Blackmoor wrote: I just canceled my plane ticket yesterday because I do not want to spend a lot of money to travel to a tournemant with Forge World.
Sure I can play IG and spend $800 to make 7 of my opponents miserable, but I rather just skip it.
Really? Are you still griping about Sabre Platforms? Helldrakes and Tau are way worse, IMO. JWolf devastated all comers at the Alamo GT with Tau.
I am not the biggest fan of FW either, although I don't really care about Sabres. That being said if I wasn't hamstrung by work, the end of June is so much better for me, I would be there in a heart beat. Last years' WargamesCon was a blast.
The Sabre platform is just the tip of the Forge World ice berg, and the reason why most people do not think that forge world is too bad. That is the most common unit and the model that everyone points to for reasons why (and why not) to include forge world.
Yet there are all kinds of nastiness that lurks deep in the Forge World books that very few people know about or have experienced yet. When people get around spending the money it takes to buy a broken forge world army then we will see that it does not belong in tournaments.
Ask Goatboy how much fun he had facing a cheap quad launcher that can put down 12 blast markers a turn.
Blackmoor wrote: The Sabre platform is just the tip of the Forge World ice berg, and the reason why most people do not think that forge world is too bad. That is the most common unit and the model that everyone points to for reasons why (and why not) to include forge world.
Yet there are all kinds of nastiness that lurks deep in the Forge World books that very few people know about or have experienced yet. When people get around spending the money it takes to buy a broken forge world army then we will see that it does not belong in tournaments.
Ask Goatboy how much fun he had facing a cheap quad launcher that can put down 12 blast markers a turn.
Blackmoor wrote: The Sabre platform is just the tip of the Forge World ice berg, and the reason why most people do not think that forge world is too bad. That is the most common unit and the model that everyone points to for reasons why (and why not) to include forge world.
Yet there are all kinds of nastiness that lurks deep in the Forge World books that very few people know about or have experienced yet. When people get around spending the money it takes to buy a broken forge world army then we will see that it does not belong in tournaments.
Ask Goatboy how much fun he had facing a cheap quad launcher that can put down 12 blast markers a turn.
Just a question on this. Do tournaments like this one require the IA books and actual FW models or are players with photocopies of the rules and converted minis able to play as/with FW?
Blackmoor wrote: The Sabre platform is just the tip of the Forge World ice berg, and the reason why most people do not think that forge world is too bad. That is the most common unit and the model that everyone points to for reasons why (and why not) to include forge world.
Yet there are all kinds of nastiness that lurks deep in the Forge World books that very few people know about or have experienced yet. When people get around spending the money it takes to buy a broken forge world army then we will see that it does not belong in tournaments.
Ask Goatboy how much fun he had facing a cheap quad launcher that can put down 12 blast markers a turn.
Just a question on this. Do tournaments like this one require the IA books and actual FW models or are players with photocopies of the rules and converted minis able to play as/with FW?
Wargamescon requires the actual book to use the minis. I believe they allow conversions on a preapproved by TO basis
You know all the ork FW stuff is crap, some of us just like the models If I want to spend 300+ points on an armor 13 megadread with gak guns and 3 HPs damn it Im gonna lose it first turn every game
Forgeworld is being allowed at Wargames Con so I don't see why it can't be discussed. That said it's to close to another event for me so have fun everyone going.
Sad to see this already devolving into personal testimonials against the use of Forge World. If you're not going that is fine and your own choice but don't be such a troll about it. : (
Just moved to Texas, and I'm going. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and I'm excited to be attending.
FW was fine at KamikazeeCon in LA last year, and it was fine at BAO this year. I've been on the receiving end of Sabres and those IG super artilleries behind a ADL; the first time around, it hurt. A lot. But then I had experience fighting those units and now I know how to counter them. They are good units, sure; but so were TWC/Long Fangs in their day, and so were Nob Bikers back when they had their moment in the sun.
Point is, most people figured out how to beat those units, and we adjusted our army lists to include appropriate counters. I've seen simple stuff like SM Attack bikes ruin sabres and other FW "Super Units". Everyone just needs to spend some brain power to figure out what units your chosen codex has that can beat them.
Every codex has a unit to beat Sabres. Every codex has something to beat (insert any unit from any FW book here). Go to your FLGS. Buy them. Paint them. Bring them.
It seems that the inclusion of FW both turned players on AND off from this event.
Apparently those people can't hang with supposedly OP units if they aren't in an "Official" codex. *mimics crying gesture*
I've played against some of those players that profess consternation (notably Blackmoor) at the inclusion of Forge World Units in GTs, and if this ruling keeps them away, its my opinion that the event will be better off without them.
Playing these players (in my experience) is like playing 40k with a crash-test dummy; no emotion, no enjoyment; by-and-large gamers who you would avoid anyway. It should be noted: there players who are OKAY with FW that are really fun players. But the most vocal opponents of the inclusion of said units here on Dakka have a seriously critical reputation of being very DB players in person.
If the hype is even 1/2 accurate, this will be an enormously enjoyable weekend. Its really their loss. Great venue (from what I saw when I was down in Austin last weekend), great TOs (from what the majority opinion on the Internet is);..... Feth them for trying to throw their Political-Gamer weight around and try to affect what the rest of us want at our events.
These events will happen with or without them. Let them sit at home, I say.
Cortez667 wrote: It seems that the inclusion of FW both turned players on AND off from this event.
Apparently those people can't hang with supposedly OP units if they aren't in an "Official" codex. *mimics crying gesture*
I've played against some of those players that profess consternation (notably Blackmoor) at the inclusion of Forge World Units in GTs, and if this ruling keeps them away, its my opinion that the event will be better off without them.
Playing these players (in my experience) is like playing 40k with a crash-test dummy; no emotion, no enjoyment; by-and-large gamers who you would avoid anyway. It should be noted: there players who are OKAY with FW that are really fun players. But the most vocal opponents of the inclusion of said units here on Dakka have a seriously critical reputation of being very DB players in person.
If the hype is even 1/2 accurate, this will be an enormously enjoyable weekend. Its really their loss. Great venue (from what I saw when I was down in Austin last weekend), great TOs (from what the majority opinion on the Internet is);..... Feth them for trying to throw their Political-Gamer weight around and try to affect what the rest of us want at our events.
These events will happen with or without them. Let them sit at home, I say.
Those are some pretty awesome sweeping generalizations. I had no idea that so many of the guys I enjoy playing with across the country usually competing for overall and best sport were actually DB players. I'll be sure to let them know we've been wrong for so long! Thank you sir!
