Where to find?

Thanks in advance

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/
Top 24 lists

Dakka logic: Chaos top...

Chaos broken nerf nerf nerf nerf!!

So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

No Necrons...so everything as usual!

I’m very happy to see just plain Aeldari in the top 5! Just a little proof with a good general you don’t need to rely on any soulbursting

I am really taken back by how good the Orks did! Glad to see so much diversity compared to what hyperbole spewers say online about 'whats meta'.

 vaklor4 wrote:
I am really taken back by how good the Orks did! Glad to see so much diversity compared to what hyperbole spewers say online about 'whats meta'.

ITC vs non-ITC.
Very different Meta's.

On the other hand the bottom tier armies work the same way in be it ITC or not ITC

The Tau lists looked interesting. Very different from what I've normally seen. Looks like triple Riptides is no longer the way to go.

This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

GSC are garbage! Drop the army now!

Orks bad!

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

Nice joke lol. However since it wasn’t ITC, we have to take it all with lots of pillars of salt. Orks are ok without the competitive aspects of ITC missions, rules, and objectives thrown into the mix. However, when we look at the aspect of actual competitive players that can utilize armies to their max with those objectives in mind, we see a degree of skill you can’t find in things like adepticon

 Smirrors wrote:
This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Glad to see the amount of diversity. What's conspicuously lacking is marine infantry and necrons. I think we can expect to see marine infantry popping up in Chaos lists soon thanks to Red Corsairs and Reaper Chain Cannons, but I don't expect much beyond that use case. But overall Marines are still just bad.

I'm not really up to date on what's going on with Necrons. Can anyone fill me in? Or is this just a coincidence?

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

Nice joke lol. However since it wasn’t ITC, we have to take it all with lots of pillars of salt. Orks are ok without the competitive aspects of ITC missions, rules, and objectives thrown into the mix. However, when we look at the aspect of actual competitive players that can utilize armies to their max with those objectives in mind, we see a degree of skill you can’t find in things like adepticon

Nick Nanavanti who went 6-0 at LVO is #10 here.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

Nice joke lol. However since it wasn’t ITC, we have to take it all with lots of pillars of salt. Orks are ok without the competitive aspects of ITC missions, rules, and objectives thrown into the mix. However, when we look at the aspect of actual competitive players that can utilize armies to their max with those objectives in mind, we see a degree of skill you can’t find in things like adepticon

Nick Nanavanti who went 6-0 at LVO is #10 here.

Yes, because the lack of competitive aspects in non itc formats. It’s sad.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Glad to see the amount of diversity. What's conspicuously lacking is marine infantry and necrons. I think we can expect to see marine infantry popping up in Chaos lists soon thanks to Red Corsairs and Reaper Chain Cannons, but I don't expect much beyond that use case. But overall Marines are still just bad.

I'm not really up to date on what's going on with Necrons. Can anyone fill me in? Or is this just a coincidence?

Well yea, there is no conceivable mission type where Necrons or Marines perform well.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Yes, because the lack of competitive aspects in non itc formats. It’s sad.

Not sure what you're driving at. I don't know his W/L for Adepticon, but Nick did well at both tournaments with Orks.

 Ordana wrote:
Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

What makes the Castellan so good in ITC but hardly at all in the top 24 at Adepticon (14th and 24th).

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


I'm not really up to date on what's going on with Necrons. Can anyone fill me in? Or is this just a coincidence?

Allegedly Necrons are too expensive still and have a lack of getting past real decent Inv. Saves.

 Ordana wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting there's more to WH40k than ICT.
I've been reading a lot of dakka and I'm pretty sure that's heresy around here...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Yes, because the lack of competitive aspects in non itc formats. It’s sad.

Not sure what you're driving at. I don't know his W/L for Adepticon, but Nick did well at both tournaments with Orks.

Good players will do well in most formats of the game.

Nick is not the type to pick an army that he genuinely doesnt think can win it for him. Most tournaments are decided by a close match and I suspect Adepticon for Nick was the same.

The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

For those interested Team England hosted a highly competetive ETC event this weekend. 30 man but self selected für highly competetive players including ETC team players.

Missions

Lists

Josh Roberts took first place.
Markus Hinson Second.
Tom Higginbottom was third.
John Partridge 4th
Mark Cromblehome 5th
Dan Bates 6th
Nathan Roberts 7th
Mark Cawdrey 8th
Bob 9th
Mani Cheema 10th

Not really. IMO the ITC does a very good job in making sure that competitive aspects are included into their missions so that the more skilled player takes utmost advantage of them. This is why ITC is favored

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Not really. IMO the ITC does a very good job in making sure that competitive aspects are included into their missions so that the more skilled player takes utmost advantage of them. This is why ITC is favored

IMO ITC is a lot less skill testing of in game skill and more dependant on list build and pregame strategy than several other formats. This is why ITC is disfavoured in Europe. This seems to be in part down to low mission variability and secondary selection.

Drager wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Not really. IMO the ITC does a very good job in making sure that competitive aspects are included into their missions so that the more skilled player takes utmost advantage of them. This is why ITC is favored

IMO ITC is a lot less skill testing of in game skill and more dependant on list build and pregame strategy than several other formats. This is why ITC is disfavoured in Europe. This seems to be in part down to low mission variability and secondary selection.

I can see why it might be thought of that way, but let’s take for example a ynnari list. Put a competitive build in the hands of a newer player and you will see the List crumble. The list was built for top performance pre game. The strategies with simple rules knowledge and unit category are somewhat obvious. So why did the list crumple to let’s say, en masse ork boys? Because the player wasn’t skilled. Itc still takes skill to play. Moving around LOS blocking first levels (which is amazing) attempting to score objectives even if your forces are dwindling faster than your opponent. It gives each army a chance. I’m sorry but I have to disagree with your opinion

Looking at the ITC missions vs the Adepticon missions, I really don't see why Knights / Eldar would do worse in ITC than Adepticon. Can someone explain this to me, what exactly makes it worse for them? Otherwise, I think this is kind of a mark in favor of balance of the game, that a tournament has as much chance for Orks / GSC to do well as Knights / Eldar.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Drager wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Not really. IMO the ITC does a very good job in making sure that competitive aspects are included into their missions so that the more skilled player takes utmost advantage of them. This is why ITC is favored

IMO ITC is a lot less skill testing of in game skill and more dependant on list build and pregame strategy than several other formats. This is why ITC is disfavoured in Europe. This seems to be in part down to low mission variability and secondary selection.

I can see why it might be thought of that way, but let’s take for example a ynnari list. Put a competitive build in the hands of a newer player and you will see the List crumble. The list was built for top performance pre game. The strategies with simple rules knowledge and unit category are somewhat obvious. So why did the list crumple to let’s say, en masse ork boys? Because the player wasn’t skilled. Itc still takes skill to play. Moving around LOS blocking first levels (which is amazing) attempting to score objectives even if your forces are dwindling faster than your opponent. It gives each army a chance. I’m sorry but I have to disagree with your opinion

I didn't mean to imply ITC takes no skill, just less. Ynarri is also a naturally skill testing army as its tricky to make the correct selections. It's easier in ITC than other formats though. A new player with a net list is highly unlikely to beat any competetive player in any format. What I'm interested in is the level of in game skill test between top players. Other formats also give each army a chance. So I don't so much disagree with your comment as your conclusion. And no need to apologise, happy to see dissenting views.

 Horst wrote:
Looking at the ITC missions vs the Adepticon missions, I really don't see why Knights / Eldar would do worse in ITC than Adepticon. Can someone explain this to me, what exactly makes it worse for them? Otherwise, I think this is kind of a mark in favor of balance of the game, that a tournament has as much chance for Orks / GSC to do well as Knights / Eldar.

Knights I get, with very low placing.. but top 25 had 3 Aeldari listings, 2 of which were in top 5. You consider this poor placement? I’m just confused is all. Anyway, a lot has to do with the fact in ITC there are primary and secondary missions. Players have higher chances of scoring points, even if they are being blown away models wise. Play to the objectives you have chosen/mission you rolled and you will go far in ITC. The only thing I can think of is with missions have far less objectives in adepticon format, mass hordes of let’s say orks or gsc are able to hold the table better, if that makes sense

Though the ITC secondaries could probably use a little re-balancing. At times it feels fairly easy for imperial lists that abuse some of the missions which other armies just can't quite do. Or perhaps it's just knights soaking up so many army list points but yielding comparatively few mission points for your enemy vs the effort they have to expend to earn those points.

Wayniac wrote:
The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

The dynamic is not that different.

Primaries - up to 30 points for these. This is not very different from hold and hold more.

• Worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it at the start of their turn. No VPs may be scored in this
manner during Battle Round 1. Contested Objectives score no points for either player.

• Worth 1 Victory Point to a player if, by the end of their turn, they take control of an Objective that was
controlled by their opponent at its beginning. VPs may be scored in this manner from Battle Round 1 forward

Secondaries - up to 12 points. This is not horribly different from kill & kill more.

Every 100 points worth of enemy units destroyed by the end of the game (rounded to the nearest 100) is worth 1
Victory Point.
 Example A: 4 units worth 495 points rounds to 500/100 = 5 Victory Points
 Example B: 4 units worth 650 points rounds to 700/100 = 7 Victory Points
 Example C: 8 units worth 320 points rounds to 300/100 = 3 Victory Points
 Example D: 1 unit worth 385 points rounds to 400/100 = 4 Victory Points
 Example E: 1 unit worth 40 points rounds to 0/100 = 0 Victory Points

Tertiaries - 2 points each

Line Breaker: At the end of the game, have one or more of your units entirely within your opponent’s
Deployment Zone. Flyers count for this Tertiary and do not have to be in Hover mode.
• Solo Blood: During the game, in the same Battle Round, destroy an enemy unit without your opponent
destroying any of your units.
• Vanguard: At the beginning of any of your turns after the first Battle Round, have more than one of your units
entirely within your opponent's deployment zone.

Additionally, Adepticon gives you 4 points wipeout bonus of 4 points and uses differential scoring.

You also place all the terrain and objectives meaning if you're not careful you can really screw yourself over on primaries and firing lanes.

So it boils down to - hold a bunch of gak and kill a bunch of gak. With 6 bonus points for tertiaries. That's it. No variety for any mission beyond the deployment zone.

To get max primary you have to hold 3 objectives for 5 rounds, which can be hard to do with IS if you've gone first. The get max secondary vs a Castellan you just have to kill everything except the Castellan. So, if you can kill a bunch of IS and hide enough guys - you win.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Horst wrote:
Looking at the ITC missions vs the Adepticon missions, I really don't see why Knights / Eldar would do worse in ITC than Adepticon. Can someone explain this to me, what exactly makes it worse for them? Otherwise, I think this is kind of a mark in favor of balance of the game, that a tournament has as much chance for Orks / GSC to do well as Knights / Eldar.

