Switch Theme:

Adepticon Championship Top 16 Lists...  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut





Pasadena

ShumaGorath wrote:
I disagree. If I build an all comer list I don't really have any bad match-ups. Same goes for most of the known GT winners that I know. It might be that you struggle at providing yourself the tools you need and so see bad match-ups more frequently.


Or it could be that you're playing one of the metas current top armies.


Umm... He specifically mentions playing Nids against mech guard in his post...

Let's try to not turn this thread into the "GK are overpowered zomg" mini thread now that the original has finally been closed.

I fully agree with Hulk. A well built list can take on anyone. Perhaps not Tau or sister, but all the other codices made appearances this last season in the top 16. Nids even won Kingdom Con just a few weeks ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
We're not just talking gk. Hulk specifically spoke of his nids and other armies. I play gk, ig, eldar and the same philosophy applies


So two of the three armies that have good all comers lists and one with a good standard list set that can easily defang GKs and win GTs as long as it doesn't have to face mech spam. I'm sure you're a brilliant general, we're not talking about bad players here and I'm not trying to imply skill doesn't exist, but until I actually start seeing a varied field of winners in GTs and other major tournaments than I'm not going to be convinced that "the only difference is the player". Were that the case you wouldn't all have GK and IG armies and someone would of taken nids to adepticon.

When was the last GT he won with the bikes and what did he face?Was it during the reign of mech guard? Did he ever roll up against an ork army with 220+ orks? Draigowing?



That is exactly what you seem to be implying.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/02 19:40:58


Las Vegas Open Head Judge
I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings or pride, but your credentials matter. Even on the internet.
"If you do not have the knowledge, you do not have the right to the opinion." -Plato

 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

@Redbeard

Shuma stated that there are match-ups that will have good players praying for a tie. I disagreed with that. I probably should have stated it more clearly but I was using bad match-up in the sense that Shuma was, i.e. an unwinnable game.

@Shuma

I play Tyranids, Orks, Daemons, DA, SW, all foot GK's, Necrons, and am currently building my IW's to be played as basic SM's and CSM's. I play in a lot of events. I place well in 99% of the events I attend. I've been to exactly 2 RTT's in the last year that I didn't take home General or Overall. Oddly one of those was with GK In GT's I normally finish relatively high competitively with my overall depending on which army I brought for appearance. I'm a relatively smart guy and feel I have a bit of a grasp on this hobby.

Honestly you have a tendency to inflame your posts with so much hyperbole that I'm not sure you even play the same game. And as a sidenote I could build a Generic SM list that could handle Draigo & Horde Orks (and have tools for the other threats in between) and I could build Tau the same way in your example. Sorry man. Spend less time ranting and more time playing and you'll be surprised.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

Dugg wrote:@Redbeard- I would just like to point out my BattleWagon Ork list beats all 3, Deathwing, Horde Orks& Mech Guard continuously at Tournaments.


Dugg, I'd like to point out that you beat all three continuously at tournaments.

One problem I see in discussions like this is the really good players come in and say they have no bad matchups (ever) and back it up by pointing to their own wins. But that isn't necessarily proof that you don't have a bad matchup, it is simply proof that you're good enough of a player to beat inferior opponents in spite of the bad matchup.

The concept of having both good and bad matchups isn't hard to prove logically. Visiting theoretical land (like that place in physics class where there is no friction or air resistance), if you have an opponent of equal skill, with an identical list, you should win 50% of your games. If he keeps his list constant, and you make a change that increases your winning percentage, you now have a good matchup, and he has a bad matchup. You have a greater than 50% winning percentage, and he has less than 50%.

I think that matchups play a far smaller role than player skill. But I think that matchups are a factor, and they're one that, over the course of an eight round tournament that you need to go undefeated to win, can have an impact, and accepting some unfavourable matchups, especially if you do not expect to face those archetypes, can pay off well if it increases your chance of winning the matchups that you do expect to have.

