Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 19:26:42


Post by: Eldrad Ulthran


Didn't see this posted yet but here are the results from the UK GT's heat 3.

The warhammer tv Chanel has some of the games including the final game on their twitch too.

Was surprised to see no Eldar in the top 10.










UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 21:48:17


Post by: sadhvikv


I don't think the most competitive eldar build is really head and shoulders above competitive chaos, orks and nids. LVO just gave the ynaari list too much exposure, other tournaments results don't show as much dominance to eldar.

I'm not saying that competitive eldar isn't amazing, it is, but it's not point and click in the tournament environment as everyone seems to be thinking.

It wasn't too long ago, everyone was suggesting that the Ynaari nerf was too harsh.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 22:14:25


Post by: Ordana


Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.

Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)

I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)

One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.

I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 22:17:19


Post by: DarthDiggler


UK heat 3 used Eternal War missions from the book. LVO uses those overly complicated missions they came up with which screws the meta and what armies will perform better.

It’s all about the missions, not necessarily the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
First place list

Death Guard Super Heavy Auxillary
Mortarion
Alpha Legion Battalion
Daemon Prince + wings + 2 malefic talons
Sorcerer + jump pack + force sword
40 cultists
10 cultists
10 cultists
3 obliterators
3 obliterators
World Eaters Battalion
Dark Apostle
Exalted Champion + power sword
8 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
Rhino
Rhino


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 22:28:40


Post by: AdmiralHalsey


Places two and three were Index Ork Armies?

Wat?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 23:40:58


Post by: bananathug


I think this further points out that ITC missions and basic 40k are different games. That and you euros are playing an entirely different meta than us NA folks.

I also think it points to the fact that chaos is still OP as all outdoors (oblits, zerkers, cultist, morty and DPs). I'm not sure if it's the units or the strats (vets of the long war, double tapping slaanesh marks...)

(edit: spelling)


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/18 23:43:57


Post by: Ordana


The Chaos list is basically build on acting twice.

The Khorne berzerkers fighting twice.
The Alpha Legion Detachment all had mark of Slaanesh so could shoot twice.

In the finals the Berzerkers did a lot of work carving through some 90 plague bearers.
The game before they killed Custodes Shield Captains on bikes.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 04:17:40


Post by: daedalus


Where are the still incredibly overpowered Imperial Guard players?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 06:36:24


Post by: Spoletta


 daedalus wrote:
Where are the still incredibly overpowered Imperial Guard players?


IG got 12th, better than Aeldari soup and best non soup after Ravenguard (curious to see the list) and Orks (even more curious). Not bad at all.

Still, that is an impressive showing of Chaos, and not one i would like my faction to get just before the March FAQ.

In any case this confirms my idea that ITC rules are heavily skewing the meta and should never be considered in any balance discussion.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 08:13:47


Post by: Arachnofiend


Spoletta wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
Where are the still incredibly overpowered Imperial Guard players?


IG got 12th, better than Aeldari soup and best non soup after Ravenguard (curious to see the list) and Orks (even more curious). Not bad at all.

Still, that is an impressive showing of Chaos, and not one i would like my faction to get just before the March FAQ.

In any case this confirms my idea that ITC rules are heavily skewing the meta and should never be considered in any balance discussion.

Guard players think they are being misrepresented by soup but it's becoming very clear that the most soup friendly faction is Chaos, lol. Chaos lists seem to be almost exclusively soup, with just the odd Death Guard list popping up every once and a while.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 09:58:26


Post by: djones520


Anyone know where to get the lists at? I'm real curious about those orks.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 10:06:28


Post by: Kdash


So, I played that winning list (and player) at an ITC event in January, and my Eldar got smashed by it. I made a few mistakes in the game which didn’t help me, but he had so many threats it’s hard to deal with it. Essentially it revolves around him getting 1st turn, otherwise it doesn’t have the desired impact, but it goes something like this –

Infiltrate 40 man Cultist unit, Votlw stratagem during shooting, in addition to Prescience from JP Sorcerer, then shooting twice due to Slaanesh. This is then followed by a 3” charge by the blob of cultists.

Morty then shoots up the table flanked by the 2 Rhinos and Daemon Prince. Aims for a 1st turn Morty charge via Warptime, and 1 Oblit squad deep-strikes turn 1.

2nd turn is all about the Berserkers re-rolling thanks to the Champion, the 2nd squad of Oblits and Morty if he is still alive.

Key to beating this list is having a couple of Scout screening units and focusing down the 2 Rhinos 1st turn before he has a chance to get the Zerkers up the table.

However, from what I saw, I don’t think there were many lists setup to do this that well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 djones520 wrote:
Anyone know where to get the lists at? I'm real curious about those orks.


One of the Orks was on the Saturday Warhammer TV stream (you can watch it again if you're a sub) but, beyond that i doubt you'll get the lists unless someone at the event took note of it.

GW didn't have the lists to hand anywhere throughout the entire live stream, so i can only presume they didn't take note of them or list them anywhere.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 11:09:45


Post by: tneva82


Weird if it's so revolving around getting turn 1. How badly it suffers it it does NOT get as it shouldn't be so comfortable with getting it? 12 drops by the looks of it so not even sure of getting deployed first.

If it's seriously screwed if going 2nd then it's much harder to win tournament as you are bound to get at least 2, maybe 3 times 2nd rather than 1st turn.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 11:37:25


Post by: Ordana


It doesn't auto-lose or anything if it gets 2nd. Its just a lot harder to win.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 12:10:17


Post by: Spoletta


Obliterators off the board and zerkers in rhinos.
He doesn't have any targets that are highly sensible to alpha strikes. He can afford to not go first


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 12:29:06


Post by: tneva82


Well rhino's are bit sensible. Without those zerkers are slogging it out. Not sure how big issue that is though


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 13:41:37


Post by: Kdash


Spoletta wrote:
Obliterators off the board and zerkers in rhinos.
He doesn't have any targets that are highly sensible to alpha strikes. He can afford to not go first


While he can still win if he doesn’t go first, it’s a lot harder for him.

Against a lot of TAC ITC armies, if he doesn’t have 1st turn, several things can happen to throw the game off for him –
Mortarian could get killed turn 1 – removing one of the main threats
Rhinos could get popped turn 1 – meaning at least 2 turns of foot slogging Berzerkers (not that scary all of a sudden)
40 man Cultist blob gets killed/seriously cripped.

Most armies should be able to cripple the Cultist squad and kill 2 Rhinos 1st turn. At that point he just has to hope the Oblits and Mortarian can cause enough damage.


Works out to 10 drops, if I remember correctly.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 17:46:43


Post by: bananathug


I feel that too many armies would waste all of their shooting on morty when popping those rhinos should be priority 1.

Morty could survive an armies worth of shooting with avg to bad dice rolls by the shooter. I guess you could deploy the rhinos out of LOS but without 1st floor blocking LOS I'm not sure how.

Slaanesh double tap and VoTLW strat should be on GWs radar by now. Shooting twice and available army wide +1 to wound are crazy good (see cultist being better at shooting than SM...). I think GW screwed up with the Chaos keywords (heretic astartes) and too liberal inclusion of units that can benefit from different strats (the SM equivalent of VoTLW only applies to one gun for one unit...)

Bodies on the table seems to be what carried the day for the orcs, given the end of game scoring and lack of manufactured ITC shenanigans (units of 30 don't give up all the secondary points you'd ever need) I think ITC needs to look at their secondaries again and see how much they skew the game (both in game strategy and pre game army construction).

Oblits are crazy good (auto include in most chaos lists I've seen). I don't see how this list beats a properly screened IG list but the results don't lie.

What is consistent is the lack of a high placing bobby G list (take that all you people who voted for him as OP). SM suck in ITC or GW or ETC it appears...


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 17:56:50


Post by: Marmatag


The reaper secondary should be looked at but it is only 4 points. I won my last 2 tournaments giving up 4 points of reaper every single game.

The ITC secondaries should be tweaked but the core concept of progressive scoring is fantastic.

And end of game scoring is the worst thing ever. I wouldn't treat any of these Ork lists as actually good at anything other than choking objectives in a 2 or 3 turn (max) game.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 18:11:28


Post by: Ordana


 Marmatag wrote:
The reaper secondary should be looked at but it is only 4 points. I won my last 2 tournaments giving up 4 points of reaper every single game.

The ITC secondaries should be tweaked but the core concept of progressive scoring is fantastic.

And end of game scoring is the worst thing ever. I wouldn't treat any of these Ork lists as actually good at anything other than choking objectives in a 2 or 3 turn (max) game.
As I said in the other topic, the games i saw (3-4-5) used end of turn scoring, not end of game.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 18:28:19


Post by: Marmatag


 Ordana wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
The reaper secondary should be looked at but it is only 4 points. I won my last 2 tournaments giving up 4 points of reaper every single game.

The ITC secondaries should be tweaked but the core concept of progressive scoring is fantastic.

And end of game scoring is the worst thing ever. I wouldn't treat any of these Ork lists as actually good at anything other than choking objectives in a 2 or 3 turn (max) game.
As I said in the other topic, the games i saw (3-4-5) used end of turn scoring, not end of game.


Can you post the mission format? These are not book missions then. End of turn scoring is progressive scoring.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 18:59:16


Post by: Corrode


All the missions were from Chapter Approved.

1) Resupply Drop - disappearing objectives
2) Roving Patrol - split army into 3rds
3) Dominate & Destroy - kill pts + progressive objectives
4) Ascension - progressive objectives, characters are super obsec and gain more points
5) Scorched Earth, progressive objectives + you can destroy ones in the opposing DZ

So 3/5 were progressive and the two with end of game scoring have other gimmicks. The only one I disliked from that is Roving Patrol which is far too luck based.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 19:03:18


Post by: Audustum


 Marmatag wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
The reaper secondary should be looked at but it is only 4 points. I won my last 2 tournaments giving up 4 points of reaper every single game.

The ITC secondaries should be tweaked but the core concept of progressive scoring is fantastic.

And end of game scoring is the worst thing ever. I wouldn't treat any of these Ork lists as actually good at anything other than choking objectives in a 2 or 3 turn (max) game.
As I said in the other topic, the games i saw (3-4-5) used end of turn scoring, not end of game.


Can you post the mission format? These are not book missions then. End of turn scoring is progressive scoring.


CA has end of turn scoring missions.

Also, end of game scoring is good. Helps Elite armies a ton. I think a fair tournament should have a mix of both end of turn and end of game every mission OR alternate between them each round.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 19:26:07


Post by: Marmatag


Audustum wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
The reaper secondary should be looked at but it is only 4 points. I won my last 2 tournaments giving up 4 points of reaper every single game.

The ITC secondaries should be tweaked but the core concept of progressive scoring is fantastic.

And end of game scoring is the worst thing ever. I wouldn't treat any of these Ork lists as actually good at anything other than choking objectives in a 2 or 3 turn (max) game.
As I said in the other topic, the games i saw (3-4-5) used end of turn scoring, not end of game.


Can you post the mission format? These are not book missions then. End of turn scoring is progressive scoring.


CA has end of turn scoring missions.

Also, end of game scoring is good. Helps Elite armies a ton. I think a fair tournament should have a mix of both end of turn and end of game every mission OR alternate between them each round.


End of game scoring does not help elite armies, wtf?

Every loss compounds their difficulty successfully holding 2+ objectives.
And, how would you push ~120 Boyz off of objectives in only 3 turns?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 19:39:06


Post by: Audustum


 Marmatag wrote:
Audustum wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
The reaper secondary should be looked at but it is only 4 points. I won my last 2 tournaments giving up 4 points of reaper every single game.

The ITC secondaries should be tweaked but the core concept of progressive scoring is fantastic.

And end of game scoring is the worst thing ever. I wouldn't treat any of these Ork lists as actually good at anything other than choking objectives in a 2 or 3 turn (max) game.
As I said in the other topic, the games i saw (3-4-5) used end of turn scoring, not end of game.


Can you post the mission format? These are not book missions then. End of turn scoring is progressive scoring.


CA has end of turn scoring missions.

Also, end of game scoring is good. Helps Elite armies a ton. I think a fair tournament should have a mix of both end of turn and end of game every mission OR alternate between them each round.


