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.

Question.

If DD2 outscores DD1 at Adepticon 2012, does that mean in Adepticon 2013 that DD2 can be renamed DD1?

thehod wrote:Question.

If DD2 outscores DD1 at Adepticon 2012, does that mean in Adepticon 2013 that DD2 can be renamed DD1?

Most likely not. They're older than we are.

@tacobake
Thanks! We should bake some tacos to celebrate!

@thehod
I said the same thing to Centurian99 (Bill Kim) and he disagreed strongly with that! Haha, but he used a lot more colorful language!

@Whitedragon
You should have totally taken Abby, that would have been awesome. Although, your army was on the warpath. My favorite was 5 Khorne Bezerkers killing 25 lootas by themselves!

@Platuan4th
Yeah, those guys are some of the OG Dakkanouts. We're just young upstarts in their eyes, even if we do surpass them in the TT next year....which we will!

Kilkrazy wrote:A few semi-random thoughts...

It used to be about 1/3rd SM armies at UKGTs when CSM were awesome and IG were crap.

The lower proportion at Adepticon probably reflects CSM being knocked back a bit and IG becoming Awesome.

Having lots of KP missions is good for balancing the tournament unless you are a Tau player. Tau are sadly disadvantaged by the current KP rules.

The fact that the top players were using “tier one” codexes with their own, not netlist, lists, arguably shows that they correctly identify the top tier codexes as the strongest, and want to maximise their advantage by playing a list that suits their individual style.

To flip that comment, playing a top tier netlist doesn’t benefit a player as much as knowing their army inside out, but a strong codex has a built in advantage.

The organisation of the event as described by Matthias sounds first rate.

Everyone seems to have had a great time.
!

Using the sortable tables at the adepticon site I came up with this table for average battle points per army

#of P Army Average BP
3 Black Templars 23.333
37 Blood Angels 20.810
13 Chaos Demons 20.000
19 Chaos Space marines 19.210
1 Demon hunters 10
5 Dark Angels 17
8 Dark Eldar 22.500
7 Eldar 23.571
29 Imp guard 18.793
29 Orks 23.103
3 Necrons 20
28 Space Marines 16.785
40 Space Wolves 20.750
5 Tau 8
13 Nids 17.307
4 undecided 21.25

Its a small sample size for a lot of armies so people shouldn't draw to many conclusions from this just thought it was interesting. Also I wasn't there and haven't seen the mission packs (which can have a big effect)

Notes

BA results tended to be really good or really bad.
Space Wolves were solid, a little above average but fairly close.
Eldar did fairly awesome, every player got at least 20 bps but there were only 7 players.
Dark eldar had a decent showing, only eight players though which isn't too suprising 5 months to build, paint, and tweak an army is cutting it close. Nids, had out of 13 players one with 40, and one with 30, every one else 20 or below so that 17 is actually a bit high :(.
Orks did really well, and there were a lot of players so it wasn't fluke, maybe the missions favored them or the net underestimates them?
Suprised to see imp guard as low as they were, again could be mission dependent, and maybe the players who went had a better handle on them.
0 sisters I am really hoping that one of the undecided is a sisters player.
crons and templars only had 3 players apiece so its tough to draw to many conclusions from this.
Tau had a horrible showing but only 5 players.
Xenos fractions only accounted for 65 players and almost 3/4 were orks & nids.

edit spread the table out a bit (ok maybe not)

Deadshane1 wrote:Why come the BFG results dont have fleet races so we know who played what?

I don't know all of them, but while I was playing in the Gladiator the guys I came with swept the podium in BFG.

Joe had a Nurgle fleet and Arron had Eldar. Also this was there first year at Adepticon and they tied for first!

Ted started coming with me three years ago. He had an Ork fleet and came in third. He also has won best fleet all three years.

DD1 took daemons because we just didn't have time for Dark Eldar, I flat out refused to do Orks again, and Tau...

With Daemons, I only needed to add 6 plaguebearers and 6 more fiends to come up with almost all the models we needed (once Janthkin added his Soul Grinders and Bloodcrushers into the mix).

But unfortunately, I got hit with the stupid stick at some point on Saturday, and did some stupid things on Saturday night.

Ah well... at least our display boards looked a lot nicer this year. 40 points for painting is a team high.

just curious, for the team tournament do all 4 players on your team have to play the same race?

Disarray wrote:just curious, for the team tournament do all 4 players on your team have to play the same race?

There are four overarching "themes/archetypes" this year: Imperial, Heretic, Xenos and Hybrid. You declare your team as any one of the four, but there are more benefits to running a single codex/race in some cases.

The rules are available on the adepticon website and are a tad more complex then a simple yes/no answer.

Disarray, go here:
http://www.adepticon.org/?page_id=1727
...under "40k Rules" click "Warhammer 40k national team tournament". Also beside it is a little PDF icon linking to the scenarios.

Did anybody here play AS one of the few, the proud, the old (Necrons, Tau, DA, BT)? I'm curious as to how the games went for them.

Monster Rain played Necrons, and did quite well for himself.

Blackmoor took his Daemonhunters out for a last hurrah. I don't think it went very well.

