As a compatison, here are the top 10 armies at GWs GTs:

These include soft scores like painting and sportsmanship.

The Las Vegas GT
1. Orks
2. Eldar
3. CSM
4. Witch Hunters
5. Tyranids
6. Tyranids
7. Space Marines
8. Eldar
9. Demons
10. Demons

Chicago GT
1. Orks
2. CSM
3. Orks
4. Eldar
5. Demons
6. Black Templar
7. Orks
8. Tyranids
9. Necrons
10. Black Templar


Baltimore GT
1. Orks
2. Orks
3. Demons
4. Tyranids
5. Demons
6. Orks
7. CSM
8. CSM
9. Demonhunters
10. Tyranids


UK Heat #1
1. Orks
2. Eldar
3. CSM
4. Orks
5. CSM
6. Demons
7. Orks
8. Eldar
9. Tau
10. DA

UK Heat #2
1. Tau
2. Dark Angels
3. Orks
4. Tyranids
5. Orks
6. Tyranids
7. Chaos Marines
8. Blood Angels
9. Orks
10. Eldar

UK Heat #3
1. Chaos Marines
2. Eldar
3. Nids
4. Orks
5. Daemons
6. Chaos Marines
7. Orks
8. Eldar
9. Chaos Marines
10. Chaos Marines


Note:
The US GTs have a Massacre/Massacred, Major Win/Major Loss, Tie and 1750 Points
The UK Heats are on a W/T/L and 1500 Points

Holy Crap! Dark Angels took second in the UK Heat 2? Tau took first??

I want to see those lists!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

is it just me or does the UK GT's seem a little bit more open than the US one, is it the 1500pt limit do you think?

It's the win/loss thing. Without scalable victories, some armies become better.

What Centurian99 said.

For example: When Tau win, they will almost never get massacres, but end up with a minor victory. So in the UK system they get the same amount of points for a win as the Ork player that tabled someone. On the other hand, in the US GTs Tau do poorly because a minor win is a lot less points than a massacre.

The UK system opens it up more for armies that can win, but can't get massacres.

So you can look at it this way, the UK results tell you want armies can win, the US results tell you what armies can massacre. Take a look at Eldar, they do much better in the UK than they do in the US. Also Tyranids do better in the US than the UK. If you take out the soft scores, and just list them by battle points, the contrast between what armies do better will be more pronounced (but you will still have your heavy hitters of CSM and Orks in the mix).

Blackmoor wrote: If you take out the soft scores, and just list them by battle points, the contrast between what armies do better will be more pronounced (but you will still have your heavy hitters of CSM and Orks in the mix).

I say you do that, Allan! (cause I am too lazy to do the work) ;-)

Interesting!

How it read to me:

Orks
Something else
Orks
Orks
Who cares
Orks
Lash
Orks
Orks
Goblins
Just Kidding
ORKS
...

Looter Spam and Deathrollers FTW eh?

What's the difference in points between the UK and US GTs? Also, why aren't other countries (and Ard Boyz) included?

I'm telling you this ork tournament thing isn't as bad as rational people are making it out to be. If you don't want to lose to orks there's something very easy you can do at a tournament: Lose your first game! You're practically guaranteed some fun times against all manner of weird army-lists scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just don't fly too high Icarus!

Moz wrote:I'm telling you this ork tournament thing isn't as bad as rational people are making it out to be. If you don't want to lose to orks there's something very easy you can do at a tournament: Lose your first game! You're practically guaranteed some fun times against all manner of weird army-lists scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just don't fly too high Icarus!

Or you can play the points game. Instead of maxing out at 20 your first game you let yourself get a 19. That way you run just under the radar of the nastiest lists. You then sweep into first place at the end with a phenominal paint score and sportsmanship score.

Of course this requires that you be able to paint, hmm oh well.

wow, not a single guard entry on there.

Moz wrote:I'm telling you this ork tournament thing isn't as bad as rational people are making it out to be. If you don't want to lose to orks there's something very easy you can do at a tournament: Lose your first game! You're practically guaranteed some fun times against all manner of weird army-lists scraping the bottom of the barrel. Just don't fly too high Icarus!

I tried this. Lost horribly to nidzilla in round 1, only to face... 200 orks in round two.

... big bugs... or Orks... hmmm... Thats like "do you want to eat glass or just razors... your choice".

It's almost as if GW don't care about play balance and just made up whatever crap they thought sounded good for the latest rules and codex.

I placed 10th with my nids at Baltimore and faced 4 MEQ and one IG. I had hoped to face an ork horde. I packed in 6 Barbed stranglers for the little buggers. The Nid's are holding there own with the right build and have the oldest dex of the "top" tier armies.

wynnstudio

And now you all know what I have been saying. I do play Tau and I do not go to GT. Why should I waste the money with an army that is not top tier.


I would love to go to GT. Now I just have to go to GT in Europe.

Blackmoor wrote:As a compatison, here are the top 10 armies at GWs GTs:

UK Heat #3
1. Chaos Marines
2. Eldar
3. Nids
4. Orks
5. Daemons
6. Chaos Marines
7. Orks
8. Eldar
9. Chaos Marines
10. Chaos Marines

The 5th placed Daemons were actually Chaos Marines (incidently the only one to have only 1 lash, the rest had 2). The rest is correct. The Eldar in 8th are mine.

I much preferred playing the rulebook missions as opposed to playing mission orientated VP bashes, but was horribly low on VPs as a result of not trying to kill enough.

Ozymandias wrote:Holy Crap! Dark Angels took second in the UK Heat 2? Tau took first??

I want to see those lists!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

It was DW/RW combo... brilliant player!

HQ:
Sammael (jetbike)
Belial (with lightning claws)

Troops:
Deathwing squad, assault cannon apothecary and power sword sergeant
Deathwing squad, 3 pairs of lightning claws (one with cyclone) and 2 thunder hammers + storm shields
Deathwing squad, heavy flamer, one chain-fist and sergeant with lightning claws
Ravenwing attack squadron, apothecary, 2 plasma guns, sergeant with power sword
Multimelta attack bike
Ravenwing attack squadron, meltagun, flamer, sergeant with power sword

G

Oh you silly tournament players with your rankings and your orks and your pts values!

usernamesareannoying wrote:wow, not a single guard entry on there.

No surprises there, the cover, CC and especially morale rules being what they are now.

Don't forget 2 kill point games.

Indeed, what was I thinking!

I know what you were thinking.

G

IIRC, the Tau player was said to have:

3 hammerheads
2 squads of kroot
1 squad of FCW with 'fish
deathrain suits with flamers

I don't know the amounts, just this was the rough list provided at ATT.

SOB made top 5 in Vegas, Chicago had 2 BT armies in the top 10, and Baltimore had Daemonhunters. Interesting.

What would be interesting to know is what percentage of other players brought the various 'top tier' armies (i.e. orks, csm, nids, eldar). If 70% brought those lists (instead of 70% bringing IG, Tau, Dark Eldar, etc.), might that have an affect on the top 10? In other words, how much of this is proof that those lists are top tier, and how much of it is self-fulfilling?

that DA army does sound rather nice, i would be very very tempted to do that, sounds good fun to play

syr8766 wrote:SOB made top 5 in Vegas, Chicago had 2 BT armies in the top 10, and Baltimore had Daemonhunters. Interesting.

What would be interesting to know is what percentage of other players brought the various 'top tier' armies (i.e. orks, csm, nids, eldar). If 70% brought those lists (instead of 70% bringing IG, Tau, Dark Eldar, etc.), might that have an affect on the top 10? In other words, how much of this is proof that those lists are top tier, and how much of it is self-fulfilling?

I really think its more the player then the army. After playing at the GT i realized that I knew the rules better then most of the people I played. Moz was on par with me (I didn't fully understand feel no pain and what counted as not getting an armor save) since I think we did have the least rules questions there... then compared to my other opponents.

frgsinwntr wrote:

syr8766 wrote:SOB made top 5 in Vegas, Chicago had 2 BT armies in the top 10, and Baltimore had Daemonhunters. Interesting.

What would be interesting to know is what percentage of other players brought the various 'top tier' armies (i.e. orks, csm, nids, eldar). If 70% brought those lists (instead of 70% bringing IG, Tau, Dark Eldar, etc.), might that have an affect on the top 10? In other words, how much of this is proof that those lists are top tier, and how much of it is self-fulfilling?

I really think its more the player then the army. After playing at the GT i realized that I knew the rules better then most of the people I played. Moz was on par with me (I didn't fully understand feel no pain and what counted as not getting an armor save) since I think we did have the least rules questions there... then compared to my other opponents.

There is something to what you are saying...but then too, look at some of the tournament players. Many of them are moving to the horde phenomenon.

5th ed. has only exacerbated the "Ork issue." IIRC, several of the pre-5th tournaments were won by Orks as well. 5th merely overemphasizes the disparity the new codex has allowed (in a sense, it makes any horde army effective).

The way to win a GT is to have a list that can beat nids, horde orks, nob bikers, double lash, jetbike eldar, sternpod marines, dark eldar, multiple landraiders, immolater spam, 3 exorcist spam, and any other cheese lists. Be a phenominal player. And not give away KP's and still comfortably capture objectives.