   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

Honestly you have a tendency to inflame your posts with so much hyperbole that I'm not sure you even play the same game. And as a sidenote I could build a Generic SM list that could handle Draigo & Horde Orks (and have tools for the other threats in between) and I could build Tau the same way in your example. Sorry man. Spend less time ranting and more time playing and you'll be surprised.


What are those lists? What is the tau list specifically? I do have quite a bit of hyperbole in my posts and I'll try to step it down, but the tau community would probably love to know what that list is. No player I've ever seen has found it.

Sorry man. Spend less time ranting and more time playing and you'll be surprised.


I'd say to put your money where your mouth is but you've done that with the power armies listed. That leaves me to as wheres your GT with tau? Nids? Space marines? Where is anyones tyranid GT?

I rant alot because this game is fundamentally imbalanced and some players are willing to state beyond logic that despite severe and visible codex imbalance "skill trumps all". Logically that would mean that two skilled players would win based on codex balance. That appears to be how virtually every major event ends, so I'm not sure where the tau white knighting is coming from. I don't see people arguing that codex imbalance doesn't exist, just that it can be overcome by player skill. There are two sides to that coin though, and if you're a skilled player and they're a skilled player than something has to give and it's going to be a break based on matchup imbalance much of the time.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/05/02 20:00:08


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





What Redbeard is describing is largely what was the state of Eldar during the 4th edition era. The armies that hard countered them (orks and IG) were used so infrequently and MEQ was so common that you could really dominate with Eldar by just tailoring to kill marines and ignoring anything else. Meanwhile the MEQ guys were so busy optimizing for each other that all they could manage to do about it was whine and cry until the book got nerfed.

I think there is definately an elite set of armies, but the dispairity is nowhere near what fantasy is like. Cheese Wolves make Nids cry and specific GK builds (hint not Draigo) take a giant dump on Nids, Orks, and BAs, but outside that skill can close the gap.

And I would just like to say that we should disregard any balance discussion where a book written by Cruddace is involved. Say what you want about Matt 3++ Ward, at least his books have a lot of variety and age well.
   
Made in us
[ARTICLE MOD]
Fixture of Dakka






Chicago

ShumaGorath wrote:
I rant alot because this game is fundamentally imbalanced and some players are willing to state beyond logic that despite severe and visible codex imbalance "skill trumps all".


I don't think anyone has said skill trumps all. But, on relatively even footing - such as at a very large event where most players have gravitated towards the more powerful armies, skill will usually be the deciding factor. Players with skill who opt to take less competitive armies will lose games when they encounter equally skilled players with better armies.


Logically that would mean that two skilled players would win based on codex balance. That appears to be how virtually every major event ends, so I'm not sure where the tau white knighting is coming from. I don't see people arguing that codex imbalance doesn't exist, just that it can be overcome by player skill. There are two sides to that coin though, and if you're a skilled player and they're a skilled player than something has to give and it's going to be a break based on matchup imbalance much of the time.


Or one player being drunk, or hungover, or sick. Or one mistake. Your logic here is good - when presented with two players of equal skill, something else has to be the deciding factor. And sometimes it will be the matchup, and sometimes the mission will favour one person, and sometimes going first will be the deciding factor and sometimes a fluke dieroll will do it. But most games aren't played between equally skilled opponents, and one player will be in a better position to exploit a mistake or recover from a fluke roll. And that's where those skill differences show up.

   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

@Shuma

Provide me a basic template and I'll knock it out for you Shuma. Because if I put up a list based on what I think DOA or GK lists look like you'll scream murder that it can't handle what you see as those lists. PM me and we'll continue the discussion.

@Phazael

I know I was hella successful in 4th with my Orks because I geared them to kill marines. Ahhhh, the good ol'days when 80% of the field was in power armor....

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

I don't think anyone has said skill trumps all. But, on relatively even footing - such as at a very large event where most players have gravitated towards the more powerful armies, skill will usually be the deciding factor.


Yes, intercodex games are inherently balanced. The problem is you're reaching the end of an imbalanced field of imbalanced games to have a series of well balanced top games. That bleed off is a symptom of an imbalanced game.

