Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

if I was allowed to continue a game to a finish, even if time was call and I was winning. I would play it out.
I don't go to events to win, I go for good games. so if a player and his opponents agreed to finish and were allowed to by the judges that is fine. I don't see how that is unfair to the other tables unless it delayed the event.

So much drama over little plastic men... lol.

Interesting winning lists! I agree; its the player, not the list, that wins it. That DE list is definitely unique!

I think that the extra time didn't matter since it didn't delay the event and this was a special case. Alot of the negativity about this would be justified if it was a random occurence for no reason or if it could happen at anytime. There were good reasons for the ruling.

Though if neither of them wanted to play anymore because they hate playing each other then I find it highly amusing that they were forced to continue.

Oh I forgot to mention I reviewed the tournament on my blog.

Spellbound wrote:There tended to be a lot of disrespect for the judges. I had a friend call a judge over for an LOS ruling. He got down and made the call.....and my friend's opponent argued with him! "No man, no way, it's less than half, no cover...."

I thought "really? Argue with the judge?"

Oh, that is part of the judge training we do. The player that needs a judge, but then argues after the call. Our training is to minimally interact with that behavior: "That's my call, proceed with the game," or something to that effect. It seems to work. And we get that every year; it's practically a given (people who don't understand LOS often have difficulty accepting the facts on the table).

I had that exact thing happen at the table this year, and afterwards the arguing guy actually stopped to listen to his opponent and understood how he was completely wrong in the situation, which works out well.

Brian,

Wolf and I are looking at times now. We might go to 135 minutes and 1850 but that is still up in the air. We need to review the data first.

No conspiracy Monster Rain. =p Nick was overseeing a lot of tables. There was quite a bit of arguing going on Table #1 during some of the games; ours had plenty of judge injection, but not for rules disputes. Feel free to ask Nick for more details. The only two "disputes" we had were mission related, not rule related.

I just wanted to say my experience was very fun and enjoyable. Never did I witness anyone arguing with judges. Everytime they were eager to jump to help and either make an immediate ruling or take the time to look up more obscure rules. All of my opponents were fun and challenging, particularly Sean Lowery, whom I had the misfortune of playing. A truely standup guy, who deserved to win. The guy even had beautiful craters for his vehicles the exact shape of their profile.

The time limit was just a little rushed I thought. I managed to finish all but one game, but a couple would not have if it hadn't ended on turn 5 anyway... There was no time for chit chat unfortunately, which I find is integral in creating a more laid back atmosphere for both players.

A special thanks to John, Nick, Thomas and everyone else there that made all of it happen. I got to meet and play Crazy Red Praetorian which was really fun. One of the few games we actually got to sneak in some chit chat about our gaming lives and I'd like to say he was a super fun opponent.

I played descent of angels with 3 predators, and my name is Casey Christopher. I believe I got 8th...

Also wanted to give a shout out to Spikey Bitz for filling a much needed hole this year. Lots of people appreciated the vendor effect, it appeared to me.

Look forward to next year.

I think the time limit is fine and the random turn length is fine aswell. If you are setting yourself up to win on turn 6 then you are taking that 33% chance of losing. All of these people jumping on the I could of or would of won time train is not neccessary.

I think 5th ed random game length is fine. Every once in a while you feel like the armies haven't properly gotten to grips, but most of the time the possibility of a turn 5 ending just forces you to play a little more aggressively.

Two hours is too short for 2000pts, though. I play fast, but some armies just move too many models and throw too many dice to make that work, except in those perfect situations where both players are highly experienced, efficient, and knowledgeable both of each other's rules and the mission.

Even if they are, that leaves NO time for chatting and being sociable unless you're both playing small mechanized armies. One of the absolute best parts of Throne of Skulls in Vegas was having 2.5hr rounds for 1500pts. You could really play a properly thoughtful and relaxed game, talking with and getting to know your opponent as you beat each other up, and not having to sprint from table to table between rounds. It made for an extremely enjoyable experience. That said, I also love getting a ton of games in a weekend. I haven't been to WGC yet, but I've been doing Adepticon for five years and that's an exhausting but wonderful marathon of gaming action.

2:15 and 1750 or 1850 should be more workable. I support that.

Spellbound wrote:There tended to be a lot of disrespect for the judges. I had a friend call a judge over for an LOS ruling. He got down and made the call.....and my friend's opponent argued with him! "No man, no way, it's less than half, no cover...."

I thought "really? Argue with the judge?"

Wow using judges for los calls, its sad that I had never thought of that. I am totally going to tell my lgs tourney judge about that. I usually never have a problem but when you do that 3rd party person would be awesome.

I've seen that a lot of places. Whether you use a formal judge or not, often having a third party check LOS is a nice easy way to resolve a disagreement if you and your opponent don't see it the same way.

mtgbob wrote:Here is a link to the DE list that got overall

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/WargamesCon-Shawn-Lowrey-Best-Overall-Dark-Eldar.pdf

I hate to sound crass, but how did this guy win first place? I don't mean it bad, but this is such a random mish-mash of everything available in the codex. Further, I find it hard to imagine that there are enough targets to justify Incubi, 3 Wych squads, and a unit of Wracks.

