Switch Theme:

ITC 2019 Season Update: Feedback Wanted  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Hacking Noctifer





behind you!

 Brothererekose wrote:
 oni wrote:
Your sample size and scope of application are far too small. Wayniac's statement cannot possibly be deemed invalid, based on two (2) games that [i}you[/i] played. It's insufficient data.
Yes, my sample is singular and logically not representative, per a real survey/data gathering, etc.

Then again, when highway patrol tries to convince teen drivers that speed kills, and they only show one example of a wrecked car & the fatality (and all the facts it was speeding, etc), the kids' claim that "speed doesn't kill" still takes a hit. One car wreck from the highway patrol is insufficient data. However, you can't ignore it. It is a valid example supporting the argument, not invalidated just because it is *one* anecdote.

I could type out a long list of anecdotes, but after 6+ years of RTTs (monthly) and GTs (3 to 6 annually), I think I have valid expertise or experience in citing trends and facts of results.

Experience after experience, it's the players in southern (and northern) Calif. that play different lists and win, because they're good. Better players than me modify their armies and switch codexes and usually defeat me, because I play poorly. Sometimes good players *do* stick with one thing for a long time, e.g. Brandon Grant & AM. However, Geoff Robinson plays Custodes and 'Nids and usually finishes at the top of tourneys. Nanavati & Nayden bring different lists to LVO every year.

#NameDroppin'

Perhaps I have not made Wayniac's point invalid, but it still is wrong when placed up to my experiences and the rankings in the ITC. Players' names, not their armies.

Let's look at the failures instead of the successes. There's valid info there.

I see the same Baby Seals in the kiddie pool, event after event, because we aren't that good. We play 'Net lists; we play fluffy lists. The consistent facts are the names of the dudes at the bottom. Not our armies. We're at the bottom tables because we forget to secure objective points, forget to 'kill one more', have poor target priority, we get "deer in the head lights" logic flinches: "Crap! I was gonna place this unit *there* but then I forgot and did that to protect this unit *here*. Damn-it! There goes Line Breaker!"


 oni wrote:
What we can look to as a juxtaposition are the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments. The armies that perform well and win at these events (and similar) are much different than those at ITC and Nova.
True, those army compositions may be different, but it doesn't have any bearing on our point, unless you'd like to point out some examples of "the results of GW's official Grand Tournaments." What GSC a top dog? Did Tau dominate the top tables? Did Sisters and GK shoulder out A.M. and the pure IK lists? Where were the elves?

Here's the Broadside Bash's top armies (from last weekend, April 13/14):
Imperium (Tallarn, an assassin & Grey Fax, no Imperial Knight)
Tau
Imperium (~85% Custodes & ~15%Admech)
Tyranids
Aeldari
Imperium (3 IKs and minimum A.M. battalion)
CSM
Cult Mechanicus
CSM & orks for places 9 and 10.

There are 3 Imperial lists, but each is vastly different (I have direct access to the list compositions on BestCoastPairings cuz I attended the event). The names in those top places are: G. Robinson, R. Ahumada (local top aeldari), D. Hooson (BAO '18 winner), Waddel's 'Nids. And Mr. Raspy voice himself, Reece won it all with those Tallarn, an inquisitor and assassin.

#NameDroppin'LikeItsHAWT!


It is still my 6+ years of tourney experience that I lose to the Brandon Grants whether he's playing Dark Angels, Sisters or A.M. Carlos Kaiser (some GT on the east coast) wallops me with Custodes, Blood Angels, CSM, daemons.

A local guy finishes 4 and 1 a lot, Jon Starks, druhkari. I beat him once, because *I* have been playing drukhari since last summer and and knew precisely what needed to be done to his drukhari. I went first, Doomed and snuffed the first set of Talos, wacked his ravagers next, etc. He's defeated me 2 other times.

I play "net lists" like Doom-farseer supported drukhari.

It's not necessarily the lists. It's the doods. And their Skillz.

If you're not winning, it's cuz you gotta git gud.



Well put!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/04/24 04:35:26


 
   
Made in us
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General






A garden grove on Citadel Station

For a player to be listed in ITC as a 'Renegades and Heretics' player, must they take only units with that keyword from the FW Index?

How about the blackstone fortress guys, or Daemons? Do they disqualify you back into 'Chaos Soup'?

ph34r's forgeworld Phobos blog
+From Iron Cometh Strength+ +From Strength Cometh Will+ +From Will Cometh Faith+ +From Faith Cometh Honor+ +From Honor Cometh Iron+
The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence?
When the history of my glory is written, your species shall only be a footnote to my magnificence.
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 OverwatchCNC wrote:
 Horst wrote:
Wagguy80 wrote:
I think many of the ITC deployment zones are too small for some armies. I would suggest a minimum of 400 sq/in per deployment zone which is still over 100 sq/in smaller than the standard BRB deployment zones.