Provide me a basic template and I'll knock it out for you Shuma. Because if I put up a list based on what I think DOA or GK lists look like you'll scream murder that it can't handle what you see as those lists. PM me and we'll continue the discussion.


Will do!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/02 20:10:29


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






San Jose, CA

Hulksmash wrote:@Phazael

I know I was hella successful in 4th with my Orks because I geared them to kill marines. Ahhhh, the good ol'days when 80% of the field was in power armor....
What, 2 weeks ago qualifies as the good ol' days now? The Team Tournament was totally power-armor-mad this year.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? 
   
Made in us
Waaagh! Warbiker





San Diego

I think it breaks down to 33% List, 33% Player Skill, 33% Dice.

Warboss of Team TableWar Team Zero Comp RankingsHQ Rank
12,000+ Evil Sunz ... and a whole lotta WAAAGH!!! 4,000+ Space Marines 3,500+ Chaos Space Marines 3,000+ Imperial Guard

 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Falls Church, VA

ShumaGorath wrote:
We're not just talking gk. Hulk specifically spoke of his nids and other armies. I play gk, ig, eldar and the same philosophy applies


So two of the three armies that have good all comers lists and one with a good standard list set that can easily defang GKs and win GTs as long as it doesn't have to face mech spam. I'm sure you're a brilliant general, we're not talking about bad players here and I'm not trying to imply skill doesn't exist, but until I actually start seeing a varied field of winners in GTs and other major tournaments than I'm not going to be convinced that "the only difference is the player". Were that the case you wouldn't all have GK and IG armies and someone would of taken nids to adepticon. It's inane that you can stand there and pretend that every army can make a tournament winning all comers list with such red herrings as tau and DAs who both have armies that they can't beat being both popular and easily run.

When was the last GT he won with the bikes and what did he face?Was it during the reign of mech guard? Did he ever roll up against an ork army with 220+ orks? Draigowing?



I've never said "the only difference is the player" my quote in my last post would be "It's mainly the player once you start talking gt play and not just shop level fun games." And I'm by no means a brilliant general, I probably play better than most, but I've had games against guys that think circles around me tactically, which are some of the most fun games I have.

Army does matter, and a lot of GT regulars/GT players (and I mean no offense) just aren't the caliber of players that are going to win a GT yet. Many are at their first GT, or go to GTs for a variety of reasons other than trying to win the whole thing. Also, not everyone "gets it" when it comes to tactics/strategy/winning missions, not killing models. Many of these players look at the internet or read the new codex, see shiny toys and go "this is my ticket! I can win with this!", which (imo) is part of the reason you see the surge in armies in the year following codex release that later dies down as those same players realize "crap, I'm still not winning, it must be something with this army" and then jump on the next bandwagon.

Part of the reason you don't see GT's being won by every different book is just that there aren't that many, of the GT's we regularly report on/here about, we probably have what, 10-20 per year? We have ~14 (i dont remember...someone correct me) books right now, it stands to reason that GT's arent going to be evenly distributed among them when they aren't equally represented. If you were to look within the last ~2 years (which would be during IG's reign and GK's "reign') you've had a good distribution of winning books.

These are from the top of my head, and are heavily skewed towards east coast events as it's what I know..

Necrons - Indy GT, SVDM
GK's - Adepticon, Conflict, BFS
IG - BAO, BFS, Conflict, SVDM
Nids - Battle for Blobs Park
Dark Eldar - Colonial GT
SW - NOVA Open
BA - Mechanicon
Black Templar - Da Boyz
SM - Colonial GT
Eldar - Im pretty sure reecius or greg won one in the past year or two with footdar, might be Da Boyz from not this past year, but the year before....

That's all that's coming to mind atm, but is by no means exhaustive, and many of the other books and the books above have placed highly in those events (winning isn't everything, winning a GT involves good play and a decent dose of luck/etc. in pairings, opponent skill, dice, etc. to make sure you're maxing points unless it's a win/loss environment, being 'one of the best' means you'll consistently place highly probably, it takes a bit of lady luck to push into #1 outside of win/loss typically)

Heck, that list above from memory is 10 books out of ~14!

