I'll let those who participated in the tournament elaborate on their armies and the results. I wasn't there the whole day, but from what I could tell the event ran pretty smoothly.
Kirasu wrote:Yeah Im curious also.. Seems like the internet personalities didnt win or it would have been plastered all over the net a moment after it happened
The event at showcase comics in Media PA was run extremely well. A big thank you to Mike for making it a great day. He even cooked barbeque chicken and beans for every competitor!
At the end of the day I, (Ben Mohlie) had 56 battle points, as did a gentlemen named Clark Welch. The TO decided to use total victory points over the course of the day as a tie breaker, and Clark had more, so he took 1st place and I got 2nd. Third place was won by a really nice guy playing blood angels from, I think, north carolina. (could be wrong about the state, but im sure he was nice) I played space wolves with lots of walking wolf guard and long fangs, and I believe Clark played chaos marines.
Congratulations to Clark and to the third place blood angels guy!
We all now have golden tickets, so I will seek my revenge on Clark in Vegas .
I went Chicago with a friend who played elder and got 12th. Almost all the top dozen were IG, wolves,Nids,orks. Out of the 46 there I saw...no crons,no tau,no dark elves. Probably 10 IG, 8 wolves ,7 Nids ,6 orks a mix of SM, 2 demons, 3 CSM,2 blood angels, 3 eldar. It looked to be ran really well and fights were kept to a minimum, good gaming day. Also the Chicago bunker was great and the employees were really helpful and Damn good salesmen, as I know own the beginning of my fantasy army lol.
The break down for Chicago 'ardz went like this:
9 IG 7 Space Marines (4 salmanders) (1 Khan list) (1 Shrike list) (1 Ultra marine list)
7 Tyrnids
6 Orks
6 Space Wolves (4 with Thundercav, 2 w/o)
3 Eldar
3 Chaos Marines
2 Demons
2 Blood Angles (one was a counts as BA)
1 Black Templar
total of 46 Players
The tops 5 tables pairings were:
Top Table was Mech IG vrs Thundercav and Drops Pods
Mech IG lost one Demolisher and all but shot dead the Thundercav. All the Space wolf player had on the table was a fleeing Greyhunter with Wolfguard in Termi armour, a Drop pod and another pinned unit of two grey hunters when the game ended on turn 5
The next Table was Orks vrs Mech IG. The ork player basically green tide the IG player and literally drowned him in bodies and massacred the IG Player.
The third Table was Mech Eldar vrs All Drop Pod Space Wolves List, I know the Space wolf player massacred the Mech Eldar player but I didnt watch that game.
The 4 and 5 Tables where both Tyranids vrs Mech IG.
The winning IG for Chicago was as follows:
1 CCS w/ meltaguns, Officer of the Fleet, Astropath in a Chimera 195
1 Lord Inquisitor w/ 3 Mystics, Psycannon, Psychic Hood, and Tarot 128
1 Callidus Assassin 120
1 Full Pysker battle Squad with Chimera 165
2 Vet Squads w/ 3 Plasma Guns, Lascannon and Chimera 190 each
2 Vet Squads w/ 3 Melta Guns and a Chimera 155 each
1 Platoon:
Platoon Command w/ 4 flamers and a Chimera 105
1 Barebones squad w/ a chimera for the Lord IQ for 105
1 Barebones squad 50
3 Vendettas 390
1 Demoliser w/ Plasma Cannons and a Hull Lascannon 220
1 Battle Tank w/ Sponoon and Hull Heavy bolters 170
1 Maticore
2498
I went there to watch this year I noticed the only actually Blood Angels player there literally had 27 models on the board. No I mean vehicles, characters, troops, and dreadnought he had a total of 27 models! He had no scoring units! From what I saw he had Sanguire, Astorth, Corbulo, 2 Sag Priest, 7 termies (mix of lighting claws and thunderhammer stormshields) a Landraider Redeemer, 2 Stormravens with 4 blood strike missles each, 1 dreadnought with double blood talons, another with magna grapple and something else. 2 5 man Death Company troops one with Lamerties and two barebones Flamestorm Baal Predators.
I'm not sure on the spelling but he got screwed for the first mission because it was the peace talks but he tabled his next two opponents.
From watching all the games nids are not a tier one list right now even with a 5th edition codex, Neither are the Blood Angles, especially with the fact that the codex doesn't even match the fluff on any level. The nids have nothing can stop a tricked out Wolf Lord or the insane IG firepower. IG and Wolves are the top codexs with Orks still holding strong. I think The Eldar, CSM and Nids are the tier two Codexs and all other codexs just can't hang.
Black Blow Fly wrote:Seems like you have contradicted yourself claiming BA are not top tier but seemed to have also praised the one you mentioned.
Thanks for the update, it is very interesting to know.
G
Hmmm, True I stand corrected! I'm still mixed on the Blood Angles. The best builds coming out the codex are all mech baal predator, razorback, vindicator spam but this is as far removed polar opposite from the Blood Angles fluff.
Personal I think Matt Ward royally screwed up the book and should be fired for it!
edit:
Caveat, I'm a IG player, I have no marines and never have any intention of picking and playing those genetically modified freaks!
I'll have to give him a hard time about that typo...
his name is Twitchell
I blame it all on Al trying unsuccessful to read players handwritten on the sign in list. He doesn't know his ABC's at the best of times.)
If we maimed anyones name too bad, PM me and I'll fix it.
Looking at that list it seems the Chaos Marine player really won hands down. 6800+ Victory Points out of a possible 8000 is insane!
I'm curious how he handled the Peace talk mission as that one seemed have fail written all over it. In fact all the missions where rather poorly written and rather badly thought out.
Just my 2 cents.
I think Mech IG is the top tier. Wolves are probably the next best codex. People just need a little more time to get the BA up there. I just think, not to take anything away from guard players, but someone who has never ran guard but knows the game, can run guard and do well. I dont mean win major tournaments, but throw 100 S6 and S5 shots as well as 15 lascannons and a few S7-10 large blasts, and you can shoot a lot of problems off the board. People who have never run wolves but know the game wont have the initial success. It takes a bit more practice. That being said, at the Ard Boyz level its probably more the player than the actual codex.
I think in the hands of a good player any codex from Eldar forward have good chances of competeing. The Mech IG still is the strongest build though as it can really leave some builds dead in the water after turn 1.
Black Blow Fly wrote:So far no reports of any shenanigans. Nice.
G
I played an iyanden style eldar list and pulled third, I had most battlepoints going into third round and needed anything but a minor loss (which I got) to get first lol.
My third round opponent (who got second) had a spacewolf list with razorback spam and as many heavy weapons you could fit. In our game I whent to the bathroom once during my opponents move phase turn 4 and while in the bathroom he put a unit in a transport and forgot to tell me when I got back, it was that tank with greyhunters that got the primary objective on turn 5/6 to my surprise, I was like, "when did you put guys in that tank?". "oh, I forgot to tell you, I did that when you whent to the bathroom sorry!".
I'm sure it was an honest mistake, he was a great sport and very nice guy so I'm glad he got to place at all and hope to see him at Los vegas next year!
The demon player had fantasy cold ones proxied as some demon stuff, shady proxies all around but oh well, he won and it's over so we'll see what happens next year.
The guy who ran the LA tourny was really nice and professional and I'm glad with how things turned out in the end.
1) Plaudits to Mikhaila for a VERY WELL-RUN event. His tables/scenery were great, his store was top-notch, and he brought lunch for the players; at a free event, no less- can't beat that.
2) Congrats to Clark- he whooped my tail in the first game- glad to see it was towards a good end
Wow! The guy who took 3rd for the East Coast is a guy from my shop who I played in the Prelims and have known for years. He has been chasing Finals since 'Ard Boyz started and, despite being injured in a grill-related accident the weekend prior, he managed to pull out a third place win. That is awesome!
The 23-27 model army you are talking about is one me and the general who took it (Delgado) worked on. It's not perfect and it obviously has no scoring units, BUT it definitely feels like Blood Angels.
---
The mech BA just don't seem like BA to me. It's just built around moving vehicles 12" and firing. Not the dudes inside. (Call me a purest!) askdf;ks;dkflasdkfdks
---
Though Steven (3rd place winner in philly) is a cool guy. Have got to meet him a few times. Grats to him on a job well done!
I attended the 'Ard Boyz Finals in Media with Necrons, fairly certain I was the only one using Necrons in all of 'Ard Boyz Finals. I had the honor of playing, and drawing the gentle man who came in third. I finished 1-1-1 shooting par for the day. I only hope I'll be able to reach the Finals again next year.
I had a good time at the finals. I had 3 good opponents and 3 good games.The gaming atmosphere was great, the finalists were all very likable players with no sign of TFG, and the final missions has a little bit of variety from the core missions without being crazy game breaking missions. My only complaints were I think my own game was off from not playing for over 3 weeks because of the wife's surgery, and the venue was hot.
I think I placed 8th of 17 after a major victory, tie, and minor victory after 3 good games.
1st game was against Tau of all armies. His list was a solid tau list, but it was a total mismatch in my favor. Solid all comers Tau lists like the one I played have severe problems when fighting a BA jump list that has no vehicles. A lot of points were spent on railguns and str7 Tau missiles which are very effective weapons against most armies, just not my list which is highly vulnerable to Tau plasma. Fortunately he was a very good tau player, and slippery as hell so we actually had a good game. I got a major victory out of game #1. The match up was lucky for me and unlucky for him, the guy was really good with the tau and would have done a lot better in the tournament if he was matched up against mechanized opponents.
2nd game was against nids, and it was a total bloodbath. He had a unit of flying shrieks with lash whips and bone swords, the swarmlord, and 2 big units of genestealers. He had strong standard anti MEQ nid tactics, but he should have been more aggressive with his trygon and should not have outflanked with his genestealers. He was a good player, he just was not on top of capitalizing on the weakness of a jump list army and missed a couple opportunities to jump on me where I was weakest. On the other had he made no mistakes I could capitalize on, and his list + tactics were to solid for me to get a real upper hand on him. We ended the game with be being about 300 or so victory points on top which wasn't good enough for even a minor victory (500 required) resulting in a tie.
3rd game was against Sean Harrington's nids, and it was also a total bloodbath. I was really looking forward to this game because I missed the chance of fighting his list in the semi finals. I knew I didn't have much of a chance to get anything more than a minor victory if I won, and was certain to get a loss if I made any screw ups, but none of that mattered because the round 2 tie already knocked my out of the runnings so I was just happy we finally got matched up against each other. Sean decided to take the 2nd turn. Spore mines fubared my deployment, I used scout moves to position my bikes for turn 1 charge his biovores and rapid fire into genestealers that were in the open, and he stole the initiative. From that point we we pretty much kicked the crap out of each other with him always having a slight upper hand. The Doom really messed up my battle planes as I basically lost a turn gunning it down from near maximum melta range resulting in his genestealers getting off a charge. By turn 5 both of us lost the majority of our armies, though I lost more. At that point we were the last table playing and only had about 10 minutes left. The game ended with me charging genestealers on the 3 point objective with everything I had left except a sanguinary priest who detached from the squad to contest the middle objective. I got the genestealers and the 3 point objective, he had the right hand objective and a lot more kill points than me making it the objective worth an extra point ending in a 3/2 minor victory. Stealing the initiative really kicked the crap out of my army, but against an army as fast as mine having the last turn in a timed tournament game was the only thing that let me win.
