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.

Brilliant congrats on the victory! and thanks for the reports gave me something to look forward to in the day (yes my life has no meaning haha) look forward to seeing more

Thanks for writing all that up, Jim. There really wasn't the opportunity to watch any of my teammates in action; it's good to see how your games went down.

roxor08 wrote:
Couple of questions for Janthkin rather than yourself.
1) who was his MVP unit? 2) introduction of the Mawloc, I like it, how'd it do? And 3) what was the worst performing unit for him?

Lessee:
1) No MVP. Every game was significantly different - a unit that shined in one was nearly irrelevant in some of the others. If I had to pick one, it's (collectively) my Termagants. Scoring units were always useful in the ATC mission, plus I usually spawned enough of them to be effective.
2) The Mawloc was hit-or-miss across the games. 3 of them, it was somewhere between useful & essential; the other 3, it was, at best, a bullet sponge. It works okay at 2k pts, where you can afford a unit that isn't always efficient. (It does pair well with Enfeeble against Paladins, though!)
3) Much as I can't pick an MVP, I can't really pick a worst unit. Swarmy died a few times, but usually only when I offered him up as a distraction. My gargoyles were usually great, except in the game against triple-wraithknight eldar, where I lost 30/33 of them before I got a turn. The Mawloc, as mentioned, was fantastic in 2 games, okay in a 3rd, and essentially extraneous in the other 3. The Ymgarl were usually awesome, except when they weren't. The Doom was pretty solid across 5 of the games, but only really excelled twice.

So basically, I had the tools I needed when I needed them. It worked out.

 Janthkin wrote:
Thanks for writing all that up, Jim. There really wasn't the opportunity to watch any of my teammates in action; it's good to see how your games went down.

roxor08 wrote:
Couple of questions for Janthkin rather than yourself.
1) who was his MVP unit? 2) introduction of the Mawloc, I like it, how'd it do? And 3) what was the worst performing unit for him?

Lessee:
1) No MVP. Every game was significantly different - a unit that shined in one was nearly irrelevant in some of the others. If I had to pick one, it's (collectively) my Termagants. Scoring units were always useful in the ATC mission, plus I usually spawned enough of them to be effective.
2) The Mawloc was hit-or-miss across the games. 3 of them, it was somewhere between useful & essential; the other 3, it was, at best, a bullet sponge. It works okay at 2k pts, where you can afford a unit that isn't always efficient. (It does pair well with Enfeeble against Paladins, though!)
3) Much as I can't pick an MVP, I can't really pick a worst unit. Swarmy died a few times, but usually only when I offered him up as a distraction. My gargoyles were usually great, except in the game against triple-wraithknight eldar, where I lost 30/33 of them before I got a turn. The Mawloc, as mentioned, was fantastic in 2 games, okay in a 3rd, and essentially extraneous in the other 3. The Ymgarl were usually awesome, except when they weren't. The Doom was pretty solid across 5 of the games, but only really excelled twice.

So basically, I had the tools I needed when I needed them. It worked out.

Did you find running Swarmy over the double flyrants helped or hindered you? Obviously it'll be impossible to know for sure. But I see a lot of people going back to Swarmy right now just for his presence in the backfield and ability to deal with anything in CC.

Any great stories of Swarmy chopping up an important unit? Sorry not sure if you are doing your own battle report!?

Stormbreed wrote:
Sorry not sure if you are doing your own battle report!?

We can hope

First off, I would like to thank the readers for their patience. I apologize for taking so long to finish these series of report, but I wanted to make sure my standard of quality was there and also because I've been busy at work lately.

And thank you all for your kind words. I hope you guys have had as much fun reading about my experiences as I have had participating in the event and then writing about it.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
GK and necrons are still decent armies, with necrons certainly being very strong. They have, however, been superseded decisively by Tau and Eldar as the NOVA results show.

I still believe necrons belong right up there with Tau and Eldar . However, people just don't run them as often in tournament play anymore as they used to. Actually, a lot of the top players have switched over to tau and/or eldar. That's really what NOVA is showing. A lot of the top players who went to NOVA the previous year with different armies have switched over to Taudar/Eldau/etc. this year.

Whilst that is certainly true, I believe it is this very change in the meta which is hurting Necrons. They have always had difficulty with eliminating MCs at range, and wraiths cannot do the job by themselves. The NOVA winning list, for example, featured 4 riptides, two of which were in a combined unit with farsight and a buffmander. This new emphasis on MC spam, with 3 riptide becoming the norm for tourney tau lists really damages necron viability in my opinion. The tactical utility of Nightscythes is also greatly diminished when you have to spend a turn skulking along the board edge to avoid all the interceptor fire from tau lines.

While I don't have data from the recent Nova tournament, here is some info to consider from the ATC - how did the top 10 necron players fare against all those Tau and/or Eldau players? Here, I will only be considering armies where Necrons, Eldar or Tau are the primary armies.