End of game scoring does not help elite armies, wtf?

Every loss compounds their difficulty successfully holding 2+ objectives.
And, how would you push ~120 Boyz off of objectives in only 3 turns?


Elite armies frequently do not have long range shooting. This means they must choose every turn between scoring objectives and actually killing enough enemies to survive. In Progressive scoring games this leads to a problem where they can rapidly lose the game before it is actually over because they did not leave enough models on objectives to score them. Since Elite models cost so many points too they leave a disproportionate amount of points behind to claim objectives compared to hordes.

Conversely, end of game scoring allows Elite armies to focus first on neutralizing an opponent and then to getting into position to score. While many games seem to be very slow and ended three turns, you should balance them around having at least five turns since that is what the rules provide for after all.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 19:43:33


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Yeah, Primaris Armies were also reasonably competitive in Heat 1 and 2, while basically non existent in the more heavily houseruled meta of ITC & Co.

Lots of little things like ITC allowing both sides to score first blood/strike (making larger, CP farming detachments less a liability), more emphasis on board control, etc.. just really junks the little bit of balance 40K has and puts spam armies even more over the top than the basic game already does.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 19:50:39


Post by: Audustum


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah, Primaris Armies were also reasonably competitive in Heat 1 and 2, while basically non existent in the more heavily houseruled meta of ITC & Co.

Lots of little things like ITC allowing both sides to score first blood/strike (making larger, CP farming detachments less a liability), more emphasis on board control, etc.. just really junks the little bit of balance 40K has and puts spam armies even more over the top than the basic game already does.


I was skeptical of this line of reasoning at first, but the more I think on it the more I think k you have the right of it. Our predominant tournament house rules are doing as much to shift the meta towards hordes as anything else.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 19:57:56


Post by: Arachnofiend


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Yeah, Primaris Armies were also reasonably competitive in Heat 1 and 2, while basically non existent in the more heavily houseruled meta of ITC & Co.

Lots of little things like ITC allowing both sides to score first blood/strike (making larger, CP farming detachments less a liability), more emphasis on board control, etc.. just really junks the little bit of balance 40K has and puts spam armies even more over the top than the basic game already does.

ITC scoring also heavily nerfs certain units. Mortarion was in the winning list in this event, but was nowhere to be seen in the top ITC tables because he and his brother Magnus represent a fat stack of Kingslayer points.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/19 21:19:11


Post by: DarknessEternal


Nevermind, these are the Chapter Approved missions.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 00:24:49


Post by: PLC


Was the draw random every round? or was it swiss after the first?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 00:25:51


Post by: Ordana


 PLC wrote:
Was the draw random every round? or was it swiss after the first?
Swiss


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 09:18:59


Post by: KillswitchUK


Guys, you arnt seriously taking this tournament result seriously? Where was the discussion when Caledonian Uprising 2018 was? You do realise GW events in the UK are perhaps the least competitive in the UK?

As for the results, one of the Ork players who came 3rd is a friend of mine and team England ETC player, Courtney Rhodes. He took Orks for a laugh as his main competitive army wasn't ready yet. He's a top bloke and solid player, so no suprise he came 3rd with a weak book. There is no way in hell he would take that army to a proper event in the current meta but as GW events attract such poor army builds, then its a viable tourney to try something new and fun.

Be aware that in the UK, most of the top players dont attend GW events because of its price (most expensive tourney in the UK) and its lack of competitive aim (soft scores play too much of a role in the results). Therefore you wont see many of the big names attending.

If you want to know what the "top tier lists" or "codex choices" are, i suggest you all look out for the upcoming 6 nations, War of the Roses, St georges Tournament, Battlefield Birmingham or the London GT. They will have plenty of the more competitive players attending.

Just an FYI


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 09:33:16


Post by: r_squared


So, you're in essence saying that all the other lists were uncompetitive and the other players weren't upto snuff?

Genuine question, not being snarky.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 09:45:56


Post by: KillswitchUK


 r_squared wrote:
So, you're in essence saying that all the other lists were uncompetitive and the other players weren't upto snuff?

Genuine question, not being snarky.


More than 85% of lists there were likely non-competitive or upto the standard you'd expect to see in majority of the tourney scene in the UK. There also were a few top tier players that I know of attend. When I say "that i know of" I know a lot of players on the tourney circuit and most players who play in their local shops will attend GW events as they dont know about the scene or arn't interested.

The players themselves, I wont be judgemental as I havnt played them, however if I have not seen them attend a tourney with a lot of the big names then I cant exactly expect much from them? More so when lists like that chaos one (its terrible) wins.

My point is that if you guys want to have a look at the tourney scene in the UK, the GW events are not to take much by.

The eldar player that won heat 2, Max Barton, is another good player I know who also attends the majority of the Indy scene here and it was a walk in the park for him because the majority of players there don't know how to play to a high standard or use lists which just arn't top tier.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 10:04:28


Post by: niv-mizzet


@killswitch
Aye, a lot of the internet crowd doesn't have that great a grasp on which events are serious and indicative of the game state, how important matchups and missions are, and think that only lists that finished on the podium are worth looking at, especially at large events, where you can be contending for first, take a narrow loss from some unlikely happenstance, sometimes even a single roll, and fall a ton of spots.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 10:12:37


Post by: KillswitchUK


 niv-mizzet wrote:
@killswitch
Aye, a lot of the internet crowd doesn't have that great a grasp on which events are serious and indicative of the game state, how important matchups and missions are, and think that only lists that finished on the podium are worth looking at, especially at large events, where you can be contending for first, take a narrow loss from some unlikely happenstance, sometimes even a single roll, and fall a ton of spots.


Hence why I feel like enlightening the folks here. You guys also need to realise that the GW stream is EXCEPTIONALY biased. at the last indy event, they streamed table 8 (not the top 7 tables) for the last game because they did not like the cheese fest of armies, people were using a few proxies, or if it was all GW models they didn’t like the paint job. They mainly pick average armies to play on the stream which are more “fun” for people to watch which I think is an absolute joke as it makes us look bad for one and gives the stream nothing, no tactical advice, no insight into the meta, nothing. Element Games stream the top table from their events, the next one is War of the Roses, not sure on the date but its in march. There are plenty of high end tournaments here in the UK as we have access to 5 ETC teams (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland), we also attract players from Europe who attend our bigger events, so you will find that the indy tournaments will have at least a 60% field of top tier players, meaning that even on the middle tables you will have a tough game. This is NOT the case at GW events as it does not attract those types of players due to the way they use “Sporting votes” (Also known as best mates votes or ill give you one if you give me one votes) as tie breakers rather than VPs. Also the mission pack they use is pure GW which is completely imbalanced.

Hope that opens a few people’s eyes 


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 10:41:57


Post by: Silentz


Killswitch is entirely right. I'm no top player but have taken part in some of these and it's clear that Independent events and GW events have a separate outlook on hardcore competitiveness.

An important factor that's not been discussed is that GW have much more strict rules around painting and basing, which has a hard impact on the types of armies you see there. GW will say your armies need to be fully GW models, fully painted and based, with no proxies or anything.

While the tournaments at Element near Manchester advise that 3 colour minimum is preferred, it's not always mandated. You can take unpainted models. You can sometimes proxy stuff in (if it's clearly not for advantage).

This means that people will bring lists that chase or push the meta and are far more cutting edge in competitive advantage. It's pretty hard for people to paint "to the meta" to the standard that GW expect you to have when playing at Warhammer World.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 10:53:48


Post by: Sneggy


I think thats pretty disrepectful Killswitch. Just because its not an ETC spamfest doesn't mean its a weak tournament.It just means people other than you and your buddies went. Its a different scoring system just like ITC and ETC are different. I actually thoroughly enjoyed the sportsmanship and paint scores being part of the event. I played 5 nice guys (in the midst of some tough games which isn't always easy) and some truly beautiful armies.
I saw plenty of reaper-ynnari LVO winning style lists. Some nasty blood angels and more than a couple big chaos lists.
Just because people you don't know or associate with attended doesn't mean your better than them?


I came 4th overall. Losing my first game to a crazy alpha strike then winning my next 4 big.
I was playing Tyranids/Genestealer Cult. Pablo and Val have been talking about my list on Chapter Tactics this morning for those interested.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:00:32


Post by: r_squared


KillswitchUK wrote:
...As for the results, one of the Ork players who came 3rd is a friend of mine and team England ETC player, Courtney Rhodes. He took Orks for a laugh as his main competitive army wasn't ready yet. He's a top bloke and solid player, so no suprise he came 3rd with a weak book. There is no way in hell he would take that army to a proper event in the current meta but as GW events attract such poor army builds, then its a viable tourney to try something new and fun...


I'm quite interested in what list he took, any chance you could provide an insight?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:07:34


Post by: KillswitchUK


Sneggy wrote:
I think thats pretty disrepectful Killswitch. Just because its not an ETC spamfest doesn't mean its a weak tournament.It just means people other than you and your buddies went. Its a different scoring system just like ITC and ETC are different. I actually thoroughly enjoyed the sportsmanship and paint scores being part of the event. I played 5 nice guys (in the midst of some tough games which isn't always easy) and some truly beautiful armies.
I saw plenty of reaper-ynnari LVO winning style lists. Some nasty blood angels and more than a couple big chaos lists.
Just because people you don't know or associate with attended doesn't mean your better than them?


I came 4th overall. Losing my first game to a crazy alpha strike then winning my next 4 big.
I was playing Tyranids/Genestealer Cult. Pablo and Val have been talking about my list on Chapter Tactics this morning for those interested.


I was waiting for someone who attended the tourney to back it up!

For a start, what is an ETC spamfest? You mean a to say that a tournament which uses a balanced, well thought out scoring system to win a game which isn’t one dimensional and easy to win means that top tier players whom are testing for the ETC bringing top tier lists of different variety due to the way the ETC works is a spam fest? Even IF it was a spamfest, that is what 40k is right now, GW release a codex and gives you one overpowered unit, so ofcourse it will be spammed, that’s 8th edition, not our fault.

The Sportsmanship and painting scores is fine to have if it doesn’t effect the standings of the top players. The top indy tournaments have no issues with sportsmanship, and painting is to a good standard. All tourneys adhere to a strict 3 colours minimum which is fine. At the end of the day, it’s a gaming tournament, not a place to find out if youre good with a paint brush.

That pint you have made about “LVO” lis tis my point exactly on how little you and others know about the UK scene. I won a large Uk event back in October with a similar list a few weeks after the Eldar book came out. Another one of my friends, Matt Edmunds from the Scotland ETC team, won Blood And Glory, another UK event which was even covered by GW which shows we already created that Ynaari list ages ago, yet its known as an LVO list?

Blood Angels arn‘t nasty, they are 2nd tier at best.
I never said I was better than them, I’m saying its not a big event with any top tier players. Prove me wrong and attend a bigger tourney and do well?

Gratz on 4th place, Tyranids are currently top tier and I’d expect a nid list to win the event if it contained 6+ Hive Tyrants. If you feel the list is strong, attend some of the Indy events 

If I am coming accross as disrespectful, thats just my blunt way of putting things forward. Sorry if thats the case but I am only speaking the truth. Something which gets me in trouble a lot


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 r_squared wrote:
KillswitchUK wrote:
...As for the results, one of the Ork players who came 3rd is a friend of mine and team England ETC player, Courtney Rhodes. He took Orks for a laugh as his main competitive army wasn't ready yet. He's a top bloke and solid player, so no suprise he came 3rd with a weak book. There is no way in hell he would take that army to a proper event in the current meta but as GW events attract such poor army builds, then its a viable tourney to try something new and fun...


I'm quite interested in what list he took, any chance you could provide an insight?


The ork list? Ill message him now and ask him for it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Silentz wrote:

While the tournaments at Element near Manchester advise that 3 colour minimum is preferred, it's not always mandated. You can take unpainted models. You can sometimes proxy stuff in (if it's clearly not for advantage).

This means that people will bring lists that chase or push the meta and are far more cutting edge in competitive advantage. It's pretty hard for people to paint "to the meta" to the standard that GW expect you to have when playing at Warhammer World.



Actually none of our events that I attend allow unpainted models, and if people take the p1%% out of the 3 minimu colour (3 coloured dots for example) they will not be allowed to use them.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:21:32


Post by: tneva82


 Silentz wrote:
Killswitch is entirely right. I'm no top player but have taken part in some of these and it's clear that Independent events and GW events have a separate outlook on hardcore competitiveness.

An important factor that's not been discussed is that GW have much more strict rules around painting and basing, which has a hard impact on the types of armies you see there. GW will say your armies need to be fully GW models, fully painted and based, with no proxies or anything.

While the tournaments at Element near Manchester advise that 3 colour minimum is preferred, it's not always mandated. You can take unpainted models. You can sometimes proxy stuff in (if it's clearly not for advantage).

This means that people will bring lists that chase or push the meta and are far more cutting edge in competitive advantage. It's pretty hard for people to paint "to the meta" to the standard that GW expect you to have when playing at Warhammer World.



Looks like independents thus have better showcase of what's broken and GW has better tournaments.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:21:39


Post by: Sneggy


KillswitchUK wrote:


I was waiting for someone who attended the tourney to back it up!

For a start, what is an ETC spamfest? You mean a to say that a tournament which uses a balanced, well thought out scoring system to win a game which isn’t one dimensional and easy to win means that top tier players whom are testing for the ETC bringing top tier lists of different variety due to the way the ETC works is a spam fest? Even IF it was a spamfest, that is what 40k is right now, GW release a codex and gives you one overpowered unit, so ofcourse it will be spammed, that’s 8th edition, not our fault.

The Sportsmanship and painting scores is fine to have if it doesn’t effect the standings of the top players. The top indy tournaments have no issues with sportsmanship, and painting is to a good standard. All tourneys adhere to a strict 3 colours minimum which is fine. At the end of the day, it’s a gaming tournament, not a place to find out if youre good with a paint brush.

That pint you have made about “LVO” lis tis my point exactly on how little you and others know about the UK scene. I won a large Uk event back in October with a similar list a few weeks after the Eldar book came out. Another one of my friends, Matt Edmunds from the Scotland ETC team, won Blood And Glory, another UK event which was even covered by GW which shows we already created that Ynaari list ages ago, yet its known as an LVO list?

Blood Angels arn‘t nasty, they are 2nd tier at best.
I never said I was better than them, I’m saying its not a big event with any top tier players. Prove me wrong and attend a bigger tourney and do well?

Gratz on 4th place, Tyranids are currently top tier and I’d expect a nid list to win the event if it contained 6+ Hive Tyrants. If you feel the list is strong, attend some of the Indy events 

If I am coming accross as disrespectful, thats just my blunt way of putting things forward. Sorry if thats the case but I am only speaking the truth. Something which gets me in trouble a lot


Its known as an LVO list because thats where it was made famous, not because thats where it was done first.

We will agree to disagree on a lot of points, not really the place for it here.
Its an 80 man GT, the lists and players are relevant and worthy of discussion regardless of your low opinion of them.

As far as me having no idea about the UK scene.....I am the current Uk ITC region winner


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:34:13


Post by: Silentz


KillSwitchUK wrote:

Actually none of our events that I attend allow unpainted models, and if people take the p1%% out of the 3 minimu colour (3 coloured dots for example) they will not be allowed to use them.


You're right on the bigger ones like Cally but the Winter Warmup and March Mayhem ones certainly do. Although they are one day RTTs and seen as practice for the proper tournaments I guess.

Sneggy wrote:As far as me having no idea about the UK scene.....I am the current Uk ITC region winner

Lol. Love it.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:41:38


Post by: KillswitchUK


Like I said, thats not the UK scene. The big events in the UK utilise ETC and only recently have we started getting ITC points for them. For the last year, no one even knew what the ITC points was. Happy to see how you do this year now the bigger events give out ITC points Come attend the bigger events and lets chat and chill out

As for the Ork list, he used about 150 boys, Mek on bike with shield (2 of them I think), 3 big kannons and 3 dakka jets. He said hed prefer more kannons next time!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 11:58:22


Post by: Kdash


@Sneggy What are the terrain situation like at Heat 3? Pretty much every GW event I’ve been to/seen has had diabolical amounts of terrain on the table, with usually zero, proper, LoS blocking pieces. It, for me, is one of the major differences GW events have when compared to other competitive events.

As for the whole painted/unpainted/proxy stuff, we’ve seen a big move away from that with the ITC change they made for the BAO last year. Every [MAJOR] event I’ve seen posted since (in the UK) has required fully painted and based models and proxies have to be cleared for use before the event.

My concern with how GW scores events right now, comes from the current state of the meta. Progressive scoring is fine, however, 2 or 3 turns of progressive scoring with only Warlord, Line breaker and First Blood as secondaries isn’t. It’s all well and good having a super “top tier LVO list”, but, if you come up against 120 Ork Boyz who just sit on 3 out of the 5 objectives for the 2 or 3 turns of the game, you’re not going to win the majority of the time.

Were a lot of the lists competitive for the event? Yes, I totally believe that a lot of them were. Was there a fair amount of event players there? Yeah I think there were, but, likely not a majority percentage. Would the lists hold up in any other competitive style of play at any other event? Probably not.

Different events. Different styles. Different rules. What worked here, or elsewhere, might not work in the other styles of events. We need to remember that. While there is some cross over between ITC, ETC and GW events in terms of “what is good”, each presents a different situation and requirements for list building (in terms of building for the missions).

We should be looking at the results for Heat 3, simply as a basing point for what to potentially encounter at the Grand Final in May. We shouldn’t be looking at the lists as the “next LVO winning lists”, and visa versa.

However, big spanner in the works will come in March when the FAQ drops. Personally, I don’t think we should be basing our future lists off any tournament results until April at the earliest.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 12:01:11


Post by: tneva82


Kdash wrote:

My concern with how GW scores events right now, comes from the current state of the meta. Progressive scoring is fine, however, 2 or 3 turns of progressive scoring with only Warlord, Line breaker and First Blood as secondaries isn’t. It’s all well and good having a super “top tier LVO list”, but, if you come up against 120 Ork Boyz who just sit on 3 out of the 5 objectives for the 2 or 3 turns of the game, you’re not going to win the majority of the time.


Solution: Drop the point levels if you can't play 5-6 turns in time. If deliberate slowplay still ruins it chess clock.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 12:09:02


Post by: KillswitchUK


He never said slow play, he said the games won in 2-3 turns.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 12:13:03


Post by: Ordana


who just sit on 3 out of the 5 objectives for the 2 or 3 turns of the game,

That seems to imply the game only goes 2-3 turns.
In which case the problem is only playing the first half of a game, not that the scoring is unfair.

That doesn't necessarily mean its slowplaying. But it is an issue, we saw it at the Heat, we saw it at LVO, I assume it happens at other tournaments aswell.
Games are simply not finishing to their natural conclusion.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 12:17:59


Post by: tneva82


KillswitchUK wrote:
He never said slow play, he said the games won in 2-3 turns.



Well that's controllable if game has enough time. If there's enough time you can play 5, 6, 7 or whatever scenario rules allow for.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 12:25:07


Post by: Kdash


Slow play can be an issue, but, it is a different issue to playing a horde.

No matter how fast you play, having 150 Boyz in a competitive event will always result in a shorten game, in terms of turns. Even if the opponent was playing pure Custodes with 15 models, I doubt you’d get to turn 4 or 5 due to time.

When the armies themselves place a turn limit on the game, and when there are no penalties for not going past turn 3, of course you’re going to see horde armies pick up a lot more wins than they might normally do.

Most ITC and ETC games tend to get decided in turns 1-3 I believe - as a result of the alpha strike meta, whereas, a horde style GW game is decided due to time.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 13:10:02


Post by: r_squared


KillswitchUK wrote:
...As for the Ork list, he used about 150 boys, Mek on bike with shield (2 of them I think), 3 big kannons and 3 dakka jets. He said hed prefer more kannons next time!


Thanks very much, I was expecting weirdboy spam, but its nice to see dakkajets being utilised.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 13:33:26


Post by: Corrode


The terrain at heat 3 was fine imo. Not the best I've seen, but only 1 board I played on had what I would say was a significant lack of LoS blockers.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 14:56:36


Post by: Sneggy


KillswitchUK wrote:Like I said, thats not the UK scene. The big events in the UK utilise ETC and only recently have we started getting ITC points for them. For the last year, no one even knew what the ITC points was. Happy to see how you do this year now the bigger events give out ITC points Come attend the bigger events and lets chat and chill out


Not going to enter into the age old ETC vs ITC argument. We are all free to enjoy toy soldiers how we like. I did well in ITC last year. You did well in ETC. Everyones a winner.
I'm at a bunch of the ETC format events this year so hopefully we can meet up, have a beer and a good game. Currently got tickets for Cale and LGT booked in.

Kdash wrote:@Sneggy What are the terrain situation like at Heat 3? Pretty much every GW event I’ve been to/seen has had diabolical amounts of terrain on the table, with usually zero, proper, LoS blocking pieces. It, for me, is one of the major differences GW events have when compared to other competitive events.

As for the whole painted/unpainted/proxy stuff, we’ve seen a big move away from that with the ITC change they made for the BAO last year. Every [MAJOR] event I’ve seen posted since (in the UK) has required fully painted and based models and proxies have to be cleared for use before the event.

My concern with how GW scores events right now, comes from the current state of the meta. Progressive scoring is fine, however, 2 or 3 turns of progressive scoring with only Warlord, Line breaker and First Blood as secondaries isn’t. It’s all well and good having a super “top tier LVO list”, but, if you come up against 120 Ork Boyz who just sit on 3 out of the 5 objectives for the 2 or 3 turns of the game, you’re not going to win the majority of the time.

Were a lot of the lists competitive for the event? Yes, I totally believe that a lot of them were. Was there a fair amount of event players there? Yeah I think there were, but, likely not a majority percentage. Would the lists hold up in any other competitive style of play at any other event? Probably not.

Different events. Different styles. Different rules. What worked here, or elsewhere, might not work in the other styles of events. We need to remember that. While there is some cross over between ITC, ETC and GW events in terms of “what is good”, each presents a different situation and requirements for list building (in terms of building for the missions).

We should be looking at the results for Heat 3, simply as a basing point for what to potentially encounter at the Grand Final in May. We shouldn’t be looking at the lists as the “next LVO winning lists”, and visa versa.


Terrain was pretty good actually. Enough of it at least. Some of the placement was questionable on the tables I played on (all buildings/ruins round the outskirts, forests in the middle on a couple of tables) but theres definitely been plenty of effort put in by GW to get their boards up to tournament standard. I was playing a primarily assault army and didn't struggle to hide units if I really really needed to.

Agree with you on horses for courses. Would I run my heat 3 list at an ITC event? nope it bleeds secondaries horribly. I'd play something similar, with a little tinkering for format and likely meta.
I'm now looking towards finals and London GT as the next majors for me. They are a week apart and will likely feature two different lists (unless I really cant be bothered to practise both)

Ordana wrote:
who just sit on 3 out of the 5 objectives for the 2 or 3 turns of the game,

That seems to imply the game only goes 2-3 turns.
In which case the problem is only playing the first half of a game, not that the scoring is unfair.

That doesn't necessarily mean its slowplaying. But it is an issue, we saw it at the Heat, we saw it at LVO, I assume it happens at other tournaments aswell.
Games are simply not finishing to their natural conclusion.



Kdash wrote:Slow play can be an issue, but, it is a different issue to playing a horde.

No matter how fast you play, having 150 Boyz in a competitive event will always result in a shorten game, in terms of turns. Even if the opponent was playing pure Custodes with 15 models, I doubt you’d get to turn 4 or 5 due to time.

When the armies themselves place a turn limit on the game, and when there are no penalties for not going past turn 3, of course you’re going to see horde armies pick up a lot more wins than they might normally do.

Most ITC and ETC games tend to get decided in turns 1-3 I believe - as a result of the alpha strike meta, whereas, a horde style GW game is decided due to time.


On the slow play and hordes thing. My list had somewhere around 120 models in it. Every single game finished naturally. I think the closest any of them went to the clock was 20mins left. This includes a game against another tyranid horde and vs poxwalker spam.
If you are properly motivated, practised and organised you can play horde armies on a time limit. If you struggle that badly try practising on a chess clock. I'm not a huge fan of them in events as they are a bit clunky and can be gamed but for practising time management they are very helpful.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 16:18:00


Post by: Moosatronic Warrior


KillswitchUK wrote:
Guys, you arnt seriously taking this tournament result seriously?