The few that can do this win GT's.

It just so happens that orks can do all of the above.

Eldanar wrote:

There is something to what you are saying...but then too, look at some of the tournament players. Many of them are moving to the horde phenomenon.

5th ed. has only exacerbated the "Ork issue." IIRC, several of the pre-5th tournaments were won by Orks as well. 5th merely overemphasizes the disparity the new codex has allowed (in a sense, it makes any horde army effective).

I will be going to the conflict GT... hopefully I can win that to toss a bigger tourny to the non ork players ;p

Is it wrong that as a long time ork player I feel a sick sort of glee at people complaining about broken orks?
Take that, eldar and chaos players!
*achem*

On a different note, if you break down the 3 U.S. GT's solely on Battle Points, it falls out as follows (to the best I can tell):

Chicago:
Orks 94
Eldar 87
Orks 81
CSM 80
Daemons 74
Eldar 74
Orks 73
Necrons 73
Tyranids 70
Daemons 70

LV:
Orks 100
Daemons 89
Eldar 84
WH 83
WH 82
Daemons 82
CSM 81
Orks 81
Tyranids 79
Eldar 75
CSM 75
WH 75
Tau 75

Baltimore:
Orks 98
Orks 92
Daemons 87
Orks 83
Daemons 82
DE 82
Tyranids 81
CSM 79
Daemons 78
WH 78
WH 78

Make of this what you will. Assuming an even mix of skill levels across all armies (which is probably a fallacy), Orks and Daemons comprise 10 of the 15 top 5 places (3x5 = 15).

This is probably a combination of several things:

1. Newer codex's written with this edition in mind;

2. Terrain/cover rules benefiting low cost/no save troops disproportionately more;

3. The missions; and

4. Running.

I do not think any one specific factor can be singled out as defnitive to the overall improvement to these armies; rather it is a global change to the rules as a whole, taken in tandem with the newer books which makes the results so skewed. Case in point is the Tyranid book, which is one of the oldest around, yet they still make an appearance.

The one consistent thread to almost all of these armies is lots of models and leadership rules which are beneficial. If it was models alone, 200+ model IG armies would be in the results lists as well, but they simply are not.

If anyone else has any insights, criticisms or other theories, please feel free to share them.

Orks, Orks, Orks, oh, more Orks, and Orks again.

Anyone else wanna argue about Orks not being overpowered?

I kind of wish the US tournaments were more based on the W/T/L system. Seems to even things out a bit more. That's how it was when I was running around playing magic. I really don't think there should be a difference between absolutely crushing your opponent and just beating him.

Edit: I play Chaos Marines. I just like to see a more open field.

Man Orks keep winning!

I guess that just goes to show you that people who play Orks are exceptionally skilled and have a great knowledge of tactics and strategy, and are really good looking.

At least that's what I got from it.

(Also, I agree on the W/T/L comment. A win's a win.)

Da Boss wrote:Is it wrong that as a long time ork player I feel a sick sort of glee at people complaining about broken orks?
Take that, eldar and chaos players!
*achem*

No.

Stuff like this just brings a smile to me face, even though I've just about stopped all 40k and definitely don't want to play competitively anymore.

A straight W/T/L system versus a more tiered system allowing for grades of wins really all depends on what you are trying to do with battle points.

The problem with the simpler system is it tends to log jam up much more and you really cannot tell who is the better general.

you can though- by having the w/l/d and still keeping track of VPs so that you can sort out any ties and rank people on the same number of wins- thats actually what they do at the UK GTs... that way the person on 6 wins by the skin of their teeth is still below the 6 win "wipe out everything placed before me" player

As an ork player who ran orks pre 5th and new codex at the gt's,

guess it's deserved to those true ork players. But also ruins my plans to bring orks to the gt.

any word on the necron list?

It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

@ Blackmoor:

Agreed.

Just a hard score breakdown of the US GT based on Eldanar's List posted above:


Orks 8
Daemons 7
Eldar 4
CSM 4
Nids 3
WH 3
Necrons 1
Tau 1
DE 1

So if you can beat Orks and nids well once you get through the first couple rounds, you should have a shot. Notice no SM, no BT, no BA, no DA. 1 Necron (yay!).

I'd guess that WH, Necron, and DE armies are poorly represented, while Daemons, Orks, CSM and SM are well represented. Seems drop podding is the suck against orks and daemons lol.

The effect is greatly diluted by a lot of the top players taking the top armies, where as they could probably top 10 with almost any codex if they wished.

Also, if you're a hardcore tournament player, there is an expectation (over here at least!) that you do a new army every year. This naturally leads to running the newest, shiniest figures out!

I was interested to see that of the 60 armies listed in the OP, they came from 13 different Codices - the only armies that didn't make it into the top 10 at any event are:

Imperial Guard
Dark Eldar
Space Wolves

and before you could say 'codex creep' all 3 of these are slated to get a new book next year!

Necrons only appeared once (9th at Chicago) but are also getting a new 'dex.


Daemonhunters and Witchhunters had one each (9th at Baltimore and 4th at Las Vegas respectively) and Tau popped up twice (both in the UK) but none of these are in line for a new dex yet. What bets are we taking on 2010 being the year for these?


Space Marines are the odd one, with only one army from the main 'dex making the top 10 at any event, but 5 armies from the variant lists (BT, DA, BA) showing up.
This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Except for orks the game is more balanced now. I am not sure how the new Marines will fare since most veterans seem to shun them.

G

Chimera_Calvin wrote:I

Space Marines are the odd one, with only one army from the main 'dex making the top 10 at any event, but 5 armies from the variant lists (BT, DA, BA) showing up.
This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Don't hold your breath, the new codex weakened them considerably and they had enough trouble placing well already.

Blackmoor wrote:It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

What's worse is that people lose to Ork 'newbies' with cobbled together Blackreach armies and don't blame themselves.
Last time I checked Blackreach didn't come with shootas, lootas, or nob warbikers.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Most people set up for MEQ because the majority of the armies at most tournaments are MEQ. If a player does not setup for MEQ, they risk taking a loss in the early round to some MEQ player who rolls well. These players also risk not being able to blow the doors off any opponents, thus lowering their battle score.

I tried taking a balanced army that was setup to put out a high volume of fire. Against horde armies I did OK, but still had issues because I didn't have any flamers. Againest MEQ, I drew the Deathwing guy and thus lost because I didn't have enough AP2 weapons. For some armies, this isn't an issue because they have such a high volume or are heavily melee based.

GW should allow two army lists for tournaments as PP does. This will allow the specialist to switch up their army for certian armies. SM have vastely different load outs when playing certian armies, while Orks probably has the same load out regardless of who their opponent is. Same goes for lash CSM.

I dunno, I could think of plenty of ways to gain significant advantage by being allowed two builds with orks.

Techboss wrote:

Chimera_Calvin wrote:This is probably due to the new marine 'dex only being available recently - I expect to see a better showing from SM next year.

Most people set up for MEQ because the majority of the armies at most tournaments are MEQ. If a player does not setup for MEQ, they risk taking a loss in the early round to some MEQ player who rolls well. These players also risk not being able to blow the doors off any opponents, thus lowering their battle score.

I tried taking a balanced army that was setup to put out a high volume of fire. Against horde armies I did OK, but still had issues because I didn't have any flamers. Againest MEQ, I drew the Deathwing guy and thus lost because I didn't have enough AP2 weapons. For some armies, this isn't an issue because they have such a high volume or are heavily melee based.

GW should allow two army lists for tournaments as PP does. This will allow the specialist to switch up their army for certian armies. SM have vastely different load outs when playing certian armies, while Orks probably has the same load out regardless of who their opponent is. Same goes for lash CSM.

I couldn't agree less. Surely the hallmark of a skilled player, and indeed, one skilled enough to place well in a Tournament is the ability to write a truly all comers list? Flamers are cheap, and useful. In a short ranged firefight (like, for instance, Marines trying to take an objective with a combination of Pistol fire and a follow up assault) they are truly fantastic.

MEQ, with the rather spiffy new Ork book, seems to be a thing of the past. Is it at all surprising that a notoriously Horde based army is doing well in an environment where people inexplicably only gear themselves to taking down Power Armour? I rather think not! So to say that the Ork Codex is clearly overpowered and broken is somewhat short sighted.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:MEQ, with the rather spiffy new Ork book, seems to be a thing of the past. Is it at all surprising that a notoriously Horde based army is doing well in an environment where people inexplicably only gear themselves to taking down Power Armour? I rather think not! So to say that the Ork Codex is clearly overpowered and broken is somewhat short sighted.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote. I stated that SM have a harder time in tournaments because the majority of people set up their army for MEQs as the primary enemy. They then hope they can out play the horde armies, while devestating the MEQ armies.

The only thing that comes remotely close to saying Orks are overpowered is when I stated that their MEQ list would be basically the same as their anti-horde list. Orks have no power weapons for their characters, so people will still take power klaws. Lootas are have superior range to burnas, therefore they will still be taken. I would assume nob bikers would still be taken as they are fast, tough and hit hard, maybe not because they are expensive. On the flip side, SM would take HBs over lascannons, flamers over plasma guns and probably more power weapons than powerfists.

