Part 5 in our 5 part series.

Game # 5

So after winning my last game I am 3-0-1 and I am headed up to table #1 to play against the only undefeated player left.

Steve Katsaris’s 101 Space Marines
HQ
Librarian w/Null Zone and Avenger

Elite
5 Assault Terminators w/3 Storm Shield/Thunder Hammers, 2 Lightning Claws

10 Sternguard w/4 Combi-Flamers, 4 Combi-Meltas
Drop Pop

Troops
5 Scouts w/Sniper Rifles, Heavy Bolter

9 Tactical Marines w/Missile Launcher, Flamer,
Sergeant w/Power Fist
Drop Pod

9 Tactical Marines w/Missile Launcher, Melta,
Sergeant w/Combi-Melta
Drop Pod

9 Tactical Marines w/Missile Launcher, Melta,
Sergeant w/Power Fist
Drop Pod

Heavy Support
Land Raider Crusader w/Multi-Melta, Extra Armor


You can’t tell by the pictures, but he has a very well painted army.


Mission: Modified Seize Ground
5 Objectives with one of them placed in the center of the table that is worth 2 objectives.

Deployment: Pitched Battle

Game Length: 7 Turns

Special Rules:
Infiltrate
Deep Strike
Outflank
Reserves

My Strategy for the game:
There were a lot of armies at the top tables that were identical to this army. They were doing well, and I never thought much of them. I used my anti-drop pod strategy of starting my entire army in reserve.


I win the die roll to go first and choose to go second. There is a huge advantage to go second in this game. Not only will most of the Drop Pods be down and I get to react to his placement, but in an objective mission when the game has a set number of missions it lets you go for a last turn objective grab.


Setup
Ignore the Drop Pod that was getting ready to come on below.

He had his sniper scouts on the left, his LRC with his terminators in the middle. He combat squaded a tac squad and has half on one objective in the woods, and the other with a missile launcher behind the bastion.

The objective markers are green with the red one in the center being worth 2 objectives. Two objectives were in the back left of the marine deployment zone, and 2 were in the Eldar area to the left center, and right center.

Turn #1

Space Marine turn #1
Pods come down. He looks to castle up around the center objective. He drives his land raider forward, and he drops and empty drop pod in my deployment zone,


Eldar turn #1
*crickets*

Turn #2

Space Marine turn #2
More pods come down and he is staking out his ground. The pods in the foreground are tac marines, and the one in the back left is Sternguard.



Eldar turn #2
I got on the Avatar, Harlequins, Jetbikes, 2 Guardian Squads, and a War Walker squad.

I turbo boost the Jetbikes up the left side of the board. The Walk Walkers shoot at the Tac squad behind the bastion that is claiming an objective and kill 3 of them. The guardians shoot at the Land Raider and immobilize it (that was a bit of luck for me because the greatly decreased his threat radius). My avatar shoots at the Drop Pod and stuns it.


Turn #3

Space Marine turn #3
His 2 marines behind the bastion run behind it so they are out of LOS. He unloads on my front guardian squad and kills 5 of them.



Eldar turn #3
I get the Falcon with the Fire Dragons and Eldrad and my last Guardian squad on.
My Jetbikes fry the scout squad. The Harlequins kill the empty drop pod. The War Walkers shoot up a few of the Sternguard.



Turn #4

Space Marine turn #4
He starts to back up his Strenguard to get behind the Drop Pod. He shoots my guardian squad down to 2 guys. And stuns a Walker.
(No Picture)

Eldar turn #4
Well, I need troops, so I dump the Fire Dragons out, and put the last 2 guardians that are in the shot up squad in the Falcon and make it a scoring unit. The Walkers shoot the Tac Marines in front of the Harlies and kill a few.



Turn #5

Space Marine turn #5
Looking to do what I did, he dumps out his Terminators and loads up on his 2 Tac Marines that were shot up the turn before. He kills a Fire Dragon. He has lost a lot of his long range shooting.



Eldar turn #5
I finally get my last War Walker squad on. Eldrad tried to cast 3 psychic powers and the Psychic Hood shuts him down. Everyone moves up and my Jetbikes turbo-boosts across the board. I fly my Falcon across the board to go after the 2 Marines hiding behind the bastion and on an objective. The Fire Dragons shoot at the Terminators and do 4 wounds and he fails 3 of their saves. Since it is getting late in the game, I try to shoot him off his objective in the back right, and he has one guy left on it. The Harlies try to assault his terminators and he runs away (which I still have questions about) so they are left standing there.


Turn #6

Space Marine turn #6
He shoots at my Jetbikes and the Fire Dragons with his Tac Marines and kills a couple. He tries to shoot my Harlies with his LRC and rolls snake eyes for spotting though veil of tears. He machine spirits the melta to shoot at the Falcon and knocks it down (argh!! I forgot to use my star engines and he gets a lucky shot!)


Eldar turn #6
For the second straight turn he completely shuts down Eldrad. The Avatar or a brightlance finally kills that LRC and the Harlequins go after what is left.


Turn #7

Space Marine turn #7
There are just a few random guys running around at this point. The Harlies finish off the Librarian and the Tac Squad they were fighting.



Eldar turn #7
I move my Jetbikes up to the center objective and I have a guardian squad on my 2 objectives. I didn’t even have to bother assaulting or shooting him off his objective.


End Game
Overall a great game against a great opponent! Steve was a great guy, and I enjoyed our game. He got lucky a few times (shutting down Eldrad for 2 turns, shooting down my Falcon), and I got lucky a few times (Immobilizing his Land Raider, Veil of Tears at close range for my Harlequins) so it all evened out at the end.



So after the end of the game they tallied up the points, and took home first place by going 4-0-1 and scoring the most VPs.

I took home $300 worth of Necrons, and a $300 gift certificate to Battlefoam.

Overall I had a lot of fun, and had 5 great opponents. It was a shame that a couple of missions were not up to par. But overall it was well run, and they had great prize support and everyone who entered got some good swag from Galeforce 9 with their TAC Template, and Turn Counter, and a brick of Chessex dice, so about $30 worth of swag, and a good lunch on both days.

They did a good thing by posting the missions beforehand to get some feedback, and hopefully they will make some more improvements for next year’s tournament.

Thanks for reading these batreps,

-Allan Hernandez

gratz on the victories Blackmoor! That's a pretty nice stack of shwag to take home.

Blackmoor wrote:. The Harlies try to assault his terminators and he runs away (which I still have questions about) so they are left standing there.

what's this all about? Do you mean they lost the assault, and chose to fail their morale check? Do you mean they chose to fail morale after losing 3 to the fire dragons? Those're both kosher moves via ATSKNF, though it doesn't appear to matter one way or the other for him.

btw, I like the Avatar; that's the FW one if I'm not mistaken, yes?

Steve was a great guy and the only person to hand me a loss during the tournament.

Great battle reports, I can definitely learn something about good generalship from these reports.

Thanks.

The Defenestrator wrote:gratz on the victories Blackmoor! That's a pretty nice stack of shwag to take home.

Blackmoor wrote:. The Harlies try to assault his terminators and he runs away (which I still have questions about) so they are left standing there.

what's this all about? Do you mean they lost the assault, and chose to fail their morale check? Do you mean they chose to fail morale after losing 3 to the fire dragons? Those're both kosher moves via ATSKNF, though it doesn't appear to matter one way or the other for him.

btw, I like the Avatar; that's the FW one if I'm not mistaken, yes?

I believe he opted to fall back with use of Combat Tactics, since killing 3 marines in the shooting phase would have caused a morale check.. So you kill 3, he auto-fails and falls back before the assault happens.

Mundar wrote:

I believe he opted to fall back with use of Combat Tactics, since killing 3 marines in the shooting phase would have caused a morale check.. So you kill 3, he auto-fails and falls back before the assault happens.

Ok, that makes sense.

The way it played out was that I declared a charge against them with the Harlequins, and he ran back. It was like fantasy where he fled from a charge.

But I think I went out of turn before he did his morale check from shooting, and he chose to fail his morale check.

Yeah its a smart move, but he loses cool points for not punching space clowns in the face. I mean, who runs from clowns?

Yep. "Combat Tactics", the new SM rule, is a great ability that I think a lot of people underestimate. Great job on the win!

Great job Allan. I've just assumed that when I take my 1500pt Eldar army up in points that I would add in a 4th unit of guardians, but I am beginning to see the versatility of having the 4-man jetbike squad with warlock. They are around the same points and I think I'll get the jetbikes.

I think your list is a little better than mine right now. I've got Warp Spiders for crowd control and you have war walkers. I like the range of the warwalkers over the survivabilty of the Warp Spiders. If I were to take war walkers, I think I would have a hard time not taking 6 missile launchers on them over scatter lasers. I understand the shear volume of fire the scatter lasers bring, but I am to enamored with the extra 12" range of the missiles, plus the possibility of taking out heavier armor at long range and even dumping 6 mini-pie plates for crowd control. Sometimes the points don't fit though and I'll have to stay with the Warp Spiders for my own list.

Good lob with the list and the tactics.

There are a lot of little tweaks that I have thought about.

Farseer for Eldrad: That saves 50 points (More if you only want 2 powers), and you can still Doom/Guide/Fortune (but only 2 a turn).

Warp Spiders: I was able to use them in the ‘Ard Boyz and like what they did. Not only are they fast, but they have good shooting, and they have a reasonable assault with Power Blades and Withdraw (They normally need a little help from Doom to be a good assault unit).

Taking War Walkers with Shuriken Cannons: That drops there price down to only 120 points and still can shoot 18 strength 6 shots. The problem with Missile Launchers is that I am always up against Terminators with Thunderhammers and Storm Shields and I need to take them down with volume of fire.

Another Jetbike squad: I like the way they are configured and fill many roles, and to have another fast moving troop unit would be a good thing.

I was pulling for you all hte WAY Allan. This tournament you shined like the champion you are.

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!

G

And Blackmoor turns Dakkatactics on its head yet again...

Blackmoor wrote:There are a lot of little tweaks that I have thought about.

Farseer for Eldrad: That saves 50 points (More if you only want 2 powers), and you can still Doom/Guide/Fortune (but only 2 a turn).

But Eldrad is more resilient to Perils because of his 3+ Ghosthelm, has better armor with his 3+ rune armor, a power weapon, can obviously cast 2 powers, (which works great with a shooting army, Guide x 2 + Doom or what have you) and is T4, so is a tad tougher than your average seer.

I think those 50 points are worth it. Plus, he also has all the other powers just in case you need Mind War, Fortune or Eldritch Storm in a pinch. He's like a swiss army knife of awesome. I think you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not using him.

Great series of reports. Glad to see that a non-typical army was able to be taken and pull out the overall win in a field of 60 players. Units that many folks have written off still proved to be of use. Thanks for sharing the reports.

Blackmoor wrote:...hopefully they will make some more improvements for next year’s tournament.

May I suggest some terrain for the tables. That'd be a good place to start.

I can't tell you how much my heart sinks when I see pictures of a table devoid of terrain.

Fantastic job dude! You truly deserve the win!

So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

Competitive armies compared to what other tourneys? As far as I can tell, the armies look fairly typical to any largish tourney.

Sarigar wrote:

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

Competitive armies compared to what other tourneys? As far as I can tell, the armies look fairly typical to any largish tourney.

Most of these armies have many design flaws.

Bringing 1 vehicle, no mobility, ect.

I mean this is like one of the top table armies and all it is, is basically 40 space marines who drop in and then stand where they are for the rest of the game and shoot at you. Really? That is considered quality/competitive?

Remember the missions were posted ahead of time and people could/should tailor their lists to best compete in those missions. The mission where you won by getting an objective off your opponents table edge is not easy for most lists to do. I wasn't there but all it would take is a clarification that the objective can not embark in a vehicle and it's almost an autolose for all vet mech IG and Mech Eldar (the ones with 5 dire avengers in wave serpents as troops. Most all mech lists sacrifice walking bodies for armor and that mission sounds like it would be difficult for those armies to pull off a win.

DarthDiggler wrote:Remember the missions were posted ahead of time and people could/should tailor their lists to best compete in those missions. The mission where you won by getting an objective off your opponents table edge is not easy for most lists to do. I wasn't there but all it would take is a clarification that the objective can not embark in a vehicle and it's almost an autolose for all vet mech IG and Mech Eldar (the ones with 5 dire avengers in wave serpents as troops. Most all mech lists sacrifice walking bodies for armor and that mission sounds like it would be difficult for those armies to pull off a win.

So everyone made crappy footslogging lists for 1 mission? Yea, I have a hard time believing that.

No but the cookie cutter internet lists would have been knocked out of the running from that mission and Blackmoor wouldn't have seen them in later rounds.

Timmah wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:Remember the missions were posted ahead of time and people could/should tailor their lists to best compete in those missions. The mission where you won by getting an objective off your opponents table edge is not easy for most lists to do. I wasn't there but all it would take is a clarification that the objective can not embark in a vehicle and it's almost an autolose for all vet mech IG and Mech Eldar (the ones with 5 dire avengers in wave serpents as troops. Most all mech lists sacrifice walking bodies for armor and that mission sounds like it would be difficult for those armies to pull off a win.

So everyone made crappy footslogging lists for 1 mission? Yea, I have a hard time believing that.

shhhhh, here is a tip, footslogging lists are not crappy.

Timmah wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:Remember the missions were posted ahead of time and people could/should tailor their lists to best compete in those missions. The mission where you won by getting an objective off your opponents table edge is not easy for most lists to do. I wasn't there but all it would take is a clarification that the objective can not embark in a vehicle and it's almost an autolose for all vet mech IG and Mech Eldar (the ones with 5 dire avengers in wave serpents as troops. Most all mech lists sacrifice walking bodies for armor and that mission sounds like it would be difficult for those armies to pull off a win.

So everyone made crappy footslogging lists for 1 mission? Yea, I have a hard time believing that.

Lets see, I got to play against:
1. Tooled up mech/nurgle chaos marines
2. Tooled up mech space wolves
3. Nidzilla
4. Shep's mech guard
5. Tooled up lash/mech nurgle marines.

Not competitive? Hardly.. Those are some hard-ball lists.

Luck of the draw. Some people didn't have to fight quite as nasty lists, others did.. The mindset of "the internets say its good, so it must be" is a flawed one at best. Most solid players can bring nearly anything to the table and give as good of a beating as they get, it doesn't need to be a forum cookie cutter build to do so. Save that for MTG.

Mundar wrote:

Lets see, I got to play against:
1. Tooled up mech/nurgle chaos marines
2. Tooled up mech space wolves
3. Nidzilla
4. Shep's mech guard
5. Tooled up lash/mech nurgle marines.

Not competitive? Hardly.. Those are some hard-ball lists.

Luck of the draw. Some people didn't have to fight quite as nasty lists, others did.. The mindset of "the internets say its good, so it must be" is a flawed one at best. Most solid players can bring nearly anything to the table and give as good of a beating as they get, it doesn't need to be a forum cookie cutter build to do so. Save that for MTG.

Uh, I would like to see these lists. Mech Chaos is not good, Lash chaos is not good. Space wolves don't do mech all that good. Nidzilla is not good. Shep's mech guard is pretty solid.

So you played 1 good army. Its not the internet that has convinced me these lists are bad. It is me looking at said lists and realizing they are bad. Hey look, I brought one land raider and no other vehicles. I wonder if it will survive past the first turn...