This tournament seems to use the actual rules for 40k as they appear in the book (I think?), which makes it more relevant to most people who play the game.

Your argument for why we shouldn't take it seriously seems to be that the people taking part aren't very good at the game. If your going to say something as offensive as that you should probably provide some evidence to support it.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 16:26:03


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Tournaments that just require 3 colour min or even no painting are by definition more likely to attract the lazy, clumsy and under-motivated unwilling to give it their all for a tournament. By definition less competitive.

Lack of soft scores means people are likely to edge out points not on skill, but on loop-hole abuse, also by definition less competitive.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 16:29:46


Post by: Moosatronic Warrior


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Tournaments that just require 3 colour min or even no painting are by definition more likely to attract the lazy, clumsy and under-motivated unwilling to give it their all for a tournament. By definition less competitive.

Lack of soft scores means people are likely to edge out points not on skill, but on loop-hole abuse, also by definition less competitive.



Maybe. That's all pretty speculative. Although two of the last games in the LVO were won off the back of rules lawyering so you may have a point lol.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 16:53:16


Post by: Nidzrule!


Btw for the benefit of the people on this thread who may not already know... Killswitch is Alex Harrison.

England ETC team member, ex LVO winner, etc. etc.

He knows what he's talking about when its 40k. Even if he's total ****head. /s
Totally.

Luv ya Alex

ITC is a relatively speaking new phenomenon that's been imported by FLG. The indy scene and its old guard have been playing for years and I do remember Alex, Josh, Nathan etc. from 5th edition for good or worse. I think Josh was playing in GTs in 4th edition when Allen (el Sour) / Flame On crew were around and dominating / being dominated by the Europeans. Max was GT winner in the early noughties too from what I remember.

So... its just horses for courses. If you genuinely want a frakking tough weekend of no holds barred 40k gaming, go to Cally and potentially LGT this year. To be honest LGT is also relatively new and Zach has been building good hype over the last 2 years. Some of UK's strongest players are up North and London is difficult to get to.

I feel old...


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 18:04:55


Post by: KillswitchUK


Hahaha. Harsh but fair

As for what I said about heat 3 full of players that arnt good....well....to put it another way.....they arnt what you'd see a top end tournament to contain. If anyone thinks otherwise then fair enough. I'm just being brutally honest and sometimes the truth hurts. Damn I sound like Stelek


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 18:42:57


Post by: tneva82


Kdash wrote:
Slow play can be an issue, but, it is a different issue to playing a horde.

No matter how fast you play, having 150 Boyz in a competitive event will always result in a shorten game, in terms of turns. Even if the opponent was playing pure Custodes with 15 models, I doubt you’d get to turn 4 or 5 due to time.

When the armies themselves place a turn limit on the game, and when there are no penalties for not going past turn 3, of course you’re going to see horde armies pick up a lot more wins than they might normally do.

Most ITC and ETC games tend to get decided in turns 1-3 I believe - as a result of the alpha strike meta, whereas, a horde style GW game is decided due to time.


That's problem with too big point levels for the time allocated.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 18:51:31


Post by: Audustum


KillswitchUK wrote:
Hahaha. Harsh but fair

As for what I said about heat 3 full of players that arnt good....well....to put it another way.....they arnt what you'd see a top end tournament to contain. If anyone thinks otherwise then fair enough. I'm just being brutally honest and sometimes the truth hurts. Damn I sound like Stelek


Well, it's your opinion of the truth. To 99% of us you're just some guy who also plays Warhammer posting on the internet (much like us). All I can gather is you and some other heavy hitter tournament player from the same region are disagreeing on how big a deal to make of this tournament.

40k doesn't have Fakers, Day9's, Idras and Bjergsons yet.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 19:13:40


Post by: KillswitchUK


Faker isn't even that good...gets carried by Huni

Anyways sure. If you want to continue to think GW events is a big deal then fair enough. I won't stop you. Just trying to give out some serious advice!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 19:40:59


Post by: WindstormSCR


As a regular weekend casual player, but one who does a lot of stats-related stuff for a living, I think the GW event has good data, it just needs to be viewed through a different lens to other data sets in a different format.

To me, LVO and similar events are good indicators of what happens when the game is played at the high end, because even with the wrinkles that a custom mission/scoring set bring, the rules that get exploited are often some of the worst edge cases or exceptions that need rebalancing.

The GW tournament events to e represent a nice condensed look at "How healthy is the game in it's intended role as a fun weekend game?" By that I mean the missions in play are not or very little difference from what weekenders might use, and reflect the performance of armies in that kind of environment. While competitive has a place and should be balanced for, GW ultimately wants to sell its model range and one of the better ways to maximize that is to make all factions relevant in this kind of format.

To that end I'm more concerned with what DIDN'T show up above the top X guys than what did


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 20:40:16


Post by: Sneggy


Audustum wrote:
KillswitchUK wrote:
Hahaha. Harsh but fair

As for what I said about heat 3 full of players that arnt good....well....to put it another way.....they arnt what you'd see a top end tournament to contain. If anyone thinks otherwise then fair enough. I'm just being brutally honest and sometimes the truth hurts. Damn I sound like Stelek


Well, it's your opinion of the truth. To 99% of us you're just some guy who also plays Warhammer posting on the internet (much like us). All I can gather is you and some other heavy hitter tournament player from the same region are disagreeing on how big a deal to make of this tournament.

40k doesn't have Fakers, Day9's, Idras and Bjergsons yet.


Ha ha I’m no heavy hitter. I’m a guy who enjoys playing with toy soldiers and results would suggest I’m not bad at it.
As far as disagreeing on what to make of t I just don’t think it’s fair to disregard it because it’s not the format you prefer and your buddies were not there with the lists you like.
Every major event has value and shows skill to compete in it and do well. That includes events where sportsmanship and painting are a factor. It’s not always just about beating face with the latest mathematically advantageous list.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/20 20:43:36


Post by: Arachnofiend


Worth mentioning that the guy who won the event was the only guy who went undefeated, so in this case at least the hobby points didn't factor in at all.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 07:57:58


Post by: Kdash


 WindstormSCR wrote:


To that end I'm more concerned with what DIDN'T show up above the top X guys than what did


This i kinda agree with, as it has (from 8th ed history so far) an impact on what gets altered and nerfed - in addition to community outcry.

I've got a ticket for the LGT this year, but, as usual i'm leaving everything last minute to get everything sorted - especially due to the FAQ coming in March.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 08:21:37


Post by: Sunny Side Up


KillswitchUK wrote:
Faker isn't even that good...gets carried by Huni

Anyways sure. If you want to continue to think GW events is a big deal then fair enough. I won't stop you. Just trying to give out some serious advice!


If you want to continue to think you aren't biased in viewing the events you attend yourself/enjoy yourself as the "better/more competitive" side of things, I won't stop you. Just trying to show how you're falling for a self-serving bias.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:05:24


Post by: Process


So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:08:21


Post by: Kdash


Process wrote:
So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.



Not long at all, from what i remember - but we also have to remember that there was a lot of hype going into the ticket sales this time, due to it being "the return of GW GTs".

Not quite as fast as some of the "top" ITC events (the LCO in January sold something like 90% of it's tickets in 12 minutes, and the rest got picked up within 2 hours or so). I'm pretty sure Cale sells out quick as well.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:08:57


Post by: Eldrad Ulthran


Sunny Side Up wrote:
KillswitchUK wrote:
Faker isn't even that good...gets carried by Huni

Anyways sure. If you want to continue to think GW events is a big deal then fair enough. I won't stop you. Just trying to give out some serious advice!


If you want to continue to think you aren't biased in viewing the events you attend yourself/enjoy yourself as the "better/more competitive" side of things, I won't stop you. Just trying to show how you're falling for a self-serving bias.



I mean which events are ''better'' is obviously subjective. But I would have to agree with Killswitches points regarding competitive. An event with 25+ ETC players and the next row down a chunk of people trying to break into that bracket is going to be much more competitive than an event devoid of nearly all the Uk's proven big event top players.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:15:15


Post by: KillswitchUK


Process wrote:
So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.



You can never compare the marketing of a GW event to a Indy event.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:24:16


Post by: Process


Kdash wrote:
Process wrote:
So with the consensus being that the WHW tourneys aren't competitive and seemingly don't attract any of the "cool guys"...

How fast do the tickets sell out for these events? we talking minutes or days etc?
Sounds like a pretty awesome weekend especially with facilities on site.



Not long at all, from what i remember - but we also have to remember that there was a lot of hype going into the ticket sales this time, due to it being "the return of GW GTs".

Not quite as fast as some of the "top" ITC events (the LCO in January sold something like 90% of it's tickets in 12 minutes, and the rest got picked up within 2 hours or so). I'm pretty sure Cale sells out quick as well.


That doesn't sound so bad.

Not gonna lie, for a person who is relatively new and has only played in a few small flgs tourneys, the comments in this thread would put me off any of the "top" tourneys you're on about.

The strange elitism regarding tourney type etc is really interesting, as if there's only one level to play at and if you're not at that level then you can't take it or the lists used "seriously".


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:28:21


Post by: KillswitchUK


It's not elitism, its an assessment of the fact that the lists used at the GW Heats were not optimal. If you want to enjoy a competitive, friendly and upto date with meta gaming then indy events are for you. Not a bad thing at all.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:31:57


Post by: Process


KillswitchUK wrote:
It's not elitism, its an assessment of the fact that the lists used at the GW Heats were not optimal. If you want to enjoy a competitive, friendly and upto date with meta gaming then indy events are for you. Not a bad thing at all.


Optimal for ETC/ITC or just not optimal in general? Surely for 3 eternal war missions the optimal list wouldn't be the same as for the ITC mission types?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 09:46:44


Post by: KillswitchUK


It doesnt matter which. Eternal war missions are used in ETC missions. An optimal list run by a solid player can work in any mission type. You just need to adapt to the mission. Its a big misconception that you need to specify your list to certain missions. Perhaps making small minor changes yes, but an entirely new list design, no not at all.

One example is Nicks LVO Eldar list. The list is almost identical to my own Eldar list, apart from a few choices because our meta is different here in the UK (I take fire dragons, he takes deep striking guardians).

My points are because this thread has discussed about the GW Heats lists. I.e. "Im surprised to not see Eldar in the top 10). That could be because there wasnt many "Optimal" Eldar lists because thats not the type of tournament to see many "Optimal" lists. Eldar won Heat 2 because it was run by a good player with an "Optimal" list, it makes a big difference, nothing to do with the missions.

Now not retracting players who attend, you will find some of them are very good players, the majority however are there for a good time and some top class games which is perfectly understandable and I hope anyone who attended had a great time! It is a well run event and at the end of the day, you get to play some 40k, whats not to love?

However, don't expect to take the results of this event back to studying the "meta" or expecting a meta breaking list. That's all I'm coming at!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 10:28:22


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


The Warhammer World event on the other hand plays 40K.


I still wouldn't draw too many conclusions for 40K in general from it, largely because it is still a self-selected sample and not representative of the full breath and spectrum of the game. Drawing game-design/balancing conclusions from a self-selected sample of lists inevitably leads to errors and even the bottom 10,000 list of any given tourney circuit is probably still in the top 1% of the game as a whole. But at least the Heat tournaments offer a self-selected and biased sample that is based on 40K rules, not a houseruled-variant standing apart from 40K like LVO & co.

There is at least some grounds for arguing it might be worthwhile too look at for game-design/balancing "pointers" .





UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 11:36:19


Post by: ruminator


Only real point from this is that you can take ork boyz, complete games and do ok - despite plenty of naysayers in other threads!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 12:41:44


Post by: Ix_Tab


I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 13:01:11


Post by: Slipspace


Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.