As to my friend Dameon's Khan Bikers, his win came last year during Mech IGs lolling period before GK hit, and he's continued to place highly since, though he hasnt locked in another win yet (I think he took 2nd at Blob's Park and 3-5th at Mechanicon). He has played both horde orks (he tabled it) and Draigo (he outmanuevared it) on multiple occasions. Thunderfires are a rediculously wonderful multi-tool, they slow Draigowings waddle to a slow shamble a zombie would be ashamed of and annihilate weakly armored mass troops (orks), they crap on tanks that need to move (assault vehicles like raiders and ravens) with the difficult terrain ammo, etc etc. Other than that, most games nowadays are mission based, not meat grinders, and that's how lists that don't appear as strong win a lot of the time.

My .02 at least on it. Player skill at GT's is the most important factor (but not the only).
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




What Andrew said. Player skill accounts for a good deal more than 50% of the reason people win, and win consistently. Not dice (which most often come into play in CLOSE games, where bad dice one way or another can skew it ... but there's a reason the game is CLOSE in the first place, and it's not dice or list always at all). Certainly not list, as at the higher points levels the US plays at, most people can fit in the basic requirements for competitive play without being a netlist, and with a lot of wonky units (footdar, close range strakenguard, multi-raven whacky GK, giant GH squad w/ Njal SW, etc.).

The reality of results at the GT level are what show you the realities of the game across multi-game sets competitively. It's just not as homogenous and spammy/repetitive-list as people affirm, and there's no real evidence to support the affirmation that it is.
   
Made in us
Sergeant Major






In the dark recesses of your mind...

Redbeard wrote:

One problem I see in discussions like this is the really good players come in and say they have no bad matchups (ever) and back it up by pointing to their own wins. But that isn't necessarily proof that you don't have a bad matchup, it is simply proof that you're good enough of a player to beat inferior opponents in spite of the bad matchup.



Perhaps the point is that the 'bad matchup' gap between certain army builds only appears to be wide to players who aren't interested in becoming good players. To those players, a so-called bad matchup might seem like a huge impediment, but to a veteran who invests a lot of thought into his gameplay, those gaps become rather small. It might not be so much an issue of game imbalance as it is an issue of player skill, and no amount of complaining in forums will improve player skill, only playing games will.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Just because it is called "The Executioners Axe" doesn't mean it is an axe...


azreal13 wrote:Dude, each to their own and all that, but frankly, if Dakka's interplanetary flame cannon of death goes off point blank in your nads you've nobody to blame but yourself!


 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

I've never said "the only difference is the player" my quote in my last post would be "It's mainly the player once you start talking gt play and not just shop level fun games." And I'm by no means a brilliant general, I probably play better than most, but I've had games against guys that think circles around me tactically, which are some of the most fun games I have.

Army does matter, and a lot of GT regulars/GT players (and I mean no offense) just aren't the caliber of players that are going to win a GT yet. Many are at their first GT, or go to GTs for a variety of reasons other than trying to win the whole thing. Also, not everyone "gets it" when it comes to tactics/strategy/winning missions, not killing models. Many of these players look at the internet or read the new codex, see shiny toys and go "this is my ticket! I can win with this!", which (imo) is part of the reason you see the surge in armies in the year following codex release that later dies down as those same players realize "crap, I'm still not winning, it must be something with this army" and then jump on the next bandwagon.


Your opinions are a lot more acceptable/understandable explained like this. In your first post when you insisted that with the correct list you should never run into a match that is seriously skewed I was a bit put out. Having experience with multiple armies (including tyranids, generic SMs, and BA) I have found that in all three cases there were hard walls where I had to tailor a list specifically to have a chance against certain popular tournament builds, and that tailoring made my list almost unplayable against certain others. It's the nature of lists like draigowing, horde orks, or all mech IG to have exceptionally favorable chances against "all comers lists" based on the absolute nature of their respective defensive measures (horde, unkillable KP denial, mechs spam).

