absolutely slaughtered by the competitive ones, which tends to reduce the fun of the game. On the other hand, I have heard of Cutthroat Tournaments, where everyone is encouraged to bring the most competitive army list they can. Since everyone is going into the tournament expecting it, the reasoning goes, they will all have a better time.

I have heard of people talking about effective armies as being cheesy or too competitive. I've also heard of certain, particularly effective armies being banned from playing certain events or never being able to find an opponent that will play them. On the other hand, I used to play a Tyranid army that was pretty competitive and I won with it quite a bit, but I never ran short of opponents. Some of them even told me that I was their favorite opponent.

I believe that the key to Composition is balance. If you go too far in one direction or the other, it won't do good things, but if you find a middle ground, you'll be much better off. Take effective units, but add in some less effective ones for theme or fluff or fun reasons. Take a limited themed army, but add some things (in small doses) that will make it more effective. Do either of the above and try to have a good time playing and you've got it. I have a theory that, even if you take the most competitive army list possible, if you play in a fun manner and don't just try to beat down your opponent, you will both have fun and you'll get have more takers for the next game. I remember watching Sean Zurn at the Seattle GT two years ago. While I don't think he had the most competitive army list out there, he was really massacring an Ork player at one point. Sean normally plays for fun and doesn't always do the most effective thing, if he thinks that another move will be more fun, but this time he pulled out all the stops. He charged his Heavy Weapons teams into close combat and only fired his mortars every couple of turns and generally did everything he could to make the game fun for his opponent, instead of just a slaughter. While I don't know for sure, I bet that his opponent gave him top marks in Sportsmanship and would probably love a rematch against his army, entirely because of his behavior. Likewise, I've seen some pretty scary lists out there that I'm pretty sure I could play in a tournament and my opponents would still have a fun game. If you find yourself without opponents, you might try toning the list down just slightly. You might also try lightening up a bit. Heck, if you do both, you'll probably have a better time and you'll get many more opponents, which is what we're all looking for, right?

If you enjoyed this, email me and let me know

Return to Warpstorm!