Cortez667 wrote: It seems that the inclusion of FW both turned players on AND off from this event.
Apparently those people can't hang with supposedly OP units if they aren't in an "Official" codex. *mimics crying gesture*
I've played against some of those players that profess consternation (notably Blackmoor) at the inclusion of Forge World Units in GTs, and if this ruling keeps them away, its my opinion that the event will be better off without them.
Playing these players (in my experience) is like playing 40k with a crash-test dummy; no emotion, no enjoyment; by-and-large gamers who you would avoid anyway. It should be noted: there players who are OKAY with FW that are really fun players. But the most vocal opponents of the inclusion of said units here on Dakka have a seriously critical reputation of being very DB players in person.
If the hype is even 1/2 accurate, this will be an enormously enjoyable weekend. Its really their loss. Great venue (from what I saw when I was down in Austin last weekend), great TOs (from what the majority opinion on the Internet is);..... Feth them for trying to throw their Political-Gamer weight around and try to affect what the rest of us want at our events.
These events will happen with or without them. Let them sit at home, I say.
Way to troll. Wear your king troll badge with pride ...
Cortez667 wrote: It seems that the inclusion of FW both turned players on AND off from this event.
Apparently those people can't hang with supposedly OP units if they aren't in an "Official" codex. *mimics crying gesture*
I've played against some of those players that profess consternation (notably Blackmoor) at the inclusion of Forge World Units in GTs, and if this ruling keeps them away, its my opinion that the event will be better off without them.
Playing these players (in my experience) is like playing 40k with a crash-test dummy; no emotion, no enjoyment; by-and-large gamers who you would avoid anyway. It should be noted: there players who are OKAY with FW that are really fun players. But the most vocal opponents of the inclusion of said units here on Dakka have a seriously critical reputation of being very DB players in person.
If the hype is even 1/2 accurate, this will be an enormously enjoyable weekend. Its really their loss. Great venue (from what I saw when I was down in Austin last weekend), great TOs (from what the majority opinion on the Internet is);..... Feth them for trying to throw their Political-Gamer weight around and try to affect what the rest of us want at our events.
These events will happen with or without them. Let them sit at home, I say.
Oh look, it's the all-tournament-players-must-be-jerks-because-they-play-in-tournaments fallacy again. Yawn.
Shouldn't you be skulking under a bridge somewhere?
I really wish I could go to this con again I have always had a blast in the past. Hopefully they are streaming some of the games again so folks can watch that are stuck in the "real world" for the weekend. Have fun all.
Here is an interview of Thomas Reedy aka Goatboy from the Bell of Lost Souls crew. The Hinkel's sit down with Goatboy and discuss painting, current meta and other gaming topics! Check it out!
I'm here. Alan pajamapants has been running table 1 with a bunch of sabre platforms for a while.
Everyone I've talked to hated the missions/scoring. Some missions have 10 objectives and each is wrth x points towards total bp. Versus winning a primary or secondary for a set # of points. Kill point missions give 1 vp each kp up to 10, while most objectives are worth 3 each, scouring is worth whatever they roll up but the 4 is always centralized. Relic is worth 7, and emperors will is 5 for your own and 10 for the opponents. So, if you kill all of your opponent's stuff but end up only able to hold 6 pts of objectives you get 6. If you play an army like nids and give up 10 kp but hold 4 objectives you're up 12/10 even when kp was the primary.
It rewards armies with lots of fast scoring units or armies who can kill lots of fast scoring units. Most balanced 2-4 scoring unit armies are having trouble getting big points, even when they're handily winning their matches.
Traceoftoxin wrote: I'm here. Alan pajamapants has been running table 1 with a bunch of sabre platforms for a while.
Everyone I've talked to hated the missions/scoring. Some missions have 10 objectives and each is wrth x points towards total bp. Versus winning a primary or secondary for a set # of points. Kill point missions give 1 vp each kp up to 10, while most objectives are worth 3 each, scouring is worth whatever they roll up but the 4 is always centralized. Relic is worth 7, and emperors will is 5 for your own and 10 for the opponents. So, if you kill all of your opponent's stuff but end up only able to hold 6 pts of objectives you get 6. If you play an army like nids and give up 10 kp but hold 4 objectives you're up 12/10 even when kp was the primary.
It rewards armies with lots of fast scoring units or armies who can kill lots of fast scoring units. Most balanced 2-4 scoring unit armies are having trouble getting big points, even when they're handily winning their matches.
It's cool though, there clearly isn't a problem with including FW or even the need to discuss it, especially when the same player ran the table at BAO this year with a very similar list until the last round...
Cortez667 wrote: Just moved to Texas, and I'm going. I've heard a lot of good things about it, and I'm excited to be attending.
FW was fine at KamikazeeCon in LA last year, and it was fine at BAO this year. I've been on the receiving end of Sabres and those IG super artilleries behind a ADL; the first time around, it hurt. A lot. But then I had experience fighting those units and now I know how to counter them. They are good units, sure; but so were TWC/Long Fangs in their day, and so were Nob Bikers back when they had their moment in the sun.
Point is, most people figured out how to beat those units, and we adjusted our army lists to include appropriate counters. I've seen simple stuff like SM Attack bikes ruin sabres and other FW "Super Units". Everyone just needs to spend some brain power to figure out what units your chosen codex has that can beat them.
Every codex has a unit to beat Sabres. Every codex has something to beat (insert any unit from any FW book here). Go to your FLGS. Buy them. Paint them. Bring them.
Its that simple.
I exalted this post with the Yellow Triangle of Friendship (TM).
Truthfully, they are the cause of a lot of arguments in 40k ever since the rules came out from FW.
The tournament was a lot of fun, though. Great crowd and great tourny overall.
I agree with traceoftoxin though, many of the mission benefited armies that had a lot of bodies and the ability to get more troops.
Lucarikx
It was a pleasure to play against you, if you're the blood angels player I believe I played in round 1.
I enjoyed the people I played again, but drawing the (nearly) identical necron list in 3 games was almost as obnoxious as playing long fang+razorback/rhino spam was in 5th.
I have no problem with the inclusion of FW, in fact, the only thing this tourney made me desire is a return to comp.
Overall the tournament was run fairly well with us only falling 5 min behind in the last round day 1 and I think 15 min day 2 (of the GT). I disliked the missions which seemed like a good step towards discouraging armies designed just to shoot people off the board, but ended up feeling extremely clunky and imbalanced points-wise.
I loved the swag bag last year, especially the 5 objective markers, only getting a single marker this year was a major disappointment. I know prices were relatively the same, maybe they had less sponsors or the major decrease in attendees affected their ability to get more.