Uh.... don't ITC deployment zones mirror BRB standard deployment zones?


Yeah... The ITC missions use the BRB deployments. So...


Yeah I apparently confused the way they drew their objectives placement with those being deployment zones. That said I've played 2 tournaments using ITC format since and I'm not impressed. First there is a bunch of wasted time choosing secondary objectives. Scoring is a crazy dance, and takes about as long. Overall not impressed with 8th edition in general, and it just feels like 8th edition with house rules.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Well, choosing secondary objectives doesn't take a lot of time if your familiar with them. Same for scoring objectives. It's an extra ~5 minutes maybe of book keeping. If you're new to ITC though, and aren't sure what secondaries there are (like if you don't have them memorized) then yea it adds a lot of extra time up front.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

Wagguy80 wrote:
That said I've played 2 tournaments using ITC format since and I'm not impressed. First there is a bunch of wasted time choosing secondary objectives. Scoring is a crazy dance, and takes about as long. Overall not impressed with 8th edition in general, and it just feels like 8th edition with house rules.

2 tourneys!
You gotta try some more before passing judgment. And experience will shorten the time for scoring and secondary choosing.

Secondaries: Yeah, I'm used to making sure I don't chose turkey ones, and others that are less attainable. At this point, the tourney regulars chose up pretty fast, and if I'm playing a newB, I help them chose what is good against my army, etc. Try 6 or so RTTs, and maybe 2 GTs. I think you'll find you'll get into the swing of things.

Kabalite Warriors: Not good for enginseers. Too fragile.
Any elvish army: Recon! Mobility means this army is likely to get table control
9 ogryn? Take King of the Hill
Opponent has a Castellan? Take Titan Slayer
Facing Drukhari with loads of venoms and kabalites? Take Butcher's Bill.
Facing Astra M with several tanks? Go with Big Game Hunter

There are many such 'auto' takes on Secondaries, but with 20 or so codecies/armies, it does make for variety, particularly with different loads of pbjecitves ... and doesn't this answer to some folks' complaints in earlier pages/posts that ITC formats didn't provide enough varetiy?

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Helpful advice I'm going to try to play a few more. However in two tournaments the first I took Eldar and I played poorly still won 2 out of 3 and felt like I was abusing people.
Second tournament I didn't want that so I took a balanced Imperial Fist army, and felt like I might as well not have bothered putting them on the table.
The game seems to be seriously lacking balance to me at the moment. Some models seem outright broken, while others utterly useless.

   
Made in us
Excellent Exalted Champion of Chaos





Wagguy80 wrote:
Helpful advice I'm going to try to play a few more. However in two tournaments the first I took Eldar and I played poorly still won 2 out of 3 and felt like I was abusing people.
Second tournament I didn't want that so I took a balanced Imperial Fist army, and felt like I might as well not have bothered putting them on the table.
The game seems to be seriously lacking balance to me at the moment. Some models seem outright broken, while others utterly useless.



That is a GW design feature, not a bug lol

GW points don't bring balance. They exist purely for structure. You can get more balance from no points than you do from GW points. You however can get no structure in your game without points. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

Wagguy80 wrote:
Helpful advice I'm going to try to play a few more.

Yay!!!!!


Wagguy80 wrote:
However in two tournaments the first I took Eldar and I played poorly still won 2 out of 3 and felt like I was abusing people.
Second tournament I didn't want that so I took a balanced Imperial Fist army, and felt like I might as well not have bothered putting them on the table.
The game seems to be seriously lacking balance to me at the moment. Some models seem outright broken, while others utterly useless.

3+ Wave Serpents and/or 3+ fliers. Don't feel bad.

*Never* feel bad! Crush them! Savor their salty tears of defeat! How'd Conan answer?
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women! "

Or, "... uv der vimen!"

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Los Angeles

miyaty,
You replied to a post made in January. There are 6 pages of this thread (I can see it's only your 2nd post). There are dates in the upper left near a poster's name and avatar/picture. Next time, you should read *aaaalllllll* the way through a thread as earl posts get 'lost' in the "conversation".

Anyway, welcome to dakka.

"You can bring any cheesy unit you want. If you lose. Casey taught me that." -Tim S.

"I'm gonna follow Casey; he knows where the beer's at!" -Blackmoor, BAO 2013

Quitting Daemon Princes, Bob and Fred - a 40k webcomic 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: