The Torrent of Fire Invitational is a five round, 32 player tournament taking place outside of Washington DC. Players were selected from a highly competitive grouping, consisting of tournament winners, top players on Torrent of Fire, and player/organizers from across the country. Two weeks prior to the event, February 15th, brackets were determined via random first round pairings. The tournament will play out as an elimination/consolation bracketed event, with every player guaranteed five games. First place will be the player who finishes 5-0. Second place will be the player who finishes 4-1, only losing in their final round. Third place will be the 4-1 player with the highest battle point score. If second place also has the highest battle points, third place will be given to the next highest battle point finisher at 4-1.

First Place: $400 cash, 2014 NOVA Invitational Ticket

Second Place: $150 cash

Third Place: $100 cash

For the first time, in true NCAA Basketball March Madness style, spectators will be able to make predictions on who they think will win the tournament. You can create your bracket here: http://challonge.com/tofinv . The event will be run from http://app.torrentoffire.com, but this will allow users to create brackets and attempt to match their favorite players. Please, only 1 bracket per person. The best scoring bracket will also win $50!

Predictions will be accepted until midnight, February 28th, 2014.

Full brackets, lists, mission packets, and FAQ are available at http://www.torrentoffire.com/tof_inv.

All proceeds from the event are being donated to the NOVA Charitable Foundation, which supports a number of charities benefiting our soldiers and their families, among other funds.

I got this!!!!! Hulksmash, you are going down!

I bet you say that to all the boys

But seriously it'll be a good time. I mean, it's in a bar!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I bet you say that to all the boys

But seriously it'll be a good time. I mean, it's in a bar!

We were hooked after first event hosted here last year ... I mean tableside beer service? Had to convince chip to use them :-)

This is very interesting. I recognize a lot of these names.

There are going to be amazing games. Are any of the games going to be live?

The odds on favorite got to be Ben Mohie. I still consider him one of the best if not the best 40k player in the US.

But since I never go with the favorites I am going with Andrew Gonyo and Eric Hoeger in the finals. I have seen Eric’s play in the last 2 major GT and he has impressed me. Andrew is a very good player and playing Tau so I would put my money on him. Normal I would say Justin Cook would give him a run for his money, but he is playing a subpar codex. I applaud anyone not bringing jetseer, especially Justin Cook and Simon Leen for bring subpar codexs.

I'm sad. I didn't get any props for my no grav SM list from Jay!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I bet you say that to all the boys

But seriously it'll be a good time. I mean, it's in a bar!

Winner buys the looser a drink, that way everyone wins!!!!

Btw feel free to fortify some of my terrain

Jay_Daboyz wrote:
This is very interesting. I recognize a lot of these names.

There are going to be amazing games. Are any of the games going to be live?

The odds on favorite got to be Ben Mohie. I still consider him one of the best if not the best 40k player in the US.

But since I never go with the favorites I am going with Andrew Gonyo and Eric Hoeger in the finals. I have seen Eric’s play in the last 2 major GT and he has impressed me. Andrew is a very good player and playing Tau so I would put my money on him. Normal I would say Justin Cook would give him a run for his money, but he is playing a subpar codex. I applaud anyone not bringing jetseer, especially Justin Cook and Simon Leen for bring subpar codexs.

Sadly Jay I actually have Justin as a favorite in my first round match against him - check out the mission. It's an alternate scoring design, so you can choose before the game starts the alternate objective scoring format. If he does (he will) he earns 1 point per objective he controls at the start of his turn, from turns 2-6. So with 120 gaunts + tons of contestors, I'm going to be in rough shape matching pace against him. Max points you can score on objectives, either alternate or each is worth 3 at the end of the game, is 9, so my guess is he'll max that without me being able to stop him. It'll be a very very interesting match, and it's interesting to see me playing Tau feeling the underdog against nids! Silly missions making my crutches less useful!

Jay_Daboyz wrote:
This is very interesting. I recognize a lot of these names.

There are going to be amazing games. Are any of the games going to be live?

The top table is going to be live streamed and we're hoping for 1 or 2 more tables to be broadcast.

You guys know what time it is?

PLAGUE DRONE TIME!

yermom wrote:
You guys know what time it is?

PLAGUE DRONE TIME!

There can only be one Bown daemon list that does well....

Money is on Ben if he takes Nemsor... Otherwise It is probably Matt DeFranza if he is able to break out of Ovesa Star from Justin Cook.

I will be curious how many are going to bring Dark eldar Beastpack and Seer Council star.

Wish I could have made it up there :( I will be in Cali :(

In my biased versions of my predictions I have me vs Ben in the finals, and I'm my more realistic versions I have Ben vs tony.

Darkwynn wrote:
Money is on Ben if he takes Nemsor... Otherwise It is probably Matt DeFranza if he is able to break out of Ovesa Star from Justin Cook.

I will be curious how many are going to bring Dark eldar Beastpack and Seer Council star.

Wish I could have made it up there :( I will be in Cali :(

If you're up in Northern Cali, give me a PM if you're interested in playing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Very cool concept.

East Coast players have all the fun!

@ Huck Sorry Hulk, I didn’t get a chance to go through all the lists in detail I was lurking at work. No grav guns, I love it.

I also want to see Neil and Paul play! Battle of the pod casts.

@ Target Oh I just look at the missions. That first mission against Justin going to be a tough one. Either way he never going to let you off with easy win.

Darkwynn wrote:
Money is on Ben if he takes Nemsor... Otherwise It is probably Matt DeFranza if he is able to break out of Ovesa Star from Justin Cook.

I will be curious how many are going to bring Dark eldar Beastpack and Seer Council star.

Wish I could have made it up there :( I will be in Cali :(

Ben is taking a pretty wacky list, Eldar/DE/Inquisition. Here's his full list: http://www.torrentoffire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/ben_mohlie.pdf

Everyone else's lists are available via PDF as well, http://www.torrentoffire.com/tof_inv

@Jay

I forgive

@Jy2

Not everyone attending is East Coast. We've got a couple of midwesterners (by adoption) like me and a few west coasties like Frank

Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

 Hulksmash wrote:

@Jy2

Not everyone attending is East Coast. We've got a couple of midwesterners (by adoption) like me and a few west coasties like Frank

A couple of midwesterners and 1 West Coast player (that I recognize) out of 32 players?

Obviously home-court advantage. Hahahaha.

 JGrand wrote:
Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

Triple-GK ravens isn't a list that top players normally take, but for this battle, gotta root for Tim Gorham and his Wraithwing Necron Airforce.

Oh....and gooooo Frankie!

well Jy2 you'll be disapointed in Gorham, he's running a centurion star.

@Jgrand

Deathstars are the current monsters out there. The problem with two of the major ones (seer council & beaststar) is that they aren't deterred by Mindstrikes. Taking to the skies isn't totally the answer because most flyers don't have the damage output needed and most of the deathstar armies can put a solid ground element in play as well.

That said I do think we'll see a shift soon. The meta finally stabilized enough for people to adjust a little bit. The fist year of 6th was insane in it's release. With IG up next I can see a solid amount of time to adjust to the current meta and shift it.

Personally I dislike deathstars but once in a while they are silly and fun. Though I do hate seer council and I'm sure I'll hate the plague drone army if I play it even if I love Nick

Which is why I have 1 Gk raven and 3 SM ravens for the event

This will be a real fun event and I hope we get a couple games streamed.

 JGrand wrote:
Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

Considering the skill of the players in the brackets, Id say that's a positive sign that so many players are trying different things in a hyper competitive environment.

 krootman. wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

Considering the skill of the players in the brackets, Id say that's a positive sign that so many players are trying different things in a hyper competitive environment.

I call horse poop. There are basically 5 primary builds in play. Seer Council, Ovesa Star, Beaststar, FMC/MC Spam Nids and Bike Command Squad Deathstars. With a few common "meta" builds like centurion star, daemonic fmc spam, and all bike sm. Followed by a couple of rando's like myself, clauss, the two necron players, nick's drone army, and ben's Eldar/DE/Inquisition crazyness.

It's a pretty limited spread of lists.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

Considering the skill of the players in the brackets, Id say that's a positive sign that so many players are trying different things in a hyper competitive environment.

I call horse poop. There are basically 5 primary builds in play. Seer Council, Ovesa Star, Beaststar, FMC/MC Spam Nids and Bike Command Squad Deathstars. With a few common "meta" builds like centurion star, daemonic fmc spam, and all bike sm. Followed by a couple of rando's like myself, clauss, the two necron players, nick's drone army, and ben's Eldar/DE/Inquisition crazyness.

It's a pretty limited spread of lists.

Different lists? Where?

As Brad pointed out, most are known deathstars. There are a few that are a little bit different. Ben's list is odd, but I guess he really wants to get first turn.

Main Codexes:
Space Marines
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids

Besides the Tyranids, who the jury is still out on, they are all the known good books. That is not much for diversity.

I guess that is how you get an invite though is by playing a deathstar on the east coast.

Ben Vs Someone - that is what I predict hahah.

Chip it was great meeting you at the LVO. I am so sad I an't make this due to family stuff. I wanted to hang out with everyone.

I am planning on making NOVA this year. Too bad I can't be one of the Daemon players.

And for shame putting Paul versus Ender there in round 1. Josh you better not let Paul win!

I love ben's "I always go first so take it" list ;p.

Should be fun to see what some of you guys are able to pull off. Hulk your techmarine spam looks interesting for sure.

 Hulksmash wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

Considering the skill of the players in the brackets, Id say that's a positive sign that so many players are trying different things in a hyper competitive environment.

I call horse poop. There are basically 5 primary builds in play. Seer Council, Ovesa Star, Beaststar, FMC/MC Spam Nids and Bike Command Squad Deathstars. With a few common "meta" builds like centurion star, daemonic fmc spam, and all bike sm. Followed by a couple of rando's like myself, clauss, the two necron players, nick's drone army, and ben's Eldar/DE/Inquisition crazyness.

It's a pretty limited spread of lists.

Beats having half the meta be one list or one army. I am also the only fmc daemon player too and its not like that is a super common build.

I just wanted to paint and model half a dozen techmarines

In seriousness though I know quite a few people got invites that aren't east coasters and don't play deathstars. Some could make it and some couldn't.

And Blackmoor you forgot Tau from your list, the other super dex.

Though there is a sisters army there too

Hey internet let's take a step back and actually analyze these armies.

We can first look at the diversity of lists now: gun line tau/ovesa star, bike marines, jetseer, beast star are the common ones. Then we have 2 screamer stars an fmc daemon list 2 vastly different nid armies, 2 necrons with completely different lists, plague drones, bens alpha strike thing, tech marine blob thing, and some others variants.

Now let's look at the game a year ago at this time, right before adepticon. Does anyone remember the top 16? I do. Approximately 10 necron primaries, a couple hell drakes, 1 ork, 1 space marine, 1 nid, and 1 Eldar.

Ok even further back to 5th ed, grey knight razor spam, space wolf razor spam, blood angel razor spam, mech guard, am I missing anything?

Seems to me the game is growing in diversity of good builds, not shrinking.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
Seers/Screamers/Beast-stars make up 1/4 of the field. That doesn't even include the peppering of O'vesa stars.

