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.

Orks FTW again.

G

Centurian99 wrote:the other game was simply one in which my dice decided to abandon me at key moments (like the 1 failed 3+ save that killed off an icon, and the subsequent occurances that scattered three key units (the Bluescribes, Flamers, and Plaguebearers) onto enemy units...where they all decided to disappear into the warp).

This is what keeps me from playing C:daemons at all. Knowing that at the most inopportune moment, chance can rear it's ugly head and single-handedly wreck your whole army.

I would like to take a minute to praise the GWUS team for getting these results up so quickly, for taking the input of the players from previous GTs seriously, and for communicating with us frankly on Dakka. I had written off GW GTs altogether, but I will be revising that outlook given the quality of what I'm seeing from these events.

davetaylor wrote:

derek wrote:I can sort of understand holding the Baltimore GT later in the season since that Games Day is usually in the first half of the year, but Chicago was just over 2 months ago, I really don't see why they don't schedule them the same weekend, have the GD on Saturday, with the team GTs Friday, and the singles GTs Sunday.

Hi Derek

The idea of holding the Chicago GT (a 2-day, 5-game event) in October was actually in response to a large number of requests we've received from Chicago GT attendees over the last few years while the GT was held at Chicago Games Day (3 games on Friday, 2 games on Saturday). The thinking behind the move was that it would allow our team to concentrate on running a great GT and the participants could also get extra gaming in (on Friday/Sat evening in the form of the Doubles events and open gaming) if they wanted to, without the distractions of the Waaaghs and announcements of the Games Day floor. Holding it in October places it six months after/before Adepticon.

Hopefully that clears up why it was separate from Games Day this year.

Cheers
Dave

Ah, see, that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

I have feeling that green tide dominance will be changing soon. Especially with the new marine codex.

Moz wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:the other game was simply one in which my dice decided to abandon me at key moments (like the 1 failed 3+ save that killed off an icon, and the subsequent occurances that scattered three key units (the Bluescribes, Flamers, and Plaguebearers) onto enemy units...where they all decided to disappear into the warp).

This is what keeps me from playing C:daemons at all. Knowing that at the most inopportune moment, chance can rear it's ugly head and single-handedly wreck your whole army.

I would like to take a minute to praise the GWUS team for getting these results up so quickly, for taking the input of the players from previous GTs seriously, and for communicating with us frankly on Dakka. I had written off GW GTs altogether, but I will be revising that outlook given the quality of what I'm seeing from these events.

GWUS Community Events definitely deserves some major credit. GT's have undergone a major improvement in quality in the last two years.

On your first point, I can't really blame the codex itself for my failure in that game. Any army can have a series of bad rolls...mine just happened to cascade in such a way that the game was effectively over, and part of the weakness was in my list itself (for example, I only had one serious hand-to-hand unit, with two minor HTH backups. I also was dangerously agressive, mainly because the payoff was so huge. I lost the bluescribes and flamers on a deep strike where a hit or a scatter in 270 of 360 degrees would have had me safe...because coming down anywhere close to my intended target point would have probably effectively won me the game, and allowed me to table my oponent...which I was going to almost certainly have to do, because of the KP disparity between our two armies. I gambled...and lost.

But I'd say that Daemons is an eminently playable codex, you just have to have an intelligent build. Tony and I talked a few times about the differences between our builds, but we both felt that we had reasonable performance out of our armies. I for one saw some minor changes that could significantly improve my army, and look forward to trying them out.

The complaints against orks will soon turn into complaints against Marines, then Dark Eldar, then Necrons, etc.

Nobody liked Zilla-nids - but they won a lot.

Nobody liked Tri-Falcon Eldar - but they won a lot.

Nobody likes Dual Lash Chaos - but they won a lot.

Maybe they need to have a tourney where everyone has to run exactly the same army. Then no one can complain about being "out-built"

Now - congrats to Neil and Scott! Way to go WC!

I love the sturm and drang surrounding these results.

I drink it UP!