I don't particularly care about the Ork codex being OP or not. If everyone starts playing them, the players will set up form for Orks than MEQs and the issue will self resolve. Better yet, GW will release the next OP codex and they'll get relegated to 2nd or 3rd best.

Eldanar wrote:The problem with the simpler system is it tends to log jam up much more and you really cannot tell who is the better general.

And the tiered system shows us that all ork players are some of our greatest tactical minds?

Techboss wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:MEQ, with the rather spiffy new Ork book, seems to be a thing of the past. Is it at all surprising that a notoriously Horde based army is doing well in an environment where people inexplicably only gear themselves to taking down Power Armour? I rather think not! So to say that the Ork Codex is clearly overpowered and broken is somewhat short sighted.

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion from what I wrote. I stated that SM have a harder time in tournaments because the majority of people set up their army for MEQs as the primary enemy. They then hope they can out play the horde armies, while devestating the MEQ armies.

The only thing that comes remotely close to saying Orks are overpowered is when I stated that their MEQ list would be basically the same as their anti-horde list. Orks have no power weapons for their characters, so people will still take power klaws. Lootas are have superior range to burnas, therefore they will still be taken. I would assume nob bikers would still be taken as they are fast, tough and hit hard, maybe not because they are expensive. On the flip side, SM would take HBs over lascannons, flamers over plasma guns and probably more power weapons than powerfists.

I don't particularly care about the Ork codex being OP or not. If everyone starts playing them, the players will set up form for Orks than MEQs and the issue will self resolve. Better yet, GW will release the next OP codex and they'll get relegated to 2nd or 3rd best.

Sorry, was partially replying to something you said, rather than yourself and shot off on a tangent. I do apologise.

However, one is interested to see how Burnas proceed now with the Plastic Battlewagon available. I'd imagine one or two stuffed with Burnas and left open topped (yes, it's risky. But a Big Mek Powerfield could help there) to be quite a nasty proposition. After all, it drives out, 10 Burnas leap out, roast you in the Cover, and then assault.... Mind you, now I mention it, I seem to recall Burnas can be either or in a single turn, and not both, so depending on what you are using, they might not roast you at all and instead merely settle for slicing you up in HTH. Thats a *lot* of S4 power weapon attacks, and one would imagine, a very taken objective, and not one I would enjoy trying to take back. Get your ranges slightly off and you are literally toast!

I have yet to lose to the new orks.

G

Blackmoor wrote:It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

Orks were my first tournament army. I took a racetrack worth to Adepticon '06. Finished in the top-10 in the gladiator at Adepticon '07 with the old codex. Did it again this year with the new codex - and haven't really played them much since. They just don't seem like much of a challenge to play anymore, and there's a lot of 'hate' towards ork players now that I never experienced under the old codex.

I liked it more when orks were the underdogs.

Similar to Green Blow Fly, I have not had many losses to Orks since their book came out either (and my regular Ork opponent won two Tournament Circuit GT's this past year). But their sheer numbers are extremely problematic. And too, I recognized early on that they were going to be ratcheted up in the power brackets.

Bignutter wrote:you can though- by having the w/l/d and still keeping track of VPs so that you can sort out any ties and rank people on the same number of wins- thats actually what they do at the UK GTs... that way the person on 6 wins by the skin of their teeth is still below the 6 win "wipe out everything placed before me" player

Instead of going to all of that trouble, why not just use the U.S. system. You will effectively have the same result without having to keep up with two sets of math.

Yep, I don't think my IG would have had any problems with either of the top two Ork armies at Baltimore. Thing is, I'll never face them as I can't quite get the massive victories needed to be at the top tables.

I'd have though IG were one of the better armies at halting an Orky horde. Lots of sidearm fire, lots of targets, and a fair bit of big gun muscle to help out. Granted, if the horde makes it to HTH relatively intact your stuffed, but I can see it being win big lose big type situations.

However, please take into account I haven't played 40k since early 4th Edition!

@ don_mondo & Mad Doc Grotsnik

IG are at a significant disadvatage to Orks, heres why:

Morale: Orks are well poised to pass ALL the route tests from shooting while IG are almost certainly going to fail any morale checks from CC, this means even a few assaulters can destroy entire units in a single charge.

KP: Ork armies have a significantly less amount of KP than IG, its almost a loss at setup, assuming generally equal factors otherwise just by the numbers

Assault and OBJ taking: IG have no decent take ground units and no assault units, they would have a very difficult time advancing to claim OBJs vs. Orks, while the Ork list is basically filled with great units for this purpose.

I haven't really seen Eldar around at all locally since their fall from grace (i.e. 5th edition). Obviously some good armies can still be made out of the codex, I just haven't been seeing them. What are these high-placing Eldar armies playing?

Torgoch, if you don't mind my asking, what did your Eldar army look like?

sirisaacnuton wrote:I haven't really seen Eldar around at all locally since their fall from grace (i.e. 5th edition). Obviously some good armies can still be made out of the codex, I just haven't been seeing them. What are these high-placing Eldar armies playing?

Torgoch, if you don't mind my asking, what did your Eldar army look like?

Here is the 2nd place army in Vegas:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=300005&pIndex=2&aId=9900001&start=3

The Eldar army that was 8th in Vegas, and 4th in Chicago were Iyanden.

Redbeard wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

Orks were my first tournament army. I took a racetrack worth to Adepticon '06. Finished in the top-10 in the gladiator at Adepticon '07 with the old codex. Did it again this year with the new codex - and haven't really played them much since. They just don't seem like much of a challenge to play anymore, and there's a lot of 'hate' towards ork players now that I never experienced under the old codex.

I liked it more when orks were the underdogs.

Redbeard, I feel ya 100%. I was with "Dok's Toolz", and aside from your team and our team, there were no other Ork teams at Adepticon 2006.

People are treating Orks like the new eldar... it seems Phil Kelly is always behind the armies most hated.

G

sirisaacnuton wrote:I haven't really seen Eldar around at all locally since their fall from grace (i.e. 5th edition). Obviously some good armies can still be made out of the codex, I just haven't been seeing them. What are these high-placing Eldar armies playing?

Torgoch, if you don't mind my asking, what did your Eldar army look like?

It was:

Farseer on bike, both runes, fortune
8 warlocks on bikes, embolden, enhance, destructor

Farseer on bike, runes of witnessing, fortune
8 warlocks on bikes, embolden, enhance, destructor

8 dire avengers, exarch w/bladestorm, diresword
5 rangers
3 jetbikes
1 holoprism

There were quite a few bike councils, but I was the only one with two of them. I suspect a single council + bike autarch backed up by holotank spam is more potent.

Green Blow Fly wrote:People are treating Orks like the new eldar... it seems Phil Kelly is always behind the armies most hated.

G

It's because he writes overpowered codices, plain and simple. First it was Holo falcons, now it's Nob Bikers.

Then with Dark Eldar it'll be...Raider Spam? I don't know.

Which is a pity, he's good at writing codices, just not at balancing the darn things.

And the other pity is that I used to really like Orks.

I'd rather have phil kelly writing the codices instead of Pete "Iron Warriors are the pwn" Haines. Holo falcons were uncool, but have been fixed by 5th edition. Nob Bikers are uncool, but nothing a few demolisher shells won't solve I believe.

Honestly though getting ridding of Andy Chambers was not a good idea. His ork codex stood the test of time.

When ever i think about mech eldar I shudder, those were ddark dark days. I can handle Nob bikers. (Ork player of 9 years) but I,m kinda sad they aren't the lovable under-dogs any more. Time to trade them for Necrons. ( sure hope they don't give crons FnP, too much of that going around already).

For what it's worth, here are the top 10 finishers of the German GT Final 2008:

Orks 87
Chaos Marines 73
Space Marines 63
Tyranids 60
Dark Angels 60
Eldar 60
Orks 60
Orks 57
Dark Eldar 57
IG 56

The German final is 2000 points, only battle, no sports or comp and the old tiered system used with the new missions, victory points are only used as tie-breaker.

The top Orks were one mob Nob-Bikers, 9 kans, Bigmek and 90 boyz. The CSM in second were single lash with Abaddon and zerkers in raider, the marines in third were pods.

I must admit, I find it rather amazing that people are really all that bothered about how they rank up against other people in their expertise in playing a made-up game with man-dollies and dice!

It makes me wonder whether those who obsess about tournament rankings aren't trying to compensate for possible inadequacies in other areas of their lives?

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

I've been playing orks as my main army for about a decade, I started collecting then at the end of second edition.
I popped into my local GW to buy a battleforce to fill out my numbers (so I'd have over 200 infantry), get a few new warbikes and some trukk bits for conversions (much as I hate converting I still delude myself into giving a go).
The staffer I was dealing with started giving me guff for "jumping on the broken orks bandwagon" I gave him a level look and told him I'd been playing them consistently since end of 2nd edition. And I'd been going to that GW for the last 6years on and off.
Turned out he was a bloody space marine player. A space marine player, giving me guff about playing orks? I felt like I was in one of Kid Kyoto's previews.
I'm glad my codex finally has multiple viable builds. And I think all of them are beatable. Nob bikers fear and loathe strength 8. It's probably the players, not the list, that are stomping people. I imagine it takes a fair amount of skill to win with only two scoring units.