The lack of imagination is a bit disheartening, especially because most of the players at this event can make a ton of cool builds work via superior skill. Not saying that the deathstars are unbeatable or need to be nerfed, but I do think a meta shift is coming. We're already seeing people take to the skies or reserves to avoid these units entirely. I'd imagine that extreme MSU with some anti-psyker via Rune Priests or Mindstrikes will become more popular as the psychic based deathstars become so ubiquitous.

Considering the skill of the players in the brackets, Id say that's a positive sign that so many players are trying different things in a hyper competitive environment.

I call horse poop. There are basically 5 primary builds in play. Seer Council, Ovesa Star, Beaststar, FMC/MC Spam Nids and Bike Command Squad Deathstars. With a few common "meta" builds like centurion star, daemonic fmc spam, and all bike sm. Followed by a couple of rando's like myself, clauss, the two necron players, nick's drone army, and ben's Eldar/DE/Inquisition crazyness.

It's a pretty limited spread of lists.

Different lists? Where?

As Brad pointed out, most are known deathstars. There are a few that are a little bit different. Ben's list is odd, but I guess he really wants to get first turn.

Main Codexes:
Space Marines
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Necrons
Demons
Tyranids

Besides the Tyranids, who the jury is still out on, they are all the known good books. That is not much for diversity.

I guess that is how you get an invite though is by playing a deathstar on the east coast.

Thats a pretty nice spread of codexs, considering the amount of tau, eldar, and daemon armies we have seen lately.

yermom wrote:
Hey internet let's take a step back and actually analyze these armies.

We can first look at the diversity of lists now: gun line tau/ovesa star, bike marines, jetseer, beast star are the common ones. Then we have 2 screamer stars an fmc daemon list 2 vastly different nid armies, 2 necrons with completely different lists, plague drones, bens alpha strike thing, tech marine blob thing, and some others variants.

Now let's look at the game a year ago at this time, right before adepticon. Does anyone remember the top 16? I do. Approximately 10 necron primaries, a couple hell drakes, 1 ork, 1 space marine, 1 nid, and 1 Eldar.

Ok even further back to 5th ed, grey knight razor spam, space wolf razor spam, blood angel razor spam, mech guard, am I missing anything?

Seems to me the game is growing in diversity of good builds, not shrinking.

You acting as the voice of reason frightens me more than anything I've read on the internet today.

How many of the builds are reliant on fortune Nick? Genuinely curious.

The only issue I take up with it is deathstaring leaves some codexes out. Very few books that can't build a deathstar can stand-up to deathstars in alternate builds. Which limits builds and codexes. That said it'll be fun but let's not pretend outside of maybe 1/4 of the field we're not fielding a known deathstar build.

And yeah, Nick as the voice of reason is hilarious.

Edit: Nick said everything I wanted to.

By my count there's 11 different armies being used, not counting for supplements. Pretty good IMO, even if there are recurring themes.

yermom wrote:
Hey internet let's take a step back and actually analyze these armies.

We can first look at the diversity of lists now: gun line tau/ovesa star, bike marines, jetseer, beast star are the common ones. Then we have 2 screamer stars an fmc daemon list 2 vastly different nid armies, 2 necrons with completely different lists, plague drones, bens alpha strike thing, tech marine blob thing, and some others variants.

Now let's look at the game a year ago at this time, right before adepticon. Does anyone remember the top 16? I do. Approximately 10 necron primaries, a couple hell drakes, 1 ork, 1 space marine, 1 nid, and 1 Eldar.

Ok even further back to 5th ed, grey knight razor spam, space wolf razor spam, blood angel razor spam, mech guard, am I missing anything?

Seems to me the game is growing in diversity of good builds, not shrinking.

2nd this, and agree with what andrew said about you being the voice of reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way every person who votes for brown to win it all, IF he does... he will partake in a beverage for each player at the end of the event!!!!

I second this notion John

@Jgrand

Deathstars are the current monsters out there. The problem with two of the major ones (seer council & beaststar) is that they aren't deterred by Mindstrikes. Taking to the skies isn't totally the answer because most flyers don't have the damage output needed and most of the deathstar armies can put a solid ground element in play as well.

That said I do think we'll see a shift soon. The meta finally stabilized enough for people to adjust a little bit. The fist year of 6th was insane in it's release. With IG up next I can see a solid amount of time to adjust to the current meta and shift it.

Personally I dislike deathstars but once in a while they are silly and fun. Though I do hate seer council and I'm sure I'll hate the plague drone army if I play it even if I love Nick

When I say take to the skies, I mean more to avoid these units--not kill them. The real reason to stay up high is to be able to drop your own fast troops and kill theirs.

Which is why I have 1 Gk raven and 3 SM ravens for the event

This will be a real fun event and I hope we get a couple games streamed.

Where do you come up with these great builds?

Hey internet let's take a step back and actually analyze these armies.

We can first look at the diversity of lists now: gun line tau/ovesa star, bike marines, jetseer, beast star are the common ones. Then we have 2 screamer stars an fmc daemon list 2 vastly different nid armies, 2 necrons with completely different lists, plague drones, bens alpha strike thing, tech marine blob thing, and some others variants.

Now let's look at the game a year ago at this time, right before adepticon. Does anyone remember the top 16? I do. Approximately 10 necron primaries, a couple hell drakes, 1 ork, 1 space marine, 1 nid, and 1 Eldar.

Ok even further back to 5th ed, grey knight razor spam, space wolf razor spam, blood angel razor spam, mech guard, am I missing anything?

Seems to me the game is growing in diversity of good builds, not shrinking.

Yes, there is more variety in terms of "top dogs" than ever before. However, this is more symptomatic of the fast pace of updates than anything else.1/4 of the lists are deathstars that rely on a re-rollable 2+ save via psychic powers. O'vesa star is another deathstar oriented list, based primarily on being super durable. Otherwise, there are flyer based armies, bike based scout armies, and the occasional odd-ball.

While diversity is high, there are really limited paradigms for lists right now.

All that being said, 40k is still a super fun game and this event looks great. Good luck to all.

Anyways if people are tired of fortune stars / tau commander crazyness / etc they should vote for me!

 GoatboyBBMA wrote:
Ben Vs Someone - that is what I predict hahah.

Chip it was great meeting you at the LVO. I am so sad I an't make this due to family stuff. I wanted to hang out with everyone.

I am planning on making NOVA this year. Too bad I can't be one of the Daemon players.

And for shame putting Paul versus Ender there in round 1. Josh you better not let Paul win!

I'm also sad you won't make it. Nick as well. Need some non-East Coast blood in the event! Next year, with more notice, I hope you both can make it.

As far as pairings go, I did them completely randomly (double random, actually). I randomized the list of players, then randomized the list of fake seeds, then built the bracket that way. My options were to manually fix up the brackets, do it based on a seeding from past tournament experience, or do it randomly. To manually fix up the brackets, there was too much potential for bias; I'm not perfect. To base it on past tournament results, there wasn't enough information. I have ToF rankings for all the players, but ToF is still new and I don't think this would accurately seed players. Plus, the ability for two club mates to play is still very possible. Ultimately I settled on random pairings as I felt it was the most fair, provided the greatest transparency/accountability, and could offer some exciting matchups at all stages of the tournament. It does, however, allow the option for club mates to play in the first round, which is a side affect that I understand some don't like, although I don't know that I'm wholly against it.

chipstar1 wrote:

 GoatboyBBMA wrote:
Ben Vs Someone - that is what I predict hahah.

Chip it was great meeting you at the LVO. I am so sad I an't make this due to family stuff. I wanted to hang out with everyone.

I am planning on making NOVA this year. Too bad I can't be one of the Daemon players.

And for shame putting Paul versus Ender there in round 1. Josh you better not let Paul win!

I'm also sad you won't make it. Nick as well. Need some non-East Coast blood in the event! Next year, with more notice, I hope you both can make it.

As far as pairings go, I did them completely randomly (double random, actually). I randomized the list of players, then randomized the list of fake seeds, then built the bracket that way. My options were to manually fix up the brackets, do it based on a seeding from past tournament experience, or do it randomly. To manually fix up the brackets, there was too much potential for bias; I'm not perfect. To base it on past tournament results, there wasn't enough information. I have ToF rankings for all the players, but ToF is still new and I don't think this would accurately seed players. Plus, the ability for two club mates to play is still very possible. Ultimately I settled on random pairings as I felt it was the most fair, provided the greatest transparency/accountability, and could offer some exciting matchups at all stages of the tournament. It does, however, option the option for club mates to play in the first round, which is a side affect that I understand some don't like, although I don't know that I'm wholly against it.

I demand not to play my fellow team america member round 1! I'll gladly play him in round 2 though, when its not alternate scoring...

:-D

Random pairings sometimes stink, they'll never please everyone, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. Now death to our friends! I mean good luck Justin!

yermom wrote:
Hey internet let's take a step back and actually analyze these armies.

We can first look at the diversity of lists now: gun line tau/ovesa star, bike marines, jetseer, beast star are the common ones. Then we have 2 screamer stars an fmc daemon list 2 vastly different nid armies, 2 necrons with completely different lists, plague drones, bens alpha strike thing, tech marine blob thing, and some others variants.

Now let's look at the game a year ago at this time, right before adepticon. Does anyone remember the top 16? I do. Approximately 10 necron primaries, a couple hell drakes, 1 ork, 1 space marine, 1 nid, and 1 Eldar.

#1. It was not as bad as you remember since there was Goatboy's Demons, and there were 3 GK players.
#2. This field only seems diverse because there are 32 players, and not 16.
#3. There are also some players that I am not familiar with so I do not know their qualification for this event so they might have oddball lists. We will see if they can really compete against the top players with the top lists.

Wait until it gets down to the top 16 or top 8 and then let's talk about list diversity, because this is not the top 32, but the starting 32.

Ok even further back to 5th ed, grey knight razor spam, space wolf razor spam, blood angel razor spam, mech guard, am I missing anything?

Yes. You are talking about the final rounds not the overall tournament pool. This is 32 players with very few builds, and we will see how many of them can compete. Again when it gets to the final rounds we need to see how diverse the field is after the bad armies get culled from the head.

Well the culling could hit "good" armies to due to mission, match-up, or terrain.

Granted i'm just making early excuses for my first round loss

TECH-MARINES! WOOOOO!

 Hulksmash wrote:
Well the culling could hit "good" armies to due to mission, match-up, or terrain.

Granted i'm just making early excuses for my first round loss

TECH-MARINES! WOOOOO!

You and I will be doing shots for each tech marine that dies!

 Hulksmash wrote:
Well the culling could hit "good" armies to due to mission, match-up, or terrain.

Granted i'm just making early excuses for my first round loss

TECH-MARINES! WOOOOO!

Yeah, like the Sean/Alan match-up are mirror match beastback deathstars.

As I was looking at the match-ups a lot of it came down to who gets first turn. Seer Council/Beast Packs could get hit without fortune up, and the Tyranids start with all of their flyers on the ground. That is why I like Ben as a dark horse. He should always get first turn and with war walker scouting 6"+moving 6"+battle focusing for around 4"-5" for about a 16" total move he can hit just about anywhere on the table..

 Blackmoor wrote:
#1. It was not as bad as you remember since there was Goatboy's Demons, and there were 3 GK players.

And 2 of those GK also used Necrons. So if you're saying different combinations of allies means diversity, then I don't know what bothers you about the list of armies being used at ToF as there is a range of combinations being used.