Orcs claimed 3 of the top ten spots. Considering the numerical superiority of entries its really not that dominant. The next best orc player took third then seventh. So clearly they can be beaten.

Aldonis:

I agree, I'm surprised that GW runs tournaments where players get to choose the army lists that they bring. Standardizing the lists would make the games a test of skill.

Aldonis wrote:The complaints against orks will soon turn into complaints against Marines, then Dark Eldar, then Necrons, etc.

Nobody liked Zilla-nids - but they won a lot.

Nobody liked Tri-Falcon Eldar - but they won a lot.

Nobody likes Dual Lash Chaos - but they won a lot.

Maybe they need to have a tourney where everyone has to run exactly the same army. Then no one can complain about being "out-built"

Now - congrats to Neil and Scott! Way to go WC!

Ditto. We have seen this time and again. It is nothing new with regards to the concepts that come out and players having a tough time with them. Adjustments will need to be made or another codice is released. Once that is complete there will be a power shift again. Nothing unusual.

Congrats to Neil on his second win of the year.

Nurglitch wrote:Aldonis:

I agree, I'm surprised that GW runs tournaments where players get to choose the army lists that they bring. Standardizing the lists would make the games a test of skill.

As found in our GWUS GT Documents:

"The original intent for our Grand Tournaments was both to provide a reason to gather gamers together for a nerd weekend and to reward the “champions of the hobby”. The Overall award went to the person that was best able to demonstrate all facets of the hobby; gaming, painting/converting, and sportsmanship, based on the criteria we provided."

However, there is certainly nothing stopping interested individuals from running an event as you have described. Perhaps you'd like to do so, given the particular threads on Dakka - it sounds like there is some interest!

Dave or Chris, I just have to know how someone can forget their army.

If I had to pick, I'd imagine the individuals had so much on their minds that they just got distracted to the point of forgetting a figure case.

Definitely a 'first' that I can recall in 11 years of GTs.

Chris Gohlinghorst:

I've been floating this idea around the community for years. Usually it meets with violent opposition. So I'm pretty shocked and surprised to see someone else who even supposes it to be a good idea.

When I was a competitive swimmer there was, and still is, a set of freestyle events, from the joke of the 50m to the awful 1500m. The nice thing was that you could basically do anything to get from one end of the pool to the next, the not-nice thing was that the fastest way to do it was inevitably the front crawl.

Heck, there was a problem back in the day with Japanese breast-strokers being really fast but using a non-classical recovery. Eventually that resulted in a new stroke, the butterfly, and new events. Basically they gamed the system and what was an unfair advantage that skirted the spirit of the rules became a legitimate and even honourable way of swimming competitively.

My point is that if you're going to have any kind of competition you need to have a level playing field, which means everyone uses the same tools to achieve the same end. Warhammer is actually better able to achieve that than swimming, since everyone can use the same tools (nobody gets to be a Michael Phelps/Ian Thorpe mutant...).

If someone does best exemplify all facets of the hobby, it's not because they had more spare time, or more cash, or whatever, but because under the same conditions (when the gun goes off, or the bell rings, or whatever) they performed better.

/thread-jack

smart_alex wrote:I have feeling that green tide dominance will be changing soon. Especially with the new marine codex.

Really?

Why?

What have you seen in the new Marine Codex that leads you to believe this?

I'll guess the 'no cover' whirlwind will take care of the ork horde.

Cent99: I hope that in your battle reports you will talk a bit about the deamon list discussions that you had. I tried them with a poor build and was utterly put off by them. I'd like to see what you feel some of the effective builds are.

About the Ork thing:

I borrowed my friend Jeff's Orks for the Chicago GT. I am struggling to get my Tau up to 5th edition tournament level and my Sisters aren't finished yet. Jeff is in my local group and a great player and I also had Marc Parker and Neal Cauley to consult with. I have played against Orks many times and am well acquainted with there strengths and weaknesses. I am also a reasonably skilled player and I too wondered how easy or difficult my games would end up.

