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.

Blackmoor wrote:Tony is a good player.

He tied Reece, he tied Yermon/Nick and won on just a few VPs and lost to Brad. He is the equal to the top players, but not the greatest ever.

He is currently one of the best players. It's nice to see the young guys kicking ass.

Wow, the winning list uses a lot of minimum sized henchman bands in order to get a lot of vehicles (chimeras and razorbacks). Is this the norm in tournament play now? I guess min/max has always been a technique so maybe this happens a lot.

JB wrote:

Wow, the winning list uses a lot of minimum sized henchman bands in order to get a lot of vehicles (chimeras and razorbacks). Is this the norm in tournament play now? I guess min/max has always been a technique so maybe this happens a lot.

Spamming vehicles has been the most common tournament build since 5th edition.

Tony has mastery over his SW and it shows how he finely tuned the list to his tastes and experience helps him know how to play the army. Reece did the same with footdar. Footdar is deceptive because people look at it and underestimate the army but its the case of good players make the army very good and some bad players can make it crash and burn.

Reecius wrote:8 out 16 were grey knights, actually. Greay knights are a crutch! :-)

I brought footdar beacuse they are my favorite army to play. I came to have fun this year, and to show the world footdar can and will win against any other books. Considering I tied tony and his wolves, and only lost to paul's grey knights on vp's and bad luck, I think the point's been made.

Regardless, it was super fun. It got me excitex about 40k again as I haven't been playing at all lately.

I saw this and thought of you, Reecius:



Congrats on how well you did!

Platuan4th wrote:Wonder where I can get that Rhino silhouette Wreck Marker they're using.

Greenman Designs. They'll be at Wargamescon this year, or you can buy them from their online store. So awesome.

GK whining aside, the % of top 16 was pretty similar to the ratio of actual GK players at the event. Hardly an endictment of the book, but haters are going to hate. I am not suprised that the Coteaz list wound up being the one to go the distance, as it brings the very best in Razorspam and hard combat ability. Draigowing is a gimmick, Coteaz is not.

Phazael wrote:GK whining aside, the % of top 16 was pretty similar to the ratio of actual GK players at the event. Hardly an endictment of the book, but haters are going to hate. I am not suprised that the Coteaz list wound up being the one to go the distance, as it brings the very best in Razorspam and hard combat ability. Draigowing is a gimmick, Coteaz is not.

The ratio of GK players was 22% of the field. The ratio of top 16 was 44% GK. Not similar at all.

@pretre

Haha, I love that picture! Funny how ironic it is now, when it was meant as a put down.

@thehod

You got it, it's the player that matters. The list is just a tool box.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@darth

It was actually 50% in the finals. A guy dropped and a grey knight player took his place.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Phazael wrote:GK whining aside, the % of top 16 was pretty similar to the ratio of actual GK players at the event. Hardly an endictment of the book, but haters are going to hate. I am not suprised that the Coteaz list wound up being the one to go the distance, as it brings the very best in Razorspam and hard combat ability. Draigowing is a gimmick, Coteaz is not.

The ratio of GK players was 22% of the field. The ratio of top 16 was 44% GK. Not similar at all.

Last year orks were 12% of the field and 25% of the top 16. No out cry from folks saying orks are over powered even though the same ratio of attendee% vs top 16%.

I'm so going to go start a 'Orks are the most overpowered codex GW has put out in the last decade' thread.

I may have missed it, but can someone describe the archtype of the two ork players? I am just curious as an ork player what kinda lists seem to be holding up.

nkelsch wrote:I may have missed it, but can someone describe the archtype of the two ork players? I am just curious as an ork player what kinda lists seem to be holding up.

One of the ork players I believe is Dugg here on dakka. Battlewagon orks I think, but other then that no idea.

winterman wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

Phazael wrote:GK whining aside, the % of top 16 was pretty similar to the ratio of actual GK players at the event. Hardly an endictment of the book, but haters are going to hate. I am not suprised that the Coteaz list wound up being the one to go the distance, as it brings the very best in Razorspam and hard combat ability. Draigowing is a gimmick, Coteaz is not.

The ratio of GK players was 22% of the field. The ratio of top 16 was 44% GK. Not similar at all.

Last year orks were 12% of the field and 25% of the top 16. No out cry from folks saying orks are over powered even though the same ratio of attendee% vs top 16%.

Which is basically what I was (poorly) trying to say. I would be extremely interested in the % of Space Wolves and Guard entered compared against their presence in the top 16 the last couple years, as well. Still, its one event and the only thing that kind of suprises me is the lack of IG in the top 16, but that may have more to due with the scenarios and strict time limits. Plus playing an effecive guard army is a lot more mentally fatiguing than pushing a few paladins around for three days. Reece's brain had to be goo after three days of Footdar, though.

nkelsch wrote:I may have missed it, but can someone describe the archtype of the two ork players? I am just curious as an ork player what kinda lists seem to be holding up.

Grot Spam

From the Adepticon Website, here was how the final teams played:

Game 5 (Sunday Round 1)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons – Winner) vs. Tim Gorham (Grey Knights)
Tony Grippando (Grey Knights) vs. Reece Robbins (Eldar – Winner)
Mike Mutscheller (Space Wolves) vs. Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights – Winner)
Justin Cook (Grey Knights) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights – Winner)
Bill Kim (Chaos Daemons) vs. Dave Ankarlo (Grey Knights – Winner)
Jose Mendez (Dark Angels) vs. Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – Winner)
Joakim Engstrom (Grey Knights) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights – Winner)
Doug Johnson (Orks – Winner) vs. Brett Perkins (Imperial Guard)

Game 6 Winner Brackets (Sunday Round 2)
Reece Robbins (Eldar) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights – WINNER)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons – WINNER) vs. Doug Johnson (Orks)
Brad Chester (Grey Knights – WINNER) vs. Dave Ankarlo (Grey Knights)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – WINNER) vs. Nick Nanavati (Grey Knights)

Game 7 Winner Brackets – (Sunday Round 3)
Alexander Fennell (Necrons) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights) – LIVESTREAM
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves – WINNER) vs. Paul Murphy (Grey Knights)

Game 8 (Sunday Round 4)
Tony Kopach (Space Wolves) vs. Brad Chester (Grey Knights)

Final Results: Warhammer 40K Championships Warmaster – Brad Chester (Grey Knights)

I'd like to see the brackets for the entire event, army versus army. I know I'll never see it but it probably would give significant insight as to how well armies are doing.

Phazael wrote: the only thing that kind of suprises me is the lack of IG in the top 16, but that may have more to due with the scenarios and strict time limits. Plus playing an effecive guard army is a lot more mentally fatiguing than pushing a few paladins around for three days.

This first part is the absolute truth. Part of the allure of GK is their low model count for easy transport to out of state tourneys and they are also quick to play in strict timed events. I have no doubt that 'Horde' lists are handicapped simply by the time limts of a tournament. Remove the time limits (or make them quite large say 3 hours per game) and Horde Orks and Bugs become more viable. I know there is a subset of players who can move models and play fast, but not everyone can do this and it handicaps those players and those armies.

A pet peeve of mine for years has been the tourney game which runs out of time and instead of a random game length, both players know the game will now end on the next turn (say turn 5 or turn 6). Knowing this gives a huge advantage to the player going second. One in which was supposed to be neutered somewhat with the random game length, but can be manipulated in a strict timed tournament.

NecronLord3 wrote:I'd like to see the brackets for the entire event, army versus army. I know I'll never see it but it probably would give significant insight as to how well armies are doing.

With 240 armies, that's one hell of a bracket!

I've just played in a couple of small local tourneys, but I'll second the notion that a two hour or two and a half hour game just isn't enough time for some armies. One of the guys that I got into the game with is a guard player, and after our second tourney, he became really depressed about his future tournament chances because he hasn't been past turn three or four in any game played with those time restraints.

I'd much rather plan for a longer day at an event in order to ensure that all of the games played can be played out to completion.

kronk wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:I'd like to see the brackets for the entire event, army versus army. I know I'll never see it but it probably would give significant insight as to how well armies are doing.

With 240 armies, that's one hell of a bracket!

Exactly but I have a feeling it would be quite telling. I have a feeling the Eldar player did well because he probably face at least 2 GK armies in the qualifiers. The Eldar's runes are a great counter for the GK armies, but don't always excel against Tau or Necrons. Looking at setup like that can give an insight as to just how broken army combos can be.

From a pure probability standpoint (random sampling of the population) there is a pretty low chance to have 44% of a sample population of 16 to come from 22% of an overall population of 256. I used the 'brute force' way to get a quick idea of how low those odds are and after around 200 trials, it only happened 4 times.

I am sure someone can do the raw math on this if they want.

Even if there is a bias and the 'more competitive' players took GK, that is still significant in and of itself.

For last year's orks on 200 trials I got 11 times at least 4 Orks appeared in the finals with 12% of the field playing Orks (about twice as likely as this years GK).

the only thing that kind of suprises me is the lack of IG in the top 16, but that may have more to due with the scenarios and strict time limits.

It's certain that big armies are harder to get the turns in with than small ones.

Plus playing an effecive guard army is a lot more mentally fatiguing than pushing a few paladins around for three days.

Actually I find playing my 17 model paladin list a lot tougher mentally than my 57 model Dark Eldar one. It is much quicker to get one's turn in with a smaller force but the need to plan ahead seems to me to be much greater and errors far more likely to be fatal, Also, it's unclear as yet how many of the GK lists are Coteaz based, how many Crowe based and how many Draigo based, the three armies being rather different in make-up, playstyle and model count.