Besides Shep's IG (and possibly that one guys salamanders) I have yet to see and real/well built mech armies. I would honestly bet I could wipe the floor with most of these armies with either my mech SM or Tau. Makes me wish I had money/time to fly to these events.

Timmah wrote:

Sarigar wrote:

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

Competitive armies compared to what other tourneys? As far as I can tell, the armies look fairly typical to any largish tourney.

Most of these armies have many design flaws.

Bringing 1 vehicle, no mobility, ect.

I mean this is like one of the top table armies and all it is, is basically 40 space marines who drop in and then stand where they are for the rest of the game and shoot at you. Really? That is considered quality/competitive?

Do you attend the larger tourneys? Do you offer more than just saying armies suck? It seems to be a trend this entire year (not just you) with folks continuously bashing tourney winners armies. Funny how many of the tourneys have been won by folks playing with armies deemed 'less than competitive'.

I guess it's just been luck at every tourney this year

Timmah wrote:

Mundar wrote:

Lets see, I got to play against:
1. Tooled up mech/nurgle chaos marines
2. Tooled up mech space wolves
3. Nidzilla
4. Shep's mech guard
5. Tooled up lash/mech nurgle marines.

Not competitive? Hardly.. Those are some hard-ball lists.

Luck of the draw. Some people didn't have to fight quite as nasty lists, others did.. The mindset of "the internets say its good, so it must be" is a flawed one at best. Most solid players can bring nearly anything to the table and give as good of a beating as they get, it doesn't need to be a forum cookie cutter build to do so. Save that for MTG.

Uh, I would like to see these lists. Mech Chaos is not good, Lash chaos is not good. Space wolves don't do mech all that good. Nidzilla is not good. Shep's mech guard is pretty solid.

So you played 1 good army. Its not the internet that has convinced me these lists are bad. It is me looking at said lists and realizing they are bad. Hey look, I brought one land raider and no other vehicles. I wonder if it will survive past the first turn...

Besides Shep's IG (and possibly that one guys salamanders) I have yet to see and real/well built mech armies. I would honestly bet I could wipe the floor with most of these armies with either my mech SM or Tau. Makes me wish I had money/time to fly to these events.

The salamanders you saw are my army a friend is using...

And considering the scenarios? these lists were solid.

1. Mech nurgle for kill points in game one. Carrying the football in game two with t5, FNP and fearless backed up by princes. Game 3, survives in night fight and for table quarters. Game 4, can take a pasting with no terrain, lash assists. Game 5, survives on objectives, lashes you off them. Mech chaos is good due to how tough the troops are to kill, the special weapon spam, versatile heavy weapons and the lash utility.

2. nidzilla, again.. Difficult to get kill points. MC's carry the football. Game 3 they were boned. Game 4, luck of the draw. Game 5, solid as usual. I don't see anything wrong there.

3. Mech Space Wolves, just because stelek says it sucks doesn't mean it does. Game 1, difficult to get kill points from due to Raiders and large squads. Game 2, huge blood claw mobs for the objective. Game 3, Huge units in table quarters. Game 4, luck of the draw. Game 5, standard which isnt bad.. They go up the middle and crush the objective thats worth 2. Mech wolves have versatile squads, cheap units. Still wreck in close combat, and can spam specials making them mobile. etc etc

4. Shep's guard, don't need to say more.

5. Same as number 1.

These people built lists that worked well in the scenarios, I'll make an exception for game 4. Nidzilla had more of a disadvantage than the others however. There is no black and white, good lists vs. bad ones.. Only good players vs. bad ones.

"Real/well built mech armies" aren't the end all, be all of tournament play. They do well considering it takes about 1/4 of a brain to use them.. But again, a skilled player can pick them apart no problem with whatever he is comfortable fielding. I was the only person to hand Shep a loss, and my army wasn't mech. Just a couple of drop pods.. And I could wipe the floor with your mech tau/sm with any of my sub-standard lists because I know what I'm doing, not because I know how to copy/paste an army list.

And please come on out to any of our events, we're always looking for more fresh meat around here

Mundar wrote:

"Real/well built mech armies" aren't the end all, be all of tournament play. They do well considering it takes about 1/4 of a brain to use them.. But again, a skilled player can pick them apart no problem with whatever he is comfortable fielding. I was the only person to hand Shep a loss, and my army wasn't mech. Just a couple of drop pods.. And I could wipe the floor with your mech tau/sm with any of my sub-standard lists because I know what I'm doing, not because I know how to copy/paste an army list.

And please come on out to any of our events, we're always looking for more fresh meat around here

So basically good person with a bad list will be a bad person with a good list... Ok, I agree completely. But Good person with a good list will beat a good person with a bad list.

Obviously I just copy and paste an army list from the internet and think its good...

Stop trying to argue that these lists are good based on the fact that I am bad at 40k and so my argument is bad. Have you ever even played me? How would you know if I'm bad.

Now if you have some actual info on how foot even has a chance against mech armies, please enlighten me. Now Darth's army has a total of about 4 long range weapons that can hurt tanks and 4-10 short range weapons. Or something like that. How does he deal with a fully mech list with his foot list? Short answer is that he doesn't.

Warwalkers outflanking can easily be countered by a good opponent. Yet no one seemed to be able to... So maybe the quality of players at these events isn't all that good as you so claim.

This is not my list, it's Blackmoors and he did play, in your mind, a very good Mech IG list and got a tie. I don't recall many tanks being left at the end of the game either.

Do I assume you're bad? No. Am I about 99% sure I'd wreck anything you brought to the table 9 times out of 10? Yes.

How does foot work against mech? Everyone gears for mech these days. Spamming melta does jack against a ton of troops in cover. A vehicle can be blown up in one hit, a squad based heavy weapon usually can't. That same heavy weapon can't be stunned/shaken/weapon destroyed/immobilised. Also foot armies can cram a lot more bodies and guns in their lists as they aren't paying for transports. Its a pretty simple theory, their numbers can outlast your mobility.

Now in this case, you have mobile heavy weaponry. While Blackmoor's list is a bit light on anti-tank for my tastes, it was a sufficient amount for him given the scenarios and pairings. He isn't able to move 12 like a mech unit can, but he can move 6 onto objectives while pouring on the fire the entire time. He can run when a burst of speed is needed, and its tons easier to get a cover save for infantry than it is for vehicles. Add to this fortune/guide/doom and you have some reliable infantry, it is accurate and can take quite a pasting untill the heavy weapons go away. Does he need to stop all of your tanks? Not really.. I'm sure he's smart enough to take out key vehicles and maul whatever falls out.. Or failing that, leaving some "uber unit" stranded on the other side of the table without their ride. Thunderhammer terminators are pretty amazing while in the crusader, they suck donkey balls when theyre walking across the table and eating 48 s6 shots a turn.. and it isn't difficult to take that vehicle away from them.

He does have a bit of mobility, while its light.. It's not like it isn't there. You don't need to spam transports/jetbikes to have a "mobile" army. All he has to do is hide the unit untill he needs it, and let the game running out of turns take care of the rest. Could 4 squads of jetbikes contest an objective to get the win? yes.. Could one squad do the same? Yes.

Blackmoor handed shep a tie with his eldar in a scenario designed to tie.. Read the bat rep, Shep was in a bad spot at the end of that game. In any normal scenario, that would have probably been a loss for the guard. Short answer he doesn't handle mech? Actually, short answer is he does. And did.

And a good person with bad list vs. good person with good list doesn't always work out like your claim. My friend is a good player, he's using my Mech Salamanders which is a good army. I could take my worst army and table him in 3 turns just because I've been playing it longer and I know what I'm doing with it.

So what do you do against a foot army when they have superior firepower, cripple all those tanks you paid a ton of points for (or failing that, at least your lynchpins) and have you out numbered? I know mech is solid, I'm not saying its bad.. But the dismissive attitude for a foot army is misplaced. My point is, just because it is on foot does not mean its bad and mech is pure win.


I can't vouch for players from out of state, but our hometown guys were on the top tables all weekend. I don't think the calibre of player or army lists involved was in question this tournament, I'd say the blame lies with the unbalanced scenarios.

Please show me this mech list of yours that would have swept our tournament and wrecked everything in it's path because its "good". You've got me curious now... I really, really want to see this list.

The tie against the one mech army he faced was a joke. It required the mech player to charge in close to his opponent. And it was pretty much a draw no matter what you were playing.


Also, your mech salamanders list isn't that great. You have pretty much no way to deal with long range shooting in it.

Timmah wrote:The tie against the one mech army he faced was a joke. It required the mech player to charge in close to his opponent. And it was pretty much a draw no matter what you were playing.


Also, your mech salamanders list isn't that great. You have pretty much no way to deal with long range shooting in it.

I said he used my army, not my list.. Nice try =P

Look at the table though, it was a ton of wrecked tanks barely outside of his deployment zone. He had to do that to get the tie, had it been a normal game he'd have been whooped on anyway.

Still waiting on this amazing mech list of yours.

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

Can you post an army that could beat mine?

It is easy to sit it your mothers basement and say what lists are good and what lists are not, but when you take them to a tournament in a take-all-comers environment, you might find that there is a gap between what works in theory, and what works in practice.

Timmah wrote:The tie against the one mech army he faced was a joke. It required the mech player to charge in close to his opponent. And it was pretty much a draw no matter what you were playing.

And as I said in the other thread, I played Shep before at his house in a Seize Ground mission with a Spearhead deployment and I beat him.

Mundar wrote:

Look at the table though, it was a ton of wrecked tanks barely outside of his deployment zone. He had to do that to get the tie, had it been a normal game he'd have been whooped on anyway.

Are you talking about the mass of tanks that all moved forward into a big line to block the middle and play for the tie?

Also, beating IG once does not make your list good against mech. Heck, IG mech is more gunline and static than most mech lists like eldar. And before you say anything, that 4 tank eldar list you beat does not qualify as mech eldar.

I have actually played Gunline tau against an army very close to yours. And I can consistantly come close to tabling it every game. (oh look I can post random games that prove your army is bad just like you did to prove its good)

I'd been playing around with spam lists/flavors of the month/net builds the last few months, and when they work.. They work big. But they also can lose big. Its too rock-paper-scissors I've found.

I think I'm just going to go back to my old theory that a well practiced, balanced list beats the flavor of the month cookie cut spam nearly every time.

Timmah wrote:

Mundar wrote:

Look at the table though, it was a ton of wrecked tanks barely outside of his deployment zone. He had to do that to get the tie, had it been a normal game he'd have been whooped on anyway.

Are you talking about the mass of tanks that all moved forward into a big line to block the middle and play for the tie?

Also, beating IG once does not make your list good against mech. Heck, IG mech is more gunline and static than most mech lists like eldar. And before you say anything, that 4 tank eldar list you beat does not qualify as mech eldar.

I have actually played Gunline tau against an army very close to yours. And I can consistantly come close to tabling it every game. (oh look I can post random games that prove your army is bad just like you did to prove its good)

Where is the awesome list what would have cleaned house in the wild west shoot out?

I saw you managed to troll on 'ard boyz armies that were in the finals. And here you are doing it again on top table tournament armies from wild west. Its easy to say something sucks and not back up your claim..

So again, where is your amazing army list? Post 'er up!

For the record, I am talking about balanced lists. Most balanced lists take the most versatile/good unit and spam that. These are not balanced lists.

Here is your list of anti tank


2 Brightlances - long range
1 Eldar Missile Launcher - long range
2 Fusion Pistols
Shuriken Cannon
Singing Spear
Wailing Doom and assault
Pulse Laser
Eldar Missile Launcher - long range
5 Fusion Guns
Witchblade

War Walkers
Srength 6 shooting and outflank

You have 4 long range weapons that can deal with AV 13
And 2 that can deal with AV 14

Now, how do you kill predators, hammerheads ect from range? How do you get in close and kill these when people are smart and keep their tanks behind a wall of infantry/transports?

Yes, your falcon can zoom forward and drop your fire dragons. And they might pop one tank. But then your falcon and your dragons die. And, it being your only vehicle/legit thread to heavy armor, its going to take a lot of fire on turn 1 and your FD's are probably going to be dead in the water.


@Mundar

I am not talking about any one army, I am talking about any quality balanced mech army.

Mech space marines built correctly
Mech IG
Gunline IG
Mech Eldar w/seer council
Mech DE
Gunline Tau

Ect. I'm not going to post a bunch of army lists you should know already. I have commented and posted many as deck advice for new players ect

Just for reference, here is the list I brought to the Wild West Shootout that went 3-1-1, with the loss coming from Steve's 101st Drop Pod Army (the Space Marine Army that Blackmoor battled in this report):

IG:

CCS 3x Flamer, Standard, Plasma Pistol, Chimera
PBS +3 Psychers, Chimera
Vets 3x Melta, Chimera w/ HF
PCS 4x Flamer, Chimera
Inf Squad 1x Plasmagun, 1x AC, Commissar
Inf Squad 1x Plasmagun, 1x AC
Inf Squad 1x Plasmagun, 1x AC
Devil Dog
Devil Dog
3x Hydras
LR Executioner w/ PC Sponsons
LR Demolisher w/ PC Sponsons

Not a fully tuned list (mostly need to tune the CCS, dropping Plasma Pistol and Standard, and switch Flamers to Meltaguns, in that squad). Other than that, I found the list to be decent and fairly competitive. I suffered the loss to Space Marines mostly to a bad play on my part, and good plays on Steve's part.

I would like for Timmah to be more constructive in his criticisms. Blindly saying something is bad is not constructive and adds nothign to the conversation. He should try to give battle reports as examples of good versus bad lists and generalship imo.

A balanced list may have some redundant units, but doesn't spam anything. That would defeat the point of balance. Spam lists spam the "most versatile/good" unit.

"Quality balanced mech" isn't the ultimate trump card.. Thats the concept you are failing to understand. "Quality balanced mech" doesn't crush anything it looks at, it is good. Yes. It works, yes.. Is it better than everything else? No. Can it be beat by a person with a balanced list they're comfortable with? Sure can.

You said " Besides Shep's IG (and possibly that one guys salamanders) I have yet to see and real/well built mech armies. I would honestly bet I could wipe the floor with most of these armies with either my mech SM or Tau. Makes me wish I had money/time to fly to these events." So that tells me you are confident in your list and ability. So, lets see the list that would have done all of that crushing you were talking about.

Why is it when people do their tournament reps, you offer pure critisism and little else? Trolling? Jealousy? Envy?

Timmah, yet again you're sitting here throwing stones at people who have won large events, without offering any constructive dialog or suggestions.

You answer requests for such with "i'm not going to do this, it's beneath me", but belittle the lists that seem to work for the people playing them, and offer no more than "the opposition must have sucked for you to win."

Anyone who has played in more than one 40k tournament knows that match-ups are far more important than lists, and that player skill can vary wildly, from the guys who are playing to have fun to those who are competing for the big prizes.

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that you're right. Let's say that Blackmoor's list does suck, and that he got lucky by playing a bunch of scrubs. Congratulations - this is the sum of your input to the thread. And it's worthless. Other than making yourself feel smug and superior to those players who actually went to the tournament, you've added nothing to the communal knowledge. At least they went and played some games and had some fun.