A Space Marine player should not give anyone any grief for playing another army.

G

Osbad wrote:

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

I don't play in tournaments, I don't really care if I win or lose as long as the game is fun. But what doesn't make the game fun is Nob Bikers and 180 Ork lists.

For all you people who say, "Oh but Orks are easy to kill if you do X, Y, and Z. They're also really weak to A, B, and C!"

I definitely recall Eldar players in 4th edition making the exact same claims that some things would kill them easily, and that certain tactics would help you out.

It's a bunch of crock, it really is. It doesn't make your codex any less overpowered.

But at the core, it's really the army I don't respect. I do respect its players, however. Well, most of them.

But really, it's the lists. How can you lose with 180 Ork boys? Really? The only challenge nowadays would be moving all of them and painting all of them. Nob Bikers may fear and loathe Str 8, but when they're getting 4+ cover saves it's not that big of a deal.

And saying that they're beatable doesn't mean anything when they're getting 1st place in all of the tournaments... :S

One thing I noticed in the GT circuit, Daniel Liswood (i think I got the spelling right) Got a best general at Vegas and then a Best Sportsman at Baltimore, all he needs to do is win best painted and he can be the trifecta of the hobby.

Great job Daniel on proving your not only a damn good player but fun to play against.

Free food in Plantation on Saturday night. Give it up Hod.

G

Osbad wrote:It makes me wonder whether those who obsess about tournament rankings aren't trying to compensate for possible inadequacies in other areas of their lives?

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

And how is this any different from any other type of event that pits people up against one another for a prize (imagined or otherwise)?

People who are judgemental about how others derive enjoyment from this hobby makes me ashamed to be a casual gamer.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how is this any different from any other type of event that pits people up against one another for a prize (imagined or otherwise)?

People who are judgemental about how others derive enjoyment from this hobby makes me ashamed to be a casual gamer.

BYE

Thanks HBMC, new sig.

The reason to care about whether or not one army is consistently taking first place in tournaments isn't the same concern as to why people play in tournaments. I play in local tournaments here for a variety of reasons that aren't pertinent to this discussion. For the importance of the rankings though, it's something that anyone who plays, even casual gamers IMO, should be at least moderately aware of. Reason being, you might play them. And if they're overpowered, even in casual games after a while it gets to be less than fun. Knowing that the army in question tends to win more than it's fair share against some of the more competitive players out there might help you realize that it's not necessarily you playing poorly, so you have more info to decide how you're going to handle it in the future.

GW on the other hand SHOULD be very interested in what armies are taking tournaments, because if things truly are unbalanced, it can affect their sales.

GW influences sales by changing rules, codexes and the model line-up to make one army hot, then make another army hot. The hotness may be in terms of power, or nice models, or both.

This is a continuing process. The only question is whether it is a cleverly planned strategy or a side-effect of the way they let the studio and modellers operate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Osbad wrote:It makes me wonder whether those who obsess about tournament rankings aren't trying to compensate for possible inadequacies in other areas of their lives?

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

And how is this any different from any other type of event that pits people up against one another for a prize (imagined or otherwise)?

People who are judgemental about how others derive enjoyment from this hobby makes me ashamed to be a casual gamer.

BYE

And people who take stuff posted on the internet seriously make me ashamed to be a forum poster...

oh.... wait...


But, on a more serious note, that whole "competitive drive" thing is, in my humble opinion, rather childish. Some competitions require more intelligence, or native skill, or training, or luck, or money than others, but at their heart lies the desire to prove oneself somehow superior to others in order to feel better about oneself. Its a widely held, normal, human character trait, and I have it myself. Its still bloody childish. And if taken to extremes, dangerous. It's how arms races start for instance.

It needs to be said that if I have a bigger army, or a better football team, or a higher golf handicap, or a stronger win/loss ratio in 40k tournaments than you, it doesn't make me any better of a human being. Sure many tournament players know and understand that. The balanced ones. But we all know of some who tip themselves over that balance and get their panties all in a bunch over a game that is largely down to chance anyhow. And those that "cheat" to somehow delude themselves and others that they are better, and to defraud the genuine better players of their rightful prize money are an order of magnitude lower than this on the evolutionary scale. And its why doping and other forms of cheating are against the law in most mainstream sports. And why if you tried such shennanigans in a Las Vegas you'd be likely waving bye-bye to your kneecaps.

Sure, play to the best of your ability. Sure try your best in everything you do. But, please, please lets keep a sense of proportion. If you want to get *that* dedicated to something, pick something more worthwhile than a game of toy soldiers - the cure for cancer, your local orphanage, eradicating poverty in Africa. Something that *matters* in the world. Not who won some pissy little tournament in the arse end of the world playing an obscure game based around painted plastic little spacemen and dice!

Oh you simply must be joking. There is no way on this planet that what you wrote above could have been written with any level of serious (or intelligent) thought. No, I simply refuse to see a real point of view in the post above. No. Not at all.

"If you want to get *that* dedicated to something, pick something more worthwhile than a game of toy soldiers - the cure for cancer, your local orphanage, eradicating poverty in Africa..."

Cure cancer... Jesus Osbad... did you really just write all that nonsense? Wow!

It's a hobby, not a life-style choice. It doesn't have to matter 'cause it's something you do for fun, and if people want to be competative about it, in a formal 'tournement' setting or otherwise, who the hell are you to judge?

BYE

No, ok, look you know what, I'm done with this yet.

Everyone, I want you to follow me here and see if you can make the same logical connections that Osbad has made. Imagine this dialogue and see if it makes sense to you:

Person 1: I like playing in tournaments.
Person 2: So do I. Who's coming first in the rankings? What armies are doing well?
Person 1: Let's find out.
Osbad: My God! You want to find out what armies are doing well in a tournament. I'm ashamed that people would take it so seriously.
Me: Who are you to judge how people enjoy their hobby? How is this any differen to any other hobby with any sort of competative element (RC cars, model planes, historical battles, multiplayer console or PC gaming - anything)? How is wanting to know what's good, what's doing well and who isn't a bad thing?
Osbad: GO CURE CANCER IF IT MATTERS SO MUCH TO YOU!
Me: Wha... what? What are you talk-
Osbad: Feed the Africans! FEED THEM!!!!!
Me: It... what? It's a game dude, calm down.
Osbad: The orphans! The orphans! My God why won't someone think of the children!
Me: You must be kidding? It's a game. GAME. It doesn't have to be serious.
Person 1: So... Orks then?
Person 2: Yeah, Orks.

Osbad, it seems the only one here taking it too seriously is you.

BYE

To my mind it's no different to sitting round discussing who's doing well in the football. I mean, that's just a children's game where a bunch of dudes chase a ball around.
And lots of people take that much more seriously than we're taking this.

And yet the hooha and indeed, broohaha over the recent 'Ardboyz (did he or didn't he cheat...DFKDFC) has pointed out exactly *why* many people shun tournaments.

They don't have the same level of 'killer instinct' as a dedicated tournament player, so choose to avoid them. And as soon as you identify yourself as a casual gamer, you are automatically assumed to look down on Tournament play. Which is patently nonsense.

As Osbad said, it's a game. Sure, so is Football and Boxing at the end of the day, but with Fantasy and 40k, there is no money to be won. No real prizes of any note, so why stress so much over it?

I promote Casual Gaming as a good way to enjoy your hobby. That does not mean I rubbish Tournament gaming.

Except I have seen you rubbish tournament gaming in some of your posts.

That actually doesn't bother me.
I'm not sure what tournaments people go to where everyone is a killer instinct jerk, but I tend to find that most tournament gamersjust like getting a lot of good games in against interesting armies.

HBMC mate, there's only one person getting their panties in a wad in this thread mate, and it ain't me.

If you can't spot that actually I am agreeing that it is only a game and shouldn't be taken seriously then I suggest you take a breather, reread my posts and relax.

If you'd taken the time to read the posts correctly instead of getting all hot under the collar, you might have realised that my point was exactly the same one you are making: to whit, if you want to take something seriously to the extent that some appear to do in grieving over codex weaknesses, alleged cheating, etc., etc., then you should chose something more worthy than a game like 40k.

I actually agree with you that it IS only a game, and the problem comes from taking it as more than that.

I've got no problem with tournaments, or players of tournaments, if they don't take it too seriously.

It is precisely the "taking it too seriously", and that I do not that means I find much discussion of 40k on the web patently ridiculous!

Because my rationale for disliking tournament gaming was probed I extend my explanation of why I find over-competitiveness a negative influence on society, but you have taken too great an assumptive leap in then interpreting that explanation as somehow my condemnation of all things tournamenty...

As I believe I said numerous times - I realise that many, probably most, tournament gamers just go along for the fun and don't really bother that much where they place.