If I roll up with an assault based mechanized BA force in rhinos/dev support (the army I'm currently painting) I'm going to have a very difficult match against draigowing when two objectives are on the table (presuming I have to win to place reasonably). I'll have a much easier matchup when there are three or more and I have no chance at all in kill points.

The first two I can take in stride as being a natural part of the game, but looking down the barrel of a double draigowing block at 1850 in kill points makes me want to slap someone. What level of skill is going to win the day for me? There's no chance of grabbing a "quick kill point" and hiding my fast rhinos from his firepower. The attempt would likely lose me more kill points in two turns than he has in his army. What alternatives do I have but to either alter my army to fight a GK centric meta (which costs me dearly if I face dark eldar or mech IG)?

My .02 at least on it. Player skill at GT's is the most important factor (but not the only).


I consider myself a player that is good at this game, I routinely do well at my small pond local tournies and I have an inclination towards mathhammer that helps me make good decisions on the table. I believe I could (in an even field) do well in a GT with the army that I have. I also believe that I wouldn't have made it past the first round at adepticon because one of the people I would play day one would probably be draigowing and thats almost an impossible matchup for me to win in several of the games most used scenarios (I don't know what adepticons specific missions are). My opinion of the balanced nature of 40k has been greatly soured in the last few years by repeated situations like this in the meta.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MVBrandt wrote:What Andrew said. Player skill accounts for a good deal more than 50% of the reason people win, and win consistently. Not dice (which most often come into play in CLOSE games, where bad dice one way or another can skew it ... but there's a reason the game is CLOSE in the first place, and it's not dice or list always at all). Certainly not list, as at the higher points levels the US plays at, most people can fit in the basic requirements for competitive play without being a netlist, and with a lot of wonky units (footdar, close range strakenguard, multi-raven whacky GK, giant GH squad w/ Njal SW, etc.).

The reality of results at the GT level are what show you the realities of the game across multi-game sets competitively. It's just not as homogenous and spammy/repetitive-list as people affirm, and there's no real evidence to support the affirmation that it is.


Almost half the GTs he just listed were won by IG or GKs, that's actually kinda damning. It's not a complete list at all however, so it's not particularly amazing evidence for either opinion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/02 22:28:50


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say





Los Angeles, CA

OverwatchCNC wrote:So where are people to turn for advice?


Meeeeeee!!!

Would you mind PM'ing me your list Shuma? It sounds like you are having the same problem I was having with BA until recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, some quick advice for your paladin matchup... If you are running a rhino rush list against a 2 squad draigowing, then you should have all the tools you need to win in tank shocks. Positioning is key in that match and being able to run red tanks down their throat is a great way to get them off the board.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/02 23:06:13



http://www.3forint.com/ Back in Action! 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

Dok wrote:
OverwatchCNC wrote:So where are people to turn for advice?


Meeeeeee!!!

Would you mind PM'ing me your list Shuma? It sounds like you are having the same problem I was having with BA until recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, some quick advice for your paladin matchup... If you are running a rhino rush list against a 2 squad draigowing, then you should have all the tools you need to win in tank shocks. Positioning is key in that match and being able to run red tanks down their throat is a great way to get them off the board.


The threat range on a pally brick is 30 inches and that army will bring down two to six rhinos on average a turn depending on how many psyfles he has. If the wing player moves right he'll be able to bring down four rhinos with just the bricks before I have a chance to tank shock them. If he positions them ~10 inches apart than I'm only really likely to get 2 shocks out of six rhinos (which is the max number i'd field at 1850-2000) before they're all gone and he's unlikely to fail either with standard roles. That's all very board dependent mind you, blocking terrain would help or hurt a lot. I'll send you the 1500 and 1850 lists I've been using lately.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/02 23:37:39


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Falls Church, VA

ShumaGorath wrote:
Dok wrote:
OverwatchCNC wrote:So where are people to turn for advice?


Meeeeeee!!!

Would you mind PM'ing me your list Shuma? It sounds like you are having the same problem I was having with BA until recently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, some quick advice for your paladin matchup... If you are running a rhino rush list against a 2 squad draigowing, then you should have all the tools you need to win in tank shocks. Positioning is key in that match and being able to run red tanks down their throat is a great way to get them off the board.


The threat range on a pally brick is 30 inches and that army will bring down two to six rhinos on average a turn depending on how many psyfles he has. If the wing player moves right he'll be able to bring down four rhinos with just the bricks before I have a chance to tank shock them. If he positions them ~10 inches apart than I'm only really likely to get 2 shocks out of six rhinos (which is the max number i'd field at 1850-2000) before they're all gone and he's unlikely to fail either with standard roles. That's all very board dependent mind you, blocking terrain would help or hurt a lot. I'll send you the 1500 and 1850 lists I've been using lately.


@the comment shuma made on my quick/dirty list of gt wins: you asked for any gt's earlier that the other books had won, that was the purpose of the list, 10+ books have won GT's in the last year or two. Some more than others, yes, but your assertion that only IG and GK win is incorrect. I also find it sad that SOB havent won, because they've got a nice all comers list at present, but the lack of a real book + no new models + expensive mono pose old models isn't exactly drawing people in to playing it.

@draigowing commentary

A two brick paladin list will not have any psyfles (or at most one), which is why you just don't see many of those, they lose their mobility and long range threats. (An allocated + apothecary brick = 750 ish points, 2 of those + draigo is basically the entire army).

The more "competitive" version of the list is the Draigo - Coteaz style, with one brick + coteaz to provide cheap scorers and fire support.

In an adepticon style game, and this is a brief rundown, a two brick list isn't too hard to beat (ie, it doesn't skew the match), as three objectives are in play at all times and the player with more wins. So if one is KP, you can still achieve the other 2. The draigo-coteaz list also isn't too harsh, as the price it pays for having coteaz + fire support is that it loses the KP denial aspect. Draigo-Coteaz with a couple psyfles and ~4 psybacks + cargo clocks in at ~12 kp. Go for the low-hanging fruit and then use terrain to ignore the brick.

A good example (and I don't think it was recorded or batrepped unfortunately) was how Tony beat Paul Murphy in the semi-finals at adepticon (im pretty sure this was the match). It was draigo - coteaz against SW's. Tony took out what he needed of the weaker elements, and then hid from the brick, even going so far as to move his longfangs off of a hill, out of los, and forgoing shooting with them. Once he was up KP's and had killed Paul's long range shooting, he didnt need to deal with the brick.

PM over your BA list, I'd be curious to see it and might be able to suggest helpful changes/tactical options to deal with your problem lists. BA have all the tools they need to be competitive, and against a draigo style list you should be able to function similarly to how Tony played versus Paul (Tony plays grey hunters in rhinos, Njal, some long fangs (devs), and some scouts), if your list is mech BA + devs, it shouldn't be too different.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

@Target

You missed CSM at Bugeater (for tactical, Eldar won overall)
and Nids at KingdomCon.

Not sure if there are others but I'm pretty sure there is

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Falls Church, VA

Hulksmash wrote:@Target

You missed CSM at Bugeater (for tactical, Eldar won overall)
and Nids at KingdomCon.

Not sure if there are others but I'm pretty sure there is


Anything west of Pennsylvania doesn't exist to my geographically stunted brain.
   
Made in us
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




CSM won midwest Ard Boyz this year.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





ShumaGorath wrote:
IMO the more skilled and experienced player almost always wins, probably 95%+ of the time. If the players are basically equivalent it may be more like a coin flip. I suspect one is usually more experienced or thoughtful and so I wouldn't think there would be too many 50/50 games. In multiple games where you select your materials and that include luck I've noticed that when the remaining players are all godlike whoever takes the meta into account usually has a huge advantage. There really should be very few terrible match ups and even those can easily be overcome by skillful play and capitalizing on the many mistakes that all but the best make in each game.


This is a wholly unrealistic view of 40k as a competitive game in my opinion. I'm likely more of a pessimist than you, but this game is riven with terrible matchups that would see the best player on earth praying for a tie. 40k isn't even close to having unified balance across all factions and it has no mechanic what so ever to fix matchup imbalances (something that every other competitive game of this nature has). If 40k had rules for sideboarding and the codexes weren't written by stooges the core mechanics of the game could provide for some very balanced matches. We don't have those though, and as it is if tau roll up against horde orks, tyranids role up against mech IG, or BAs roll up against draigowing they might as well not bother deploying at all.