Janthkin wrote:Blackmoor took his Daemonhunters out for a last hurrah. I don't think it went very well.

it went so bad he shaved the pedo-stache after game 1.

Redbeard wrote:

tastytaste wrote:Hey guys I am going over all the lists from the 16 and my analysis of them if anyone wants to check it out.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/04/05/adepticon-2011-pseudo-live-40k-champ-army-lists-and-anyalsis/

From a usability perspective - is it feasible to put the lists straight into html, or embed them on the page, rather than make us click through to a pdf and then back to the blog?

Fixed most of the problems you mentioned did it live without corrections yesterday went back over it and fixed it up a bit.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2011/04/05/adepticon-2011-pseudo-live-40k-champ-army-lists-and-anyalsis/

@tastytaste:

Unless my opponent stands still I find it is pretty hard that it could stand up to a full mech IG or Space Wolf force. Once you can kill whatever squad Mephiston is in you can really can make easy work of all the other elements.

You might want to edit that----Mephiston isn't an IC and cannot join units.




@RedBeard and Mann


Ok, I'll eat crow here and take back what I posted earlier------you guys were absolutely right---those lists are very unconventional (Other than the SW list). I wonder if this credits Adepticon with success in scenario building, terrain on the table----or just very, very good players playing wacky lists. Tankbustas and looted wagons?! Dude must be Sun Tzu reincarnated!

A pair of Dark Angels in the top 25, 3 in 30. Nice to see.

Grats to all!

Lorek wrote:Monster Rain played Necrons, and did quite well for himself.

Thanks, buddy! (You too, Reecius! ) I'd like to think I changed some minds at Adepticon.

People were actually quite surprised when their "auto-win" tournament draw turned into a near tabling. Don't believe everything you read on the internetz, people! My one loss was a seriously close game, too. It became unwinnable for me when the Nightbringer (with 3 wounds left) went down to 3 Deffrolla wounds (Failed 3 out of 3 4++ saves on turn 6)! Oh well... Really wish I had been able to bring a display board, but something just had to give for the sake of traveling. Now that I know what I'm doing/where I'm going for next year I'll give myself more time and bring more stuff

Was a fun event and I am glad we meet new people and also put faces to people. Now I have the image of Age of Egos burned in my brained

Darkwynn wrote:Was a fun event and I am glad we meet new people and also put faces to people. Now I have the image of Age of Egos burned in my brained

Hah, it was nice to meet you as well---and what a terrific looking Dark Eldar force.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Darkwynn wrote:Was a fun event and I am glad we meet new people and also put faces to people. Now I have the image of Age of Egos burned in my brained

Hah, it was nice to meet you as well---and what a terrific looking Dark Eldar force.

Thanks, I was really happy with my performance of the Dark Eldar army. I felt like I was within striking distance of the top 16 all the time. I just made a mistake on my third game which cost it pretty hard for me. Oh well maybe next year.

AgeOfEgos wrote:@tastytaste:

Unless my opponent stands still I find it is pretty hard that it could stand up to a full mech IG or Space Wolf force. Once you can kill whatever squad Mephiston is in you can really can make easy work of all the other elements.

You might want to edit that----Mephiston isn't an IC and cannot join units.




@RedBeard and Mann


Ok, I'll eat crow here and take back what I posted earlier------you guys were absolutely right---those lists are very unconventional (Other than the SW list). I wonder if this credits Adepticon with success in scenario building, terrain on the table----or just very, very good players playing wacky lists. Tankbustas and looted wagons?! Dude must be Sun Tzu reincarnated!

oops meant Sanguinor and Mephiston can go with him hehe squad of two! hehe

tastytaste wrote:

oops meant Sanguinor and Mephiston can go with him hehe squad of two! hehe

Sanguinor isnt an independent character either. Not to mention that even IC's cant join with models that are always units of 1... excepting of course other IC's which neither of these two are.

Luco wrote:A pair of Dark Angels in the top 25, 3 in 30. Nice to see.

Grats to all!

Dark angels did better in the gladiator, i managed best imperial commander (3rd overall) with deathwing+warhound . A good example how one rule change in a codex can make a huge difference.

Grats to all the winners

Sorry im not convinced adepticon has a better formula for tournies. Tau got absolutely shafted in objectives and kill points. 5th is just flawed for some builds/armies. But its better than it has been. I sure dont miss 4th.

Objectives and KPs are 5th edition, as you say. Tau get shafted by having an old codex which doesn't work very well in 5th edition except for a few specific tricks. That's not Adepticon's fault.

I really like the mission format. Choosing which objectives you're going after and being able to change that if the situation changes is really cool.

Matthias wrote:That per Army breakdown is close, but not 100% accurate.

If there were Undecideds listed, it was because we didn't enter their Army during initial check-in. That has since been corrected. First day back at work, lots to catch up on, but I will try to post the true army breakdown list later today, but like i said the above list is pretty close.

I'd also like to point out that we manually checked and verified all 246 army lists for this event during the first two rounds. We didn't find anything too terrible, but we did find a handful of errors that we had the players correct. In rounds 3 and 4 we took all the lists that were still in the running for qualification and rechecked them again. The lists that then qualified for Sunday were checked a third time.