Knights I get, with very low placing.. but top 25 had 3 Aeldari listings, 2 of which were in top 5. You consider this poor placement? I’m just confused is all. Anyway, a lot has to do with the fact in ITC there are primary and secondary missions. Players have higher chances of scoring points, even if they are being blown away models wise. Play to the objectives you have chosen/mission you rolled and you will go far in ITC. The only thing I can think of is with missions have far less objectives in adepticon format, mass hordes of let’s say orks or gsc are able to hold the table better, if that makes sense

There is no such think like top 24, only top 16 played extra rounds. The Adepticon point rules are strange, if the losing opponent want to be kind to you, he can concede and give you full 40 pts and pump your ranking. Sadly in BCP they completely removed round 5 bracket losers, but as far as i can remember there were 4 orc players and 1 mirror orc match up, 2 tao players, 2 or maybe 3 chaos players, SM player, IK player, GSC player. Can`t believe they just deleted the bracket just because the losing player conceded to give his opponent full 40 pts.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

The dynamic is not that different.

Primaries - up to 30 points for these. This is not very different from hold and hold more.

• Worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it at the start of their turn. No VPs may be scored in this
manner during Battle Round 1. Contested Objectives score no points for either player.

• Worth 1 Victory Point to a player if, by the end of their turn, they take control of an Objective that was
controlled by their opponent at its beginning. VPs may be scored in this manner from Battle Round 1 forward

Secondaries - up to 12 points. This is not horribly different from kill & kill more.

Every 100 points worth of enemy units destroyed by the end of the game (rounded to the nearest 100) is worth 1
Victory Point.
 Example A: 4 units worth 495 points rounds to 500/100 = 5 Victory Points
 Example B: 4 units worth 650 points rounds to 700/100 = 7 Victory Points
 Example C: 8 units worth 320 points rounds to 300/100 = 3 Victory Points
 Example D: 1 unit worth 385 points rounds to 400/100 = 4 Victory Points
 Example E: 1 unit worth 40 points rounds to 0/100 = 0 Victory Points

Tertiaries - 2 points each

Line Breaker: At the end of the game, have one or more of your units entirely within your opponent’s
Deployment Zone. Flyers count for this Tertiary and do not have to be in Hover mode.
• Solo Blood: During the game, in the same Battle Round, destroy an enemy unit without your opponent
destroying any of your units.
• Vanguard: At the beginning of any of your turns after the first Battle Round, have more than one of your units
entirely within your opponent's deployment zone.

Additionally, Adepticon gives you 4 points wipeout bonus of 4 points and uses differential scoring.

You also place all the terrain and objectives meaning if you're not careful you can really screw yourself over on primaries and firing lanes.

So it boils down to - hold a bunch of gak and kill a bunch of gak. With 6 bonus points for tertiaries. That's it. No variety for any mission beyond the deployment zone.

To get max primary you have to hold 3 objectives for 5 rounds, which can be hard to do with IS if you've gone first. The get max secondary vs a Castellan you just have to kill everything except the Castellan. So, if you can kill a bunch of IS and hide enough guys - you win.

The balance between objectives and kill points is very different at Adepticon. With so many more points available for objectives than for kill points you really can't go into it with a "just kill stuff while holding one objective" strategy and hope to go all the way. That does force some different list design decisions. Also the kill points are for points value of units killed rather than a count of units, that really lets the MSU armies run without too much penalty unlike ITC where they get hit hard.

The lack of variety is similar to ITC and if the Adepticon format was widely and frequently used I suspect it would quite quickly end up with a "solved" meta as a result. As it is only one tournament per year there are enough new releases between events that it never really hits that problem.

So what does the adepticon meta end up as in the end? Swarm objectives with enough stuff for them to not be killed, and have some super killy unit of your own to plink the opposing army here and there? With eldar playing the flyer base stand game ?

Still hoping someone else (laziness...) will do a proper faction breakdown. Much like FLG show here for the LVO: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

In the same way Orks did really well here. Was that just good play that saw them scoop 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 24 (I accept there are arguments that outside top 16 is meaningless) - or was the tournament flooded with Orks? So instead of representing 8% of lists they were up at 20%. In which case a better performance isn't surprising, because if the game is vaguely balanced, and player skill isn't hugely determining, more players of a faction should equal higher placings.

There are also meta impacts of the armies that show up. I feel the Guard+Castellan is a gatekeeper list. If 25% of lists in a 6 game tournament are such a list, the odds of not facing such a list are 0.75^6=18%. I think you have about a 35% chance of facing them once, and therefore a 47% of facing them twice or more. Therefore if you can't deal with them you are probably not going to go 6-0.

If however they are not 25% of lists, their gate keeping impact is much reduced. If only 10% of players play IG+Castellan then you have a 53% chance not to see one in 6 games.

(The percentages are probably higher if we think IG+Castellan has an above average win percentage, and so the chances of running into it increase over a tournament, but calculating that would require more data - hopefully the point is clear regardless.)

 Smirrors wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

What makes the Castellan so good in ITC but hardly at all in the top 24 at Adepticon (14th and 24th).

I think its less the Castellan itself and more the army around it and how it interacts with the mission.

ITC lets you castle up very hard because objectives are meaningless. You only need to sit on one, maybe 2. This lets Guard + Knight armies keep very compact and static, just pumping out raw firepower with nothing else to worry about.
Non-ITC missions tend to force armies to spread out more, by having all objectives give points every turn, or through Maelstrom making you go from objective to objective.

More spread out means more openings for something to deal with a Knight, plus without secondaries heavily influencing armylists you get different lists that have answers to Knights that would not be viable in an ITC enviroment.

Take for example the Tau list that won the GW finals. It was a load of small drone units with whole bunch of Piranha's chuck full of seeker missiles. It gives alpha strike with the missiles to kill a knight while the small drone units make it much harder to remove them, forcing you to split fire more and more instead of focusing on just 2 big units with little fear of overkill. All while Piranha's have the speed to roam around and claim objectives.

In ITC such a list would be horrible because your giving up Kill More, Butchers Bill and probably Gangbuster every turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The real diversity here shows the problem is the ITC Missions. Every event that doesn't use them has very different army spreads than the ones that do, indicating that they are the main contributing factor.

edited by ingtaer.

The dynamic is not that different.

Primaries - up to 30 points for these. This is not very different from hold and hold more.

• Worth 2 Victory Points to the player that controls it at the start of their turn. No VPs may be scored in this
manner during Battle Round 1. Contested Objectives score no points for either player.

• Worth 1 Victory Point to a player if, by the end of their turn, they take control of an Objective that was
controlled by their opponent at its beginning. VPs may be scored in this manner from Battle Round 1 forward

Secondaries - up to 12 points. This is not horribly different from kill & kill more.

Every 100 points worth of enemy units destroyed by the end of the game (rounded to the nearest 100) is worth 1
Victory Point.
 Example A: 4 units worth 495 points rounds to 500/100 = 5 Victory Points
 Example B: 4 units worth 650 points rounds to 700/100 = 7 Victory Points
 Example C: 8 units worth 320 points rounds to 300/100 = 3 Victory Points
 Example D: 1 unit worth 385 points rounds to 400/100 = 4 Victory Points
 Example E: 1 unit worth 40 points rounds to 0/100 = 0 Victory Points

Tertiaries - 2 points each

Line Breaker: At the end of the game, have one or more of your units entirely within your opponent’s
Deployment Zone. Flyers count for this Tertiary and do not have to be in Hover mode.
• Solo Blood: During the game, in the same Battle Round, destroy an enemy unit without your opponent
destroying any of your units.
• Vanguard: At the beginning of any of your turns after the first Battle Round, have more than one of your units
entirely within your opponent's deployment zone.

Additionally, Adepticon gives you 4 points wipeout bonus of 4 points and uses differential scoring.

You also place all the terrain and objectives meaning if you're not careful you can really screw yourself over on primaries and firing lanes.

So it boils down to - hold a bunch of gak and kill a bunch of gak. With 6 bonus points for tertiaries. That's it. No variety for any mission beyond the deployment zone.

To get max primary you have to hold 3 objectives for 5 rounds, which can be hard to do with IS if you've gone first. The get max secondary vs a Castellan you just have to kill everything except the Castellan. So, if you can kill a bunch of IS and hide enough guys - you win.

I would say the Primary is massively different from ITC's Hold / Hold more.

ITC you only care about 1/2 objectives. by giving points for every single objective your forcing armies to spread out much more instead of castling up and instead of getting 1/2 points per turn your more likely to get 4 to 7 (2-3 objectives held, 1 taken from the enemy)
Weighting Objectives over killing goes directly opposed to ITC which is killing over holding by a huge margin.

I'm glad the ITC crown has meet my expectations. Now we just need those Ork's players that should be playing SoB with that martyr complex they carry on their backs.

happy_inquisitor wrote:


The balance between objectives and kill points is very different at Adepticon. With so many more points available for objectives than for kill points you really can't go into it with a "just kill stuff while holding one objective" strategy and hope to go all the way. That does force some different list design decisions. Also the kill points are for points value of units killed rather than a count of units, that really lets the MSU armies run without too much penalty unlike ITC where they get hit hard.

The lack of variety is similar to ITC and if the Adepticon format was widely and frequently used I suspect it would quite quickly end up with a "solved" meta as a result. As it is only one tournament per year there are enough new releases between events that it never really hits that problem.

Which begs the question - do Castellan IS armies have a hard time killing and do they have a hard time holding objectives?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
I would say the Primary is massively different from ITC's Hold / Hold more.

ITC you only care about 1/2 objectives. by giving points for every single objective your forcing armies to spread out much more instead of castling up and instead of getting 1/2 points per turn your more likely to get 4 to 7 (2-3 objectives held, 1 taken from the enemy)
Weighting Objectives over killing goes directly opposed to ITC which is killing over holding by a huge margin.

Adepticon earns max points for holding 3 objectives over 5 turns. If you won the long straw then you have a terribly easy time doing that. Any minor deficiencies you can push relatively easily.

Half of Adepticon missions have 5 objectives which causes conflict, but ultimately one army will be better at keeping the opponent off.

Don't confuse "Skill" with almost machine like lack of imagination.

Nick N talked in a recent youtube video themed on beating the meta, about how lack of imagination is killing a lot of knight players.

He was talking about how his recent list basically made the Castellan lists useless because they were spending the entire game hitting on 5s, and thus basically useless. The opponents never expected to face off against someone who didn't attack their knight, but still shut it down for 3-4 turns.

Others in the youtube verse have made the same observation, devotion to "meta" is really killing and stifling original thought and interesting play. I'd rather see two fresh armies play like crap but try new things then watch another Knight vs. Eldar match.

Tyel wrote:

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

Exactly my thoughts. These tournaments are majority populated by local players. LVO is the exception to the rule where more people fly in.

The lists we're seeing may be a result of a geographic meta where people simply don't own as many knights in the mid-west.

So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state if you're not using ITC Champions missions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Haven't seen tyranid lists perform well the whole last year. Or Necrons or Ad Mech for that matter.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Wasn't the fourth list an eldar flyer spam list though?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Don't confuse "Skill" with almost machine like lack of imagination.

