Poll: How Should the ITC Calculate Best in Faction Awards?

How do you think Best in Faction should be calculated?

This issue came up very commonly in our ITC feedback forms, players that play a “pure” army didn’t feel it was fair to compete with players that were playing “soup” armies for best in faction as the armies weren’t using the same options and thus was unfair. Based on a great deal of player feedback, discussion and debate, we’ve decided to run a poll on how the ITC should calculate and recognize Best in Faction awards. How do you think this category should be calculated? Cast your vote to help decide it!


And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!



About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

80 Responses to “Poll: How Should the ITC Calculate Best in Faction Awards?”

  1. Dakkath March 26, 2019 12:15 pm #

    I don’t want either of those options.

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 12:22 pm #

      If you are referring to more than half or whatever, we debated it at length but when you really break it down, the 51% to count thing doesn’t actually change anything meaningfully. Instead of 700pts of whatever to count, now you need 1,001pts. The players that feel it should be pure still don’t like it, the players doing it the other way just have to change their list a little bit. It’s not a real difference as it leaves both parties feeling dissatisfied in the end and really, almost nothing has changed.

      • Dakkath March 26, 2019 12:34 pm #

        At the least you should change the current version to count all detachments with the same faction for which one the list counts as. For example: one AM detachment (40% of the point total) and 2 BA detachments (30% + 30%) currently would count for AM, I suggest counting it as BA.

        • Reecius March 26, 2019 12:56 pm #

          Man, I should have kept the minutes from our internal debates on this topic as it would have saved me a lot of time, haha. Answering the same questions a lot, today.

          But, the core issue is this: the players who reached out about it, don’t want to compete against soup armies. Whether it’s 50% or 25% doesn’t really change the issue. They want to compete against their army. Everyone else is playing soup and so can compete against other soup armies. That is a logical argument.

          So we debated it at length and came to the conclusion that the only meaningful change was either pure, or leave it as it is. Anything else is just a hollow compromise that doesn’t address the core issue brought up by so many players.

          People can still build their lists how they like, but now if you want the increased power of going soup, you compete with other similar armies. The players whom care about competing on fair terms then get that.

          So, it boils down to: how many people want that type of competition vs. those whom do not? Keeps it easy and clear cut, and it gives people what they want instead of going for a middle of the road change that doesn’t really do anything meaningful and leaves everyone ultimately feeling dissatisfied.

  2. Duz_ March 26, 2019 12:30 pm #

    PURE FTW!!!! 😀

  3. Nairul March 26, 2019 12:33 pm #

    I voted “pure”, because I think any excuse to minimize soup is a good thing. At the same time, I worry it would divide players into two camps: those that care about Best in Faction and those that don’t. Due to the strength of soup, the latter would have a distinct advantage for individual event results.

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 12:57 pm #

      Yeah, a lot of people feel the same way.

      • Gordon Danke March 26, 2019 1:46 pm #

        It’s also kinda bullshit to show up with a weaker faction and place halfway decently, then start looking at other lists from your faction and realize that everyone who placed higher than you just had their minimum faction requirement plus a bunch of IG and a Knight. It becomes more about who can fit the best crutch in their list rather than who can play the best with a weak army.

        • Reecius March 26, 2019 1:51 pm #

          Yeah, that is exactly where this is all coming from. It took a while for me to be convinced, honestly, but enough people hit me up about it over time that I came to realize how many people felt strongly about it.

  4. Faitherun March 26, 2019 1:32 pm #

    I have always thought that Pure armies should get a small pts boost in the ITC – perhaps 5% or something

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 1:43 pm #

      To overall scores? While I understand the idea (playing with a handicap, or whatever) it would be difficult to quantify that and cause a lot of issues.

      That’s what this is kind of doing anyway, giving people a boost for playing a pure faction army by having an award just for them.

    • abusepuppy March 26, 2019 7:59 pm #

      That would be a big issue for armies like Orks or Tau, who are unable to ally and yet already win tournaments. It would essentially just be pushing those handful of armies towards the top of the ITC for no particular reason.

      • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:36 am #

        Yeah, exactly, and who would rank the armies’ respective handicaps, etc.

