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.

 

Overwall Winner was Pete Elias.

2nd place and Best General was Scott Simpson Can't remember who else won. Oh....Matt Lewandowski won 2nd overall in Warhammer.

I did win an Apocalypse book ( yay me....Thanks Dave Taylor).

Overall despite my horrible week ( car broke down, left my new army in it and could not get it back for 4 days, so I played an old army), I had a alot of fun. I went 2-3, lost 3 close games, and came in 87th. My list was not optimized for Blood Angels under the new rules...hell, it wasn't under the old rules, I made the list up the night before.

I met Centurian and ChaosBob from here.....heyas!

While I did have a lot of fun, I felt that the 2004 Baltimre GT was alot more fun....not due to GW's running of it...but in 2004 there were more people, and alot more armies that stood out. Here, there weren't any that really impressed me as being jaw dropping awesome. In 2004 there were Dave Taylor's Genswickers, Fabio Van Der Mewe's Deathwing, an awesmoe Slaanesh army, and a couple of cool Eldar forces....Maybe I missed the good armies.

Anyway, I hope everyone else had fun, and seeyas next year!

I heard some disappointing things about some of the missions that have me reconsidering playing 40k again. I heard that one mission was determined by who had more scoring units at the end of the game, making many matchups pointless to bother to play out.

Ummm...That would be one of the missions from the main 40k rulebook...Alpha level seek and destroy...

Yes, and it blows there too. It's completely inappropriate for a tournament.

Ed, if you want the lowdown on the missions the Bell of Lost Souls has a pretty in-depth review of them about 2/3's of the way down the page.

From Bell of Lost Souls:



That's awesome. In fact, that's nothing short of amazing.

Posted By bigchris1313 on 11/04/2007 8:59 PM
From Bell of Lost Souls:

Overall, it was a lot of fun and the prize support was amazing [...] For the last place finisher they had a special prize, The Warhammer Fantasy starter box set.

That's awesome. In fact, that's nothing short of amazing.

It is indeed awesome.

"You suck at 40K kid, go start WHFB instead. Maybe you can win at that game..."

I think the reason you dident see that many cool armies at this one is...very few armies now are actually competative.  Remember back in 3rd ed any good general with a good build was just as likely to walk away with it all?  Yeah 4th killed that, there are top tier armies and there is everything else.  Sure some tourneys are won by the lucky wild card, but for most there predicted by how many of which army shows up.  This editions balance gets a big thumbs down from me.

I think he is talking about painting and modeling, not themed lists.

And if you think there there are only a few competative builds, I would say you are wrong.

Pete won with Chaos, and everyone says that they have a craptacular codex.

Oh yeah, those were the days. Space marines and their rhinos painted in every conceivable color. Red, blue, light blue, black, pink, gray, good, bad. Lots of creativity and variety back then.


Would work for Fantasy->40k, but for 40k they should suggest Checkers or Parcheesi.

Mission 5...just kill, baby! Very stupid for a GT.

Turn 1: Kill everything that can't fit behind cover.
Turn 2-6: Lurk.

Oh...and escalation missions are not allowed because that would be unfair to Nidzilla lists.

I had a great time and GW did a great job making sure the games started on time.

On the missions: I actually liked the direction they're taking the missions in, with multiple objectives, sometimes contradictory ones (i.e. keeping your own scoring units alive for thet primary/destroying enemy units for the secondary). As with any new things, there's a bit of a learning curve for Dave Taylor and co, because objective missions are a bit different than the VP missions that they've been using.

If I had any complaints, its that in several of the missions, achieving the primary mission seemed to more or less give you the secondary and tertiary objectives as well, and that no draws were really possible.

Anyways, full report will be up on my blog this week - let's just say my mantra was, "I should have brought Guard or 'Nids". 5-3 record overall with my Daemonhunters, between the Ard Boyz and the GT (2-1 @ Ard Boyz, 3-2 @ GT).

B

I liked what they were trying to do with the missions.

It looks like they were trying to duplicate the Adepticon missions that have 3 very different goals for their primary, secondary and tertiary goals. But I think the problem was that they were hamstrung by the fact that they published the missions ahead of time, so you ended up basically fighting 2 missions at the same time for your goals (For example playing seek and destroy for primary, and cleanse for secondary).