On that note, the team event looked to be half the size this year (I think it was about 40 teams last year and about 20 this year), and the GT 2/3 of the size, with what appeared to be almost a 30% drop rate going into day 2 (Although I could be wrong, I estimated ~100 players day 1 and ~70 day 2). I'd like to see the actual numbers.
From what spikes bits posted on FB it would seem Ben M won with Necron/Orks, daemons took second and Alan B got 3rd with his saber IG/DA.
They were something like 3 points apart, had Alan received higher paint scores I believe he would have taken overall. All of this is assuming the photo Spikey Bits put up was from the end of the tourney not the final round.
OverwatchCNC wrote: From what spikes bits posted on FB it would seem Ben M won with Necron/Orks, daemons took second and Alan B got 3rd with his saber IG/DA.
They were something like 3 points apart, had Alan received higher paint scores I believe he would have taken overall. All of this is assuming the photo Spikey Bits put up was from the end of the tourney not the final round.
That is accurate. There 5 Necron players in the top bracket. After Daemons was Nids GKnights Necrons Necrons ???? Necrons Daemons Necrons Necrons Dark Angels ???? Chaos Space Marines
So three out of the four top armies were very strong in assault and the Forge World heavy Sabre/Thudd Gun list didn't win. Doesn't seem to me that Forge World had that big of an impact overall.
So three out of the four top armies were very strong in assault and the Forge World heavy Sabre/Thudd Gun list didn't win. Doesn't seem to me that Forge World had that big of an impact overall.
#1. The missions could have heavily influenced which armies won (anyone else find it odd that there are no tau there?)
#3. I do not know how many armies took Forge World.
OK, seriously folks, WarGamesCon JUST happened, we're starting to get some results, good players brought strong lists and did well (shocker)! Not only does the FW/no-FW argument have nothing to do with the top tables (Where good players bring good lists and do well no matter what the meta is), it's totally getting tiresome ... same people making same arguments on all threads, and never budging.
/would rather see WGC results / conversation / hooray-for-an-always-hard-TO'ing-weekend!
So three out of the four top armies were very strong in assault and the Forge World heavy Sabre/Thudd Gun list didn't win. Doesn't seem to me that Forge World had that big of an impact overall.
From what I understand, Alan won on straight battle points, Ben won on overall. Not surprising if you'd seen Alan's army, it clearly wasn't a labor of love. There's no doubting the man's command of the game, but that drive doesn't seem to extend to the hobby aspect.
How many people showed up?
I believe it was 100-120 or so day 1, day 2 I know we started at 38+8 tables and ended with 35+8
[Edit]
I played two of the top 16 necron players, their lists were practically the same. 2 night scythes, lord on barge, 2 ghost arks, 3 annhi barges. Both had voltaic crypteks, one had a triach stalker the other had deathmarks and immortals. There was a third player in the RT with the same core list who had deathmarks+the template cryptek.
I was one of the top players in WarGames Con with Nercons. My list didn't have any arm 13, instead it had imoetkh, 4 warriors in NS, scarabs, 12 wraiths and 6 spyders. I had to face against Tau twice, and table them. One thing I like about this tournament was that the players were able to place terrian, instead of the TO. My only lost was another member of the Wrecking Crew Kenny with his Deamon list. In all FW wasn't a key factor in this tournament, only 2 players with IG made to the top 16th in day two.
So three out of the four top armies were very strong in assault and the Forge World heavy Sabre/Thudd Gun list didn't win. Doesn't seem to me that Forge World had that big of an impact overall.
#1. The missions could have heavily influenced which armies won (anyone else find it odd that there are no tau there?)
#3. I do not know how many armies took Forge World.
There actually were not that many Tau players at the Con. I can recall seeing maybe 5.
Dozer Blades wrote: Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.
Most people seem to think that Tau are a top tier codex and do well at most tournaments. The fact that they have 0 representation in the top 16 is odd. Would you not agree?
Also how many FW heavy armies were there? I see one that made it to the top 3.
Lord Commissar
CCS (autocannon, regimental standard)
DA librarian Lvl 2
Platioon CS 4x Infantry squad - autocannon, meltabombs, power axe
3x Sabre TL lascannon, extra crew
3x Sabre TL lascannon, extra crew
Vets (autocannon)
5x Scout (sniper rifle)
Vendetta
Vulture Gunship - punisher cannon
Manticore
3x Thudd gun
3x Thudd gun
Sky Shield Landing Pad
I find it odd that he did not choose SWs as allies, and I think they would have helped him. They have JotWW for Necrons, and the ablitiy to shut down your opponents psychic powers is huge (especially against demons). I wonder if he regrets taking DA in hindsight. Also 2 preciences on the Thudd Guns is huge.
If you look at the FB post on the Spikey Bits page you can see that it was razor thin margin between 1st Necrons/Orks, Daemons, and 3rd place DA/IG. 6pts in total battle points. I'd say the heavy FW presence in Alan's army was a huge reason he placed so well (well other than he is a damn good player).
Dozer Blades wrote: It wasn't razor thin. Alan lost twice to non FW armies in the last two rounds. Don't try to make more out of it than it is.
He lost twice and still had enough battle points to be that close to winning? He had a loss last year too but his army so dominated the missions that it didn't make a dent in his chances of winning. Losing twice and still being in the running says a lot about both the player and the army.
Glocknall wrote: If you look at the FB post on the Spikey Bits page you can see that it was razor thin margin between 1st Necrons/Orks, Daemons, and 3rd place DA/IG. 6pts in total battle points. I'd say the heavy FW presence in Alan's army was a huge reason he placed so well (well other than he is a damn good player).
Alan held the top spot for most of the Tourney.
His Battle points were so high that he played Ben Mohlie TWICE!!(losing both times Games 5 and 6) on the Top Table.
He lost the last and final game (7) as well to Gareth Hunt, I believe I could be mistaken about the last game.
But if correct, he had such a huge points lead (till he matched up with Ben) that he lost 3 games and still paced 3rd.
If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.
Breng77 wrote: If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.
I think this does effectively show that BP based tournaments are a little silly. I like the BAO/Swiss format.
Breng77 wrote: If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.
I believe that paring were solely based on battle points, 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4 and so on, it didn't matter who was in which position.
That was my first time at WGC, AND I am fairly new to the Tournament world so I have no basis on which to judge.
All I can say is I had a great time there AND I will go again next year. If that means anything to anyone reading this.
BPs are not inherently terrible, if you build them in a balanced way (one such that it is not possible for someone to accrue that many more points.)