We then retained those lists, made photocopies of them and then returned lists to the players during the Sunday finals. We then had the players set up their armies and visually checked each army on the table versus the list returned to make sure no changes or errors were made. Overall it was a grueling process, but I think it worked very well.

Of course all the tweaks and improvements we made to this event and the convention as a whole go generally unspoken of or unrecognized every year. People tend to have blinders on about a specific event and the numerical results of that event. Understandable, but it all needs some persepctive in terms of logistics.

You deserve a lot of credit for doing so - it would be no easy task to check everyone twice, nvm some three times. Well done.

Someone asked about the sang guard lists and how they did.

I played all Sanguinary Guard, and finished 10th Overall, with 3 wins and 1 loss. I played 2 mech IG, 1 Mech Blood Angels player and lost the last game to Shrike Codex marine razorback spam.

All my opponents won their 3 other games, and my final loss was to last year's hard boyz winner, so I feel the sanguinary guard performed well. The list was,

Dante.
Libby with J.pack, Sanguine Sword and Shield of Sanguinius.

3 X Sang Priests with J.packs, 2 have power swords.

Sang Guard, 2 X infernus pistol, Chapter banner

Sang Guard, infernus pistol, powerfist

Sang Guard, Infernus pistol.

Sang Guard, infernus pistol.

Storm Raven with Hurricane Bolters, TL Lascannon, TL MM.

Furioso with Blood Talons.

The East Coast 'Ard Boyz winner, Clark Welch, right? He's good. Beat me in that AB final.

Nice work! I went 3-0 before being knocked out by Jay Woodcock. That 4th round is a doozy.

spireland wrote:

targetawg wrote:

vonjankmon wrote:Like Lord Severus said I would imagine the combination of being a teenager and bringing what is a more generic list yet beating everyone probably contributed heavily to his sportsmanship score.

Nothing annoys some people more than a "kid" whomping them with a "generic" army when they began the game thinking that it would be an easy win against said "kid" with the "generic" army.

I think that this actually isn't the case nearly as much as people seem to think on the internet. Typically the "sports dinging" and other issues that make everyone fear sports/soft scores aren't nearly as abused in reality. I've only had it happen to me at one major event like 4 years ago. I've won two this year and am probably not the most model human being and have still gotten max/high sports scores. In fact, I think if anything sports scores across the board are abnormally high just because people feel awkward putting down a bad score in front of their opponent/etc.

That being said, his low sports score may indicate his opponents just didn't have a good time (I'm NOT saying this is true). I don't think they insinuate that he "cheated" or "fudged" things, which is probably a misinterpretation of the "data". If he's quiet, reserved, and no nonsense, thats probably why he got a low score, nothing more, nothing less. People want to chat and be social during games, esp. if their just getting stomped in the game to begin with. Getting stomped in silence is probably pretty devoid of enjoyment, as most players who lose and still have a good time give a reason like "but my opponent was a nice/fun guy, and we had a good time".

I don't mean to flame the above poster, but you are pointing out everything that is wrong with soft scores.

Why should a player get penalized for being "quiet, reserved or no nonesense"? Why should a player be judged on thier ability to entertain your opponent. There is a place for this type of play, its at a 3 round FLGS tournie or garage hammer, not at a 200 person tournament.

This soft scoring stuff has got to go away. It is ridiculous.

In the end, it's still a game, and you have to be social in order to properly communicate and convey what's going on. When you just silently go about your business, without asking or answering questions, and some of the moves you make are viewed as questionable (yet you say nothing), it makes perfect sense to score said player low.

This game can't not be social, unless it moved 100% online like Magic: the Gathering. And for the record, MtGO has created a lot of douchebag players who have no social skills whatsoever. In the end, it's a game that requires some measure of social interaction.

Even poker players playing for millions of dollars are social at the table. People with your mentality are what's wrong with tournaments. Your attitude should go away. It is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The fact that the top players were using “tier one” codexes with their own, not netlist, lists, arguably shows that they correctly identify the top tier codexes as the strongest, and want to maximise their advantage by playing a list that suits their individual style.

To flip that comment, playing a top tier netlist doesn’t benefit a player as much as knowing their army inside out, but a strong codex has a built in advantage.

I highlighted those thoughts for one reason: More people are picking a list that is exceedingly forgiving instead of learning the army inside-and-out. When piloted by an amazing general, the stats showed that Black Templars, Orks, and Eldar were the top of the crop. The Space Wolves were in such high numbers because it's the easiest codex to dart-board without falling flat on one's face. Imperial Guard units come with complicated rules, and thus reward good play, while Space Wolves units can "hur-dee-dur" their way to success due to sheer versatility vs. points cost.

I'm not saying the codex is broken, because it's not. But it does offer the most forgiving options.

As a reminder, Tony was not scored low, per the scoring guidelines. Even if the average was higher than he got, the score he received by the actual rules was three "average" and one "fantastic game". Which means no one actually marked him as a bad or unpleasant opponent.