        • Adam March 27, 2019 12:35 pm #

          Players frequently discuss a CP bonus for being “extra pure” (all detachments from the same subfaction), or a CP penalty for using Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari or Tyranid as your army’s keyword. Would you consider either of those as an ITC rule?

          • Reecius March 27, 2019 12:56 pm

            That’s a bit beyond our purview now that we’re actual play-testers of the game. I think it’s a cool idea but I’d look to GW for that kind of change.

  5. Ujayim March 26, 2019 2:35 pm #

    Changing it for 2019 now seems unfair. Many people already have events maxed out and wouldn’t be unlikely to be matched on scores due to a previous advantage.

    This either should have been done sooner, or wait until 2020. It may be early, but this is a bit of a silver bullet for some armies.

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 2:57 pm #

      Not really, we’re only about a month and a half into the season for one, and for two, everyone so far has been competing under the same rules, so it’s been an even competition the whole way. Unless you planned on changing armies right now or something like that.

      • Ujayim March 26, 2019 3:12 pm #

        So, genuine question.

        If x army has a major/GT under it’s belt as a faction with allies, and now has secured z points in their score, you don’t see that as an advantage or unfair for the remainder of the season?

        My points was not whether or not we’ve been operating under he same rules, obviously we have, it’s simply to point out those who were able to secure y or z score before this non-retroactive change goes into account have an advantage due to the way the system was, somewhat invalidating the purpose of the change.

        If people didn’t want folks who used soup to win best in faction, but those folks already earned points off of those benefits… See my point?

        • Reecius March 26, 2019 3:31 pm #

          I do see your points but I can’t go back in time and do this sooner and if it indeed does reflect the desires of the majority of ITC participants it doesn’t make sense to wait a year for the perceived benefit for a few people. Everyone’s been playing by the same rules up until now and had the same opportunity to earn points in the same way. So, definitively, it has been fair. If the vote passes, then going forward everyone would again be playing by the same rules. Still fair.

          The only way it can be perceived to be unfair is if someone went to 5 events prior to the change (if it happens) and someone who wanted that award didn’t. But, that has nothing to do with the system and is an occurrence of timing. But still, even in that situation, unless the player like won 5 big events in the past 5 or 6 weeks which is highly unlikely. We have the rest of the year to make up the gap, and there’s like what, 46 weeks left? I highly doubt anyone has built an insurmountable lead and if you actually felt that way it kind of makes the point here, that soup armies really shouldn’t be competing with pure armies for the same award if it makes that big of a difference in performance.

          lastly, again, this only impacts a very small group of people. 1 person gets the faction award at the end of the season. Unless you really think that is going to be you, this doesn’t change much.

          • Ujayim March 26, 2019 3:42 pm

            We’ll agree to disagree on the semantics, I suppose.

            I haven’t had the “opportunity” to participate in a GT or major, as none have occured in my area just yet.

            That said, yes, I do believe I am a person who has the possibility to get there, and this just makes that goal a little more frustrating, but it simply is what it is.

          • Reecius March 26, 2019 3:45 pm

            Well, we have to see how the vote goes, first.

            And yeah, I wish we could have done this right when the season rolled over, but it just wasn’t possible. I tried to get in front of it but the LVO is such a time suck I just couldn’t. Like you said, it is what it is. Ultimately if we can get people what they want in regards to the experience with the ITC that is my goal, even if the delivery isn’t 100% perfect it’s still a net positive.

            Good luck with it, though! I hope you achieve your goal.

          • Ujayim March 26, 2019 4:00 pm

            Greater good and all, I get it.

  6. Krieger March 26, 2019 2:43 pm #

    To be honest, it’d be a lot less interesting to see faction data if it’s locked down to “any amount of soup at all” vs “entirely pure”. The majority of players would fall into the soup category and you’d know even less about how what they took interacted with their performance against other vague soup buckets.

    Playing pure is fun and all, but I’m not sure that people insisting they play like it’s several editions ago muddle data for the game as its played now.

