Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was one of the top players in WarGames Con with Nercons. My list didn't have any arm 13, instead it had imoetkh, 4 warriors in NS, scarabs, 12 wraiths and 6 spyders. I had to face against Tau twice, and table them. One thing I like about this tournament was that the players were able to place terrian, instead of the TO. My only lost was another member of the Wrecking Crew Kenny with his Deamon list. In all FW wasn't a key factor in this tournament, only 2 players with IG made to the top 16th in day two.

Anyone know anywhere where they are posting the top army lists?

Just ain't a tournament conversation without talking about army lists!

Alan's army...

Here is the Sabre heavy Thudd gun list -

Lord Commissar
CCS (autocannon, regimental standard)
DA librarian Lvl 2
Platioon CS
4x Infantry squad - autocannon, meltabombs, power axe
3x Sabre TL lascannon, extra crew
3x Sabre TL lascannon, extra crew
Vets (autocannon)
5x Scout (sniper rifle)
Vendetta
Vulture Gunship - punisher cannon
Manticore
3x Thudd gun
3x Thudd gun
Sky Shield Landing Pad

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I heard the top four armies were as follows:

Necrons/Orks (Ben Mohile)
Daemons (Gareth Hunt)
IG/Dark Angels (Alan B.)
Daemons (Ken Boucher)

So three out of the four top armies were very strong in assault and the Forge World heavy Sabre/Thudd Gun list didn't win. Doesn't seem to me that Forge World had that big of an impact overall.

#1. The missions could have heavily influenced which armies won (anyone else find it odd that there are no tau there?)

#3. I do not know how many armies took Forge World.

There actually were not that many Tau players at the Con. I can recall seeing maybe 5.

Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.

Anyone have rough approximations of the two top daemon lists?

 hyv3mynd wrote:
Anyone have rough approximations of the two top daemon lists?

This

Im sure Kenny will share his list on the next FTN.

Here is an approximation of Ken's 3rd place daemon list...

Fateweaver
GUO
2x Flying Nurgle Prince lvl 3, 2 Greater Rewards
CSM Flying Nurgle Prince -Black Mace
10x Cultists
Lots of Plague Bearers
Some Horrors

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.

Most people seem to think that Tau are a top tier codex and do well at most tournaments. The fact that they have 0 representation in the top 16 is odd. Would you not agree?

Also how many FW heavy armies were there? I see one that made it to the top 3.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Alan's army...

Here is the Sabre heavy Thudd gun list -

Lord Commissar
CCS (autocannon, regimental standard)
DA librarian Lvl 2
Platioon CS
4x Infantry squad - autocannon, meltabombs, power axe
3x Sabre TL lascannon, extra crew
3x Sabre TL lascannon, extra crew
Vets (autocannon)
5x Scout (sniper rifle)
Vendetta
Vulture Gunship - punisher cannon
Manticore
3x Thudd gun
3x Thudd gun
Sky Shield Landing Pad

I find it odd that he did not choose SWs as allies, and I think they would have helped him. They have JotWW for Necrons, and the ablitiy to shut down your opponents psychic powers is huge (especially against demons). I wonder if he regrets taking DA in hindsight. Also 2 preciences on the Thudd Guns is huge.

NM he took the skyshield, duh.

Blackmoor you should let him know.

If you look at the FB post on the Spikey Bits page you can see that it was razor thin margin between 1st Necrons/Orks, Daemons, and 3rd place DA/IG. 6pts in total battle points. I'd say the heavy FW presence in Alan's army was a huge reason he placed so well (well other than he is a damn good player).

It wasn't razor thin. Alan lost twice to non FW armies in the last two rounds. Don't try to make more out of it than it is.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
It wasn't razor thin. Alan lost twice to non FW armies in the last two rounds. Don't try to make more out of it than it is.

He lost twice and still had enough battle points to be that close to winning? He had a loss last year too but his army so dominated the missions that it didn't make a dent in his chances of winning. Losing twice and still being in the running says a lot about both the player and the army.

Glocknall wrote:
If you look at the FB post on the Spikey Bits page you can see that it was razor thin margin between 1st Necrons/Orks, Daemons, and 3rd place DA/IG. 6pts in total battle points. I'd say the heavy FW presence in Alan's army was a huge reason he placed so well (well other than he is a damn good player).

Alan held the top spot for most of the Tourney.

His Battle points were so high that he played Ben Mohlie TWICE!!(losing both times Games 5 and 6) on the Top Table.
He lost the last and final game (7) as well to Gareth Hunt, I believe I could be mistaken about the last game.
But if correct, he had such a huge points lead (till he matched up with Ben) that he lost 3 games and still paced 3rd.

If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.

Breng77 wrote:
If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.

I think this does effectively show that BP based tournaments are a little silly. I like the BAO/Swiss format.

Breng77 wrote:
If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.

I believe that paring were solely based on battle points, 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4 and so on, it didn't matter who was in which position.

That was my first time at WGC, AND I am fairly new to the Tournament world so I have no basis on which to judge.

All I can say is I had a great time there AND I will go again next year. If that means anything to anyone reading this.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Blackmoor you should let him know.

I did. He says that he did regret not taking SW.

BPs are not inherently terrible, if you build them in a balanced way (one such that it is not possible for someone to accrue that many more points.)

In my RTTs I run battle points (it is needed for events of only 3 rounds if you have more than 8 people) but you are capped at 20 points max each round, max for a loss is 9, and minimum for a win is 11. So if you used this over 7 Rounds max score would be 140 points, max score with 3 losses would be 121. Minimum undefeated score would be 77 I guess, but it seems unlikely that it would occur that way.

IMO battle points should in general be used to rank people with similar rankings. Furthermore you should never need play the same player twice in an event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.