As with much in life it is the minority who take things too far that spoil the experience for the rest, and reasonably gently taking the pee out of them, or those that seem to exhibit the beginnings of such behaviour, is hardly a big deal.

Ultimately I am not judging anyone. I am merely pointing out what I feel (and I gave a rational, succinct explanation behind that feeling) is silly. I surely never claimed any right to judge, merely the right to express an opinion about observed behaviour.

Whether others choose to match themselves against that opinion or not is their own affair and no concern of mine.

Maybe I should have gone with my initial instinct on reading the thread and simply said "I smell nerd"...?

And I stand with my stated belief, a belief I have seen expressed elsewhere, that over-competitiveness in tournaments is killing the enjoyment of the game for many and risks turning it into something GW never intended it to be. In saying that I neither condemn nor judge those that play in tournaments, merely the minority of players who's lack of perspective and lack of sportsmanship is poisonous to the environment, yet who are rewarded by their perceived success in the tournament scene.

I personally steer well clear of tournaments nowadays, not because of the 90% of great players who participate in them, but because of the 10% of jerk-offs who do. I would never dream to judge whether any individual was a member of the 10% or the 90%, but I would defend to the death my liberty to define in my own terms the behaviours that define in which camp any individual may belong.

And as an adjunct to HBMC's amusing dialogue, I would append my own, which is abscracted from the conversation about the meta-game that has been going on in Dakka and other forums since the growth of the tournament scene:

Person 1: OMG look taking Orks/Eldar/Tyranids means an auto-win for tournaments
Person 2: That sux
Person 3: That's not fair, lets burn GW to the ground for not balancing their codices!
Person 4: Nah, lets just bore the arses off everyone by whinging about it all the time instead.
Osbad: Obsessing about tournament placing is sad. Does it really matter?
HBMC: Burn the heretic! He's a witch!
Person 5: Anyway, Orks autowinning sux. When are Dark Eldar going to get some love?
Osbad: Bring back the Pan-Fo, I need some reviling...

I hope this thread doesn't go into an OT death spiral of back-biting and recrimination.

If it did a moderator would have to lock it.

Back to the point in hand, is there an archive of UK, US and other GTs over the years?

I think the overall point being missed. I dare say that most people want to start any game knowing that they have an equal chance of winning as their opponent. In chess, if I play black, I have the same chance to win as if I play white. The same holds true for all most every game; the two opposing players have an equal chance to win the game from the start. In most games, this is done by mirroring each side, both sides in chess have the exact same abilities and the sides are balanced.

The next factor in winning the game is how knowledgeable/good the player is at the game. While I know how chess works, my chances of beating a master chess player is about zero. I am not as versed or practiced in the game as the master player and as such don't have the knowledge base to pull from in order to counter my opponents moves and win. The skill a player has with the game may be the reason they are really good or really bad at the game. It can improve with practice or may never improve because of how the players thought process works.

Game designers then add in randomness through dice rolling to allow luck to be a bit of a factor so the "bad" player always has at least some chance against the "good" player. I can be the best player in the world at a certain game, but if the dice gods are against me and with my opponent, I can loose. The amount of randomness in the game is determined by the game designers. One would assume that randomness of the dice should be equal between the two players.

Now that the above is established, I as a player accept that I will loose to superior tactics and/or bad dice rolls. It's going to happen and I need to understand it. What I refuse to accept is that the game is not balanced. This means I have an artificially low or high chance to win based on my army comp vs my opponents army comp. Unlike some other games, where I can change sides quickly, miniature games are partially a hobby and as such, changing armies is both expensive and time consuming. If I could drop $100 to add another army, then I wouldn't care as much that the army balance is fluid.

Tournament rankings are an indication of the balance of the various armies. It is assumed that the dice and player skill factors are much less of a factor. The dice because there are multiple games and the skill because a good portion of the players are competitive and have been playing for quite a while; therefore a percentage of them should be skilled. This means when looking across several tournaments, one can see how the armies stack up in balance.

Osbad wrote:


Maybe I should have gone with my initial instinct on reading the thread and simply said "I smell nerd"...?
.......

I personally steer well clear of tournaments nowadays, not because of the 90% of great players who participate in them, but because of the 10% of jerk-offs who do. I would never dream to judge whether any individual was a member of the 10% or the 90%, but I would defend to the death my liberty to define in my own terms the behaviours that define in which camp any individual may belong.

Then why read and THEN post in a thread that is contrary to what you like and start to derail it.

wynnstudio

It's important when comparing tournament results to know the differences between the scoring.

The UK tournaments don't score comp or sports and have a different allocation of points to W/D/L to the USA.

This was mentioned as a reason for the different performance of Tau.

Sports at the the US GT's this year really isn't anything. YOu would have to be a total tool to lose 10 points max. For the top 10 - 20 finishers most had max sports.

It's un-weighted uk w-d-l system that is the major difference.

wynnstudio

at least eldar didnt do too badly

Osbad wrote:Obsessing about tournament placing is sad. Does it really matter?

Who here is obsessing about it? You're attempting to take people that are 'interested' and make them 'obsessive'.

BYE

Osbad wrote:HBMC mate, there's only one person getting their panties in a wad in this thread mate, and it ain't me.

Am I the only one amused by seeing this statement followed by (depending on screen size) twenty lines of text (explaining in no uncertain terms that this fella surely does not have his panties in a bunch, nooooo siree, no way no how...)?

In the end, Techboss really nailed the issue;

Techboss wrote:I think the overall point being missed. I dare say that most people want to start any game knowing that they have an equal chance of winning as their opponent. In chess, if I play black, I have the same chance to win as if I play white. The same holds true for all most every game; the two opposing players have an equal chance to win the game from the start. In most games, this is done by mirroring each side, both sides in chess have the exact same abilities and the sides are balanced.

Look at the most popular, long lived games, what we see is balance. Being concerned about slipshod balance and codex creep isn't (just) a sign of being an uptight "powergamer", it's a logical reaction anyone concerned about the long term health prospects of a game many of us have devoted significant time and money to.

It's a hobby, not a life-style choice. It doesn't have to matter 'cause it's something you do for fun, and if people want to be competative about it, in a formal 'tournement' setting or otherwise, who the hell are you to judge?

Lol, HBMC, and how many points do you have across all your armies?

Anyways, I think that regardless of whether or not you tabled your opponnent, a win is a win. And I advocate for that system in tournaments. Simply because the opponent you played first round might have been the second place person while your the first, you draw a really close win. Then the third place guy goes and plays against a noob and utterly crushes him and gets more points for dumb luck. Thats a flawed system. A wins a win. (And in a perfect world everything would be done by round robin.)

As for the DA Players Woo Hoo! You go guys! Dark Green Pride For The Win!

H.B.M.C. wrote:No, ok, look you know what, I'm done with this yet.

Everyone, I want you to follow me here and see if you can make the same logical connections that Osbad has made. Imagine this dialogue and see if it makes sense to you:

Person 1: I like playing in tournaments.
Person 2: So do I. Who's coming first in the rankings? What armies are doing well?
Person 1: Let's find out.
Osbad: My God! You want to find out what armies are doing well in a tournament. I'm ashamed that people would take it so seriously.
Me: Who are you to judge how people enjoy their hobby? How is this any differen to any other hobby with any sort of competative element (RC cars, model planes, historical battles, multiplayer console or PC gaming - anything)? How is wanting to know what's good, what's doing well and who isn't a bad thing?
Osbad: GO CURE CANCER IF IT MATTERS SO MUCH TO YOU!
Me: Wha... what? What are you talk-
Osbad: Feed the Africans! FEED THEM!!!!!
Me: It... what? It's a game dude, calm down.
Osbad: The orphans! The orphans! My God why won't someone think of the children!
Me: You must be kidding? It's a game. GAME. It doesn't have to be serious.
Person 1: So... Orks then?
Person 2: Yeah, Orks.

Osbad, it seems the only one here taking it too seriously is you.

BYE

Quoted for truth.

Buzzsaw wrote:
Am I the only one amused by seeing this statement followed by (depending on screen size) twenty lines of text (explaining in no uncertain terms that this fella surely does not have his panties in a bunch, nooooo siree, no way no how...)?

Of course not. Analysis of social deviance is usually amusing. Osbad has no reason to belittle other people, and it's a bit rich for him to accuse others of becoming upset when he make inflammatory remarks. He also stated something along the lines of not taking forum discussion seriously. This is a valid community, on the internet, whether he likes it or not, and all the media-addled adolescents on MySpace won't change that. Perhaps if more people posted about Lord of the Rings he wouldn't get so bored. He has expressed perfectly valid opinions with regard to the topic at hand, he just doesn't have to be a jerk at the same time. I'm sure everyone here would be willing to take him seriously otherwise.

wynnstudio wrote:Sports at the the US GT's this year really isn't anything. YOu would have to be a total tool to lose 10 points max.


wynnstudio

not entirely true.

a person could be a fine opponent and score 8 or so points. namely, not receiving marks because a player brought a "win without regard to theme/40k universe", or "I would not like to play this person again", or they didn't know the rules all that well becasue of the fairly recent introduction of a new edition, etc.


overall, this was the best sportsmanship scoring method used at the US GTs, IMHO.

take care

albinoork wrote:

wynnstudio wrote:Sports at the the US GT's this year really isn't anything. YOu would have to be a total tool to lose 10 points max.


wynnstudio

not entirely true.

a person could be a fine opponent and score 8 or so points. namely, not receiving marks because a player brought a "win without regard to theme/40k universe", or "I would not like to play this person again", or they didn't know the rules all that well becasue of the fairly recent introduction of a new edition, etc.


overall, this was the best sportsmanship scoring method used at the US GTs, IMHO.

take care

I guess I mean more in the top ten finishers. The player with the lowest sports in the top 10 still finished 2nd and even if he had a 50 he would have still placed second. Sports really made no difference. I use to advocate for sports scores but now I don't think they matter. I played some tough as nails lists on the upper tables but the players were great.