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 2:59 pm #

      The thing is, lol, you can still play whatever you want. It ONLY matters it you are gunning for one specific trophy which only one person gets. Otherwise, don’t sweat it (assuming it passes) and just play what you like. And we still get the same data we did before, this literally only applies to the ITC Best in Faction Awards.

  7. Office Waaagh! March 26, 2019 3:03 pm #

    How many soup factions are you planning to implement, assuming pure faction wins? Would a mixed Dark Angels/Space Wolves army be eligible for “Adeptus Astartes” best in faction, for example, or would that just fall under Imperial Soup and compete with AM/IK? What about GSC with guard allies? Just wondering what the implementation is going to look like.

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 3:10 pm #

      It would be Imperium, Chaos, Aeldari, Tyranid Soup and that’s it off of the top of my head. Just the big factions. No one else can “soup.”

  8. John Ru March 26, 2019 3:24 pm #

    I’m not a fan of the proposed change. I didn’t feel there was an issue. The overall ITC system shaped up nicely over the course of last year, especially with the addition of the code of conduct.
    This is just adding more work in a direction that isn’t needed at the moment.

    Puritanical mono-factionists who get pissy at other people’s armies composition.

    In the end, the best players will still win, people will still bitch about “soup” and the majority of us will be playing what we enjoy with no hope of any big accolades, as it always has been. Many of us play, only 1 comes in first, and by the numbers, it won’t be you.

    …And in the end, the Puritanical mono-factionists will still be unhappy. This looks to be a bunch of work for Reece & Co and other TO’s other there for a bunch of change, that in the end will not change anything.


    I need a beer.

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 3:34 pm #

      That’s thing though, you make my point. It’s not going to impact most people at all, but it will make people happy that want it (and I didn’t think it was an issue either until I saw how many of them there are).

      It’s not that much work though, really. Just swap around some awards categories. As you noted, the majority of players will just keep doing their thing, playing the list they want to play. Those that are very passionate about competing for a faction award on what they see as a level playing field will be happy with this. If not enough people see it that way, it won’t pass and it’s business as usual.

  9. vybert March 26, 2019 6:14 pm #

    I feel like switching to pure will lead to a LOT more variety as now you will get people playing codex specific lists in addition to the normal power players

    • Reecius March 26, 2019 6:34 pm #

      If it gets voted in, that would be my hope, too. I think we may see more net lists, too, as player that were throwing in just one detachment of like, Space Wolves to go for that Space Wolf best in faction award now may not choose to and instead go with what they think is strictly more powerful. However, that is probably a smaller group.

  10. Paul Winters March 26, 2019 7:04 pm #

    I like the pure option personally. I never liked the 34% faction a, 33% faction b, 33% faction c, cherry picking.

    Playing pure might be more competitively viable if the Spring FAQ fixes things like Castellans or Eldar Soup shooting. I have a lot of Chaos Daemon units sitting on my shelf because they can’t hang on the table at the moment, and a lot of other codices are in the same boat.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:38 am #

      I get the impressions a lot of folks will go that route. They just needed a reason to play pure as they actually want to but feel like they can’t to compete.

  11. Jeffrey McKinley March 26, 2019 10:21 pm #

    Unpopular opinion, but I don’t think people should be encouraged to bring worse lists to compete for a best award. Playing against someone who is bringing a gimped list isn’t exactly amazingly fun either.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:15 am #

      You still get to compete for best soup category, though. And again, when folks say this type of thing it kind of proves the point of the pure players in that if soup really is so much better than it isn’t a fair competition. But, soup on soup would be.

      I personally don’t think the gap is that big but hey, that’s me (and I do tend to play pure armies myself and do quite well with them).

      • Jeffrey McKinley March 27, 2019 8:08 am #

        Sorry, I should clarify: I don’t think awards should encourage people to bring a worse list than they would have brought otherwise to a competitive event. I’m not saying pure armies are necessarily worse. If you believe a pure army gives you the best chance they’re nothing wrong with that.

        • Reecius March 27, 2019 10:11 am #

          Yeah, and bear in mind, this only really applies to you if you are gunning for best in faction, which only one person gets the trophy. If not, nothing changes.