1. Tim Gorham (Wraithwing crons very similar to my own): 3-0, 28 vs Eldar, 28 vs Eldar, 20 vs Taudar

2. Jeff O'Neal (Necron Airforce + scarabs): 3-0, 25 vs Eldar, 30 vs Eldar, 22 vs Eldar + GK's

3. Andy Ford (Semi-Airforce w/Royal Court + AB's): 1-0, 18 vs Taudar

4. Michael Lee (Wraithwing crons + Ghazzy Orks): 1-1, 2 vs Taudar (Brandon, my teammate), 27 vs Eldau (Kurt from QC)

5. Chip Brown (Necron Airforce w/Immotekh): 1-0, 30 vs Tau

6. Glenn Jeffrey (Wraithwing crons): 2-1, 5 vs Eldar, 21 vs Tau, 24 vs Footdar

7. David Pease (Hybrid Necrons): 0-2, 1 vs Taudar, 11 vs Tau

8. Jimmy Borolivos (Wraithwing crons similar to my own): DNP against Tau or Eldar

9. Nick March (Necrons + CSM w/Black Mace DP): 1-0, 30 vs Eldar

10. Neil Gilstrap (Necron Airforce): 0-2, 0 vs Tau, 10 vs Tau


So overall, Necrons are 12-6 against the forces of Tau and Eldar. So what does that mean? Absolutely nothing....other than the fact that necrons can give both Tau an Eldar a run for their money, at least at the ATC.

 Xca|iber wrote:
I have to say, I really like the objective setup in this tournament. It seemed like it helped out your Draicronic Measures quite a bit but was pretty balanced for everybody.

I recently took a modified version of your list (1750 instead of 2k) up against a friend's Eldar. He was running an all Bikes/Warp-spiders list and we ended up rolling The Relic, which turned out really well for him since he could force me to chase him around the table. I lost 3-1, but it was close up until about Turn 5 where all I could do was deny him the Relic. (It would have been a draw if I had managed to get First-blood, but he rolled like 13/14 3+ saves on my first round of shooting).

The positional dominance strategy is really solid though. Once you get those Paladins into position, it takes a lot to move them away and with so many objectives (and not many kill points to boot) your method of holding the center of the board is really fantastic. Hopefully I'll get better at using it myself

Yeah, the way the tournament was, I think that my army made for a really good defensive army. I've got the resiliency to last against most armies and can just hold my ground with my paladins and still get the win. For most of the tournament, my strategy was to hold the middle, defend my home objective and try to contest my opponent's objectives. Even if I wasn't able to contest his objective, I still had the advantage in that I was holding 2/3 of the objectives most of the time and it was up to my opponents to contest or shift my paladins away from their objectives.

Biker armies are tough to play against in the Relic missions. That is because they can still turbo-boost (though only 6") after picking up the Relic. Fast armies can deal with them better (i.e. wraithwing crons, daemons) but slower armies like Draigowing have a much harder time. At least you stayed close until the end. BTW, here's a tip for you. When playing against biker armies in the Relic, if you are going first, give your paladins Scout from Grand Strategy. That is almost an auto-win scenario for you.

Stormbreed wrote:
I can tell how upset with your play in the last game you are JY2, but I gotta say, you're playing the best players around on a constant basis, feel good man you did awesome IMHO!

Thanks. I do feel good. While I did make some mistakes, the end result wasn't that bad. I still managed to keep it close.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

roxor08 wrote:
Awesome report series jy2. You played great, barring a few minor mistakes that everyone would make.

Couple of questions for Janthkin rather than yourself.
1) who was his MVP unit? 2) introduction of the Mawloc, I like it, how'd it do? And 3) what was the worst performing unit for him?

Finally, one question for you. How come you charged the lone wolf in the last game? Tara the move that took you out of reach to control/contest 2 other objectives. Would it have been better for you to await his change so you wouldn't have had to move so far from where they were placed?

I really enjoy your battle reports and gaming expertise. Congratulations on taking first!

I charged his lone wolf because:

1) If I didn't, he might have got into range to contest or

2) he could have assaulted my paladinstar, contesting my central objective anyways and pulling my paladins off of my far-right objective anyways. Since my guys were spread out, there was a good chance that not everyone would be able to consolidate in and attack his lone wolf, which meant he had chance to survive. However, by assaulting him, I get more guys into assault range (not to mention the +1A on the charge).

I was banking on killing him in assault and then consolidating onto my far-right objective. I thought that was the play with the higher chance of success. It just didn' work out.

 jy2 wrote:
First off, I would like to thank the readers for their patience. I apologize for taking so long to finish these series of report, but I wanted to make sure my standard of quality was there and also because I've been busy at work lately.

And thank you all for your kind words. I hope you guys have had as much fun reading about my experiences as I have had participating in the event and then writing about it.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
GK and necrons are still decent armies, with necrons certainly being very strong. They have, however, been superseded decisively by Tau and Eldar as the NOVA results show.

I still believe necrons belong right up there with Tau and Eldar . However, people just don't run them as often in tournament play anymore as they used to. Actually, a lot of the top players have switched over to tau and/or eldar. That's really what NOVA is showing. A lot of the top players who went to NOVA the previous year with different armies have switched over to Taudar/Eldau/etc. this year.

Whilst that is certainly true, I believe it is this very change in the meta which is hurting Necrons. They have always had difficulty with eliminating MCs at range, and wraiths cannot do the job by themselves. The NOVA winning list, for example, featured 4 riptides, two of which were in a combined unit with farsight and a buffmander. This new emphasis on MC spam, with 3 riptide becoming the norm for tourney tau lists really damages necron viability in my opinion. The tactical utility of Nightscythes is also greatly diminished when you have to spend a turn skulking along the board edge to avoid all the interceptor fire from tau lines.

While I don't have data from the recent Nova tournament, here is some info to consider from the ATC - how did the top 10 necron players fare against all those Tau and/or Eldau players? Here, I will only be considering armies where Necrons, Eldar or Tau are the primary armies.