Overall I think it's pretty ridiculous how some are responding to this event with such criticism / negativity. I think Chip and the rest of ToF is doing something awesome and new. People talk about selected lists being disheartening, I think the negative sentiment being projected here by some is infinitely more disheartening. Is that the kind of community we've become? That as soon as new event comes out we ridicule the heck out of it? It's the first year that ToF has been around and this is the first invitational event they're putting together. I'm sure in future years the selection process will be refined and there will be more aggregate data. Keep in mind that until LVO it's been predominantly east coast tournaments that have used ToF software, so is it that surprising that there's a bit of an east coast weight put into the player selection for the first year? Plus like Target mentioned, there were a fair amount of non-easterners who were invited but could not make it due to travel/work/family obligations.

Instead of hating, why not look on the positive side - isn't it awesome that we now have a tournament software company that is hosting a new event? Isn't it exciting to see a throwdown between some of the most competitive names in the last year? Isn't it cool that this brand new event has made pre-event lists and pairings available so folks can predict match ups and winners?

It should be a great weekend with a high level of competition, plus it's also raising money for charity which is icing on the cake.

It's gonna be interesting. I'm excited to basically see some people I only normally see at Adepticon and Nova. Outside of that I get to play with toy soldiers for the weekend in a bar.

And i'll accept the shots for the ones that die Krootman, not my overheats...I need to be able to stand up and I roll a ton of ones

Hey now, no one told me this was all serious and public and whatnot. I woulda brought Repentia and Engines if I had known.

And its probably just me, but I find it hilarious that Tony's list is three points shy of the full 1850. Ain't gonna keep me from bitching about his bringing a witnessing spear, which google tells me is totally not a thing. I woulda won if his list hadn't been so confusing.

 Hulksmash wrote:
It's gonna be interesting. I'm excited to basically see some people I only normally see at Adepticon and Nova. Outside of that I get to play with toy soldiers for the weekend in a bar.

And i'll accept the shots for the ones that die Krootman, not my overheats...I need to be able to stand up and I roll a ton of ones

Hummm you are quite trisky sir.

I hope all reading this realize that the intent of this is not to have a "best of the best" elite tournament, but to have a fun event...it's at a bar!...where we can have some fun games and relax, and afterwards talk about how awesome we are or how much we suck!

Please don't take it too seriously, that's not the intent!

Vote for my mini-fiendstar! Nobody will see it coming!

All the Eldar/DE stuff is a bit of a bummer but this event should be pretty awesome. I can't judge anyone though, at the end of the day i'd want to bring the list that gave me the best chance to win and currently that is probably some variant of a Fortune'd deathstar.

I'm pulling for Tilly/Clauss, go Dukes (jk, school spirit sucks).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Malagant wrote:
I hope all reading this realize that the intent of this is not to have a "best of the best" elite tournament, but to have a fun event...it's at a bar!...where we can have some fun games and relax, and afterwards talk about how awesome we are or how much we suck!

Please don't take it too seriously, that's not the intent!

Vote for my mini-fiendstar! Nobody will see it coming!

Except Kurt, right?

 morgendonner wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
#1. It was not as bad as you remember since there was Goatboy's Demons, and there were 3 GK players.

And 2 of those GK also used Necrons. So if you're saying different combinations of allies means diversity, then I don't know what bothers you about the list of armies being used at ToF as there is a range of combinations being used.

Nick's Necrons had GK allies, and Adam's have GK with Necron armies. I had pure GKs, and I played another pure GK army in round #8. The reason that there were so many Necons was that this was early in 6th edition and the only answer for flyers was to take flyers of your own.

Overall I think it's pretty ridiculous how some are responding to this event with such criticism / negativity. I think Chip and the est of ToF is doing something awesome and new. People talk about selected lists being disheartening, I think the negative sentiment being projected here by some is infinitely more disheartening. Is that the kind of community we've become? That as soon as new event comes out we ridicule the heck out of it? It's the first year that ToF has been around and this is the first invitational event they're putting together. I'm sure in future years the selection process will be refined and there will be more aggregate data. Keep in mind that until LVO it's been predominantly east coast tournaments that have used ToF software, so is it that surprising that there's a bit of an east coast weight put into the player selection for the first year?

You are mingling the two complaints.
#1. People have have been aware that 6th edition 40k has devolved into Deathstar 40k and these rosters show that. People are lamenting that they need a deathstar to compete at the highest levels.
#2.Since there is no transparency, and these are not the top 32 players according to ToF, people are wondering at the selection process to make this an "Invitational", and the qualification of some of the players if these are the best.

Instead of hating, why not look on the positive side - isn't it awesome that we now have a tournament software company that is hosting a new event? Isn't it exciting to see a throwdown between some of the most competitive names in the last year? Isn't it cool that this brand new event has made pre-event lists and pairings available so folks can predict match ups and winners?

I like Chip and love Torrent of Fire. I guess because of that no one can ask questions or make statements on the lists?

It should be a great weekend with a high level of competition, plus it's also raising money for charity which is icing on the cake.

This event looks like fun. A shame I had to pass because of work.

My money is on Sean to upset Alan in round 1 and go all the way. Go go Cold Steel Mercs

Blackmoor thanks for including a positive spin in that post Sorry I didn't recall another pure GK being there with us on Day 2.

Of course, in two weeks time we'll have a better look after we see how all the lists do. With the kind of round one pairings it will be important to look at a lot of the overall data too not just who made it to round 3 etc. The deathstar list dominance I guess can vary depending on what you use as a definition for it. Some of the lists contain the super-powered battle brothers units which I think are the bigger issue people have, while other lists like Nick's drones have a self-contained codex unit which seems more reasonable to me (sort of in line with the days of paladins )

It's unfortunate Goatboy can't make it to rep the Wargamescon crew but there are still quite a few of the big GT TO's who will be at the event covering a decent amount of areas of the US so I do hope that they'll all get a good amount of mingling time in to get on the same page about some of the things happening with the game (expansions, data slates, etc). That would be a major positive takeaway from the weekend, and I think would address some of your concerns about the state of the game.

There are 3 beast stars I think. And 2? jet councils.

But both Tony and Matt's council lists are very different... almost no common units after the council, in fact 850ish points of different stuff in a 1850 list means 45% of their lists are different thats pretty significant.

Then the three beast star lists are again significantly different. Zachs list is very different then Alan and mine, and even alan and I have almost 900pts spent differently ... though you could argue Eldrad over a farseer is a net 140 points more identical... still pushes the lists to a similar 45% difference in points spent.

In fact Tony and Zachs lists are almost more similar then they are to their respective death star styles. Because of the heavy wave serpent support.

So while they all share elements and a theme idea of pushing a psychic death star towards the enemy they all also have differences in build and style.

With only one psyker albeit Eldrad, fortune isnt even my major concern, though it would be nice and in some matchups I would like it, I dont see me even rolling for it until round 3 if I have to play Gonyo's tau.

Also I did the math and my list is 66% identical to my adepticon list from last year, which was widely praised for its courage and inventiveness... and now what I cant play with it because other people think beasts are good now too? And the other beast players cant play with beasts because why, they didnt think of it first? I thought the only rules about army composition were in the codex?

Some data, because you all know (or should by now) how much I love data. Excuse me if this doesn't format well, I'll edit post with better formatting if needed.

Here's the number / percentage of common "trouble" units in the ToF Invitational:

Total Units: 446

Jetbikes 18 / 4.04
Thunderfires 11 / 2.47
Jetseers 9 / 2.02
Wave Serpents 8 / 1.79
Bike Chapter Master 8 / 1.79
Khan 7 / 1.57
Inquisitors 7 / 1.57
Buff Commander 5 / 1.12
Broadsides 5 / 1.12
Riptides 5 / 1.12
Rune Priest 5 / 1.12
Annihilation Barges 5 / 1.12
Swooping Hawks 4 / 0.90
Wraithknights 4 / 0.90
Fateweaver 4 / 0.90
Beast Pack 3 / 0.67
Baron 3 / 0.67
Helldrakes 3 / 0.67
Flyrants 3 / 0.67
Screamers 2 / 0.45
O'vesa 2 / 0.45

OrdoSean wrote:
There are 3 beast stars I think. And 2? jet councils.

But both Tony and Matt's council lists are very different... almost no common units after the council, in fact 850ish points of different stuff in a 1850 list means 45% of their lists are different thats pretty significant.

Then the three beast star lists are again significantly different. Zachs list is very different then Alan and mine, and even alan and I have almost 900pts spent differently ... though you could argue Eldrad over a farseer is a net 140 points more identical... still pushes the lists to a similar 45% difference in points spent.

In fact Tony and Zachs lists are almost more similar then they are to their respective death star styles. Because of the heavy wave serpent support.

So while they all share elements and a theme idea of pushing a psychic death star towards the enemy they all also have differences in build and style.

With only one psyker albeit Eldrad, fortune isnt even my major concern, though it would be nice and in some matchups I would like it, I dont see me even rolling for it until round 3 if I have to play Gonyo's tau.

Also I did the math and my list is 66% identical to my adepticon list from last year, which was widely praised for its courage and inventiveness... and now what I cant play with it because other people think beasts are good now too? And the other beast players cant play with beasts because why, they didnt think of it first? I thought the only rules about army composition were in the codex?

What a difference a year with the new eldar codex will do eh? Good luck dude, we all know who started the beastpack craze so show em who's boss haha.

morgendonner wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:
#1. It was not as bad as you remember since there was Goatboy's Demons, and there were 3 GK players.

And 2 of those GK also used Necrons. So if you're saying different combinations of allies means diversity, then I don't know what bothers you about the list of armies being used at ToF as there is a range of combinations being used.

Overall I think it's pretty ridiculous how some are responding to this event with such criticism / negativity. I think Chip and the rest of ToF is doing something awesome and new. People talk about selected lists being disheartening, I think the negative sentiment being projected here by some is infinitely more disheartening. Is that the kind of community we've become? That as soon as new event comes out we ridicule the heck out of it? It's the first year that ToF has been around and this is the first invitational event they're putting together. I'm sure in future years the selection process will be refined and there will be more aggregate data. Keep in mind that until LVO it's been predominantly east coast tournaments that have used ToF software, so is it that surprising that there's a bit of an east coast weight put into the player selection for the first year? Plus like Target mentioned, there were a fair amount of non-easterners who were invited but could not make it due to travel/work/family obligations.

Instead of hating, why not look on the positive side - isn't it awesome that we now have a tournament software company that is hosting a new event? Isn't it exciting to see a throwdown between some of the most competitive names in the last year? Isn't it cool that this brand new event has made pre-event lists and pairings available so folks can predict match ups and winners?

It should be a great weekend with a high level of competition, plus it's also raising money for charity which is icing on the cake.

Agreed - this event is awesome for all the reasons you listed! When has there been an event like this before now? Exciting times for the 40k tournament scene, regardless of how we all perceive 6th edition

Wish I could have have made it this year - going to LVO then Adepticon made this event a little tough to justify to my wallet (and wife + newborn, heh). Hopefully next year

Apparently I missed a Baron. 4 Barons, .90%

Malagant wrote:
Vote for my mini-fiendstar! Nobody will see it coming!

Don't knock the fiendstar folks, I've been running one since the book came out. It is pretty legit. Hilarity ensues when it is invisible. Silly invisible herald challenges the fortune caster out of a seer council, who accepts the invisible summons because Slaanesh says so!

Chip, it would also be helpful to know the percentage of armies that contain those units. # per total # of units is useful for some units (Riptides), but # per total armies would be more useful for others (any IC/unique units).