Putting aside all the talk of what constitutes "real" 40k, this above is pretty worrying on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that good tactical play is somehow bad for the game. Movement and positioning, beyond the rudimentary requirement to get LoS, is becoming less and less important so one of the designers calling a tactic that relies on that positioning bad form isn't the sort of thing I want to hear. Also, it seems the designers are pretty clueless about fairly basic tactics. We always suspected this but having it confirmed in this context just goes to show how little the designers seem to know their own game. Saying a fairly basic tactic that is about the only advantage close combat armies can leverage is somehow gamey doesn't exactly inspire a huge amount of confidence in the direction the game is heading.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 13:29:40


Post by: KillswitchUK


None of the GW staff on the stream have a clue about 40k tactics. It's why they get play testers (number of ETC& ITC players) to test the game for them.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 13:58:17


Post by: Wayniac


Slipspace wrote:
Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.


Putting aside all the talk of what constitutes "real" 40k, this above is pretty worrying on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that good tactical play is somehow bad for the game. Movement and positioning, beyond the rudimentary requirement to get LoS, is becoming less and less important so one of the designers calling a tactic that relies on that positioning bad form isn't the sort of thing I want to hear. Also, it seems the designers are pretty clueless about fairly basic tactics. We always suspected this but having it confirmed in this context just goes to show how little the designers seem to know their own game. Saying a fairly basic tactic that is about the only advantage close combat armies can leverage is somehow gamey doesn't exactly inspire a huge amount of confidence in the direction the game is heading.


I mean I see the point though. Daisy-chaining, bubble-wrapping et all are really foreign concepts to 40k. They certainly never existed in the "olden days". I am only familiar with daisy-chaining because you did it in Warmahordes to spread a unit out while keeping a model (usually the standard bearer, who often had no weapon) back to still put buffs on the unit.

It's no surprise GW does not like that kind of "tactic" because it exists 100% as a metagame concept. It is never something you would actually see in a battle, it's only because of game mechanics. GW designers, even the new ones, seem to be of the old guard as far as game philosophy. I don't find it that worrisome because I in a way agree with the designers in that such tactics stink of playing the rules versus playing the game, regardless of how effective they might be.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 14:01:21


Post by: Ordana


Wayniac wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.


Putting aside all the talk of what constitutes "real" 40k, this above is pretty worrying on a number of levels. Firstly the idea that good tactical play is somehow bad for the game. Movement and positioning, beyond the rudimentary requirement to get LoS, is becoming less and less important so one of the designers calling a tactic that relies on that positioning bad form isn't the sort of thing I want to hear. Also, it seems the designers are pretty clueless about fairly basic tactics. We always suspected this but having it confirmed in this context just goes to show how little the designers seem to know their own game. Saying a fairly basic tactic that is about the only advantage close combat armies can leverage is somehow gamey doesn't exactly inspire a huge amount of confidence in the direction the game is heading.


I mean I see the point though. Daisy-chaining, bubble-wrapping et all are really foreign concepts to 40k. They certainly never existed in the "olden days". I am only familiar with daisy-chaining because you did it in Warmahordes to spread a unit out while keeping a model (usually the standard bearer, who often had no weapon) back to still put buffs on the unit.

It's no surprise GW does not like that kind of "tactic" because it exists 100% as a metagame concept. It is never something you would actually see in a battle, it's only because of game mechanics. GW designers, even the new ones, seem to be of the old guard as far as game philosophy. I don't find it that worrisome because I in a way agree with the designers in that such tactics stink of playing the rules versus playing the game, regardless of how effective they might be.
If GW wants to fix it they can easily do so by adding the stipulation that charging models must move into contact if they are able and must otherwise move as close to their charge target as able.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 14:06:19


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Ix_Tab wrote:
I watched some of the GW streaming of this tournament and something I thought noteworthy occurred in game 4 (IG tank list v plague bearer /DG deamon engines). The chaos player charged a Leman Russ with a unit of plaugebearers leaving part of the unit congaing back towards some characters on an objective, on seeing this Simon Grant seemed to mutter "bad form" while commenting a number of times how they would all be shot down next turn after the Leman Russ fell back even though it was obvious to anyone that the Russ was going to get pinned in the combat. Once he realised that the PB had locked the tank in he said "well it is a GT" as though he needed some explanation for the player breaking some moral code by using a tactic.


It should be noted, Simon Grant spent the last 5 or so years roleplaying/pretending to be a real-life Space Wolf, pointing to pretty much everything and anything a not-a-Space-Wolf is doing as cowardly/not honourable/etc.. It's his personal schtick/sense of humour.

Trying to fill several hours of screen time sitting in front of a camera with talk and "good humoured chatter" isn't easy. Try it if you must. I wouldn't necessarily dissect throwaway comments from the stream as deeply philosophical coming-outs about the nature of the game.





UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 14:10:47


Post by: Nidzrule!


Given that Dakka Dakka has a bent towards the US and that the US tournaments to be honest have been a lot better at marketing, many Dakka-ites hold LVO or Nova as the pinnacle of no holds barrred 40k competitive gaming.

The UK no holds barred indy scene has not been as visible because I dont think that the organisers have NEEDED to be as there has always been a strong core of attendees to help fill Indy events.

I am going to make a controversial statement and some of you may violently disagree The only real barometer of international competitiveness in 40k has been the ETC. America has done well in the past but England has consistently done better. The winners in the competition have been Poland / Germany. Someone must remind me which country won the last ETC. I find that the Home Nations generally use the indy circuit as practice for the ETC and in fact have some events in the calendar whose express purpose is to help prepare for the event.

If you truly want to know what is strongest meta-wise, chances are its being played on the indy circuit where ideas are being tested / weeded out by guys who are our closest equivalent to professionals in the 40k game. I do use the word professionals in the loosest way possible as even the ETC teams clearly are NOT and is still operates on effectively a volunteer basis.

I would never equate a Josh / Alex H / etc. to Faker etc. because we dont have such an operating environment and honestly dont think we need such a culture in 40k. However, given the number of competitive events that they do, they are a good barometer of where the game is going within the niche of no holds barred 40k . Games workshop events have evolved into a hybrid Renaissance Man Tournament and I do think that's a good/great thing.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 14:13:00


Post by: Wayniac


I will say, I think an "official" GW grand tournament should hold more weight than an independent one, however major it might be. IIRC this was an actual GW-sponsored grand tournament, at Warhammer World itself, not something run by a third party. That should, by all rights, give it more credibility due to being the official GT.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 14:30:44


Post by: Nidzrule!


It's funny you should say that Wayniac. I agree!

I think the winner of THE 40k GT run by GW should be someone that represents that best in the hobby. i.e. a great general, a great painter and a great sportsman. The scoring at the GW GT tries to reflect this.

However, if you are looking for the latest and greatest in 40k list tech the GW GT CAN be helpful but more likely you will find your answer at the indy GTs in the UK because of how they are scored (which is very GAME SCORE heavy). I would caveat that the STYLE of indy events should also be considered (ITC vs ETC) as the format will also determine competitiveness.

The UK and European GT scene is just a lot more darwinian than the US. Many have made the observation that there is just a lot less space in between gamers and events in Europe and as a result there can be more testing and we are by nature "up the curve". If ITC events do take off in the UK, I suspect that because we can hold so many more of these events with a core group of attendees compared to the US, the UK may end up dictating the meta. Who knows? Tournament subculture in the UK has been fragmented for a number of years when the original GW GTs got stopped - I certainly find myself chuckling when nascent tournament winners find out that there is a sea out there besides the pond they had been swimming in before...

In fact because of the way the marketing has panned out, even some UK players think that GW tournaments and LVO/Nova are the pinnacle of competitive gaming. Sorry I have massively digressed...


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 15:23:31


Post by: Silentz


Nidzrule! wrote:
Given that etc

You know what the ETC is gak at compared to ITC?

Marketing and PR.

The ETC barely has a web presence. It's virtually invisible. I think there was a forum once but it's dead, isn't it?

Find me the official and up to date ETC rulespack. I fething challenge you! Now compare that experience to finding the ITC champions missions.

I know loads of the top players and TO's talk on FB and WhatsApp and stuff but compare it to FLG's efforts:
- a fugly but passable website
- a weekly live twitch stream discussion with news and event info
- An online scoreboard to see where you stand
- Weekly batreps with their mission packs being played and compared

It's night and day.

There's also the aspect of public ability to qualify for the teams and take part in the ETC. On a podcast the other day someone (Andrew Gonyo???) said there used to be a qualifying process for team americal (world police) but now he just picks the players.

The ETC is fabled as being the most competitive and I am pretty sure it is. But its branding is that of a secret society closed shop gentleman's club where you need to know the right guy who knows the right guy to get in.

Compare that to the LVO where little old me could show up with Codex: My Dudes and be slowplaying Tony Grippando by the middle of round 1.




I feel like the UK/Euro scene badly needs a Reece Robbins, frankly.

But that's just... like... my opinion, dude.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 15:39:04


Post by: KillswitchUK


 Silentz wrote:
Nidzrule! wrote:
Given that etc

You know what the ETC is gak at compared to ITC?
Marketing and PR.

The ETC barely has a web presence. It's virtually invisible. I think there was a forum once but it's dead, isn't it?

Find me the official and up to date ETC rulespack. I fething challenge you! Now compare that experience to finding the ITC champions missions.

I know loads of the top players and TO's talk on FB and WhatsApp and stuff but compare it to FLG's efforts:
- a fugly but passable website
- a weekly live twitch stream discussion with news and event info
- An online scoreboard to see where you stand
- Weekly batreps with their mission packs being played and compared

It's night and day.

There's also the aspect of public ability to qualify for the teams and take part in the ETC. On a podcast the other day someone (Andrew Gonyo???) said there used to be a qualifying process for team americal (world police) but now he just picks the players.

The ETC is fabled as being the most competitive and I am pretty sure it is. But its branding is that of a secret society closed shop gentleman's club where you need to know the right guy who knows the right guy to get in.

Compare that to the LVO where little old me could show up with Codex: My Dudes and be slowplaying Tony Grippando by the middle of round 1.

I feel like the UK/Euro scene badly needs a Reece Robbins, frankly.

But that's just... like... my opinion, dude.


Lol, I have a feeling you’re trolling good sir but I will bite anyways:

1) The ETC does not need marketing. It is well known and every team in the world is aware of the rulespack. The missions are available via Facebook groups or Emailed to team captains. It is a TEAM event which countries can utilise for their own tournaments to practice in preparation for the event.

2) I can send you the rulespack if you’d like, but a prime example is Caledonian Uprising utilises the majority of the rules including a 30 page FAQ which is regularly updated.

3) The scoreboard is great but in the past we used something called Rankings HQ. A lot of players (including on that ITC rankings board) just attend small tourneys to get more points and whoever attend the most of these unheard of tourneys in the middle of nowhere will end up topping the charts. It doesn't work. The only way a rankings table works is if it is regulated by a certain number of tourneys and by that those tourneys must be registered and proven to contain players that exist and the tourney should have a minimum of…say 60 players. It is a nightmare to create something like that, and the UK scene has never been bothered about it.

4) As for the batreps and live twitch streaming, that is because FLG/ITC is run by a company. No one in the UK has that capacity at the moment, however if someone steps up, I’m sure it will work! One lad is attemtping to start something similar, Dan Bates from Spartan Wargames (New company with his own Twitch Stream)

5) Want to know how to apply to the ETC? ASK!!!!! I am a member and we have been publicly announcing events which we attend on the facebook page “Team England 40k Community”… Search it on Facebook, ANYONE can gain access to it and see where and when we will be there. Come up to us, introduce yourself. We are a group of FRIENDS. What is the use in making a “table” to see if you are good enough by attending all these events we have never heard of when the basics of a TEAM is to know each other? Come chat, play some games at our numerous practice weekends and lets see if you really are any good. If we use a scoring system, we end up with 2 or 3 guys whom aren’t actually up to standards, never even played with before and don’t hav the time to practice with us? Yes that comes across as a secret club, but we take it very serious and if some random guy takes up one of our positions (which is more than welcome to if proven worthwhile) then we’d like to at least know them and get on with them. It’s a huge social week of drinking, laughing and gaming, it’s a good start to know us?

6) As for the Scene needing more access to knowledge on gameplay, its not cheap to setup a rig like the LVO. The London GT comes close but we are getting there. Problem is the 40k scene diminished in 6th and 7th and is only just picking back up, and GW streaming just wont work (poor effort to promote competitive play/lists and no knowledge of tactical commentary).