Nick N talked in a recent youtube video themed on beating the meta, about how lack of imagination is killing a lot of knight players.

He was talking about how his recent list basically made the Castellan lists useless because they were spending the entire game hitting on 5s, and thus basically useless. The opponents never expected to face off against someone who didn't attack their knight, but still shut it down for 3-4 turns.

Others in the youtube verse have made the same observation, devotion to "meta" is really killing and stifling original thought and interesting play. I'd rather see two fresh armies play like crap but try new things then watch another Knight vs. Eldar match.

The lack of imagination killing Knight players make sense. I've been to two ITC events so far, at both I fought maybe 3 lists so far out of my 7 games against lists containing Castellans. I've beaten two, and lost vs one by a single point because 6 mortar teams couldn't kill a single officer. But they had their Castellan in the back, and each game vs one, I had an outflanking House Terryn Gallant with a Paragon Gauntlet and Landstrider come in from reserve off a board edge and punch it in the dick to kill it. I'm really digging the idea of 2 Gallants instead of a Castellan, because it lets you be way more aggressive since you don't have to castle around a Castellan, and if the opponent is playing with just the Loyal 32, Mortars can clear enough screens to let you get that T2 charge into his Castellan with a Gallant, and that's all she wrote.

I think a lot of Knight players are trapped in the "This is how you play Knights" mentality without trying other builds. Not every list has to include a Raven Castellan in a super heavy aux detachment.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 dan2026 wrote:
So the top three armies were Chaos Daemons, GS Cults and Orks in that order?

That's kinda amazing. Such a diverse three.

Which lends to the idea that the game is in a pretty good state save for some minor number of outliers.

Wasn't the fourth list an eldar flyer spam list though?

The top 16 lists of the tournament contained sizable detachments of:

-Daemons
-Orks
-Guard
-CW Eldar
-Thousand Sons
-GSC
-Space Marines
-Drukhari
-Ynnari
-Tau
-Knights
-Blood Angels
-Guard
-Tyranids

That's not even counting tiny detachments like "Yvraine solitaire 2 death jesters" or "techpriest techpriest 3 5-man skitarii squads" - only ~600 point detachments or larger. My count might be off, but I think there's 24 "codex-sized" factions in the game, having 14 of them represented in a top 16 for a tournament is...pretty fething impressive.

You can wave your hand and say "soup" all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of the soup is pretty atypical stuff, like a nearly pure Knights list with just a tiny skitarii force for CPs, or a big tzaangor horde, bloodletter bomb and R+H CP detachment.

No one strategy seems to be dominant here. I see gunlines, melee hordes, melee alpha strikes, mid-range aura lists, single superheavy lists, flier lists, armor heavy lists...

The two biggest things you can say are trends are "people seem to have maximised their CPs" which is kind of an obvious thing to do in the age of soup, and "people left the transports at home". Even the factions where you tend to see transports, like Drukhari, didn't really go for that strategy at least in the top tables.

Tyel wrote:
Still hoping someone else (laziness...) will do a proper faction breakdown. Much like FLG show here for the LVO: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2019/03/02/lvo-stats-part-1-lvo-faction-breakdowns-and-overall-analysis/

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

In the same way Orks did really well here. Was that just good play that saw them scoop 4 in the top 10, 7 in the top 24 (I accept there are arguments that outside top 16 is meaningless) - or was the tournament flooded with Orks? So instead of representing 8% of lists they were up at 20%. In which case a better performance isn't surprising, because if the game is vaguely balanced, and player skill isn't hugely determining, more players of a faction should equal higher placings.

There are also meta impacts of the armies that show up. I feel the Guard+Castellan is a gatekeeper list. If 25% of lists in a 6 game tournament are such a list, the odds of not facing such a list are 0.75^6=18%. I think you have about a 35% chance of facing them once, and therefore a 47% of facing them twice or more. Therefore if you can't deal with them you are probably not going to go 6-0.

If however they are not 25% of lists, their gate keeping impact is much reduced. If only 10% of players play IG+Castellan then you have a 53% chance not to see one in 6 games.

(The percentages are probably higher if we think IG+Castellan has an above average win percentage, and so the chances of running into it increase over a tournament, but calculating that would require more data - hopefully the point is clear regardless.)

Don`t hope to much Adepticon list are a mess. Some pictures are clearly unreadable, some have cut pieces, i saw one list that is written in play text(you can`t see where the unit or equipment start its all a mix text), there is empty list.
BCP guys deleted bracket losers from round 5, so you can`t see the match ups. Getting the data will be hard, someone have to contact all players with poorly submitted list. Every list have to be checked manually its like 200 players, the amount of work is insane.
Have in mind that BCP don`t allow you to download the list so you can properly look at them at your PC, terrible piece of paid software.

Having to exit at the start of the turn means your sitting vulnerably infront of the enemy for a turn and makes transports a lot more worthless.

the techpriest 3xskittari was in the knight lists right, for the CP and tech priest utility with multiple knights. Interesting choice for sure. Can the tech priests repair the knights or something? Or what is the trick with taking them over IG, cheaper cost>?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I feel any statistical analysis can be questioned "but what showed up" tends to indicate what people think is good right now.

This is interesting to me, because how a tournament's rules function matters, but the actual meta of armies you meet matters too. If 25% of lists are IG+Knights, some of them are likely to go through. If at say Adepticon that number was far lower, thats interesting in itself even before you speculate on why.

Exactly my thoughts. These tournaments are majority populated by local players. LVO is the exception to the rule where more people fly in.

The lists we're seeing may be a result of a geographic meta where people simply don't own as many knights in the mid-west.

No, i went, there were LOADS of players from all over the place, from London, Aussie, many different states, Canada, etc.. players were flying in.

Karol wrote:
the techpriest 3xskittari was in the knight lists right, for the CP and tech priest utility with multiple knights. Interesting choice for sure. Can the tech priests repair the knights or something? Or what is the trick with taking them over IG, cheaper cost>?

So the primary benefit of it is that it is cheaper than taking the Imperial Guard Battalion. The Tech-Priests also can repair a Knight at a rate of 1 wound per turn, which isn't huge but it is something if you're sitting back anyway.

It would be interesting if someone were to post the lists from the event into one handy thread.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It would be interesting if someone were to post the lists from the event into one handy thread.

Battle-Report has you covered!

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

EDIT: Battle-report deserves credit for this so I won't repost it all, but here is the winning list:

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos – Daemons) [34PL, 654pts] ++
Chao Allegiance: Nurgle
HQ: Poxbringer [4PL, 70pts]: Miasma of Pestilence
HQ: Sloppity Bilepiper [3PL, 60pts]
Troops: 3x Nurglings [3PL, 54pts]
Troops: 30x Plaguebearers [12PL, 235pts]: Daemonic Icon (15), Instrument of Chaos (10)
Troops: 30x Plaguebearers [12PL, 235pts]: Daemonic Icon (15), Instrument of Chaos (10)

++ Battalion Detachment +5CP (Chaos – Daemons) [37PL, 580pts] ++
Chaos Allegiance: Chaos Undivided
HQ: Changecaster [4PL, 65pts]: Flickering Flames, Gaze of Fate
HQ: Daemon Prince of Chaos [9PL, 180pts]: Daemonic Axe (10), Khorne, Skullreaver (-1CP), Wings [1PL, 24pts]
Troops: 15x Bloodletters [8PL, 130pts]: Daemonic Icon (15), Instrument of Chaos (10), Banner of Blood (-1CP)
Troops: 25x Pink Horrors [12PL, 175pts]
Troops: 10x Brimstone Horrors [4PL, 30pts]

++ Supreme Command Detachment +1CP (Chaos – Thousand Sons) [43PL, 761pts] ++
HQ: Ahriman [7PL, 131pts]: Death Hex, Doombolt, Tzeentch’s Firestorm
HQ: Daemon Prince of Tzeentch [9PL, 180pts]: Infernal Gaze, Warptime, Malfic Talon (10), Wings [1PL, 24pts]
HQ: Daemon Prince of Tzeentch [9PL, 180pts]: Bolt of Change, Gaze of Fate, Malefic Talon (10), Warlord: High Magister, Wings [1PL, 24pts], Helm of the Third Eye
HQ: Sorcerer in Terminator Armour [8PL, 122pts]: Familiar (9), Force Sword (8), Inferno Combi-bolter (3), Temporal Manupulation, Weaver of Fates
Elites: Hellforged Contemptor Dreadnought [10PL, 148pts]: 2x C-Beam Cannon (60)
Reinforcement Points: 5

A friend of mine played against that list round 3. He said it was a great game that was very close. Jim(the winner) also won a big Major we were at last October, where my friend played him the first time. He's got some awesome looking models, conversion and paint wise. I've got some pics around here somewhere....

 Amishprn86 wrote:


No, i went, there were LOADS of players from all over the place, from London, Aussie, many different states, Canada, etc.. players were flying in.

I'm sure that's true. I'm not sure they were proportionally more than LVO might see.

In any case we'll never really know the how all these things shook out without the Adepticon team releasing data.

So players attending Adepticon stated there were plenty of Castellans, they just didnt place very well. And then you have players like Nick N who has a strategy to counter it. I know of even Ultramarine style lists that basically try to nerf Castellans in game.

Is this really just a matter of people complaining of the Castellan without figuring ways to counter it and only now are we seeing it become less competitive.

That said GW is in a hard place as there are so many variations to the way people play 40k that they cannot balance a unit just for ITC.

Hi All

Jim Here.

For those comparing itc vs adepticon, I won a really hard ITC GT 3 weeks ago (Dicehammer GT) with a super tough field using the exact same list I won adepticon with. So just thought i'd throw fuel onto the debate.

Khalan wrote:
Hi All

Jim Here.

For those comparing itc vs adepticon, I won a really hard ITC GT 3 weeks ago (Dicehammer GT) with a super tough field using the exact same list I won adepticon with. So just thought i'd throw fuel onto the debate.

Thanks! Keep on kicking ass.

I am curious if GW is going to use any thing from the adapticon tournament for the spring FAQ. I know Pete foley was hanging out at the tournament and I saw him talking to the TO's.

 clodax66 wrote:
I am curious if GW is going to use any thing from the adapticon tournament for the spring FAQ. I know Pete foley was hanging out at the tournament and I saw him talking to the TO's.

They delayed it specifically to consume the Adepticon results. I don't think Adepticon revealed and "real" issues though.

Khalan wrote:
Hi All

Jim Here.

For those comparing itc vs adepticon, I won a really hard ITC GT 3 weeks ago (Dicehammer GT) with a super tough field using the exact same list I won adepticon with. So just thought i'd throw fuel onto the debate.

Heard your army is sweet. Got any nice pics to share?

Khalan wrote:
Hi All

Jim Here.

For those comparing itc vs adepticon, I won a really hard ITC GT 3 weeks ago (Dicehammer GT) with a super tough field using the exact same list I won adepticon with. So just thought i'd throw fuel onto the debate.