Banosby wrote:
Hey now, no one told me this was all serious and public and whatnot. I woulda brought Repentia and Engines if I had known.

And its probably just me, but I find it hilarious that Tony's list is three points shy of the full 1850. Ain't gonna keep me from bitching about his bringing a witnessing spear, which google tells me is totally not a thing. I woulda won if his list hadn't been so confusing.

So... he is C3PU this year? Instead of C3PO?

 Hulksmash wrote:
I bet you say that to all the boys

But seriously it'll be a good time. I mean, it's in a bar!

Nothing has ever gone catastrophically wrong where alcohol was involved.

Wait.....

Banosby wrote:
Chip, it would also be helpful to know the percentage of armies that contain those units. # per total # of units is useful for some units (Riptides), but # per total armies would be more useful for others (any IC/unique units).

Will get those numbers crunched today. Agree this would be helpful/representative as well.

All I know is I will be reading/watching hopefully these events. I am interested in seeing Ben's list work too.

Good luck to everyone - I would have played maxed troops most likely with Daemons all over the place. HORDE DAEMONS RARGH!!!

Gotta win it with tyranids

It'll be fun watching people lab out and prep for the asymmetrical first mission with known opponents / lists and time to prep and think about exactly how to go about it.

Much of the mission design is decided at the point of attack ... so it's in a sense obviated by people being able to guess at what their opponent will escalate, but in a sense emphasized by not knowing for sure.

I think it's an interesting dynamic to be able to know what lists you might run into, when, and the mission all weeks in advance of the event. It's definitely a shift from how it normally works

So far we have 27 completed brackets.

There are only 2,147,483,648 possible combinations, so fill out those brackets!

I am really looking forward to this.

Ofc I have myself taking gold in the bracket

As do I

I don't see how to submit the brackets... I'd like to but I don't see where to do it!

The chollenge link in the first post I think takes you to the site.

 frgsinwntr wrote:
I don't see how to submit the brackets... I'd like to but I don't see where to do it!

Brackets can be submitted here: http://challonge.com/tofinv


We have 40 bracket participants so far.

I have Brad Nichols going all the way and Bob Roda being his opponent last round.

I appreciate the vote of confidence Rich, but besides me you might be the only one thinking that.

For shame Rich. Where's the Sisters solidarity?

It's ok Brad I doubt anyone has me making it past round 3.

No one likes Simon over tony round 1 I imagine? I feel the sisters can win if they knock out the serpents early/go first. Rough with baron but doable.

No one likes me full stop. Life-long affliction of mine.

But yes, I fully expect to lose badly.

That's not true Simon. You're my favorite BFS round four opponent ever.

I look forward to Judging. Mind you I will accept shots as counter arguments! Gonna be a great weekend look forward to seeing everyone!

MVB we going to be drinking together?

Soooo many Deathstars, lol, that makes me sad! haha

Frankie will win it all! Muahaha, glory to the West Coast!

SGnewton wrote:
I look forward to Judging. Mind you I will accept shots as counter arguments! Gonna be a great weekend look forward to seeing everyone!

MVB we going to be drinking together?

Absolutely! Depends on how much we have to babysit this gaggle of beginners

I'm hoping there are no last minute cancellations. It took a lot of flat-out whining to turn down my invitation to play, but I couldn't get out of being first sub if somebody no-shows. Livecasting, judging, and doing judges' shots sounds more fun.


In a serious bent, thanks to everyone who is coming out - all the proceeds from this event are going to the causes supported by the NOVA Open Charitable Foundation (http://novaopenfoundation.org/), and we're stoked about that. We'll be revealing this year's charity army projects soon .... including an 1850 vs 1850 dual army project covering the Battle for Macragge.

I like the diversity of armies, but aren't DE/Sisters/Weird GK/DE builds pretty much free wins for the players who brought tier 1 armies?

Simple answer, nope. You also have to take into account the actual list and player behind it.

brackets for ToF Invitational close in 5 minutes!

Do you know when roughly the twitch stream
Will start?

I am putting all my chips in on Frankie and his DE. He is playing a mans army with very little cheese. It would be a hellova statement if he takes it,

 oddworx wrote:
I am putting all my chips in on Frankie and his DE. He is playing a mans army with very little cheese. It would be a hellova statement if he takes it,

He has to get through defranza first!!!

9 A.M. US Eastern Time

The Torrent of Fire Invitational is live! ETC Captain Andrew Gonyo is playing ETC newbie, Justin Cook on our Twitch channel!

http://www.twitch.tv/torrentoffire

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I like the diversity of armies, but aren't DE/Sisters/Weird GK/DE builds pretty much free wins for the players who brought tier 1 armies?

Sisters took down seer council round 1 ;p. GO SIMON!!!

If sisters go first, their scounting melta doms can really do a number on the seer council. Once the council gets fortune/conceal up though, they're boned.

Chaos Space Marines with no Demons took down Ben Mohile round 1. Go Chaos!

The Wifi was not very cooperative so we had to abandon the twitch stream.

We will still be updating ToF as results come in.

-Mike

TOF app isn't working, what's the news?

Just received the first update. Tony defeats TJ.

ummm tony kopach lost to simon leen right? awesome for simon : )

Sisters all the way boss!

So who took out the camera? Someone trip on a chord?;p

Edit:and it's back!

A player bumped it with his head and the whole thing came down.

What were the results in round 3 ?

Tim gorham, John parsons, Paul Murphy, and Matt defranza all won to stay undefeated.

Congratulations to Chicago's very own Tim Gorham for the tourney win. Here is Tim's unconventional list.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/tim_gorham.pdf

Which part of that list is unconventional?

The 5 HQs? Coteaz? Or the psychic powers that help it destroy seer councils and ignore all other rules of the game?

At first I thought that a winning marines list would halt the call for tournament comp/reform, then I realized that this is another iteration of a cheese dick death star that aims to abuse battle brothers and the inquistion codex.

I think it's about time we started to hate the players or change the game.

bogalubov wrote:
Which part of that list is unconventional?

The 5 HQs? Coteaz? Or the psychic powers that help it destroy seer councils and ignore all other rules of the game?

At first I thought that a winning marines list would halt the call for tournament comp/reform, then I realized that this is another iteration of a cheese dick death star that aims to abuse battle brothers and the inquistion codex.

I think it's about time we started to hate the players or change the game.

Cool heads will prevail.

The game is currently death star 40k... it will be countered by MSU 40k in the next few months... its a cycle in the game

Which part of that list is unconventional?

The 5 HQs? Coteaz? Or the psychic powers that help it destroy seer councils and ignore all other rules of the game?

At first I thought that a winning marines list would halt the call for tournament comp/reform, then I realized that this is another iteration of a cheese dick death star that aims to abuse battle brothers and the inquistion codex.

I think it's about time we started to hate the players or change the game.

Where have you seen that list before? The whole thing is super original and proves that there are some neat combos out there which aren't so obvious.If you wanted to call out the crutch armies like the Seer/Screamers/Beasts, I'd understand, but the winning Marine list is nowhere near that level of abuse.

Kudos to Tim Gorham for making something cool work.

I really want to find out how that Marine list works! Congrats to everyone, especially Tim!

Creative doesn't mean non-abusive. Plus using inquisition and especially Coteaz does not scream innovation to me.

Much has been made about the cyclical nature of 40k tournament lists and the eventual rise of the next cheese. But I don't think that we need to sit back and wait while hoping that some new broken combo or D weapons will deliver us from evil. Just because that is how the game progressed in the past does not make it the best way to the future.

My problem with the current top lists is that they seek to remove the participation of the other player. If players feel compelled to bring these lists because that is the only way to compete perhaps the rules need to be changed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gornall wrote:
I really want to find out how that Marine list works! Congrats to everyone, especially Tim!

It's a 2+/4++ (with forewarning) death star with 2 chapter masters with 3++ and it will not die. The grav cannons wound on 2s or 3s against the council with ap2/ignore cover shots. The star also has scout to bring their guns to bear earlier.

Creative doesn't mean non-abusive. Plus using inquisition and especially Coteaz does not scream innovation to me.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I'd rather face the winning list than Seers/Screamers/Beasts, but that's just me.

Much has been made about the cyclical nature of 40k tournament lists and the eventual rise of the next cheese. But I don't think that we need to sit back and wait while hoping that some new broken combo or D weapons will deliver us from evil. Just because that is how the game progressed in the past does not make it the best way to the future.

No competitive players are talking about d-weapons. Anyone with half a brain can tell they only serve to homogenize the game down to just Eldar and Crons.

My problem with the current top lists is that they seek to remove the participation of the other player. If players feel compelled to bring these lists because that is the only way to compete perhaps the rules need to be changed.

The 2+ re-rollable save en masse is very lame. I said before that a bunch of the players in this invitational are too talented to take Seers/Screamers/Beasts and I stand by that. That being said, those lists aren't an auto win.

My overall point is that we need to stop waiting for new broken rules or combos to advance the game.

GW has created a universe and model set that they're telling us to go forth and enjoy. That means getting together and deciding how best to create an enjoyable tournament game.

Congrats to winner. And congrats to more cry babies who probably can't win if they had the greatest list, made by the greatest minds in the history of the game, who trained said crybaby for a year... Enough of the mentality "I can't win, so any list that does must be broken, over powered, abusive, or unfair wahhh"

Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

I had a great tournament, even though I lost all 3 games with the bugs . Oh well time to re-think that list I played. Thanks again to Chip and Mike for running a great event.

People have been talking about the Centurion deathstar for a while now.

It is just another deathstar in deathstar 40K

Kemp wrote:
Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

I lost to him in the semi finals, very solid player. Was a very very fun, and tight game! Lost due to first blood! 2bps to one. It's a nice take on the grav star!

Had a great time and had a few beers with a great group of guys. Thanks for running it Chip, and thanks to all my opponents for great games. Except Nick.

Banosby wrote:
Had a great time and had a few beers with a great group of guys. Thanks for running it Chip, and thanks to all my opponents for great games. Except Nick.

Who vomited all over the outside of my car, right after he pooped himself. But with out nick I would have never been able to copy his FMC list and show him which daemon build is better!!!!!

<3 nick

Chancetragedy wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
I like the diversity of armies, but aren't DE/Sisters/Weird GK/DE builds pretty much free wins for the players who brought tier 1 armies?

Sisters took down seer council round 1 ;p. GO SIMON!!!

Very nice!

Kemp wrote:
Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

Split fire only works on the sergeant. Turn one he is most liekly using scout from the Liber, but turn two he can give the unit split fire.

I only watched one of his games but his rules queries were on the border of stupidity, and he slow played extensively. I played Defranza at the Nova invitational and he took the loss graciously when I played him, however this game I could see he was getting very annoyed with some of the stuff Tim was trying to pull.

The list is certainly effective, however it isn't quite as durable as say a seer council or a screamer council. I do like that list and have been playtesting something very similar. Kudos either way on the win, but perhaps next time cut the crap and get on with the game

-Alex

bogalubov wrote:Which part of that list is unconventional?

The 5 HQs? Coteaz? Or the psychic powers that help it destroy seer councils and ignore all other rules of the game?

At first I thought that a winning marines list would halt the call for tournament comp/reform, then I realized that this is another iteration of a cheese dick death star that aims to abuse battle brothers and the inquistion codex.

I think it's about time we started to hate the players or change the game.

Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Gornall wrote:I really want to find out how that Marine list works! Congrats to everyone, especially Tim!

CMs and friends join the centurions, they kill deathstars or anything else that gets in the way.

bogalubov wrote:Creative doesn't mean non-abusive. Plus using inquisition and especially Coteaz does not scream innovation to me.

Much has been made about the cyclical nature of 40k tournament lists and the eventual rise of the next cheese. But I don't think that we need to sit back and wait while hoping that some new broken combo or D weapons will deliver us from evil. Just because that is how the game progressed in the past does not make it the best way to the future.

My problem with the current top lists is that they seek to remove the participation of the other player. If players feel compelled to bring these lists because that is the only way to compete perhaps the rules need to be changed.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

bogalubov wrote:My overall point is that we need to stop waiting for new broken rules or combos to advance the game.

GW has created a universe and model set that they're telling us to go forth and enjoy. That means getting together and deciding how best to create an enjoyable tournament game.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

Blackmoor wrote:People have been talking about the Centurion deathstar for a while now.

It is just another deathstar in deathstar 40K

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

KillswitchUK wrote:


Split fire only works on the sergeant. Turn one he is most liekly using scout from the Liber, but turn two he can give the unit split fire.

I only watched one of his games but his rules queries were on the border of stupidity, and he slow played extensively. I played Defranza at the Nova invitational and he took the loss graciously when I played him, however this game I could see he was getting very annoyed with some of the stuff Tim was trying to pull.

The list is certainly effective, however it isn't quite as durable as say a seer council or a screamer council. I do like that list and have been playtesting something very similar. Kudos either way on the win, but perhaps next time cut the crap and get on with the game

-Alex

Split fire USR gives one model from the unit of the players choice, it's not limited to the sarge. Look it up.

I think you'd be surprised by the durability of a unit of two CMs with 2+ saves, 3++, FNP and IWND. Council has no way of getting FNP and has only a 4++ rerollable against AP2, as well as T4. Since Seer Councils / Beastpacks lack reliable AP2 weaponry, the Gravstar is just as durable against them Screamerstars obviously are invulnerable with a 2++ but don't quite have the damage or shooting needed to compete in tier 1. The one weakness is the lack of Hit and Run in the Gravstar, however all those ICs in combat pack a pretty hefty punch.

"Split fire only works on the sergeant"

Sergeant has split fire special rule, and when one model has it everyone in the unit has it. Though only one person in the unit can use it.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

bogalubov wrote:Which part of that list is unconventional?

The 5 HQs? Coteaz? Or the psychic powers that help it destroy seer councils and ignore all other rules of the game?

At first I thought that a winning marines list would halt the call for tournament comp/reform, then I realized that this is another iteration of a cheese dick death star that aims to abuse battle brothers and the inquistion codex.

I think it's about time we started to hate the players or change the game.

Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Gornall wrote:I really want to find out how that Marine list works! Congrats to everyone, especially Tim!

CMs and friends join the centurions, they kill deathstars or anything else that gets in the way.

bogalubov wrote:Creative doesn't mean non-abusive. Plus using inquisition and especially Coteaz does not scream innovation to me.

Much has been made about the cyclical nature of 40k tournament lists and the eventual rise of the next cheese. But I don't think that we need to sit back and wait while hoping that some new broken combo or D weapons will deliver us from evil. Just because that is how the game progressed in the past does not make it the best way to the future.

My problem with the current top lists is that they seek to remove the participation of the other player. If players feel compelled to bring these lists because that is the only way to compete perhaps the rules need to be changed.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

bogalubov wrote:My overall point is that we need to stop waiting for new broken rules or combos to advance the game.

GW has created a universe and model set that they're telling us to go forth and enjoy. That means getting together and deciding how best to create an enjoyable tournament game.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

Blackmoor wrote:People have been talking about the Centurion deathstar for a while now.

It is just another deathstar in deathstar 40K

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

KillswitchUK wrote:


Split fire only works on the sergeant. Turn one he is most liekly using scout from the Liber, but turn two he can give the unit split fire.

I only watched one of his games but his rules queries were on the border of stupidity, and he slow played extensively. I played Defranza at the Nova invitational and he took the loss graciously when I played him, however this game I could see he was getting very annoyed with some of the stuff Tim was trying to pull.

The list is certainly effective, however it isn't quite as durable as say a seer council or a screamer council. I do like that list and have been playtesting something very similar. Kudos either way on the win, but perhaps next time cut the crap and get on with the game

-Alex

Split fire USR gives one model from the unit of the players choice, it's not limited to the sarge. Look it up.

I think you'd be surprised by the durability of a unit of two CMs with 2+ saves, 3++, FNP and IWND. Council has no way of getting FNP and has only a 4++ rerollable against AP2, as well as T4. Since Seer Councils / Beastpacks lack reliable AP2 weaponry, the Gravstar is just as durable against them Screamerstars obviously are invulnerable with a 2++ but don't quite have the damage or shooting needed to compete in tier 1. The one weakness is the lack of Hit and Run in the Gravstar, however all those ICs in combat pack a pretty hefty punch.

I am still bummed that I gave you the duck back!

 krootman. wrote:

I am still bummed that I gave you the duck back!

Dude, that duck has seen a lot of action since then, he is my pride and joy. His even been keeping me company with the females I will never part ways with him haha



Godlike!

KillswitchUK wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

I am still bummed that I gave you the duck back!

Dude, that duck has seen a lot of action since then, he is my pride and joy. His even been keeping me company with the females I will never part ways with him haha



Godlike!

HE WAS IN MY HAND 2, but I saw the look on your face as I was driving away, I couldn't help but toss him out the window to you!

 krootman. wrote:

HE WAS IN MY HAND 2, but I saw the look on your face as I was driving away, I couldn't help but toss him out the window to you!

Hahahaha you missed out on his swager

-On Topic_ Apologies, you are all correct regarding the split fire ability on Omniscope

KillswitchUK wrote:

 krootman. wrote:

HE WAS IN MY HAND 2, but I saw the look on your face as I was driving away, I couldn't help but toss him out the window to you!

Hahahaha you missed out on his swager

-On Topic_ Apologies, you are all correct regarding the split fire ability on Omniscope

You owe me a drink next time you are in america!

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

I like the list, which is unsurprising as I run a very similar one myself (but one of my CMs has a jump pack instead of a bike because I don't like cheating with the focus fire rules), but it's not like the guy invented fire. It's a Centurion deathstar. Lots of people play them.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:


Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Anti-meta? It is a list built entirely in the meta. A conglomoration of universally agreed upon great characters that share USRs and psychic powers to create a death star. Just because his death star is very good at dealing with other death stars, does not make it innovative or interesting.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

Yes, I would like to play mass grots vs mass tactical squads. I don't know why else I painted them if all I needed was a death star I have no interest in playing.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

The event is an invitational, but the results are seen by everyone. It's not long before little Billy and little Jimmy pick up their net-death stars and start bashing their friends with it. Won't someone please think of the children?

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?

Because it's boring and doesn't require that much thought or experience.

The reason for my complaints and the general anti-deathstar fervor on the internets is that it's not fun to play against as it removes the other players participation. There is little need to move, shoot or try to assault them. The death stars are immune to most of these events. The game is decided by the psychic power rolls before it starts. These aren't the old days where packing melta guns more efficiently was the peak of power. At least at that time the game involved blowing stuff up. Only one person could do it quicker than the other. The second player still had a chance to blow up some rhinos and feel a little better about doing so.

Now you might say that I can take my melta guns, rhinos and desire to not run a death star of my own and go feth myself. That's fair. However, chumps like me with similar attitudes make up the majority of big event attendees. The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now. However, I would like that to be decided by their superior skill (which I can learn to some extent) instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game. Because if such anti-social list building continues, the number of people willing to travel and support large events is going to disintigrate over time.

bogalubov wrote:

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:


Sigh, Tim comes up with a clever anti-meta build, pilots it to victory over 32 of the best players in the USA, and gets maligned as 'another iteration of a cheese dick deathstar'.

In the Grim Darkness of the 6th Edition, there is only whine.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem pretty muddle-headed about what a tournament is about... it's about bringing your a-game, and whatever the rules allow. There is no such thing as 'abuse' because everyone has access to the SAME RULES.

His list is creative and unique. He played his way through a tough field and won. He deserves credit where credit is due.

Anti-meta? It is a list built entirely in the meta. A conglomoration of universally agreed upon great characters that share USRs and psychic powers to create a death star. Just because his death star is very good at dealing with other death stars, does not make it innovative or interesting.

There isn't such thing as abuse in 40k tournaments. You use the best tools given to you.

I'm pretty sure both participants participated quite thoroughly in their games.

I'm still unsure what kind of list do you want people to bring. Mass tactical squads? Massed grots? Some sort of Rogue-Trader style army?

Yes, I would like to play mass grots vs mass tactical squads. I don't know why else I painted them if all I needed was a death star I have no interest in playing.

I'm pretty sure all the players who traveled to attend the INVITATIONAL tournament did so because they enjoyed it.

The event is an invitational, but the results are seen by everyone. It's not long before little Billy and little Jimmy pick up their net-death stars and start bashing their friends with it. Won't someone please think of the children?

What, precisely, is wrong with deathstar 40k? Do you really demand military realism from your fictional space-opera toy game?

Because it's boring and doesn't require that much thought or experience.

The reason for my complaints and the general anti-deathstar fervor on the internets is that it's not fun to play against as it removes the other players participation. There is little need to move, shoot or try to assault them. The death stars are immune to most of these events. The game is decided by the psychic power rolls before it starts. These aren't the old days where packing melta guns more efficiently was the peak of power. At least at that time the game involved blowing stuff up. Only one person could do it quicker than the other. The second player still had a chance to blow up some rhinos and feel a little better about doing so.

Now you might say that I can take my melta guns, rhinos and desire to not run a death star of my own and go feth myself. That's fair. However, chumps like me with similar attitudes make up the majority of big event attendees. The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now. However, I would like that to be decided by their superior skill (which I can learn to some extent) instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game. Because if such anti-social list building continues, the number of people willing to travel and support large events is going to disintigrate over time.

So I highlighted that statement... Its a bit... cocky to put it lightly... please take a death star to a big event (read NOVA or Adepticon) and win. Then I might consider your argument a little more... If its true and they take "little" experience or skill (read thought)... any one should be able to win with them...

And truthfully i'm not trying to call you out to be a jerk about it... I'd love to see it actually happen so we can have a ground to stand on when arguing about deathstars in 40k... I also am personally against them! But I don't want to make the claim it takes no thought... or experience to run it

Running a Death Star is not an auto win. There is a reason that Defranza has done so well with seercouncil. He's been playing it for a long time (before 6th) and has experience and a high level of skill. It is a frustrating time for the meta when so many powerful and resilient Death Stars are around but they are here to stay for now. When GW began making it easier and easier to just blow units off the table the natural reaction would be to find more and more resilient units. I think if they didn't exist we would complain about the opposite, how quickly armies are removed and unfun to play because the strategy is point, shoot, and pick up models.

Also in defense of Tim G. I was at the tournament and watched most of the game. They were told that they had as much time as needed so not to worry about the clock. No one was slow playing anything.

In defense of my dismissiveness of the skill required to run a death star I will include another part of my post.

The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now.