I saw the 1st and 3rd place armies. The 3rd place wraithguard army was well painted and looked really good on the field. The 1st place deamon army had some unusual elements. Plaguebearers for objective holding troops and 3 nurgle deamon princes was stuff I've seen before. What was different was he had a lot of fiends, a lot of screamers, and all his HQ's were tzeentch heralds on flying chariots.
When it comes to tournaments I don't believe in dice luck, it all seems to equalize out in the end. Match up luck is far more important for actual placement with pairings having a huge impact. The nid armies in rounds 2 and 3 were just too solid and played too well for me to win. My army was built to fight mech SM/IG/eldar/Tau. It does fine against Nids, but I don't have a real upper hand so all I got out of rounds 2 and 3 were two great games of 40k that were a lot of fun.
I finished first in chicago with mech IG. Probably 1/2 to 2/3 of the armies there were either IG, Wolves, or Tyranids. I think there were 44 people in total. I finished with 70/72 battle points, 7983 victory points out of 8000. Good games, great opponents, and no drama as far as I could tell.
Lord Severus wrote:I finished first in chicago with mech IG. Probably 1/2 to 2/3 of the armies there were either IG, Wolves, or Tyranids. I think there were 44 people in total. I finished with70/72 battle points, 7983 victory points out of 8000. Good games, great opponents, and no drama as far as I could tell.
70/72 and 7983/8000???
WHOA!
Do you have any battle reports written up for that?
I know Kohl....Lord Severus pretty well and I took the liberty of writing his battle rerports for him in the battle reports section titled Ard Boyz winner.
Looking at the report scores from the East-coast event, they're notably lower than we saw at Chicago. (I was judging and played as the ringer). First place in Chicago had 70 BP and something like 7800ish VP, Second was 69, and third place was 65 (I think).
I'm curious as to how the first-turn roll impacted the games this year. I know that a lot was made about how Nick won first-turn for all his games last year. In Chicago, I know that Alan got the first turn in the last game with his orks vs mech IG, and it sounds like the 1st place guard player got the first turn in his last game too.
How about we talk about that first mission? That was the worst designed mission I have seen from GW in awhile. Forcing you to deploy your units on the table is not a good idea in any format. That would have been great for a Battle mission book or some type of narrative but not Ard boys.
I am sure the Daemons had a field day with that mission.
LA Bunker had:
1 Eldar (Wraithdar Mech hybrid- Mortvie)
3 Tyranids
1 Mech Vulcan List
1 Ghazwagon
1 Tau
5 Blood Angels (nearly all with Mephiston)
5 Wolves (nearly all razor-longwang spam)
Note, no guard players!
There were no overt shennanigans, beyond the usual stuff you get with ego driven competitive players. The Daemon guy who won overall had proxies that stretched the limits of the policy set forth, but his base sizes were at least correct. Looking over all of the armies, I think that they really need to firmly put a "no proxies" rule in place, because when I did list auditing I was still confused about what stuff was on a lot of the armies. Half the armies were fully pained and well done, though.
Yeah, That first mission was veryvery odd. And, like you said, if setup right by a demon player would work wonders for that army. Norbu the Destory, who got 7th at chicago (and is also from madison) played demons there and I beleive he loaded his first wave up, and the had his huge unit of crushers with Icon as the staff unit, which gave him an icon to bring the rest of his first wave in on the first turn.
I was pretty glad I had the 2 throw away platoon squads for that mission.
Note, no guard players!
There were no overt shennanigans, beyond the usual stuff you get with ego driven competitive players. The Daemon guy who won overall had proxies that stretched the limits of the policy set forth, but his base sizes were at least correct. Looking over all of the armies, I think that they really need to firmly put a "no proxies" rule in place, because when I did list auditing I was still confused about what stuff was on a lot of the armies. Half the armies were fully pained and well done, though.
W00t! now my ego is fully healed. I'm pretty sure the guy who knocked me out of Prelims is the West Coast overall. At least when I lose, I lose in style.
And any of you TO's have the PDF of the Missions? I like to have variety at home and am curious.
Mission 1: Yeah, as judge, that mission was a nightmare. How does it work with drop-pods? My only HQ is a monstrous creature, how's that work? If my 'staff' unit has scout, can I move them before the game begins? - There were more mission-related questions on that one than on the other two combined.
Redbeard wrote:Where's the line between 'counts-as' and 'proxy'?
Mission 1: Yeah, as judge, that mission was a nightmare. How does it work with drop-pods? My only HQ is a monstrous creature, how's that work? If my 'staff' unit has scout, can I move them before the game begins? - There were more mission-related questions on that one than on the other two combined.
Biggest thing is we had to deploy units out there. Honestly Alex it seemed like the missions were written last minute or pull from a old file and they didn't know what to do.
I dont get it.. They release missions for prelims and semis early and then edit them 3 times due to feedback
Why? Because the first version wasnt very good and confusing... So during the most competitive round they.. dont do any of the positive things they did before in regards to missions? Amusing yet typical
Whats up with LA having like no players? I thought the west coast had tons of qualifiers
We had a ton of first round events. And then only 2 Qualifiers in the entire state of California. 1 in Arizona. 1 in Orgeon/Washington (I think, could be wrong). There might have been 1 more. So it's to be expected that only 8-12 peopled showed. Someone did a map of the Semi's back when it was released and just looking at it you can see the ridiculous dispersal of Semi's heavily weighted to the east coast. For gods sake, Florida had 3....A state with half our population and half the stores...
Lord Severus wrote:Yeah, That first mission was veryvery odd. And, like you said, if setup right by a demon player would work wonders for that army. Norbu the Destory, who got 7th at chicago (and is also from madison) played demons there and I beleive he loaded his first wave up, and the had his huge unit of crushers with Icon as the staff unit, which gave him an icon to bring the rest of his first wave in on the first turn.
Remember, they cannot use the icons on the turn they come in, meaning they can never use their icons on turn 1.
Oh, and congrats on your finish. Awesome job. IG is the strongest.
New York, Texas, Florida and California are the four most heavily populated states. Florida has quite a few of the best players in the country and a lot of very good ones as well.
PA had 2 as well and its a pretty large state (square miles anyway).. I imagine part of the semi-finals issue is GW wants to give out less prizes and the big partner stores want more customers as incentive to run semi-final events which cuts out the smaller shops
The second mission was kind of silly, you picked one unit that was not vehicle or MC to be a negotiatior, that one counted as being charging (enemy got charge bonuses too) and 2 units of troops and an hq to be observers then rest of army came on turn 1.
I chose harlequins to be staff and wraithguard/eldrad to be observers and since I had first turn I hit and ran out of combat and shot the squad up with WG. Pretty silly mission. The first and third were more straight forward and tactical.
First mission was 5 objectives. You rolled a d6 for terrain, on a 1-3 it gave +1 cover save, on a 4-6 it was on fire and dangerous terrain. person with most objectives won.
Third was 1 objective in middle and 2 18" away from it all along middle of table. On turn 4 you rolled to see which one was primary and that one was worth 3 points, the rest were 1 but person with most KP could make one worth 2 kp. Random game length was interesting on all missions.
Overall, a decent set of missions that were actually fun and fair.
In the second mission, you had a choice of having observers or not and the staff thing wasn't that big of a deal.
mortetvie wrote:The second mission was kind of silly, you picked one unit that was not vehicle or MC to be a negotiatior, that one counted as being charging (enemy got charge bonuses too) and 2 units of troops and an hq to be observers then rest of army came on turn 1.
I chose harlequins to be staff and wraithguard/eldrad to be observers and since I had first turn I hit and ran out of combat and shot the squad up with WG. Pretty silly mission. The first and third were more straight forward and tactical.
First mission was 5 objectives. You rolled a d6 for terrain, on a 1-3 it gave +1 cover save, on a 4-6 it was on fire and dangerous terrain. person with most objectives won.
Third was 1 objective in middle and 2 18" away from it all along middle of table. On turn 4 you rolled to see which one was primary and that one was worth 3 points, the rest were 1 but person with most KP could make one worth 2 kp. Random game length was interesting on all missions.
Overall, a decent set of missions that were actually fun and fair.
In the second mission, you had a choice of having observers or not and the staff thing wasn't that big of a deal.
I don't think it was a choice. We understood as you had to deploy your guys on the table for it. As it had the words you must and we had to force people t put a staff out there also.
What Darkwynn said - the mission clearly said that you must deploy your staff and observers (and, it didn't make sense to have negotiations without negotiators too... not that it made sense to have tyranids negotiate with daemons at all).
I didn't really see that as such a horrible thing though. Unless you want all your missions to be one of the nine possible combinations from the rulebook, at some point you need to see alternate deployments or victory conditions.
I think it would have been more fun if that initial staff fight counted for something - if whoever's staff won that combat got first turn (defaulting to the prior roll in the case of a tie).
As for the daemon/icon thing (@jy2), it's entirely legal to deep strike to an icon that was placed on the table during deployment. The Icon rules (Daemon codex, pp 73) state "...provided that the icon was on the table from the beginning of the turn and has not arrived from Reserve in the same turn." Deployment happens before turn 1, so any icon deployed on the table is available for daemons arriving on turn 1 to use.
No offense Kirasu but PA probably has 1/4 the square mileage and 1/3 the population. Florida is closer in mileage but not to much in population. The point being that they royally boned the West Coast on Semi Locations which is why there was a poor turnout on the West Coast That and the change to a regional championship really didn't help as most people like to reserve plane flights more than 2 weeks out due to cost.
As for Florida having some of the best players in the US we'll just have to take you word BBF. You've got at least one with Dash having moved back Hope some of them make it out to the Open.
I'm not saying anything negative about anybody BBF. I'm pointing out that stating you have some of the best players in the country is a bit much when you haven't made it out West
Personally I don't think there is a solid "top" level of 40k players. The game itself is to random and the tournament circuit not codified to field the winniest against the winniest
Marc Parker, based on his GT record, is probably a very good player. But saying he's one of the best in the country is something he might not even say
As for clubbing baby seals.. I imagine there are many secret powers that may emerge from their clubbing. Science has yet to fully research the cosmic power attained from such activities
Yeah buddy! I'm looking forward to seeing all the winner's in Vegas next year! Maybe Mortetvie will even make it out to a tournament other than Ard Boyz
Hulksmash wrote:I'm not saying anything negative about anybody BBF. I'm pointing out that stating you have some of the best players in the country is a bit much when you haven't made it out West
Personally I don't think there is a solid "top" level of 40k players. The game itself is to random and the tournament circuit not codified to field the winniest against the winniest
Marc Parker, based on his GT record, is probably a very good player. But saying he's one of the best in the country is something he might not even say
Marc has won 7 or more GTs. He is respected by a lot of the better players in the country. I am guessing you are somewhat new to the scene based upon what you said.
I have played around the country and found Florida to have the highest level of competition.
The second mission did not specifically require observers to be placed and it was entirely possible that someone could have an army without two legal observer units, so I ruled the Staff as mandatory and the observers as optional (since the rest of the rules basically immitated Dawn of War anyhow). The mission was busted enough as it was, with the Salamander guy dropping a 10 man assault term unit as his Staff unit. That was a really half assed adaptation of an old Fantasy mission that really needed some community feedback and testing.