In my RTTs I run battle points (it is needed for events of only 3 rounds if you have more than 8 people) but you are capped at 20 points max each round, max for a loss is 9, and minimum for a win is 11. So if you used this over 7 Rounds max score would be 140 points, max score with 3 losses would be 121. Minimum undefeated score would be 77 I guess, but it seems unlikely that it would occur that way.
IMO battle points should in general be used to rank people with similar rankings. Furthermore you should never need play the same player twice in an event.
Breng77 wrote: If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.
I believe that paring were solely based on battle points, 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4 and so on, it didn't matter who was in which position.
That was my first time at WGC, AND I am fairly new to the Tournament world so I have no basis on which to judge.
All I can say is I had a great time there AND I will go again next year. If that means anything to anyone reading this.
Which should never be done without thought, IF 1 V2 is the same 2 rounds in a row then do 1 v 3 and 2 v 4 or something.
Breng77 wrote: BPs are not inherently terrible, if you build them in a balanced way (one such that it is not possible for someone to accrue that many more points.)
In my RTTs I run battle points (it is needed for events of only 3 rounds if you have more than 8 people) but you are capped at 20 points max each round, max for a loss is 9, and minimum for a win is 11. So if you used this over 7 Rounds max score would be 140 points, max score with 3 losses would be 121. Minimum undefeated score would be 77 I guess, but it seems unlikely that it would occur that way.
IMO battle points should in general be used to rank people with similar rankings. Furthermore you should never need play the same player twice in an event.
Breng77 wrote: If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.
I believe that paring were solely based on battle points, 1 vs 2; 3 vs 4 and so on, it didn't matter who was in which position.
That was my first time at WGC, AND I am fairly new to the Tournament world so I have no basis on which to judge.
All I can say is I had a great time there AND I will go again next year. If that means anything to anyone reading this.
Which should never be done without thought, IF 1 V2 is the same 2 rounds in a row then do 1 v 3 and 2 v 4 or something.
The same thing happened at WGC last year but at the bottom of the winners bracket. Recce's might mighty footdar, despite being undefeated, didn't accrue enough BPs to get him high up in the tables so he ended up playing the same guy twice and dropped.
That really is something fairly easy to fix. Also they were running total VPs nto Battle points. So not every table and mission was worth the same amount (at least not in the primer.)
Dozer Blades wrote: Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.
Most people seem to think that Tau are a top tier codex and do well at most tournaments. The fact that they have 0 representation in the top 16 is odd. Would you not agree?
Also how many FW heavy armies were there? I see one that made it to the top 3.
Allan, you have to look at the missions to understand why Tau did horrible at this event. Every mission with objectives was similar to the last one we played this year at the Adepticon Team tournament. So each objective counted for a few points of the total, you received points based on how many you took. So to give an example there was a 9 objective mission where a troop could only take one of the nine objectives. Tau have few troops and hide them, while they try and table you and get one of 4 objectives. So Tau did not mesh well at all with this tournament, you needed 6 durable troops or you would get 3 or 4 BPs a game. Or just play guard and have 12+ scoring units.
Best example of some 30 points available in a game (total available changed per game between 25-37), I won a game 7-6 victory points, great technical game between two people scrapping out everything they could do against each other. All we did was kick each other in the dick. So not all wins were created equal at Wargamescon
In the finals there was surprisingly little Forge World. Two heavy HEAVY forge world ones done right with Sabers, Quad Guns, and sky shield landing platforms. Other then that not much more.
Also I tried to hold it own for you Allan, I was the only GK in the top 16. I'm trying to be like my hero... you!
The same thing happened at WGC last year but at the bottom of the winners bracket. Recce's might mighty footdar, despite being undefeated, didn't accrue enough BPs to get him high up in the tables so he ended up playing the same guy twice and dropped.
The same thing has happened every year at WGC, typically the top guys end of facing each other again (I know of two times that Ben Mohlie rematched in prior events). Its by design and not something I think they ever plan on 'fixing'.
Surprisingly some people like the repairings (Kenny Bouchard said as much on the BoLS podcast). It would annoy me personally as I come to big tournaments to play a variety of people and armies but I can see certain competitive types relishing the rematch.
I might understand it if it were like we played game 1 and then again game 7 (because you/I won my way back up) but when it is back to back rounds....If that is what you want meh. What that means to me is if you get 2 guys that draw each other or play close games swapping wins in theory you could have the same 2 guys play 6 or 7 times....it is bad tournament design. If in the final game you want the top 2 battle point player to play even if they played earlier go ahead I guess, but this is why many people don't like battle points, as apparently I could win all my games, and never get close to the top table because I did not curbstomp someone. Or beat a guy on the final table and still lose to him...
It only applied to the top 16. No matter what was going on the first place person played the second place. The 3rd place played the 4th and so on.
So its really hard to happen. Allan was just running away with the tournament on day one as a result even after he lost to Ben on day 2 he was still beating Ben as a result they played again. I would expect it in a knock out competitive upper tier event. The top player SHOULD have to defend his spot against the number 2.
I know in 2011 Ben lost on the top table and had to play the same guy on table 2 only to beat him and win the tournament because table 2 and 3 that round both jumped him and the other guy. So it doesn't just apply to the top table.
Well better that it effects only the top 16, but it still seems like bad tournament design overall. Also if they are going to only effect the top 16 they should not have the previous day carry over and just have those guys slug it out, that way it is less likely that one guy will get so far ahead. It also does not sound that uncommon if it has happend at least 1 time each of the last 3 years.
Allan was ahead of Ben. They were paired 1 v 2 in round 5
Ben won that game but the margin wasn't huge, and in the format Allan still accumulated points as well. Each player had the opportunity to accumulate points, it's not a 'I win the primary" and collect all the battle points format.
They were paired again. There was some discussion about having 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4 because they had just played but we let the scores to the match ups.
Ben won again, but again, Allan was able to crib enough victory points to stay engaged in the top 3.
The format was designed from the ground up to allow players to accumulate as many Victory Points as possible, even in a loss.
Breng77 wrote: If that is all true that is the dumbest format/most poorly run event I have ever heard of. Playing the same guy twice (in a row no less.), and being in the top 3 with 3 losses. IF that is true then to me the results of said event are fairly meaningless.
He lost two games barely. Not 3. But anyways battle points is not a competitive format.