I believe that paring were solely based on battle points, 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4 and so on, it didn't matter who was in which position.

That was my first time at WGC, AND I am fairly new to the Tournament world so I have no basis on which to judge.

All I can say is I had a great time there AND I will go again next year. If that means anything to anyone reading this.

Which should never be done without thought, IF 1 V2 is the same 2 rounds in a row then do 1 v 3 and 2 v 4 or something.

Breng77 wrote:
BPs are not inherently terrible, if you build them in a balanced way (one such that it is not possible for someone to accrue that many more points.)

In my RTTs I run battle points (it is needed for events of only 3 rounds if you have more than 8 people) but you are capped at 20 points max each round, max for a loss is 9, and minimum for a win is 11. So if you used this over 7 Rounds max score would be 140 points, max score with 3 losses would be 121. Minimum undefeated score would be 77 I guess, but it seems unlikely that it would occur that way.

IMO battle points should in general be used to rank people with similar rankings. Furthermore you should never need play the same player twice in an event.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40k-noob wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.

I believe that paring were solely based on battle points, 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4 and so on, it didn't matter who was in which position.

That was my first time at WGC, AND I am fairly new to the Tournament world so I have no basis on which to judge.

All I can say is I had a great time there AND I will go again next year. If that means anything to anyone reading this.

Which should never be done without thought, IF 1 V2 is the same 2 rounds in a row then do 1 v 3 and 2 v 4 or something.

The same thing happened at WGC last year but at the bottom of the winners bracket. Recce's might mighty footdar, despite being undefeated, didn't accrue enough BPs to get him high up in the tables so he ended up playing the same guy twice and dropped.

That really is something fairly easy to fix. Also they were running total VPs nto Battle points. So not every table and mission was worth the same amount (at least not in the primer.)

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.

Most people seem to think that Tau are a top tier codex and do well at most tournaments. The fact that they have 0 representation in the top 16 is odd. Would you not agree?

Also how many FW heavy armies were there? I see one that made it to the top 3.

Allan, you have to look at the missions to understand why Tau did horrible at this event. Every mission with objectives was similar to the last one we played this year at the Adepticon Team tournament. So each objective counted for a few points of the total, you received points based on how many you took. So to give an example there was a 9 objective mission where a troop could only take one of the nine objectives. Tau have few troops and hide them, while they try and table you and get one of 4 objectives. So Tau did not mesh well at all with this tournament, you needed 6 durable troops or you would get 3 or 4 BPs a game. Or just play guard and have 12+ scoring units.

Best example of some 30 points available in a game (total available changed per game between 25-37), I won a game 7-6 victory points, great technical game between two people scrapping out everything they could do against each other. All we did was kick each other in the dick. So not all wins were created equal at Wargamescon

In the finals there was surprisingly little Forge World. Two heavy HEAVY forge world ones done right with Sabers, Quad Guns, and sky shield landing platforms. Other then that not much more.

Also I tried to hold it own for you Allan, I was the only GK in the top 16. I'm trying to be like my hero... you!

The same thing happened at WGC last year but at the bottom of the winners bracket. Recce's might mighty footdar, despite being undefeated, didn't accrue enough BPs to get him high up in the tables so he ended up playing the same guy twice and dropped.

The same thing has happened every year at WGC, typically the top guys end of facing each other again (I know of two times that Ben Mohlie rematched in prior events). Its by design and not something I think they ever plan on 'fixing'.

Surprisingly some people like the repairings (Kenny Bouchard said as much on the BoLS podcast). It would annoy me personally as I come to big tournaments to play a variety of people and armies but I can see certain competitive types relishing the rematch.

I might understand it if it were like we played game 1 and then again game 7 (because you/I won my way back up) but when it is back to back rounds....If that is what you want meh. What that means to me is if you get 2 guys that draw each other or play close games swapping wins in theory you could have the same 2 guys play 6 or 7 times....it is bad tournament design. If in the final game you want the top 2 battle point player to play even if they played earlier go ahead I guess, but this is why many people don't like battle points, as apparently I could win all my games, and never get close to the top table because I did not curbstomp someone. Or beat a guy on the final table and still lose to him...

It only applied to the top 16. No matter what was going on the first place person played the second place. The 3rd place played the 4th and so on.

So its really hard to happen. Allan was just running away with the tournament on day one as a result even after he lost to Ben on day 2 he was still beating Ben as a result they played again. I would expect it in a knock out competitive upper tier event. The top player SHOULD have to defend his spot against the number 2.

I know in 2011 Ben lost on the top table and had to play the same guy on table 2 only to beat him and win the tournament because table 2 and 3 that round both jumped him and the other guy. So it doesn't just apply to the top table.

Well better that it effects only the top 16, but it still seems like bad tournament design overall. Also if they are going to only effect the top 16 they should not have the previous day carry over and just have those guys slug it out, that way it is less likely that one guy will get so far ahead. It also does not sound that uncommon if it has happend at least 1 time each of the last 3 years.

Allan was ahead of Ben. They were paired 1 v 2 in round 5

Ben won that game but the margin wasn't huge, and in the format Allan still accumulated points as well. Each player had the opportunity to accumulate points, it's not a 'I win the primary" and collect all the battle points format.

They were paired again. There was some discussion about having 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4 because they had just played but we let the scores to the match ups.

Ben won again, but again, Allan was able to crib enough victory points to stay engaged in the top 3.

The format was designed from the ground up to allow players to accumulate as many Victory Points as possible, even in a loss.

Not a fan of that format but some people seem to enjoy it. Kudos to those who had a good time and a thanks to the BoLS guys for putting this on.

Breng77 wrote:
If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.

He lost two games barely. Not 3. But anyways battle points is not a competitive format.