1. Tim Gorham (Wraithwing crons very similar to my own): 3-0, 28 vs Eldar, 28 vs Eldar, 20 vs Taudar

2. Jeff O'Neal (Necron Airforce + scarabs): 3-0, 25 vs Eldar, 30 vs Eldar, 22 vs Eldar + GK's

3. Andy Ford (Semi-Airforce w/Royal Court + AB's): 1-0, 18 vs Taudar

4. Michael Lee (Wraithwing crons + Ghazzy Orks): 1-1, 2 vs Taudar (Brandon, my teammate), 27 vs Eldau (Kurt from QC)

5. Chip Brown (Necron Airforce w/Immotekh): 1-0, 30 vs Tau

6. Glenn Jeffrey (Wraithwing crons): 2-1, 5 vs Eldar, 21 vs Tau, 24 vs Footdar

7. David Pease (Hybrid Necrons): 0-2, 1 vs Taudar, 11 vs Tau

8. Jimmy Borolivos (Wraithwing crons similar to my own): DNP against Tau or Eldar

9. Nick March (Necrons + CSM w/Black Mace DP): 1-0, 30 vs Eldar

10. Neil Gilstrap (Necron Airforce): 0-2, 0 vs Tau, 10 vs Tau


So overall, Necrons are 12-6 against the forces of Tau and Eldar. So what does that mean? Absolutely nothing....other than the fact that necrons can give both Tau an Eldar a run for their money, at least at the ATC.

I concede that necrons can give tau/eldar a fight, however, to be fair you did look at the top 10 necron players, not the majority, I would be intrigued to see the results for the top 10 Taudar players vs necrons.

For the sake of completeness, here are the NOVA results for the top 10 necron players with crons as primary.

1. Ben Mohile 2-2 vs Tau/Eldar

2.Werner Born 1-0 vs Tau//Eldar

3.Leigh Brady 3-1 vs Tau/Eldar

4. Stephen Burris 0-3 vs Tau/Eldar

5. Michael Walsh 2-1 vs Tau/Eldar

6. James Dalton 1-2 vs Tau/Eldar

7. Robert Fortin 2-3 vs Tau/Eldar

8.David Rodriguez 0-0 (no games vs them)

9.Andrew Ford 0-0 (no games)

10. Jeremy Chamblee 0-0 (no games)

The best of the necron players at NOVA ended with 11-12 vs Tau/Eldar.

Out of the top 5 of NOVA, all were tau or eldar players.
Out of the top 10, all but 2 were tau or eldar players, with the top scoring necron player ending at 10.

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

I concede that necrons can give tau/eldar a fight, however, to be fair you did look at the top 10 necron players, not the majority, I would be intrigued to see the results for the top 10 Taudar players vs necrons.

For the sake of completeness, here are the NOVA results for the top 10 necron players with crons as primary.

1. Ben Mohile 2-2 vs Tau/Eldar

2.Werner Born 1-0 vs Tau//Eldar

3.Leigh Brady 3-1 vs Tau/Eldar

4. Stephen Burris 0-3 vs Tau/Eldar

5. Michael Walsh 2-1 vs Tau/Eldar

6. James Dalton 1-2 vs Tau/Eldar

7. Robert Fortin 2-3 vs Tau/Eldar

8.David Rodriguez 0-0 (no games vs them)

9.Andrew Ford 0-0 (no games)

10. Jeremy Chamblee 0-0 (no games)

The best of the necron players at NOVA ended with 11-12 vs Tau/Eldar.

Out of the top 5 of NOVA, all were tau or eldar players.
Out of the top 10, all but 2 were tau or eldar players, with the top scoring necron player ending at 10.

Thanks for the research. You saved me a lot of time.

There's no question that Eldar and Tau are top-tier armies. Even at the ATC, Tau and Eldar dominated. Each army took 3 spots in the top 10, including 1st, 2nd and 3rd places.

There were 2 things which I wanted to show, though I was only able to show 1 thing due to lack of info.

1. Head-to-head matchups between necrons and tau/eldar. At the ATC, crons actually did better in head-to-head action. At Nova, they just about tied with tau/eldar. This is actually what I expected. Why? That is because at the ATC, the top necron players are less likely to play against the top eldar/tau players due to the team format. At Nova, the top necron players are more likely to play against the top eldar/tau players in a process of elimination by the W/L records of the armies.

2. This I was not able to demonstrate due to lack of info. I couldn't find the lists/armies of players from NOVA 2012. I wanted to show the shift in armies - the number of necron players at Nova last year who switched armies this year and the number of players who were running different armies last year and switched to Tau/Eldar this year. Now this is based on memory only (and thus could be wrong), but some of the changes I seemed to recall include:

Alex Fennel played Necrons + Grey Knights last year. This year he ran Eldau.

Neil Gilstrip last year - Necrons. This year - Tau/Tau.

Jeremy Veysseire last year - Sisters of Battle. This year - Taudar.

Kurt Clauss last year - Necrons. This year - Eldau.

Aaron Aleong last year - GK/IG. This year - Eldau.

Eric Hoerger last year - Necrons. This year - Eldar.

Allan Hernandez last year - Draigowing. This year - Eldau.