Well call me TS hatter, but i really think TS smite mechanic is broken and should not be allowed.
I play to often vs TS player and receiving 3-6 smite per turn is not really fun and getting through cheap daemon bodies is not easy as people think and you can`t use flyers to snipe characters since daemon princes hit like truck.
Congrats on your performance, but you need to train your Canada anthems singing more

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

Nice joke lol. However since it wasn’t ITC, we have to take it all with lots of pillars of salt. Orks are ok without the competitive aspects of ITC missions, rules, and objectives thrown into the mix.

So orks are OK if you simply play WH40K - but get screwed up when you go adding house rules.

ccs wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

Nice joke lol. However since it wasn’t ITC, we have to take it all with lots of pillars of salt. Orks are ok without the competitive aspects of ITC missions, rules, and objectives thrown into the mix.

So orks are OK if you simply play WH40K - but get screwed up when you go adding house rules.

Unfortunately I don't see ITC changing that house rule any time soon as it's supposed to counter the problem child that is infantry spam, though in all honesty I think clocks do a far better job of that than secondary missions ever will.

ccs wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Galas wrote:
So... is this the final final top?

I'll take me seat to wait for the "No Narrative, ITC Only, Final Destination" crown to come and explain why all of this results are garbage and mean nothing.

(And 4 orks in top 10 ... )

Nice joke lol. However since it wasn’t ITC, we have to take it all with lots of pillars of salt. Orks are ok without the competitive aspects of ITC missions, rules, and objectives thrown into the mix.

So orks are OK if you simply play WH40K - but get screwed up when you go adding house rules.

Orks are fine if your opponent doesn't get to shoot them for 5+ turns. The game is supposed to last 5 turns though, so this isn't actually a good thing.

It means orks are actually kind of weak and only get good results if the game is played slowly.

 clodax66 wrote:
I am curious if GW is going to use any thing from the adapticon tournament for the spring FAQ. I know Pete foley was hanging out at the tournament and I saw him talking to the TO's.

Probably not, they always seem to be like few mounts behind. In Adepticon no new assassins were allowed and i`m sure assassins will have impact of the metta since most list are depending heavily on characters.

This was all I could find of the pictures I took of Jim's army. This is from Michigan GT the bright stuff is his, the dark stuff is my friends.

 Ordana wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
I am really taken back by how good the Orks did! Glad to see so much diversity compared to what hyperbole spewers say online about 'whats meta'.

ITC vs non-ITC.
Very different Meta's.

Wait! So all these people complaining about Games-Workshop rules in tournaments, should actually have been directing their ire at Frontline Gaming this whole time?

Oh no worries there, plenty of people are directing their Ire at FLG already.


They are mad because they don't do well using ITC format and more people are playing with it.

Of course certain rules in the ITC packet are better for some armies than others, and a lot of the meta relies on good list building and picking secondaries over actual decisions on the tabletop, but they forget that since a majority of tournaments are using the ITC format then it obviously means a majority of the players like it.

The guys at FLG have always said that their format is optional on the circuit and that your free to run your own tournaments however you want and they would still allow your scores to effect the overall ITC standings, but many people don't use that option and just stick to their format.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Oh no worries there, plenty of people are directing their Ire at FLG already.


They are mad because they don't do well using ITC format and more people are playing with it.

Of course certain rules in the ITC packet are better for some armies than others, and a lot of the meta relies on good list building and picking secondaries over actual decisions on the tabletop, but they forget that since a majority of tournaments are using the ITC format then it obviously means a majority of the players like it.

The guys at FLG have always said that their format is optional on the circuit and that your free to run your own tournaments however you want and they would still allow your scores to effect the overall ITC standings, but many people don't use that option and just stick to their format.

I dont like ITC b.c its just mostly Kill points and many of the Kill point secondaries literally makes some units unplayable that shouldnt be b.c of Kill points and kill more, (AKA, Headhunter , Kingslayer, MoD, Big Game, Titian Slayer, Butchers, Reaper, etc..) It doesnt let MSU armies work well as well and if you are trying to play a MSU army, you need to make up Kill more in other ways by denying other points and gaining a different point every turn, so it heavily effects the list in a way i dont like. Look at units like Piranhas, there is no way they are playable in ITC without giving up Kill more and Butchers Bill.

If ITC Had more secondaries, equal to the Kill points at least, or just re-work some of them, b.c as of right now there is only 3, b.c King of the hill is completely stupid IMO, 2 units units not counting character/single man units WHOLLY within 6".

So its 9 to 3. If you focus on just killing and not getting off 2 objectives, then you just need to kill them off their 2 and get kill more and hold more at the same time with other secondaries.

Drager wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Drager wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Not really. IMO the ITC does a very good job in making sure that competitive aspects are included into their missions so that the more skilled player takes utmost advantage of them. This is why ITC is favored

IMO ITC is a lot less skill testing of in game skill and more dependant on list build and pregame strategy than several other formats. This is why ITC is disfavoured in Europe. This seems to be in part down to low mission variability and secondary selection.

I can see why it might be thought of that way, but let’s take for example a ynnari list. Put a competitive build in the hands of a newer player and you will see the List crumble. The list was built for top performance pre game. The strategies with simple rules knowledge and unit category are somewhat obvious. So why did the list crumple to let’s say, en masse ork boys? Because the player wasn’t skilled. Itc still takes skill to play. Moving around LOS blocking first levels (which is amazing) attempting to score objectives even if your forces are dwindling faster than your opponent. It gives each army a chance. I’m sorry but I have to disagree with your opinion

I didn't mean to imply ITC takes no skill, just less. Ynarri is also a naturally skill testing army as its tricky to make the correct selections. It's easier in ITC than other formats though. A new player with a net list is highly unlikely to beat any competetive player in any format. What I'm interested in is the level of in game skill test between top players. Other formats also give each army a chance. So I don't so much disagree with your comment as your conclusion. And no need to apologise, happy to see dissenting views.

As much as this sub-thread of conversation, is a little off topic, I'm still interested in the debate. I myself play approximately a 50 / 50 mix of ITC and ETC mission styles, and while I dont personally find myself at the top tables very often, I have a pretty reliable top 3rd average in both event formats. I am interested in Dragers points to back up his assertion that the ETC mission type is more skill based.

I find ETCs reliance on maelstrom cards as a significant portion of its scoring to be the very antithesis of skill, and have found myself both winning and loosing etc style event games purely due to the draw of impossibly difficult cards for one player, and rediculously easy cards for the other.

I find both styles have a focus on killing (with the ETC style 6KP differential being significant, and also of course the primary swing, and many of the secondaries in the ITC also making this a priority).

Both styles also have interesting board control mechanics, with the ITC encouraging ongoing board control for its primary, and its board positioning based secondaries being ones that strategic army design can favor, even when faced with point denial style lists.

While the ITC focuses on, on going board control, the ETC has scoring for end of game with its eternal war portion, and I like this feature, as it brings back memories of the objective rusing final turn of 5th, however as more and more eternal war missions move to a progressive scoring system, this will bring the ITC and ETC into closer parity on these.

So overall I see both systems as relatively similar. The biggest differential probably being the ITC ruin standard, however, I find many ETC style events implementing that now also.

So I'm interested, what specific reasons would one person consider either game type, to be more skillful than the other?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Oh no worries there, plenty of people are directing their Ire at FLG already.


They are mad because they don't do well using ITC format and more people are playing with it.

Of course certain rules in the ITC packet are better for some armies than others, and a lot of the meta relies on good list building and picking secondaries over actual decisions on the tabletop, but they forget that since a majority of tournaments are using the ITC format then it obviously means a majority of the players like it.

The guys at FLG have always said that their format is optional on the circuit and that your free to run your own tournaments however you want and they would still allow your scores to effect the overall ITC standings, but many people don't use that option and just stick to their format.

I dont like ITC b.c its just mostly Kill points and many of the Kill point secondaries literally makes some units unplayable that shouldnt be b.c of Kill points and kill more, (AKA, Headhunter , Kingslayer, MoD, Big Game, Titian Slayer, Butchers, Reaper, etc..) It doesnt let MSU armies work well as well and if you are trying to play a MSU army, you need to make up Kill more in other ways by denying other points and gaining a different point every turn, so it heavily effects the list in a way i dont like. Look at units like Piranhas, there is no way they are playable in ITC without giving up Kill more and Butchers Bill.

If ITC Had more secondaries, equal to the Kill points at least, or just re-work some of them, b.c as of right now there is only 3, b.c King of the hill is completely stupid IMO, 2 units units not counting character/single man units WHOLLY within 6".

So its 9 to 3. If you focus on just killing and not getting off 2 objectives, then you just need to kill them off their 2 and get kill more and hold more at the same time with other secondaries.

I hear this complaint often regarding ITC dissuading MSU styles. While I agree, that the Kill more primary does indeed dissuade this style. I would argue that this is a good thing. MSU is inherently a superior option to larger units in a purely non objective based analysis. It increases choices, it reduces the effect of morale, and it provides greater access to CP, I believe that missions should have some inherent disadvantage to MSU, to balance out the inherent advantages that the play style offers in the game, when divorced from the mission.

The problem is what exactly is MSU spam?
Is 5 scouts msu or is 10 Guard infantry MSU?
Because 1 suffers alot more than the other under a kill more system.

The Malestrom cards while in many ways are toi random they do give players unplanned events they have to adjust to on the fly in game with what they have. Which would demonstrate an ability to replan and adapt in a way that ITC's 100 percent known objectives doesn't.

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is what exactly is MSU spam?
Is 5 scouts msu or is 10 Guard infantry MSU?
Because 1 suffers alot more than the other under a kill more system.

The Malestrom cards while in many ways are toi random they do give players unplanned events they have to adjust to on the fly in game with what they have. Which would demonstrate an ability to replan and adapt in a way that ITC's 100 percent known objectives doesn't.

As much as I'm not a fan of Maelstrom (they are a bit TOO random), that's what I like. They make you NOT just focus on listbuilding and knowing everything beforehand. You need to bring a tactically flexible force to account for changes in objectives. Now I think they go too far (should be like one set for the whole game or something, like the old 2e mission cards), but that alone makes them interesting.

IMHO the CA2018 missions though are the sweet spot. They have a good bit of twist to encourage flexible lists not netlisting like ITC, but are still relatively straightforward.

Don't the cards often create situations where a ton of armies just can't react, or worse their opponent get a really good set of cards and just win turn 1-2 by gaining a ton of points with mechanics that can't really be countered?

Again am not in favour of any of the system, but the adepticon one seems to be just as unbalanced, but just different. Plus from a casuals point of view, there seem to be an overlap in armies between the two systems. Eldar flyer lists seem to be doing good in both, as do chaos smite soups. So clearly some armies seem to deal with the game better no matter what is being played.

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is what exactly is MSU spam?
Is 5 scouts msu or is 10 Guard infantry MSU?
Because 1 suffers alot more than the other under a kill more system.

The Malestrom cards while in many ways are toi random they do give players unplanned events they have to adjust to on the fly in game with what they have. Which would demonstrate an ability to replan and adapt in a way that ITC's 100 percent known objectives doesn't.