If you are genuinely interested in competitive play and want to get involved with the ETC or would like to know more about which tourneys to attend, get on facebook and find “Team England 40k Community” and get on there. Or simply message me and I am more than happy to answer any questions.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 15:53:32


Post by: Crimson Devil


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:02:27


Post by: tneva82


Uuh that was kind of his point. "Ask". "Email" "facebook". Needed for etc, less so for itc. People curious about it and who might be interested about it can easily find all the info right away. Is email address of person whom to send at least easily found? And even then extra step compared to itc.


As is i have zero idea about etc rules. Could play with itc rules any day despite never having attended one(not much of that around here)


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:06:50


Post by: Ordana


 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj
I think ITC missions, especially the use of secondaries, can significantly shift a meta compared to the 'base' game.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:08:06


Post by: Sneggy


Silentz wrote:
Nidzrule! wrote:
Given that etc

You know what the ETC is gak at compared to ITC?

Marketing and PR.

The ETC barely has a web presence. It's virtually invisible. I think there was a forum once but it's dead, isn't it?

Find me the official and up to date ETC rulespack. I fething challenge you! Now compare that experience to finding the ITC champions missions.


Lol, I have a feeling you’re trolling good sir but I will bite anyways:

1) The ETC does not need marketing. It is well known and every team in the world is aware of the rulespack. The missions are available via Facebook groups or Emailed to team captains. It is a TEAM event which countries can utilise for their own tournaments to practice in preparation for the event.

2) I can send you the rulespack if you’d like, but a prime example is Caledonian Uprising utilises the majority of the rules including a 30 page FAQ which is regularly updated.


and if I want to attend the ETC mission using events? Sorry I'm not on a team and the rulespack is only sent to team captains and those on teams? I googled ETC mission pack because I was looking for the missions we will be playing at Caledonian and LGT. Came up with nada, I've scraped some stuff together so me and my friends attended can half learn it. Seems a bit like a club where you have to know the right people to get the right information......

3) The scoreboard is great but in the past we used something called Rankings HQ. A lot of players (including on that ITC rankings board) just attend small tourneys to get more points and whoever attend the most of these unheard of tourneys in the middle of nowhere will end up topping the charts. It doesn't work. The only way a rankings table works is if it is regulated by a certain number of tourneys and by that those tourneys must be registered and proven to contain players that exist and the tourney should have a minimum of…say 60 players. It is a nightmare to create something like that, and the UK scene has never been bothered about it.


Hence why the ITC says you can have a max number of RTT's and afterwards only GT's and Majors count. Also your score is multiplied by the number of players attending so the larger events are worth more. So you can't just farm points at the small events. Even then it only takes your top 5 scores. Aside from allowing smaller events (to a limit) the scoring system is literally what you described. farming small events wouldn't work anyway due to the multiplication of your score by participants. You also can't just declare your event an ITC event. You have to contact FLG and provide information on your event before they will ssue you with a code to upload your scores to the rankings.


4) As for the batreps and live twitch streaming, that is because FLG/ITC is run by a company. No one in the UK has that capacity at the moment, however if someone steps up, I’m sure it will work! One lad is attemtping to start something similar, Dan Bates from Spartan Wargames (New company with his own Twitch Stream)


Fair point, though the UK has plenty of bat rep and content producers, nobody is on FLG's level right now.

5) Want to know how to apply to the ETC? ASK!!!!! I am a member and we have been publicly announcing events which we attend on the facebook page “Team England 40k Community”… Search it on Facebook, ANYONE can gain access to it and see where and when we will be there. Come up to us, introduce yourself. We are a group of FRIENDS. What is the use in making a “table” to see if you are good enough by attending all these events we have never heard of when the basics of a TEAM is to know each other? Come chat, play some games at our numerous practice weekends and lets see if you really are any good. If we use a scoring system, we end up with 2 or 3 guys whom aren’t actually up to standards, never even played with before and don’t hav the time to practice with us? Yes that comes across as a secret club, but we take it very serious and if some random guy takes up one of our positions (which is more than welcome to if proven worthwhile) then we’d like to at least know them and get on with them. It’s a huge social week of drinking, laughing and gaming, it’s a good start to know us?


My issue is again that whilst the actual ETC event is indeed this the ETC missions and rules packs seep into a lot of other events and the players not on the ETC team (whether through choice or exclusivity is an argument we can leave for now) are at a disadvantage as they do not have access to the rules pack. I shouldn't be needing to message some chap who i think is on team england to find out how the missions work at a public event anyone can go to. That information should be in the rules pack or widely available. It would be extremely easy for someone (say you for example) to copy it into a google doc and post it in a few easy to access locations. Perhaps a dakka topic stickied to the top of the relevant section entitled 'etc rulespack' so a google search would reveal it. It'd take all of two minutes. Not bothering to do it is more of what leads to this feeling of the ETC being exclusive and a boys club where you have to know the right people instead of being accessible and open like ITC.
If i don't want to be on the ETC but want to attend events which play ETC missions I'm left out in the cold as are the vast majority of people.
Reece Robbins has often said the ITC is about getting people to travel and play lots of people, meet lots of people and play lots of games. About spreading the 40k community.
From the outside looking in the ETC is about getting a select few together to play your special version of 40k and argue amongst each other whos the best and why that makes you better than everyone else.





UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:33:39


Post by: Silentz


KillswitchUK wrote:

Lol, I have a feeling you’re trolling good sir but I will bite anyways:

I wasn't trolling at all, I assure you. I was just saying what I think. What a random British occasional tourney player sees. The things I see as underlying reasons why people worldwide see ITC as the pinnacle of competitive play and get surprised when people say otherwise.

Some of the things you posted are great but others sort of confirm my view - I hate doing this because it's fiddly to post but I will go point by point.

>> Edit to add that Sneggy is clearly a much faster ranter than I am!


KillswitchUK wrote:

1) The ETC does not need marketing. It is well known and every team in the world is aware of the rulespack. The missions are available via Facebook groups or Emailed to team captains. It is a TEAM event which countries can utilise for their own tournaments to practice in preparation for the event.

Everything needs marketing. The more refined and high level something is, the more marketing it needs. The ETC feels like if they played the World Cup quietly in the background and didn't tell you much about it. You can see the results afterwards if you are on the right groups, but you don't get to watch it or know what tactics they used.

One of your initial points was "Where's the discussion after Cally?"
Well, who's leading that discussion?


KillswitchUK wrote:

2) I can send you the rulespack if you’d like, but a prime example is Caledonian Uprising utilises the majority of the rules including a 30 page FAQ which is regularly updated.

I've played in Cally events - I know the rulespack CAN be found, but the fact you might send it to me rather than just link me up is symptomatic.
I guess my point here is that the ITC appears to be attempting to be a standardised competitive rulespack for everyone to use. Whereas, to be fair, the ETC is not attempting to do that.


KillswitchUK wrote:

3) The scoreboard

4) As for the batreps and live twitch streaming, that is because FLG/ITC is run by a company. No one in the UK has that capacity at the moment, however if someone steps up, I’m sure it will work! One lad is attemtping to start something similar, Dan Bates from Spartan Wargames (New company with his own Twitch Stream)

6) As for the Scene needing more access to knowledge on gameplay, its not cheap to setup a rig like the LVO. The London GT comes close but we are getting there. Problem is the 40k scene diminished in 6th and 7th and is only just picking back up, and GW streaming just wont work (poor effort to promote competitive play/lists and no knowledge of tactical commentary).

None of this is impossible though. It's just work, which is what Reece seems to have put in over a few years to grow his brands.
It feels like Element could do this, but having the combo of personalities+sponsorship/revenue is hard. They do sponsor Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics but the relationship between Element and Tabletop Tactics is more of a silent sponsor.

The Honest Wargamer (Rob, ex Warhammer TV) is having a punt at it

Not seen the spartan stuff. Will have a look tonight.

KillswitchUK wrote:

5) Want to know how to apply to the ETC? ASK!!!!!

I am 100% sure this is true. I'm not criticizing this system. It's not impossible it's just a totally different model.

ITC is like the World Series of Poker during the poker boom. It's thrilling because it standardised the way the game is presented, and anyone could win.



Anyway I am not criticizing anyone really - the ETC is a cool thing. But you can't try and be the little guys who don't market themselves and don't tell anyone about your games, then claim to be the best of the best. How can a random guy in California believe or verify that?




UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:39:19


Post by: Sneggy


 Silentz wrote:


Edit to add that Sneggy is clearly a much faster ranter than I am!



*Sneggy is clearly extremely bored at work.


You make many good points. All of which I agree with. I think you made my points much more eloquently then i did.
But mostly I'm posting to say I'm bored at work and have mad typing skills.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:46:44


Post by: gorgon


I think it helps if one conceptualizes most large events and circuits as 'mega-clubs' in which players come together to play the game under a particular set of house rules.

And it's hard for me to take any of them seriously as the 'best' or 'pinnacle' when we're effectively talking about club championships. How does one weigh one club championship versus another? *shrug*

I wish GW would get back into the tourney business in the U.S. so that those of us who are less into (event)hammer had more options. It isn't gonna happen, but I can dream.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 16:50:19


Post by: daedalus


Yeah, from the point of view of someone who's spent some time playing competitively for years in the States, I've heard the ETC exists, but I don't know you from the wind.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 17:13:07


Post by: tneva82


 gorgon wrote:
I think it helps if one conceptualizes most large events and circuits as 'mega-clubs' in which players come together to play the game under a particular set of house rules.

And it's hard for me to take any of them seriously as the 'best' or 'pinnacle' when we're effectively talking about club championships. How does one weigh one club championship versus another? *shrug*

I wish GW would get back into the tourney business in the U.S. so that those of us who are less into (event)hammer had more options. It isn't gonna happen, but I can dream.


Well those are atm most competive tournaments out there. Gw running their owns don't make those any more "best". What matters is who come to tournaments. If all best players go to non-gw then gw tournaments are the minor ones.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 17:18:16


Post by: Audustum


tneva82 wrote:
 gorgon wrote:
I think it helps if one conceptualizes most large events and circuits as 'mega-clubs' in which players come together to play the game under a particular set of house rules.

And it's hard for me to take any of them seriously as the 'best' or 'pinnacle' when we're effectively talking about club championships. How does one weigh one club championship versus another? *shrug*

I wish GW would get back into the tourney business in the U.S. so that those of us who are less into (event)hammer had more options. It isn't gonna happen, but I can dream.


Well those are atm most competive tournaments out there. Gw running their owns don't make those any more "best". What matters is who come to tournaments. If all best players go to non-gw then gw tournaments are the minor ones.


The problem is in how you define best. You throw the LVO people at a GW-CA tournament and I think you'd see a fair amount of shake-up and vice-versa. The only thing we know right now is that the LVO people are very good at ITC missions and these people are good at CA missions. There's no way for us to objectively measure best unless/until they start crossing over more.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 19:07:28


Post by: gorgon


I do think that good players will certainly adapt well from format to format. I'm just not sure how one can compare results across formats very well unless we're talking about very similar formats. At least in the U.S., certain events are known for having very particular terrain setups that can affect strategies and gameplay before one even gets to missions and house rulings. There are many variables involved.

I also don't think the attendance (or lack thereof) of 'star' personalities necessarily determines the competitiveness of a given event. It's certainly beneficial to market personalities when you're trying to push a 'pro tour' of 'Warhammer athletes'. And unfortunately that has even led to special treatment at times. But there are very skilled players out there who just don't have the interest or time to chase the meta within a given format and/or travel all over to attend events.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/21 20:07:42


Post by: Nidzrule!


The problem that the ETC has is that it is done by volunteers who love the game and are borderline obsessives. EVEN then they are not obsessive enough to have turned that into a job. Reece and his team have done a great job with FLG but to be honest it is ALSO their livelihood. I think its just crazy how Mike Brandt has done what he's done with Nova given he also has a full time job but Mike I think is a crazy exception rather than the rule.

ETC does need marketing and god knows as the years have passed it has become harder and harder to get information. The issue is one of who is willing to part with the considerable time and effort which is required to publicise the ETC for what really is still a volunteer system? This might happen a year or two years but how can this become consistent support? That's the ETC challenge. Also TWF has died a death in terms of traffic and that was a forum that UK tourney players used to gather and chew fat. Unfortunately that's gone. Also Rankings HQ died a death because there just was not enough support in the end.