You can probably see where I am going with this. Many players (more specifically, many of the top players) who were running necrons last year are running Tau/Eldar this year. Not just that, but many non-necron players have shifted towards Tau/Eldar this year as well. Thus, the migration of many of the top players to Tau/Eldar combined with the strength of those 2 codices invariably led to the domination of Tau/Eldar in tournament play. The same thing happened with Necrons last year and with the Grey Knights the year before. However, that doesn't mean that necrons are relegated to a 2nd tier army. As the results from the 2 tournaments show, crons can still hold their own with the best of the best. There's just a lot less of them (necrons) this year due to the migration of the players to the newer armies (Chaos included).

 jy2 wrote:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

I concede that necrons can give tau/eldar a fight, however, to be fair you did look at the top 10 necron players, not the majority, I would be intrigued to see the results for the top 10 Taudar players vs necrons.

For the sake of completeness, here are the NOVA results for the top 10 necron players with crons as primary.

1. Ben Mohile 2-2 vs Tau/Eldar

2.Werner Born 1-0 vs Tau//Eldar

3.Leigh Brady 3-1 vs Tau/Eldar

4. Stephen Burris 0-3 vs Tau/Eldar

5. Michael Walsh 2-1 vs Tau/Eldar

6. James Dalton 1-2 vs Tau/Eldar

7. Robert Fortin 2-3 vs Tau/Eldar

8.David Rodriguez 0-0 (no games vs them)

9.Andrew Ford 0-0 (no games)

10. Jeremy Chamblee 0-0 (no games)

The best of the necron players at NOVA ended with 11-12 vs Tau/Eldar.

Out of the top 5 of NOVA, all were tau or eldar players.
Out of the top 10, all but 2 were tau or eldar players, with the top scoring necron player ending at 10.

Thanks for the research. You saved me a lot of time.

There's no question that Eldar and Tau are top-tier armies. Even at the ATC, Tau and Eldar dominated. Each army took 3 spots in the top 10, including 1st, 2nd and 3rd places.

There were 2 things which I wanted to show, though I was only able to show 1 thing due to lack of info.

1. Head-to-head matchups between necrons and tau/eldar. At the ATC, crons actually did better in head-to-head action. At Nova, they just about tied with tau/eldar. This is actually what I expected. Why? That is because at the ATC, the top necron players are less likely to play against the top eldar/tau players due to the team format. At Nova, the top necron players are more likely to play against the top eldar/tau players in a process of elimination by the W/L records of the armies.

2. This I was not able to demonstrate due to lack of info. I couldn't find the lists/armies of players from NOVA 2012. I wanted to show the shift in armies - the number of necron players at Nova last year who switched armies this year and the number of players who were running different armies last year and switched to Tau/Eldar this year. Now this is based on memory only (and thus could be wrong), but some of the changes I seemed to recall include:

Alex Fennel played Necrons + Grey Knights last year. This year he ran Eldau.

Neil Gilstrip last year - Necrons. This year - Tau/Tau.

Jeremy Veysseire last year - Sisters of Battle. This year - Taudar.

Kurt Clauss last year - Necrons. This year - Eldau.

Aaron Aleong last year - GK/IG. This year - Eldau.

Eric Hoerger last year - Necrons. This year - Eldar.

Allan Hernandez last year - Draigowing. This year - Eldau.


You can probably see where I am going with this. Many players (more specifically, many of the top players) who were running necrons last year are running Tau/Eldar this year. Not just that, but many non-necron players have shifted towards Tau/Eldar this year as well. Thus, the migration of many of the top players to Tau/Eldar combined with the strength of those 2 codices invariably led to the domination of Tau/Eldar in tournament play. The same thing happened with Necrons last year and with the Grey Knights the year before. However, that doesn't mean that necrons are relegated to a 2nd tier army. As the results from the 2 tournaments show, crons can still hold their own with the best of the best. There's just a lot less of them (necrons) this year due to the migration of the players to the newer armies (Chaos included).

That is true, many top players opt for the flavor-of-the-month armies and this would certainly affect the results. There is no doubt that necrons are still strong, I never suggested they were not. Merely that they were no longer on top, having been surpassed by Tau and Eldar.


In any case, congratulations with your own success in this tournament with a less-played force.

Which is why they remain on top. The game is too random to not play the best codex and expect to stay on top fort very long.

Also these results are meaningless because the same players are all playing the same few armies. You would need a massive sample size for any of the data to be worth anything. A few top tens means nothing except that the same few people are all chasing the newest codexes.

Necrons are still good. I still play them to a lot of success. Necrons w/ Chaos. I feel, however, that you need both an Overlord and D. Lord (w/ Orb) to beat Tau and Eldar.

The Overlord is essential for gaining access to Haywire Teks vs. Eldar. They turn a bad matchup into a really good one.

The D. Lord is necessary for keeping the Wraiths alive against the ridiculous firepower of those two armies. Typhus is also essential in this role, keeping Zombies alive to hold midfield, giving you board control and forcing them to come to you.

You have to be willing to make the smart sacrifice with your tanking characters. Clever use of reserves is also a must.

Basically, it ain't easy, but Necrons got game against the new hotness. It helps that they can still easily crush older codices.

Also, I know Brandon Valley personally, and I have to say I strongly disagree with the way you portrayed him in your report. He is an excellent player, who has been having success with multiple armies for quite a long time. Most notably with his heavily converted and excellently painted Legion of the Damned counts-as White Scars/Ravenwing army. He is by NO means the "new guy winning games only because he is using the two newest codices," as you so put it. EXTREMELY disappointing coming from yourself. Placing well at a few tournaments spamming Wraiths and calling Nick Nanavati's list your own doesn't earn you the right to talk down other players.

