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.

skkipper wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/227900.page

your response should have been I don't play in gimmicky events any more.

ouch

skkipper wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/227900.page

your response should have been I don't play in gimmicky events any more.

Wow, congrats on being a creepy internet stalker of someone you don't know.

Good to see you have the time in your busy day to do that.

Like I said, your argument of "omg then make a better list" is just you not having an actual point to make and blindly defending bad lists and a silly format.

Would you also like the ETC to have painting and sportmanship scores? That way the lists can be explained away as at least being "fluffy"?


Actually, I will indulge your little tantrum. Here's a list that will negate lynchpin of every Chaos list being played:

HQ (transport or join a squad and hijack theirs)
Troops (transports)
3 Heavy Support (Preds, Russes, whatever you'd like here)
3 Fast Attack (Speeders, Valks/Vendettas, again whatever you'd like)
3 Elites (dreads, PSB in chimera, and on and on and on...)

That leaves you with some points to do whatever you want with other vehciles.

Oh look, I've magically rendered one list from each country useless. And that isn't even counting the lists that they made useless themselves.

Are we done here? Because I think we are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarthDiggler wrote:

skkipper wrote:http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/227900.page

your response should have been I don't play in gimmicky events any more.

ouch

Wow, aren't you being helpful.

When is summer vacation over again? This place is almost as bad as /tg/ when school is out.

Bunker wrote:


Actually, I will indulge your little tantrum. Here's a list that will negate lynchpin of every Chaos list being played:

HQ (transport or join a squad and hijack theirs)
Troops (transports)
3 Heavy Support (Preds, Russes, whatever you'd like here)
3 Fast Attack (Speeders, Valks/Vendettas, again whatever you'd like)
3 Elites (dreads, PSB in chimera, and on and on and on...)

That leaves you with some points to do whatever you want with other vehciles.

Oh look, I've magically rendered one list from each country useless. And that isn't even counting the lists that they made useless themselves.

Are we done here? Because I think we are.

Except you won't ever be matched against a Chaos list to "nullify" them, and your opponents will put you up against a dedicated anti-tank list...you lose. With this team tournament it adds the dimension (that you call a gimmick) that you need to analyze the lists as a set, not individually. Its like evaluating how efficient two similar models from different codex's are based on a direct comparison. At its most basic level analysis will look at individual pieces, proper analysis will look at the whole and the meta information that the whole attempts to leverage for advantage.

I do not expect that these lists were made in isolation from each other.

Later,
WR

But if all your teams are heavy mech then you might lose the one game to another teams anti-tank while you auto-win against the anti-horde army and then it's probable that you'll win more than half of the remaining games because people didn't expect that much heavy mech. See how easy it is to break the system?

Ugh.

Will everyone CALM DOWN now?

YES.

Any personal attacks on the other side of this post will be dealt with.

Harshly.

WhiteRaven wrote:

Bunker wrote:


Actually, I will indulge your little tantrum. Here's a list that will negate lynchpin of every Chaos list being played:

HQ (transport or join a squad and hijack theirs)
Troops (transports)
3 Heavy Support (Preds, Russes, whatever you'd like here)
3 Fast Attack (Speeders, Valks/Vendettas, again whatever you'd like)
3 Elites (dreads, PSB in chimera, and on and on and on...)

That leaves you with some points to do whatever you want with other vehciles.

Oh look, I've magically rendered one list from each country useless. And that isn't even counting the lists that they made useless themselves.

Are we done here? Because I think we are.

Except you won't ever be matched against a Chaos list to "nullify" them, and your opponents will put you up against a dedicated anti-tank list...you lose. With this team tournament it adds the dimension (that you call a gimmick) that you need to analyze the lists as a set, not individually. Its like evaluating how efficient two similar models from different codex's are based on a direct comparison. At its most basic level analysis will look at individual pieces, proper analysis will look at the whole and the meta information that the whole attempts to leverage for advantage.

I do not expect that these lists were made in isolation from each other.

Later,
WR

This goes back to my comment about the ETC being silly and a gimmick.

If you want to talk about "on the whole", then please don't ignore the facts that a) I made an all comers list, which is what you should do when you don't know exactly what you're facing (because list tailoring makes you look like a dink and you wouldn't know what your matchups are at the ETC until the captains pick them anyways) and b) the list as I posted it still has a bunch of points to spend on other stuff. so you can still "dedicate" if you want.

As for meta, when lists are as bass-ackwards as they are at the ETC, and you are basically having your opponent picked for you, or vice-versa, there becomes very little of anything that could be described as a meta. Gimmick tournaments throw "meta" out the window, that's kind of their whole point, to give bad lists a chance by changing the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hulksmash wrote:But if all your teams are heavy mech then you might lose the one game to another teams anti-tank while you auto-win against the anti-horde army and then it's probable that you'll win more than half of the remaining games because people didn't expect that much heavy mech. See how easy it is to break the system?

This, this A MILLION TIMES THIS.

You can easily stack the odds in your favor and against "heavy anti-mech" by just playing mech in every list. You'll lose maybe one game out of your series and probably walk away with the rest as massacres.