Isn't the fact that he won justification enough?

There's no magical list that makes you win games. Player skill is a much larger factor.

That list is not at all random. If it looks so to you, then you need more practice.

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the fact that he won justification enough?

There's no magical list that makes you win games. Player skill is a much larger factor.

Player skill can't account for everything. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, he has 12 Dark Lances and 1 Blaster. 6 of those Dark Lances are spread across 2 Ravagers and the Raiders will very likely be going Flat Out with Enhanced Aethersails. Haywire Grenades are nice, but I would hardly rely on them for anti-tank.

I'm curious as to what armies he faced. Also, I still find it hard to imagine that he needs 5 close combat units.

Those Wracks aren't really a close combat unit. They're a dirt cheap scoring unit/haemonc bodyguard, from the looks of them.

One advantage of having that many scoring units is that he can afford to throw a squad or two of Wyches away Haywiring important vehicles.

Mannahnin wrote:Those Wracks aren't really a close combat unit. They're a dirt cheap scoring unit/haemonc bodyguard, from the looks of them.

One advantage of having that many scoring units is that he can afford to throw a squad or two of Wyches away Haywiring important vehicles.

I suppose. Many of the missions did have KPs as well.

I'm just curious as to who he faced and how he employed the list, because I can't quite wrap my head around it. To be fair, my mentality is generally, "Shoot it until it's dead, then shoot it once more for good measure." It would just seem to me that he would be exposing very fragile units (FnP or not) to a torrent of return fire after attempting to stop an enemy tank, which is very dice-based.

A reply such as, "HE'S GOOD! THAT'S HOW HE WON!" hardly accounts for tactics, opponent's armies, dice rolls, etc. I appreciate your more serious response though.

Wolf 11x wrote:A reply such as, "HE'S GOOD! THAT'S HOW HE WON!" hardly accounts for tactics, opponent's armies, dice rolls, etc. I appreciate your more serious response though.

No one said that though.

You asked for "justification", not any of those other things. He won a tournament against a field of extremely tough competitors. That is, to me, justification.

The guy demolished Marc Parker for starters. You may not know that name, but tourney players at that level do. Marc has more GT wins than anyone else. No easy feat to destroy him.

Darkness wrote:The guy demolished Marc Parker for starters. You may not know that name, but tourney players at that level do. Marc has more GT wins than anyone else. No easy feat to destroy him.

The current Dark Eldar have a heavy advantage against Orks to start with.

jwolf wrote:

Prodigalson wrote:Jwolf, I would generally support a move downward in points to 1850 or so. I managed to finish 5/6 games in two thousand, but I tended to reserve a lot, and am a pretty quick player. My hand to hand with hydra gauntlets, re-rolls, sharnets are a little complicated, so that does slow things down as well. I also fire 45 or so splinter shots a turn, so the rolls to hit, rolls to wound and armor distribution on squads slows things down as well.

I'm not sure points down or time up or both are the answer, but I appreciate the feedback and you can be sure that after we've had a time to dig through all the round data and feedback from players we will be making some adjustments for 2012.

I had a great time, but I have to confess the only part of the event I did not like was the time limits on games. I managed to finish all but the first two games I played (had to adjust to the revised focus), but we simply stopped after turn five on all but the last game because there was not time left. There was almost never any chance of us completing a turn 6 whether we wanted to or not. To me the rush to make sure you completed everything as fast as possible detracted from the overall experience, but that's me. Also, I know you got pairings up in good time, but they were never posted with more than 10 min to get to a table, get set up, choose deployment, etc. (and I kept track of all of them). *ALL* the games lost actual playing time due to things that IMO should be completed before calling start. Personally I think all of that could be solved by dropping the points to 1850 if you are going to continue with the 7-game, 30 min break format. There are too many armies out there who just end up rolling a boatload of dice and thus take more time than smaller, more elite armies do. If I were to attend next year and the point values aren't dropped downward (or you give people more than 10 min to get everything moved/setup/etc.) then the only way I will be there is if I bring the smallest army I can.

Note that this does not mean I didn't enjoy myself, I did. However, I do think the "race to the finish" methodology leaves a bit to be desired. Some folks may like it, but I can't say I am one of them.

Cheers, Gary

Heffling wrote:

Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:What would have happened if one of the 2 players did NOT want extra time. How would it have been handled then. Let's say they took Hulk's stance that the end is the end and it's not fair for others.

This exact thing did happen, as one guy (Cheezeburger) was happy to complain about. He was furious that Dash and his opponent got to keep playing, when his game ended. But once you got the story out of him, you found out he asked a judge for extra time, the judge asked his opponent if he would like to play another turn, and his opponent said no (because he was winning, and would have gone to a draw or loss).

Sup Heff, that's not why his opponent said no. I don't think they were offered extra time though. Cheezeburger was likely incapable of finishing that game. If I had been paired against him I'd have asked a judge to DQ him before dice were rolled. I don't want to drag things down, so I'll leave it at that.

Monster Rain wrote:You asked for "justification", not any of those other things. He won a tournament against a field of extremely tough competitors. That is, to me, justification.

Wolf 11x wrote:I hate to sound crass, but how did this guy win first place?

But... I said...

You can't read my mind?

You didn't quote the whole post. And yes. Yes I can.

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Isn't the fact that he won justification enough?

There's no magical list that makes you win games. Player skill is a much larger factor.

Player skill can't account for everything. Unless I'm horribly mistaken, he has 12 Dark Lances and 1 Blaster. 6 of those Dark Lances are spread across 2 Ravagers and the Raiders will very likely be going Flat Out with Enhanced Aethersails. Haywire Grenades are nice, but I would hardly rely on them for anti-tank.

I'm curious as to what armies he faced. Also, I still find it hard to imagine that he needs 5 close combat units.

I will defend my friends list as we playtested together, first I believe you are underestimating haywire grenades and the 30 wyches. The 30 wyches would be in your face rather quickly, glancing your vehicles preventing them from shooting down his vehicles that roamed around. They are also capable of tieing up units in cc with a 4+ invulnerable save and 4+ feel no pain save thanks to the haemonculis free pain token. While you are trying to deal with his wyches he is able to claim or contest objectives easily because of his mobility.

That DE list might not looked so min/maxed compared to DashofPepper's list, but it still look pretty strong. Knowing how one's list work is very important and their ability to play a flawless game.

The more rounded lists might be referred to as "toolbox" armies, maybe.

The guys who build them (speaking of folks like Ben, and undoubtedly Shawn as well) know what they're doing, and know what each element in the army is capable of and how it helps them in different situations. They know how to use their army to counter (for example) mechanized Space Wolves or Grey Knights without it being about the simple math of "put 25+ lance weapons in your list."

I too look at lists and wonder "how did that win?" sometimes. But here's the deal.

Let's saaaaay I take nobz. Lots of nobz. Like.... 50 nobz. All have fnp, cheesy allocation tricks, etc. etc.

Now, build an army to deal with that. Got one? Good. As an example, here:

IG, couple psyker battle squads in chimeras, some S8+ template weapons and a callidus assassin from witchhunters.

Man, that IG list would demolish those orks.

But.......the ork player never gets paired against that IG player. He fights a thousand sons player round 1 and demolishes him. He fights a GK player that takes strike squads and dreadknights and isn't entirely sure what he's doing in round 2. He fights a vanilla marine player that can't hack it in round 3, and he fights a speed freek ork player in round 4, getting a tie.

Long story short, the 50 nob list never fights armies that can easily take him out, or if he does he capitalizes on their stupid mistakes. Or that IG list just happened to suffer perils on his psychic tests for both battle squads on one turn, and one of them the next turn. Then to top it all off he never can seem to get a hit with those demolisher cannons.

Good player, no BAD army list choices, good pairings, no cripplingly bad luck at the wrong time. Lots of things happen that way.

I don't know if the harmies ride with wyches in that list. I think two ride with the incubi and one rides with the stacks and archon, thus giving you one "deathstar" with str 5 power weapons and 3+/fnp on the charge and a IC hunting unit with furious charge/fnp and a huskblade. You can flat out the wyches all together and reroll their pinning test when their vehicle gets destroyed in your opponents turn. You've brought your cover with you in the form of a wreck, and now you are within 6" of your opponents main force with 30 wyches, with two hardhitters directly behind them. The PGLs are there to take the assault advantage away from your opponent while you force them to deal with 20-30 wyches in cover or the two face-raping venoms right behind them.

This is all heavily simplified, but I love this list. I've been looking for a good way to use incubi and I've finally found it, plus I have all the models!!! Lol

Those Wych squads are 9-chicks in size. He stated in the BoK video that the Haemi's rode with the Wyches as part of his standard deployment.

Now this doesn't preclude him from throwing a couple of Haemi's in with the Incubi in certain situations. Starting the Haemi's out with the Wyches and then leaving them in the Raiders after the Wyches deploy since they don't fleet would be a pretty standard tactic in my book.

Also, with a 7-game format, Mr Lowery stated that his toughest match up was against the SoB player and that he got pretty lucky on some of his matchups (Marc Parker). However, a skilled player with a balanced list makes his own luck/minimizes luck. And in a 7-game format that uses BP's, keeping your games close and getting a good matchup on day 2 can be the right mix for a tourney victory.

Marc Parker had just as much of an equal chance to win the whole enchilada as well (amongst all of the top three table players). Marc anticipated WGC would have more LOS terrain on the boards than there was, played like the champion he is but just couldn't avoid playing a great player playing his nemesis army (DE). If Marc had faced another Power Armor list in Round 7, he might of been the Overall Champion.

Would a lot of people been surprised at that result? No, discussion would have been about 'Modelling for Advantage' (Red Herring!) and thus not giving the tournament champion his due as it should always be after a big event such as this.