First game against Black Templars:
Holy crap Templars can throw a lot of dice. Lots of dead Orks and almost a draw. I got a leg up in the last two turns.
Rating: difficult

Second game against Tau (table 3):
I know Tau pretty well and with almost no LOS blocking terrain this guy is in trouble. The '4+ cover everywhere, all the time' is to me the worst element of V5 and he just can't do enough damage. I trap him and run him over.
Rating: easy

Third game against Neal's Orks (table 5):
Two big armies dancing for charge position. I get an advantage early and try to close the door. He does some great recovery, links several combats and with one bad turn of combat res 2/3 of my army disappears. I get wiped out.
Rating: difficult

Fourth game against Eldar (table 8):
Eldar skimmers ain't what they used to be. With no where to hide and armor twelve they drop like flies. Like the Tau game I control this one from the start.
Rating: easy

Fifth game against Eldar (table 3):
This was a better 5th build. Good mix of range, velocity of dice and supporting counter-assault. This is a 'kill-point' game and he does a good job of managing the damage I can do. Once again two skimmers equaled two early easy kill-points. He does a lot of damage but I wear him down.
Rating: difficult

Thought #1:
If you think winning a GT with Orks is as easy as painting a lot of models and throwing them on the table give it a try. I believe you will be surprised. This is no 4th edition 'Nidzilla book. I found that deployment and maneuver mistakes are costly and excellent traffic control skills are needed. As to the Lootas, units are at most fifteen strong and any sensible opponent quickly shoots them down to break test land. If GT's start using large LOS blocking terrain as recommended in the rulebook Lootas will be as ineffective at GT's as they are where I play locally. Regardless, if I take Orks to Baltimore I won't bring any Lootas. I believe I can field a stronger army without them.

Thought #2:
Orks armies finished 1, 3(me), 7, 13, 15, 47, 51
Chaos Marines finished 2, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, 42
Chaos Demons finished 5, 12, 31
Templars finished 6, 10, 29

If you look at these finishes and also how tight the battle points are from second place down the idea that Orks somehow 'dominated' the event is absurd.

scotts wrote:
Thought #2:
Orks armies finished 1, 3(me), 7, 13, 15, 47, 51
Chaos Marines finished 2, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, 42
Chaos Demons finished 5, 12, 31
Templars finished 6, 10, 29

To be fair, that's looking at overall, not battle points. You can factor me (Chaos Marines T-10) and Brian Carlson (Templars T-10) out of that list if you're looking for what competitive armies are, we got most of our points on the soft-scores.

scotts wrote:
Thought #1:
If you think winning a GT with Orks is as easy as painting a lot of models and throwing them on the table give it a try.

#1. Scott, can I have your list you used for the LVGT? I need to finish my batrep from our game.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Blackmoor_goes_to_the_Las_Vegas_GT_Part_II_(The_GT)

#2. I think it just might be that easy to win a GT, so that is why I will not.

Thought #2:
Orks armies finished 1, 3(me), 7, 13, 15, 47, 51
Chaos Marines finished 2, 11, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23, 42
Chaos Demons finished 5, 12, 31
Templars finished 6, 10, 29

Orks can be beat but it sure isn't easy. And shooting the Lootas? I would love to, but they out-range Heavy Bolters by 12" and the amount of fire power you need to expend to get 2 squads of 15 Orks down to about 8 or so with a 4+ cover save means that you have not been shooting at the green tide bearing down on you. Maybe the Chaos armies did so well is because they are one army that do well against Orks.

If you look at these finishes and also how tight the battle points are from second place down the idea that Orks somehow 'dominated' the event is absurd.

It looks like the only army that beat you was another Ork army which kind of counters your arguments.

Also, as an example take you and Mike M. You both are very good, and seasoned players. You scored more battle points than he did with an army you just picked up, and he did not do as well with an army that he has been playing for years.

Yeah the "I borrowed an Ork army having never really played them before and got 3rd place at the GT, but orks aren't broken because the ork player who got first beat me" is not a solid counter-argument here.

To be fair, that's looking at overall, not battle points.