From Baltimore GT:
Sports overall
50 180
46 168
48 164
47 164
50 162
48 160
48 157
48 157
50 156
50 154


wynnstudio

wynnstudio wrote:I guess I mean more in the top ten finishers. The player with the lowest sports in the top 10 still finished 2nd and even if he had a 50 he would have still placed second. Sports really made no difference. I use to advocate for sports scores but now I don't think they matter. I played some tough as nails lists on the upper tables but the players were great.

wynnstudio

good points.

sportsmanship has moved onto something other than a way of differentiating the "best hobbyist".

the sportsmanship checklist now acts as way of managing expectations. GW GT's now have a standard of behavior that each participant is expected to follow and each participant should expect to receive.

players are now expected to show up on time, bring all materials needed to play, take a reasonable amount of time to play a round, etc. (whatever the rest of the checklist states).

the sportsmanship still matters, but only as way of determining if a player is conforming to GW's expected behaviors.

take care

albinoork wrote:
good points.

sportsmanship has moved onto something other than a way of differentiating the "best hobbyist".

the sportsmanship checklist now acts as way of managing expectations. GW GT's now have a standard of behavior that each participant is expected to follow and each participant should expect to receive.

players are now expected to show up on time, bring all materials needed to play, take a reasonable amount of time to play a round, etc. (whatever the rest of the checklist states).

the sportsmanship still matters, but only as way of determining if a player is conforming to GW's expected behaviors.

take care

I can buy that

Now I would like to see paint scores be the same as battle points. I think that would change the dynamic a bit. Or at least bring it to 80 hobby, 100 battle.

To win overall you have to massacre at least 4 times to win but can have a average paint score.

wynnstudio

There are a couple of issues with making paint scores more important.

1. Without an objective paint judging protocol, the scores are basically not fair.

2. It may encourage the use of pro-painted armies, which isn't the point of it, IMO.

I don't think GW really cares if you painted your army or not. From a company stand point, I would rather have a bunch of pro painted armies roaming around my tournaments, rather than have poorly painted power gamer armies. This is especially true when a gamesday is done in conjunction with the GT, as I remember a lot of gamesday people walking around to ooo and awww the armies while they were on display between games and such.

Kilkrazy wrote:There are a couple of issues with making paint scores more important.

1. Without an objective paint judging protocol, the scores are basically not fair.

2. It may encourage the use of pro-painted armies, which isn't the point of it, IMO.

Pro-painted isn't really a problem. The interwebs will out anyone that does this and Dave T has said they would take back a GT award for that.

The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

The current protocol works IMO. It has improved each GT this season. For Baltimore they double checked all the highest and lowest scores. If painting was going to decide the winner by a point or two they would call in all the paint judges for a last check.

And it is called best overall, not best gamer and sorta hobbyist.

wynnstudio

This

Ork wrote:I don't think GW really cares if you painted your army or not.

and this

Ork wrote:From a company stand point, I would rather have a bunch of pro painted armies roaming around my tournaments, rather than have poorly painted power gamer armies. This is especially true when a gamesday is done in conjunction with the GT, as I remember a lot of gamesday people walking around to ooo and awww the armies while they were on display between games and such.

don't jive.

GW should want to have a bunch of painted armies that look good on the table. My army isn't pro painted by any stretch of the imagination, but looks good on the table from about 3 feet away. At one time, to play at the local GW store in my area, you had to have your entire army painted a minimum of 3 colors and based. Once they figured out that having that rule was a huge entry level hurdle, they got rid of it.

IMO:

- At the local level of casual, GW shouldn't care if your army is painted or not
- At the GT level and any tournament, GW should require the armies be painted 3 colors and based.

Well, a higher painting score would get rid of a lot of horde ork armies.

The 180 shoota boy armies that remain would deserve to win just on account of the player's perseverance.

::EDIT:: As a side note, while I like armies to painted, basing is a bit of a hassle. Half the time they don't even match the board.

wynnstudio wrote:The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

How much painting rates doesn't effect what builds are good.

Studies have shown that when players of a certain 40k army learn that their army has done poorly at a major tournament, spouse abuse in that demographic increases.

Do not try to argue, it is science.

Boxant: Try adding a statistic next time, you could get tons believing it then

Like, "Studies have shown that spousal abuse increases by 49% after any Grand tournament in which Space Marines do more than 20% worse than the top 10% of the players"

skyth wrote:

wynnstudio wrote:The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

How much painting rates doesn't effect what builds are good.

It doesn't but a someone could play witch hunters or another "mid level" army and try to make it up with painting what they may not get ion battle..

The highest paint score in the top 3 of 2008 GT's was a 39 and it was an eldar player. The rest were around 30. If you upped the points for painting you may see some more variation in the top 3 placers. Also If you look at a lot of the scores the overall winner they could have also won the best general too but they only give one award per player. The painting change IMO would make overall really be overall and make best general have more weight to it.

wynnstudio

wynnstudio wrote:

skyth wrote:

wynnstudio wrote:The current scoring favors a few builds and leave the rest out. Bringing painting up to par would help even this out.

How much painting rates doesn't effect what builds are good.

It doesn't but a someone could play witch hunters or another "mid level" army and try to make it up with painting what they may not get ion battle..

And you're better off still getting the higher battle score in addition to the higher painting score with the 'top tier' army.

Again, how unless you have people who cheat and give painting scores based on army comp (And those do exist), upping the painting points doesn't affect army variety.

Battle scores are battle scores and soft scores are soft scores. One very rarely has the ability to cancel out the deficiencies in the other.

Battle points are really the only thing that you as a player can more or less directly control. You can be dinged on sportsmanship or painting for any number of reasons.

A second comment regarding painting: many (although not all) top tournament players pay to have parts or all of their tournament armies painted. Its just the way the game is meta'd now.

I do not think painting, sports, comp, etc. are realistic solutions to acting as a counter for mid level armies. Because anything you can do to improve your soft scores, someone else will also do with their top tier army.

The only way to neutralize the horde superiority phenomenon is by having the organizers design missions which do not favor them (on top of a rules set that already favors them). I'm not saying they should be handicapped by any means, but rather missions that emphasize KP's, large troop selections, etc., should probably be discouraged in favor of more tactically oriented objectives.

JMHO.

I don't think upping the painting would stop the current top armies nor do I want too. I just would like to see the paint and sports be equal. IMO that may bring in other armies in the top. It would be nice to see a bit more of a mix. If a high paint score forces the guys winning overall currently to paint better or pay more money (which I don't really see happening) then thats better too and they deserve there overall more so.

wynnstudio

They were always advocating for more troops and taking a lot of troops. Well I think they got their wish with orks... Space Marine troops are overpriced imo. Notice I don't play SM, only Crons, Eldar and Orks. I would say IG are over priced too, but they're changing to 4 points.

wynnstudio wrote:I don't think upping the painting would stop the current top armies nor do I want too. I just would like to see the paint and sports be equal. IMO that may bring in other armies in the top. It would be nice to see a bit more of a mix. If a high paint score forces the guys winning overall currently to paint better or pay more money (which I don't really see happening) then thats better too and they deserve there overall more so.

Note that painting and sports aren’t equal now- painting really is bigger, because it has a larger amount of variance.

50 possible points for Sports is not as big as it looks. Given that really only about 5-10pts separate the low scores from the high scores, functionally Sports is pretty close to only 10pts of the actual scoring.

yea, painting his judged... pretty strangely

Think about this for painting:

I have a friend who won Best Painted in the Atlanta GT a couple years back. He took more or less the same army/models (with a few changes) to LV this past year and scored a 17.

Painting is kind of like how the Olympic figure skating is scored. It all depends on which judge you get and whether they woke up in a good mood that day; whether they like your style; whether they like your army; whether they actually follow the listed guidelines; whether you are a "noted" favorite player; and whether or not they have connections to you outside of the tournament. Kind of sad really...

That is why all the judges should look at all the armies and make an aggregate score.

I agree with you. The sad thing is, the company that actually makes the game and sells the product puts on the messiest tournaments.

Even if pro-painting were outlawed (which was tried several years ago) GW almost never can find the players doing it. And as stated earlier, it is actually in their interest to have more better painted armies than in enforcing this policy. This is why the GT mantra of overall winner and "best hobbyist," as well as "best painted," ought to come with an asterisk.