One of the keys to winning games is having the experience to know what to do in given situations. That experience is best earned by playing many games and encountering tough choices in practice. I don't have the free time (nor the desire) to play enough to be a big tournament winner. I will openly concede that. I don't have the time nor the money to build lists that timely address changes in the meta. I go to tournaments to meet people in the hobby and it's a way for me to play a bunch of games in a small amount of time.

I'm not saying this to get pity, nor do I think the game's realities need to be made easier to accommodate my own restrictions on hobby time. However, it wouldn't hurt if the distinction between power lists and fluff lists was not as obvious. It would let more people feel like they have a chance to win and still allow good players, who put in the time to get good, to win their fair share of games.

bogalubov wrote:
In defense of my dismissiveness of the skill required to run a death star I will include another part of my post.

The winner pool will likely be made of the same people that are winning now.

One of the keys to winning games is having the experience to know what to do in given situations. That experience is best earned by playing many games and encountering tough choices in practice. I don't have the free time (nor the desire) to play enough to be a big tournament winner. I will openly concede that. I don't have the time nor the money to build lists that timely address changes in the meta. I go to tournaments to meet people in the hobby and it's a way for me to play a bunch of games in a small amount of time.

I'm not saying this to get pity, nor do I think the game's realities need to be made easier to accommodate my own restrictions on hobby time. However, it wouldn't hurt if the distinction between power lists and fluff lists was not as obvious. It would let more people feel like they have a chance to win and still allow good players, who put in the time to get good, to win their fair share of games.

I think experience is a lot of it, but having a good group of friends to help theory hammer with is also very important. I know a lot of the top players don't play many games in between gts, but play a lot on vessel or theory hammer with friends. I think you are spot on tho about every player wanting to go to a gt and having a chance to win with whatever army they own is important for the growth of the hobby.

instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game

I don't understand why bringing an army that someone thinks gives them the best chance of doing well implies a lack of scruples.

In other competitive events, are participants expected to NOT do/bring/prepare to the best of their ability to win?

Are speed skaters expected to not wear their goofy hats because it gives them an advantage?

Would slalom-skiers be expected to wear cross-country skis so as not to have the best skis available?

Would Nascar teams be expected to not use their best engine because it might be better than another team's engine?

I really don't understand.

I'm not saying I like deathstar 40k, but I certainly do not think less of a participant in a competitive event because they bring the hardest and meanest thing they can.

If you don't bring the hardest and meanest thing you can, that's your fault, not mine. It's doesn't mean I lack scruples or am underhanded or mean or a bad person...it means you're not doing your best to win. Your problem, not mine.

Malagant wrote:

instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game

I don't understand why bringing an army that someone thinks gives them the best chance of doing well implies a lack of scruples.

In other competitive events, are participants expected to NOT do/bring/prepare to the best of their ability to win?

Are speed skaters expected to not wear their goofy hats because it gives them an advantage?

Would slalom-skiers be expected to wear cross-country skis so as not to have the best skis available?

Would Nascar teams be expected to not use their best engine because it might be better than another team's engine?

I really don't understand.

I'm not saying I like deathstar 40k, but I certainly do not think less of a participant in a competitive event because they bring the hardest and meanest thing they can.

If you don't bring the hardest and meanest thing you can, that's your fault, not mine. It's doesn't mean I lack scruples or am underhanded or mean or a bad person...it means you're not doing your best to win. Your problem, not mine.

If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army. There are also plenty of people who have no interest in playing as Eldar. Adjusting the rules to allow a greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance as more people would feel like they have a shot at doing well.

bogalubov wrote:

Malagant wrote:

instead of their lack of scruples in brining a list that removes my participation in the game

I don't understand why bringing an army that someone thinks gives them the best chance of doing well implies a lack of scruples.

In other competitive events, are participants expected to NOT do/bring/prepare to the best of their ability to win?

Are speed skaters expected to not wear their goofy hats because it gives them an advantage?

Would slalom-skiers be expected to wear cross-country skis so as not to have the best skis available?

Would Nascar teams be expected to not use their best engine because it might be better than another team's engine?

I really don't understand.

I'm not saying I like deathstar 40k, but I certainly do not think less of a participant in a competitive event because they bring the hardest and meanest thing they can.

If you don't bring the hardest and meanest thing you can, that's your fault, not mine. It's doesn't mean I lack scruples or am underhanded or mean or a bad person...it means you're not doing your best to win. Your problem, not mine.

If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army. There are also plenty of people who have no interest in playing as Eldar. Adjusting the rules to allow a greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance as more people would feel like they have a shot at doing well.

You get into trouble when you get to this place, because most people think the best thing to do is restrictive and deconstructive, aka "Let's take away the toys people do well with." Any kind of rules change or ban that elicits a subsequent meta SHIFT instead of broadening the meta accomplishes nothing more than pissing in the cheerios of a different set of players (those who don't have whatever army is the new hotness as a result of the bans).

The only way to effectively broaden the bar instead of just shifting it is likely fundamental game rules changes and unit changes, taking the many, many units in the game that are broadly-speaking failures from a design component and amending them. This of course is a very difficult thing to accomplish in terms of buy-in (Though perhaps no more difficult than trying to accomplish broad buy-in of bans or comp restrictions).

From an organizer's perspective, in terms of what I'm looking at, at least - if Jetstar (for example) stops being very, very powerful as a result of my changes or bans, I've failed. If nothing else can compete with it still, I've also failed. If Dark Angels have just as many builds and just as good a shot at winning as Jetstar and any other Eldar build, however, I've succeeded.

IN any event, there's really nothing reasonable about judging the morality of a person based upon what army they take within what's been stated as legal by the organizers of the tournament they're attending, and more importantly, by the creators of the game they're playing. You might as well complain about Babe Ruth hitting home runs, and calling him a "cheese dick." If you as a team really think home runs are unfair, complain to baseball about the rough distance restrictions imposed on baseball fields for how far away the outfield fences can be at max.

This is the game we play right now ... and adding escalation is going to create just as many hilarious "cheese dick" list accusations as not btw ... it would be cool if we as a community could ponder ways to broaden or eliminate the meta, instead of just kneejerking from the bleachers all the time and praying for it to simply shift to another subset just waiting to be hated.


Edit - IN a sense, the short hand here ... I'm really tired of people complaining in 40K about XYZ cheese list winning. People file these complaints publicly and privately even at comp'ed events, where there's broad whining about how so and so "broke" the comp or built a list that wasn't in the spirit of the comp or whatever. It would be great to see the community work to set a tournament standard that enables people to bring a much broader list type and style from a much broader range of codices and have reasonable chances to do well on the tabletop. Doing so would allow those who are regular attendees and have already invested substantial funds into their armies to continue to do well. It would further allow many people who cannot afford or have no desire to buy the "current hotness" all the time to bring what they DO have and ... start to do well or do better, or at least feel like they have a chance. Everybody wins.

In a sense this is the same kind of thing that smaller local play groups do - they establish social and/or house rule protocols that ensure everybody has a chance each week, whether that's "don't show up without a super cheese list" or "Don't bring 2+ re-rolls in your lists" or even flat out changes or house codices. Establishing a social and/or house rule set of protocols for the tournament scene might actually make things better and more accessible for everyone if it was done in a way that allowed more to thrive, including those currently thriving, instead of reverting to the age old negative idea of banning peoples' toys (instead of making other peoples' toys better).

If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

The players that are accused of being unscrupulous were following the rules and guidelines provided by the game designers and the event organizers. They brought their best list and their best game. Anyone that does otherwise...or chooses to not participate at all...has no right to complain, nor to judge players that do their best to win.

Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army.

I empathize. It is not an inexpensive hobby. The armies that do well are constantly shifting. But are you implying that grown-ups with real jobs that can afford new toys should be told that they're not allowed to spend their money however they see fit? Do you think 40k needs a salary cap?

I think 40k is a horrible game, with broken rules and a complete lack of balance...but I still have fun playing it. I have no illusions about how bad the game is for competitive play, but I still play competitively with no illusions.

And I certainly don't think judging or insulting people for doing just that is appropriate.

I think pro-sports analogies are not particularly useful when thinking about 40k. Mostly due to the nature of the competition. In pro-sports everyone agrees that the goal of the competition is to see who builds the best team as measured by winning. In this instance, no team can complain that one player hit more home runs than all others.

However, I think 40k is much more like amateur sports. The competition does determine winners, but that is not the sole purpose of the competition. Kid sports are about getting them out of the house, teaching them discipline and sportsmanship. 40k is much closer to that spirit as the competitors don't make money from the event and it's a much more social endeavour. So the difference in army power level is much more akin to a football power house high school from Texas playing a 40 person school from South Dakota. They're all playing football, but braining your opponent by 80 points is not sportsman like, nor was the competition ever fair. So in this case, I feel absolutely fine getting on my soap box and discussing scruples.

As people are fine hiding behind the "it's within the rules" argument and not self-regulating their actions, perhaps structural changes need to be made so the rules are different.

I can see your point as a tournament organizer about limiting lists. If you end up banning the same number of lists that you allowed in, you get no net increase of participants. Hence the change is pointless. That is why I'm not suggesting that we flat out ban army lists or certain units. However, perhaps greater structural changes can be made to allow for a larger variety of armies to be competitive.

I don't really get people complaining about the variety in armies.

This weekend showed quite a bit of variety imo. Yes many featured a "deathstar" but there were a number of different books fielding such a list.

This is no different than in 5th Ed when MSU was all the rage. Regardless of the army you played, everyone would MSU. Now lots of people are doing the opposite of MSU. The important thing is they're accomplishing that using a variety of books.

To me the current meta is infinitely better than the days of Leafblower dominance -> Long Fang dominance -> the long reign of Grey Knights for the duration of 5th ed.

bogalubov wrote:
If we're going to take a racing analogy. Most of the sports you listed have inbuilt restrictions on equipment that you can bring to level out the playing field. This was done because some teams did use equipment that gave them a huge advantage over their competitors. Then various governing bodies convened and decided that was not a fun way for the sport to advance and made changes to make things more even as the participants with the advantages were not going to reign themselves in.

The rules themselves already provide a basis for this. Individual event customization enhances this ever more. However, the best players will constantly rise to the top regardless.

bogalubov wrote:
Beyond that, not every 40k tournament attendee comes from the same place. What I mean is that most people only play a few armies and have no means or time to start a new army just to be competitive. So although theoretically we all know that an Eldar army gives the best chance to win, it's not true that we all have the same access to obtain said Eldar army. There are also plenty of people who have no interest in playing as Eldar. Adjusting the rules to allow a greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance as more people would feel like they have a shot at doing well.

BAM - 256 Player event Soldout.
http://cart.adepticon.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=809

And - Double BAM - 512 Player event Soldout
http://cart.adepticon.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=42&products_id=811

TOFs Invitational I believe was at or near max capacity. Other large events like NOVA, LVO, DaBoyz GT, ATC, etc are at or near max capacity.

So in summary - this mentality of "greater variety of armies and builds to compete would in my mind increase tournament attendance" really is not reflective of reality from an attendance stand point. People are attending events in greater numbers as event quantity and quality increase.

 Inquisitor_Malice wrote:
The rules themselves already provide a basis for this. Individual event customization enhances this ever more. However, the best players will constantly rise to the top regardless.

I already made your last point in an earlier post. The top players likely won't change. But TOs are not really worried about them, the money is with average players and drawing them out is the key to event growth.