The problem lies in the fact that if you get the primary objective, you are very, very likely to get the secondary.

You need goals that are very different, and goals that you can either achieve, fail, or both get (tie). That way you get a better spread in the scores.

Did any of you guys see the 40k Bretonnian Chaos army? I didn't get to go to Baltimore, so I sent that in my place (I painted it for a friend).

Good work on the painting. I saw it, but I'm unsure if I have photos of it. I took a lot of photos that weekend of some very well painted armies.

yeah, i saw it too. Nice.

Lots of interesting conversions and paint jobs.

As a side not...I over heard one guy complaining because the army he was using got a lower painting score than the one HE painted for a friend...so he knew exactly how much effort went into each.

*palm meets forehead*

Actually, I thought the painting scores were much more consistent than they were at the Chicago GT (where an army that was painted in tandem by two people got two wildly different scores.)

Hi Keith,

I really enjoyed our game. How did you win an Apocalypse book?

 

 

Bob, our game was alot of fun. I'd like to get a rematch against your list sometime!

Apparently it was a door prize. They took the ticket stub you turned in and drew it out.

I already have an Apocalypse book, and I also didn't feel right winning one when I get them cheaper, so I looked up and saw Joe sitting there and he's a terrific guy and alot of fun to play so I was like...here you go.

 

So Peter Elias won with Chaos. That is very impressive. Does anyone know what his army build was like? Also, what armies did he face?

Darrian

He used Mike's army that he won the LVGT with. I have asked to borrow it for the next GT, so I have dibbs!

He had a Lash Lord and a Tzeentch Sorcerer for his HQ. Then it looked like a pretty normal chaos army.

Posted By Hellfury on 11/04/2007 9:06 PM

Posted By bigchris1313 on 11/04/2007 8:59 PM
From Bell of Lost Souls:

Overall, it was a lot of fun and the prize support was amazing [...] For the last place finisher they had a special prize, The Warhammer Fantasy starter box set.

That's awesome. In fact, that's nothing short of amazing.

It is indeed awesome.

"You suck at 40K kid, go start WHFB instead. Maybe you can win at that game..."

GW Canada has been doing that for years, it's pretty funny, because that's almost exactly how they present it.

Here's Pete's totally abusive and extremely powerful list (can you sense the sarcasm?):

Lash Sorcerer on a bike with melta bombs
Warp time sorcerer on a bike with melta bombs
(5) man chosen with lascannon, 2-power weapons and MoG
(10) man las/plas w/ PW and MoG
(10) man las/plas w/ PF and MoG
(5) man havoc w/ 2 autocannons, 2 HBs and MoG
Greater Demon
(5) lesser demons
2x(3) obliterators

I'm not sure about opponents, but will try to get that info for everyone later.

Played against Pete in Game 4 - balanced army and a great player.  He made a great move on turn 2 to change the game around.

If you know him - pass on my congrats again to him.  Well played.

Yes that is impressive with the new Chaos.

- G

good job, pete.

Posted By Blackmoor on 11/06/2007 4:39 AM
He used Mike's army that he won the LVGT with. I have asked to borrow it for the next GT, so I have dibbs!

He had a Lash Lord and a Tzeentch Sorcerer for his HQ. Then it looked like a pretty normal chaos army.

yeah hasn't that brought about alot of discussion in the tourney communtity? how does someone gain overall (which is support the whole of the hobby, or so I heard, when it wasn't assembled, painted, or even created by the person using it.) winner? 

anyways,

Yeah, THT. That's what has me concerned too. If overall is meant to mean "this player is the best of all aspects, combining painting, sportsmanship, and generalship", then how is this higher-tier award given to some guy who shouldn't even win one of the lower-tier awards (i.e. painting in this case)?

It's clearly in the rules of the tournament that you can win overall even if you didn't paint the army. So if anything complain to GW but not about Pete's win.

Posted By Fatman on 11/09/2007 8:26 AM
It's clearly in the rules of the tournament that you can win overall even if you didn't paint the army. So if anything complain to GW but not about Pete's win.

quite frankly, I can complain about both.  personally, IIRC if you don't paint the army you get a flat goose egg on scoring, with that done, how in hells bells does one even come close to hitting top level with a big fat 0 in there amongst the other scores?  Best general? sure. Best sportsman? sure. Best overall?  umm..... 

so, i guess i have issues with both.