Probably not a good thread to get into format-ology. SWISS is more how you pair (same or close scores) than anything else, which most events do on one level or another. In terms of scoring, that's where you get into your tall grass ... some events do win/loss, some events do battle points/margin of victory, some events do win/loss/draw, and some events do all of them at the same time within the same event. YMMV as to what's enjoyable, and most are still awesome fun times ... just different strokes for different folks.
His only loss of the tournament came against the eventual winner of the tournament, Ben Mohlie, in a very close battle. On his way there, he had to battle through DE venom-spam and a very tough IG w/12 sabre platforms/9 thudd guns. Very well done indeed!
Dozer Blades wrote: Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.
Most people seem to think that Tau are a top tier codex and do well at most tournaments. The fact that they have 0 representation in the top 16 is odd. Would you not agree?
Also how many FW heavy armies were there? I see one that made it to the top 3.
It's premature to judge Tau at this point. They are still really new. I think the rule of thumb is about half a year before you will see them start doing well as people are still building their armies and experimenting with what is working for them.
BTW, Tau has the widest range of allies so you can be sure they can and will address any mobiliy/troop issue they have.
His only loss of the tournament came against the eventual winner of the tournament, Ben Mohlie, in a very close battle. On his way there, he had to battle through DE venom-spam and a very tough IG w/12 sabre platforms/9 thudd guns. Very well done indeed!
Dozer Blades wrote: Sounds like Blackmoor is subscribing to the conspiracy theory now.
Most people seem to think that Tau are a top tier codex and do well at most tournaments. The fact that they have 0 representation in the top 16 is odd. Would you not agree?
Also how many FW heavy armies were there? I see one that made it to the top 3.
It's premature to judge Tau at this point. They are still really new. I think the rule of thumb is about half a year before you will see them start doing well as people are still building their armies and experimenting with what is working for them.
BTW, Tau has the widest range of allies so you can be sure they can and will address any mobiliy/troop issue they have.
Thanks for the congrats. That us very accurate representation of my list. Only difference was all initial gaunt broods were 10. I think you are right about the tau too. They had a strong showing at alamo in may, but results were heavily player skill dependent. Two very good tau players fought on table one in the last game and the remainder of the tau were generally much further down in the standings.
Is there a listing of what the top armies were? Is there even a list of total armies played and broke down by type? Just curious.
As far as the tau go, I have seen and faced a few recently atthe local store (where I know mike from). Seems they are sort of unfocused on what to run and how to run what is on the table. I do agree with mike that it seems very dependent on the players skill with tau. I doubt I could run them competitively at first. I mainly run IG and orks, so, tau would take some getting use to playing. All I have learned is how to play against. Jot saying they will break out soon.
As usual Wargamescon was a blast. Very well run event full of great players. I want to give a shout-out to Alan B. and Mike K. who I had awesome games with. I agree with many of the critiques of the scenarios that have been posted already. There were far to many objectives, and "keep what you kill" point systems have a lot of problems. I think the organizers recognize this and I doubt it will happen again.
As for forgeworld, in my opinion 99% of forgeworld units are absolutely fine, there are only a handful that are out of hand and should be limited/excluded. I'm very much against no holds barred forgeworld as was used this year, but with some thoughtful restrictions virtually all forgeworld units could be allowed without issue.
For those who are interested, here is the army I won with. No one expects the MegaNobs!!
I just got in from Austin and just wanted to say we had a great weekend at WarGamesCon. I played my Tau army, in fact believe I was one of the guys tabled by MrBlackSunshine_1978! I did not face anyone playing Forgeworld units in my 7 games though I did play against 3 Tau armies! The majority of the Tau players were stacked up in the Rouge Trader bracket on the second day. There were a variety of Tau armies with no one build sticking out however there were tons of Broadsides, some Riptides and lots of marker lights. I talked to several of the Tau players who said they could not optimize their list because they couldn't get the models they needed so they brought what they had. I guess Riptides and Kroot are not available in some parts of the country now. I did not see any Tau Flyers.
I do not have a problem with the missions or the way the tournament was run. WGC has always been a battle points tournament so I knew what to expect going in. Everyone I talk too said they had a great time with a couple of exceptions. We will go back next year! The games were on time. Judges were plentiful. I only heard of one dude rage quitting but he was playing against a Space Wolf player who didn't have any Forge World.
I will be posting synopsis of my games, photos of numerous armies and a overall tournament report on my blog:
Please check it out in the next couple of days for tons of pics and things that I observed. I do know that Rob Baer will be flying first class back home because of all the cash I dropped at Spikey Bits!!! LOL !
Also check out my gaming clubs website for photos and video battle reports!
As for forgeworld, in my opinion 99% of forgeworld units are absolutely fine, there are only a handful that are out of hand and should be limited/excluded. I'm very much against no holds barred forgeworld as was used this year, but with some thoughtful restrictions virtually all forgeworld units could be allowed without issue.
Meganobs: 7 nobs: 4 kombi-skorchas, 3 kombi-rokkits
Battlewagon: red paint job, deffrolla, 1 big shoota
Total 1850
I was wondering how you beat Alan (besides being his nemesis and in his head!). I was thinking that those Thudd Guns would tear Orks apart. You countered that by not setting a foot on the table.
WGC was fantastic. I had a great time meeting up with all my friends and playing some awesome games. Fantastic job running it guys!
I ran out my Forge World Necrons to try out my new toys and kick around the middle tables for some fun, close games.
HQ Zahndrekh
Obyron
Destroyer Lord w/ sempiternal weave, mindshackle scarabs
Royal Court - 1 Harbinger of Eternity w/ chronometron, 1 Harbinger of the Storm w/ lightning field
Troops
10 gauss immortals
5 warriors in Scythe
5 tesla immortals
Fast
9 Acanthrites
Heavy
Nightshroud Bomber
Doom Scythe
So, more of a "taste the rainbow" type army meant to show off my toys and play shenanigans all weekend.
I had a great time, played 7 close games and went 5-2 for the weekend. Of course, close games don't get a lot of BPs so I kicked around the middle tables the whole time. Not having many Troops limited my possible score significantly.
There were a fair amount of things I didn't like about the format itself, though.
1) Terrain. WGC rolled out the player placed terrain, one of my least favorite "rules" in 6th. Placing terrain after determining sides doesn't lead to balanced terrain. Since my army is so mobile, all I need to do is put as much LOS blocking and area terrain in the middle to make the most of the Acanthrites' stealth. It led to a lot of samey games where the Canoptek Crawdads just sit in the middle killing stuff that gets too close before rolling through the enemy's scoring units. On top of that, it eats valuable time in an already slower edition. The actual variety and amount of terrain was solid, just didn't like the placement.