I never said anything about game balance, I was talking about the limited roll of luck in the game. Do you know players who win 95% of their games and that remaining 5% is coin flipish games vs other strong players? I know at least 10 players like that.

No one should be bringing a list that instead of well rounded is heavily specialized, assuming they want a shot at winning the tournament. When Tau get an assault unit or improved shooting, when nids become faster and get some decent long range shooting, when BA's are no longer redudant to GK... then you might want to think about taking those to a tournament.

Controlling tempo through reserve deployment is very powerful. So you are right, if those people bring those kind of armies you mentioned they should play very carefully against many of the stronger armies. They also should only bring them to W/L tournaments or at least no BP tournaments with huge fields.

"There's something out there and it ain't no man..... we're all gonna die" 
   
Made in us
!!Goffik Rocker!!





(THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

Shinkaze wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
IMO the more skilled and experienced player almost always wins, probably 95%+ of the time. If the players are basically equivalent it may be more like a coin flip. I suspect one is usually more experienced or thoughtful and so I wouldn't think there would be too many 50/50 games. In multiple games where you select your materials and that include luck I've noticed that when the remaining players are all godlike whoever takes the meta into account usually has a huge advantage. There really should be very few terrible match ups and even those can easily be overcome by skillful play and capitalizing on the many mistakes that all but the best make in each game.


This is a wholly unrealistic view of 40k as a competitive game in my opinion. I'm likely more of a pessimist than you, but this game is riven with terrible matchups that would see the best player on earth praying for a tie. 40k isn't even close to having unified balance across all factions and it has no mechanic what so ever to fix matchup imbalances (something that every other competitive game of this nature has). If 40k had rules for sideboarding and the codexes weren't written by stooges the core mechanics of the game could provide for some very balanced matches. We don't have those though, and as it is if tau roll up against horde orks, tyranids role up against mech IG, or BAs roll up against draigowing they might as well not bother deploying at all.


I never said anything about game balance, I was talking about the limited roll of luck in the game. Do you know players who win 95% of their games and that remaining 5% is coin flipish games vs other strong players? I know at least 10 players like that.

No one should be bringing a list that instead of well rounded is heavily specialized, assuming they want a shot at winning the tournament. When Tau get an assault unit or improved shooting, when nids become faster and get some decent long range shooting, when BA's are no longer redudant to GK... then you might want to think about taking those to a tournament.

Controlling tempo through reserve deployment is very powerful. So you are right, if those people bring those kind of armies you mentioned they should play very carefully against many of the stronger armies. They also should only bring them to W/L tournaments or at least no BP tournaments with huge fields.


I misunderstood the intentions of your post than, I apologize. I find it a bit questionable that you know 10 people that win 19 our of every 20 games though...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Target wrote:

PM over your BA list, I'd be curious to see it and might be able to suggest helpful changes/tactical options to deal with your problem lists. BA have all the tools they need to be competitive, and against a draigo style list you should be able to function similarly to how Tony played versus Paul (Tony plays grey hunters in rhinos, Njal, some long fangs (devs), and some scouts), if your list is mech BA + devs, it shouldn't be too different.


Sure, I'll mirror the PM I sent to Dok.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/03 04:30:38


----------------

Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




9 pages later and BoK is still down with no mirrors listed here. Sad Chipstar.


   
Made in us
Raging-on-the-Inside Blood Angel Sergeant




A good example (and I don't think it was recorded or batrepped unfortunately) was how Tony beat Paul Murphy in the semi-finals at adepticon (im pretty sure this was the match). It was draigo - coteaz against SW's. Tony took out what he needed of the weaker elements, and then hid from the brick, even going so far as to move his longfangs off of a hill, out of los, and forgoing shooting with them. Once he was up KP's and had killed Paul's long range shooting, he didnt need to deal with the brick.