Let's see how it looks by battle points (I'm in post tournament, chill at home mode and apparently have too much time on my hands today).

BATTLE POINTS BY ARMY:
Orks 94, 81, 73, 68, 66, 50, 32
CSM 80, 66, 64, 63, 62, 60, 57, 40
Demons 74, 70, 62
Templars 68, 62, 55
Eldar 87, 74, 67, 62, 49, 47, 31, 29
Tau 66, 58, 55, 52, 49
Space Wolves 57, 55, 47, 45, 31
Vanilla Marines 56, 55, 51, 46, 37
IG 58, 56, 38, 34, 33
Necrons 73, 48
Tyranids 70, 40
Dark Angels 49, 45
Blood Angels 59
Dark Eldar 34


GROUPED BY SUMMED TOP THREE BATTLE POINTS:
Orks 248
Eldar 228
CSM 210
Demons 206
Templars 185
Tau 173
Vanilla Marines 162
Space Wolves 159
IG 128

Yeah the "I borrowed an Ork army having never really played them before and got 3rd place at the GT, but orks aren't broken because the ork player who got first beat me" is not a solid counter-argument here.

1. I have won Best Overall, 2nd Overall, and Best General at many GW and Indy GTs.
2. I have been playing against my friend Jeff's Orks since second edition. He is my good friend and we have a small club. He is a strong tournament player. I have played him hundreds of times over the years and we regularly help each other tweak all the different armies we play.
3. I have beaten Neal Cauleys Orks at Adepticon and I have beaten Marc Parkers Orks three times at GT's. I have beaten seven other Ork armies at GTs, three by complete wipe out.
4. I finished #2 on the national circuit last year and am currently in first place for this season.

I am well acquainted with the Ork army and it would seem I have a reasonable grasp on the game as a whole. I believe my previous post is sound.

Funny the lonely DE player is also WC

First, big congrats to Redbeard and Brian Carlson for a nice showing. I wish I would've been more motivated to pay the parking fees, sneak in, see all the great armies and say hi to out-of-towners.

Second, Yay for Orks! I love all the new codex entries and the Black Reach models.

- Blackbone

TOP TEN ORGANIZED BY BATTLE POINTS

1. Orks 94
2. Eldar 87
3. Orks 81
4. CSM 80
5. Demons 74
5. Eldar 74
7. Necrons 73
7. Orks 73
9. Demons 70
9. Tyranids 70

Orks look good, Eldar look good, Demons look good, and csm look good.

I didn't see any OTT CSM armies at vegas for some reason. Well built CSM are right at home in 5th.

I still haven't figured out how to make my eldar do that... So i'll keep playing with the ork codex until the guard codex comes out...

As far as the ork over-reaction is concerned. yes, it is an over-reaction. Every gaming group needs to have an ork player in their group, and you need to play a lot of games against him.

It is a complete paradigm shift. Don't be a reactionary and pine for the olden days of marines versus marines versus eldar. I tell you what. I play a good 3-4 games a week, at least half of them either as orks or against orks. Orks don't win any more or less than any other top tier army. And that is because my groupmates KNOW what orks do. They aren't confused by mob rule, or surprised by how survivable a loota unit is in cover. They've cut the units in their armies that are overly inefficient versus orks, and they've adapted their playstyle.

I hate to say comments like this because it runs the risk of being rude or arrogant. But every win I had in vegas, I outplayed my opponent. Every time I was outplayed, I lost. I include list construction in "outplayed".

If you are losing to orks.... its you, not Phil Kelly

Hey how about those demons huh? There is an error in the results though. There were only 2 demon players myself and centurion99 The third one was a chaos marine player. (I know because I went checking for other demon armies to see what they brought and there were only 2)


Everybody is up in arms about the orks being so much better than every other army, and some neat battle point math was posted up by scotts. but you can't just take the top three players and add their points to see how an army did as it doesn't account for more players, at that point you're just saying how the 3 best players did with the army, and you arn't looking at how the army itself plays out in a tournament setting

so you need to take averages to see how they all did. To sum up this is each army's average score

Orks 66.2
CSM 61.5
Demons 72 the 62 was the error and he played chaos marines (lash if I'm not mistaken)
Templars 61.6
Eldar 55.75
Tau 56
Space Wolves 47
Vanilla Marines 49
IG 43.8
Necrons 60.5
Tyranids 55
Dark Angels 47
Blood Angels 59
Dark Eldar 34

So the reasonable conclusion we can draw from an analysis of the field and how each army did not just the best players for each army are that Orks aren't leagues above every other codex. In fact the big winner in army performance is demons!!!!!