The second mission did not specifically require observers to be placed
Here is what the mission (which I am looking at right now) said as far as placing observers:
The player going first must deploy his observers andywhere in his deployment zone that is at least 18" away from the center of the table. Player two must then deploy his observers in a similar manner.
The inclusion of the word MUST seems to me like you must place observers.
I think redbeard handled it right with his ruling in chicago on making you deploy Monstrous HQ's if thats all you had.
Redbeard did an excellent job on the ruling for the first mission at Chicago. It was just a very poorly conceived and executed mission on GW's part. I don't think it had a significant impact in the overall standings, but it was still a disappointing mission for a lot of armies.
BBF: Marc has won 7 or more GTs. He is respected by a lot of the better players in the country. I am guessing you are somewhat new to the scene based upon what you said.
Looking at the online Rankings Hulk is way ahead of Marc IRT tournaments and national ranking. Hulk aint a noob.
As for "the scene"...would that be the Florida scene or the California scene or the Texas scene? 4 of the top 10 players are cali based. each area has it's 'scene.' Alot of people in different geographic areas may be The man in that area...but that dosn't mean squat 3000 miles away where the 'best of all Florida' is NOT a 40K household name.
Really, how many people in Florida can say they consistently play the #1 player in the country? I play him every month or so (and have learned to lose brilliantly to him...meaning I can win poorly to alot of other top tier players)...but does that make me (or the #1 guy) a big nmae in Florida?
(PS) Don't let the "1 post new guy thing" sway you. My previous account is messed up so I've popped in under a new account (no, I wasn't banned...just a password vs username bit-mix).
Glad eldar made it into the top 9 players. Not even completely mechanized either.
Damned space wolves.
@BBF:
Unless you have GT results that included players from all over the country, and floridaians placed abnormally higher than the others, or some other kind of proof... shut it.
Redbeard:
RQRankings.com
TOs (from RTTs to GTs) send them the results. They post your history and use your top 3 for the current year to run a ranking system. They also host for worldwide if your curious.
If your not in, sign up and any results sent in will give you an instant result.
Kell553 wrote: 4 of the top 10 players are cali based
According to what criteria?
That'd be a rudimentary ranking system that's rather heavily weighted to CA tournaments (as they are most likely to get their results input).
*edit: Don't get me wrong - I appreciate what they're trying to do. But it's hard to take any assertions of "top 10" with too much seriousness, given that many "major" events aren't included, and various local-area tournaments are.
I don't know that you can claim that 4 of the 10 best players are from California based on a site that may, or may not, contain relevant data from outside of California.
I'm almost positive that Chicago results aren't entered on that site.
On GW's site, you can still find the 2008 tournament circuit results. I think 5 of the top ten on that list are from the midwest, with another 2 or 3 from Florida, and at least one from Atlanta. That doesn't leave room for 4 from Cali...
Kell553 wrote:BBF: Marc has won 7 or more GTs. He is respected by a lot of the better players in the country. I am guessing you are somewhat new to the scene based upon what you said.
Looking at the online Rankings Hulk is way ahead of Marc IRT tournaments and national ranking. Hulk aint a noob.
As for "the scene"...would that be the Florida scene or the California scene or the Texas scene? 4 of the top 10 players are cali based. each area has it's 'scene.' Alot of people in different geographic areas may be The man in that area...but that dosn't mean squat 3000 miles away where the 'best of all Florida' is NOT a 40K household name.
Really, how many people in Florida can say they consistently play the #1 player in the country? I play him every month or so (and have learned to lose brilliantly to him...meaning I can win poorly to alot of other top tier players)...but does that make me (or the #1 guy) a big nmae in Florida?
(PS) Don't let the "1 post new guy thing" sway you. My previous account is messed up so I've popped in under a new account (no, I wasn't banned...just a password vs username bit-mix).
Everybody knows the best 40k player in the world is Greg Sparks.
Easy boys. If your TO dosn't send results in, well maybe you should ping on him to do so (it aint hard). I've noticed a few Tournies I was in haven't been sent and I've sent followups to TOs about that.
As for Chicago results..Adepticon results are rather prominent. Again, if you guys are holding other event (RTTs, etc) not listed, thats on you and the TOs to decide what you want to do about it.
Their is now a system in place that ranks players world wide based on set criteria. If you don't avail yourselves of using that system then you really have no place to complain when your not listed.
Much better than having to figure out if the Ard Boyz winner or Adepticon Winner of BolsCon or even the Broadside Bash winner is the number 1 guy. This looks at the average of your 3 best wins to help alleviate factors like getting matched up with baby seals, great dice rolling on a set day, and other luck (good and bad) factors.
Elthniar wrote:Redbeard did an excellent job on the ruling for the first mission at Chicago. It was just a very poorly conceived and executed mission on GW's part. I don't think it had a significant impact in the overall standings, but it was still a disappointing mission for a lot of armies.
Correct and I think Alex did a great job from what I saw for judging and handling rule issues. That being said that mission was horrible and I think it affected a lot of people. I know playing My opponent who won fair and square but he got to get two assaults on me before turn 1. I couldn't do anything about it. Having to force your opponent to put certain things on the table or in a setup for situations you don't want doesn't make for a good mission.
I also know a couple of daemon players who just had a field day along with other nid players. It gives advantages to certain armies and disadvantages to others which shouldn't be the case.
Is there something special about 2010 that the results so far from this year count for more than say the past decade? I don't think so. Marc won the vast majority of his GTs at GW events that had lots of players around the country, not Indy GTs with a much smaller showing and localized. I have played in events in California and players from California in events outside of the state. I remember a group from Southern California that included players such as Jason Witten & Darrien13... These are the guys who seemed very strong to me when they were playing in national tournaments. I'm not slagging California by any means but to hang your hat on some Indy GTs is not that impressive to me. Another top gamer is Bill Kim from the Chicago area. It's just my opinion so don't get too worked up over it.
What I have found playing in FL over the past 6 years or so is there are plenty of very competitive gamers here and plenty of tournaments every weekend to hone your skills. If I wanted to I could play in a tournament every weekend here in central Florida. If you look at the final results from Ard Boyz the majority of those finishing in the top three each year are from Florida. Darkwynn used to live here in central Florida as well before moving to Texas.
Sure California has a larger population... from the sounds of it all it appears southern California is the most competitive area for that state. There are certainly lots of very strong players in SoCal such as Jankthin and others.
Lol, hulksmash. I have not had a fully painted army in 7 years wich makes scoring in tournaments kinda hard:(. But I've made it to a few Rtts every now and again! I'm working on painting up my eldar though so see everyone in Vegas next year!
Don't forget to add Clark Welch to the ranks of Ard Boyz. He is from central Florida as well and won 1st place in PA this past Saturday. The second place finalist last year is from Florida as well.
Kell553 wrote:Easy boys. If your TO dosn't send results in, well maybe you should ping on him to do so (it aint hard). I've noticed a few Tournies I was in haven't been sent and I've sent followups to TOs about that.
...
Their is now a system in place that ranks players world wide based on set criteria. If you don't avail yourselves of using that system then you really have no place to complain when your not listed...
Or maybe we just don't care that much. "There is now a system" - you know, you need to sell it better than that. As GBF points out, why is this year's data worth something when the last 10 years data isn't?
Personally, I think it is all a big joke. I mean, we're playing toy soldiers. Best in the world at toy soldiers isn't exactly like being Chess Champion. Fisher, Karpov, Kasparov... people know those names. Being top 40k player isn't going to make anyone's obituary. All sites like this do is pad the egos of the people who care about their toy soldier stats enough to send results in.
Everybody knows the best 40k player in the world is Greg Sparks.
So good in fact - that RankingsHQ isn't qualified enough to have me on their list. Damn - have to quit organizing events and actually play more.
@Kell553 - just to give you an idea of how screwed up RankingsHQ's system is - check this out:
Dave Fay - 3rd place in a 47 person event and he gets 90 points.
vs (for example)
Eric Hobin - 2nd place in a 110 person event and he gets 59.45 points.
Not to subtract from the rankings of people, but when you see this type of discrepancy it is hard to take it seriously.
Everybody knows the best 40k player in the world is Greg Sparks.
So good in fact - that RankingsHQ isn't qualified enough to have me on their list. Damn - have to quit organizing events and actually play more.
@Kell553 - just to give you an idea of how screwed up RankingsHQ's system is - check this out:
Dave Fay - 3rd place in a 47 person event and he gets 90 points.
vs (for example)
Eric Hobin - 2nd place in a 110 person event and he gets 59.45 points.
Not to subtract from the rankings of people, but when you see this type of discrepancy it is hard to take it seriously.
Was Adepticon only 3 rounds? if so that would explain why Eric only received a 59.45. If it was 5 rounds he would have gotten 99.09.
The ranking for each player is calculated by adding their best three (3) scores over the last 12 months. The maximum a player can score out of a single tournament is 100 points, and that is done by winning an event that has 60 players or more.
Tournaments require 5 rounds or more to qualify for the total points allocation, events with 4 rounds score 80% of the total and events with 3 score 60% of the total.
The best army general icons are worked out by adding the best three (3) scores a player gains using that army over the last 12 months.
FYI I started playing Fantsay in RI, then I moved to Miami FL, and then San Diego for the last ten years. So can I claim multiple regions ?
I agree that there are alot of strong players in every corner and by no means consider myself #1.
RankingHQ only counts the best 3 games in the year. It would be cool to see historical data.
I think rankinghq is a good comparison tool to see whats going on in the world but not a comparison of US players.
The US is to big and it's not feasible to travel to every event unlike the UK.
Alot of the "top UK players" have the Throne of skulls tourneys factored into thier score which I think are 5 round 1750 gt's with over 100 players.
Personally I think Rankings HQ is hilarious in that I am nowhere near the 8th "best" player in the country. And sadly after they add in the LA Conquest joke of a GT I'll move up to number 3 I think which is even more hilarious
I'm not diggin on Marc. I have heard of him, if only when he ran over the scene with his Orks last year or the year before. He's probably a good player. Probably has to be to score as high as he does regularly. But I don't think there is a group of the "best" players. It's all to random and unorganized. If we solidify the circuit and have consistant styles of events then that changes a little. But as it is there isn't a yardstick for the "best" players and I think claiming any area in the US is home to some of them is just silly.
Sorry GBF. It's not about "proof". It's about me personally believing there is no upper echelon of players. I won't belittle Marc's wins. He deserved them and like i've said multiple times he's probably a very solid player. I just don't hold to anyone being the "best" or even one of the "best" at playing a game that involves so much randomness. For some reason you seem to see this as a personal attack against Marc which it isn't. It's a personal view on the sillyness of saying someone is one of the best at playing with little plastic toy soldiers
Sure comes across as you trying to knock him down a peg or two. If you had some GWGT wins under your belt, an Adepticon gladiator title or Ard Boyz win then I would put more stock in your opinion. Seems like you were saying pretty much the same thing about the ETC. You are basically dismissing what we have to go on up to now in an attempt to rationalize your stance, it's a slippery slope at best to me. Sure you can just say " Hey it's just a game of toy soldiers." but people sure do seem to take serious at times.
Black Blow Fly wrote:Sure comes across as you trying to knock him down a peg or two. If you had some GWGT wins under your belt, an Adepticon gladiator title or Ard Boyz win then I would put more stock in your opinion. Seems like you were saying pretty much the same thing about the ETC. You are basically dismissing what we have to go on up to now in an attempt to rationalize your stance, it's a slippery slope at best to me. Sure you can just say " Hey it's just a game of toy soldiers." but people sure do seem to take serious at times.