Whether one "suffers a lot more" or not, it really isn't a "problem" to define what it is.

Multiple units of 5 scouts? That's MSU.
Multiple units of 10 Guard Infantry? That isn't.

Scouts can be taken in 5-10 model units.
Guard can't. You get 10 models, period, for Guard Infantry or Veteran Squads. Only Scions and Conscripts have variable unit sizes for GEQ or Scout equivalent units.

Karol wrote:
Don't the cards often create situations where a ton of armies just can't react, or worse their opponent get a really good set of cards and just win turn 1-2 by gaining a ton of points with mechanics that can't really be countered?

Again am not in favour of any of the system, but the adepticon one seems to be just as unbalanced, but just different. Plus from a casuals point of view, there seem to be an overlap in armies between the two systems. Eldar flyer lists seem to be doing good in both, as do chaos smite soups. So clearly some armies seem to deal with the game better no matter what is being played.

Yes, and that's the reason why people dislike them. It's the "Hold an objective in your own deployment zone" that your opponent gets while you get the one that's hold an objective in your opponent's deployment zone that you can't reasonably achieve. There is the issue of drawing ones you can't accomplish, and while the CA18 Maelstrom missions limit this by letting you remove like 6 cards, it really should be if you draw a card that you can't possibly complete because it doesn't exist (e.g. kill a psyker and you're playing against Tau) it immediately gets discarded and redrawn.

Oh damn, the psyker card is brutal. Kind of a sucks if you get that, hold opponent objective and your opponent rolls up with the same kill psyker card and take his home objective, and he is playing vs GK. Maybe the system in itself isn't bad. Dynamic objectives as an idea seem great. I just thing the tournament orgs should just create a deck of objectives of their own.


Again neither system is perfect, but it doesn't mean it can't be made better.

The more randomness in the game, the more times you'll get screwed by randomness. In theory, though, the skew should be normally distributed - so sufficient number of equally-skewing unbiased independent random factors should result in the "better" player winning more often than the "worse" one by a reasonable margin.

Good luck making the system:
-Normally distributed
-Unbiased
-Reasonable number of independent random factors

Any one of those 3 is hard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I had a tourny where each Objective was worth d3 VP.

The two in my DZ were 1 and 2 VP. The two on the other side were 3 VP each. Random chance screwed me hard on that.

At the end of the game, my clutch DA unit only survived because it fell back at exactly the right time. And only got to the objective because it regrouped. Random chance screwed my opponent hard there.

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is what exactly is MSU spam?
Is 5 scouts msu or is 10 Guard infantry MSU?
Because 1 suffers alot more than the other under a kill more system.

The Malestrom cards while in many ways are toi random they do give players unplanned events they have to adjust to on the fly in game with what they have. Which would demonstrate an ability to replan and adapt in a way that ITC's 100 percent known objectives doesn't.

Scouts suffer more.

First MSU is you take the smallest size the unit can take and lots of them, so 10x5 man scouts would be the same as 10x10 IG, thats both MSU.

The problem is damage went up 300% and survivability didnt go up, a Scout is no tougher than a IG for many of the weapons in game, a HB shooting 100x kills 30 scouts, but it also kills 37 guardamsn, thats not that much of a difference at all when it comes to bodies, BUT is a huge difference in units, thats actually worst for the Scouts as its 6 scout units vs 3 IG units. Looking at 100 Bolter shots 30 IG die but only 17 Scouts die, again, not bettr for the Scouts as it is 3 dead units each with extra scouts dead.


Now in theory Scouts should be harder to kill, it "Should" take "More" due to T4/4+ vs T3/5+ but there is so much "overkill" in the game atm they act the same. Go back to 5th edition Damage chart, AP, cover, TL, etc.., system and it for sure will take a lot more to kill the Scouts.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Oh no worries there, plenty of people are directing their Ire at FLG already.


They are mad because they don't do well using ITC format and more people are playing with it.

Of course certain rules in the ITC packet are better for some armies than others, and a lot of the meta relies on good list building and picking secondaries over actual decisions on the tabletop, but they forget that since a majority of tournaments are using the ITC format then it obviously means a majority of the players like it.

The guys at FLG have always said that their format is optional on the circuit and that your free to run your own tournaments however you want and they would still allow your scores to effect the overall ITC standings, but many people don't use that option and just stick to their format.

Oh good. I thought the Castellan & IS were too strong, but really it was just ITC this whole time. Who knew?

I guess we'll see reduced complaints about them now?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is what exactly is MSU spam?
Is 5 scouts msu or is 10 Guard infantry MSU?
Because 1 suffers alot more than the other under a kill more system.

The Malestrom cards while in many ways are toi random they do give players unplanned events they have to adjust to on the fly in game with what they have. Which would demonstrate an ability to replan and adapt in a way that ITC's 100 percent known objectives doesn't.

Scouts suffer more.

First MSU is you take the smallest size the unit can take and lots of them, so 10x5 man scouts would be the same as 10x10 IG, thats both MSU.

The problem is damage went up 300% and survivability didnt go up, a Scout is no tougher than a IG for many of the weapons in game, a HB shooting 100x kills 30 scouts, but it also kills 37 guardamsn, thats not that much of a difference at all when it comes to bodies, BUT is a huge difference in units, thats actually worst for the Scouts as its 6 scout units vs 3 IG units. Looking at 100 Bolter shots 30 IG die but only 17 Scouts die, again, not bettr for the Scouts as it is 3 dead units each with extra scouts dead.


Now in theory Scouts should be harder to kill, it "Should" take "More" due to T4/4+ vs T3/5+ but there is so much "overkill" in the game atm they act the same. Go back to 5th edition Damage chart, AP, cover, TL, etc.., system and it for sure will take a lot more to kill the Scouts.

This math misses out on the issue of overkill on the scouts. There is not a unit of 30 scouts, or 50 Guardsman, nor is there a unit putting out 100 Heavy bolter shots. For an example lets look at Heavy bolter devs who put out 12 shots each, to get 100 shots, that is shooting from those squads ~8 times (96 shots). So each time one of those units shoots it does damage.

12 shots at the scouts kills 3.5 scouts (so 3 or 4), leaving just one scout remaining. To kill the remaining scouts you will need to shoot the squad again with some amount of shots which will likely lead to wasted wounds. 24 shots is 7 wounds meaning you lose 2 kills on average, but likely you won't chance shooting just 1 or 2 heavy bolters trying to fish for wounds all the time.

Conversely those same 12 shots kill 4.4 guardsman so 4-5, but there are still 5 left in the squad, so a second set of 12 shots, does not likely go to waste and morale will finish the squad.

SO if we look at these numbers with 24 shots killing 5 scouts, you end up only killing 20 scouts with 96 shots

where as you likely kill all 10 guardsman with those same 24 shots, and so kill closer to (8.8 per squad pre morale, which auto fails at that point) 40 guardsman when morale is included.

Even if you allow for split firing, you need on average 6 heavy bolters (18 shots) to finish a scout squad. If that works out every time, you kill 25 scouts

Now this is not a great an advantage as it was in older editions thanks to the ability to split fire, you could throw only a portion of shooting at the remaining scouts, but all in all you are much more likely to waste wounds.

Wayniac wrote:

Karol wrote:
Don't the cards often create situations where a ton of armies just can't react, or worse their opponent get a really good set of cards and just win turn 1-2 by gaining a ton of points with mechanics that can't really be countered?

Again am not in favour of any of the system, but the adepticon one seems to be just as unbalanced, but just different. Plus from a casuals point of view, there seem to be an overlap in armies between the two systems. Eldar flyer lists seem to be doing good in both, as do chaos smite soups. So clearly some armies seem to deal with the game better no matter what is being played.

Yes, and that's the reason why people dislike them. It's the "Hold an objective in your own deployment zone" that your opponent gets while you get the one that's hold an objective in your opponent's deployment zone that you can't reasonably achieve. There is the issue of drawing ones you can't accomplish, and while the CA18 Maelstrom missions limit this by letting you remove like 6 cards, it really should be if you draw a card that you can't possibly complete because it doesn't exist (e.g. kill a psyker and you're playing against Tau) it immediately gets discarded and redrawn.

This is in effect in ETC missions. So you remove 6 AND discard and redraw any that are impossible for free, which makes the format less swingy than standard maelstrom.

I prefer ETC to ITC and find it to be more skill testing because the missions (ignoring the maelstrom) are different to each other and force a more varied style of play, where mission + match up causes you to need to play differently (whereas in ITC only matchup does and then only a little). This means you need to practice being good at the game, not just against the top 5 lists (as you won't face such a static field) and you also tend to get a wider variety of lists as people are more experimental, both to catch people off guard and to try to compensate for the variety in the missions. Look at the lists brought by the likes Josh Roberts, Nathan Roberts, Tony Chew and Gaz Jones, they are all very different to what the ITC crowd would suggest as best, yet they are some of the best generals in ETC.

Personally, I wish the ETC would just drop the Maelstrom and Kill Points components (possibly replace kill points with 'Every full hundred points you have remaining in excess of your opponent scores a point, max 6, like it used to be.) With the new CA18 style maelstrom is unnecessary for forcing movement and progressive scoring (the reason it was added to ETC format in the first place) and is the primary thing I think reduces the skill test of this mission packet.

Essentially I think the best option available currently is CA 2018 straight out of the box. Adding in the old points based kill swing from ETC of years gone by would improve this I think as it adds a tie break without punishing a play style, but Ic ould be worng and that would need testing.

Drager wrote:
This is in effect in ETC missions. So you remove 6 AND discard and redraw any that are impossible for free, which makes the format less swingy than standard maelstrom.

The latter part I've done forever and it not the source of the complaints about maelstrom.
The former part is irrelevant as you would not remove cards that are for a numbered objective and so does not solve the complaints about maelstrom.

If you had 6 vetoes during the game then you might have something, but otherwise it's just an obnoxious system.

Breng77 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is what exactly is MSU spam?
Is 5 scouts msu or is 10 Guard infantry MSU?
Because 1 suffers alot more than the other under a kill more system.

The Malestrom cards while in many ways are toi random they do give players unplanned events they have to adjust to on the fly in game with what they have. Which would demonstrate an ability to replan and adapt in a way that ITC's 100 percent known objectives doesn't.

Scouts suffer more.

First MSU is you take the smallest size the unit can take and lots of them, so 10x5 man scouts would be the same as 10x10 IG, thats both MSU.

The problem is damage went up 300% and survivability didnt go up, a Scout is no tougher than a IG for many of the weapons in game, a HB shooting 100x kills 30 scouts, but it also kills 37 guardamsn, thats not that much of a difference at all when it comes to bodies, BUT is a huge difference in units, thats actually worst for the Scouts as its 6 scout units vs 3 IG units. Looking at 100 Bolter shots 30 IG die but only 17 Scouts die, again, not bettr for the Scouts as it is 3 dead units each with extra scouts dead.


Now in theory Scouts should be harder to kill, it "Should" take "More" due to T4/4+ vs T3/5+ but there is so much "overkill" in the game atm they act the same. Go back to 5th edition Damage chart, AP, cover, TL, etc.., system and it for sure will take a lot more to kill the Scouts.