Nowadays in a tournament setting I don't believe you can build an army that beats every other army out there there are too many things to take into account for. plan for marines and you get 9 skimmers, plan for nidzilla and you get horde orks, plan for drop pods and you get a IG gun line. Like any other tournament it all depends on you're matchups some may be favorable and some might not be and when you have alot of players playing one book it gives the army better chances to get favorable matchups and put some people towards the top.

So if everybody is tired of orks winning so much, why are there still not flamers, heavy flamers and whirlwinds getting put into peoples armies all over the place? There's lots of stuff in every book to stem the green tide so lets see it. Remember what happened to nidzilla? It started winning alot, and people put stuff in their armies to deal with it and it was put back in check. (one tyranid player commented to me this weekend " I can't believe that 8 monstrous creatures die so easy and kill so little now"

I'd also like to thank the organizers who did a spectacular job listening to player feedback and improving on the gt as a whole. I didn't see any problems or sticky points for anybody this weekend. For anyone not there they gave out awesome trophy's, and plaques with some pretty sweet codex artwork in them, and for people who won an almost embarrassing amount of prize support, totally unexpected but appreciated nonetheless. Which goes to show you that they are listening to what people have to say, since that was the biggest complaint about the gt (paper for the winners in past years)

Aldonis wrote:The complaints against orks will soon turn into complaints against Marines, then Dark Eldar, then Necrons, etc.

Nobody liked Zilla-nids - but they won a lot.

Nobody liked Tri-Falcon Eldar - but they won a lot.

Nobody likes Dual Lash Chaos - but they won a lot.

Maybe they need to have a tourney where everyone has to run exactly the same army. Then no one can complain about being "out-built"

Now - congrats to Neil and Scott! Way to go WC!

I'm just waiting for the no one to like guard, but they won a lot codex...

Anyone know why they didn't do the players choice and favorite opponent breakdown from the Vegas GT?

Nurglitch wrote:Chris Gohlinghorst:

I've been floating this idea around the community for years. Usually it meets with violent opposition. So I'm pretty shocked and surprised to see someone else who even supposes it to be a good idea.

I think its an excellent idea actually.

#2. I think it just might be that easy to win a GT (with Orks), so that is why I will not.

Assuming none of us are taking any of this childish, almost laughable hobby too seriously you absolutely should try it. Here are some reasons:

1) If a handful of non-Ork players were able to place top five at a couple of GT's with borrowed Ork armies that would certainly make a strong case against the book. Pardon what might be perceived as a little arrogance, but I don't think it would play out that way. A super strong player might pull it off. The rest would be sprinkled through the pack like normal. Players only marginally acquainted with the army who tried this experiment would, in my opinion, get blown off the table at least twice.
2) All I proved is that a strong player who plays four armies at a highly competitive level can do the same with a fifth army (that he has played against too many times to count). Which is to say that relative to the strengths and weaknesses of the Ork codex, I proved nothing much either way.
3) I have always played small finesse armies. This was the first time I have ever gotten to roll huge handfuls of dice. It is FUN. I understand the allure of greeness now.

Unless a single army dominates the top ten or fifteen by a huge percentage the actual standings and results are inconclusive. So much of GT play is affected by the inevitable rock/paper/scissors issue that tactically marginal games like 40K present. Luck of the draw, both opponent and opponent's army, inevitably skews any meaningful analysis. At larger venues (over 60 players I think) the Swiss pairing system can't mathematically play out so even the 'Best Overall' title is an impossible description.