You might try getting to know your own teammates before dissing them on the internet.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Also, I know Brandon Valley personally, and I have to say I strongly disagree with the way you portrayed him in your report. He is an excellent player, who has been having success with multiple armies for quite a long time. Most notably with his heavily converted and excellently painted Legion of the Damned counts-as White Scars/Ravenwing army. He is by NO means the "new guy winning games only because he is using the two newest codices," as you so put it. EXTREMELY disappointing coming from yourself. Placing well at a few tournaments spamming Wraiths and calling Nick Nanavati's list your own doesn't earn you the right to talk down other players.

You might try getting to know your own teammates before dissing them on the internet.

Wow, way to overreact to an innocuous, neutral comment. Might want to take a break from the internet if you're twisting words to perceive things as shots and then insulting jy2 in return.

This year, our team - Team Fluffy Bunnies - consisted of 2 returning veterans - Mike and Brandon - along with 3 new players - Kevin (aka Janthkin), Bill (aka Centurion99) and Jim (that' me!, aka jy2). Mike and Brandon were actually the runner-ups to last year's 2-time defending champions, Wrecking BLOS

"A returning veteran, scoring second place last year." Such a scathing insult!

Perhaps, but he does it more than once throughout the report. He does this with Eric Hoerger as well.

I simply find the way he dismisses other players while raising himself up to be extremely distasteful. Doubly so when they happen to be local acquaintances of mine. I don't believe that to be unfair.

I've met Jy2, and believe him to be a very pleasant and intelligent person. I just didn't particularly care for all of the self-aggrandizement sprinkled throughout the report.

So even if you aren't just jumping at shadows (which is doubtful) you think it is distasteful to 'self-aggrandize' but not distasteful to waltz into his thread, throw a fit, and straight-up insult him? Mature.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Necrons are still good. I still play them to a lot of success. Necrons w/ Chaos. I feel, however, that you need both an Overlord and D. Lord (w/ Orb) to beat Tau and Eldar.

The Overlord is essential for gaining access to Haywire Teks vs. Eldar. They turn a bad matchup into a really good one.

The D. Lord is necessary for keeping the Wraiths alive against the ridiculous firepower of those two armies. Typhus is also essential in this role, keeping Zombies alive to hold midfield, giving you board control and forcing them to come to you.

You have to be willing to make the smart sacrifice with your tanking characters. Clever use of reserves is also a must.

Basically, it ain't easy, but Necrons got game against the new hotness. It helps that they can still easily crush older codices.

Also, I know Brandon Valley personally, and I have to say I strongly disagree with the way you portrayed him in your report. He is an excellent player, who has been having success with multiple armies for quite a long time. Most notably with his heavily converted and excellently painted Legion of the Damned counts-as White Scars/Ravenwing army. He is by NO means the "new guy winning games only because he is using the two newest codices," as you so put it. EXTREMELY disappointing coming from yourself. Placing well at a few tournaments spamming Wraiths and calling Nick Nanavati's list your own doesn't earn you the right to talk down other players.

You might try getting to know your own teammates before dissing them on the internet.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Perhaps, but he does it more than once throughout the report. He does this with Eric Hoerger as well.

I simply find the way he dismisses other players while raising himself up to be extremely distasteful. Doubly so when they happen to be local acquaintances of mine. I don't believe that to be unfair.

I've met Jy2, and believe him to be a very pleasant and intelligent person. I just didn't particularly care for all of the self-aggrandizement sprinkled throughout the report.

You are entitled to your opinion. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. We are all nice people, but we also have our viewpoints. If you think I am looking down on anyone here in my reports and trying to lift myself up, I can tell you that I am not. But frankly, I really don't care what you think of my viewpoints. I tell the readers what I think but I am also respectful of others and in particular, my opponents.

Regarding Brandon, I know he is a good player even though I don't really know of his accomplishments. He is our "youngblood" because he is literally the youngest player on our team. But in terms of experience, he is anything but. Hell, he's been playing a lot longer than I have. It's just that I have a dislike of all things eldary. They are one of the armies that I have had the most problem with back in 5th when they would screw with all my psychic armies with their Runes of Warding. Then in 6th, they've actually gotten better! In a sense, this is actually the best compliment I can give to an army - when such an army is so good that I always have problems whenever I go up against them (and ironically, I am also running mechdar myself at the moment). In any case, this is nothing against Brandon or any of the other great players who run Eldar (or Tau). Rather, I just like to take jabs at them every once in a while, whether they are being run by an opponent, my friend or even myself.

So if you think I've slighted my teammate, then that's too bad (and I could care less!). I won't apologize for what I truly feel. But know that my feelings are because of the army and not because of the person.

As for Eric, he told me that he plays against Tony and Andrew (I believe it is Andrew) on a constant basis and that they would always give him a hard time. That is a parallel to me, Reecius and Frankie. Frankie is a very good player also. It's just that he has problems when he plays against me (he hasn't been able to beat me one-on-one yet). He's had much more success against Reece, but I believe Reecius has also gotten the better of Frankie in tournament play (not talking about those army-testing battles on their videoreps).

BTW, my list and Nick's are not the same. He ran Necrons as primary and with 3 annihilation barges. I'm running grey knights as primary with psyflemans.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talore wrote:
So even if you aren't just jumping at shadows (which is doubtful) you think it is distasteful to 'self-aggrandize' but not distasteful to waltz into his thread, throw a fit, and straight-up insult him? Mature.