2) Missions. WGC had basically 2 missions from the BRB put together as a primary and secondary. I like the idea, keeping things as familiar as possible to keep play going at a brisk pace. However, the way things were combined didn't do it some times. There are 2 broad types of missions in 6th: Scorey (Crusade, Scouring, Big Guns) and Deathstary (Relic, Will, Purge). Things only went weird when 2 missions of the same type got combined. Crusade and Scouring with 10 objective markers was madness, basically encouraging players to sit in their sides and only fight over one or two objectives. Relic and Will was a clash of deathstars in the middle. Having 4 objectives and a relic or KPs and Scouring leads to more emphasis on balanced lists and more "tactical" play, I find.
3) Objective placement and Mysterious terrain/objectives. This is more of a problem I have with 6th than WGC. Placing objectives after determining sides is horrible. So are randumb rolls. Bad, bad, bad, stoopy, stoopy, dumb, dumb and it needs to go away.
4) BPs. It's a philosophy thing, but I don't like BP formats. The best games of 40k, to me, are close fought battles that come down to the last dice roll. Typically 1 or 2 VP games. BP formats seem to favor blowouts over close games, making a game already riddled with RPS-style play lean even more towards Matchuphammer. It also has more of a "play to win the tournament, not win games" deal where a smart play could be to tank a game just to draw an easier matchup for a big win to leapfrog other players. Just seems gamey to me.
5) Forge World. It's the elephant in the room, obviously, but FW inclusion did not make my experience better. Even using my own FW units, I felt they dominated the games and made them less fun for me and my opponents. Most of the folks I talked to expressed similar concerns.
That said, it was a great weekend and I look forward to next year. Keep up the good work, guys, and you may as well send me that 2014 X-Wing trophy now.
Spacecurves wrote: As usual Wargamescon was a blast. Very well run event full of great players. I want to give a shout-out to Alan B. and Mike K. who I had awesome games with. I agree with many of the critiques of the scenarios that have been posted already. There were far to many objectives, and "keep what you kill" point systems have a lot of problems. I think the organizers recognize this and I doubt it will happen again.
As for forgeworld, in my opinion 99% of forgeworld units are absolutely fine, there are only a handful that are out of hand and should be limited/excluded. I'm very much against no holds barred forgeworld as was used this year, but with some thoughtful restrictions virtually all forgeworld units could be allowed without issue.
For those who are interested, here is the army I won with. No one expects the MegaNobs!!
Meganobs: 7 nobs: 4 kombi-skorchas, 3 kombi-rokkits
Battlewagon: red paint job, deffrolla, 1 big shoota
Total 1850
First off Congrats!
I looked at your list and first reaction was Mega Nobz WTF?
Then after thinking about it I think I can see what you were doing. So we're basically trying to keep the same kind of pressure that Wraithwing provides but on a platform more durable to infantry shooting than Wraiths. Did Tau figure into your list? What was the purpose of the Tomb Spyder? 1st turn charge shenanigans?
Thanks man. The army plays like an assault army but has a ton of shooting backup as well. Tomb Spyders are amazing! They are super tough monsterous creatures, and they slowly beef up the scarab units. Scarbs and spyders together have so many uses I would need a whole article to cover it, but suffice to say they are awesome.
I did think about Tau, and a 3 ion accel riptide opponent would have been super nasty for me. I never had to play against one since I didn't see any Tau on the top tables.
As for mega-nobs, oh man they are good. One of the best units in the game at the moment in my opinion. For one, they are scoring thanks to the warboss. They absolutely murder paladins, are mostly immune to small arms fire, and can kill lots of things that necrons usually have a problem with. I've never heard of anyone else using them recently, but they really made that army work.
2nd place Daemon list (this is just what I remember, I could be wrong).
Keeper of Secrets
2x Harolds of Khorn on Juggernaut (1 x Portal 1x Book)
4 x 10 units of Plaguebearers
2 x 20 man units of Fleshhounds
2x Soulgrinders
Overall, I enjoyed WGC. However, there were some things that I did not agree with.
1) Not all missions were created equal. Some missions max possible points was 32+ (someone even got a 37), while other missions maximum points was 25. I really do believe that all 7 games of a tournament should be weighted the same points wise.
2) Some missions had a total of 9 objectives that had to be held by scoring units. Making it impossible for elite armies to even be competitive in. Some people table their opponents and only be able to score a 15/30.
3) I'm still on the fence about forge world being included in tournaments. However, I do not agree with WGC allowing basic conversions and proxies in place of forge world models. About 15 players used razor back turret/ Aegis basis for Sabre platforms, which I really did not agree with. And in my opinion (yall can bash me if you want), Pajama pant's Vulture proxy ( I wouldn't even call it a conversion) should not have been allowed to be played.
4) However, the biggest thing in my opinion was that players got to place terrain every single match. Some tabled ended up having 10+ pieces of terrain, which gave an overwhelming advantage to some armies.
Great to see a Nid army up there, although it does rather prove the mono-build nature of the codex now for tournaments. 2 flyrants, 2-3 tervigons + termagants, Doom, sprinkle a few other units out of choice depending on whether 1,750 or 1,850. Nothing but praise for the player though, just a comment on the state of the codex.
I'd like to point out to everyone talking about battle points that WGC did not use traditional battle points (Minor Victory = x points, Major Victory = y points, etc).
Players' scores were equal to the number of Victory Points they scored in missions, per the BRB, plus paint scores.
3) I'm still on the fence about forge world being included in tournaments. However, I do not agree with WGC allowing basic conversions and proxies in place of forge world models. About 15 players used razor back turret/ Aegis basis for Sabre platforms, which I really did not agree with. And in my opinion (yall can bash me if you want), Pajama pant's Vulture proxy ( I wouldn't even call it a conversion) should not have been allowed to be played.
I will agree with you on this, having a 1/2 of a weapon system (cutting a model to make two) and counting as a twin linked weapon?????
The one with the two fan props like the orca from C&C 1.
It was pretty much just that model with the guns under the wings, if I remember correctly. I also only saw it for a few moments in passing so I could very well be wrong.
Chancetragedy wrote: Any pictures of it? It can't be as bad as that vendetta atrocity from adepticon that was argued about haha.
I have photos of it posted on my Facebook . I will post a photo when I get home. I have it on Photobucket but I'm at work and cant remember the dang password.
Here is a link to my photo album until I can get home. You cant miss the flyer it's red and has fans in the wings like on Avaitar.
The Saber platforms he used were the actual saber platforms. The sawed off one gun type model that people are calling out were models for heavy weapon teams.