This math misses out on the issue of overkill on the scouts. There is not a unit of 30 scouts, or 50 Guardsman, nor is there a unit putting out 100 Heavy bolter shots. For an example lets look at Heavy bolter devs who put out 12 shots each, to get 100 shots, that is shooting from those squads ~8 times (96 shots). So each time one of those units shoots it does damage.

12 shots at the scouts kills 3.5 scouts (so 3 or 4), leaving just one scout remaining. To kill the remaining scouts you will need to shoot the squad again with some amount of shots which will likely lead to wasted wounds. 24 shots is 7 wounds meaning you lose 2 kills on average, but likely you won't chance shooting just 1 or 2 heavy bolters trying to fish for wounds all the time.

Conversely those same 12 shots kill 4.4 guardsman so 4-5, but there are still 5 left in the squad, so a second set of 12 shots, does not likely go to waste and morale will finish the squad.

SO if we look at these numbers with 24 shots killing 5 scouts, you end up only killing 20 scouts with 96 shots

where as you likely kill all 10 guardsman with those same 24 shots, and so kill closer to (8.8 per squad pre morale, which auto fails at that point) 40 guardsman when morale is included.

Even if you allow for split firing, you need on average 6 heavy bolters (18 shots) to finish a scout squad. If that works out every time, you kill 25 scouts

Now this is not a great an advantage as it was in older editions thanks to the ability to split fire, you could throw only a portion of shooting at the remaining scouts, but all in all you are much more likely to waste wounds.

It was to show that MSU are not equal in 8th and its completely unbalanced when looking at point costs, and unit size and that a 10man is still a MSU when taking them so cheaply.
Its math for math sake not "This is what players are taking" to show a point.

If you put a 2 Venoms + Kabal on an objective, they now need to commit to killing 4 squads, 2 you cant even target right away, so split firing isnt even an option.

MSU armies dont always have to have all units out of vehicles, many will have a unit or two in transports.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Drager wrote:
This is in effect in ETC missions. So you remove 6 AND discard and redraw any that are impossible for free, which makes the format less swingy than standard maelstrom.

The latter part I've done forever and it not the source of the complaints about maelstrom.
The former part is irrelevant as you would not remove cards that are for a numbered objective and so does not solve the complaints about maelstrom.

If you had 6 vetoes during the game then you might have something, but otherwise it's just an obnoxious system.

I agree, as I said in the post you quoted.

If you want to see more of my army check out my instagram @jimbov_paints

Problem with points for killing, is that it makes getting kill points way too good compared to the other ways of getting points. If you kill something you get points, but you also remove a enemy unit, stopping them from doing "anything". Remove quite a lot of the points for killing, since killing enemy units in it self is a good enough reward, making the rest of your objectives easier to get.

On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

While buff efficiency is one thing, it's generally still better to be MSU.

MSU units don't run, MSU units fill battalion slots better, and MSU units are better at eating fire since they're frequently overkilled.


If your abilities are auras, it's generally not a problem at all to be MSU. If your abilities are single-target, it comes down to the ability and whether your intend to use it on the unit in question, but most of your army will be MSU with a few larger supporting units.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

But not nearly enough, imo.

Depends.

CWE, for instance, plays mostly MSU with one (or, rarely, two) Deathstar. The one deathstar lets them maximize their buffs (because CWE's buffs are mostly buff-one-unit, not aura buffs). But even those lists tend to run MSU on most other things.

ITC style kill points are one of the few ways to reward absolute durability over durability per point.

Oddly enough, SFD rewards absolute durability over durability per point, too. But you don't embrace *that* as a good rule!

(Neither do I, of course.)

Sfd?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
On the other hand, it does provide a downside for msu.

There already is a downside now with Stratagems and Auras. Try playing 10x5 man Wych units, it doesnt work. Where it used to before 8th. You'll have some with wasted Drugs, not enough special weapons (you get 3 for 10, 1 for 5), you'll need extra Succubus for the Aura, and the strong stratagems like fight twice, double the drugs, etc.. are wasted.

8th already does a lot to make MSU less appealing.

While buff efficiency is one thing, it's generally still better to be MSU.

MSU units don't run, MSU units fill battalion slots better, and MSU units are better at eating fire since they're frequently overkilled.


If your abilities are auras, it's generally not a problem at all to be MSU. If your abilities are single-target, it comes down to the ability and whether your intend to use it on the unit in question, but most of your army will be MSU with a few larger supporting units.

But in the traditional sense, you dont see 5-10man Genestealers anymore, you dont see CSM 3 man terminators, you dont see 5man Dev squads (you see 10mans when you do see them) You dont see CWE having 5 units of aspects, you see 1 large unit back by 1 or 2 small ones.

You see a few hyper strong units with back up units and then fill the rest with chaff for CP's


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Sfd?

Ynnari's rule, Strength from Death


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC style kill points are one of the few ways to reward absolute durability over durability per point.

Thats why you see lists like Ynnari/CWE with 7 Flyers, or 2-3 max size Bike units where all but 1 will DS, place in terrain/LoS the other, follow up by massive powers.

If you only have 7 units that can be killed before the game is over you cant get all the secondaries.

Edit: PS, my new favorite, 3 Gallent knights in front of 11 assassins lol

Any other GSC players find it kind of odd that there wasn't a single, actual Genestealer (not counting the Patriarch) in the 2nd place GSC army list?

What other 40K army doesn't have it's own name-sake normally included in their army lists?

Breng77 wrote:


This math misses out on the issue of overkill on the scouts. There is not a unit of 30 scouts, or 50 Guardsman, nor is there a unit putting out 100 Heavy bolter shots. For an example lets look at Heavy bolter devs who put out 12 shots each, to get 100 shots, that is shooting from those squads ~8 times (96 shots). So each time one of those units shoots it does damage.

12 shots at the scouts kills 3.5 scouts (so 3 or 4), leaving just one scout remaining. To kill the remaining scouts you will need to shoot the squad again with some amount of shots which will likely lead to wasted wounds. 24 shots is 7 wounds meaning you lose 2 kills on average, but likely you won't chance shooting just 1 or 2 heavy bolters trying to fish for wounds all the time.

Conversely those same 12 shots kill 4.4 guardsman so 4-5, but there are still 5 left in the squad, so a second set of 12 shots, does not likely go to waste and morale will finish the squad.

SO if we look at these numbers with 24 shots killing 5 scouts, you end up only killing 20 scouts with 96 shots

where as you likely kill all 10 guardsman with those same 24 shots, and so kill closer to (8.8 per squad pre morale, which auto fails at that point) 40 guardsman when morale is included.

Even if you allow for split firing, you need on average 6 heavy bolters (18 shots) to finish a scout squad. If that works out every time, you kill 25 scouts

Now this is not a great an advantage as it was in older editions thanks to the ability to split fire, you could throw only a portion of shooting at the remaining scouts, but all in all you are much more likely to waste wounds.

It's more complex than this.

5 cloak scouts can find cover. 10 IS can find cover, but I'll bet there will be enough units on the table where I can shoot 10 IS that are out of cover.

12 HB shots kills one scout or 4 to 5 IS or 3 to 4 when in cover. With LD7 there is little chance the IS will lose enough to eliminate the unit through morale.

So we dedicate an additional 12 HB shots. 1 scout dies. The IS are either dead or mostly dead, but then they can possibly blow 1 CP to do D3 for morale and go neener neener.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Any other GSC players find it kind of odd that there wasn't a single, actual Genestealer (not counting the Patriarch) in the 2nd place GSC army list?

What other 40K army doesn't have it's own name-sake normally included in their army lists?

Chaos Space Marines

Space Marines

Thousand Sons

Also, Genestealer Cults' namesake aren't Genestealers. genestealer is being used as an adjective in the name - the distinction is the "Cults" and there were plenty of cultists in those lists.

For a while after the Codex came out, CWE armies usually ran many more non-Craftworlders (Rangers) than Craftworlders.

Thats bc Rangers could scout/DS before turn 1 and you had to have that to stop alpha DSing on turn 1 against you.

Khalan wrote:
If you want to see more of my army check out my instagram @jimbov_paints

Dang... thats a shame.
I dont bother with social media.

The point kinda got lost in people going off the deepend on why x weapon kills more scouts or guardsmen. The point was kill more giving out Victory Points is inherently not good, it means being able to have straight up less units is already a bonus.
Which leads to secondary missions designed to compensate for list design that game's kill more.

Take a pure knights list, it is going to be 5-6 models tops, good luck getting kill more against that list with any army, so FLG introduced multiple secondary missions to compensate for the imbalance in the primary scoring.

The problem is the secondary missions can be designed around by some codex's. Aeldari being the usual suspects here, meaning that those designed to compensate secondary missions actually punish the lists that can't build to avoid them excessively.

Rather than just removing kill more as a primary VP measure, a simpler solution IMHO they took a page out of the GW game design hand book and designed a patch for a patch.

the_scotsman wrote:
Chaos Space Marines

Space Marines

Thousand Sons

Also, Genestealer Cults' namesake aren't Genestealers. genestealer is being used as an adjective in the name - the distinction is the "Cults" and there were plenty of cultists in those lists.

I guess you can push this - but the fact "Genestealer Genestealers" are worse than Acolytes (or Kraken Stealers) feels like bad design.
I agree with you on tacticals, CSM and Rubrics.

The more the rules have a bias towards troops the more balanced the game becomes (as the maths on a small pool is easier to manage than everything), but at the same time it skews towards good troops and bad troops pay the price.

 Smirrors wrote:
This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

Orks are good in all formats. They just have a higher skill cap as do most melee armies. So bad players can't take a good Ork list and win.

 Smirrors wrote:
So players attending Adepticon stated there were plenty of Castellans, they just didnt place very well. And then you have players like Nick N who has a strategy to counter it. I know of even Ultramarine style lists that basically try to nerf Castellans in game.

Is this really just a matter of people complaining of the Castellan without figuring ways to counter it and only now are we seeing it become less competitive.

That said GW is in a hard place as there are so many variations to the way people play 40k that they cannot balance a unit just for ITC.

You don't think it says something at all that armies need to assume they'll face a Castellan and they MUST counter a single model?
That's like saying 7th Ed Scatterbikes were fine because there were counters. Like, no gak there were counters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Chaos Space Marines

Space Marines

Thousand Sons

Also, Genestealer Cults' namesake aren't Genestealers. genestealer is being used as an adjective in the name - the distinction is the "Cults" and there were plenty of cultists in those lists.

I guess you can push this - but the fact "Genestealer Genestealers" are worse than Acolytes (or Kraken Stealers) feels like bad design.
I agree with you on tacticals, CSM and Rubrics.

The more the rules have a bias towards troops the more balanced the game becomes (as the maths on a small pool is easier to manage than everything), but at the same time it skews towards good troops and bad troops pay the price.

That's assuming all troops are equal, which is obviously not the case.

Some Adepticon Aeldari data
There were 31 aeldari players from 256 total(over 12% of the players).
2 players manage to get into top 16(12.5%)

Primary detachment fro the 31 players:
11 CWE
9 Ynnari
6 DE
3 Harlequins

Including other detachment 15 players did not use Ynnari.
There were only 4 non soup list. 3 CWE and 1 DE, 2 of the CWE were using wraith army.

2 players brougt copy of Alex Harrison list, both ended with 3/4 record, both lost 1 game vs orc.

1 player used WK and was 3/4, lost 1 game vs orc.
1 player with pure wraith army played single game and lost vs orcs.
2 players used the Yncarne and 1 player used Baharoth.
1 player did not include his dark reapers in Ynnari detachment and he lost all his 4 games.
1 player used dark repaers without having Ynnari and he is 3/4, the interesting part is he played 3 games vs other aeldari players. He won vs 2 aeldar players and 1 orc player and lost vs 3 hemlocks and ynnari spear and reapers list.
1 player brough 8 flyers 4 CWE and 4 DE he won 2 from 4.

RAW calculation shows Ynnari are with 54% WR including the mirror matches, without them they should be around 50% WR.


1 player used illegal list with mixed aeldari brigade and he go 2/4.

Marin wrote:
Some Adepticon Aeldari data
There were 31 aeldari players from 256 total(over 12% of the players).
2 players manage to get into top 16(12.5%)

Primary detachment fro the 31 players:
11 CWE
9 Ynnari
6 DE
3 Harlequins

Including other detachment 15 players did not use Ynnari.
There were only 4 non soup list. 3 CWE and 1 DE, 2 of the CWE were using wraith army.

2 players brougt copy of Alex Harrison list, both ended with 3/4 record, both lost 1 game vs orc.

1 player used WK and was 3/4, lost 1 game vs orc.
1 player with pure wraith army played single game and lost vs orcs.
2 players used the Yncarne and 1 player used Baharoth.
1 player did not include his dark reapers in Ynnari detachment and he lost all his 4 games.
1 player used dark repaers without having Ynnari and he is 3/4, the interesting part is he played 3 games vs other aeldari players. He won vs 2 aeldar players and 1 orc player and lost vs 3 hemlocks and ynnari spear and reapers list.
1 player brough 8 flyers 4 CWE and 4 DE he won 2 from 4.

RAW calculation shows Ynnari are with 54% WR including the mirror matches, without them they should be around 50% WR.


1 player used illegal list with mixed aeldari brigade and he go 2/4.

Awesome - thanks!

Any way to get knight/guard info?

and 1 player used Baharoth.

Woot!

Who cares about Baharoth? Maugen Ra is where it's at.

Because
1) Maugen Ra saw a first place finish not that long ago in a major tournament - so not as surprising
2) I love my Baharoth model much more than my Maugen Ra model.

So, for me, Baharoth was was more Woot-worthy than Ra, at this time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about Baharoth? Maugen Ra is where it's at.

I GOT SKULLZ ON MY SKULLZ!

Bharring wrote:
Because
1) Maugen Ra saw a first place finish not that long ago in a major tournament - so not as surprising
2) I love my Baharoth model much more than my Maugen Ra model.

So, for me, Baharoth was was more Woot-worthy than Ra, at this time.

Maugen Ra is really the only Phoenix Lord I'm a fan of for the model, fluff, AND rules. Even with the blech iterations I've still always been tempted to have an army starring him.

Probably why I'll ally him in with my Harlequins whenever I actually start that project (him and 3 Death Jesters sounds like a good time). I haven't even completed my current Marine army so...

He is a great model.

Jain Zar, Fuegen, and the official Baharoth model all need replacements (or kitabashes). But Asurmen, Karrandas, and Maugen Ra have great models.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about Baharoth? Maugen Ra is where it's at.

Sean Nayden was running Magun RA, but i never saw Baharoth

Maugan Ra is honestly really good. 2+ re-roll 1's cant be modified, with some AP and shoot twice.

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Is there something I am missing? Some of them do not have a cultural attachment. Like the Batallion GSC in 2 place has one small unit with Four-Armed Emperor. And 1101 points in a Battalion without a creed. Why is that?

 Ordana wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Having played in a number of ITC events, I can say that I won't be any longer. ITC events are terrible, their mission packets are confusing and outright favor specific builds and lists. Why their stuff is the most popular, I'll never fully understand. But, as it stands I'm skipping LVO for Adepticon next year. I'm getting tired of Las Vegas anyways, that town is such a cesspit (well, the strip anyway).

Bharring wrote:
He is a great model.

Jain Zar, Fuegen, and the official Baharoth model all need replacements (or kitabashes). But Asurmen, Karrandas, and Maugen Ra have great models.

They're all timeless in their own way. Like Abigail though, they could for sure use a refresh.

Ya know, as long as the poses are kept the same.

 Togusa wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
This wont shut the naysayers that are claiming lack of diversity. Seems pretty good to me. Weren't Orks supposed to be really bad too? I see plenty in the top 25.

Imperium is probably lacking representation based on what I've read on dakka in the last 2 months.

Diversity in the ITC is terrible.
Diversity outside of the ITC has been healthy for a while.

Maybe someday they will see the connection, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Having played in a number of ITC events, I can say that I won't be any longer. ITC events are terrible, their mission packets are confusing and outright favor specific builds and lists. Why their stuff is the most popular, I'll never fully understand. But, as it stands I'm skipping LVO for Adepticon next year. I'm getting tired of Las Vegas anyways, that town is such a cesspit (well, the strip anyway).

It's funny. I've been to 2 ITC events so far, and have found the mission packets to be quite clear, and there have been some fairly odd armies making it to the top tables. Top 3 at my first ITC event were Dark Eldar, AdMech, Knights. Top 3 at my second ITC event were Space Wolves, Guard, and Orks. Yes, the imperial armies were all soup-y (as was the dark eldar), but still that's some diversity being shown there IMO. I look forward to more of these events.

 Niiai wrote:

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Is there something I am missing? Some of them do not have a cultural attachment. Like the Batallion GSC in 2 place has one small unit with Four-Armed Emperor. And 1101 points in a Battalion without a creed. Why is that?

Many GSC units don't actually get all that much benefit from a cult creed. However they may want to take advantage of a particular cult specific stratagem, relic, or warlord trait. So it's quite common for genestealer cults to take a mixed detachment.
What that list is missing, is the cults he has assigned to his individual units.

The adepticon top 24 lists does seem more varied than most of the ITC top lists I have seen recently.

Despite that, I would hesitate calling adepticon top lists as "healthy".
The reason for that is the severe lack of adeptus astartes factions(i.e. Space Marines, Blood Angles, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) in the top rankings.
Considering that these factions amounts to about a quarter of the entire 40K factions with codex, I believe it is a bit early to judge adepticon top results as showing "healthy" state of balance.
The only exception is an Ultramarines list with Guilliman, but as far as I know it is most of the time the only viable choice for adeptus astartes factions in competitive tournaments.

But perhaps the picture might be different when observed in wider perspective.
Other adeptus astartes factions might have shown impressive standings outside the top 24 lists.
I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
The adepticon top 24 lists does seem more varied than most of the ITC top lists I have seen recently.

Despite that, I would hesitate calling adepticon top lists as "healthy".
The reason for that is the severe lack of adeptus astartes factions(i.e. Space Marines, Blood Angles, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) in the top rankings.
Considering that these factions amounts to about a quarter of the entire 40K factions with codex, I believe it is a bit early to judge adepticon top results as showing "healthy" state of balance.
The only exception is an Ultramarines list with Guilliman, but as far as I know it is most of the time the only viable choice for adeptus astartes factions in competitive tournaments.

But perhaps the picture might be different when observed in wider perspective.
Other adeptus astartes factions might have shown impressive standings outside the top 24 lists.
I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Including mirror matches Ultramarines have 68% WR from 6 players. There are couple of players that have SM detachments that are not their primary that are in top 50. I can`t say SM are doing amassing, but its not so bad as people trying to suggest it. Of course some factions will do better than the others.
It`s like saying that since Harlequins are with 35% WR (2 players btw) that aeldar are unplayable. In the Emporium super faction there are better things, so less players will pick them as main faction. Yet you have ultramarines doing super good, i mean 68% WR with 6 players is pretty impressive.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
The adepticon top 24 lists does seem more varied than most of the ITC top lists I have seen recently.

Despite that, I would hesitate calling adepticon top lists as "healthy".
The reason for that is the severe lack of adeptus astartes factions(i.e. Space Marines, Blood Angles, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) in the top rankings.
Considering that these factions amounts to about a quarter of the entire 40K factions with codex, I believe it is a bit early to judge adepticon top results as showing "healthy" state of balance.
The only exception is an Ultramarines list with Guilliman, but as far as I know it is most of the time the only viable choice for adeptus astartes factions in competitive tournaments.

But perhaps the picture might be different when observed in wider perspective.
Other adeptus astartes factions might have shown impressive standings outside the top 24 lists.
I would be glad to be proven wrong.

Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Thats like asking a Middleweight Kickboxer that did well in a Heavyweight fight to now go to UFC.

SM are still not doing well in ITC, well enough to call them healthy

 Niiai wrote:

https://www.battle-report.com/2019/03/30/2019-adepticon-warhammer-40000-grand-tournament/

Is there something I am missing? Some of them do not have a cultural attachment. Like the Batallion GSC in 2 place has one small unit with Four-Armed Emperor. And 1101 points in a Battalion without a creed. Why is that?

GSC assault units 'need' 4AE for the +1 to charge. Together with the Broodsurge detachment warlord trait and a Clamavus that means you only need a 7, re-rolling to get a charge off from out of deepstrike, which is pretty reliable.

So you cram all your assault elements into a 4AE batallion.

You then have support pieces that need the 4AE keyword for their aura's to work, but gain no real benefit from the Creed itself. (Patriarch, Clamavus, Nexos, Kellermorph)
Plus things like the Demo bikes need Rusted Claw for their stratagem + their support piece (the Jackal Alpha)
And Brood Brothers strait up don't get it anyway.

All that gets put into a Battalion.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

There was a Space Marine in the top 8, what are you guys even talking about?

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
There was a Space Marine in the top 8, what are you guys even talking about?

That was my point, very few SM are in ITC, and only a few players has gotten them into the top 16, 1 in the top 8.

My point is that SM are in such a bad spot that you wont see them (outside of a couple players here and there, which will and can happen do to RNG of tournaments and skill ofc skill) even in other tournaments formats.

Unless maybe in Highlander style, something that is crazy off the wall house rules.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
There was a Space Marine in the top 8, what are you guys even talking about?

That was my point, very few SM are in ITC, and only a few players has gotten them into the top 16, 1 in the top 8.

My point is that SM are in such a bad spot that you wont see them (outside of a couple players here and there, which will and can happen do to RNG of tournaments and skill ofc skill) even in other tournaments formats.

Unless maybe in Highlander style, something that is crazy off the wall house rules.