Point is that at least there are now more players more aware of the rich history of the 40k tournament scene in the UK and they can now help spread the word.

I have been aware of operational dramas around the ETC and I have still amazed at how everyone has gritted and gone on with putting the ETC show on the road year in and out.

Btw those comments about ETC as being a bit of a gentleman's club are unfortunately bang on target. But there's no reason why that cant change. Good luck to Dan B, he'll need grit and effort to take this forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ Gorgon

GW has made the business decision to restart tournaments but only to do these as renaissance man style tournaments in the UK. You may remember that they did Hard Boyz but you may also remember that there were a number of controversies, etc. Anyway, for the time being, they are supporting FLG and Nova which is good, we'll see if they do more in the US.

With regards to whether a event's lists are competitive, you can easily judge for yourself. Find the winning lists, try and understand what the player is trying to do with it and decide if it beats the internet superlist of the day. Go and google the Caledonian lists. Simon Weakley who won it has done something particular with his Tyranid list that means that it eats Ynnari Reaper spam for lunch. I think he smashed Max Barton who was the Heat 2 winner. Its godawfully painful and spammy list but that;s what Simon was aiming for, to win HARSHly but fairly. Btw I'm not saying that Simon's list is the be all and end all but you'll get the principle of what the current meta is and you can then adjust for your own event. Use Simon's knowledge because he's done the groundwork for you but dont just copy it. Next big event is LGT and I'm interested to see what the meta is like with Custodes out. Not sure if there's enough in Custodes to lift Imperial soup above the line but we will see.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 02:17:01


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 Crimson Devil wrote:


That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj


There is no greater change to the game than mission rules.

Throw out the psychic phase and ban psykers, some 50% of the armies out there won't care.

Double the movement rate for all units in the game, and gunlines won't be affected.

Allow both sides to score first blood either via first strike or ITC-style old school houserule, and EVERY SINGLE GAME is fundamentally changed directly at the win-condition.

These changes are among the most drastic and incisive you can do to the game short of changing the dice to D12 or dropping IGO-UGO or something like this.




UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 02:37:44


Post by: Crimson Devil


So your premise is custom missions equal heavily houseruled. I don't think you've thought your arguement through.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 02:58:44


Post by: Sunny Side Up


 Crimson Devil wrote:
So your premise is custom missions equal heavily houseruled. I don't think you've thought your arguement through.


I am saying that changing win-parameters will change the dynamic of the game, strategic consideration going into army building, deployment, etc.., thus the "meta".

Using first blood as an example, having the option to counter/re-coup first blood through first strike/old school/etc.. makes "losing" first blood to the opponent less critical, thus making weaker units on the board (e.g. for building large, CP-farming detachments or for holding a spot for your DS units) somewhat less of a liability, as you're less likely to put yourself at a 1 point disadvantage (doubly so for ITC, where 1 point difference is less meaningful in the overall score).


Thus it changes the considerations people need to make about winning, thus changes the armies, thus creating a different game dynamic.

I cannot for the life of me consider that an "insignificant change". It fundamentally changes strategies, armies and, most importantly, the actual win/lose conditions determining who walks away as the victor and/or loser, which is doubly important for tournaments/competitive, where the game result is the factor placing you on the score board.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 08:00:13


Post by: Kdash


So, just to prove a point about the ETC (well i'm presuming it's the ETC rules pack - as it's the rules pack for the London Grand Tournament) it can be found online -

https://www.lgtpresents.co.uk/40kgt
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/a7e101_fcd941316ad84f13a7e563f9d78fa9bb.pdf

The FAQ link doesn't work though, so no idea what's on the "30 page FAQ".

As an ETC "outsider", i've not heard much about the format, and most of that was towards the start of 8th Ed when ETC was the cause for all the Flyer nerfs etc. Since then, i've not really heard a great deal about it's results, impacts etc.

The LGT is one of the bigger events in the UK in terms of attendees (don't know if i can see "biggest" right now due to the GW Heats), but, that's the reason why i'm attending it for the first time this year - not because it is ETC.

If i'm honest, i wouldn't have a clue how many people are in a team, let alone who was on Team England. Nor would i have any idea what events were coming up for it.

Though - now i know a facebook group exists, i will probably take a look at it, and go from there.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 10:39:18


Post by: tneva82


Kdash wrote:
So, just to prove a point about the ETC (well i'm presuming it's the ETC rules pack - as it's the rules pack for the London Grand Tournament) it can be found online -


But how fast? ETC rules pack to google. Lets see...First result: Thread about discussion about voting for point sizes etc. Next The CanHammer Team Tournament is a modified ETC Warhammer 40k event. Modified? Doesn't sound like one I can find current official rules. 3rd actually leads to ITC pack. Then thread into dakka dakka asking where to get. Bit later gets you 2015 rules. Yey! Just kinda old...Next up...2013 version. 2014, 2017 for warmahordes...

Idea of ETC is nice enough if you enjoy competive tournaments(I don't) but in terms of visibility and access to rules ITC wins hands down.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 10:43:17


Post by: KillswitchUK


We have tried to make the ETC as transparent substrate as possible. We promote it through indy events (wearing team England shirts so everyone knows who to approach for example) promoting it on Facebook through the Team England 40k Community Page and through podcasts (Caledonian podcast, allies of convenience all speak about the ETC)

I have taken a lot of advice on board however and will be trying to promote it better by allowing Brits access to rules packs and faq changes via a website which we will be creating soon and updating with all sorts of things similar to FLG. Hopefully we can not only spread the love but also promote a healthy 40k scene which revolves around the fantastically well rounded rulespack


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 10:54:44


Post by: Silentz


Two thumbs up.

Big (but constructive) discussion and don't think this is a criticism. I've never spoken to you but I see more local people like Gaz J wearing his Team England shirt to events all the time, and he's super approachable and chilled.

The missions I've played have also (again, my opinion) been much better than the ITC missions - you feel like you are playing standard 40k but dialled up in complexity to ensure it's fair to hordes and elites etc.

The ITC champions missions are like a separate game, in many ways. With some accountancy and book-keeping tacked on for "fun".

If you need some volunteer assistance in any way, let me know. Could help with a little bit of content creation or do a website or something if needed.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 11:05:39


Post by: KillswitchUK


Yeh ive been in talks with a community based website so I will bear that in mind...for now however, here is last year's ETC pack which has yet to be updated to include Killpoints in every mission upto a +-6 point difference effecting the overall 20-0 system:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzus0DMobfGYcUdGRXJ1amZQWTQ/view


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 11:30:34


Post by: tneva82


KillswitchUK wrote:
We have tried to make the ETC as transparent substrate as possible. We promote it through indy events (wearing team England shirts so everyone knows who to approach for example) promoting it on Facebook through the Team England 40k Community Page and through podcasts (Caledonian podcast, allies of convenience all speak about the ETC)

I have taken a lot of advice on board however and will be trying to promote it better by allowing Brits access to rules packs and faq changes via a website which we will be creating soon and updating with all sorts of things similar to FLG. Hopefully we can not only spread the love but also promote a healthy 40k scene which revolves around the fantastically well rounded rulespack


That helps in UK and is all nice but what about outside UK? Doesn't help much finding out about it outside UK.

I'm in Finland so waaaaay away from closest ITC event. Yet I can find rules pack and basically all the info easily by google. No need to know anybody. No need to ask anybody. No need to go to any tournament to find in person somebody who can help.

One might get impression ETC rules pack is national secret seeing how in this world of free hosting options by galore there's not easily found site you can find the latest rules pack!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 12:55:11


Post by: KillswitchUK


Well Finland has their own team and ways of promoting it but yes I see your point and it's something myself and a few others will be looking at in creating a European community based website which not only provides knowledge of the ETC, it's rules pack etc but also battle reports, tactical videos, list building, podcast, competitions, tournaments held around Europe etc.

Watch this space I'm hoping to build something on the foundation of FLG but European based which we are lacking here.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 13:16:06


Post by: r_squared


Sounds good, looking forward to seeing what comes up.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/22 23:00:08


Post by: Primark G


 Ordana wrote:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj
I think ITC missions, especially the use of secondaries, can significantly shift a meta compared to the 'base' game.


The ITC missions were designed with NOVA and GW development - they are very eighth edition - the ability to choose your secondaries makes more armies competitive. Have you played any of these missions?


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/23 01:03:38


Post by: greyknight12


 Crimson Devil wrote:
So your premise is custom missions equal heavily houseruled. I don't think you've thought your arguement through.

It's semantics. Ultimately the argument is that by so radically changing the obectives of the game, you have effectively changed the game itself.

One issue with the ITC champions missions is that the traditional progressive scoring model is being challenged by short game length...3-4 turns. With 4 turns to play a game, and each turn being worth at most 4 points (cause getting that 5th point is usually impossible), you have about 16 points max from the primary mission, 50% of which is achieved by "killyness". The secondary objectives amount to a max of 12 points, of which least 8 can usually be achieved by killing stuff. The net effect is that often in a game it is the SECONDARY objectives that net more points than the PRIMARY, meaning that building your army to achieve/deny those secondaries is a more sure path to victory. But a more insidious effect is that killing your opponent (i.e. building your army to table) is equally valid as taking and holding objectives; and perhaps better because you can potentially achieve the "kill" secondaries in 1-2 turns while the "objective" secondaries are usually a 1pt/turn reward. And by rewarding both camping for multiple turns AND blowing your enemy off the table you have created a situation that favors the exact army type progressive scoring was supposed to eliminate: Gunlines.
The reason people are following the UK results (and tolerating the above ETC -measuring contest between dakka-ites) is that they represent a different type of game, and after LVO/ITC dominating the web for the past year it's refreshing to see something different being played at a high level.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/23 05:10:53


Post by: Spoletta


 greyknight12 wrote:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
So your premise is custom missions equal heavily houseruled. I don't think you've thought your arguement through.

It's semantics. Ultimately the argument is that by so radically changing the obectives of the game, you have effectively changed the game itself.

One issue with the ITC champions missions is that the traditional progressive scoring model is being challenged by short game length...3-4 turns. With 4 turns to play a game, and each turn being worth at most 4 points (cause getting that 5th point is usually impossible), you have about 16 points max from the primary mission, 50% of which is achieved by "killyness". The secondary objectives amount to a max of 12 points, of which least 8 can usually be achieved by killing stuff. The net effect is that often in a game it is the SECONDARY objectives that net more points than the PRIMARY, meaning that building your army to achieve/deny those secondaries is a more sure path to victory. But a more insidious effect is that killing your opponent (i.e. building your army to table) is equally valid as taking and holding objectives; and perhaps better because you can potentially achieve the "kill" secondaries in 1-2 turns while the "objective" secondaries are usually a 1pt/turn reward. And by rewarding both camping for multiple turns AND blowing your enemy off the table you have created a situation that favors the exact army type progressive scoring was supposed to eliminate: Gunlines.
The reason people are following the UK results (and tolerating the above ETC -measuring contest between dakka-ites) is that they represent a different type of game, and after LVO/ITC dominating the web for the past year it's refreshing to see something different being played at a high level.


I agree with this.
ITC missions severely limit your army choices. Since it is not uncommon for an ITC turn to end 3-2 on primary objectives, it is secondaries that will win you the game when you are evenly matched.

If you want to be good on secondaries, you have to respect a lot of additional rules for list building, just look for example at the effects of Gangbuster. Forget about any high wound model unit with high model count and less than stellar defenses. In ITC you will never see thousand son playing spawns, tyranids playing big warrior units, orks playing nobs, tau playing suits... You are playing units that cost less than 200 points and yet are worth 4 points to your opponent!

This is just one example, but all the secondaries represent a big series of "NO!" when building your list.