Gaming a system like this is just as easy as gaming one with soft scores. This is why playing ETC40k is bad.

WhiteRaven wrote:[

Except you won't ever be matched against a Chaos list to "nullify" them, and your opponents will put you up against a dedicated anti-tank list...you lose. With this team tournament it adds the dimension (that you call a gimmick) that you need to analyze the lists as a set, not individually. Its like evaluating how efficient two similar models from different codex's are based on a direct comparison. At its most basic level analysis will look at individual pieces, proper analysis will look at the whole and the meta information that the whole attempts to leverage for advantage.

I do not expect that these lists were made in isolation from each other.

Later,
WR

You sir, get a cookie for insightful appreciation of the complexity of this world championship.

Spacecurves wrote: world championship.

17 countries =/= the world.

17 countries =/= the world.

Different countries from around the world playing in a 40k championships. I think that should qualify as a world championships.

SilentBob367 wrote:

17 countries =/= the world.

Different countries from around the world playing in a 40k championships. I think that should qualify as a world championships.

man until you guys get the north koreans playing at the event you can't possibly call it a world champ. those guys would own that piece of junk space wolf army you are bringing.

Hi

Really, if you are trying to meta-out this tournament you need a bunch of armies with different roles. To my mind, having looked at this from a fantasy ETC perspective, with only cursory analysis of 40K - You need grinders, anti-armour strikers, and anti-horde strikers, an armoured force and a horde force.

To my mind - You probably want 4 armies that can grind it out and steal objectives. These are the armies that you are putting up for your opponent to strike at.

These armies need to be well-rounded because they will be hit with whatever extreme builds get launched at them. They have to be prepared to deal with any and all extremes, probably by being extremely good at objective based missions. If you put up an extreme build as one of your offereings, you are looking at having one of your "aces" having its teeth kicked in by its nemisis. To be perfectly honest, these 4 guys are looking for draws and hoping for small victories. Looking at the scoring format, they also want to keep the VP difference close to keep the 5 point modifier small. They would also be fine with taking a pounding and squeeking out the last turn objective grab for a small win.

Then you need your extreme lists - examples include a leaf blower, a green tide. There job is to go out and decimate the foe - in this case a very particular foe if your opponent puts up anything other than something well-rounded.

Remember that you need to earn 86 of 160 points between all 8 players to win the match. Every point counts. Your grinders need to grind out small losses and strikers need big victories.

Call it a gimmick if you want, but I call it a very interesting new layer to a competitive event.

Cheers,
Nate

carlosthecraven wrote:
Really, if you are trying to meta-out this tournament you need a bunch of armies with different roles. To my mind, having looked at this from a fantasy ETC perspective, with only cursory analysis of 40K - You need grinders, anti-armour strikers, and anti-horde strikers, an armoured force and a horde force.

To my mind - You probably want 4 armies that can grind it out and steal objectives. These are the armies that you are putting up for your opponent to strike at.

These armies need to be well-rounded because they will be hit with whatever extreme builds get launched at them. They have to be prepared to deal with any and all extremes, probably by being extremely good at objective based missions. If you put up an extreme build as one of your offereings, you are looking at having one of your "aces" having its teeth kicked in by its nemisis. To be perfectly honest, these 4 guys are looking for draws and hoping for small victories. Looking at the scoring format, they also want to keep the VP difference close to keep the 5 point modifier small. They would also be fine with taking a pounding and squeeking out the last turn objective grab for a small win.
...

I think this is an excellent post. Good analysis.

Personally, I'm a huge fan of different tournaments having widely different guidelines for scoring, list building, etc., as long as the guidelines are made public well in advance.

The best players are ones that can adapt to any situation. I believe that a truly skilled, competitive player would welcome any challenge, at widely different point values, with radically different guidelines for list building, missions, and scoring.

It is easy to specialize in a single niche and become very good at it. It takes a much more skilled player to be able to excel at a wider variety of situations.

I, personally, find the ETC format intriguing, and I would love to see some larger scale tournaments here in the USA try something similar.

In Emerson's words, "Foolish consistency...."

Redbeard wrote:

carlosthecraven wrote:
Really, if you are trying to meta-out this tournament you need a bunch of armies with different roles. To my mind, having looked at this from a fantasy ETC perspective, with only cursory analysis of 40K - You need grinders, anti-armour strikers, and anti-horde strikers, an armoured force and a horde force.

To my mind - You probably want 4 armies that can grind it out and steal objectives. These are the armies that you are putting up for your opponent to strike at.

These armies need to be well-rounded because they will be hit with whatever extreme builds get launched at them. They have to be prepared to deal with any and all extremes, probably by being extremely good at objective based missions. If you put up an extreme build as one of your offereings, you are looking at having one of your "aces" having its teeth kicked in by its nemisis. To be perfectly honest, these 4 guys are looking for draws and hoping for small victories. Looking at the scoring format, they also want to keep the VP difference close to keep the 5 point modifier small. They would also be fine with taking a pounding and squeeking out the last turn objective grab for a small win.
...