  12. Aaron Cain March 27, 2019 12:13 am #

    I dont think making it pure will change anything. Other then make the ppl that play pure, complain even more when something with a soup list kills them. The best overall lists are soup list. If you want to win the LVO do you have a better chance to win with a Soup list or pure? It wont change the Meta.
    This would also mean that Orks, Tau would have to play as the same chapter tactic?

    Also GW is building the game to be more of a soup game. Knights, Assassins, Space Marines(Chapter)

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:30 am #

      If it were to pass, it wouldn’t change anything for someone who is of the mindset that you have to soup to win, no. If their goal is to win, they will still soup. It would change things for those going for best in faction that want to compete book to book. And while they not win as many games as they could, they have a better experience in the ITC if their desires are being met. The people gunning for the top spot will continue to do things as they did, everyone else gets what they want. That’s a win if it reflects peoples’ desires.

      And no, you don’t have to all have the same “chapter tactics” so to speak. We’re not going to that level of detail, it’s just book to book. For example, Drukhari don’t all have to be a Wych Cult or Kabal, etc.

  13. Kevin Lantz March 27, 2019 4:11 am #

    I’d vote for third option 2/3rds a faction ie 1350 or whatever points or more.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:27 am #

      As I’ve explained numerous times, that doesn’t address the issue that was brought up to start this in the first place: when competing for best in faction, a lot of players expressed frustration at playing an army for best in faction against a soup list. The degree to which you soup isn’t super relevant to the core issue.

    • Kevin Lantz March 27, 2019 4:32 pm #

      *channels his inner dude* hey man that’s like your opinion man…

      I totally understand that and had read your prior comments. While I agree with your assessment of it being a binary problem, I still like the 2/3rd points at least, or even 75%

      While leaving it as is or going to all or none addresses the issue many feel over the best in faction, not going to all or none and increasing the % at least makes it more palatable to ones who would rather see at least a bigger commitment to the faction. And if you were an all or none guy people could say at least people actually have to play a larger chunk as said faction now as a compromise

  14. Nightman March 27, 2019 4:37 am #

    I’d vote for a 2/3 too but if that’s not on the table:

    Is mixing Snakebites and Goffs considered soup or pure? Pure is cool too if it disallows mixing clans, septs etc.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:39 am #

      It doesn’t prevent mixing “chapters” as based on feedback folks gave us, they wanted it to be book vs. book.

      Perhaps in time, if this proves to be what folks want, and the ITC continues to grow, we could get that specific.

  15. Sam March 27, 2019 5:18 am #

    I love the pure option. To be quite honest my local RTTs are so hotly contested by quality players that your only option is to play meta or pay $20 to get your teeth kicked in for 6 hours. This would give me something to play for other then pure pride. My only concern for some factions (like corsairs) who cannot field a pure list AFAIK as they don’t have a HQ option.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:25 am #

      I thought Corsairs did have an HQ option somehow? Can’t recall off hand. But, to be fair, hardly anyone played them anyway. They need a new book.

      • abusepuppy March 27, 2019 8:44 am #

        They do not, although like Assassins if you have a detachment of pure Corsairs you were allowed to ignore the HQ requirement.

        (Jessica was basically the only one who was playing Corsairs, plus like one or two other less notable folks.)

        • Reecius March 27, 2019 10:13 am #

          So they can go pure by ignoring HQs, I thought it was something like that.

          And yeah, it’s not super relevant as hardly anyone was playing them to begin with.

          • Sam March 27, 2019 11:10 am

            There are dozens of us. But yes I know I wish GW would just toss us a bone and say we can use an Archon or an Autarch *sigh*

  16. Daniel March 27, 2019 7:14 am #

    I’ve said it before.

    It should be largest detachment PLUS warlord in that faction.

    This is a compromise and doesn’t punish armies that need allies (GK).

    While at the same time it forces players to consider their main armies warlord triats/relics/synergy etc.

    It makes narrative sense as well.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 7:24 am #

      The issue though, is the players that want to play Space Wolves (or whatever), really care about that army and want to compete for the award with other Space Wolf players, not imperial soup armies. And, that is a fair thing to suggest. If this passes, and you want to rock your Grey Knights with a Castellan and Guard (or whatever) you can but you’ll be competing with other soup players which is fair.

      The way the new scoring works also means that if you do bring your pure GK and go 3-3 at an event you get WAY more points than you would have before. So, if this were to become the new way we do things, you can play it pure and compete with others doing the same and while you may not win GTs and Majors, you can win your faction award even if it means you win less games overall. For some people that’s not worth it, for some it is. The vote is to determine what that split is and then go with what the majority wants.

  17. Zweischneid March 27, 2019 7:54 am #

    Just do it percentage-wise? 🙂

    If your army is 30% Imperial Guard, 30% Blood Angels and 40% Knights, and you get 100 points for your place in a particular tournament, you’re adding 30 points to your standing in Imperial Guard, 30 points to your standing in Blood Angels and 40 points to your standing in Imperial Knights (as well as 100 for your general ITC rank)

    If your army is 100% Blood Angels, and you get 100 points for your place in a particular tournament, you get 100 points for your standing in Blood Angels (as well as 100 for your general ITC rank).

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 10:10 am #

      Lol, that would be cool if it were possible to track accurately but it isn’t at this time.

  18. iWARGAME March 27, 2019 8:18 am #

    What if it was 3/4 minimum 1500/2000? Still too little for purists you think?

    • abusepuppy March 27, 2019 8:43 am #

      Some people would be fine with it, but yeah, there are still gonna be some that keep saying “that’s not REALLY an ______ army!” if it’s anything less than 100%.

      (And spoilers, even at 100% they will still complain that your composition isn’t right, because nothing is ever gonna be good enough.)

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 10:12 am #

      Yeah, the issue was not wanting to play against faction+soup, so the degree to which it is mixed wasn’t the relevant topic.

  19. Linus Råde March 27, 2019 11:15 am #

    Brood Brothers detachments in a Genestealer Cult army turns them into Imperium or Tyranid soups? The pure GSC army is Tyranid keyword already, but the Brood Brothers that break the pure faction rule is Imperium. Brood Brothers is usually ignored for faction purity according to the rules as well so a third path could be to ignore them entirely for faction purity like the Codex instructs for army building.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 11:27 am #

      It would be a Tyranid Soup faction award.

      • Linus Råde March 27, 2019 12:08 pm #

        Imperium units making Genestealer Cults into Tyranids just seems weird but I can see the reasoning.

  20. ChrisG March 27, 2019 11:28 am #

    I would have preferred a minimum of 1750 out of 2000 points being a certain faction or 75% of points (1500 out of 2000), neither of these options sit really well with me.

    Any necron or nid or orc player now competes for best in faction automatically whereas a blood angels player bringing 180pts of guard to still be semi relevant does not. Either that or we have 667pt detachment best in faction grey knights.

    Oh well i guess my mono custodes plus an assassin would still count seeing how that jumps in later via the stratagem so thats nice.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 11:41 am #

      Yeah, as I’ve been saying, if this goes through then for the vast majority of players this has no impact on how they play. If you want to play a soup army, go for it, nothing changes except you earn points in a bigger faction. If it is very important to you to be best in faction for an army you really care about then you go pure. You compete with perhaps a disadvantage but in a smaller pool and on a level playing field. Will you win all your games? Maybe not, but you can earn the prize you really value. But, if you don’t think you’re going to win a best in faction award (which only one person does) then don’t sweat it and play how you want to play.

  21. Owen Bissell March 27, 2019 12:14 pm #

    Props to you guys for stepping out on this. It seems you have thought a lot on the topic. I will say that I am slightly surprised at the amount of anger and derision from the players using multiple codexes in their lists (esp on the Comp 40K page). That attitude isn’t really helpful. I think this could help make the hobby more inclusive for the same reason Highlander style tournaments are popular. I don’t know if there will ever be a “perfect” solution for any of this stuff but we have to try stuff see how it works.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 12:58 pm #

      You got it, and that is funny, actually. It really doesn’t have much of an impact, lol. If you want to play soup then by all means, rock it. But, for the players that want to compete for a prize against other “pure” armies (which again, is totally logical) then this appeases them. This really won’t have that much impact on the average “competitive” player but it matters a lot to the more casual and fluff driven players.