G
You seem to be putting plenty of stock into his opinion...
Hulksmash: I think you're making a distinction without a difference. If a person wins a lot of events, it's pretty safe to say they're an elite player.
I don't' know how large of an upper echelon you're uncomfortable with, but I'm imagining a few dozen guys at least being the elite of competitive 40k.
Just because there are dice and plastic soldiers doesn't mean people can't become pretty good at warhammer. I dont' see why 40k would be one of the few things that is impossible to rank.
It's impossible to rank because most of the guy with major wins and records currently never, ever play each other. Guys like Darkwynn, Dash, Marc to name just a few don't play each other. They play mostly in their local groups and make it to a few larger tournaments (2-4) yearly and of those only one will normally be significantly out of their standard travel zone. And at larger events the chance is that more than one person will finish undefeated. Our country is just to damn big to get everyone together regularly to see who is on top.
I've never said that Marc wasn't a good player. I've stated it over and over again that I'm pretty sure he is. His record speaks for itself. He's a pretty awesome painter and seems a great sport (never heard anything negative said about him which is rare when someone wins like he does). All the things considered I'd happily play him and have a great time I'm sure. I'd buy him a beer and bs after our game win or lose (well he can buy me one if I lose ).
As for the ETC I'm only knocking the format itself GBF. It'll be competitive within itself. I'm not getting on a high horse and screaming that the guys that are going aren't the best or don't represent america. They took the initiative and got a team together. Awesome. Doesn't mean I can't give my comments on the system or the lists taken.
@Polonius
I'll agree that there are probably people out there that are pretty dang good at this game of little toy soldiers we love. But since like I said earlier there is no way to really say who is awesome sauce until we codifiy the actual tournament circuit and everyone who is considered "good" attends. Which simply won't happen. Couldn't help poking BBF mostly when he said Florida has a large group of the best players in the country
@Mort Can't wait to see them all painted. They looked sweet the parts that were last I saw them. VEGAS!!!!!!
All sites like this do is pad the egos of the people who care about their toy soldier stats enough to send results in.
Everyone has an ego. Hence your your own listing of Tournaments and placings. You cared enough to even include which Army you ran.
So, why not a solution? Why not have the "wheels" of the community come up with a standardized (beyond the simplistic INATFAQ) setting for Tournies?
Set # of games depending on the format; 5 for GTs (golden ticket events), 4 for other major events, 3 for local RTTs.
Ard Boyz stays as the unique stepchild it is.
Even # of GT events between geographic regions.
Identical list points AND missions for 'ticketed' events.
Minimum # of players present for the event to qualify.
Standardized scoring system to (hopefully) eliminate all the back-n-forth carping over battle vs comp vs painting...everyone knows what to expect ahead of time (Comp and painting should also be set down in hard rules rather than a subjective guesstimate of some overworked judge who happens to hate baby-blue Marines).
Something like that would do wonders to solidify the entire community, eliminate alot of the angst that always pops up at events (especially in the areas of missions and subjective scoring systems), and put everyone on a relatively level playing field.
IMHO of course.
I'm assuming your talking about me when it comes ot the placings and record. I do have an ego. Never said I didn't. I think i'm pretty good at playing with little toy soldiers. Just don't have a big enough ego to claim myself or people I play are some of the best in the nation The website you refer to is more if TO's care to send in their results. Anybody TO can get his results posted. It's more the mark of a good TO to me than it is the mark of an egotistical player. I just don't think Rankings HQ can work until a full year has gone by and most TO's have put in their tournament records. I wouldn't expect to place higher than the top 20 if all results for 4-5 game events were sent in.
As for a standardized GT system I genuinely wish anyone who wants to try luck. Getting most TO's to change anything of their pet projects is a chore. TO's that put the time and money in generally want to do things the way they want to. And even when they want to make changes they have to move at the pace of the slowest member of their group just so they can put an event on. Of all the TO's I've dealt with Mike from the NovaOpen and Phazael from the SCGWL have been the best two in regards to taking feedback. But even then Phazael has to move at the pace of the his other organizers. I'm sorry to say but it won't happen unless a group of guys all over the US start up a new system from scratch. But I agree that it would be awesome
Hulk: No, not towards you, but more to RedBeard from his quote:
" All sites like this do is pad the egos of the people who care about their toy soldier stats enough to send results in."
He was talking about the Rankings site.
I just pointed out that if results were not important, yu wouldn't see signatures with W/L/D stats piled in.
Agree that change comes slowly, especially when your dealing with someones pet project. Their baby, if you will.
But i'm seeing alot of p1ssing and moaning on different sites; alot of infighting, among some of the top people in the community who have different viewpoints on how a Tournament should be set up.
Just look at the carping going on between the BoLS people and the YTTH (stelek) folks. We are about to have 2 major Tournaments Bols/WarCon and NovaCon. WarCon is 7 games over 2 days (non ticked IIRC) while Nova is set for 4 games on 1 day AND is a ticket event.
Their is a pretty serious hatefest going on between the sites over format, scoring, organization, etc around these 2 events. It's not doing anyone anygood when you have players of influence essentially boycotting other peoples events.
Hulksmash wrote:It's impossible to rank because most of the guy with major wins and records currently never, ever play each other. Guys like Darkwynn, Dash, Marc to name just a few don't play each other. They play mostly in their local groups and make it to a few larger tournaments (2-4) yearly and of those only one will normally be significantly out of their standard travel zone. And at larger events the chance is that more than one person will finish undefeated. Our country is just to damn big to get everyone together regularly to see who is on top.
I beat Darkwynn
Lost to Dash
Tied Marc
...oh and I beat you Hulksmash
Tied Sparks twice!!! (lucky bastard to avoid 2 losses)
Lost to Redbeard
About 50/50 against Dave Fay
And I know the answer of of the question of where there is better 40k: California or Florida.
Your an oddity Blackmoor. You actually travel more than anyone I know for GT's because that's almost the only time you play. And I was actually sad I missed you at the Bash and at the Slaughter. But I guess our points didn't match up this year You gonna make it out to the SoCal Smackdown? No Comp/Sports (well thumbs up/down but its only a total of 8-10 total points out of 150). Your chance to pull in a ticket for this year. And yep, you pulled a win off my last edition Nids which is more than most people could say back then. In fact I think you were 1 of my 2 losses with that army....Damn you!!!!!!
As for the hatefest actually MVB's been really good at staying out of any kind of hating. He's actively discouraging it where he can. It's mostly YTTH's issues with everyone. Don't tar Nova w/that brush. Personally if I could I'd hit up BoLScon to but the wife would friggin kill me if I tried for that and the Nova Open Gotta give BoLScon props. They have a 7 game format which should give them a 7-0 winner as the tourney winner.
p.s. Never said 40k was better in Cali, just challenged that the best players were in Florida
The BEST player in the world on any given day is ME. There is no one I can't beat on any particular day. Conversley, there probably isn't anyone who can't beat me. The blind guy @ Gen Con 2009 scared the hell out of me. Does that mean I expect to lose to a guy cause he's a tourney winner? HA! I'll spread him open like my resume'...
Wow Hulk it's starting to sound like a broken record now. Maybe it's time to give it a little rest. Doesn't seem like you have really convinced anyone yet.
Kell553 wrote:Hulk: No, not towards you, but more to RedBeard from his quote:
" All sites like this do is pad the egos of the people who care about their toy soldier stats enough to send results in."
He was talking about the Rankings site.
I just pointed out that if results were not important, yu wouldn't see signatures with W/L/D stats piled in.
Agree that change comes slowly, especially when your dealing with someones pet project. Their baby, if you will.
But i'm seeing alot of p1ssing and moaning on different sites; alot of infighting, among some of the top people in the community who have different viewpoints on how a Tournament should be set up.
Just look at the carping going on between the BoLS people and the YTTH (stelek) folks. We are about to have 2 major Tournaments Bols/WarCon and NovaCon. WarCon is 7 games over 2 days (non ticked IIRC) while Nova is set for 4 games on 1 day AND is a ticket event.
Their is a pretty serious hatefest going on between the sites over format, scoring, organization, etc around these 2 events. It's not doing anyone anygood when you have players of influence essentially boycotting other peoples events.
No, there's definitely no hatefest between NOVA and WarCon or anyone else. In fact, I've been more in talks w/ other big GT's toward the notion of cooperation than antagonistic behavior.
Stelek at YTTH has promoted the Open pretty heavily b/c he approves of the format. I'd appreciate not being referred to as a YTTH-tourney or anything similar, though. I'm not "his" man and he's not mine. We disagree on a lot, especially tone and style.
Re our event, also, it's a 7 game over 2 day function, but with basically elimination after day 1 for most of the field. This isn't b/c that's the "perfect" way or I think it is, but b/c of our ability to budget a full 2nd day venue in our first year as a "bigger" GT. That said, we've set up a lot of open table gaming on Friday and Sunday, to the best of our budget's ability (for a tourney that is already going to cost me probably close to a grand net negative). Anywho, just think twice before you reference my event inaccurately ... I'm a big fan of everyone getting along.
Regarding "superlatives" in the country ... there are things a lot of us are doing to try and give those who care a forum in which to establish their ranking in some meaningful way (i.e. setting up our own qual system w/ a $2500-cash-prize-styled annual invitational or any number of other ideas), but just keep in mind that RankingsHQ (while far superior to anything else we have right now, and deserving of praise because of it) is difficult to glean any real meaningful stat from, due to its lack of "strength of schedule" measurement, and the wide scope within which one can positively influence his/her ranking.
Through it you can generally presume the top players attend a fair number of events and do well at them, which should imply they are good ("very good" even) ... but throwing about superlatives when there's no real national championship? Careful, it just gets peoples' panties in a bunch unnecessarily, and hearkens back more to net-tween Starcraft/e-game style epeenswagging than "grown-up" competitive wargaming.
Aren't these plastic toy soldiers? I mean who really cares who is the "best" or not? Maybe things like being the "best" parent to your children, or being the "best" person you can be, or better yet being the "best" sportsman, those are things we should be worried about not if my green men beat your yellow men with their fake plastic bullets.
Apparently it does matter to some people and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Many hobbies give out awards for the best, it's part of the reason for doing a hobby. The toy soldiers phrase gets old pretty quick.
I think it needs a little perspective to understand. I play in two flag football leagues, and a slow-pitch softball league. I grew up playing competitive sports.
In each of the "adult" coed leagues I participate in now, they are quite competitive ... people want to win. I don't think that's unreasonable - the rules of each game by nature determine win, lose, or draw. Furthermore, each of us invests around ONE HUNDRED dollars per season in playing! Hey, we want our money's worth, we're going to do our best. At the end of the season, a champion is crowned. If this sounds bizarre to you, I don't know how to help your perspective.
Compare to the traveling GT wargamer. JUST to travel to a SINGLE GT take a wild guess at the minimum cost of attendance? $500+ for an army? $XXX in paint and painting hours and assembly hours? $XXX(X) in travel and hotel costs? $50+ for the tourney fee?
You think they should just all not give a crap what happens after investing all of that to attend? When a certain subset of individuals spends the above EVERY TIME they travel to an Adepticon, a WarCon, a Mechanicon, a NOVA Open, whatever ... they have a right to know how they're doing without someone in the peanut gallery firing shots at them for being stupid or caring too much about "little toy soldiers." Give them a break, and let people be who they want to be.