Tact is definitely not his (hippesthippo's) strong point. But that really doesn't bother me all that much. He's just a straight-up person who call it as he sees it, though sometimes when one is too direct, the person ends up looking like an ass. I mean, what the HELL has he contributed to my thread anyways, other than to insult me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:

That is true, many top players opt for the flavor-of-the-month armies and this would certainly affect the results. There is no doubt that necrons are still strong, I never suggested they were not. Merely that they were no longer on top, having been surpassed by Tau and Eldar.


In any case, congratulations with your own success in this tournament with a less-played force.

Yeah, necrons are no longer the top dog. But the way I see it, the crown is shared by a triumvirate. On any given day, necrons, tau or eldar can easily snatch the championship if given equal representation in a tournament. It's just that necrons nowadays have a smaller piece of the pie and thusly, the chances of seeing them win tournaments are also diminished. If you have 3x the number of tau and eldar players than you have necron players, then tau/eldar are 3x more likely to take the title.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Which is why they remain on top. The game is too random to not play the best codex and expect to stay on top fort very long.

Also these results are meaningless because the same players are all playing the same few armies. You would need a massive sample size for any of the data to be worth anything. A few top tens means nothing except that the same few people are all chasing the newest codexes.

Yeah, these results are anecdotal at best. It would require a much larger dataset to empirically draw anything more conclusive. However, what it does give is a glimmer of the trend of some of the tournament players. Last year, many of those players were running necrons. This year, many of those players have migrated to the newer armies. But for those who stuck with necrons, they have still managed to have some success against the newer armies. It doesn't really prove anything conclusively, but what it does is re-affirm a gut feeling and hypothesis of mine (at least to me) - that necrons still belong up there with the best armies.

I'm awfully sorry I barged in on your report, Talore. I'm sure Jim is glad to know you have his back when I (gasp!) offer my opinion.

As for your opinion, Jim, I respectfully disagree. The fact that you are well aware of what the players in question are capable of makes your offering seem all the more questionable. While I'm quite ok with a little arrogance, it certainly isn't necessary and, in my opinion, detracts from your otherwise excellent reports.

Also, trading 2 Barges for 2 Psyflemen is a negligible enough difference that I would hardly call the list your creation. Give credit where credit is due. That's Nick's Adepticon winning list, not yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's worth noting that I made no more insult than Jim did to the players in his report. Calling myself an "ass," because I called you out for it is unnecessary and exactly the kind of thing that makes YOU start to look donkey-esque. If you're going to slight other players, you should expect to take it in return. Brandon, Eric, and Frankie are all excellent players in their own right.

Those are some hot opinions there. Still missing where a joke equates insulting your buddy, but it doesn't look like you're here to reason with anyone. Keep on fighting the good fight against anyone who would dare to say something you could twist as an insult!

 hippesthippo wrote:
I'm awfully sorry I barged in on your report, Talore. I'm sure Jim is glad to know you have his back when I (gasp!) offer my opinion.

As for your opinion, Jim, I respectfully disagree. The fact that you are well aware of what the players in question are capable of makes your offering seem all the more questionable. While I'm quite ok with a little arrogance, it certainly isn't necessary and, in my opinion, detracts from your otherwise excellent reports.

Also, trading 2 Barges for 2 Psyflemen is a negligible enough difference that I would hardly call the list your creation. Give credit where credit is due. That's Nick's Adepticon winning list, not yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's worth noting that I made no more insult than Jim did to the players in his report. Calling myself an "ass," because I called you out for it is unnecessary and exactly the kind of thing that makes YOU start to look donkey-esque. If you're going to slight other players, you should expect to take it in return. Brandon, Eric, and Frankie are all excellent players in their own right.

That's the risk you take when you are too direct. Not everyone appreciates it. Some may even go as far as feel insulted. Gasp! Look at it this way. If you were to walk into my house and all of a sudden, start criticizing it - maybe saying that the color on my walls are just a copy of the colors on another guy's walls or that my picture of the President in my house is offensive because you know the President personally and that picture of him is ugly - how do you think I may react? Do you think I will sing praises to your candour? Or do you think I will go, "who the hell are you to come into my house and then take swipes at it?"

You're damn right I'm offended.

As for my opponents, I have nothing but respect for them. Judge them from my actual battle reports, not from how you think I feel about them.

As for Nick' army, yes, he is a great player. Yes, my army is similar to his. But do you honestly think that his list is totally original? That no one else could come up with a similar list based on their own assessments of an army 's(armies') strengths and weaknesses? I've had successes with both my wraithwing crons and my dual-flyrant tyranids in competitive play, but even I'm not naive enough to think that no one else can come up with such lists by themselves. You won't see me going around claiming that other people's lists are a copy of my own lists (though I may describe them as similar to my lists so that the readers know what they are running).

So much anger in this thread. For my part I found the reports to be well written with acknowledgements of the different players strengths abounding. Not that it matters what I think because I don't know any of you.

Anyways, thanks for the batrep Jy2 and congrats to team fluffy bunnies on the win. Shame on the mistakes but it is easy to get worn down from these tournaments. Now you just need to join the dark side with your mechdar army.

 ansacs wrote:
So much anger in this thread. For my part I found the reports to be well written with acknowledgements of the different players strengths abounding. Not that it matters what I think because I don't know any of you.

Anyways, thanks for the batrep Jy2 and congrats to team fluffy bunnies on the win. Shame on the mistakes but it is easy to get worn down from these tournaments. Now you just need to join the dark side with your mechdar army.

Thanks! I didn't really bring my A-game against my last opponent, mainly due to fatigue, though I think I played well enough to be able to win it. But that is no excuse. Eric played really well and he totally deserved the win.