I hate to be a pedant here, but with 22 codex-sized factions in the game (my number might be a tiny bit off, but i'ts over 20) isn't having 1 player in the top 16 mean that a faction is performing slightly above the expected average? In a perfectly balanced top 16, 6/22 factions would not appear as a primary faction.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?

You stated that top players aren't playing non-ITC scenarios - this is demonstrably false, assuming this Nick character qualifies.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
There was a Space Marine in the top 8, what are you guys even talking about?

That was my point, very few SM are in ITC, and only a few players has gotten them into the top 16, 1 in the top 8.

My point is that SM are in such a bad spot that you wont see them (outside of a couple players here and there, which will and can happen do to RNG of tournaments and skill ofc skill) even in other tournaments formats.

Unless maybe in Highlander style, something that is crazy off the wall house rules.

I hate to be a pedant here, but with 22 codex-sized factions in the game (my number might be a tiny bit off, but i'ts over 20) isn't having 1 player in the top 16 mean that a faction is performing slightly above the expected average? In a perfectly balanced top 16, 6/22 factions would not appear as a primary faction.

The only issue with that statement is the frequency in which that faction is played, But considering many people are now taking SM as supplements to knights or guard I think that having one finish in the top 16 is probably a fairly healthy number

Asmodios wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
There was a Space Marine in the top 8, what are you guys even talking about?

That was my point, very few SM are in ITC, and only a few players has gotten them into the top 16, 1 in the top 8.

My point is that SM are in such a bad spot that you wont see them (outside of a couple players here and there, which will and can happen do to RNG of tournaments and skill ofc skill) even in other tournaments formats.

Unless maybe in Highlander style, something that is crazy off the wall house rules.

I hate to be a pedant here, but with 22 codex-sized factions in the game (my number might be a tiny bit off, but i'ts over 20) isn't having 1 player in the top 16 mean that a faction is performing slightly above the expected average? In a perfectly balanced top 16, 6/22 factions would not appear as a primary faction.

The only issue with that statement is the frequency in which that faction is played, But considering many people are now taking SM as supplements to knights or guard I think that having one finish in the top 16 is probably a fairly healthy number

Sure, if you saw one of those instances where space marines were taken as a supplement to knights or guard you could say "see, some percentage of those people are successful."

however, the list in the top 8 appears to be a pure space marine list with no allies at all.

Looking at the top 16 presented from adepticon, it seemed like you had:

-overperforming: Orks, Knights, Guard, Tau, Drukhari, possibly CWE with I think 3 major chunks of lists in the top 16.

-Average performers: Space Marines, Ynnari, Tyranids, Daemons, Thousand Sons, GSC, all with one entry where the majority of the army was made up by them.

-Below average performers: Blood Angels, Harlequins, Admech with one small allied detachment in the top 16.

-Poor performers: everyone else. So Necrons, GK, DA, SW, DW, Custodes, where they had no representation in the top 16 at all.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?

You stated that top players aren't playing non-ITC scenarios - this is demonstrably false, assuming this Nick character qualifies.

I said they are not playing SM in non ITC (referring to Adpeticon, you know what the topic is about), and i was referring to 2 people that normal does fine with SM actually.

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
The adepticon top 24 lists does seem more varied than most of the ITC top lists I have seen recently.

Despite that, I would hesitate calling adepticon top lists as "healthy".
The reason for that is the severe lack of adeptus astartes factions(i.e. Space Marines, Blood Angles, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) in the top rankings.
Considering that these factions amounts to about a quarter of the entire 40K factions with codex, I believe it is a bit early to judge adepticon top results as showing "healthy" state of balance.
The only exception is an Ultramarines list with Guilliman, but as far as I know it is most of the time the only viable choice for adeptus astartes factions in competitive tournaments.

But perhaps the picture might be different when observed in wider perspective.
Other adeptus astartes factions might have shown impressive standings outside the top 24 lists.
I would be glad to be proven wrong.

I feel like this is a good thing. I don't want to see more space marines in the top, and SM, BA, DA, and SW are basically all the same. They're not really like half the unique factions, it's like 4 codecies that all describe the same thing.

GK and Deathwatch are different.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Sagittarii Orientalis wrote:
The adepticon top 24 lists does seem more varied than most of the ITC top lists I have seen recently.

Despite that, I would hesitate calling adepticon top lists as "healthy".
The reason for that is the severe lack of adeptus astartes factions(i.e. Space Marines, Blood Angles, Dark Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Grey Knights) in the top rankings.
Considering that these factions amounts to about a quarter of the entire 40K factions with codex, I believe it is a bit early to judge adepticon top results as showing "healthy" state of balance.
The only exception is an Ultramarines list with Guilliman, but as far as I know it is most of the time the only viable choice for adeptus astartes factions in competitive tournaments.

But perhaps the picture might be different when observed in wider perspective.
Other adeptus astartes factions might have shown impressive standings outside the top 24 lists.
I would be glad to be proven wrong.

I feel like this is a good thing. I don't want to see more space marines in the top, and SM, BA, DA, and SW are basically all the same. They're not really like half the unique factions, it's like 4 codecies that all describe the same thing.

GK and Deathwatch are different.

While I disagree with the sentiment I agree on the point about the lack of variation between marine types usually having there be one "frontrunner" power armored faction.

Typically that's been GK, BA or SW, but in 8th it's been Ultramarines.

Right now, the existence of the strongest factions does seem to bully out astartes in general, but in most competitive metas you do see one astartes faction bullying out the others, since they all do similar things with small variations.

the_scotsman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its taken a year for top players to master SM in ITC just to be able to get 1-2 players in top 10. You can not expect that same level of play out of SM in anything out os ITC b.c tops players are not playing non ITC missions.

Strange - isn't that Nick guy with the Orks meant to be a top player? And he was playing at Adepticon, which would counter the assertion that "top players are not playing non ITC missions".

And I think at least one of the other people in the top 10 was meant to be a name, too.

Nick didnt take SM, he was working on Orks (and i might be miss quoting on this) but i thought i read (or watch) him say he thinks ork si one of the best codexs.

But being 1 guy in top with 1 SM army in the top. My point stands. How can you say b.c adpeticon doesnt have SM that its no at as good for variety compare to ITC/LVO?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
There was a Space Marine in the top 8, what are you guys even talking about?

That was my point, very few SM are in ITC, and only a few players has gotten them into the top 16, 1 in the top 8.

My point is that SM are in such a bad spot that you wont see them (outside of a couple players here and there, which will and can happen do to RNG of tournaments and skill ofc skill) even in other tournaments formats.

Unless maybe in Highlander style, something that is crazy off the wall house rules.

I hate to be a pedant here, but with 22 codex-sized factions in the game (my number might be a tiny bit off, but i'ts over 20) isn't having 1 player in the top 16 mean that a faction is performing slightly above the expected average? In a perfectly balanced top 16, 6/22 factions would not appear as a primary faction.

The only issue with that statement is the frequency in which that faction is played, But considering many people are now taking SM as supplements to knights or guard I think that having one finish in the top 16 is probably a fairly healthy number

Sure, if you saw one of those instances where space marines were taken as a supplement to knights or guard you could say "see, some percentage of those people are successful."

however, the list in the top 8 appears to be a pure space marine list with no allies at all.

Looking at the top 16 presented from adepticon, it seemed like you had:

-overperforming: Orks, Knights, Guard, Tau, Drukhari, possibly CWE with I think 3 major chunks of lists in the top 16.

-Average performers: Space Marines, Ynnari, Tyranids, Daemons, Thousand Sons, GSC, all with one entry where the majority of the army was made up by them.

-Below average performers: Blood Angels, Harlequins, Admech with one small allied detachment in the top 16.

-Poor performers: everyone else. So Necrons, GK, DA, SW, DW, Custodes, where they had no representation in the top 16 at all.

Yeah like you said even in your previous post though that considering how many codexes there are not making it into the top 8 or top 16 doesn't necessarily make the army bad. People get far to focused on the outcome of single events. Take orks, for example, people were saying how they were trash tier after not making top 8 at LVO then just a few weeks later they were all over the top of Adepticon. Looking at total win% of factions is much more useful then trying to gather overall game balance by the top 16 finishes of a single event . So i would once again say that SM finishing with 1 in the top 16 of this event is good and shows that the codex probaly isnt "absolute trash" like the internet likes to throw around

Just some points for those who think that the Adepticon format made people take different lists.

- Jim took a similar list to LVO (he went 4-2), but it looks like he's tweaked it since then to be a little tighter.
- Steve Pampreen took almost the exact list he had at LVO. He went 5-1.
- Chris Blackham dropped the Grotesques from his LVO list and opted for more flyers. He went 5-1 at LVO.
- Sean Nayden took the same list at LVO where he went 6-1.
- Nanavati who went 5-1 at LVO added Stormboyz, but has largely the same list.

One other player in the top 15 took Deathwatch at LVO going 1-2, but changed to Castellan and triple Knigth for Adepticon and did much better.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Just some points for those who think that the Adepticon format made people take different lists.

- Jim took a similar list to LVO (he went 4-2), but it looks like he's tweaked it since then to be a little tighter.
- Steve Pampreen took almost the exact list he had at LVO. He went 5-1.
- Chris Blackham dropped the Grotesques from his LVO list and opted for more flyers. He went 5-1 at LVO.
- Sean Nayden took the same list at LVO where he went 6-1.
- Nanavati who went 5-1 at LVO added Stormboyz, but has largely the same list.

One other player in the top 15 took Deathwatch at LVO going 1-2, but changed to Castellan and triple Knigth for Adepticon and did much better.

Yeah I’m not even sure what the conversation is or what people here want at this point. No matter what you change your pretty much always going to see the same names at the top and likely the same armies.

Not so much a surprise with so many Orks taking the higher spots.
I have been facing those green turkeys for a long time against my friend's army.
With so many factors to decrease the "to hit" rolls in the game, there is something to be said about "always hits on 6's" for the Orks not to care much.
Morale is rarely an issue.
Numbers are cheap and cheerful.
"Da Jump" to drop a 30-man melee butcher group in an opponent's back yard is nothing to sneeze at.

Imperial forces are the "usual" soup because they seem somewhat incomplete on their own compared to other forces.
IG/AM seems to be the more complete army to be the glue to hold all that together.

Imperial Knights tend to be the hard hitter when supported with enough CP's.

Ah well, it is the ever-shifting goal-posts.
Just hope it is your army's time in the spotlite (and you can field it ok) before it moves on.

Prepostrous. they all ned new sculpts.. Magnum-ra being perhaps the one that seem aight.

 Argive wrote:

Khalan wrote:
Hi All

Jim Here.

For those comparing itc vs adepticon, I won a really hard ITC GT 3 weeks ago (Dicehammer GT) with a super tough field using the exact same list I won adepticon with. So just thought i'd throw fuel onto the debate.

Heard your army is sweet. Got any nice pics to share?

Jim's army from 2018 Battle for Salvation GT --> https://www.battle-report.com/2018/10/17/scions-of-magnus-by-jim-vesal/

@Khalan outstanding models!

Cheers,

Battle-Report.com

His Khorne Prince is really cool!