Thanks aardvark I think that works pretty well for a vulture. Obviously it's not the official model but I thought we were past caring about that since GW stopped supporting tournaments. that's just my opinion though hah but I'd play against t.
I was wondering how you beat Alan (besides being his nemesis and in his head!). I was thinking that those Thudd Guns would tear Orks apart. You countered that by not setting a foot on the table.
To be honest both games I had with Ben where close until I noticed the wrong plays I made. Ben is with out a doubt in my opinion the best 40k player I have ever had the privilege to play against. The moment you make a mistake you suffer.
The first game I think I had the advantage with the mission but due to poor placement on the DA librarian Ben capitalized on it and was able to kill him in combat when I failed the one look out sir I needed to make. If the librarian made that look out sir I think the game would have been mine from there regardless of what Ben would do because holding up my Guard unit led to me never killing the Warboss and he got 4 points with his wraiths assaulting and killing the thudd gun units. This was a huge turning point in our game because the libby could have killed the warboss and then screened off the rest of the army and posed a better threat to the wraiths.
Game 2: I made a huge blunder and I decided against rushing to the relic and it would have been a totally different game if I made the commitment.
The one thing I will say is that while my list was tough it was mitigated drastically by the terrain placement rules and the terrain we had. I mean there where these two buildings that where HUGE with no windows and a huge level. Thudd guns can't shoot under the level and the sabre cant see anything hiding behind. Ben was a MASTER at using the terrain against me and making most of my army useless by hiding under levels and staying out of 60" range with units. He used the terrain and distance control extremely proficient and he did not commit until late game when he knew he could get the points. The terrain in general was a huge advantage for him and he knew how to exploit it like a pro.
I am not sure I could have even pulled a win out of mission 2 because his list is so much better at the relic and he is better at protecting his objective then I am. But the first game was where I believe I could have walked away with the win.
Overall I had a great time and if I wasn't going to be the overall winner Best Sportsman would have been my second pick!
Thanks to all the judges and staff that ran the event I had a good time!
Wargames Con is a great event and I recommend everyone to attend it next year!
You know it really boils down to players having fun. That's why we put on WGC, for people to have fun. Battle points or Victory points, whichever you want to call it, keeps the players in the game and to not feel like your out of it because of one bad game. Are there some things we can tweak? Of course. I dislike pure win/loss because that one bad game leaves a sour taste in the mouth for the rest of the tourney and you pay a lot of money to go to these big tournaments.
Anyways, I'm glad most of you had fun! We will continue to work on our format and to make WGC a con you want to keep coming back to.
Caldera02 wrote: You know it really boils down to players having fun. That's why we put on WGC, for people to have fun. Battle points or Victory points, whichever you want to call it, keeps the players in the game and to not feel like your out of it because of one bad game. Are there some things we can tweak? Of course. I dislike pure win/loss because that one bad game leaves a sour taste in the mouth for the rest of the tourney and you pay a lot of money to go to these big tournaments.
Anyways, I'm glad most of you had fun! We will continue to work on our format and to make WGC a con you want to keep coming back to.
I can respect the desire to not have all tournaments be pure win/loss. Which is why I went to, and had a great time at, the 2012 WGC. The only problem I saw with the missions this year, granted I didn't attend, was the huge emphasis on capturing up to 10 objectives in some games. I think a good spread of formats is a healthy thing for the tournament scene, where I find things most often go awry is with the mission design.
Yeah the missions were something we failed at a little bit this year. The combo of book missions worked out well but it was the specific combos that seemed to be messed up. We've been running that format locally for a while now and are used to it but we didn't get the missions out on time for others attending to get used to it.
You should come out to WGC next year and maybe I won't refuse to play you again
Caldera02 wrote: Yeah the missions were something we failed at a little bit this year. The combo of book missions worked out well but it was the specific combos that seemed to be messed up. We've been running that format locally for a while now and are used to it but we didn't get the missions out on time for others attending to get used to it.
You should come out to WGC next year and maybe I won't refuse to play you again
Mission design isn't easy. I have found with So Cal that we can often get so used to how our missions work that once we tweak them a bit it is easy for us but completely foreign and odd to those from outside.
If you guys schedule WGC for the end of June I can probably come every year since June 23rd is my bday! That's how I wrangled permission from Nat to go last year. Plus this year was over Graduation weekend at work so there was zero chance of my going then. It's cool to decline to play me I am total WAACTFG That's why I win so many of my games at big cons!
As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.
I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....
crazyredpraetorian wrote: As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.
I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....
crazyredpraetorian wrote: As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.
I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....
This is a good point, the disheartening bit. It's contributed to a lot of changes to various formats out there, where W/L events have added BP tracks and similar to give players parallel competitive awards to pursue even if they have a bad game. As has been talked about, mission design is tricky and worth critiquing / self-critiquing honestly; there's also obviously the flipside of how disheartening it can be to win all or most of your games, and see someone with multiple losses "beat' you, but it's definitely a worthy cause to make sure your format encourages players to feel motivated and to continue having fun even after a rough one. Kudos and all that - I think that as a motivator is a keypoint to various readers giving fair appreciation for and understanding of the motives behind the format.
crazyredpraetorian wrote: As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.
I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....
I am curious.
How many players went 7-0, 6-1 and 5-2?
I haven't seen that data yet. I'm sure it will eventually be available. I went 5-2 and was in the lower bracket. I did not max any games but was not blown out any games, either. I think the eventual winner Ben M did go 7-0. Alan B, lost 2 games but had some blow out wins.
crazyredpraetorian wrote: As Caldera said, we play this kind of mission locally. So, I saw no issues with it. Even the missions with 10 objectives are manageable, you just have to focus on holding with troops and contesting/denying wherever possible to get the most points. However, I can see how it could be a problem for a player with 2-3 scoring units.
I too, really dislike straight Win/Loss. It's no fun to know your weekend is over after one bad game. Especially, if it is your first game. It can be really disheartening. However, if you just have a glimmer of hope....
This is a good point, the disheartening bit. It's contributed to a lot of changes to various formats out there, where W/L events have added BP tracks and similar to give players parallel competitive awards to pursue even if they have a bad game. As has been talked about, mission design is tricky and worth critiquing / self-critiquing honestly; there's also obviously the flipside of how disheartening it can be to win all or most of your games, and see someone with multiple losses "beat' you, but it's definitely a worthy cause to make sure your format encourages players to feel motivated and to continue having fun even after a rough one. Kudos and all that - I think that as a motivator is a keypoint to various readers giving fair appreciation for and understanding of the motives behind the format.