I doubt I will run my eldar in competitive play, but I won't lie. I do have the urge to test them out in competitive play. Then again, I always have the urge to test out my armies in tournament play. So far, I've brought a different army to all of my 6E tournaments - necrons, space wolves, chaos space marines, tyranids and the grey knights. Who knows which army I may bring next.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hippesthippo wrote:

It's worth noting that I made no more insult than Jim did to the players in his report. Calling myself an "ass," because I called you out for it is unnecessary and exactly the kind of thing that makes YOU start to look donkey-esque. If you're going to slight other players, you should expect to take it in return. Brandon, Eric, and Frankie are all excellent players in their own right.

Then I'm an ass for calling you an ass. There....now we're even.

Honestly, I just enjoyed reading your battle reports a lot more before they all came off with the air that everyone you play is inferior to you and every list you use was your sole creation.

Yes, you give your opponents respect, however it always come immediately after slighting them making it feel empty and disengenuine. "He's kind of a third wheel. Having said that he's still a great player."

You're entitled to your opinion on your reports. So am I. This is Dakka's house, not yours. Just because this is your thread doesn't mean you are always right.

And you sir, need to tone down on this, its his column, his opinion.
If you dont like it start your own, critics are easy, prove yourself better or be silent!
The only thing you accomplished now is bogging this great battle report with irrelevant comments and arguing.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Honestly, I just enjoyed reading your battle reports a lot more before they all came off with the air that everyone you play is inferior to you and every list you use was your sole creation.

Yes, you give your opponents respect, however it always come immediately after slighting them making it feel empty and disengenuine. "He's kind of a third wheel. Having said that he's still a great player."

You're entitled to your opinion on your reports. So am I. This is Dakka's house, not yours. Just because this is your thread doesn't mean you are always right.

You're coming off as an ass, or worse jealous. With myself included that's 4 different people who've said the same, maybe take your concerns up with jy2 in Pms so it isn't such blatant thread jacking.

Or better yet, you and JY2 should meet up and settle this like men. On the board of battle ! You can even do up a battle report and make him out to be the evil bad guy who steals lists and talks down about your friends on the interet !!

I also get that feeling of "JY2 thinks he's a strategy genius" in his reports, that being said he wins most of his games against top players and thus forth should be himself considered a top player. Basically he has every right to feel Great about himself. Hippest reaction is proof of success as with any thing in life "heavy is the head that wears the crown"

Guys, thanks for chiming in, but I request that we move on regarding the "disagreement". Hippest has said his piece. I've replied in kind. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Stormbreed wrote:

Or better yet, you and JY2 should meet up and settle this like men. On the board of battle ! You can even do up a battle report and make him out to be the evil bad guy who steals lists and talks down about your friends on the interet !!

The probability of this is low....but not impossible. I do plan to go to one of the larger east coast tournies next year. However, whether we play each other or not is entirely dependent on fate.

But I'm always happy to play against another skilled player.

Great reports been looking forward to every new one. I been following this since day 1 lol, finally got out of my lazy chair and tell you how thankful I am that you do these reports

Don't want to throw more fuel on the fire... @ jy2 your list is very similar to Nick's. I'm curious to know if you were aware of it and Nick's performance in Chicago prior to designing your own. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. : )

 Marthike wrote:
Great reports been looking forward to every new one. I been following this since day 1 lol, finally got out of my lazy chair and tell you how thankful I am that you do these reports

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed them.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Don't want to throw more fuel on the fire... @ jy2 your list is very similar to Nick's. I'm curious to know if you were aware of it and Nick's performance in Chicago prior to designing your own. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. : )

Yes, I was aware of Nick's Adepticon-winning list.

It's not hard for good players to come up with the same or very similar lists. We all look for the strengths and weaknesses of our armies. Thus, it is easy for 2 different players to come up with the same or very similar lists based on their knowledge of the game and the units in the game.

Here is how I arrived at my list. Originally, I was thinking of bringing either pure necrons or Draigowing. I decided to go with Draigowing because 1) I have not played them in competitive play before and 2) it is much easier to transport the army. As a Draigowing player, I understand full well one of the biggest weaknesses of the army.....and that is the lack of mobility, especially with my scoring units. Thus, there was really only 2 options for me - either to ally in 1) necrons or 2) eldar for some mobile scoring. I decided to go with necrons because 1) I already own the models and 2) my teammate, Brandon, was already bringing eldar allies (but don't worry, in the future you will see my Draigowing w/Laughtarch, eldar jetbikes and wraithknight combo).

With necrons the only units you really need to consider are the warriors in flyers, the annihilation barges for some anti-flyer/transport shooting and an Overlord/Destroyer Lord for the mandatory HQ. There is no real need to stray from those units. However, as I was aware of Nick's list, I didn't really want to bring a carbon-copy of his highly optimized list. Thus, my spin on the list was to take the knights as my Primary army and necrons as secondary. This also gives me the added advantage of better psychic support (both in terms of powers and defense).

So whether I was aware of Nick's list or not, I would have still arrived naturally at my current list due to my own evaluations of the 2 armies and how they can potentially interact with each other.

Lots of top players bring very similar lists to GTs. I don't think it's any different here nor should be criticized. You rarely see what I'd consider to be a highly unique list that is very competitive. So I say well done. Booh hiss to the naysayers as well. : )

 jy2 wrote:
in the future you will see my Draigowing w/Laughtarch, eldar jetbikes and wraithknight combo).