I think this is an excellent post. Good analysis.

+2

We have an event out here in the pacific northwest which is very similar to the ETC. It is more about drinking and having fun but it is very similar.

http://www.ordofanaticus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2401

I keep thinking that Team America put up fake lists for other countries, to lure them into a false sense of security.

Hulksmash wrote:But if all your teams are heavy mech then you might lose the one game to another teams anti-tank while you auto-win against the anti-horde army and then it's probable that you'll win more than half of the remaining games because people didn't expect that much heavy mech. See how easy it is to break the system?

Ah but how many top end competitive Mech capable books are out there? Cause each team member needs to be fielding an army from a different book...

Thus preventing from skewing to one aspect entirely...

WhiteRaven wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:But if all your teams are heavy mech then you might lose the one game to another teams anti-tank while you auto-win against the anti-horde army and then it's probable that you'll win more than half of the remaining games because people didn't expect that much heavy mech. See how easy it is to break the system?

Ah but how many top end competitive Mech capable books are out there? Cause each team member needs to be fielding an army from a different book...

Thus preventing from skewing to one aspect entirely...

Really?

Let's see there's:
Eldar
Dark eldar
Guard
Tau
Space wolves
Blood angels
Orks
Vanilla marines
Witch hunters


That about sum it up? That's more than enough books to fill a roster with.

Your argument doesn't make sense.

Yeah, Bunker hit the nail on the head. In fact I was surprised by the lack of DE overall. Only 2-3 of the countries attending brought them and they are just nasty. If you were gonna go mech death these are the codexes I'd take:

IG
SW
BA
SM
DE
Orks
WH

7 Teams right? Those would be my choices. Possibly swap Orks w/Eldar so that all my armies would have Psychic Defense (IG don't really need it).

I don't think lists are quite as skewed towards the event as some people appear to think. My impression is that there is a pretty strong correlation between the lists that have performed well at the GT and other reasonably sized tournaments, and what you find in the ETC lists. Lash placed 1st and 2nd in the GT this year, Seer Councils fought off for the 1st place last year, the English Orks won Warfare last year and a GT heat the year before I think, and our Dark Eldar player won Starsmash. None of these were comped events / soft scored events, and all had a lot of players (c70-150 region)

@ torgoch

That's a very impressive tournament record your team has amassed. Well done m8 .

G

Hulksmash wrote:Yeah, Bunker hit the nail on the head. In fact I was surprised by the lack of DE overall. Only 2-3 of the countries attending brought them and they are just nasty. If you were gonna go mech death these are the codexes I'd take:

IG
SW
BA
SM
DE
Orks
WH

7 Teams right? Those would be my choices. Possibly swap Orks w/Eldar so that all my armies would have Psychic Defense (IG don't really need it).

I'd leave the Orks in just because at 1750 you can easily field 5 battlewagons and watch your opponent poop their pants when they realize they brought plasma instead of melta.

Ahhhh, but with all the Bike councils that are being run it's like handing them an extra win. That's the only reason I'd consider dropping them

Why would you ever have your battlewagon orks matched up against the seer council list on the other side? With the format they use for determining who plays who, I see no reason why you cannot completely dodge extremely unfavourable matchups like that.

If they put out the seer council, you put something else up to fight them. If they put out a list that has even a marginally poor game against the battlewagons, then you put the battlewagons out to play them. There's no reason for the wagons to fight the seers.

It could happen though. That's something you have to consider happening.

Redbeard wrote:Why would you ever have your battlewagon orks matched up against the seer council list on the other side? With the format they use for determining who plays who, I see no reason why you cannot completely dodge extremely unfavourable matchups like that.

If they put out the seer council, you put something else up to fight them. If they put out a list that has even a marginally poor game against the battlewagons, then you put the battlewagons out to play them. There's no reason for the wagons to fight the seers.

Truth. I think the mistake Hulk and I keep making is forgetting about the whacky format

Personally against Seerdar I'd put up whoever on my side had IG. Nuking their fortune and making them LD2 is super hot

Sure, but they've got the same ability to dodge really bad matchups. They're not going to put a seerdar list up for you to pick what works against it, they're going to use it to go after one of your more generic lists.

But the problem is that it isn't always up to you which list plays whom. Sometimes, your opponent gets to respond to the list that you select.

Since you alternate who selects the player/army first, every other game will have your opponent selecting the most favorable army for them to play your selection.

Consequently, you cannot automatically assume that you will be able to always avoid unfavorable match-ups.

Redbeard wrote:Sure, but they've got the same ability to dodge really bad matchups. They're not going to put a seerdar list up for you to pick what works against it, they're going to use it to go after one of your more generic lists.

Wouldn't it be just as easy to assign those really bad matchups? The way I understand it is, one country puts up a list, then the other country reacts. Then it alternates. I would think it would be easier to grab one of those bad matchups than avoid it.

Edit: ninja'd.

It will be interesting if the batreps following the ETC go into detail in regards to how hte matchups were assigned.

G