EDIT:

On second thought, they ought to change it to "prettiest army." Then the award would sound as light and fluffy as it sometimes is.

Eldanar wrote:Think about this for painting:
It all depends on which judge you get and whether they woke up in a good mood that day; whether they like your style; whether they like your army; whether they actually follow the listed guidelines; whether you are a "noted" favorite player; and whether or not they have connections to you outside of the tournament. Kind of sad really...

Do you have any real way of proving that.

Because if that so I should have scored a 40 this year at Baltimore. I knew who judged my army and we are pretty friendly and I do side work for GW. Instead I got a 27 which was fair. There are inconsistencies which have gotten less with each event but I have yet to see favoritism in the scoring.


wynnstudio

I wasn't really referring to favoritsm so much so as to inconsistencies. Although there are several regular tournament goers who are friendly with the judges and/or are known to lobby for themselves.

See my prior post above. How does an army go from being Best Painted in a GT one year, and then score a 24 in a GT the next year (I originally posted a "17" but it was actually a 24). Assuming 90% of the models are the exact same ones, and the other 10% are painted to the same standard. [That is almost a 50% drop...although I do realize the scoring methodology has changed from year to year, but it still should not be that large of a drop off.]

The problem with painting is that it is completely subjective.

I have not gone to any GT's this past year (work issues, etc.). However, I had several friends who went to multiple GT's, and took the same armies. They had pretty significant disproportionate painting scores from event to event.

For example in Chicago, the army scored a 30. But in LV, it scored a 24. That is a 20% drop from one event to the next with the same models.

If the judges are using their little "check the box criteria" that the website listed for painting, then they should, theoretically, be within a point or two of each other, if not identical (assuming no extra work was done in between tournaments, which I do not believe was the case).

The only possible difference I can see is that a different person judged them in each different event, AND, in one tournament, the models were borrowed by player A from player B, who could not go (and player A wanted to try out a different army just for fun); although player B used them in the other tournament.

30 versus 24 is not that huge of a difference really... Certainly not enough to raise a serious eye brow.

Seeing that all of the top ten at the Baltimore GT scored 45 points or more for sportsmanship indicates this category is a relative non-factor in the big event environment. To be honest I hate to see a pro painted army score so many points for appearance but what are you going to do if you can't paint well or afford to buy your army already painted?

G

Sportsmanship is there not necessarily to effect the outcome; rather it is a pre-emptive measure that keeps the more competitively inclined players from becoming complete ass hats.

The question about painting scores is what is the point of them, what are they intended to achieve or resolve?

Is it:

A. Reward skillful painters.
B. Encourage the use of painted armies.
C. Provide an additional differentiating factor to help resolve possible ties in battle point scoring.
D. Boost "the hobby" generally.

If it is A or C, then the use of pro-painted armies is arguably a form of cheating.

If it is B, surely that could be resolved more easily by abandoning paint scores and simply requiring a minimum of three colours on a model (and no bare metal/plastic) before it can be in the competition.

I know there is a factor of wanting to encourage all aspects of the hobby. Many players enjoy painting and want to show off their work and have it admired -- that kind of player probably doesn't need a prize to spur him to his best efforts.

If painting well is something that doesn't require prizes, why have golden demons either?

And, yes, sometimes having a prize does push you to do better stuff. I know that, going into the Chicago GT, I kept changing my list to get better painted models into the army. I kept adding more and more details to the models I was bringing. I could have just brought they guys that I play with in my basement, but my goal for the event was a best painted award, and having that goal meant that I focused my efforts towards it.

Having paint scores, to me, is a way of saying that the tournament is about more than winning at all costs. If there are no soft scores, why bring anything except the absolute best army. As I mentioned above, my army list changed from being the most competative tabletop army to one that was more predicated on which models looked good. I think I may have had the only chaos dreadnought at the GT I went to

We always talk about the WAAC gamers, and how no one really wants to play -that guy-. I have nothing against Gladiator tournaments, but I prefer the more laid-back tournament atmosphere that I have experienced in events with painting and sportsmanship scores. I like having a reason to bring units I like, rather than only the units that perform well.

I like to think its the judges not following the check box system....

an army with 3 different paint schemes, only 3 (or less on some models) colors, and not completely converted to be wysiwyg beat me in painting... and yes I know the owner of the army and did play against him at the GT. He scored a 32 I got a 26 :(

I do not have a problem with soft scores in general. The problem I do have is that they are too easy to manipulate, often seem arbitrary, and leave people anywhere from put out to bitter when they are unceremoniously dinged for really no good reason.

The way to make sportsmanship be more meaningful than it is currently, was a suggestion I saw from someone on another thread: wait until the end of all 5 games before scoring it. Allow each player to rank their opponents, from favorite to least, and then score it accordingly.

The way to fix painting is to have multiple independent judges score it and then take the average of the scores (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only one judge currently scores a given army?)

Eldanar wrote:
The way to make sportsmanship be more meaningful than it is currently, was a suggestion I saw from someone on another thread: wait until the end of all 5 games before scoring it. Allow each player to rank their opponents, from favorite to least, and then score it accordingly.

Which means you are forced to give one of your opponents a low score, and another the lowest score, even if they were perfectly reasonable players?

The way to fix painting is to have multiple independent judges score it and then take the average of the scores (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only one judge currently scores a given army?)

They currently have multiple judges look at the top armies to decide the awards. They simply don't have the manpower to have multiple judges look at every army.

Redbeard wrote:

Eldanar wrote:
The way to make sportsmanship be more meaningful than it is currently, was a suggestion I saw from someone on another thread: wait until the end of all 5 games before scoring it. Allow each player to rank their opponents, from favorite to least, and then score it accordingly.

Which means you are forced to give one of your opponents a low score, and another the lowest score, even if they were perfectly reasonable players?

The way to fix painting is to have multiple independent judges score it and then take the average of the scores (please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe only one judge currently scores a given army?)

They currently have multiple judges look at the top armies to decide the awards. They simply don't have the manpower to have multiple judges look at every army.

Well, you either have the current system which is rampant with manipulation, cheating and arbitrary decisions; or you go to something that is meaningful and cuts down on the "meta-game" outside of actually playing the games. Yes, you have to give some people "1's", but that makes it meaningfu, and in theory at least it should even out. You also could have an option where you give everyone you played a 5 (or favorite); so you either rank your opponents or you give them all max points. [Sad to say the 3-4 tourneys I have been to, I have almost always had at least one person who played slowhammer, did not know their rules, argued every little point, or were just blatant cheats.]

I'm all for taking painting out of the equation. Have painting awards, but just make them separate from the tournament; kind of a stand alone mini-golden daemon. My opinion is that if you pay someone to paint your army then you are not a hobbyist (you are probably merely a gamer) and you should not be entitled to overall. Make painting a stand alone item and you remove most of the temptation to have someone farm out their painting. Conversely, have more Ard Boy style tournaments (just require painted models).

Redbeard wrote:If painting well is something that doesn't require prizes, why have golden demons either?

And, yes, sometimes having a prize does push you to do better stuff. I know that, going into the Chicago GT, I kept changing my list to get better painted models into the army. I kept adding more and more details to the models I was bringing. I could have just brought they guys that I play with in my basement, but my goal for the event was a best painted award, and having that goal meant that I focused my efforts towards it.

Having paint scores, to me, is a way of saying that the tournament is about more than winning at all costs. If there are no soft scores, why bring anything except the absolute best army. As I mentioned above, my army list changed from being the most competative tabletop army to one that was more predicated on which models looked good. I think I may have had the only chaos dreadnought at the GT I went to

We always talk about the WAAC gamers, and how no one really wants to play -that guy-. I have nothing against Gladiator tournaments, but I prefer the more laid-back tournament atmosphere that I have experienced in events with painting and sportsmanship scores. I like having a reason to bring units I like, rather than only the units that perform well.

Golden Daemon is separate to the wargame competition.

I love going to tournaments and I think I am a rather skilled player with more then a few first places under my belt. However I am fully aware that I am at best a mediocre painter. All my wins have been at events that either had not painting score or rated painting far below sportsmanship and battlepoints. I don't think painting should be eliminated but either make it a seperate contest or have a more forgiving system that has less impact on the overall score.

I wish I could paint better but big hands make for bad details....

Yes, golden demons are separate. Yes, painting can have an impact on the scores.

But I think this is a good thing. If painting scores aren't a factor in the overall scores, there is no incentive to take anything except the most killy army you can. At that point, there is no difference between a gladiator tournament and any other tournament. And part of the draw of a good tournament is the opportunity to play against well painted armies, not just those that slapped three colors of paint on in order to qualify.

At GT Chicago, I deliberately picked an army based on model appearance instead of raw killyness. In my games, I went 3-2. I finished with the same number of overall points as the 10th place winner, but because tie breakers went battle/sports/paint, I ended up in 13th place.

If I had taken a more competative army - if I had chosen my units based solely on performance, not appearance - then I probably would have scored more battle points and, in the grand scheme of things, probably ended up somewhere around the same place...