I speak from experience. Last year at Adepticon I took a loss my first game. My opponent asked me if I was going to play the rest of the day......I told him "Sure, I came to roll dice, not to win." He looked a little surprised. That little exchange really got me to thinking..... If I had my sights set on winning, that single loss would have ruined an otherwise great weekend. I went on to get Ragnar up to 38 attacks in the third game! It was an epic game and my opponent and I had a blast! One of my favorite 40K games ever. My opponent was actually cheering for Ragnar.
Never understood the mentatlity of getting disheartened by an early loss in a W/L format. But I genuinely do go just to roll dice and see friends. Lost my first game last year at Adepticon (2012) in a great game and had 3 other great games after.
Oh, and I think what Nova is doing for it's GT as far as winning tracks go is probably one of the best things ever for tourney players. 3 Equal winning tracks at once being W/L, BP, and Battle/Paint is pretty darn sweet.
I think the W/L vs battle Point system swings both ways as has been mentioned. Nothing is more frustrating than having a better record than an opponent (maybe even one who you beat), and losing to them overall because you did not beat face as much/win as handily on the missions. It makes certain army builds much less viable.
But then again like many others I don't get the "I lost so my tournaments is over line of thought." You can still have fun, place reasonably well. If the only thing that matters is "winning" then you are going to have a lot of bad weekends of 40k playing. Honestly the same things happens eventually in either format if winning is your concern, a couple of Minor wins can quickly put you out of the running as easily as a loss on W/L. I agree though that the NOVA idea is a great one.
Dozer Blades wrote: When you have that many objectives it naturally favors infantry heavy armies over elite ones. There is a bias.
Yeah, but that is what 6th is about troops only claiming objectives.
I like the missions.
I find these type of armies boring to play. There are other win conditions such as Slay the Warlord and Line Breaker. Kill points is also still in play. Putting so much emphasis on scoring is unbalanced and shows a clear bias.
I heard alan b was 25pts ahead of next guy at the start of the second day. But lost (as in got less points than) 3 games not 2, on the second day. Twice against ben, then against the guy who got best general (second) on table #1.
Alan, great analysis of our games. I agree I think the terrain was a huge part of it. I would have had to play completely differently if I wasn't able to hide some of my units from the thudd guns.
As for the final records, I'm not sure how many people were 7-0. I suspect I was the only one, but its possible someone else had seven minor wins. There were however multiple people at 5-2 or 6-1. That's one of the reasons I like the 7 games BP format, you can lose one game and still come back and be in the running. Gareth lost a game on Day 1, but he clawed his way back up and was playing for Gold in round 7!
One takeaway from WGC I would stress is that communicating the missions clearly ahead of time is a good thing. My personal preference is a variety of mission types, but all of which are known ahead of time. This means there are no gotchya! moments for people who travel to the tournament, and you avoid people tailoring their army to one scenario.
Budzerker wrote: I heard alan b was 25pts ahead of next guy at the start of the second day. But lost (as in got less points than) 3 games not 2, on the second day. Twice against ben, then against the guy who got best general (second) on table #1.
I was 18 points ahead of Ben in Battle but he was 5 points ahead of me in Paint so it was a 13 point spread which he was able to make even after our two games.
I lost all my games on Sunday:
Ben Beat me by 7 points game 1
Ben beat me by 6 Points game 2
Gareth beat me by 3 points game 3
Looking back at the event I would have taken a completely different list knowing the missions. I never really got in the 10 objectives games and I never placed terrain the way they did, where you can put it on your opponents side.
These where literally my only 7 games played with this army so basically it was all theoretical prep since no one locally wanted to get any play test games in against Forgeworld, which is such a taboo topic for us in Chicago.
3rd Place and Best Sportsman is great.
I am looking forward to playing Ben Mohlie a few more time next year... If you wanna be the best you need to beat the best !
Budzerker wrote: I heard alan b was 25pts ahead of next guy at the start of the second day. But lost (as in got less points than) 3 games not 2, on the second day. Twice against ben, then against the guy who got best general (second) on table #1.
I was 18 points ahead of Ben in Battle but he was 5 points ahead of me in Paint so it was a 13 point spread which he was able to make even after our two games.
I lost all my games on Sunday:
Ben Beat me by 7 points game 1
Ben beat me by 6 Points game 2
Gareth beat me by 3 points game 3
Looking back at the event I would have taken a completely different list knowing the missions. I never really got in the 10 objectives games and I never placed terrain the way they did, where you can put it on your opponents side.
These where literally my only 7 games played with this army so basically it was all theoretical prep since no one locally wanted to get any play test games in against Forgeworld, which is such a taboo topic for us in Chicago.
3rd Place and Best Sportsman is great.
I am looking forward to playing Ben Mohlie a few more time next year... If you wanna be the best you need to beat the best !
You're not reading the FW thread in this forum are you? FW consternation is not a Chicago thing. It's much bigger than that.
I would disagree with the statement that FW is taboo in Chicago. The thread on AWC boards (2013 AWC tournament circuit) clearly indicates exactly what the FW thread on dakka is showing. Some people are in favor of FW. Some are clearly not and some would like it with limitations. I believe the general consensus we came to was that we all like FW but we would like some limitations (ie 0-1 or 0-2 choice with no duplicate of the same unit)
I could care less what people think about Forgeworld.
The only point I was trying to make is that I didn't get to truly practice my list because of the FW. Its not like anyone wants to play a pick up game against that list nor would they be ready to.
Furthermore, I could not have brought it to a local GT to see how it did.
Wargames Con was literally the first and last 7 games I will play with that army list.
I have been chatting with Chandler from Feast on the idea to use W/L with Battle Points to calculate the actual win or loss of the game etc. Plus using the Battle Points to seed throughout the event until the 4 round etc.
That way it will still emphasize aggressive play as you want more points to try etc. to have better match ups but still end up with having a true winner in the end. I think Nova is looking at it too and right now the big issue I have is that w/l generates what I feel is rather weenie play. Win the main objective and just run away to keep your win etc. If you add both with the emphasis on still the win - it will make people try to push for all the points etc.
But still - really every system has issues as w/l can be crappy when you lose your first game or when you are paired up against a buddy. At Adepticon I had to play Paul Murphy first and with only 4 games to determine the top 16 it meant a win or do play the second day. Now if it came down to W/L and BP to figure out who gets there - it might be a different game. Who knows - it is all just theory hehe.
I do know that Thudd guns are BS - Thanks Mike hahahaha.
ill be there with my 
If I want to spend 300+ points on an armor 13 megadread with gak guns and 3 