A pet peeve of mine for years has been the tourney game which runs out of time and instead of a random game length, both players know the game will now end on the next turn (say turn 5 or turn 6). Knowing this gives a huge advantage to the player going second. One in which was supposed to be neutered somewhat with the random game length, but can be manipulated in a strict timed tournament.

I agree with this completely.

Where can you view the lists? I didn't see them on Blood of Kittens?

calypso2ts wrote:From a pure probability standpoint (random sampling of the population) there is a pretty low chance to have 44% of a sample population of 16 to come from 22% of an overall population of 256. I used the 'brute force' way to get a quick idea of how low those odds are and after around 200 trials, it only happened 4 times.

I am sure someone can do the raw math on this if they want.

Even if there is a bias and the 'more competitive' players took GK, that is still significant in and of itself.

For last year's orks on 200 trials I got 11 times at least 4 Orks appeared in the finals with 12% of the field playing Orks (about twice as likely as this years GK).

I used a "brute force" method as well, but over a couple hundred thousand trials. Given 56 GK armies in a 256 player field, and assuming the outcome of each game is a coinflip, the likelihood of getting 7 or more GK armies in the round of 16 is about 27:1 or 3.7%. The likelihood of getting 8 or more is just under 100:1 or 1%.

Reecius wrote:8 out 16 were grey knights, actually. Greay knights are a crutch! :-)

I brought footdar beacuse they are my favorite army to play. I came to have fun this year, and to show the world footdar can and will win against any other books. Considering I tied tony and his wolves, and only lost to paul's grey knights on vp's and bad luck, I think the point's been made.

Regardless, it was super fun. It got me excitex about 40k again as I haven't been playing at all lately.

I do have a question though. How much money this cost you to have fun? The costs of travel, lodging, food, the tournament and extra curricular activity seems a bit on the high side to me for the average player.

Reason why I am asking is that I got a few friends that are trying to get me into the team tournament aspect of it for next year perhaps. Just need a ball park figure on it if you can go the cheap route and the disgusting expensive route.

So I am curious.

Good job Reece!! What army won best painted? Any pictures of it?

Thanks for the kind comments earlier from everyone. RL's been keeping me from Dakka for a few years, but I'm hoping to be online more frequently.

Competition, both Friday and Sunday, was stiff. Things seemed to run really smoothly - props to the AdeptiCon staff (technically, I'm also staff, but this year all my work happened pre-AdeptiCon once I qualified for the finals). With the exception of the dominance of Grey Knights (8 of 16) there seemed to be a pretty decent variety of armies there.

@blasto
Thanks, broseph!

@phazael
Yeah, I was so wiped after all thise games. Plus we drank a ton and got up at 4;45am for the finals.

@necronlord3
Nope, I (the eldar player) played no grey knights in the qualifiers. I wish I did. I played terrible match-ups. Wolves, venom spam/night shield dark eldar (worst match for me), leman russ ig (next worst match), and then tony kopach and his wolves round 4. It seriously was the hard route to the finals for me, not a single game that wasn't stupid hard. I played two grey knights in the finals.

@adam
It cost me about $600 to go this year, from california. Maybe $700. Not that bad at all. And I was playing for fun, but for me adpeticon has become a trip mire about seeing friends and having a laugh than anything else. I always want to win it all, I just know that luck is so much a part of it that gettng too hung up on that part of it makes ths trip less fun.

@centurian99
Good to see you at adepticon!! It'll be good to have you around the forums again.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Phazael wrote: the only thing that kind of suprises me is the lack of IG in the top 16, but that may have more to due with the scenarios and strict time limits. Plus playing an effecive guard army is a lot more mentally fatiguing than pushing a few paladins around for three days.

This first part is the absolute truth. Part of the allure of GK is their low model count for easy transport to out of state tourneys and they are also quick to play in strict timed events. I have no doubt that 'Horde' lists are handicapped simply by the time limts of a tournament. Remove the time limits (or make them quite large say 3 hours per game) and Horde Orks and Bugs become more viable. I know there is a subset of players who can move models and play fast, but not everyone can do this and it handicaps those players and those armies.

A pet peeve of mine for years has been the tourney game which runs out of time and instead of a random game length, both players know the game will now end on the next turn (say turn 5 or turn 6). Knowing this gives a huge advantage to the player going second. One in which was supposed to be neutered somewhat with the random game length, but can be manipulated in a strict timed tournament.

This is a really good point. As an ork player, I have been making my lists for events like NOVA and other tourneys based around 'how fast I can play it' vs 'how strong it is' and trying to find a middle ground.

Horde orks are nasty. Mad Dok/Snikrot with 180 boyz/grots, 9 Big Gunz and leftover lootas can get 230+ meat models on the board. Denying a ton of the anti tank in the current meta a valid target. It is terrible to transport, deploy and play and on a long weekend like Adepticon, even the best player is gonna be punchdrunk being a slave to those models.

Transports become a neccessity simply as the time saved in both transporting models and pushing pillboxes around the table for 8 games really becomes necessity. I really see the appeal of low model count builds for traveling and tourneys.