If paint scores aren't included, why would anyone do that? Why would they give up battle points in order to have a cooler army on the table?

They need to bring back a structured and realistic composition scoring system. Not one based on your opponent's opinion, but one similar to what they had in 2002 (although probably a little expanded).

The one way to level the crap armies is to offer "free points" for people who voluntarily take (presumably) less killy armies. They had something similar to the (alleged) check the box system for painting, yet it applied to all armies.

Where they failed with the general comp scoring system was that they did not allow for variances for armies that required unique or tailored builds due to how the army's rules were constructed (IG detachments would be a good example). There was only a cookie cutter, one size fits all comp scoring system (and this was in part the problem as it penalized some armies too much where other armies could easily max out comp scores).

I took an army with a comp of 30 (the max, even though I really could have scored a 32) to Chicago and went 4-2, IIRC (yes the GT's were six games back then). Although your opponent also scored part of your comp score, which could total 50 points. I have serious reservations about anything putting that type of tool back into the players hands though.

There are several problems with any comp system.

It has to deal with the current state of codexes which often penalises certain armies who need updating or just don't have good compy units.

It's extra complication and effort for the judges. Some of them are very complicated or long, tedious checklists.

It is always 'gameable' by the player and/or his opponents, and it comes down to your cleverness in balancing the chance for a good comp score with the need to have enough decent units to actually win a game.

The UK and Europe generally have never bothered with comp scoring and it doesn't seem to have done any harm.

The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

And make the game less fun by doing that.

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

And make the game less fun by doing that.

Fun is a relative term. Any time you say this you are stating an opinion. I feel the game has become a lot MORE fun....

It just may not be as easy for you to now throw down a army with 6 carnifexes and win. You may now have to make tough choices which is what I think this game is all about

Eldanar wrote:They need to bring back a structured and realistic composition scoring system. Not one based on your opponent's opinion, but one similar to what they had in 2002 (although probably a little expanded).

LOL. I scored a 6 under that system at the 2002 Philly GT because I fielded a lot of wings and didn't max my Gaunts at 32 per brood. God, I was such a cheeseball. I sure deserved to drop 30-40 slots behind all the SM players who got max comp points for taking full tactical squads in Rhinos. </sarcasm off>

(Winning Best Army Appearance took the sting off, though. )

I know Dakkaites trend quantitative in nature, but trying to create rigid checklists for categories like painting or comp is an exercise in futility. Yes, you'll have transparency. But you'll also have gross inequities and simply create another way for players to work the system. I'm completely pro-comp in theory, but I'm anti-comp in reality. Players shouldn't be penalized for taking something a little different.

That is the whole point though, Gorgon. You knew going in what your comp score would be and you chose not to worry about it.

Compare that to painting, which for the average painter is more or less a crap shoot.

I'm not saying the 2002 system was perfect...far from it. But something like that would be useful and it is a better tool at levelling than some sort of amorphous painting score or sportsmanship.

And too I agree somewhat that comp is being written into the newer codexes. If you play Orks or daemons, here are your 20 extra battle points. If you play marines or Tau, here is your penalty. That is why I suggested army specific variances for each army. Maybe taking 2 ten man tactical squads of marines should garner someone the same comp points as an Ork player with 120 boyz.

The other alternative would be for everyone that plays in a tournament to switch to Orks and daemons, which I am sure would make for a good time by all.

You can easily build a list that is powerful and meets all the comp requirements. Comp guidelines are very subjective and to me have no place in the big tourney environment.

G

frgsinwntr wrote:

skyth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The 5e troop scoring rules plus the SM codex squad rules are clear evidence that GW is building 'comp' into the game and codexes rather than rely on some external system to do it.

And make the game less fun by doing that.

Fun is a relative term. Any time you say this you are stating an opinion. I feel the game has become a lot MORE fun....

It just may not be as easy for you to now throw down a army with 6 carnifexes and win. You may now have to make tough choices which is what I think this game is all about

How nice of you to bring out the tired old 'if you don't agree with me, you must be a bad person' argument.

You should be used to it by now Skyth.

When in doubt, look down your nose at your opponent, call them a dirty tournament gamer, and you instantly win any and all arguments.

BYE

Fifth edition is vastly superior to fourth. Saying this isn't true doesn't make you a dirty tourny gamer, it just makes you wrong. Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds. It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices. Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

In some ways 5th ed is better than 4th; but lets not jump on the band wagon and pass out the kool aid too soon. There are still some serious game mechanic issues which are not completely worked out. In most instances I think 5th is a step forward.

My only serious problems revolve around cover saves, TLOS and no realistic LOS blocking terrain options. That alone has pretty much nerfed any type of indirect fire unit (granted they were probably a little overused in 4th, but now they are almost useless).

Most places that I have seen use terrain that mainly consists of hills, forests and ruins; all of which were built with the idea of them being abstract representations of "area terrain." This goes for the GT's I have been to as well. As someone recently said in another thread, why not play the game on an empty board and give everything a 4+ cover save?

I am also not a big fan of shooting through friendlies providing cover to my target. The ability to screen my own troops is one thing that I like a lot, but having to manage traffic control for my shooting lanes is one more thing which unnecessarily complicates the game more than needed.

Some lesser irritants are things like KP's and only troops counting as scoring units. For me and my armies they are not too big of a problem, but some armies are completely hosed by them.

ShumaGorath wrote: Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds. It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices. Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

Forcing people to use, what are generally, the blandest units in the codex and lots of them is not a way to promote fun in a game.

Eldanar wrote:That is the whole point though, Gorgon. You knew going in what your comp score would be and you chose not to worry about it.

Compare that to painting, which for the average painter is more or less a crap shoot.

Actually, I chose to make a statement by taking something other than a cookie-cutter list and then explained why the system sucked to the GT organizers.

You're right...with quantitiative comp systems everyone knows their score. Which is why people then determined what armies and builds were the most tricked out to win but still maxed comp points, and took those.

Quantitative comp just becomes another criteria that can be "worked." And if the system isn't actually preventing "cheese" in an even-handed way across the board, then what's the point of the entire category? It ironically becomes *fairer* to leave it out.

And really now, how much of a crapshoot is painting? The variance is probably in single digits for most people. People aren't walking in with armies they think are 40s and end up scoring 6s.

ShumaGorath wrote:Fifth edition is vastly superior to fourth. Saying this isn't true doesn't make you a dirty tourny gamer, it just makes you wrong.

If you like playing horde armies, sure. Have you tried playing an eldar army lately? Their glass-hammer units are just about worthless now, as the changes to CC and consolidating into new fights mean that at most, they're dropping the unit they charge, and then being shot to bits.

Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds.

How is 180 ork boyz anything but an extreme build? Did you think this through all the way?

Forced anything doesn't fix the game, it changes the game. It changes the parameters. Instead of preventing extreme builds, it focuses on the extreme builds that work well in the new system.

What has been working in 5th ed? Orks - boyz are solid troop choices, nobs (bikers) can be taken as troops with minimal effort. Chaos Marines - cult marines are troops that would be considered elites in just about any other codex. Sisters - the basic battle sister is one of the most cost-effective models in the game.

It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices.

Right right, it's much more fluffy to play:
Deathwing special character, terminators, terminators, terminators, Dark angel Tacticals, Dark Angel Tacticals
than it is to play:
Dark Angel Commander, terminators, terminators, terminators, Dark angel Tacticals, Dark Angel Tacticals

Yeah, whatever. These terminators here are scoring, those terminators there aren't. It's kind of ham-fisted really.

Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

I think that the goal of changing the look of troops could have been changed just fine with the changes to the codexes, removing min-maxxing small squads, without the ridiculous notion that only some models can hold objectives - when often enough other identical models cannot.

ShumaGorath wrote:Fifth edition is vastly superior to fourth. Saying this isn't true doesn't make you a dirty tourny gamer, it just makes you wrong. Forced troop composition is what this game needed, backbone troop elements give an army substance and helps prevent extreme builds. It is also considerably more fluffy then setting up across from a table with nothing but elites and heavy support choices. Troops were a minor afterthought in most armies before fifth, leaving forces looking more like tiny bands of rough men with big guns and the fearless trait somewhere under their statline. Armies look a hell of a lot more like armies now.

In your opinion obviously. Forcing units to be taken because of stupid rules and/or being to lazy too actually fix anything just further frustrates people. The game already had forced troop composition. The REAL reason they weren't being taken is because most troops are bad in comparison to the rest of their army. It's because they are removed too easily from battlefield, too expensive for their benefit or, my personal aggitation, troops lack no real sense of where they fit with the army. Most armies have some other unit that is more points efficient, which is the primary issue.

I don't like that certain units that don't count as troops have rules in place that say otherwise:

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I don't like that certain units that don't count as troops have rules in place that say otherwise:

G

A cynic might say that such a rule had been created to give an advantage to certain armies by letting them use powerful and effective unit types as Troops, rather than the claptrap some other armies have to put up with (Tau Fire Warriors, Imperial Guard infantry, etc.)

I couldn't possibly comment, however.

Look at nob bikers versus Deathwing terminators.

G