Also, there is a reason why Eldar dominated LVO. They don't bleed secondaries. Since there is nothing that punishes high cost single wound or double wound models in units smaller than 10, Dark Reapers and shining spears become even stronger than usual. You will not score kingslayer and headhunter, because they only play small buffing chars that are kept well safe. Gangbuster? Lol no. Reaper? Maybe 1 point from the 19 guardian units. The only headhunter targets you will find are wave serpents.
Don't think that the eldar lists that won the LVO would be as good in a GW Heat. That 5/8 Eldar lists were there because ITC rules seem custom made for Eldar's current top builds.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/23 09:02:17


Post by: Earth127


I'd never realised that. It would make a big difference especially in a tournament enviroment where every advantage counts. Especially a reliable (not-random) one.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/23 09:17:01


Post by: tneva82


KillswitchUK wrote:
Well Finland has their own team and ways of promoting it but yes I see your point and it's something myself and a few others will be looking at in creating a European community based website which not only provides knowledge of the ETC, it's rules pack etc but also battle reports, tactical videos, list building, podcast, competitions, tournaments held around Europe etc.

Watch this space I'm hoping to build something on the foundation of FLG but European based which we are lacking here.


Yeah I'm not expecting super hyper detailed site with battle reports, live streams and what not(those would be cool but definitely extra work!). But one official site that has say contact information for each country's people in charge updated as well as possible along with current up to date rules would go long way IMO. Anything beyond that(links to tournaments using these rules etc) would be interesting bonus but not essential.

Maybe updating above info is more work than I imagine which is why there's no such site though.

What you are planning to do sounds good Hopefully it works out!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/23 11:51:59


Post by: Ordana


 Primark G wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj
I think ITC missions, especially the use of secondaries, can significantly shift a meta compared to the 'base' game.


The ITC missions were designed with NOVA and GW development - they are very eighth edition - the ability to choose your secondaries makes more armies competitive. Have you played any of these missions?
As others have said, the secondaries kill a ton of army builds because it is secondaries that decide the winner 99 times out of 100 and having the 'wrong' unit means you give away a ton of easy points there.



UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/23 12:15:42


Post by: Wayniac


That seems like a huge flaw that just encourages more emphasis on list building as the primary skill. I like the concept of the ITC missions but I find they are even more egregious at cutting out huge swathes of options than what you already see in matched play


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/25 05:16:03


Post by: Primark G


 Ordana wrote:
 Primark G wrote:
 Ordana wrote:
 Crimson Devil wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Maybe not the "meta", but certainly 40K.

That's the point. LVO & co are so heavily houseruled, it's not really 40K anyhow in any shape, way or form. If ETC/LVO lists inform the ETC/LVO meta and all that, fine. But it's a microcosm playing by its own rules.


That's incorrect. The ITC has very few rules changes this season. The main difference is their custom missions.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bUs0HrJ3f6YzR6mWlT1LRLq0i9_0ekf7ah9WhCTxsIo/edit#heading=h.xdqssu9alogj
I think ITC missions, especially the use of secondaries, can significantly shift a meta compared to the 'base' game.


The ITC missions were designed with NOVA and GW development - they are very eighth edition - the ability to choose your secondaries makes more armies competitive. Have you played any of these missions?
As others have said, the secondaries kill a ton of army builds because it is secondaries that decide the winner 99 times out of 100 and having the 'wrong' unit means you give away a ton of easy points there.



Actually you win ITC Missions by dominating the primary objectives. That’s what you should focus on winning.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/25 16:25:02


Post by: greyknight12


 Primark G wrote:
Actually you win ITC Missions by dominating the primary objectives. That’s what you should focus on winning.

Sure in theory, but in actual practice if the game doesn't last the full length (like we saw a lot a LVO) then the secondaries are worth almost as much as the primary...4 points a turn for 3/4 turns= 12/16 points from primary. Secondaries are worth 12 points. If you are more evenly matched, then you're probably not getting all 4, more like 2-3 each turn (3pts/turn=12 pts in 4 turns) and your opponent is getting at least 2. So like I said earlier, in practice you are sometimes getting more points from the secondary objectives than the primary. The only way to get full points from the primary is to table your opponent early, so you are guaranteed 4 pts/turn through turn 6. Put another way:

In a 4 turn game, if player 1 does the minimum on primary and maxes secondary he/she will get 20 points (8 primary, 12 secondary). Note the minimum is killing 1 unit and holding 1 objective.
Player 2 achieves all primary and one of their secondary (out of 3). He/she will also have 20 points (16 primary, 4 secondary).

Now lets assume that player 1's list is built purely to kill stuff, and doesn't care about holding more than the 1 objective per turn. Your results now look like this:
Player 1 maxes secondary again, getting their 20 points (assuming they also didn't get extra points for "kill more than your opponent" each turn)
Player 2 only gets 3 pts per turn, with their one secondary they have 16 points.

Since 50% of the primary objectives are "kill stuff" they synergize with the secondaries that are also "kill stuff". Which leads to lists like we saw at LVO: Maximizing firepower and denying secondary objectives through unit composition. Eldar does this well. This is simply a rare opportunity (albeit a single data point) to compare armies against different tournament/mission formats, and that's what people are focusing on here.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/25 18:20:00


Post by: Primark G


Some of the missions like What’s Yours Is Mine make it hard to hold more than one objective (there are only two) so then secondaries are even more important. You need to decide early what’s the best way to score the most points.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/25 18:34:27


Post by: Fenris-77


The tournament scene really isn't that much different than it used to be, allowing for obvious changes in scale. If you looked at any major GW branded event from the late 90's or early 00's you'd see a mix of player acumen, a range of list optimization (previously know as cheese, or beard) and a range of paint calibers. At the time GW had a minimum three colour rule, and you'd see a lot of 'optimized' lists with minimal attention payed to hobby detail. GW did employ a range of soft score elements at these events, but the gents that won were almost always also the gents who went undefeated or close to it. There was slow playing, rules lawyering, shady movement tricks, etc etc etc. Just like today, you'd also see the level of list optimization rise as the size and prestige of the event went up. What's old is new again I suppose.

Now all you kids get off of my lawn.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 02:16:13


Post by: perrin23860


 Fenris-77 wrote:
The tournament scene really isn't that much different than it used to be, allowing for obvious changes in scale. If you looked at any major GW branded event from the late 90's or early 00's you'd see a mix of player acumen, a range of list optimization (previously know as cheese, or beard) and a range of paint calibers. At the time GW had a minimum three colour rule, and you'd see a lot of 'optimized' lists with minimal attention payed to hobby detail. GW did employ a range of soft score elements at these events, but the gents that won were almost always also the gents who went undefeated or close to it. There was slow playing, rules lawyering, shady movement tricks, etc etc etc. Just like today, you'd also see the level of list optimization rise as the size and prestige of the event went up. What's old is new again I suppose.

Now all you kids get off of my lawn.


Quoted for truth

There is nothing new under the sun


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 10:00:13


Post by: Fridge_Opener


UK scene seems similar to its sigmar one with soup lists doing very well. Wouldn't mind seeing the lists though to see if there's a feel to it or just lasered in on hyper competitive


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 10:14:54


Post by: tneva82


perrin23860 wrote:
 Fenris-77 wrote:
The tournament scene really isn't that much different than it used to be, allowing for obvious changes in scale. If you looked at any major GW branded event from the late 90's or early 00's you'd see a mix of player acumen, a range of list optimization (previously know as cheese, or beard) and a range of paint calibers. At the time GW had a minimum three colour rule, and you'd see a lot of 'optimized' lists with minimal attention payed to hobby detail. GW did employ a range of soft score elements at these events, but the gents that won were almost always also the gents who went undefeated or close to it. There was slow playing, rules lawyering, shady movement tricks, etc etc etc. Just like today, you'd also see the level of list optimization rise as the size and prestige of the event went up. What's old is new again I suppose.

Now all you kids get off of my lawn.


Quoted for truth

There is nothing new under the sun


Actually there is. Average power level of armies has gone drastically up. Used to be after first 2 games I could find games of roughly same level armies. Now good if in 5 game tournament I get 1 outside 30k tournaments


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 15:53:16


Post by: Fenris-77


tneva82 wrote:
perrin23860 wrote:
 Fenris-77 wrote:
The tournament scene really isn't that much different than it used to be, allowing for obvious changes in scale. If you looked at any major GW branded event from the late 90's or early 00's you'd see a mix of player acumen, a range of list optimization (previously know as cheese, or beard) and a range of paint calibers. At the time GW had a minimum three colour rule, and you'd see a lot of 'optimized' lists with minimal attention payed to hobby detail. GW did employ a range of soft score elements at these events, but the gents that won were almost always also the gents who went undefeated or close to it. There was slow playing, rules lawyering, shady movement tricks, etc etc etc. Just like today, you'd also see the level of list optimization rise as the size and prestige of the event went up. What's old is new again I suppose.

Now all you kids get off of my lawn.


Quoted for truth

There is nothing new under the sun


Actually there is. Average power level of armies has gone drastically up. Used to be after first 2 games I could find games of roughly same level armies. Now good if in 5 game tournament I get 1 outside 30k tournaments
That's not new either - it all depends on the event. A lot of FLGS tournies are still not optimized like Adepticon or LVO. At the time netlisting was very much a thing already, and you'd find the same cookie cutter cheese at any decent sized event. The bigger the event the higher the percentage of optimized lists, same as it ever was.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 17:07:57


Post by: gorgon


 Fenris-77 wrote:
The tournament scene really isn't that much different than it used to be, allowing for obvious changes in scale. If you looked at any major GW branded event from the late 90's or early 00's you'd see a mix of player acumen, a range of list optimization (previously know as cheese, or beard) and a range of paint calibers. At the time GW had a minimum three colour rule, and you'd see a lot of 'optimized' lists with minimal attention payed to hobby detail. GW did employ a range of soft score elements at these events, but the gents that won were almost always also the gents who went undefeated or close to it. There was slow playing, rules lawyering, shady movement tricks, etc etc etc. Just like today, you'd also see the level of list optimization rise as the size and prestige of the event went up. What's old is new again I suppose.

Now all you kids get off of my lawn.


Mostly true, but it was also only for bragging rights and a trophy in those days. Now you have cash prizes, 'pro' rankings, and 'pro tour' championships. The stakes are clearly higher now, and we all know the effects that higher stakes can have on human behavior.

Unpainted was also not a thing at GW tournaments, and it's definitely a thing now.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 17:41:34


Post by: Fenris-77


Rankings and especially large cash/merchandise prizes have been around for a decade. That's not new either. Cash straight up is newer, but the effect on people's behaviour is about the same as offering a first prize of, say, $500 worth of forgeworld product. Any prize other than bragging rights turns a bunch of guys into gigantic turdmuffins, and even just bragging rights does it sometimes too. That's why I'm ok with events at least trying to include a sportsmanship score of some kind.


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 17:51:39


Post by: orkswubwub


The answer is clear - we need to nerf orks!


UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 20:56:32


Post by: gorgon


 Fenris-77 wrote:
Rankings and especially large cash/merchandise prizes have been around for a decade. That's not new either. Cash straight up is newer, but the effect on people's behaviour is about the same as offering a first prize of, say, $500 worth of forgeworld product. Any prize other than bragging rights turns a bunch of guys into gigantic turdmuffins, and even just bragging rights does it sometimes too. That's why I'm ok with events at least trying to include a sportsmanship score of some kind.


Well, I don't think you can handwave it and say prizes are prizes, and they're all on the same continuum. The amount matters.

For Best Painted at the very last Baltimore GT ever (2008), I got maybe $150 worth of merchandise. I'm guessing the overall was $200-300 in merch? Which is kind of a different thing than *thousands* in cash. And a few hundred bucks in loot is probably still standard fare at most medium-sized regional events that don't operate well into the black like the biggest ones.

To be clear, I'm not saying that large cash prizes cause everyone to behave like jackholes. But they sure don't help rein in anyone who is naturally tempted to dabble in jackholery. I think it's a factor. Not THE factor, but a factor.




UK GT heat 3 results @ 2018/02/26 21:02:38


Post by: Fenris-77


I went to a regional event in Ontario in the mid-2000's that was offering just shy of $500 in merch for overall. That's not a GT or Adepticon, which at the time was offering a lot more than that. We agree that the outcome is similar once the prize is big enough though, which is what I was getting at. Honestly, even when there were no prizes of any kind the asshat factor at big GW events was pretty high anyway from the top table types. It's just part of the hobby - some dudes just don't "do competitive" well at all, and you need to be ready and willing to manage those idiots as they appear.