"Fun" is up to the participant, not the peanut gallery. People should have some right to pursue their idea of fun (especially if it doesn't hurt others, and this really, really doesn't) without those who don't see it the same way jumping their case. I'd love to see our hobby elevate itself ABOVE the internetitis of "someone's gonna ream you" that so many other net-centric hobbies experience.
Ard Boyz is just another branch of "fun" for a lot of participants, so are rankings, so are GT's, etc.
Black Blow Fly wrote:Wow Hulk it's starting to sound like a broken record now. Maybe it's time to give it a little rest. Doesn't seem like you have really convinced anyone yet.
G
I don't note anyone actually disagreeing with him, save for you.
Whereas I see several people (and I'll add myself to that list) disputing that the "best" 40k players are from Florida.
No one's saying Good players are not to be found in Florida, just that there's no objective rubric for making that claim at this point in time.
I'm not a huge fan of rankingshq as it currently exists, but, on the other hand, we have to start somewhere, and at least they're making an effort to develop and foster a tracking system for competitive rankings.
Well you guys talk as if I too am not a competitive gt gamer. I am. I will tell you whats gets old however since that topic got brought up...games getting ruined by all out competitive play, Magic went through this and the game just became not fun because of it, there is a differance between competitve and rediculous and argueing 4 pages of posts worth of who is the best when there is no real way to determine it is STUPID. I go to RTT's GT's and have plenty of wins and certificates to my credit, but do any of you know my name? Ofcourse you dont, because ultimately there is no scoring system to support wins and things of that nature. Lastly do people have the right to purse their idea of fun at the expense of others, because 9 times out of 10 that is what happens, to many people cant have fun unless they are winning. Just something to think about.
That says all my thoughts on the subject you're leaning into with that one, Jenkins.
In summation, though ... everyone has a different set of needs when it comes to what's "enjoyable" for them ... and they should pursue those needs out of self-respect.
That said, sportsmanship is best summed up IMO by a quote from Jesse Owens. When asked about sportsmanship and what "winning" and competing were all about, he said ...
"[Winning] starts with complete command of the fundamentals. Then it takes desire, determination, discipline, and self-sacrifice. And finally, it takes a great deal of love, fairness and respect for your fellow man. Put all these together, and even if you don't win, how can you lose?"
RESPECT for your fellow man is not the same as PANDERING to him. If you bring an army and skillset that vastly outstrips your opponent, you are NOT respecting him if you "play off" or lose on purpose, even in a friendly game. That said, rubbing things in, acting like a total douchetard, cheating, etc. are also behaviors that do not respect him. The person with the weaker list bears the responsibility for respect ALSO ... digging at him b/c your list can't compete with his or b/c you don't like his approach to winning is not necessarily respectful at all either.
I am pretty sure each state has a concentration of really competitive gamers in some location, especially for larger population states lke Florida that more likely has several rather than just one.
MVBrandt wrote:
...
In each of the "adult" coed leagues I participate in now, they are quite competitive ... people want to win. I don't think that's unreasonable - the rules of each game by nature determine win, lose, or draw. Furthermore, each of us invests around ONE HUNDRED dollars per season in playing! Hey, we want our money's worth, we're going to do our best. At the end of the season, a champion is crowned. If this sounds bizarre to you, I don't know how to help your perspective.
Compare to the traveling GT wargamer. JUST to travel to a SINGLE GT take a wild guess at the minimum cost of attendance? $500+ for an army? $XXX in paint and painting hours and assembly hours? $XXX(X) in travel and hotel costs? $50+ for the tourney fee?
You think they should just all not give a crap what happens after investing all of that to attend? When a certain subset of individuals spends the above EVERY TIME they travel to an Adepticon, a WarCon, a Mechanicon, a NOVA Open, whatever ... they have a right to know how they're doing without someone in the peanut gallery firing shots at them for being stupid or caring too much about "little toy soldiers."
...
There's a big difference about caring about winning, being competitive, and trying your best, in essence, things I think all of us should do, and being realistic about the nature of the hobby, the role luck plays in it, and the relevance of your wins.
The nature of our hobby, where we have horribly unbalanced rules, and huge random factors, means that being 'the best' is a meaningless distinction. You can win the tournament you're in currently, but that doesn't even mean you were the best player there, it just means that you played through the matchups you drew the best that day.
Compare this with Chess. I wouldn't stand a chance playing against a Kasparov, even if he gave me a queen advantage. It's just not going to happen. We play 100 games, I lose 100 games. Being 'the best' means something there. 40k? Not even close to the same. I'm a competent 40k player with a solid record behind me. And, yet, on any given day, I could lose a game to someone playing in their first tournament because they brought guard and my daemon's wrong wave landed first and my reserves got screwed.
Even seven games over two days is too little to really establish 'best'. Compare that with M:tG, where their tournaments feature eight rounds of three games each, just to make the cut into a three round elimination series - again each one playing out three games. To win their tournaments, you're playing between 22 and 33 games (if you win the first two against an opponent, you don't play the third).
There is certainly skill involved in 40k, I'm not claiming that there isn't. But, that skill is only partly responsible for game outcome - and far less than the skill factor involved in most athletic competitions. When "skill" in a game can come down to not losing the first-turn roll against a leaf-blower list, maybe the title of 'best' isn't appropriate.
In short, it's totally cool to want to win, to want to compete, and to spend the effort involved in list-building, play-testing and preparing for an event. That's all part of being competitive. But to make ridiculous statements like "4 of the top 10 players are from here" - really? We're playing a game with dice. Without a sample-size far far larger than we're ever going to get, establishing who is the best player is just futile.
I actually agree with you / agree with you on the "4 of the top 10 players" comment, completely. ANY kind of "superlative" statement is just silly.
Wanting to *have* a ranking system, or have a nationalized circuit for "competitors" or something ... that's a fine desire.
Going around calling yourself or your buddies the best? Absurd. At least in the current environment.
That said, luck is only partially responsible, and there are armies that can tackle most or all situations ... "bad match-up" is an overstated phenomenon, presuming you're bringing an appropriate list to your situation.
That says all my thoughts on the subject you're leaning into with that one, Jenkins.
In summation, though ... everyone has a different set of needs when it comes to what's "enjoyable" for them ... and they should pursue those needs out of self-respect.
That said, sportsmanship is best summed up IMO by a quote from Jesse Owens. When asked about sportsmanship and what "winning" and competing were all about, he said ...
"[Winning] starts with complete command of the fundamentals. Then it takes desire, determination, discipline, and self-sacrifice. And finally, it takes a great deal of love, fairness and respect for your fellow man. Put all these together, and even if you don't win, how can you lose?"
RESPECT for your fellow man is not the same as PANDERING to him. If you bring an army and skillset that vastly outstrips your opponent, you are NOT respecting him if you "play off" or lose on purpose, even in a friendly game. That said, rubbing things in, acting like a total douchetard, cheating, etc. are also behaviors that do not respect him. The person with the weaker list bears the responsibility for respect ALSO ... digging at him b/c your list can't compete with his or b/c you don't like his approach to winning is not necessarily respectful at all either.
MVBrandt wrote:
That said, luck is only partially responsible, and there are armies that can tackle most or all situations ... "bad match-up" is an overstated phenomenon, presuming you're bringing an appropriate list to your situation.
That's partially true, but there are also armies that have known weaknesses, and hope to capitalize on their strengths versus their expected opponents. If you expect the field to be 90% meched-up armies and only 10% horde armies, then bringing an army that has a 75% win-rate versus mech and a 15% win-rate against horde is a better overall decision than bringing an army that has a 50% win-rate versus mech and a 50% win-rate versus horde. In a three-game tournament, the total chance of encountering one of those horde armies is still fairly slim (less than 30%), and scoring the wins over mech becomes worth it. Your overall winning percent is higher if you focus on the mech and hope you don't hit the horde.
This is a reasonable way of deciding what army to bring. When it plays out, it can play out big. But, you do run the risk of hitting the matchup you're knowingly hedging against playing. I don't think that this means the list wasn't appropriate to the situation. Using game theory, it was a more appropriate list to bring to the situation, and you just got unlucky...
Let's hypothesize a perfect environment, where this happens:
Every tourney over 32 players in the country that wants to qualifies its top 2 finishers for a National Invitational.
That National Invitational wags a $2,500 cash prize in front of the winner for a winner-take-all event.
Let's place the tournament in the exact middle of the country (wherever that is).
How many of the country's top 2 finishers per event can even afford to attend? Let's say a miracle happens and we get 50% attendance, for a total of 64 players.
The tournament goes pure competitive, and simply does win/loss format using the 40k rulebook and FAQ's, using the VP tiebreaker from the back of the actual rulebook. Nothing else. You play rounds until there's a single undefeated player, who takes home 2 and a half grand with him.
Is this the "best" player in the country?
Impossible, STILL, to determine or say ... and absurd to say. It's the winner of A National Invitational oriented around competitive evaluation, sure ... but half the people who qualified couldn't come, people who weren't able to make a qualifier weren't included in the discussion, they didn't use INAT, or they didn't use some other FAQ, or they didn't use ... whatever.
Do you see where I'm going? Until and unless the hobby is professionalized (and I am not saying it should be), "superlatives" are wasted breath. Stick to calling people AMONG the best, but placing them, ranking them, or saying things like "my state has 4 of the best 10 players in the world." Well, come on now ... nobody is ever going to be able to prove or get consensus on that ... so why go down that road?
Stick to suggesting that the people you play with ROCK at the game, and you'll get agreement and buy-in from about everyone. No?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
That said, luck is only partially responsible, and there are armies that can tackle most or all situations ... "bad match-up" is an overstated phenomenon, presuming you're bringing an appropriate list to your situation.
That's partially true, but there are also armies that have known weaknesses, and hope to capitalize on their strengths versus their expected opponents. If you expect the field to be 90% meched-up armies and only 10% horde armies, then bringing an army that has a 75% win-rate versus mech and a 15% win-rate against horde is a better overall decision than bringing an army that has a 50% win-rate versus mech and a 50% win-rate versus horde. In a three-game tournament, the total chance of encountering one of those horde armies is still fairly slim (less than 30%), and scoring the wins over mech becomes worth it. Your overall winning percent is higher if you focus on the mech and hope you don't hit the horde.
This is a reasonable way of deciding what army to bring. When it plays out, it can play out big. But, you do run the risk of hitting the matchup you're knowingly hedging against playing. I don't think that this means the list wasn't appropriate to the situation. Using game theory, it was a more appropriate list to bring to the situation, and you just got unlucky...
This isn't the theory I personally use ... I take an army with extreme dice redundancy and low odds of things such as: units being pinned or breaking, "missing" all of my anti-tank or anti-infantry shots, being tabled. My goal is never to maximize one portion of my game, but to enable my player skill to "win" against any list and my list's redundancy, resiliency and low vulnerability to the odds to keep it alive until the end, and give me a shot at making it out the other side. If I lose, it's b/c the opponent was superior, rather than he simply had that 15% bad luck match-up against me list vs. list-wise. Your approach is certainly not wrong at all ... just not where I come from, hence my different view of it is all.
Sometimes I think you intentionally don't read a persons full statement or intentionally take things the wrong way. MVB was saying the same thing I have been. Without a codified and standardized circuit and without getting all the "good" players together multiple times a year there is no proper way to say who is the "best". And Karl responded for me to your dig.
@Samples
I don't think we do. I think it's more some of us don't think it's possible to say where the "best" players are from.
Look if someone wins a lot of big GTs they are pretty damn good... no make that really damn good. If you and others think it does not matter then why did a certain someone have a sh*t fit when Marc beat them in Vegas? That is all I am saying. Stop trying to throw others under the bus to prop yerself. And I realize now this has turned into an exercise who will have the last word. Sheesh... stop repeating yourself man.
Wow, angry much over nothing? I don't think I've said a single thing that throw Marc under the bus. Glad your not overreacting anything BBF (this is sarcasm).
No, BBF, that's not what anyone's doing - simmer a little, my friend.
As far as I can tell everyone here thinks Marc is "really damn good." I know for a fact I'm "really damn good." Most know that Hulk is "really damn good." Etc.
The only dispute is if someone started to say "Marc is the best in the country," or "Florida gamers are better than any other state's gamers," etc. Superlatives generate disputes b/c they are impossible to determine in this hobby AT PRESENT and IN the present situation.
Qualifications, though, are NOT impossible to evaluate - Marc is "really damn good." He is not "the best" ... b/c nobody can say that at present. We cool?
sorry Hulk, you're right. Although, I can't help but notice it's mostly my fellow southerners who have instigated this.... go figure lol. But honestly, all this talk of who's best is just flaming this thread to death. It's almost 100% OT.
Black Blow Fly wrote:Sure California has a larger population... from the sounds of it all it appears southern California is the most competitive area for that state. There are certainly lots of very strong players in SoCal such as Jankthin and others.
So, I'm confused. Are we off topic here, or is this some intrinsic part of 'Ardboyz?
Question on missions:
Diplomacy Fails: Holding the center should have some meaning. Deployment for observers should be "may", as in optional, vs. "must". If a player only has MC for an HQ they should/shouldnot deploy? Demons should have to randomize the half that comes in first turn and choose units from that? And icons or no icons useable on turn 1?
Feeback on other missions? or ok.
Feedback on 'Ardboyz in general?
Post here or PM me, and I'll put it in my email to GW. They asked me for feedback on the event.
MVBrandt wrote:
This isn't the theory I personally use ... I take an army with extreme dice redundancy and low odds of things such as: units being pinned or breaking, "missing" all of my anti-tank or anti-infantry shots, being tabled. My goal is never to maximize one portion of my game, but to enable my player skill to "win" against any list and my list's redundancy, resiliency and low vulnerability to the odds to keep it alive until the end, and give me a shot at making it out the other side. If I lose, it's b/c the opponent was superior, rather than he simply had that 15% bad luck match-up against me list vs. list-wise. Your approach is certainly not wrong at all ... just not where I come from, hence my different view of it is all.
And that's a completely reasonable approach as well. It is much like DarthDiggler's and (I think) Blackmoor's, and works really well with most MEQ lists. Thing is, different codexes reward different approaches. Your approach doesn't work so well with Chaos Daemons, for example. There's a 1/3rd chance, right off the bat, that something goes wrong, and you're almost forced into separate units for anti-tank/anti-infantry, so an opponent with one weakness can focus that way. But, even with this in mind, the balanced list idea that you mention does have bad matchups. Maybe not as extreme, but you have to admit that you have a harder fight against some lists than others. Balanced lists are better as reactive lists, in my opinion, whereas focused lists work better if you are a more proactive player and want to force your opponent to react to you.
MVBrandt wrote:
No, BBF, that's not what anyone's doing - simmer a little, my friend.
As far as I can tell everyone here thinks Marc is "really damn good." I know for a fact I'm "really damn good." Most know that Hulk is "really damn good." Etc.
The only dispute is if someone started to say "Marc is the best in the country,"...
Sorry but I dont think Hulk can hold a candle to Marc. Hulk you are okay but not in the same class as Marc. He wont say it so I am saying it for him.
...or "Florida gamers are better than any other state's gamers," etc. Superlatives generate disputes b/c they are impossible to determine in this hobby AT PRESENT and IN the present situation.
What I said was based upon my experience Florida has the most competitive gamers. That is not a blanket statement but I see that is how some are spinning it now.
Qualifications, though, are NOT impossible to evaluate - Marc is "really damn good." He is not "the best" ... b/c nobody can say that at present. We cool?
I said he is one of the best, not the best. I think many will agree with that assessment. This is based upon his phenomenal record.
I think that while BBF is attributing way to much credence to his evidence, I think that Hulk is being overly dismissive to the possibility that tournament records have some meaning outside of their areas.
There is enough cross pollination between groups to at least get an idea of who is an elite player. The list isn't exclusive, but I don't think making the argument that a person that has won multiple GTs is among the elite 40k players is unsupportable; defining elite as having a notably higher than average chance to win a future GT sized event.
There is enough cross pollination between groups to at least get an idea of who is an elite player.
The only problem with this statement is the assumption that editions haven't changed. Someone that won a lot of GTs when 3rd and 4th were around may not do so well in 5th, which makes the "elite" tag difficult to justify.
There is a very human tendency to read too much into too few data points. There is also the very common tendency to do the opposite: to throw out all available date because it's not complete enough.
Are players with multiple GT wins in the top 10 40k players nationwide? Maybe, maybe not. Are they within the top 10%? That seems likelier.
There is enough cross pollination between groups to at least get an idea of who is an elite player.
The only problem with this statement is the assumption that editions haven't changed. Someone that won a lot of GTs when 3rd and 4th were around may not do so well in 5th, which makes the "elite" tag difficult to justify.
I thoguth about that, and that's a big factor. Some players may have only won because of a now disallowed list (Biel tan, iron warriors).
There is still some value to the data. 5th edition is old enough that only looking hard at 5th edition makes sense. What you're doing is actual data analysis, which is better than simply dismissing it wholesale.
Size of events (Even GTs vary dramatically), and frequency of play can be factors as well. A player that enters 8 Gt style events and wins one is less impressive to me than a player that comes in second at the only two he went to.
Also if someone can win with a lot of different armies that is a big factor as well. A n00b can run mech IG or razorspam and do well... Necrons that is another matter altogether.
I'll agree to a top 10%. Since that can still be well over a hundred guys when you start adding up nationwide tournaments. I'd even venture that I'm in that 10% since that's a lot of dudes
I'm only overly dismissive of older GT events where I personally went 4-1 or even 4-0-1 back when the tournament was 60-70% soft scores and painting scores were horribly subjective. Not that winning one wasn't an accomplishment. But there wasn't a chance in hell of some of us winning those events even if we went 5-0 because of our painting style/ability. They did adjust the scoring as it moved forward though that was when they were cutting back majorly on events
@BBF
I don't think you need to say anything for Marc. I'm probably not on his painting level. But I'd be willing to be we'd have a great and close game. I don't see why you have the need to attack others to prop Marc up higher (oh sweet irony!) when he probably doesn't care one way or the other.
Hulk I dont think you would do that well against Marc to be honest. His lists are much more exotic than your net lists you run. But if you think you could give him a game then good on you m8.
BBF does have a point. Florida has a high # of quality players. Infact 2 ard boyz winners came from Florida Clark: Welch and Gareth Hunt. I dont consider any one place the best and I have seen a high competitive scene in the state of Georgia and I know Texas 40k players are not to be taken lightly either. As for the best player, there is no such way to truly measure even with the rankings HQ. Im not much of a fan of e-peen contests but what BBF means to say is that Florida has a strong 40k scene though he used the best as a measure of quantification of how strong the players are. I am sure California has a good share of 40k players and plenty of other areas in the country.
Whenever my SW's list is posted it gets laughs and how does that work. Yep, netlist. Same to my Daemons. Or my Orks. Or my all Jetbike eldar I'm building. Or my BA army (I use Seth for gods sake). I play what I like and work on it till I'm happy with how it performs. Haven't quite dialed in my Daemons or Nids just yet. They're my next projects after my eldar are done Don't judge my tournament lists by what I post here in the army list forum. I'm normally just throwing out random ideas that pop into my head.
@thehod
Well said sir. And if he had use the quantifier "large number of strong" instead of "large number of the best and some other very good" we probably wouldn't be having this conversation
seriously though, it seems like some people are forgetting the number one rule for 40k : have fun. Or maybe my idea of fun is sick and twisted because it doesn't revolve around how much bigger my epeen is than everyone else. I still don't see why it's necessary, or even desirable to be so belligerent about which area has the biggest and baddest toy soldiers players. (yes this is mainly directed at you floridians.) and I still stand by my statement that this thread has been completely hi-jacked and derailed to the point that all that's left is the ashes.
seriously though, it seems like some people are forgetting the number one rule for 40k : have fun. Or maybe my idea of fun is sick and twisted because it doesn't revolve around how much bigger my epeen is than everyone else. I still don't see why it's necessary, or even desirable to be so belligerent about which area has the biggest and baddest toy soldiers players. (yes this is mainly directed at you floridians.) and I still stand by my statement that this thread has been completely hi-jacked and derailed to the point that all that's left is the ashes.
I'm sure after reading that, we're all going to see the error of our ways.
Before this turns into East Coast/West Coast and we lose the 40K equivalent of Tupac and Biggie, let's just chill on the stupid rivalry crap. Go to tournaments, play hard, have fun, and seriously no one cares where you come from.
Until you have a head to head circuit with records consisting of HUNDREDS of games (i.e., won't happen), there will never be any statistically-relevant data to support any "who's best" argument. You might as well have a dance off, it has about the same meaning. If you go out and regularly win large scale tournaments, with a variety of armies, throughout generations, then sure, you can be considered amongst the best. That's pretty much all that you can ever hope to achieve. No one's dismissing the record of guys like Marc Parker; his body of work is enough to "qualify" him to anyone who needs proof. But it is impossible and foolish to state that any one region produces a higher level of play than another. Without anything but anecdotal evidence to support it, much less without any definition of what quantifies high level playing pool, the argument is nothing more than an opinion, and an arrogant one at that.
I just report him every time he says stuff like that.
Same here, weird how that makes at least two of us and the mods do nothing.
Maybe I should become a DCM too. That way I wouldn't get an "official warning" just because someone finds my avatar "suggestive"
Your toaster head avatar was by far the best one ever. Sorry to hear you feel repressed here. One thing I always say is dont cut off your nose to spite yer face.
Can you give me a critique on the missions and what you thought of them.
Copied from the PDF's.
SCORCHED EARTH:
OBJECTIVES
Before the game starts, players will need to place 5
markers on the table, as detailed in 'Seize Ground'
mission on page 91. Ignore the part about d3+2 markers,
and use 5 markers.
MISSION RULES
All pieces of area terrain, and ruined buildings, are either
on fire, or a smoking ruin. After placing objective
markers, roll a D6 for each piece of area terrain, or ruins
(if a model could not be placed in the terrain, you do not
have to roll for it.) and refer to the following table:
1-3 The terrain is on fire and burning. Count the terrain
as dangerous.
4-6 The terrain is a smoking ruin. Models inside the
terrain may add +1 to any cover saves. (If a model
is in terrain, and does not have a cover save, it
does not gain a bonus at all.)