      • David March 27, 2019 1:47 pm #

        I think the soup players that are upset, are angry over being blocked from winning what they see as an easier prize. Last year a castellan knight was a great way to win best Grey Knight or Blood Angel.

        • Reecius March 27, 2019 2:41 pm #

          I think it is a combination of that and also of players that want to win best in faction, really do love a faction like grey Knights but don’t think they can do it pure, or that playing pure handicaps them too much.

  22. Linus Råde March 27, 2019 12:25 pm #

    Went back and read the Brood Brothers rules again, the Codex actually says to ignore the Astra Militarum units when determining your Faction. So that would make the army pure Genestealer Cults no matter what Brood Brothers are included since all units not disregarded are Genestealer Cults.

    • ujayim March 27, 2019 12:44 pm #

      This is, genuinely, the opinion I’m hoping happens.

      I don’t want to miss out on using all the options (in my codex, as written by my codex) due to x or y reasoning, while also going for “pure” (following the codex), best of.

      • Reecius March 27, 2019 12:56 pm #

        Yeah, if your Codex says you have some mixing of faction and still count then that is what we go with.

        • ujayim March 28, 2019 3:40 am #

          That’s all I needed to hear. Was my only concern with everything, and now I’m content.

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 12:55 pm #

      Ah, good to know. In that case, yeah, it this passes then that is what would happen.

  23. Will Reeves March 27, 2019 1:21 pm #

    So will you retroactively go back to push results of lists with even a single auxiliary into the soup or will the change start when the voting finishes?

    • Reecius March 27, 2019 1:39 pm #

      As stated, no, if this passes we will not. Everyone till now has been playing by the rules as it would be unfair to go back and change their results based on new rules.

      Everyone was playing by the same rules too, so everyone’s scores reflect the same baseline at that time.

  24. Will Reeves March 27, 2019 1:46 pm #

    What about detachments that have no alignments such as fortifications and the Dread Ambull?

  25. alextroy March 27, 2019 4:43 pm #

    I hate to ask the question, but if you use the Assassin Stratagem on an otherwise Pure Army, are you Imperial or pure?

    • abusepuppy March 27, 2019 5:56 pm #

      Pure. Army faction is calculated from your list, not from models you bring in as reinforcements. (The same is currently true for a CSM army that summons daemons, for example.)

  26. R3v0lv3r March 28, 2019 3:03 am #

    I really think reinforcements like daemons and assassins should be counted like soup army.

    • abusepuppy March 28, 2019 4:21 am #

      So you think that armies should change their faction from game to game, depending on how they spend their reinforcement points? Because that sounds like an absolute disaster to me.

      • r3v0lv3r March 28, 2019 4:38 am #

        If you are using units that are not in your codex or index, it should be counted like soup and not pure faction.

  27. David March 29, 2019 11:07 am #

    Hmm…. so what does the word “in” mean. If you are only 1/3 in, then technically you are not in. And “technically” is the best kind of right.

    Shouldn’t it be “Best of Faction” if you don’t have to be “in” the faction?

    Playing “pure” factions can be hard. It deserves a chance at a prize.

  28. Chris April 1, 2019 11:38 am #

    Work with the folks at BattleScribe and BCP to create a file format that can be uploaded into the BCP app as part of the check in process. Require everyone to do this, either before, during, or immediately after an event.

    This does several things:

    a) further standardizes list format for players and ease of readability;

    b) gives you more data to mine;

    c) relevant to this thread, provides an easy source of data to implement the percentage based idea suggested by Zweischneid, which has to be the best idea out there (If your army is 30% Imperial Guard, 30% Blood Angels and 40% Knights, and you get 100 points for your place in a particular tournament, you’re adding 30 points to your standing in Imperial Guard, 30 points to your standing in Blood Angels and 40 points to your standing in Imperial Knights (as well as 100 for your general ITC rank)).

    Don’t compromise, do it right!

Leave a Reply