Using one of the oldest, most famous events as an example of the overall health of the hobby is not that convincing. Things would have to be pretty bad before Adepticon attendance suffered. Especially since it provides many additional activities other than just 40k.

I think the events that you listed have grown not due to 40k, but due to inclusion of alternative games and activities. They are also the most high profile events. Growth should be examined on the local level.

Regardless of all those arguments, there is no reason to not look at ways to improve the experience for a wider audience.

Growth at the local levels is going to wax and wane depending on the gaming group, life circumstances, personal preferences, etc. Edition and codex changes see people come and go. I have heard of other groups declining, but others (as in our local area) have seen an increase in 40K players and event attendees.

The problem is you are calling for structural changes. The answer to that is - go ahead, start an event and work on implementing those structural changes. You will draw a certain audience and you may succeed in your vision. There is nothing stopping you.

However, the success of the well known events is based on their own structural foundation, which seems is proven and holding it's own. For that I would not expect significant changes for the "average" players are attending these events. The numbers speak for themselves.

I haven't encountered that many people that said that they love the new death star driven lists and how much fun it is to play against these lists.

The LVO instituted changes to curb death star prevalence based on a poll of their attendees. As the Frontline guys try to link the west coast tournaments they organize, these changes might be carried over to events beyond the LVO.

So there is a demand for change.

Is it really necessary to wait until attendance numbers suffer and then try to enact something? Or is it better to solve these issues before it gets to that point?

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't wait and hope that the social aspects of tournaments carry the day over dissapointing games.

From what I heard the ruling for 2++/4++ on the Jetseer council deluded some players into wasting their fire power on the unit which in turn ended up costing them the game.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
From what I heard the ruling for 2++/4++ on the Jetseer council deluded some players into wasting their fire power on the unit which in turn ended up costing them the game.

That was a discussion point even among some attendant LVO guys ... namely that 2+ with a 4+ re-roll is still ridiculous to try and shoot through, thus not an effective nerf. Also some people may have brought lists with less consideration for facing those stars, thinking people wouldn't bring them.

They can obviously be played around and beaten and all that, it happens plenty, especially among good players. That doesn't mean the current starhammer meta is winning a lot of fans comparatively. This also doesn't mean throwing in revenants is going to fix it all and make people happy with the resultant new meta.

I doubt that anyone who made that error really had a good chance at winning against the council anyway. Probably not too many circumstances of "All your troops are out in the open within range of shooting...but I really think I can nail that council this time. Doing math be damned, I'm feeling lucky."

What I applaud is that the Frontline guys were willing to make a change to the rules in the first place. Their attendance was already set, yet they looked for a way to make the game more fun for everyone. Since GW has made it clear that they're giving the players the game and have little interest in making balanced rules, this sort of initiative is what is needed in the future.

bogalubov wrote:
Is it really necessary to wait until attendance numbers suffer and then try to enact something? Or is it better to solve these issues before it gets to that point?

I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't wait and hope that the social aspects of tournaments carry the day over dissapointing games.

It's the same argument heard through the ages. Tournament attendance will suffer unless you ban this, ban that, curb this and curb that. Literally - through the tournament ages that is what you hear and nothing has been resolved to ironically "curb this" issue. Tournaments are going strong. The meta changes to adapt in tournament play. Tournaments and gaming groups can implement their own "curbs" if they wish. Who is to say who is correct?

The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

My point is as per Einstein - The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

I think the point he's trying to make is that it is compelling when things have been successful to continue along the thought processes that have led to them being successful.

My own example from personal experience is that every year the NOVA Open does things well, and does things OK, and does things less than OK, and we always try to make the OK better, the less than OK great, and the well as well or better. If every year our missions are great in review, and we make them a little better but keep them continuity-wise the same, great, reasonable, smart. If we drastically change them because a minority view didn't like them, that's the definition of insanity (as much as doing the same thing the wrong way over and over).

The events Greg listed have been growing year in and year out. For us to believe that we've been growing as a result of doing it all wrong is a little silly. Further, "change" for the sake of it isn't exactly a good suggestion.

All that said, I think it would be better to take a wider view at what various events are doing (Because most are doing a variety of things to address the present meta) than to suggest only one or none have done anything ... b/c the latter suggestion is actually patently and provably false.

I think most people can agree that balance and rule -wise 40k is not perfect.

In 5th there used to be a 40k faq made by tournament organisers that was fairly wide spread and accepted, even outside the writer's own tounaments. I personally loved that this document existed, even if I did not agree with 100% of its content.

Would it be feasable to try and make adjustments to core rules/army composition by a similar group that would be equally widely used/accepted ( assuming To's even want to do this)?

MVBrandt wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

I think the point he's trying to make is that it is compelling when things have been successful to continue along the thought processes that have led to them being successful.

The events Greg listed have been growing year in and year out. For us to believe that we've been growing as a result of doing it all wrong is a little silly. Further, "change" for the sake of it isn't exactly a good suggestion.

All that said, I think it would be better to take a wider view at what various events are doing (Because most are doing a variety of things to address the present meta) than to suggest only one or none have done anything ... b/c the latter suggestion is actually patently and provably false.

I'm not sure if I've heard the saying in the context of not altering your behavior in the face of success. Perhaps that's just human greed, a desire to alter things that work to make them better.

Also, without extensive polling it's hard to ascribe the reason for event growth. I would guess that the growth has more to do with the growth of the online community. Awareness of events and their advertising has certainly grown thanks to a greater online presence. I doubt that events have grown because of GWs stellar rules for 40k. However, I have no data to back that up either. So I will stick with my assumption that doing things the same way simply because that's the way they've always been done is not a helpful argument.

I also never implied that only one or two events are doing something about the rules. I pointed out one event that used a poll to drive their changes as an example that there is community wide desire to reshape the rules to eliminate some of the ridiculousness.

Throughtout the thread I've simply argued that I don't think deathstars are fun to play against. As most people will continue to use broken rules since they feel like they have no other choice to win, larger structural changes to the game are necessary. Waiting for GW to release more untested rules to shake up the meta is not helpful. As the company is clearly giving the reigns to the consumers about how to play the game, we should take them. Anyone who is willing to take on that challenge has my support.

I don’t post online often, but I thought that I would after such a great event.

I want to thank Chip for running a smooth tournament and putting together such an amazing field of competitors.

I want to thank a dapper Mike Brandt for judging a tight, fair, un-timed final.

I want to thank the rest of the Judges for taking time out of their weekends to judge our early round games.

Finally, I want to thank all of my opponents Geoff Robinson, Nick Nanavati, Matt Schuchman, John Parsons and Matt DeFranza for remarkable games. It was an honor to play against each of you.

-Tim

Congratulations, Tim! Great achievement in that field!

bogalubov wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
The argument that we should not change things simply because we've always done them this way is not a compelling one for me.

I think the point he's trying to make is that it is compelling when things have been successful to continue along the thought processes that have led to them being successful.

The events Greg listed have been growing year in and year out. For us to believe that we've been growing as a result of doing it all wrong is a little silly. Further, "change" for the sake of it isn't exactly a good suggestion.

All that said, I think it would be better to take a wider view at what various events are doing (Because most are doing a variety of things to address the present meta) than to suggest only one or none have done anything ... b/c the latter suggestion is actually patently and provably false.

I'm not sure if I've heard the saying in the context of not altering your behavior in the face of success. Perhaps that's just human greed, a desire to alter things that work to make them better.

Also, without extensive polling it's hard to ascribe the reason for event growth. I would guess that the growth has more to do with the growth of the online community. Awareness of events and their advertising has certainly grown thanks to a greater online presence. I doubt that events have grown because of GWs stellar rules for 40k. However, I have no data to back that up either. So I will stick with my assumption that doing things the same way simply because that's the way they've always been done is not a helpful argument.

I also never implied that only one or two events are doing something about the rules. I pointed out one event that used a poll to drive their changes as an example that there is community wide desire to reshape the rules to eliminate some of the ridiculousness.

Throughtout the thread I've simply argued that I don't think deathstars are fun to play against. As most people will continue to use broken rules since they feel like they have no other choice to win, larger structural changes to the game are necessary. Waiting for GW to release more untested rules to shake up the meta is not helpful. As the company is clearly giving the reigns to the consumers about how to play the game, we should take them. Anyone who is willing to take on that challenge has my support.

Ultimately, that's your opinion. 200+ People travelled to Las Vegas to play with/against Deathstars, so please don't impose your idea of fun upon others like it's the gospel truth.

11th company talks about Tof invational !
http://www.tangtwo.com/11thcompany/episodes.cfm

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

Ultimately, that's your opinion. 200+ People travelled to Las Vegas to play with/against Deathstars, so please don't impose your idea of fun upon others like it's the gospel truth.

The participants did travel to Las Vegas and there were death stars present at the event. Saying that people travelled to play against death stars is a pretty big assumption about the motivations of these individuals.

On the other hand, the fact that over half the participants voted to change 2++ re-roll to 2++/4++ is a glimpse at the attitude of the players. Heck, the LVO/BAO mission format already indicates that players don't agree with how GW wants us to play the game.

Why is every list broken? Every winner of a tourney a power gamer with an OP list? Put Alex's LVO winning list in the hands of all the crybabies whining about broken list and watch it fall apart. The fact is some people are just terrible players, or inferior to others, and some think they are good and when they can't win it must be because the game is broken...

Its really simply, tourneys are held. You know the rules, you know the players, you know the list that are out there and possibly going. IF you dont like it dont show up... If the game is to broken, dont play. Find a new hobby. If i buy a Lexus and it runs like crap, i dont buy another lexus... If you go to a restaurant and the food is terrible do you write endless complaints and articles crying about it? hoping it changes for the next time you go, only to know it will be same? No... you go to a different place to eat.

Every tourney thread turns into whine-fest. Its like buying a house near the airport and then complaining to the town hall of plane noises... Pathetic. You know what to expect people.

Adapt, overcome, achieve. Or play for fun or Dont play... That simple.

As for the winner, way to go mate. Grats on the win.

Tsilber wrote:
Why is every list broken? Every winner of a tourney a power gamer with an OP list? Put Alex's LVO winning list in the hands of all the crybabies whining about broken list and watch it fall apart. The fact is some people are just terrible players, or inferior to others, and some think they are good and when they can't win it must be because the game is broken...

Its really simply, tourneys are held. You know the rules, you know the players, you know the list that are out there and possibly going. IF you dont like it dont show up... If the game is to broken, dont play. Find a new hobby. If i buy a Lexus and it runs like crap, i dont buy another lexus... If you go to a restaurant and the food is terrible do you write endless complaints and articles crying about it? hoping it changes for the next time you go, only to know it will be same? No... you go to a different place to eat.

Every tourney thread turns into whine-fest. Its like buying a house near the airport and then complaining to the town hall of plane noises... Pathetic. You know what to expect people.

Adapt, overcome, achieve. Or play for fun or Dont play... That simple.

As for the winner, way to go mate. Grats on the win.

Woah woah woah. We've got a tough guy, full of non-sports analogies. Until all this straight talk I really had my head up my rear, so thanks for setting me straight.

All kidding aside, I know why I go to tournaments. It's to meet people in the hobby, see awesome armies and help maintain a gaming community. I think it's possible to maintain these events and make them more balanced. Deciding to stop attending tournaments because I don't like all the aspects is certainly throwing out the baby with the bath water.

To finish this off with an analogy. To me tournaments are like the local grocery store that pays it's employees well and acts as a meeting hub for the local community. However, they rarely stock everything I want. I've made the choice to continue going to the store as its existence is important to me. However, I will keep submitting suggestions that they stock the things that I like.

Lol @ calling someone a tough guy from behind the internet monitor, how tough of you! *Goldstar champ.

Look I apologize if my comment about crybabies hit you hard and for some reason you took it personally and felt the need to grab that internet shield and jump on to defend yourself. I didn't quote you or name names FYI. I guess in some cases you really don't have to...

And im happy for your reasons to go to tournies i truly am. As i said, "Go to have fun". But if you are going to "maintain a gaming community." Whining about the game itself after the tourney on the internet forums seems kinda counter productive.

That being said, I repeat why does every list that wins a tourney have to "broken". Or abusive to the rules? Does the play/player not have something to do with it? In the end we all know what the game is right now, the constant crying of how the game is broken is really getting comical. We all know what meta or style or list will be at tournies. If you still go to the tourny and play and have a good time, and meet cool people, awesome. If you lose, lose with dignity, give your opponent some credit and move on.

Tsilber wrote:
Lol @ calling someone a tough guy from behind the internet monitor, how tough of you! *Goldstar champ.

Look I apologize if my comment about crybabies hit you hard and for some reason you took it personally and felt the need to grab that internet shield and jump on to defend yourself. I didn't quote you or name names FYI. I guess in some cases you really don't have to...

And im happy for your reasons to go to tournies i truly am. As i said, "Go to have fun". But if you are going to "maintain a gaming community." Whining about the game itself after the tourney on the internet forums seems kinda counter productive.

I'm not sure if there is a better time to discuss the need for changing tournament rules and formats then between tournaments. That seems like the most productive time to whine. Change can't really be enacted if the tournament is already going on. Also, whining to my friends in my basement is counter productive as they already know my views on the subject. Espousing them to a wider internet audience will let my point reach a much wider audience.

bogalubov wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
Lol @ calling someone a tough guy from behind the internet monitor, how tough of you! *Goldstar champ.

Look I apologize if my comment about crybabies hit you hard and for some reason you took it personally and felt the need to grab that internet shield and jump on to defend yourself. I didn't quote you or name names FYI. I guess in some cases you really don't have to...

And im happy for your reasons to go to tournies i truly am. As i said, "Go to have fun". But if you are going to "maintain a gaming community." Whining about the game itself after the tourney on the internet forums seems kinda counter productive.

I'm not sure if there is a better time to discuss the need for changing tournament rules and formats then between tournaments. That seems like the most productive time to whine. Change can't really be enacted if the tournament is already going on. Also, whining to my friends in my basement is counter productive as they already know my views on the subject. Espousing them to a wider internet audience will let my point reach a much wider audience.

Well said, and I guess I understand your frustration with the game, clearly you are not alone. But as you are frustrated with the game, I am frustrated to see the hate towards the game itself. In my opinion It is what it is, nothing you or me or anyone else can really change what it is currently so accept it and play it or move on. Your opinion is to make the argument and discuss. Perhaps my phrasing of "whining" was harsh and uncalled for.

Lets agree to disagree on what should or should not be said/discussed or done. It is your right to discuss as you see fit, as it is mine to get frustrated with some comments people make.
Cheers.

I think the important thing, is to hate the game, not the players for playing the game. If people don't like "insert x power combo here" then discussing how to rebalance things is not bad. Getting pissy about player y running x power combo is bad. That player is within the rules of the game running that list, no cheating, or being a poor sport or anything of the like. I'm ok with people being mad a GW for writing such poor rules that things like 2++ re-roll/D -weapons etc exist. I'm less ok with people getting other players for using those things.

Breng77 wrote:
I think the important thing, is to hate the game, not the players for playing the game. If people don't like "insert x power combo here" then discussing how to rebalance things is not bad. Getting pissy about player y running x power combo is bad. That player is within the rules of the game running that list, no cheating, or being a poor sport or anything of the like. I'm ok with people being mad a GW for writing such poor rules that things like 2++ re-roll/D -weapons etc exist. I'm less ok with people getting other players for using those things.

I disagree with this slightly. What is the saying?

"Bad rules don't kill models. People wielding bad rules kill models." Or something like that.

I'm not saying people who run the council are el chupacabra and deserve to be tarred and feathered. However, if the USA and USSR had the same approach to wielding nukes as 40k players have to wielding broken combos we'd all be dead a long time ago. Our poor space marine sargents are the victims of mutually assured destruction at the hands of these death stars wielded by our fellow players.

Except they do have the same approach to nukes. "Oh you're building nukes...well now I'll do that too so that if we fight we are even". That is exactly what happens, players cannot trust that everyone will nerf themselves so,mother need to field a list that can compete with other broken rule lists.

What is a more fair expectation that players all individually reign themselves in or, TOs or preferably GW balance the rules in such a way to prevent such combos in the first place.

Don't bitch at people bringing perfectly legal armies that for the most part are not abusing rules loop holes, but just taking powerful units. There is nothing wrong with taking a strong legal army. There is a lot wrong with rules that create those armies.

Breng77 wrote:
Except they do have the same approach to nukes. "Oh you're building nukes...well now I'll do that too so that if we fight we are even". That is exactly what happens, players cannot trust that everyone will nerf themselves so,mother need to field a list that can compete with other broken rule lists.

What is a more fair expectation that players all individually reign themselves in or, TOs or preferably GW balance the rules in such a way to prevent such combos in the first place.

Don't bitch at people bringing perfectly legal armies that for the most part are not abusing rules loop holes, but just taking powerful units. There is nothing wrong with taking a strong legal army. There is a lot wrong with rules that create those armies.

That's not how mutually assured destruction works. In MAD we both have the capacity to unleash awful death on each other and the horrible prospect stops us both. In 40k everyone unleashes the most horrible thing they can dream up.

It is essentially the same thing though, just that since no one actually dies it does not matter. It is the same thought process as the US and USSR where I need to have nukes incase I face other nukes. That is what is happening at tournaments since I cannot rely that you are not bringing nukes I need my own.

What you are saying is more akin to if the us and USSR had sat their and said well you can make nukes, and I can make nukes so neither of us should do so.....but that is not what happened.

You example would actually work in such a way that we never play a competitive game....because the possibility exists that we both have deathstars so we look at the deathstars we both have and walk away.

MAD as you set it up works in a small group where we each own a deathstar , and use it to kick the crap out of each other once, and then agree to not use them.

If you want to make the analogy work better, you'd have everyone building nasty lists and then nobody actually playing because the consequences of facing another nasty list are just not worth it. So either you'd have no tournaments, or you'd have a system where people bring multiple lists but only pull out the nasty one if the other guy does.

Maybe a car analogy would work better?

I'm not digging the MAD analogy at all, as Joe points out it doesn't really fit.

Brendan's basically right that it's perfectly reasonable to "hate" on the game in its present state, especially with the almost ceaseless major changes and meta upheavals it experiences on a near-weekly basis at this point.

It's not really OK to hate on players for doing what they've already done - taking whatever list they think is best.

The MAD argument especially falls apart in light of that, because there is no destruction component. The consequences of taking a powerful list are you can compete if you wish to attend tournaments or random pick-up games at the local game store.

It is perhaps most important that we all assess the reality of what GW is doing - they are helping social gaming groups of friends, where establishing clear social contracts around what's OK to bring is totally reasonable. For pick-up gaming and meeting new people - whether at the LGS, club nights, or tournaments - is becoming increasingly more difficult due to the natural stratification and overly complex density of the present meta.

I almost hope GW reads this too - you are HURTING local pick-up gaming and gaming at your stores. Tournament players adjust and either go in expecting to do only OK, or bring powerful lists. Local friends groups are fine either way, b/c they communicate about what is kosher to bring. Random gaming, pick-up gaming, and entering the hobby are all becoming more and more absurd as far as being fair, fun activities.

Yeah, the analogy was a bit of a stretch.

I do agree about the implications of the recent release schedules and influx of rulebooks on pick up games. GW thinks that they gave us a world to craft any game that we want. However, crafting this world requires time.

Most of us are busy with jobs/spouses/chores. I don't want to spend my scant free time negotiating on what rules we will follow and what we will ignore. I just want to plop down my models and play.

bogalubov wrote:
Yeah, the analogy was a bit of a stretch.

I do agree about the implications of the recent release schedules and influx of rulebooks on pick up games. GW thinks that they gave us a world to craft any game that we want. However, crafting this world requires time.

Most of us are busy with jobs/spouses/chores. I don't want to spend my scant free time negotiating on what rules we will follow and what we will ignore. I just want to plop down my models and play.

Pretty much a casual player, in other words. Don't whine about tournaments then. You want the ruleset but don't want to expend the effort to re-balance it.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

bogalubov wrote:
Yeah, the analogy was a bit of a stretch.

I do agree about the implications of the recent release schedules and influx of rulebooks on pick up games. GW thinks that they gave us a world to craft any game that we want. However, crafting this world requires time.

Most of us are busy with jobs/spouses/chores. I don't want to spend my scant free time negotiating on what rules we will follow and what we will ignore. I just want to plop down my models and play.

Pretty much a casual player, in other words. Don't whine about tournaments then. You want the ruleset but don't want to expend the effort to re-balance it.

That was in regard to casual, pick up gaming.

I'm also offended by your intimation that I'm just whining good sir. There is a neighboring thread that aims to do just what you suggested I do. Please direct your belligerence against my whining there.

Whether it is 40K tournaments or Jeopardy, it's all the same.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeopardy-champ-arthur-chu---i-have-nothing-to-apolgoize-for--145855030.html

There will always be a subset of players or participants who do not like how the game is played even when played within the boundaries of the rules.

DarthDiggler wrote:
What were the results in round 3 ?

Chancetragedy wrote:
Tim gorham, John parsons, Paul Murphy, and Matt defranza all won to stay undefeated.

John is on our AdeptiCon team tourney team! Woot

 krootman. wrote:

Kemp wrote:
Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

I lost to him in the semi finals, very solid player. Was a very very fun, and tight game! Lost due to first blood! 2bps to one. It's a nice take on the grav star!

No shame in losing to the winner, especially in such a close game... nicely done man! And congrats to Tim Gorham on winning the whole thing

 RiTides wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
What were the results in round 3 ?

Chancetragedy wrote:
Tim gorham, John parsons, Paul Murphy, and Matt defranza all won to stay undefeated.

John is on our AdeptiCon team tourney team! Woot

 krootman. wrote:

Kemp wrote:
Tim's list is very interesting. He runs Irons with two CMs, two scout squads, a big cent squad, tigirius, with cotaez and some henchmen.

He has a decent chance of going first with Coteaz and cast Perfect Timing and Prescience from Tigurius onto this big centstar. With split-fire he can fire two bombardments that are twin-linked ignore cover at two different targets. And of course the other 4 centurions firing their grav. The CMs tank anything that fire back and them and if you charge the unit good luck! Rad grenades and Psychotroke Grenades

I lost to him in the semi finals, very solid player. Was a very very fun, and tight game! Lost due to first blood! 2bps to one. It's a nice take on the grav star!

No shame in losing to the winner, especially in such a close game... nicely done man! And congrats to Tim Gorham on winning the whole thing

I hear you, was real close, made a play mistake turn 1 that cost me the game, but I prefer to blame it on the cocked 6 that would have given me a free troop unit!