DEPLOYMENT
Spearhead, (page 93)
(Please note, that the first player picks a long table edge,
and deploys his forces into one of the quarters adjacent to
that table edge. Reserves may move onto the board from
anywhere along his long table edge, not just from the
portion in his deployment zone.)
LENGTH OF GAME
Game Length is random: 5-7 Turns.
SPECIAL RULES
Reserve, infiltrate, outflanking, deep strike, scout
LINE OF RETREAT
Units that are forced to flee must move toward their
friendly, long deployment edge.
CALCULATE RESULTS
Calculate kill points as normal. The player scoring the
most kill points may count any objective held as a vital
objective (counts as one more objective than normal)
Consult the table below:
Massacre - 20 pts / 0 for your opponent
You control 4-6 more objectives than your opponent.
Major Victory - 17 pts / 3 pts for your opponent
You control 2-3 more objectives than your opponent.
Minor Victory - 13 pts / 7 pts for your opponent
You control 1 more objective than your opponent, or if
no one controls more objectives, you have more kill
points than your opponent.
Tie - 10 points each
If both players control an equal number of objectives
and have equal kill points, then the game is a tie.
BATTLE POINT MODIFIERS
+1 For having an HQ choice in your opponent’s
deployment zone.
+1 For destroying all enemy Heavy support choices.
+1 For destroying all enemy Troops choices.
+1 For holding one or more objectives in a piece of
terrain that is on fire.
Note: In the case of one player being totally wiped out,
or tabled, the winning player may claim one objective for
each Troops unit he has left in the game, and counts as
having scored more kill points than his opponent.
WHEN DIPLOMACY FAILS:
After decades of horrific fighting, both sides have partially
retreated from the front lines to lick their wounds and let the
diplomats talk a bit while they re-inforce and re-supply. And who
knows? Maybe it’s time to give peace a chance…..or not.
OBJECTIVES
Use the deployment zones as for Pitched Battle on page 92. In
addition, put a small marker in the exact center of the table. This
marker denotes the spot where the ‘peace talks’ will be taking
place. Each player has a limited amount of models that may be
deployed as ‘observers’, and ‘diplomatic staff’, with all other
models held in reserve, or off table and arriving on turn 1
MISSION RULES
Each side has sent two squads of troops with a commander to
monitor the proceedings, and each diplomat has a squad of
bodyguards or ‘staff’, ready to keep him safe from harm.
Observers: Two units of troops, and one HQ unit. These may
not include vehicles, transports, or monstrous creatures.
Staff: One non-vehicle, non-monstrous creature, unit chosen
from troops, elites, fast attack, or heavy support.
Players should each roll a D6 and the highest roll may decide to
go first or second. The player going first must deploy his
Observers anywhere in his deployment zone that is at least 18”
away from the center of the table. Player two must then deploy
his observers in a similar manner.
Player Two must deploy his Staff within 3” of the marker in the
center of the table and on his half of the table. Player One must
then deploy his Staff in a similar manner. (Note that a player
does not have to let his opponent know what his choices are for
Observers or Staff until he is ready to deploy them.)
All other troops will be held off the table at the start of the game,
and follow rules for deployment similar to Dawn of War on page
93. Units may be held in reserve. All units not held in reserve
must move onto the table from their table edge on turn 1.
Chaos Demon armies split their army as per the rules for
Daemonic Assault, with their Observers and Staff taken from the
same half. Observer and Staff units are deployed as per the rules
above. The remainder of the half of the army these units were
taken from Deepstrikes in on the first turn as per the Daemonic
Assault rules. Do not roll to determine which half arrives. Use the
Daemonic Assault rules in subsequent turns for deployment.
Starting the Game:
Someone says or does something wrong, and suddenly the talks
break down into a vicious melee. Each player rolls a dice. The
player that rolls highest will move his Staff unit into base contact
with the enemy Staff unit, ignoring terrain if any. Use all rules for
launching and receiving an assault. The Staff units chosen by
each player will fight one round of close combat with each other
prior to turn 1, with both sides counting as having charged.
Regardless of combat results, the combat is considered a draw,
unless of course, one unit is totally wiped out.
Player Two may then try to steal the initiative, and if successful,
may start turn 1. Otherwise, Player One will start his turn.
DEPLOYMENT
Modified Dawn of War - page 93.
LENGTH OF GAME
Game Length is random: 5-7 Turns.
SPECIAL RULES
Reserve, infiltrate, outflanking, deep strike, scout
LINE OF RETREAT
Units that are forced to flee must move toward their friendly, long
deployment edge.
CALCULATE RESULTS
Calculate Victory points as per page 300 of the 40K rulebook.
In addition, the center of the table is considered a
vital objective. If one player can hold that objective with a
|unit of troops, or with their nominated Staff unit, they receive a
500 pt bonus when calculating Victory points. Consult the
table below:
Massacre - 20 pts / 0 for your opponent
You have 1500 or more VP than your opponent.
Major Victory - 17 pts / 3 pts for your opponent
You have 1000 -1499 more VP than your opponent.
Minor Victory - 13 pts / 7 pts for your opponent
You have 500 - 999 more VP than your opponent.
Tie - 10 points each
The difference in your VPs is 499 or less.
BATTLE POINT MODIFIERS
+1 For killing an enemy HQ unit.
+1 For having a member of your Staff unit alive at the end of the
game.
+1 For destroying the enemy’s Staff unit.
+1 For having all of your HQ units alive at the end
of the game.
HOLD THE LINE!:
“We are the line that does not break. Our faith will hold
back rivers. Though it costs our very lives and our sanity,
the enemy will not cross this line. “
-High Colonel Maximus von Ludwig, moments before the
Orks overran him position in the battle for Clark’s Gulch
OBJECTIVES
3 Objective markers should be placed along the long
center line of the table. One should be placed in the
exact center, equidistant from the short table edges.
The other two should be placed along the center line,
on either side of the center and 18” away from the
center objective.
MISSION RULES
One of the objectives is secretly a primary objective and
if controlled, counts as three objectives. At the top of Turn
4, randomly determine which of the three objectives
counts as primary by rolling a D6.
1-2 its the objective on Player One’s left
3-4 its the center objective
5-6 its the objective on Player One’s right
DEPLOYMENT
Pitched Battle, (page 92)
LENGTH OF GAME
Game Length is random: 5-7 Turns.
SPECIAL RULES
Reserve, infiltrate, outflanking, deep strike, scout
LINE OF RETREAT
Units that are forced to flee must move toward their
friendly, long deployment edge.
CALCULATE RESULTS
Calculate kill points as normal. The player scoring the
most kill points may count any objective held as a vital
objective (counts as one more objective than normal,
and can stack with the primary objective bonus).
Consult the table below:
Massacre - 20 pts / 0 for your opponent
You control 5-6 more objectives than your opponent.
Major Victory - 17 pts / 3 pts
You control 3-4 more objectives than your opponent
Minor Victory - 13 pts / 7 pts
You control 1-2 more objectives than your opponent, or
if no one controls more objectives, you have more kill
points than your opponent.
Tie - 10 points each
If both players control an equal number of objectives
and have the same number of kill points, then the game
is a tie.
BATTLE POINT MODIFIERS
+1 If there are no enemy units on your half of the table.
+1 If you have more units on your opponent’s deployment
zone than they have in yours.
+1 For controlling the primary objective.
+1 For killing the highest point enemy unit.
(Declare one at the beginning of the game in
the case of a tie.)
Note: In the case of one player being totally wiped out,
or tabled, the winning player may claim one objective for
each Troops unit he has left in the game, and counts as
having scored more kill points than his opponent.
The missions were fun and challenging, you had to focus on objectives while killing the right stuff to ensure you keep te objectives. The first and last ones were not biased towards any army style in particular and were ballanced, the second was gimmicky but kinda represents oddball stuff that happens in warefare-not every fight is a pitched battle!
to all about best players, I think there are a lot good players not represented by the gt crowed. Not to brag but to give some "credentials" so to speak I usually place in top 3 in every tournament I go to and have beaten blackmoore several times, beat Jason whitt who placed 3rd in the 2005 lvgt(with old school thousand sons, was only one to win all 5 games at that gt). I beleive I've beaten Dave Fay at an ard boys tournament too when he was using old nids.
There are a lot of players in the woodwork that are not too vocal and I'm sure they, like me, can give anyone else a run for their money.
At least hulls smash can attest to the fact that I am above average, I hope.
As a side note, I think that being able to build a strong list and to understand it is essential to being a good player in tournaments. Knowing what your army can and can't do puts you above the rabble that takes Internet lists to tournaments and gets creamed.
mortetvie wrote:
to all about best players, I think there are a lot good players not represented by the gt crowed. Not to brag but to give some "credentials" so to speak I usually place in top 3 in every tournament I go to and have beaten blackmoore several times, beat Jason whitt who placed 3rd in the 2005 lvgt(with old school thousand sons, was only one to win all 5 games at that gt). I beleive I've beaten Dave Fay at an ard boys tournament too when he was using old nids.
That is why I do not believe in the "Who is the best" arguments. There is no way to really tell because the USA is so huge that the best players will never play each other. Also the regional meta games are very different.
Even when you compare past records over time some people get better, and some people get worse. I know that I am not as good of a player as I have been in the past because Phoenix has a bad 40K scene and I now only play in major tournaments and that makes me rusty without the constant practice.
I have a general idea of who some of the best players are, and then there are people like Mortetvie who is one of the best players I have come across, but he does not leave the LA Battle Bunker.
I came to hear about 'Ard Boyz and I got a soap opera...
I expected to see SW and IG place high but Daemons are a surprise. Credit to all the players in the Finals, just getting there is a feat. I'm hoping to see some good reports from the players involved.
thehod wrote:BBF does have a point. Florida has a high # of quality players. Infact 2 ard boyz winners came from Florida Clark: Welch and Gareth Hunt.
Nick Rose said a couple pages ago that he came from FL as well, b4 going to Texas. So that makes 3 ard boyz winners from FL when counting this years results. Although winning 1 overall event is more impressive that the1/3 win of this year.
Regardless, GO FLORIDA! I may live in NY but I still have home state pride!
mortetvie wrote:
to all about best players, I think there are a lot good players not represented by the gt crowed. Not to brag but to give some "credentials" so to speak I usually place in top 3 in every tournament I go to and have beaten blackmoore several times, beat Jason whitt who placed 3rd in the 2005 lvgt(with old school thousand sons, was only one to win all 5 games at that gt). I beleive I've beaten Dave Fay at an ard boys tournament too when he was using old nids.
That is why I do not believe in the "Who is the best" arguments. There is no way to really tell because the USA is so huge that the best players will never play each other. Also the regional meta games are very different.
Even when you compare past records over time some people get better, and some people get worse. I know that I am not as good of a player as I have been in the past because Phoenix has a bad 40K scene and I now only play in major tournaments and that makes me rusty without the constant practice.
I have a general idea of who some of the best players are, and then there are people like Mortetvie who is one of the best players I have come across, but he does not leave the LA Battle Bunker.
Allan what qualities/characteristics does mortetvie have that make you see him as a top player? Based upon your experience around the country that is saying a lot. Where would you rank someone like Hulksmash in comparison?
SamplesoWoopass wrote:Why do you people actually care whether or not Cali or FL have better players? Are you people getting government grants or something?!?!?
Evidently the ratio of self avowed good players is somehow tied to the level of mortgage delinquencies.