If we just concede that you're the greatest player and list-builder who simply doesn't want to attend events will you go away. Because your continual sniping at people who have done well is pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Mundar wrote:

Why is it when people do their tournament reps, you offer pure critisism and little else? Trolling? Jealousy? Envy?

Because I pointed out that his army would have trouble with pure mech/long range gunline that's trolling?

I said his list was not balanced because he had very little long range anti tank weapons (2 BL and 2 ML). So he would have had trouble with those types of armies.

Timmah wrote:For the record, I am talking about balanced lists. Most balanced lists take the most versatile/good unit and spam that. These are not balanced lists.

Here is your list of anti tank


2 Brightlances - long range
1 Eldar Missile Launcher - long range
2 Fusion Pistols
Shuriken Cannon
Singing Spear
Wailing Doom and assault
Pulse Laser
Eldar Missile Launcher - long range
5 Fusion Guns
Witchblade

War Walkers
Srength 6 shooting and outflank

You have 4 long range weapons that can deal with AV 13
And 2 that can deal with AV 14

Now, how do you kill predators, hammerheads ect from range? How do you get in close and kill these when people are smart and keep their tanks behind a wall of infantry/transports?

Yes, your falcon can zoom forward and drop your fire dragons. And they might pop one tank. But then your falcon and your dragons die. And, it being your only vehicle/legit thread to heavy armor, its going to take a lot of fire on turn 1 and your FD's are probably going to be dead in the water.


@Mundar

I am not talking about any one army, I am talking about any quality balanced mech army.

Mech space marines built correctly
Mech IG
Gunline IG
Mech Eldar w/seer council
Mech DE
Gunline Tau

Ect. I'm not going to post a bunch of army lists you should know already. I have commented and posted many as deck advice for new players ect

I think you are seriously underestimating the strengths of Blackmoor's list. All his firepower is completely mobile and can move forward 6" a turn to contest objectives or for better positioning without diminishing its volume or range. More importantly, he can slide backwards or sideways to maintain his spacing from mech assault units longer. As long as the Guardians are in the Avatar bubble, they are fearless and you have to kill all of them to make the heavy weapon go away. Not nearly as easy as killing 25% and forcing that LD8 test. The Harlequins are virtually immune to long range shooting (max spotting distance 24", average is 14") and the Warwalkers each throw out a hail of shoots that allows them to deal with AV12 reliably even though they are only S6 (24 shots, 12 hits, 2 glances BEFORE guide). While its not a typical power build, he has alot of options when playing objective missions, including the rare ability for his troops to take an oblique route to their end destination without sacrificing fire power.

Timmah wrote:

Mundar wrote:

Why is it when people do their tournament reps, you offer pure critisism and little else? Trolling? Jealousy? Envy?

Because I pointed out that his army would have trouble with pure mech/long range gunline that's trolling?

I said his list was not balanced because he had very little long range anti tank weapons (2 BL and 2 ML). So he would have had trouble with those types of armies.

And when asked several times to provide an example of what you'd have done yourself.. You follow up with more critisism.

Redbeard wrote:Timmah, yet again you're sitting here throwing stones at people who have won large events, without offering any constructive dialog or suggestions.

You answer requests for such with "i'm not going to do this, it's beneath me", but belittle the lists that seem to work for the people playing them, and offer no more than "the opposition must have sucked for you to win."

Anyone who has played in more than one 40k tournament knows that match-ups are far more important than lists, and that player skill can vary wildly, from the guys who are playing to have fun to those who are competing for the big prizes.

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that you're right. Let's say that Blackmoor's list does suck, and that he got lucky by playing a bunch of scrubs. Congratulations - this is the sum of your input to the thread. And it's worthless. Other than making yourself feel smug and superior to those players who actually went to the tournament, you've added nothing to the communal knowledge. At least they went and played some games and had some fun.

If we just concede that you're the greatest player and list-builder who simply doesn't want to attend events will you go away. Because your continual sniping at people who have done well is pretty pathetic when you think about it.

Thank you for tanking my comments completely out of context.

I did not say his list sucked. I said it would have trouble with any pure mech army. I said his list was not balanced because he has very little long range anti tank weaponry.

I did not say I would not post balanced lists on armies, I said I have done so many times before in the army building section of dakka.

I pointed out that blackmoor said that outflanking warwalkers allowed him to kill mech armies. To which I replied that most quality players can guard against outflanking, since this was his strategy against mech armies, then it follows that his opponents did not know how to guard against it and maybe were not all that good.

I pointed at his opponents and said they made many agreed upon mistakes. Like taking 1 lone tank or multiple tanks each with specialized roles.

I never said I was a great list builder or player. But I do understand the basics of building a solid list. And across all the battle reports coming in there were many building errors in a lot of the lists. Errors that would be agreed upon by many people if you put said lists into the Army help section. (taking 1 tank, no long range weapons ect)

Timmah wrote:
Now, how do you kill predators, hammerheads ect from range? How do you get in close and kill these when people are smart and keep their tanks behind a wall of infantry/transports?

The question you need to ask is what are hammerheads and predators doing to me? Killing a few guardians? Dropping a war walker? *yawn*

I have 4 strength 8 shots, and 2 strength 9 shots at range, and as you know, I can get close to use other weapons. And no, you can't sit at the back of the table and shoot unless it is a kill point mission. Sooner or later you have to try to get an objective, or contest mine.



So Timmah, if you were going to go the the Wild West Shootout, what would 1750 army would you bring?

Did I accidentally click into the Ardboyz thread or is Timmah making a complete ass of himself here too?

Let's see, you poo-poo'ed the Ard Boyz winner's list and now you're poo-pooing Blackmoor's list after he won the Wild West Shootout. Two generals winning with lists you think are crap....

And I can understand why you don't want to post a list, the last one you posted in the Ard Boyz thread was pretty much laughed at.

Ozymandias wrote:Did I accidentally click into the Ardboyz thread or is Timmah making a complete ass of himself here too?

Let's see, you poo-poo'ed the Ard Boyz winner's list and now you're poo-pooing Blackmoor's list after he won the Wild West Shootout. Two generals winning with lists you think are crap....

And I can understand why you don't want to post a list, the last one you posted in the Ard Boyz thread was pretty much laughed at.

Ah another person taking what I said ignoring it and pretending I said something else.

Wow you people get upset over your toy soldiers.

Timmah-

I think most players in tournaments would like to tell you one thing:

"Put up or Shut up"

If you think that the lists are not effective then go and start winning big tournaments.

Blackmoor does end up using lists and tactics that sometimes make me mutter "Huh?" when I read his reports. However, it is evident that those lists and tactics work for him.

Also, keep in mind that Blackmoor had some luck with his guided blightlances in a couple of games destroying some heavy armor. Sometimes a little luck is all that is needed to push a good General over the edge.

asugradinwa wrote:Timmah-

I think most players in tournaments would like to tell you one thing:

"Put up or Shut up"

If you think that the lists are not effective then go and start winning big tournaments.

Blackmoor does end up using lists and tactics that sometimes make me mutter "Huh?" when I read his reports. However, it is evident that those lists and tactics work for him.

Also, keep in mind that Blackmoor had some luck with his guided blightlances in a couple of games destroying some heavy armor. Sometimes a little luck is all that is needed to push a good General over the edge.

Asugradinwa knows how a subpar list on paper can surprise you. I faced him earlier this year with a footslogging berzerker horde and surprised him with a sub par list.
He is a really good player and had a solid list, but I just had too many berzerkers running across the board.

basicly by playing a different list. you take away "Know thy enemy"
and we all know what sun Tzu says about that.

Don't worry Timmah. While you have your smug theoretical self-assurance, Blackmoor will be just barely consoled by the Champion plaque on the wall.

+1 to Put Up or Shut Up. Timmah, your attitude is exactly what drives reasonable people away from this game, and you don't even have the chops to justify it.

Thanks for all the informative and well written battle reports ("crickets" lol), and congrats on the victory!

And to the defence of Timmah, I think most people have missed that he actually was less black-and-white with his comments then you give hem credit for.
I still think it's good to question a winners' list, it's good to want to analize why the list performed as well as it did. A lot of factors can influence the results, not the least of it the general of the army.
At first glance I have no clue why this army won the tournament: was it player skill, was it the list, was it the game scenarios, was it luck of the draw regarding opponent match-up? Reading these reports and replies to it give me a better idea.

I'm not a very experienced player so I took in a lot of internet advice (mech up, melta up, footslugging sucks). Most of that has some merit but apparently its'not the only way to do things.

GeneralRetreat wrote:Don't worry Timmah. While you have your smug theoretical self-assurance, Blackmoor will be just barely consoled by the Champion plaque on the wall.

+1 to Put Up or Shut Up. Timmah, your attitude is exactly what drives reasonable people away from this game, and you don't even have the chops to justify it.

I would love to put up, but sadly I have a job and can not fly across the country for a 2 day tournament. Does this make my opinions less valid? Not really. Its not like I don't play the game or anything.

And yes he does have that plaque on his wall so I hope that would console him from me questioning why his list performed the way it did. In short, no mech. Whats wrong with this analysis? Can any of you other people tell me why it performed so well? And don't reference player skill because everyone at the top tables should be close skill wise. Unless blackmoor is gods gift to 40k...

well where do you live? I am sure we can find a quality player to teach you about non standard list building

yes I went 3-1-1 at baltimore last year with no anti tank guys over 12"(6 combi meltas) on termicide and footslogging berzerkers.

+2 on the "put up or shut up" with out back up to your opinion you are just trolling.

Timmah wrote:
Ah another person taking what I said ignoring it and pretending I said something else.

Did I? Let's look at your first post in this thread:

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

Couple this awfully smug post with your history from the Ard Boyz thread and I don't think we're overstating things here. Look, I don't get how Blackmoor can win either, but to basically state that the reason he won is because all of his opponents were bad or had bad lists really belittles his ability. Sometimes, when you know what's expected, taking the unexpected can get you wins.

Wow you people get upset over your toy soldiers.

No, we get upset when people with skill are being belittled by people who haven't contributed anything of merit. Snarky posts don't make you a good critic. Post a list and a strategy for beating Blackmoor and let's discuss it (or laugh at you).

Ah but I do contribute Ozymandias. I have posted and worked with multiple people in the tactics and List discussion forums.

I'm sure you never go in there because you don't need any help because you are already the best you can be at this game and know everything.

"Look, I don't get how Blackmoor can win either"

So there must be a reason he won. The first and foremost is to look at what his opponents were playing. Obviously his list is pretty solid against foot armies. And lets look at what he played. There we go problem solved.

"Sometimes, when you know what's expected, taking the unexpected can get you wins."

This should never happen in a truly competitive environment. Building something unexpected should not work because your opponent should be able to see and counter your strategy since they have a list of your stuff right in front of them.


Does blackmoor really believe that 1-2 people saying his list sucks on the internet belittles his win? If so, maybe its not us, maybe its him knowing he got away with playing some outdated 4th ed list when he shouldn't have.

I Play a similar Eldar list to Blackmoor here in Chicago and I have had some good success. It's the Avatar with a bubble of 3-4 Guardian squads for heavy weapon fire and a Farseer for force multiplication. Our lists begin to diverge slightly from there, but the idea remains the same. The Avatar/Guardian bubble brings a strong core of scoring troops, fearless and toting heavy weapons. The Avatar protects against enemy assaults into your core while extending his fearless bubble to make it difficult to remove the scoring Guardians. The Farseer's powers of doom and guide make the guardians effectively BS 4.5 and thier shuriken catapults effectively str 5.5. That's potentially 18 shots that hit better than marines and wound better than heavy bolters and this is only from the 8pt guardian troop squads who cost 110pts each!!

5th edition cover rules, including going to ground, make these guardians much more survivable than in previous editions. Couple that with the 'mech phenomena' and these Eldar troop choices are living longer than ever in games. (For 8pt guardians that is) The mech resurgence has shelved everyones heavy bolter Dev/Havoc squads. We used to see tons of Heavy Bolter - tank hunting Dev squads in play which would shred these Guardians at range. No more so the Guardians live. Now I have just discussed 485pts of the army which controls objectives. Next is the other 1265pts in the army which is coming to kill you.

Lots of shots cause lots of wounds.

That is a viable army tactic that can cross army lists. Blackmoor does it through warwalkers, others can do it through Warp Spiders. Mech lists still need to dismount for max effectiveness. It's like the US winning a war with airpower alone,eventually you need to come down out of your pretty toys to do the real damage. 6 twinlinked brightlances and 3 fire prism templates will not do enough damage to the core troops to prevent objective taking. 3 prisma can be shaken until they lose a weapon, if not outright destroyed. Mech guard lists tend to get in each others way as the enemy advances into their lines. Mobility is not defined by who can move 12", it's defined as who can move the farthest and still cause damage to the enemy. Foot Eldar lists can move 6" with everything and still fire to max effect.


I started to ramble at the end here, sorry. The biggest thing is there is no one way. There are to many variables in each game to lay out a pure blueprint to success. You have to have certain 'problems' solved in your list and you have to know how to use them. You have to identify your opponents biggest threat and be able to kill it or stop it. Most army codex's can do that even if those units aren't the 'sexy' units.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Mech lists still need to dismount for max effectiveness.

This is may be true but its a terrible way of looking at it. Mech space marines barely lose anything without dismounting. In fact, the only time they do dismount is when they know they can kill the enemy their shooting at with little retaliation.

DarthDiggler wrote:
3 prisms can be shaken until they lose a weapon, if not outright destroyed. Mech guard lists tend to get in each others way as the enemy advances into their lines. Mobility is not defined by who can move 12", it's defined as who can move the farthest and still cause damage to the enemy. Foot Eldar lists can move 6" with everything and still fire to max effect.

3 prisms can be shaken with 4 heavy weapons? GL with that.


So what happens when an army like Tau or IG can outrange you the entire game, while shooting and shoots your Avatar off the table turn 1?
Avatars are not hard to kill and it sounds like you set your entire army around the fact that he won't die.

Timmah you still haven't said where you are from.

dakka research points to Lacrosse WI. that's an easy ride down to Chicago.

Ok Timmah. Here is an 1850pt Tau list you posted a battle report with. Is this the kind of Tau that will shoot the Eldar off the table?


My list
Commander MP/Plasma/Multi-tracker

3x Fireknives (MP/P/MT)
3x Fireknives (MP/P/MT)
3x Fireknives (MP/P/MT)

6 Firewarriors
10x Kroot, 7x kroot hounds
10x Kroot, 7x kroot hounds

2x Piranha, disruption pod x1, fusion blaster x2
1x Piranha, disruption pod x1, fusion blaster x1
8x Pathfinders, Devifish

Hammerhead, Railgun, disruption pod, burst cannons, Multi tracker
Hammerhead, Railgun, disruption pod, burst cannons, Multi tracker
2x Broadsides, A.S.S., Drone controller, Shield drone, gun drone


The Avatar will get Fortuned and draw a tremendous amount of fire accoring to your tactic of getting rid of the avatar. A Fortuned Avatar IS very hard to kill. Regardless I think is would be quiet close to turn 1 when you lose your 3 fragile scoring units and have to spend an uphill battle trying to eeke out a tie because you can't claim 1 objective.

Timmah wrote:
I have actually played Gunline tau against an army very close to yours. And I can consistantly come close to tabling it every game. (oh look I can post random games that prove your army is bad just like you did to prove its good)

No one cares about your results from a 5 person RTT timmah. Go to a real tournament and post some battle reports.

olympia wrote:

Timmah wrote:
I have actually played Gunline tau against an army very close to yours. And I can consistantly come close to tabling it every game. (oh look I can post random games that prove your army is bad just like you did to prove its good)

No one cares about your results from a 5 person RTT timmah. Go to a real tournament and post some battle reports.

Oh look, once again making up stuff to attempt to insult me. (also on a side note to ruin your logic, more people in a 5 game non swiss tournament doesn't make it more competitive)




And yes that tau gunline would shoot him off the table. Oh, you fortune the avatar? Ok, bye Eldrad. And I'll shoot you off turn 2.

Fragile troop choices? 2+ cover saves on 17 man units make them fragile? Troop squad in a very well protected transport is fragile is fragile? Sure...



And yes I could go to chicago when they have something. And I will if/when I have time. However some of use have jobs and need to be able to afford the trip. Not having enough money/time to make a trip to one of these things doesn't make my opinion less valid...

well go to adepticon this spring and if you win the sunday event. I will send you a check for your entry fee and 1 night in the hotel.

timmah wrote:This should never happen in a truly competitive environment. Building something unexpected should not work because your opponent should be able to see and counter your strategy since they have a list of your stuff right in front of them.

When you play a list that is common you know exactly how to defend against it. That is the problem with common builds, everyone knows how to beat them, and they know what they will try to do. For example; I know how to play against Mech Eldar and Seer Councils. Do you know how to beat my list? Do they know what the important units are (before it is too late?).


I played Thousand Sons last chaos codex and no one else really played them because the conventional wisdom thought that they were very bad. Everyone said that I won all my tournaments back then because of luck too, be cause they could not understand how my army worked. The people I played against never knew what the true threats were. They were busy shooting Demon Princes and heavy support choices and never realized that the true threats were the Rhinos packed with Thousand Sons Marines before it was too late.

timmah wrote:Does blackmoor really believe that 1-2 people saying his list sucks on the internet belittles his win? If so, maybe its not us, maybe its him knowing he got away with playing some outdated 4th ed list when he shouldn't have.

To say someone wins do to luck belittles the accomplishment of winning a tournament.

There is some luck involved, but to say that I won because of it is shows your ignorance. Think of a 40k tournament like a poker tournament. Some may get lucky or unlucky along the way, but more often than not, you will see the same players at the top tables.


What is funny is the lists that you do not like end up winning. Maybe you are wrong with all of your assumption about the game and what it takes to win large tournaments.

What you see with mine, and Darth’s lists are true take-all-comers lists. They are will rounded and are very dynamic and are able to counter a lot of different builds.

The fact that Darth and I play in many major tournaments and we both do very well may means that your assumptions about tournament play may be completely wrong.

As you admit, you do not play in tournaments so the lists that you think will win, or are power builds maybe just one trick ponies that do not have the tools to beat all the types of armies you may face.



Do you really know what the funny thing is about saying that I won do to luck is? I am really unlucky on the table top because I roll real bad.

Timmah wrote:


And yes that tau gunline would shoot him off the table. Oh, you fortune the avatar? Ok, bye Eldrad. And I'll shoot you off turn 2.

Fragile troop choices? 2+ cover saves on 17 man units make them fragile? Troop squad in a very well protected transport is fragile is fragile? Sure...



And yes I could go to chicago when they have something. And I will if/when I have time. However some of use have jobs and need to be able to afford the trip. Not having enough money/time to make a trip to one of these things doesn't make my opinion less valid...

Eldrad can fortune 2 things, if you can see him and if he isn't attached to a fearless Guardian squad, then you can shoot him outright. However I suspect that won't happen so that tactic won't always work. Also the Kroot do not have a 2+ save unless they are in trees right? I am not sure because I haven't seen Tau, let alone Kroot, in a competitive tournament in a long time. I don't mean this as a slight at all, I'm just not 100% sure about that. I don't think it would be that hard to take out a Devilfish at range would it? I mean you have said several times that a lone vehicle is easy to take out. You've said it in this very post I beleive. Does your thinking change when it comes to Tau Devilfish? Let's not take into account the extremely varied mission objectives in some of the biggest tournaments and let's just look at the 3 missions from the rulebook. One mission is KP and the Tau can sit back and shoot across the board to try and kill more units than the enemy. In the 2 objective mission you will have to come to the other side of the table to at least contest the other objective. Who will come over? How will you make sure they make it? In the 3-5 objective mission you will definitely need to move the Kroot. They wouldn't be able to sit in a forest the whole game, if there is a forest on the table that is.

Blackmoor wrote:

timmah wrote:This should never happen in a truly competitive environment. Building something unexpected should not work because your opponent should be able to see and counter your strategy since they have a list of your stuff right in front of them.

When you play a list that is common you know exactly how to defend against it. That is the problem with common builds, everyone knows how to beat them, and they know what they will try to do. For example; I know how to play against Mech Eldar and Seer Councils. Do you know how to beat my list?

*sigh*

Blackmoor posts Battle Reports win or lose, you've been here long enough to know that.

I think of all the participants here, the only one who is coming from an intractable position is you Timmah. This is the second time this exact scenario has happened and you really can't admit that maybe you are wrong about what makes a good list. I know that if I used Blackmoor's list I would get tabled in probably every single game but it's his army and he knows it and can use it to maximum effectiveness. Hell, I win a lot with my Dark Angels and it's not because they have an awesome list, it's because I know my army really well.

I learn more from these reports (and Darth Diggler's) precisely because they are using non-standard lists and tactics! I think to outright claim that they must have gotten lucky, or no one took a hard list absolutely belittles both their achievement and their skill. Not only that, but ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit your mold reinforces your own 'box' and stifles your growth as a tactician.

Ozymandias wrote:*sigh*

Blackmoor posts Battle Reports win or lose, you've been here long enough to know that.

I think of all the participants here, the only one who is coming from an intractable position is you Timmah. This is the second time this exact scenario has happened and you really can't admit that maybe you are wrong about what makes a good list. I know that if I used Blackmoor's list I would get tabled in probably every single game but it's his army and he knows it and can use it to maximum effectiveness. Hell, I win a lot with my Dark Angels and it's not because they have an awesome list, it's because I know my army really well.

I learn more from these reports (and Darth Diggler's) precisely because they are using non-standard lists and tactics! I think to outright claim that they must have gotten lucky, or no one took a hard list absolutely belittles both their achievement and their skill. Not only that, but ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit your mold reinforces your own 'box' and stifles your growth as a tactician.

I'm pretty sure all I said was that he would have a hard matchup vs mech. (which he even said in the first post...) And that he was lucky not to face any mech armies, besides in scenario 2 which was practically an auto draw for everyone. So I said he was lucky that he didn't face his worst matchup and everyone got all mad and angry at me for restating something that he said originally...

If I took an army with 0 ways to deal with AV 14 or with 1 melta gun and then won a tournament and never faced any AV 14 what would you say?

How about if I brought a tooled up anti marine army with 3x vindicators, tons of plasma weapons and proceeded to face 4 space marine foot armies?

Exactly. He never had to face any tough matchups and so I said that he was lucky to sneak through since it seems like no one brought mech to this tournament (for some reason)

@Blackmoor: Gratz on the win; seems like you had all your bases covered with that list!

@Timmah: Not entirely sure what the point of your posts is. If it's to point out that you can tailor a list to beat another then well done, you win. If you're trying to make a case for mech lists being the be all and end all of the tournament scene, then i think you're a little misguided.

Granted, mech lists are very strong in the current 5ed environment; i play mech sisters and have found them to be exceptionally good at what they do. I have however had problems with non-standard lists - 3 DSing squads of warp spiders can put a serious crimp on almost any vehicles for example.

I have learned that a list must have other things going for it besides lots of tanks with high AV. Blackmoors list is a good case in point. It has some long range AT, disgustingly good crowd control at mid/long range, and heavy counter assault elements. Personally, i reckon the only list that would really worry him would be a well tuned mech Eldar force that 'might' just have the agility to dance around him and pick off his more vulnerable units one at a time. It is the epitome of a well balanced list, and i certainly would not want to face it in a tournament.

I notice that in your final post you have said "Anyways I'm done as its obvious that you posted this Bat rep to stroke your own ego". Blackmoor has been posting his bat reps for a long time now; funny that you're the first person to make this accusation, given that you've been heartily flamed by several other Dakkaites in this very thread for posting wild polemic.

Props to Blackmoor for not rising to the bait.

P.s. This job that prevents you going to tournaments other people participate in; is it because the other trolls will kick your head in if you leave the bridge?

Congrats on the WW victory Blackmoor. I always like seeing eldar guardians in action. I'm not a big fan of dire avengers at all. I've always loved the eldar citizen soldiers.

When troll's are around it's always best not to feed them, but to rather press the ignore button. They lose all their power that way and can go back to worship at the shrine of stelek.

No Timmah, you are not paying attention. Blackmoor said he was having trouble with mech before and added the Dragons and falcons to help him deal with that. This list was his response to his need for improved anti-mech.

Your idea that 3x Vindicators is good vs. MEQ horde is not right. I can see why you have so much trouble, you don't take the right units to deal with the issues on the table. Foot horde will not advance against most armies, they will sit back and shoot at 48". If you bring an unreliable template weapon (Vindicators) with a shirt 24" range, then you will not be successful vs. MEQ foot horde.

DarthDiggler wrote:No Timmah, you are not paying attention. Blackmoor said he was having trouble with mech before and added the Dragons and falcons to help him deal with that. This list was his response to his need for improved anti-mech.

Your idea that 3x Vindicators is good vs. MEQ horde is not right. I can see why you have so much trouble making good lists, you don't take the right units to deal with the issues on the table. Foot horde will not advance against most armies, they will sit back and shoot at 48". If you bring an unreliable template weapon (Vindicators) with a shirt 24" range, then you will not be successful vs. MEQ foot horde.

Odd, I didn't know bolters could shoot 48".

Yes, he did add a falcon and a fire dragon for help against mech. BUT he took out 2 lances... So he didn't upgrade by all that much. And if his falcon gets blown up turn 1, then he loses both of his new anti tank units vs 1 if a vyper gets blown up.


I love how you guys jump all over people who question your brilliance. All I did was say that it appears there weren't any mech lists there. What is wrong with that? Do you think mech is terrible in 5th?

I never said his list sucked, I never said mech was the be all end all of competitive 40k. Please stop putting words in my mouth...


I did say foot armies have trouble with mech. As do armies with only 4 long range weapons at str 8+.

Timmah wrote:
I did say foot armies have trouble with mech. As do armies with only 4 long range weapons at str 8+.

So that's all you said? Over 3 pages, all you've said is that foot armies with almost no heavy weapons struggle against mech armies? You never said anything else?

J.Black wrote:

Timmah wrote:
I did say foot armies have trouble with mech. As do armies with only 4 long range weapons at str 8+.

So that's all you said? Over 3 pages, all you've said is that foot armies with almost no heavy weapons struggle against mech armies? You never said anything else?

Go read my posts
Here is a run down

Design flaws in the lists there, mobility issues, taking 1 tank and no others
Me pointing out that people would not tailor their list for 1 mission out of 5
Me pointing out that Chaos and Space wolves don't do mech as good as space marines And then pointing out that he never had to play mech outside of an auto draw scenario
Me agreeing that a good player with a bad list will beat a bad player with a good list. Me pointing out Blackmoor doesn't have enough long range anti tank weapons to deal with true mech/gunline
Comments on the 2nd scenario
more comments on 2nd scenario (i think everyone agreed this scenario was a joke)
Me pointing out that he doesn't have enough long range weapons to deal with mech/gunline
Same as above
Me saying tournament players should know how to counter outflank
Me saying that people at the top tables of a tournament should be of equal/close to equal skill
Me saying what his opponents were playing (oh look, all foot)
Me asking how 3 fire prisms all get shaken each turn by 4 heavy weapons (still no answer)
More of me saying gunline/mech would beat this list
Me giving tournament players enough credit that they should be able to adapt to odd lists
More saying mech would be good against it
more of the same as above
ect
ect


There you go, a complete run down of all my posts. Most talking about how he would have trouble with mech/gunline

Some on a few other topics.

Timmah wrote:
There you go, a complete run down of all my posts. Most talking about how he would have trouble with mech/gunline

Well, that was worth 3 pages of your time then wasn't it...

Seriously though, you have been saying that one of your SM/Tau mech lists would have ripped this apart. I'm well aware of the more common variants on these, but i struggle to see how either could have beaten Blackmoor's list unless they were tuned to do so! (Much easier when someone has posted their list and a few bat reps explaining how they won, as opposed to running into them in a $ tournament where you have to gear your build around certain missions rather than certain builds)

A Mech/Gunline (if it's even possible to put those two in the same bracket) build was almost an auto fail in two of the scenarios offered at the tournament. IMHO, if you'd have taken the army you are suggesting to the WW, you would have scored maybe 1 spectacular victory, then been scuttled by the other missions. After all, skillful players can adapt to conditions, can they not? A good player seeing your mech list in an objective based scenario will focus all his AT on your troops, then hide in cover around the objectives for the rest of the game.

Timmah. You come into the thread and post derogatory comments about the level of competition Blackmoor had to deal with? This is just blatant trolling and is quite frankly disgustingly unnecessary, if you don't want to come across as a troll then you need to learn how express your thoughts in less provocative ways. Kudos to Blackmoor and Darth's patience and restraint.

On to the issue at hand however: You suggest that the Eldar list doesn't posses enough antitank? What changes exactly would you propose? What would you add, and what would you take away?
@Blackmoor, do you have an opinion on Timmah's actual suggestion? And are there any list changes you are considering?

I would just like to add that once you peel back the strong emotions, these threads help all the inexperienced players such as myself learn a lot about the game.

Timmah wrote:
I love how you guys jump all over people who question your brilliance. All I did was say that it appears there weren't any mech lists there. What is wrong with that? Do you think mech is terrible in 5th?

I don't think mech is terrible. I don't think mech is as good as many people make it out to be though.

What I see is that a good deal of highly competitive tournament players espouse the power of the mech list in 5th ed. And, in their hands, I'm sure mech is quite good. But, I don't think it is so good that it works easily in the hands of average players.

My personal experience is that, in the hands of an average player, mech is confusing, it causes as many mobility problems as it solves, and it suffers greatly against an army that can pop a couple transports early, especially if those popped transports block the path of other transports.

Mechs advantages are that transports are cheaper and more reliable in 5th ed than 4th ed, and that models in transports have improved longevity. And, mechanized armies have several good matchups against armies that run through foot-slogging armies. You get to ignore Lash, most daemons have trouble with mech, and so on.

But, mechs disadvantages include having a lot of your firepower geared for short-range, so if you get stuck at long range, you're in trouble. Also, if your guys are all embarked, you cut your own ability to put out firepower. A lot of non-top mech players don't know when to get out and when to stay in. 16 bolter shots has value often enough...

In any particular local metagame, if your regular opponents include daemons and not a lot of autocannons, then mech is clearly pretty good. But, as this happens, and people stop running daemons and Lash, and bring hydras and scatterlaser warwalkers, mech stops looking quite as good. Especially for the average player who deploys in a block, obstructs his own movement, and doesn't know when to get out and when to stay in.

Timmah wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:

When you play a list that is common you know exactly how to defend against it. That is the problem with common builds, everyone knows how to beat them, and they know what they will try to do. For example; I know how to play against Mech Eldar and Seer Councils. Do you know how to beat my list?

This argument is such a complete load of crap. Its like saying competitive 40k players are dumb and can't analyze different threats without the internet telling them how to play.

That is exactly what I am saying. Do you know how people learn 40k? By experience. If you have experience with the common builds you will do a lot better than you would if you played against an army that you have never seen before.

Timmah wrote:Haha, I just saw in your first post you wrote that you were having trouble with mech armies. So why are you so mad that I told you that you would have trouble with mech armies? Did you really believe that 1 falcon and a couple fire dragons were going to make the matchup infinitely easier?

Yes

Timmah wrote:Anyways I'm done as its obvious that you posted this Bat rep to stroke your own ego. That is why no one can have a differing opinion from you, otherwise you wouldn't care that one person on the internet thought your list was bad.

timmah, timmah, timmah, you are so funny.

Here are the last 4 Tournaments and the last 15 games that I played in:
Aug. 15th at GMI Games in Riverside Ca. It was a 2000 point RTT with about 10 people and I won it with my Chaos. 3-0
Aug. 20th One-off game against Shep’s Mech Guard at his house in Santa Monica Ca. with my Eldar. I won.
Aug 23rd at The So. Cal. Slaughter. Garden Grove, Ca. I won it with the first version of my Eldar army 3-0.
Sept. 26th. RTT at Empire Games in Mesa, AZ. I played my Eldar again and went 2-0-1 and tied with Mundar for the win. We were both 2-0 going into the final round and it was a command and control mission and he just fortified his objective and did not even try for mine. I tried to crack his castle, but I was unable to do it in time.
And the Wild West Shootout I went 4-0-1.

I have pictures and the batreps partially written for all of them. If I wanted to stroke my ego, I would post all of them.

But I will give you a secret of why I really post my batreps: It is to show that you can will with non-conventional lists. There is a groupthink about what armies are good, and what are bad and what units are good and what units are bad and I want to show that you can win with many different builds, and that you don’t always have to play with the flavor of the month to win.

Timmah wrote:I never said I don't play in tournaments. I said I didn't travel across the country to play in tournaments. There is a difference.

That is the difference between you and I. I go out their and play across the country to test my skill and abilities against the best players in the country, in the largest tournaments, and you don’t. In this thread alone I have played Redbeard in Chicago, Darth Diggler in Baltimore, and Green Blow Fly in Tampa, and Mundar in Mesa. I have played in large tournaments from Salem, OR, to San Diego, and from Chicago, to Baltimore down to Orlando. I put into practice what I know rather than sit at home and think about what could be better.

1) There is no reason not to take Eldrad if you play eldar. To me he was the first force multiplier character introduced to the game as we moved from 4th edition into 5th. Sure farseers have always been a force multiplier in general but no one does it quite like Eldrad. I think special characters in 5th edition were in part an answer from GW to warcasters in Warmachine. You no longer need permission from your opponent to play them. That's a step in the right direction. When I hear people complain about special characters I feel that they instrinsically don't understand 5th edition and long for earlier versions of the game. Nothing is worse than having to play a weekend warrior in a tournament that wants to turn back time and play an earlier version of the game. It's unfair to try imposing this point of view on newer players to the game or veterans who can adapt to the change.

If you had the option to field Eldrad on a jetbike like Khan in the SM codex then mounted seer councils would be much more prevalent.

I have seen some games where a veteran eldar player would field a vanilla farseer for whatever reason and do very well. Maybe they wanted to save some points, have the ability to mount the farseer or just prove a point. It's not worth arguing about.

2) As Allan has demonstrated eldar don't need to be mounted. They have mobile weapon platforms and can fleet. Mechdar is a very good list but I like Allan's list a lot better because to me it is a throwback and also because he does very well with it. I remember Tulio doing very well with a walking eldar army at the first Vegas GT. Guys like Allan and Tulio are deep and that's just the way it is.

G

Well, I think I could take on a Mech Eldar army.

Like a lot of games, it will depend on who will goes first.

Me going first:
If I go first, I would start with my whole army on the board so I can shoot him with my whole army before he can move, and cast psychic powers. If he chooses to place his whole army in reserve, he will shoot at me first with half his army (on average) without the benefit of psychic powers. Then I get so shoot back at him with my whole army with psychic powers. I am ok with that matchup.

Me going second:
I might go to reserves or I might not depending on the match up, and shoot him up when I come on, but thinking about it, that might be harder for me.

As to my shooting at Mech Eldar, the guardians can hurt one elder tank, the falcon can hurt another and each war walk squad can hurt a serpent, so I can hurt or down about 4 serpents a turn.




Do I think my army is perfect? Heck no, but I think it is good. I have thought about what armies might give me trouble and the answer is oblit heavy chaos. To kill oblits you need a lot of strength 8 ap 2 shooting and at BS3 I have 2 brightlances and 2 pulse lasers and I do not like my odds.

Blackmoor wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying. Do you know how people learn 40k? By experience. If you have experience with the common builds you will do a lot better than you would if you played against an army that you have never seen before.

Experience helps you, but it is not the be all end all of list building. Most (All) of the best MTG deck builders can't play a game against a pro to save their life. Same concept here. You don't need to be an amazing player in order to build a good list. List building and actual tactics are 2 very very different things.

Blackmoor wrote:

That is the difference between you and I. I go out their and play across the country to test my skill and abilities against the best players in the country, in the largest tournaments, and you don’t. In this thread alone I have played Redbeard in Chicago, Darth Diggler in Baltimore, and Green Blow Fly in Tampa, and Mundar in Mesa. I have played in large tournaments from Salem, OR, to San Diego, and from Chicago, to Baltimore down to Orlando. I put into practice what I know rather than sit at home and think about what could be better.

I'm confused, so you have to travel across the country to play the best players? Yet when you do, you say that by bringing an unconventional list, you give them fits and they don't know what to do against it? These don't sound like top players to me...

Redbeard wrote:
But, mechs disadvantages include having a lot of your firepower geared for short-range, so if you get stuck at long range, you're in trouble. Also, if your guys are all embarked, you cut your own ability to put out firepower. A lot of non-top mech players don't know when to get out and when to stay in. 16 bolter shots has value often enough...

What mech armies are you playing??? Tau, IG, Eldar, SM? Which one has only/mostly short range fire power...


Seriously though, if you guys are going to get all bent out of shape because one person on the internet said your tournament wasn't competitive, you really need to develop some thicker skin. 40k isn't in some way special compared to other competitive events. If you are going to post your tournament wins on an internet forum you better be prepared to take the criticism as well as the praise.

You weren't there, you have no idea if it was competitive or not.. You also don't attend major tournaments, so again, your opinion on "competitive play" means very little.
Why should tried and true top table players be taking critisim from a forum noob that doesn't attend any of said events and offers nothing other than assumptions and generalizations?

You make sweeping claims that there was no competition and lists suck, or weren't that good.. Yet offer nothing else.

You could say "I'm having trouble understanding the list, could you offer a explanation of how you got it to work?"
Or even say "I find units X and Y perform better, why did you opt to not include them?". That as a whole helps the community, and you come off like less of a jealous prick.

Instead you throw around the assumption everyone there sucked and not a single list other than shep's was competitive.. Did you see every army list? Did you talk to every player? Have you played everyone there to even know if they're good or not? No.

List building isn't deck building.. Get over it. The game doesn't work like that. Maybe someday you'll understand that fact.

Actually list building is quite a bit like deck building. 40k isn't special its just like every other hobby. Some people can read the strategy of the game without playing it and some people can play it without knowing what goes into building a proper list.

Also I didn't say every list but Shep's was competitive. I said his was the only real mech list in anyone's report.

Please stop putting words into my mouth and trying to make me sound like a prick. Thank you very much.

Timmah wrote:Actually list building is quite a bit like deck building. 40k isn't special its just like every other hobby. Some people can read the strategy of the game without playing it and some people can play it without knowing what goes into building a proper list.

Also I didn't say every list but Shep's was competitive. I said his was the only real mech list in anyone's report.

Please stop putting words into my mouth and trying to make me sound like a prick. Thank you very much.

It's not hard to make you sound like a prick.. You've done a pretty bang up job yourself thus far.

You said the lists I went against weren't good. Must be that MTG deck building mentality at work. Last time I checked, the majority of those were "good builds" according to your internet cookie cutters.

Anyones report.. You mean the 2 people on dakka who have written reports out of 60 players? Or you can count my blog for another. So that makes three. 3x5 = 15.. That leaves 45 lists you haven't the foggiest idea about. Not counting those of us who had the same opponents.

I can read strategy. I can tell you within 10 minutes of seeing a brand new codex what the power builds and most point efficient units are. But that doesn't mean they are going to own anything they look at... There is no such thing as a "proper" list. Again, the concept you are completely failing to understand here. You can take whatever and make it work.. I've done it several times. But that doesn't matter, you'll just belittle the competition or whatever I used or went against.

So whats the bottom line? Anyone who wins a tournament without a Forum-mech list is some lucky noob?

Mundar wrote:

Anyones report.. You mean the 2 people on dakka who have written reports out of 60 players? Or you can count my blog for another. So that makes three. 3x5 = 15.. That leaves 45 lists you haven't the foggiest idea about. Not counting those of us who had the same opponents.

So whats the bottom line? Anyone who wins a tournament without a Forum-mech list is some lucky noob?

I'd say 25% of a tournament should give you a pretty good view of whats there.

Also where is this forum mech lists you keep talking about? Cause no one seems to be using them...

You have made so many assumptions about what I am saying its not even funny. Whenever I post about any tournament lists people make up crap and then try to tell me how much of a jerk I am based on what they made up about my posts.

I didn't make up anything Timmah. You're the one who came in here saying this list and that build suck and nothing more. One doesn't have to make up anything about your posts to classify you as a jerk.. That was already done for them.

You claimed there was no competition because you didn't see any "properly built mech lists". When challenged on this, failed to provide any of such lists or just out right dismissed the requests.

No one seemed to be using them at our event, and in your opion the competition was lacking because of it and lists "weren't that good".

Timmah wrote:

I would love to put up, but sadly I have a job and can not fly across the country for a 2 day tournament.

...because only jobless people play at 2 day tournaments.



If you dont attend a tournament, you have no idea how competetive it is...period.

You dont know the intelligence/proficiency level of each player with each of their "flawed" armies.

What's the more competetive atmosphere? A tournament composed entirely of 'Best-of' lists with novices at the helm or one with highly intelligent and practiced players playing their armies that they're comfortable with due to playing at least twice a week EVERY week.

Point being is that only the attendees know how competetive this tourney was. If you werent there, you have no idea.

Knowing that, lists aside, claiming that a tourney isnt competetive and belittling someones victories when you have no clue in the first place is pretty funny....well, no, actually its ignorant.

@timmah- claim I'm wrong? How would you know, you cannot be bothered to go to these two day tourneys....you have a job.

I think you are seriously underestimating the strengths of Blackmoor's list. All his firepower is completely mobile and can move forward 6" a turn to contest objectives or for better positioning without diminishing its volume or range. More importantly, he can slide backwards or sideways to maintain his spacing from mech assault units longer. As long as the Guardians are in the Avatar bubble, they are fearless and you have to kill all of them to make the heavy weapon go away. Not nearly as easy as killing 25% and forcing that LD8 test. The Harlequins are virtually immune to long range shooting (max spotting distance 24", average is 14") and the Warwalkers each throw out a hail of shoots that allows them to deal with AV12 reliably even though they are only S6 (24 shots, 12 hits, 2 glances BEFORE guide). While its not a typical power build, he has alot of options when playing objective missions, including the rare ability for his troops to take an oblique route to their end destination without sacrificing fire power.

@ Timmah---I posted the above earlier but you never responded. I am curious as to what you consider the strengths/weaknesses of Blackmoor's list.

Mundar wrote:I didn't make up anything Timmah. You're the one who came in here saying this list and that build suck and nothing more. One doesn't have to make up anything about your posts to classify you as a jerk.. That was already done for them.

Sorry, where did I say this?

Deadshane1 wrote:

Timmah wrote:

I would love to put up, but sadly I have a job and can not fly across the country for a 2 day tournament.

...because only jobless people play at 2 day tournaments.

Again putting words in my mouth...
Are you guys that childish that you have to pretend I said something and then make fun of it.
All I said was my job, atm, doesn't allow me to fly across the country for a 2 day tournament.

Deadshane1 wrote:
If you dont attend a tournament, you have no idea how competitive it is...period.

You don't know the intelligence/proficiency level of each player with each of their "flawed" armies.

What's the more competitive atmosphere? A tournament composed entirely of 'Best-of' lists with novices at the helm or one with highly intelligent and practiced players playing their armies that they're comfortable with due to playing at least twice a week EVERY week.

How come there is not an option 3? Like highly intelligent and practiced players playing their good armies.
If a bunch of MTG pros go to an event and play some random crappy deck, people would not claim the event to be competitive no matter how good the players are.

Also, these are the top competitors supposedly. WHY ARE THEY ONLY COMFORTABLE WITH 1 ARMY???? You tell me how good all these players are but when you actually talk about them you treat them like idiots.
(oh, they are only good with 1 army, they are confused by non-standard lists, they don't know how to counter outflanking)
Seriously, if these are really top competitors please treat them as such, but apparently they are not. Even my casual playing friends play more than 1 army, heck my casual playing friends can do all of the above, yet your tournament competitors can't...

Timmah wrote:
What mech armies are you playing??? Tau, IG, Eldar, SM? Which one has only/mostly short range fire power...

The approach taken by most people posting online is to load up as many guys with meltas (and rapid fire guns) into their transports, and then close with their opponents in order to use their meltas. Obviously the main battle tanks for these armies have more range, but you can take a main battle tank in a non-mech army too. And it is the guys with rapid fire guns that get overlooked in these mech armies.


As for your comparisons to M:TG, you are simply off-base. The games are so vastly different at the top level that trying to use M:TG-like thinking and apply it to 40k is doomed to failure. I've played M:TG competitively, had a national ranking in the 30s, and top-8'ed a tournament with over 500 participants. I do know what I'm talking about when I say they're different.

In M:TG, you have constants that you simply don't have in 40k. There is a limited pool of cards for any event that is much smaller (except, perhaps, in Type 1) than the possible different unit configurations in 40k. You have a limited set of in-play cards at any time, unlike 40k, where everything is in play. You have a fixed environment, unlike 40k, where the terrain differs from one table to the next. You have a finite number of decisions to make at any given time, constrained by cards in-play and in-hand, and possible guesses as to the opponent's hand. In 40k, your possible moves are far less restricted, and even the positioning of space between models in a unit can make a difference.

M:TG leads itself to the sort of analysis that you're trying to do. There is no "this list absolutely sucks when there is too much/too little terrain on the table". Because there are less possible competitive cards to pick from (compared to units in 40k), the good decks all tend to feature the same cards. And, because of this, the metagame tends to be really well defined. If you're playing a top-level deck, and go to an event and play a scrub with a random deck, they just get crushed by the power level discrepancy in the decks - player skill has little to do with it at that point. At any top-level event, you're likely to see nothing but minor variations on 2 to 4 deck concepts.

In 40k, the meta-game is far more open. At a major event, you'd be hard-pressed to find 2 to 4 different people running variations on a single list. In general, every army will be present, so there will be at least 12 different lists to account for. What, on paper, might be the most competitive list will get a fluke match-up against the one Dark Eldar darklance spam army, and knocked into the lower bracket, while an otherwise "uncompetitive" list will land a match-up that favours it.

And that's the other thing. At any given M:TG tournament, you're expected to play eight rounds, with finals following that. Each round consists of 2-5 games. This reduces the impact of both fluky luck in any given game, and of a weird match-up outside the meta-game.

The 40k meta-game is a joke. It exists solely in the minds of people online. I don't play as many tournaments as some people, but I've never played against a dual-lash list. I've played one whole game against nob bikers. I did play a couple of games against nidzilla at the height of its popularity - but I've played more games against it since it was declared dead. At the last tournament I went to, I played against a Necron army, while conventional online thinking is that Necrons don't even exist in 5e.

It takes time to paint an army. And, armies are expensive. Maybe the BoLS guys can make a new army for every codex, but they're definitely a minority. Most people, in my experience, have one or two armies and make do with them, even when they're not considered the most competitive. In M:TG, if a new piece of tech is revealed, the worst thing that happens is people drop $60 for 4 copies of the card and move on. When it becomes no-longer useful, you can resell it. In 40k, not only do you have to pay for the new toy, but you've then got to paint it to work with your army - if it's even allowed in your codex. Once you put that work in, it's hard to let it go.

In Magic, you have sideboards, and these account for much of the difference between decks. The choice of whether to main-deck certain cards or keep them in the sideboard is often all that separates decks at the top level, and it's a decision that's based on what you expect to see. You can bring 'tech' to help with certain match-ups and never use it if you don't see those opponents. Again, there's no way to do this in 40k.

All this adds up to make the sort of analysis you're looking for rather meaningless. The sort of post-event analysis I see for M:TG events is 'there was more of Deck-type A than I expected, I should have main-decked such a card instead of sideboarding it'.

In 40k, you cannot add another anti-tank weapon without cutting something else somewhere. You cannot sideboard an extra CC unit just in case. At the end of the day, you're looking at each player's guess about what they'll have to face in that tournament. The only measure of this is did they have to tools to deal with what they did face. Clearly, Blackmoor did here, and DarthDiggler did at 'ard boyz.

You seem to want the 40k tournament scene to be something it cannot be. It will never be an established meta-game like M:TG. People will always take "uncompetitive" lists to tournaments, because they like the fluff - or because they just painted something new. The outlying lists hang-around longer because of the labour involved in making a new army. At any given tournament, you may well play against 200 orks, 4 land-raiders, a rhino-rush, a DE raider-spam, and a nidzilla list. That's way more to prepare for than the 2 or 3 archetypes you'll see at a M:TG tournament, and each of these match-ups has a greater impact on your final placement to boot.

It's one thing to tell a guy who lost 4 games to mech armies that his list doesn't have enough anti-mech for the current environment, but that's a no-brainer. You're trying to tell people who won all their games that they didn't have the right list to deal with competitive lists. I think that the real problem here is your belief in the internet myth of good lists. You want it to be M:TG, and it simply isn't. The people who actually go to the tournaments know what they really expect to face, and have lists that can cope with that reality, not the myth that the net wants to perpetuate, and that you've bought into.

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

This was the total of your first post in the thread. It was a veiled insult to everyone at the tournament. You did not elaborate about mech or any of your other 'points' until much later (which continues with devisive language). That first post set the tone for the rest of thread and colors anything else you post.

If you did not intend to troll the thread, then learn the fine art of contructive criticism.

Redbeard wrote:

Timmah wrote:
What mech armies are you playing??? Tau, IG, Eldar, SM? Which one has only/mostly short range fire power...

The approach taken by most people posting online is to load up as many guys with meltas (and rapid fire guns) into their transports, and then close with their opponents in order to use their meltas. Obviously the main battle tanks for these armies have more range, but you can take a main battle tank in a non-mech army too. And it is the guys with rapid fire guns that get overlooked in these mech armies.

The bad ones maybe...

Redbeard wrote:
As for your comparisons to M:TG, you are simply off-base. The games are so vastly different at the top level that trying to use M:TG-like thinking and apply it to 40k is doomed to failure. I've played M:TG competitively, had a national ranking in the 30s, and top-8'ed a tournament with over 500 participants. I do know what I'm talking about when I say they're different.

More random claims about how you were good at a game so you must be right...

Redbeard wrote:
In M:TG, you have constants that you simply don't have in 40k. There is a limited pool of cards for any event that is much smaller (except, perhaps, in Type 1) than the possible different unit configurations in 40k. You have a limited set of in-play cards at any time, unlike 40k, where everything is in play. You have a fixed environment, unlike 40k, where the terrain differs from one table to the next. You have a finite number of decisions to make at any given time, constrained by cards in-play and in-hand, and possible guesses as to the opponent's hand. In 40k, your possible moves are far less restricted, and even the positioning of space between models in a unit can make a difference.

You still have set choices to make even if there might be a few more in 40k. And in Type 1 there is a way bigger pool of cards, but that doesn't count for some reason...(and if you give me the old, type 1 is a coin flip, I will assume your an idiot that knows nothing about MTG)

Redbeard wrote:
M:TG leads itself to the sort of analysis that you're trying to do. There is no "this list absolutely sucks when there is too much/too little terrain on the table". Because there are less possible competitive cards to pick from (compared to units in 40k), the good decks all tend to feature the same cards. And, because of this, the metagame tends to be really well defined. If you're playing a top-level deck, and go to an event and play a scrub with a random deck, they just get crushed by the power level discrepancy in the decks - player skill has little to do with it at that point. At any top-level event, you're likely to see nothing but minor variations on 2 to 4 deck concepts.

Again in Type 1, you might not play any of the top tier decks for multiple tournaments, instead facing meta game decks and hate decks. Very much like playing a non standard build in 40k. (also not getting into the meta game discussion here)

Redbeard wrote:
It's one thing to tell a guy who lost 4 games to mech armies that his list doesn't have enough anti-mech for the current environment, but that's a no-brainer. You're trying to tell people who won all their games that they didn't have the right list to deal with competitive lists. I think that the real problem here is your belief in the internet myth of good lists. You want it to be M:TG, and it simply isn't. The people who actually go to the tournaments know what they really expect to face, and have lists that can cope with that reality, not the myth that the net wants to perpetuate, and that you've bought into.

I did not say that at all. I said they did not have the right list to deal with competitive mech armies. (which he never faced)

In MTG this would be like telling someone who won a tournament without ever facing a control deck that they did not have the right tools to deal with a control deck. Most people would just agree with you, tell you they accepted the matchup as a near auto loss and say they didn't expect much control and then move on.

Instead of defending to the death that they can easily beat one of their worst matchups... I know its a tough concept to admit your "finely tuned" army list has weaknesses, but it does. All army lists do. For example certain fast assault armies will ruin my tau list. Can I beat them? sure, with some luck/skillful playing. Am I happy to see them across the table? Heck no.


@winterman: Sorry if you took my original jest the wrong way. I apologize for offending you over the internet.

Timmah wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:When you play a list that is common you know exactly how to defend against it. That is the problem with common builds, everyone knows how to beat them, and they know what they will try to do. For example; I know how to play against Mech Eldar and Seer Councils. Do you know how to beat my list?

This argument is such a complete load of crap. Its like saying competitive 40k players are dumb and can't analyze different threats without the internet telling them how to play.

Blackmoor wrote:
Do they know what the important units are (before it is too late?).

I would hope so, otherwise I am a terrible player.

Of course 40k players can do it without the internet - but you can't completely analyse a list, you can only completely analyse an army, so you need to play it first. If a list is good enough, it defies final analysis until it is on the table. Until you know how the general plans to utilise his units, you don't know what to deal with first, nor how to do it. That is why a good list has flexibility, not just to give the owning general a choice of what to do, but to confuse the opposing general about what he will be doing with it.

Important units are not necessarily the best units in an army. Marine scouts are far from the best in a marine army. Until you know whether they are going for objectives themselves, providing a screen for someone else or trying to kill something, you do not know how important they are.

Timmah wrote:Experience helps you, but it is not the be all end all of list building. Most (All) of the best MTG deck builders can't play a game against a pro to save their life. Same concept here. You don't need to be an amazing player in order to build a good list. List building and actual tactics are 2 very very different things.

Quite apart from comments made elsewhere about the world of difference between MtG and 40K, I'd say that whilst in MtG you can make "a good deck", in 40k, you can generally only make "a good deck for that general". Give Blackmoor or Mundar's lists to someone else and they would probably lose with it. Let them use their own and they may win. The reverse would also likely be true. A general each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own instincts and philosophies. Whenever I play any game, I like to play the long game, keep my guys alive and build towards a sudden, all-crushing finale that is devatasting. Give me an army that relies on taking opportunities when they arise, sacrificing my own troops (in order to kill enemies or to gain a tactical advantage) and so on... well, I can make myself do it, but it goes against my instincts, so it is not what works for me. Hell, even when I play pool I go safety first, and I enjoy watching safety play in snooker more than seeing amazing long pots...

Fifty wrote:
Quite apart from comments made elsewhere about the world of difference between MtG and 40K, I'd say that whilst in MtG you can make "a good deck", in 40k, you can generally only make "a good deck for that general". Give Blackmoor or Mundar's lists to someone else and they would probably lose with it. Let them use their own and they may win. The reverse would also likely be true. A general each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own instincts and philosophies. Whenever I play any game, I like to play the long game, keep my guys alive and build towards a sudden, all-crushing finale that is devatasting. Give me an army that relies on taking opportunities when they arise, sacrificing my own troops (in order to kill enemies or to gain a tactical advantage) and so on... well, I can make myself do it, but it goes against my instincts, so it is not what works for me. Hell, even when I play pool I go safety first, and I enjoy watching safety play in snooker more than seeing amazing long pots...

Oh look, just like MTG. Some people can't play control decks to save their lives but they are amazing at combo or aggro or hybrids. Or vice versa.


Also, I would hope "top" players would be able to know how a unit would best/most likely be used by their opponent and counter based on that info.

I agree with Timmah. The tournament sounded like a cake walk for Allan. I was really expecting a lot more out of Shep & Somnicide. It just sounds like the west is a little weaker than the east... with the army that won BoLScon and all.

G

Timmah wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying. Do you know how people learn 40k? By experience. If you have experience with the common builds you will do a lot better than you would if you played against an army that you have never seen before.

Experience helps you, but it is not the be all end all of list building. Most (All) of the best MTG deck builders can't play a game against a pro to save their life. Same concept here. You don't need to be an amazing player in order to build a good list. List building and actual tactics are 2 very very different things.

Blackmoor wrote:

That is the difference between you and I. I go out their and play across the country to test my skill and abilities against the best players in the country, in the largest tournaments, and you don’t. In this thread alone I have played Redbeard in Chicago, Darth Diggler in Baltimore, and Green Blow Fly in Tampa, and Mundar in Mesa. I have played in large tournaments from Salem, OR, to San Diego, and from Chicago, to Baltimore down to Orlando. I put into practice what I know rather than sit at home and think about what could be better.

I'm confused, so you have to travel across the country to play the best players? Yet when you do, you say that by bringing an unconventional list, you give them fits and they don't know what to do against it? These don't sound like top players to me...

Redbeard wrote:
But, mechs disadvantages include having a lot of your firepower geared for short-range, so if you get stuck at long range, you're in trouble. Also, if your guys are all embarked, you cut your own ability to put out firepower. A lot of non-top mech players don't know when to get out and when to stay in. 16 bolter shots has value often enough...

What mech armies are you playing??? Tau, IG, Eldar, SM? Which one has only/mostly short range fire power...


Seriously though, if you guys are going to get all bent out of shape because one person on the internet said your tournament wasn't competitive, you really need to develop some thicker skin. 40k isn't in some way special compared to other competitive events. If you are going to post your tournament wins on an internet forum you better be prepared to take the criticism as well as the praise.

Timmah wrote:

You still have set choices to make even if there might be a few more in 40k. And in Type 1 there is a way bigger pool of cards, but that doesn't count for some reason...
(and if you give me the old, type 1 is a coin flip, I will assume your an idiot that knows nothing about MTG)

I've been playing M:TG far longer than you have. Type I isn't included, not because it is a coin flip, but because it isn't given the same level of attention and critique that the more competitive pro-tour types are. I'll happily concede that the Type I environment is more akin to the 40k list building than the competitive types played on the pro tour. However, the level of critique and analysis for Type I is no where near as robust - so it suffers the same problem as 40k in that regard.

Redbeard wrote:
In MTG this would be like telling someone who won a tournament without ever facing a control deck that they did not have the right tools to deal with a control deck. Most people would just agree with you, tell you they accepted the matchup as a near auto loss and say they didn't expect much control and then move on.

In M:TG it's much easier to see that someone doesn't have the tools to deal with something. Rather than agree with you, most intelligent posters here are of the opinion that he did have the tools to deal with a mech army. Perhaps you're just not as good at breaking down army lists as you are at breaking down decks.

For example certain fast assault armies will ruin my tau list. Can I beat them? sure, with some luck/skillful playing. Am I happy to see them across the table? Heck no.

I'm not sure that an army exists that can defeat your finely tuned Tau army, what with your 52-0 record being proudly proclaimed in your sig and all.

I am not offended by any means. Nor was that first post all that humourous (and I doubt humor was your intent). I am also not the one whining about people taking my posts out of context after I posted a trollish comment. You do make good points on occasion, I just wish they didn't start in such a non-constructive manner.

Timmah wrote:Oh look, just like MTG. Some people can't play control decks to save their lives but they are amazing at combo or aggro or hybrids. Or vice versa.


Also, I would hope "top" players would be able to know how a unit would best/most likely be used by their opponent and counter based on that info.

Thing is, you claim to be not antagonising anyone and to be misunderstood, then you use language like above...

Anyway, my MtG days were back in '95 to '96, but I have mana-builder decks that play by the numbers and can be used by practically anyone. I had an Island Sanctuary-Mill Stone(?)-Ivory Tower deck before they even started appearing elsewhere, and it got to a point where my friends would not let me use it... None of my friends could use it successfully, as they never figured out the actual use of it on the table, so you make a good point.

HOwever, by picking apart my flawed 40K-MtG comparison you have inadvertantly undermined your own primary argument that one list is good and another is bad, and agreed with me that different lists are good or bad depending on who is using them, as well as what what they are facing. My tendency would always be to pop heavy units using long-range weaponry. Others do well by closing and using klaws/fusion guns. Neither way is "right", but you don't have the points to overoad on both methods, so go with most of the method that suits you.

You may also hope that "double-top" players would use some units in unconventional ways that would confound the pre-suppositions of "top" players and using their experience against them...

Redbeard wrote:

I've been playing M:TG far longer than you have. Type I isn't included, not because it is a coin flip, but because it isn't given the same level of attention and critique that the more competitive pro-tour types are. I'll happily concede that the Type I environment is more akin to the 40k list building than the competitive types played on the pro tour. However, the level of critique and analysis for Type I is no where near as robust - so it suffers the same problem as 40k in that regard.

I would disagree with you here, but this argument doesn't really further either cause that much so I will just say lets let this die.

Redbeard wrote:
In M:TG it's much easier to see that someone doesn't have the tools to deal with something. Rather than agree with you, most intelligent posters here are of the opinion that he did have the tools to deal with a mech army. Perhaps you're just not as good at breaking down army lists as you are at breaking down decks.

Ok, so we agree this is just a differing of opinion on whether he has the tools. So what is the problem? I think one way, you think another. We each have our own opinions and each is valid. No need to get mad because I voiced mine.

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure that an army exists that can defeat your finely tuned Tau army, what with your 52-0 record being proudly proclaimed in your sig and all.

Sorry, my sig is an on going joke. I am sorry that you didn't understand that, what with the 0-X and 1-X records with my other armies. But please keep taking random shots at me to try and make my opinion less valid...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:
HOwever, by picking apart my flawed 40K-MtG comparison you have inadvertantly undermined your own primary argument that one list is good and another is bad, and agreed with me that different lists are good or bad depending on who is using them, as well as what what they are facing. My tendency would always be to pop heavy units using long-range weaponry. Others do well by closing and using klaws/fusion guns. Neither way is "right", but you don't have the points to overoad on both methods, so go with most of the method that suits you.

Very true. But some lists are just always bad. For example, 60 islands and nothing else in a deck will probably always lose.

And as I said above, it is just an opinion. Its what I believe to be right, hence I voiced my OPINION. Am I wrong? Perhaps, perhaps not. Its just that, an opinion.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I agree with Timmah. The tournament sounded like a cake walk for Allan. I was really expecting a lot more out of Shep & Somnicide. It just sounds like the west is a little weaker than the east... with the army that won BoLScon and all.

G

To be honest I expected more out of me too :-( I am still beating myself up for playing with only half a brain. In the two games I actually played my list as it was intended (concentration of force) I tabled my opponents (well, as near as one can table without number nids).

I think Shep infected me before hand intentionally since I had absolutely destroyed him with my bikes...

Back on topic - Timmah's troll-fu is amazing. I am surprised how many of you are rising to his talk. Which is all it is, he already stated that he doesn't play in tourneys so basically in his theory hammer, Allan's list sucks. You are basically trying to prove a negative here - it doesn't matter what empirical data there is, Timmah's mind is made up and nothing will change it. I would bet cash that Allan could take that list against one that Timmah specifically designed to beat it and still win - because Allan is a good player and his lists look deceptively soft until you see how things work together and the fact that he has a plan for every single unit and is amazingly focused at sticking to it, even when things look bad. He gets that from his experience playing both his army and the game.

I know that looks like I am flaming Timmah, and really, I am not. His mind is made up and nothing will change it. Anyone who has played Allan knows he is a good player and his lists always look decidedly softer than they actually are. There are no wasted points in his list and nothing but lean murder-models.

Congrats on the wins and thanks for all the battle reports (and pictures!) that you guys have taken the time to share! It's a shame that those have gotten lost in the noise of this "debate".

I started a thread in the 40k General asking this question, but I figured I'd post it here too.

Has any of you played/seen played one of the "Best Of" lists that Timmah and others advertise so much? They seem to look alright on paper, but I never see them (or similar lists) in any battle reports, which causes me to wonder if that design style is all it's cracked up to be.

Timmah wrote:And as I said above, it is just an opinion. Its what I believe to be right, hence I voiced my OPINION. Am I wrong? Perhaps, perhaps not. Its just that, an opinion.

I think that from the earliest post, people have taken issue with not your opinion, but rather the manner in which you present your opinion.

For example, in your very first post, instead of

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

you could have gone with

not Timmah wrote:So, I notice there were no XXX builds in those lists. What there was does not appear very competetive to me. Although you added the Bright Lance and Fire Dragons, how do you feel you would have coped with a dedicated XXX build from XXX race? what tactics would you have adopted to handle WWW units? and have you ever considered swapping ZZZ for YYY to address this?

Or even

Timmah wrote:Those armies you faced do not look very competetive to me. I am not certain you would cope well with XXX builds.

But hey, that is just my opinion.

@somnicide:

I am sure he is a great player. All I was trying to say is that since he has almost no long range weaponry (and not much anti tank), he would have a very tough time against a pure mech or gunline force.

I don't see whats so wrong about that.

I am sure his army is amazing against foot armies and drop pod armies that are forced to come to him. But if he has to go get someone, then he is going to have problems.


hehe, noted fifty.
I have already told people that I come across strong though due to my other competitive game environments. I will probably not be changing the way I discuss stuff thanks to 8+ years of previous learned behavior. Obviously the first post had a bit of jest, bit of opinion in it and everyone took it the wrong way.

Timmah wrote:@somnicide:

I am sure he is a great player. All I was trying to say is that since he has almost no long range weaponry (and not much anti tank), he would have a very tough time against a pure mech or gunline force.

I don't see whats so wrong about that.

I am sure his army is amazing against foot armies and drop pod armies that are forced to come to him. But if he has to go get someone, then he is going to have problems.

Then say THAT instead of "Man, was there a single competitive army there? Everyone must have sucked for that army to win." (I know it's not exactly what you said, but that's how "So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?" came across.)

I agree with Timmah. I think that Blackmoor is running a lower tier eldar army list. Six harlequins on foot? A single squad of dragons? 4 jetbikes with a warlock?

However unlike him I am now going to ask blackmoor how he does so well with such an army. Rather then rambling about meta game and list build, I simply want to know why he does well with what he uses. I feel mech eldar are much stronger. He beat a mech eldar player. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he didnt. But regardless, I know I couldnt have won the wild west shootout with a footslogging eldar army, let alone whatever big tooled out lists timmah likes.

This is how adults react to stuff Timmah. See children look at something they dont understand and go "oh thats stupid, he got lucky, I could beat that if I play that"
Adults ask the person "how did you do so well with that, I dont understand it at all".

Of course you would know this if you left your moms basement and actually played in a big event.

Eidolon, I think you might be the pot calling the kettle black, or whichever way round that saying goes.

Timmah wrote:@somnicide:

I am sure he is a great player. All I was trying to say is that since he has almost no long range weaponry (and not much anti tank), he would have a very tough time against a pure mech or gunline force.

I don't see whats so wrong about that.

I am sure his army is amazing against foot armies and drop pod armies that are forced to come to him. But if he has to go get someone, then he is going to have problems.

hehe, noted fifty.
I have already told people that I come across strong though due to my other competitive game environments. I will probably not be changing the way I discuss stuff thanks to 8+ years of previous learned behavior. Obviously the first post had a bit of jest, bit of opinion in it and everyone took it the wrong way.

Now see, that, we can talk about. Long range is really somewhat of a misnomer in 40k these days. Typically you will set up no more than 30" away from your opponent (note that Blackmoor typically will set up his huge blob near the center of the table). An average turn 1 move (with run, if you so choose) will be 9" with a further 6 on the following turn putting you 15" away for your turn 2 shooting. He doesn't have to worry about his army running away thanks to fearless and his guardian squads are large enough that you can't saturate them with enough wounds from a single target to snipe out any good stuff. His Avatar will make contact probably on turn 3 and with him fortuned he is an absolute beast.

If someone wants to use fast models to stay away, they are not shooting at him and he is taking up an intractable (fearless) position on the objectives, sure he won't kill you, but he will win the game, which is all that matters. His flanking warwalkers are a big enough threat that you might not want to be too cavalier in your placement on the flanks. A 4x6 table with a 24" neutral zone (or less as was the case in some missions this tourney) is frightfully small, as I discovered playing bikes thinking to play the long range avoid the enemy game.

Anyway, just a few observations not so much on Allan's list, as to how he plays it and understands the confines of the game and uses them to his advantage.

Eidolon wrote:I agree with Timmah. I think that Blackmoor is running a lower tier eldar army list. Six harlequins on foot? A single squad of dragons? 4 jetbikes with a warlock?

However unlike him I am now going to ask blackmoor how he does so well with such an army. Rather then rambling about meta game and list build, I simply want to know why he does well with what he uses. I feel mech eldar are much stronger. He beat a mech eldar player. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he didnt. But regardless, I know I couldnt have won the wild west shootout with a footslogging eldar army, let alone whatever big tooled out lists timmah likes.

This is how adults react to stuff Timmah. See children look at something they dont understand and go "oh thats stupid, he got lucky, I could beat that if I play that"
Adults ask the person "how did you do so well with that, I dont understand it at all".

Of course you would know this if you left your moms basement and actually played in a big event.

If you read one of Darth's and Panzerleader's posts, they talk a little bit about how the army works.

In the next couple of days, I am going to de-construct my list and go over why it works and post it either in 40K Tactics or Army Lists.

I find it odd that a lot of people do not understand it. They know it works, they just don't understand how.

Eidolon wrote:He beat a mech eldar player. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he didnt. But regardless, I know I couldnt have won the wild west shootout with a footslogging eldar army, let alone whatever big tooled out lists timmah likes.

4 tanks is not mech eldar sorry to say.

Eidolon wrote:
This is how adults react to stuff Timmah. See children look at something they dont understand and go "oh thats stupid, he got lucky, I could beat that if I play that"
Adults ask the person "how did you do so well with that, I dont understand it at all".

Ah, but I do understand how he did so well. He faced a bunch of foot armies and no mech outside of the "draw" scenario.



Also, can I ask a question?
Why did that SW player drop all his pods in a line across your front lines? Seems like a pretty terrible strategy to me.

Timmah wrote:
Why did that SW player drop all his pods in a line across your front lines? Seems like a pretty terrible strategy to me.

What would you have done?

Fifty wrote:Eidolon, I think you might be the pot calling the kettle black, or whichever way round that saying goes.

Not at all. The problem with Timmah is that rather then trying to find out how something works. He dismisses it. I dont feel that blackmoor had the best eldar list, so that shows he is a better player then me. So I asked him how he uses it to win. Rather then discounting his victories as him simply getting lucky. Same thing with the ard boyz thread. Oh gunline marines placed high, that guy just got lucky.

@Eidolon
Luck plays a huge part in most 40k tournaments because it is not a swiss system. Now playing 5 games does help this, its doesn't correct the flaw in the system.

For example, take a room of 50 random chess players. If I play 5 games against random people (each having won their last game) and Bobby Fischer plays 5 games against random people, I could end with a better record than him despite me being a much much worse player. See?

I've been over why ard boyz makes this situation even worse (by resetting wins/loses after each 3 games).

I did not dismiss his list. I said it would be bad against a certain army type that he did not have to face. Do I think the list is terrible? Maybe. But I never said that.


Winning a 40k tournament does not and will never make your list amazing. At least not until they accept an actually competitive system.


@ the drop pod army:
I'm not positive off the top of my head what I would have done. But playing, "lets set up our guys 12" away and see whose army shoots better (oh and mine comes in piecemeal)" does not seem like a good idea.

Timmah wrote:@Eidolon
Luck plays a huge part in most 40k tournaments because it is not a swiss system. Now playing 5 games does help this, its doesn't correct the flaw in the system.
For example, take a room of 50 random chess players. If I play 5 games against random people (each having won their last game) and Bobby Fischer plays 5 games against random people, I could end with a better record than him despite me being a much much worse player. See?

If they each won their last game its not random is it

Ah a smart comment. Anyways I think you know what I meant. If not, I meant the same structure 40k tournaments use.

Anyways my point still stands.

Timmah wrote:Ah a smart comment. Anyways I think you know what I meant. If not, I meant the same structure 40k tournaments use.

Anyways my point still stands.

Whats the same structure 40k tournaments still use? As far as I know if Me and blackmoor both play different people and we are the only two to get full points we are playing each other round 2. Now there are some events that use random pairings the whole time, but those are rare, and the big ones dont do that.

And your point does not still stand.
Thats like saying "the sky is red"
to which somebody replies "actually its blue, look at it"
and then you say "this is true, but my point still stands".

Statements are an expression of facts.
Facts are observations based on logic.
If the logic is rendered invalid, then the statement is no longer a statement, as it does not express a fact.

Timmeh, seriously, you have to take some responsibility for what you put out there. If you express your criticism and curiosity in a dismissive and insulting way, people will react negatively to it.

Now, this may have some validity as an approach. In both this thread and in the ‘Ard Boyz thread, you eventually elicited some more detailed analysis and explanation from Darth, Somnicide, and others. Sometimes being inflammatory and challenging can usefully spur discussion, and goad people into investing more effort into the thread, providing more and more useful data.

But if you post a one-liner like “So were there any competitive lists at this tournament?”, you need to recognize and own up to the unpleasantness you are starting. Complaining about flames draws very little sympathy when you are splashing gasoline around.

Timmah wrote:@somnicide:

...I have already told people that I come across strong though due to my other competitive game environments. I will probably not be changing the way I discuss stuff thanks to 8+ years of previous learned behavior. Obviously the first post had a bit of jest, bit of opinion in it and everyone took it the wrong way.

I think I found the problem.

You refuse to discard your tactical mindset from M:TG. In Magic: The Gathering, you have a set list of cards, and the game is designed so that some cards are always better, which is why they are Uncommon or Rare. They want you to seek out those powerful cards to play with, creating the trading market that a CCG thrives on. This is smart business on their part, and a great way for folks to play a low-commitment game. I played M:TG for about 7 years (From Unlimited through 5th I believe). I was good for my area, quite the collector, and a strategist to boot. I had a control deck that was never beaten, a merfolk islandwalking deck that no one could figure out, and lots of wild sneaky hybrids. I had a great time with it, and developed lean strategies for deck building that I'm sure rival your own, and would still, given the same time and era of playing, and had I not gotten so bored with it.

However, trying to use any of that strategic mindset in 40K is a complete mistake, and here's why I think so:

In Magic, the randomness factor is which card you draw. Cards themselves have a set value for cost, damage output, and damage resistance factor. There are special rules on many cards, but they all come from a pool of universal rules to modify how the card operates in-game. However, very few things change the output of a fight between creatures, other than more outside cards cast into the combat, or onto the participants. You always know how many cards your opponent is holding, and how much land (casting resource) they have left at any time. It's, quite literally, right there on the table. A game with this many constants lacks true finesse, and will always become a game of Rich-Kid Masters; made up of those lucky or wealthy enough to own the statistically most powerful cards in large quantity. Combats are highly abstract, and outcomes are almost always obvious. All strategy occurs in the build-up to the combat, as both players jockey for the conditions on the battle.

In Warhammer 40K (as well as many other real-space tabletop games), you have set army lists. You will always have the entire army you pick, instead of drawing randomly, but you have almost infinite selection when preparing that list. Units do not come in neat points packages; Saying that a SM army utilizes a Tactical Squad means nothing, because there's a hundred different loadouts which vastly change the role and potential of said Tactical Squad. Even two squads with the exact same loadout may have vastly different experiences because this is a DICE based game. When I "attack" with my "Tactical Squad" it doesn't just do 4 and can take 4, I go through a series of rolls (TH,TW) _per shot_ to decide the outcome of the attack. One round, they may do "8" damage, another round, only "2". And as a defender, you then modify that result again with the armor save, if allowed (a whole 'nother level of complexity there), and we find the final outcome. In order to do that, I have a per-model range requirement, and usually a movement requirement (stand still, not run, etc) which also plays into every tactical decision. All you can discuss about 40K is the probability of any action occuring. A Fortuned Avatar may shrug off an attack of "8" from my "Tactical Squad" because average rolling prevails, but it just might not. It just may fall to 4 lucky grot pistols. Or it may wade through enough firepower to destroy Alderaan; unscathed. Strategy is a multi-headed hydra in this game, as what you think may work may fail. You never know exactly how much it's going to take to get something done, you can just estimate and hope not to waste too much. Attacking must be balanced with movement and positioning, unlike Magic. Most units have multiple methods of attack and defense, and the wary tactician must see the potentials for all of them, as well as the enemies', and make decisions based on never being sure of any outcome.

Army design even reflects this quandary in player's decisions on saturation within the battlegroup. How many times have we discussed "How many meltas is enough? Too much?". Or your question "How much long range Anti-Tank is required?". The answer is It's Up To You. As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary". In a game of M:TG, there is no such dynamic. If something is good, you want as much of it as possible to maximize your odds of drawing it. This philosophy of automatic spamming is invalid in an environment where your units are all available from the start. To be truly efficient, you want _just enough_ so you have points for other things.


You know all this, as I'm sure everyone else here does. I state it for edification, and to point out how ludicrous it is to apply a philosophy of "X Investment in Y Unit that will always have Z Output" is when applied to Warhammer 40K. There are layers upon layers of complexity and chance that go into every action and reaction we see in this game. Very few things are actually constant, and the most we can ever really nail down is _trends of likelyhood_.

There is no Paper, no Scissors, and no Rock.

There are no units that are made better based on rarity as a control mechanism. All units are available to all players at all times. Armies are made to a points limit, and to an FOC chart, but the options within are limitless, and what options we take, we benefit from every game.

So please take a minute to understand why players who love this game feel insulted when you throw around "Rock beats Scissors every time" arguments. In M:TG, Rock does beat Scissors, but in 40K, rare though it may be, every now and then, Scissors really does cut Rock.

In my opinion MtG should not be used to draw any conclusions in regards to 40k. They are much to disimiliar.

G

I just want to jump in and address Timmah really quick.

I get what you are saying, I'm sure you know that there are infinite variables in addition to list building that all factor in to a person winning a tournament. Almost all of those factors are impossible to run a simulation for. You can tech out an army list, create a sample set of results for particular dice rolls, simulate competitive games with as many other armies as your friends own and can proxy. the more friends you have, the more different play styles you can become accustomed to. That will go a long way to prepare you for tourney play.

I am familiar with Stelek's argument about "4th edition lists" and the "weak tourney scene". I have also followed this thread and the 'ard boys thread, and I am familiar with your stance on the same issue. However, both of your stances are based entirely on an irrelevant thesis. The whole topic is a complete fallacy. Let me explain...

The ultimate goal of a competitive tournament player is to win best general at a tournament. the tournament (and all of the opponents in the three or five games) is an unquantifiable variable. It's also completely irrelevant what conditions exist in the tournament, just as long as the ultimate goal is achieved. Stelek argues that other people's lists are terrible and tourney missions are terrible and then cites that as his reason for not choosing to compete in tournaments. Almost everyone can see that for what it is. A thin excuse. You cite your inability to afford the expense of a tourney, which is infinitely more relevant and I'm going to hit on that in a sec. Basically, tournaments and their attendees, and their missions are variable, but the challenge of a tourney player is to accept the variables, use his brain to find a way to win despite facing good lists (or bad ones) and despite facing missions that may be detrimental to your army strength. If you can do that, you'll win. Win consistently and you have proven yourself a good warhammer 40k player, by definition. When you become a semi regular tourney player, you tend to judge the difficulty of an upcoming game based on the man standing across from you. there are certainly important details to take in when looking over an opponents army list, but ultimately, I know if i'll have an easy game or a tough game based on if i know the guy or not (or if he knows a lot of other people at the tourney, in the case of a person i haven't met yet).

I can boil this all down to one statement. If the ultimate goal of a tourney player is to win, and he does win, then all other factors, his army, the armies he faced, the missions he played in... are irrelevant. Would a player at a given tourney have a harder time if facing different armies? Sure. Would he have an easier time with a more tuned list? Maybe. But arguing against a tourney champion, especially a consistently high finishing player, is hopeless, and ridiculous. he has acheived the goal he has set out for himself. if you want to educate him, then go to a tournament and show him your stuff.

Now to that. I'll use this tourney as an example for a budgetary planning. I live in los Angeles, I work (you had implied that tourney goers are somehow loaded with money yet don't have jobs earlier), I am one of two recording engineers at a small recording studio, and i can't just call in the morning of and say I'm not coming in. I have clients and sessions booked far in advance. i have a girlfriend who doesn't play 40k. And I'm sure I have other obstacles that I am not thinking of to tourney attendance. I made the decision to attend the wild west shootout, months in advance. I purchased the ticket, then immediately scheduled the friday before the tourney weekend to be a day off. In doing this 8 weeks before it happened, I ensured that nothing could be scheduled on that day. The ticket to WWS was $70. I split a hotel room with AbsoluteBlue for two nights... it was $75 per night. The hotel had a continental breakfast, and lunch was provided by the tourney. We ate dinner both nights, I splurged and spent $25 each night. AbsoluteBlue drove, and I filled his tank one way, for $40.

The total cost in cash output for the entire weekend was $235. You mentioned you had a job. You seem like an intelligent person so I'll assume it isn't minimum wage. If you are a salary employee, you could use a single day of PTO, and lose nothing in wages. If you work hourly, you could stand to lose waht... around $100 for a day's work?

So worst case scenario, around $350 dollars. if traveling to 40k tourneys is something you want to do, and you are an american with a job, I refute your premise that it is too expensive and too difficult to get time off.

Now, i want you to know, that i only went to this trouble to cost it all out and talk about how many days i took off because I like your 40k energy, and I'd love it if you would attend tourneys with us. if you do make it out to one, and you see me there, come on over and introduce yourself. I'd be happy to meet you and make some introductions. If you do go and lose, and lose against lists that aren't "as good" as yours. Don't be alarmed. It happened to me, and still happens to me all the time. Generalship and experience facing different play styles, luck, mission, matchup... The sum total of these factors FAR exceeds army list on impact to your overall battle points. Just take my word for that.

Shep, first off, I did in no way attempt to imply that tournament goers don't have jobs or have crappy jobs. I simply said at the moment I am not able to travel due to travel and money constraints.

Just got outa college so I have loans and living expenses that come first. Also being an accountant, the whole CPA test thing comes first for me. So very little time/money for the first couple years.

Your "the ends justify the means" argument (if that's an alright sum up) does not encourage a competitive, evolving, growing environment. Saying, he won, so that's good enough breeds apathy.

When someone wins, you should look to see what they could do better. That is how competitive formats grow, evolve and ultimately get better.

When someone comes up with an amazing new MTG deck and wins a tournament, do you know what happens? It gets analyzed and picked apart by the community. That way it can be made even better than 1-2 designers could ever make it. See where I'm going with this?

Same with my 40k argument. You look at the top decks or army lists and attempt to improve on those. Not the bottom ones.

You can not compare Magic the gathering deck building to 40k army list building. Most people agree with this. I also think we are getting past the point of hoping you come out to a tournament to play us. I really believe the moment you drop a hint as to where you play there will be some people who will make the journey to you to see first hand how the game should be played.

Timmah wrote: Also being an accountant,

This explains it all. You are a vulgar number cruncher. What in academia is referred to as a 'quantoid.' It explain the purely theoretical rather than real-world basis of your posts.

every event i have played in has put winners against winners.

DarthDiggler wrote:You can not compare Magic the gathering deck building to 40k army list building. Most people agree with this. I also think we are getting past the point of hoping you come out to a tournament to play us. I really believe the moment you drop a hint as to where you play there will be some people who will make the journey to you to see first hand how the game should be played.

I already said I was going to attempt to make it to adepticon in march.


Also, my profession has nothing to do with how I play games. Believe me, my MTG, WoW and WC3 background has much more to do with my gaming than my being an accountant.
(also, your perception of accountants is way off base and seems to be based on an old 70s stereotype made popular by hollywood.)

Timmah you have made some interesting points but at the end of the day seeing you have no real tournament experience you are simply running at the mouth to put it saliently. It is just your opinion based upon what you have read and to be honest you come across as quite susceptible.

G

Timmah wrote:When someone wins, you should look to see what they could do better. That is how competitive formats grow, evolve and ultimately get better.

All 60 people last weekend wanted to win all 5 of their games. You'll hear a lot of quotes like "I'm just here to have fun." or "I'm more of a hobbyist." But I've never had a guy let me win in a tournament.

Your analysis about army lists is welcome. I do it to. When it is solicited. But on a message board unsolicited criticism is fair game of course. What isn't welcome was the humor you attempted with the "were there any competitive armies there?" comment.

lets switch over to some pure army list analysis here for this discussion. I have a pretty good insight to Blackmoor's list, especially how it pertains to a heavily mech "5th edition" tuned IG list. Without talking about the competitiveness of my army (I'm too sensitive ) I have 13 armor 12 vehicles, lots of meltaguns, plasma guns, and autocannons.

The reason i don't just sweep Blackmoor's list off the table is because all of his fragile elements are "strike first" and the rest of his army doesn't lose effectiveness until it is almost completely eliminated.

on a turn by turn analysis, what you see with the 2-3 warwalker units, is that they show up and put a handful of shakens and stuns on my threat tanks. There are enough anti-infantry shots in his army to make debarkation a non-option. So any vet chimera that gets shaken gets shut down, when my hydra battery takes 6 glancing hits, its shut down. All these shutdowns don't necessarily kill my vehicles, but they push the game very quickly into the later turns. i eventually take out his hard hitters, once i recover from being shaken, and with my stuff that goes untouched. But then its bottom of 4 and I can't figure out why there are so many troops left on the table. There is the avatar, standing right between where your troops are and where you want to go, there is the guardians, battered but fearless, standing on the objectives. His bikes are dead, his falcon is dead, his warwalkers are dead, his harlequins are dead, his fire dragons are REALLY dead, but eldard is chilling in a guardian unit, the avatar is a massive roadblack, and you are down on objectives.

Offensively, Blackmoor's list appears to be light on anti-tank. But with the resiliency of his guardians being the battery for it, he just gets enough chances to shoot things that things go away. those two gunners in a ten man guardian unit are almost always the last to go. Against my 11 heavy flamers, Allan had to fortune the harlies, but usually he is rocking two guides. I've watched him fire his platforms, miss, or hit then fail to pen, countless times. but if 4 platforms with 2 guides roll on your troop chimeras for 4 turns, you are going to pick up an immobilized and a destroyed or two over the course of the game. And with fire dragons/falcon/war walkers engaging my heavy stuff for the first 4 turns, thenit becomes two games in one.

Basically, his war walkers/falcon/fire dragons, fight against everything I have that isn't a mechvet. They lose that fight every time. But it takes time for me to knock out those elements, and they certainly damage me significantly before they go. Then my 3 mechvet chimeras are left facing Eldrad, harlequins, 3 guardian units and a guardian jetbike unit. He hurts me faster and more effectively than i hurt him, on account of me being essentially three models and him being close to 40. the chimeras get peppered with mid range strength 8, and then end up facing two fusion pistols, two singing spears and a meltagun at that crucial turn.

Survivability is a force multiplier in regards to anti-tank. And rather than say "Blackmoor's eldar list is underpowered" I would say that it is much more of a grinder. It establishes its table position, loses some localized firefights, watches the turns speed by, and then defends its table position in the last two turns of the game. it plays a lot like my kan wall ork army (another one that pundits are incorrectly convinced has lost its competitive edge) there is no flash, no "leaf-blower" effect. It just grinds out wins.

Shep you do have to admit that some of Allan's opponents made decisions that left you thinking WTF? Like the falcon tank shocking into his gun line... that just seemed like a very bad decision very early in the game.

G

Timmah wrote: I already said I was going to attempt to make it to adepticon in march

Like every year, I will fly out there and I hope to see you then. The odd thing is that most accountants are upset at its scheduling because it is right before April 15th, and the busiest time of the year for them and they can’t show up.

Green Blow Fly wrote: Shep you do have to admit that some of Allan's opponents made decisions that left you thinking WTF? Like the falcon tank shocking into his gun line... that just seemed like a very bad decision very early in the game.

He rammed me with a Fire Prism that had its gun blown off. To me that seemed like one of the only good uses for it at that point since my army is fearless and can’t be tank shocked.

He also rammed me with a stunned Wave Serpent into my War Walkers. It was stunned so he could not shoot it, and the War Walkers were tearing him up, so not only was it was a way to take one out, it had the added bonus of providing cover for his army, and it also was a way of getting his Dire Avengers up to where they can start to shoot things.

They seemed like logical decisions to me.

Blackmoor wrote:

Timmah wrote: I already said I was going to attempt to make it to adepticon in march

Like every year, I will fly out there and I hope to see you then. The odd thing is that most accountants are upset at its scheduling because it is right before April 15th, and the busiest time of the year for them and they can’t show up.

That would be auditors.

It didn't come across that way while reading your report. Thanks for the clarification. : )

G

Very nice battle reports. I like how you are still quite mobile despite the limited mechanization of your army. I think this is the number one thing to keep in mind when playing a foot army. Too many players get side-tracked shooting heavy weapons and such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I just joined Dakka Dakka and I'm astonished that you guys even reply to the blatant trolling going on here. Try ignoring him and I'll bet he just moves on to find a different thread.

What's tough about Timmah is that I think he is sincere about wanting to improve lists and whatnot. He's just too coarse about it. I know he put some advice in one of my threads. I would just ask that he put out some Batreps, win or lose, so we can see what he's talking about with his tuned lists. Once again, great Batreps and I would love to get a chance to get some pointers from any of you tourny regulars.

/brown-nosing off

Since he does not play in tournaments it all comes across as rubbish to be honest. He hijacked one thread he no clue what he was talking about and it was really uncool to the OP.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Since he does not play in tournaments it all comes across as rubbish to be honest. He hijacked one thread he no clue what he was talking about and it was really uncool to the OP.

G

Uh, I do play in tournaments. Just not in tournaments across the country.

Besides, its not like you magically get more experience from playing people when they are in a tournament vs an outside pickup game...(some of us play competitive games all the time)

Yes you do quite often plus you are playing outside the local meta.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Yes you do quite often plus you are playing outside the local meta.

G

Yea...I thought it was agreed 40k didn't have a meta game...

Anyways, its not like me and my local opponents cannot vary our lists to learn against different styles of armies.
Anyways I'm done in here. You guys sure get mad when someones opinion differs from your own.

Timmah wrote:
Anyways I'm done in here. You guys sure get mad when someones opinion differs from your own.

Dakka dakka or just this thread

Bye bye!



G

I will miss the highly stimulating intellectual coversations you provide farewell Timmah.

So is Timmah gone for good then? Please say yes XD

At any rate great bat reps blackmoor Its nice to see that gaurdians are still useful. Also love the trophy you got.

come on over and introduce yourself.

And when you do make sure you do it like South Park's Timmy. "TIMMAH!"

Nice win! Hope you like Necrons or know someone that does

Did the drop pods have any weapons on them? I dont remember seeing them shoot anything.