I'll be looking forward to this. I've always loved bike armies + terminator armies (though Deathwing/Ravenwing never really did it for me, go figure) so seeing some ways to mix Paladins and those sweet jetbikes should be great inspiration.

Not really sure where all the vitriol coming at you is from... Your comments about your team and your list were hardly inappropriate. At worst, you teased a little and showed some pride in an (arguably) generic Draigowing tourney list. Nothing worth getting upset over IMHO. Besides, your perspective and short quips add a really neat "sports-commentator" flair to your batreps - something that's missing from a lot of threads in this subforum.

/2cents

EDIT: And really, Draigowing is about 1000 points for the core units alone. There aren't that many competitive variations of the other 1000 points that need to offset a slow, powerful deathstar unit. Pretty much all competitive Draigowing lists are going to look almost the same with a few things switched out here and there depending on whether allies are taken or not.

I've never said that Jim isn't an excellent player. In fact, I've acknowledged that he is on multiple occasions. I've also made it very clear that his battle reports are, by and large, extremely well written. Neither of those are points of contention of mine. I feel no need to restate my opinion, it's already on the record.

I also don't care if 4 or 5 or 100 people disagree with me on this thread. This is Jim's thread, I fully expected vocal support from his followers. I could care less for popular opinion. Having said that, I know I'm not alone in my opinion, for whatever that's worth. Moving on...

I'd love to get a game in with you, Jim. Not too prove anything, I think we're both better than that and personal player skill has nothing to do with our disagreement, but because I relish the competition. I'll be attending the Michigan GT, the 11th Company GT, Adepticon, and more than likely the Las Vegas Open as well. If you'd like, I'd be happy to make time for an extra game at any of those events. Or, in the case that you have any business to attend to in Michigan, I'd gladly welcome you into my home or any of the half-dozen LGS in the Metro Detroit area.

I do apologize for failing to congratulate you on your victory. It is certainly an achievement worthy of praise. <sarcasm>Just don't let it get to your head.</sarcasm>

 hippesthippo wrote:
I've never said that Jim isn't an excellent player. In fact, I've acknowledged that he is on multiple occasions. I've also made it very clear that his battle reports are, by and large, extremely well written. Neither of those are points of contention of mine. I feel no need to restate my opinion, it's already on the record.

I also don't care if 4 or 5 or 100 people disagree with me on this thread. This is Jim's thread, I fully expected vocal support from his followers. I could care less for popular opinion. Having said that, I know I'm not alone in my opinion, for whatever that's worth. Moving on...

I'd love to get a game in with you, Jim. Not too prove anything, I think we're both better than that and personal player skill has nothing to do with our disagreement, but because I relish the competition. I'll be attending the Michigan GT, the 11th Company GT, Adepticon, and more than likely the Las Vegas Open as well. If you'd like, I'd be happy to make time for an extra game at any of those events. Or, in the case that you have any business to attend to in Michigan, I'd gladly welcome you into my home or any of the half-dozen LGS in the Metro Detroit area.

I do apologize for failing to congratulate you on your victory. It is certainly an achievement worthy of praise. <sarcasm>Just don't let it get to your head.</sarcasm>

Thanks.

I do plan to go to the LVO and Golden Throne in the West Coast. As for east coast tournies, I plan to go to 1 or 2 of the following next year: Adepticon, Nova and/or to defend our title at the ATC. Perhaps we can try to get a game at one of those events, though my free time at the LVO may depend on whether or not my wife will be coming with me. But yeah, anytime I get an opportunity to play against another skilled player, I relish the opportunity.

My only regret is that I didn't get to play against Darkwynn and Goatboy in this tourney. Then again, I had wanted to play against Paul Murphy as well and they are all on the same team so I guess I'll have to wait for next time.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xca|iber wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
in the future you will see my Draigowing w/Laughtarch, eldar jetbikes and wraithknight combo).

I'll be looking forward to this. I've always loved bike armies + terminator armies (though Deathwing/Ravenwing never really did it for me, go figure) so seeing some ways to mix Paladins and those sweet jetbikes should be great inspiration.

Not really sure where all the vitriol coming at you is from... Your comments about your team and your list were hardly inappropriate. At worst, you teased a little and showed some pride in an (arguably) generic Draigowing tourney list. Nothing worth getting upset over IMHO. Besides, your perspective and short quips add a really neat "sports-commentator" flair to your batreps - something that's missing from a lot of threads in this subforum.

/2cents

EDIT: And really, Draigowing is about 1000 points for the core units alone. There aren't that many competitive variations of the other 1000 points that need to offset a slow, powerful deathstar unit. Pretty much all competitive Draigowing lists are going to look almost the same with a few things switched out here and there depending on whether allies are taken or not.

Thanks for the comments. Yeah, I think my commentary adds some flair to my battle reports. I try to give it a somewhat more personal perspective because I think that is what makes it more interesting to a lot of people. Though I guess once in while, I may strike a raw nerve with a reader or 2 (as it appears to be the case here). Guess that can't be avoided if I am to keep with my current writing style. But no matter what, I try to keep my reports in a positive perspective about the hobby. I also like to focus on the person and not just the game. After all, the game is not just about the models but rather, the people behind the models. In short, I try to make my reports personal - about the people I play against and also about my thoughts on the game - but I guess sometimes, there is a chance that some people may take offense to that. But thank goodness it is probably only a small minority. It also won't deter me from telling a story the way I want to tell it, though I will listen to all comments and criticisms.