Gavo wrote:Ok, I really don't care about "Who's the best" argument, take it somewhere else.
Can anyone show me the winning 'Ard Boyz lists? I'm really interested in what the 1st place Chaos Daemons and 1st place CSM had for their lists.
For the East Coast finals, the winning chaos list was (from memory- might be off a bit):
2x Daemon Prince, wings, MoS, LoS 1x Summoned Greater Daemon
2x units of Bezerkers w/ icon/PF in Rhinos
2x units of Noise Marines, w/ icon, blastmaster in Rhinos
2x units of Plague Marines, w/ icon, meltaguns in Rhinos
20x Summoned Lesser Daemons
9x Oblits
I played him first round- very good game, competent player.
@Mike and theHod
The missions were fun overall, although the peace talks one needed some clarifications.
+having kill points be a factor in buffing an objective's value was kind of nice, as it made it less likely that someone could force a draw with fast moving vehicles on the latter turns
+the flaming/smoking ruins added a small facet to the round without being over-bearing. Now, if either of us had been playing a gunline, I could see my opinion wavering, but, as it was, that turned out to be the most fun of the three missions for me (even with it being my sole loss).
-no clarity on what MUST be versus MAY be deployed in Peace Talks mission. This mission also uniquely hosed some lists (Necrons without a sacrificial scarab swarm comes to mind)
-MAKE SEIZE THE INITIATIVE STANDARD FOR ALL GAMES. I think that it's one of the most simple ways of making the "I got first turn, I win" style lists ('alpha strike' lists) at least manageable, as it gives a player some small incentive not to stack heavily in favor of a guaranteed first turn.
=variable turn length- I think it's vital for making objective missions playable
=round time limits. East Coast ran at 3 hours/round-- this was PERFECT for these size games. I run horde orks. I manage to finish 90% of my games normally, but when I travel for tournaments, this seems to dwindle quickly with 2 hour/2.5 hour rounds. I'd have to check with Mike, but I think all of the games at the East Coast location went to a natural end (all mine did at least, and I had the second most if not most models with my Ork horde).
Cool, thanks for the list. Wait, he used Lesser Daemons?! This is really not what I expected in 2500 points. The 9x oblits I can see, but I don't think anyone saw lesser daemons, or the noise marines.
Gavo wrote:Ok, I really don't care about "Who's the best" argument, take it somewhere else.
Can anyone show me the winning 'Ard Boyz lists? I'm really interested in what the 1st place Chaos Daemons and 1st place CSM had for their lists.
For the East Coast finals, the winning chaos list was (from memory- might be off a bit):
2x Daemon Prince, wings, MoS, LoS 1x Summoned Greater Daemon
2x units of Bezerkers w/ icon/PF in Rhinos
2x units of Noise Marines, w/ icon, blastmaster in Rhinos
2x units of Plague Marines, w/ icon, meltaguns in Rhinos
20x Summoned Lesser Daemons
9x Oblits
I played him first round- very good game, competent player.
This is almost it. Only one squad of berserkers, 10 strong. The other cult squads were all 5 models.
I played him in round two. Good guy, and he played a very solid game, smartly giving me turn 1, and I could not catch any breaks early, either with shooting or saves for my Oblits. My terminators unfortunately Drew his Berserkers in the round zero assault, giving him a chance to retreat with them and making me have to extend to kill them with Abbaddon on turn 2, or let them retreat. Then he managed to drop Abby with his oblits shooting. I was never able to catch up and wound up with a Minor loss on VPs.
kartofelkopf wrote:[The missions were fun overall, although the peace talks one needed some clarifications.
+having kill points be a factor in buffing an objective's value was kind of nice, as it made it less likely that someone could force a draw with fast moving vehicles on the latter turns
+the flaming/smoking ruins added a small facet to the round without being over-bearing. Now, if either of us had been playing a gunline, I could see my opinion wavering, but, as it was, that turned out to be the most fun of the three missions for me (even with it being my sole loss).
-no clarity on what MUST be versus MAY be deployed in Peace Talks mission. This mission also uniquely hosed some lists (Necrons without a sacrificial scarab swarm comes to mind)
-MAKE SEIZE THE INITIATIVE STANDARD FOR ALL GAMES. I think that it's one of the most simple ways of making the "I got first turn, I win" style lists ('alpha strike' lists) at least manageable, as it gives a player some small incentive not to stack heavily in favor of a guaranteed first turn.
=variable turn length- I think it's vital for making objective missions playable
=round time limits. East Coast ran at 3 hours/round-- this was PERFECT for these size games. I run horde orks. I manage to finish 90% of my games normally, but when I travel for tournaments, this seems to dwindle quickly with 2 hour/2.5 hour rounds. I'd have to check with Mike, but I think all of the games at the East Coast location went to a natural end (all mine did at least, and I had the second most if not most models with my Ork horde).
I agree on all points. Three hours was great. Seize the Initiative and Random Game Length really should be standard for all missions.
The first and third missions were good. The Peace Talks mission was flawed. Forcing (the rules said "must") the players to deploy an HQ and two troops definitely hurt in some matchups. Having this mission give a big VP bonus for the center objective (thus giving an advantage for going second) should have been counterbalanced by Night Fight on turn 1; as it was, going second was a huge advantage because you also got the first real turn of shooting. I also was not very happy with there not being any clarification regarding Monstrous Creature HQs or on whether Lesser Daemons could be deployed in the center, since Chaos Daemons could.
I had a very good time, and was psyched to finally play at Showcase. They run a great event, and have gorgeous terrain, with enough real LOS-blocking terrain stuff to be appropriate for 5th edition, unlike a lot of local storesout there.
I had three very good games. Mike (Twitchell?) in rd 1 with a shooty Logan wolfguard list (six WG squads led by WG termies w/cyclone) supported by long fangs and two units of thunderwolves. Great guy, tough game, managed to pull an Major Win +1 (18pts). He and I actually played on the other table from one another when our teams met in Round 4 of the Adepticon Team Tournament this year, so I've gotten to play against 3/4 of that team now. Very cool.
Second game was against the eventual winner Clark, as I mentioned above. I was behind from the start and he never took his foot off the pedal. I played hard and kept to a Minor Loss + 2, for 9pts.
Third was against Brad Park's Necrons (Deceiver, 7 immortals, 15 destroyers, 3x min warriors, 3 monoliths). Brad was another fun and pleasant opponent, who only made one real error, in charging Abaddon with the big D. Abby smacked him down, and from there I was able to roll over most of the rest of the army. Brad kept 20 warriors hidden in a corner after they came in from reserve, and I wasn't able to get around or through the wall of monoliths fast enough to get to them. Brad also jetted a squad of destroyers to my side of the table on turn 5, and I couldn't kill them before the game ended, costing me a bonus point which didn't matter in the end. Massacre +3 for 23pts.
That was enough to get me 4th of 18, which was tantalizingly close to a golden ticket, but sadly not quite there. Also not quite as good proportionately as last year's performance. But it was definitely a good time, and three more good games.
Mosg wrote:Anyone got a rough draft of the winning Daemon list?
something like this is my guess since this is what he had earlier in hard boyz
4 Heralds so of Tz on Chariots ( Jet Bike )
3 units of Fiends ( Beasts )
3 Winged Demon Princes ( Jump Pack )
1 unit of screamers ( Jet Bike )
1 unit of Flesh Hounds ( Beasts )
Assorted troops ( all slow )
The demon list in the west coast tourney kinda came out of nowhere. The top 2 got just the right result to let the guy from the 4th or 5th table to place =). I was 1" away from getting a minor win over a minor loss which would have put me in first rather than third but that is life and dice =).
I don't believe that the best players will never play each other.
Just have to go to enough tournaments. I've made some pretty decent friendships traveling around to different events and there is always the same few people on the top tables if they're there. It's not a coincidence.
Who has two thumbs and is the best 40k player in the country?
Daemons are definitely a surprise, it says something about the quality of the player and the ability of an old codex; which as a Dark Angels player I am glad to see. Nobody from our shop got past the Semi's but the prelims were quite fun. I'm definitely going to make sure the resident daemon player sees how well they did on the west coast to raise his spirits a bit after having to tie against me
SamplesoWoopass wrote:Why do you people actually care whether or not Cali or FL have better players? Are you people getting government grants or something?!?!?
Evidently the ratio of self avowed good players is somehow tied to the level of mortgage delinquencies.
Unfortunately, I think that comment went way over the heads of most of the readers here
(Being in the lending industry, I totally get it.)
If anyone can fill in the gaps on the Space Wolves lists send me a PM or email. I heard one was razorback spam and the other was foot-slogging, but that's about it.
My name is Adam I got third in west coast with the following list:
eldrad
yriel
8 harlequins with shadowseer, 7 kisses
2X 5 firedragons in wave serpents with stones/twin linked cannons
10 man wraithguard squad with enhance
2X5 dire avengers with wave serpents with stones with twin brightlances
10 man stormguardian squad with 2Xflamers warlock with destructor in wave serpent with stones and twin scatter
2X wraithlords with EML/BL
1 falcon with stones, holofields, scatter laser, cannon.
The guy that got second was named Andy (I played him 3rd round) was space wolf razorback spam and as best I can remember he took:
2 runepriests with the cover save power and something else, a grey knight psychic hood ally
3X elite spacewolf squads in rzorbacks that had twin las and HK missile
6X grey hunter squads (plasma gun and flamer) with 6 razorbacks that had las and twin plasma
3X longfangs squads ,2 with 5X missiles and 1 with 3X missile and 2X plasma cannon with a wolfen and all with razorbacks with las and twin plasma
3X landspeeders with the 2X missile launchers and heavy bolters.
End of game all he had was 1 razorback, 1 longfang squad and 4 greyhunters (claiming the super objective) and I had eldrad, yriel, a DA squad claiming an objective and a virtually untouched wraithguard squad 1" from contesting the super objective. Took a minor loss which put me in third rather than first, good game =).
The demon payer who took first had a bunch of old cold one riders from fantasy proxied as some other stuff so I am not sure what his list was exactly supposed to be.
BladeWalker wrote:I came to hear about 'Ard Boyz and I got a soap opera...
I expected to see SW and IG place high but Daemons are a surprise. Credit to all the players in the Finals, just getting there is a feat. I'm hoping to see some good reports from the players involved.
Welcome to Dakka, where tournaments are seriouz bizznizz.
I still don't see why it's necessary, or even desirable to be so belligerent about which area has the biggest and baddest toy soldiers players. (yes this is mainly directed at you floridians.)
Please don't assume that "us Floridians" hold the same opinion. I live in FL and I couldn't give a crap as to "who's the best". Being good at a game involving painted models, rolling dice, etc. for me doesn't qualify it as remotely being an accomplishment of significance, OR importance. So there's people that are good players in FL and CA...big deal? Is that going to allow them to afford a better home? Send their kids to college? Cure cancer? etc? At the end of the day it's meaningless drivel. If people need to thump their chests at how awesome they are at the game...or more ridiculously...actually point out at how awesome their friend is (My dad can beat up your dad mentality), etc. Then they really need to sit down and re-evaulate what really matters in their life.
All I said is that Florida has the most competitive players I have encountered. Its not like I spent several months in each and every state playing games every day to determine which state is the best at 40k. Give it a rest... really.
I have sent an alert to the moderator staff because people want to bring the same old sh*t back up again instead of moving on. Proceed at your own risk.
.