PM over your BA list, I'd be curious to see it and might be able to suggest helpful changes/tactical options to deal with your problem lists. BA have all the tools they need to be competitive, and against a draigo style list you should be able to function similarly to how Tony played versus Paul (Tony plays grey hunters in rhinos, Njal, some long fangs (devs), and some scouts), if your list is mech BA + devs, it shouldn't be too different.


This is the essence of what happened but the whole story is that I went in for the kill early with my DK and attempted to take out his marked for death unit. I rolled 1 too many 1s and the DK went down

He for sure played the mission, and played well, but it wasn't a very exciting game. Most of the missions this year allowed for people to hide their forces - not fight - and still win.

   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator




Falls Church, VA

blood angel wrote:
A good example (and I don't think it was recorded or batrepped unfortunately) was how Tony beat Paul Murphy in the semi-finals at adepticon (im pretty sure this was the match). It was draigo - coteaz against SW's. Tony took out what he needed of the weaker elements, and then hid from the brick, even going so far as to move his longfangs off of a hill, out of los, and forgoing shooting with them. Once he was up KP's and had killed Paul's long range shooting, he didnt need to deal with the brick.

PM over your BA list, I'd be curious to see it and might be able to suggest helpful changes/tactical options to deal with your problem lists. BA have all the tools they need to be competitive, and against a draigo style list you should be able to function similarly to how Tony played versus Paul (Tony plays grey hunters in rhinos, Njal, some long fangs (devs), and some scouts), if your list is mech BA + devs, it shouldn't be too different.


This is the essence of what happened but the whole story is that I went in for the kill early with my DK and attempted to take out his marked for death unit. I rolled 1 too many 1s and the DK went down

He for sure played the mission, and played well, but it wasn't a very exciting game. Most of the missions this year allowed for people to hide their forces - not fight - and still win.



Yep, and apologies if I missed any details, I was in the corded off section watching your guys game, so I only got the "gist" of the game. I also heard his scouts represented themselves pretty amazingly well..
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

@Blood Angel

As long as you recognize that part of the reason that the games weren't very exciting and things didn't happen much is the army you yourself brought to the event

Draigowing is hella boring to play against.

Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
Widowmaker





Virginia

Shinkaze wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
I misunderstood the intentions of your post than, I apologize. I find it a bit questionable that you know 10 people that win 19 our of every 20 games though...

Actually he does

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/05/03 13:08:53


2012- stopped caring
Nova Open 2011- Orks 8th Seed---(I see a trend)
Adepticon 2011- Mike H. Orks 8th Seed (This was the WTF list of the Final 16)
Adepticon 2011- Combat Patrol Best General 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



south florida

Which brings up a whole other discussion on tailoring your army for either battle points or a win lose format.
If you tell me there is no difference you are sadly standing in" DE NILE" and not getting your feet wet.
The WL system favors durability over everything, why do you see 60+ marine armys there, one because its tough to kill, especially if it is activly not trying to engage you in combat because the mission lets you avoid it.
GK and wolves excell at this, much better than all other armys.
You may think WL gives all those fringe armys a chance but they just havnt thought about long enough.
There are going to be armys that have an advantage in both systems, marines always do well because that is how the game is, GK seem to have every advantage right now, for a fringe army to do well it needs a player that is really good with it.

New Official WC forums http://www.40kwreckingcrew.aceboard.com

 
   
Made in us
Frightening Flamer of Tzeentch





- edit -

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/05/03 13:22:23


Do not fear 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hulksmash wrote:@Blood Angel

As long as you recognize that part of the reason that the games weren't very exciting and things didn't happen much is the army you yourself brought to the event

Draigowing is hella boring to play against.


This is exactly what I was thinking.

Yes, everyone is going to hide from a 1000pt deathstar that can shoot a full unit to death every turn and it nearly unbeatable in assault. The smart players will do their best to mitigate it and engage the fringe units in the army, leading to a chain of cat and mouse games.

My blog - Battle Reports, Lists, Theory, and Hobby:
http://synaps3.blogspot.com/
 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
Go to: