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.

Hey guy, after reading some threads i just realised I hardly ever see any topic about tournaments and who wins them.

Could someone point me to some tournaments and their wining lists so it can help me better optimise my lists.

Copying lists won't make your lists better. Working them out on your own, towards your own playstyle is the best method.

Just because X player won a tourney with Y GK list doesn't mean you will win with it.

 juraigamer wrote:
Copying lists won't make your lists better. Working them out on your own, towards your own playstyle is the best method.

Just because X player won a tourney with Y GK list doesn't mean you will win with it.

No it will help me analyse his/her list then I can see if there are any good pattern in the list and what units are spammed and the tactics behind the army list.

Also, playstyle means nothing to me, i have different play style for different army and against different people i face. I can play any army (just because of my knowledge of each codex), however i don't know each codex perfectly so seeing someone else's winning list will help me understand that army and the codex more.

Why do you assume that i will copy a list just because i asked to see his list. There is reason lists win tournaments (they are good, not the best but obviously very good)

 juraigamer wrote:
Copying lists won't make your lists better. Working them out on your own, towards your own playstyle is the best method.

Just because X player won a tourney with Y GK list doesn't mean you will win with it.

As much as your poetic line sounds nice, its patently false... Lists at the top of the charts tend to be found pretty fast.

Sure being a good player has allot to do with it, but being a good player also means being able to weigh some units against other in different combinations... The very good combinations are found quickly enough... The same is true for other games like MTG, Starcraft, eve online, WOW, D&D, Pahtfinder etc.

IN fact, it's a pretty important subsection in economic maths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax#Minimax_theorem

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2013/04/22/tits-tournaments-adepticon-2013-top-16-lists-ton-pics/ here are some adepticon 2013 lists btw

 juraigamer wrote:
Copying lists won't make your lists better. Working them out on your own, towards your own playstyle is the best method.

Just because X player won a tourney with Y GK list doesn't mean you will win with it.

oh it does it does a lot more than you realise

my flgs had 4 members of the welsh national team attend (no idea why they wanted to attend the craphole city i live in) and after playing the old guy he says to me here's the list i use when fielding vanilla marines, and explained a few bits n bobs, and at the next tournament i attended, i went 2/2 on the w/l scale, missing my 4th game due to the fact i had to work till gone 2.30 in the morning, but still scoring 70/100 poss tp's.

all because i viewed another persons list made some adjustments to my own and then went to town on practicing to find a way to make it work

I prefer innovation over imitation, myself.

That being said, I also like looking to see what other people are doing, and how they are doing it. It isn't so much that I want to copy them, it's more that I want to know what to expect, since the same list with a few minor alterations tends to get bandied about by lots of different people. Marthike, if you want to check out army lists, I think some people like to post tournament winning lists in the Army Lists sub-forum.

I won a recent(ish) tournament with the following list. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/508835.page Interestingly enough, I was told by several people that my list was going to fail spectacularly prior to the tournament. (This was the first tournament in my store since 6th ed dropped.) I was told that Drop Pods were weak, Land Raiders now too fragile, and Dreadnoughts not worth their points. I still took first, by a decent margin.

In any event, I hope this helps.

Funny...after clicking that link for the lists, I previously had no idea what those sheets were.
I see those things all the time at my FLGS...always wondered what it was.
Glad it was guys who just had lists built for them w/ no creative idea. I should've guessed that when they didn't even know their own codices...

 Jimsolo wrote:
I prefer innovation over imitation, myself.

That being said, I also like looking to see what other people are doing, and how they are doing it. It isn't so much that I want to copy them, it's more that I want to know what to expect, since the same list with a few minor alterations tends to get bandied about by lots of different people. Marthike, if you want to check out army lists, I think some people like to post tournament winning lists in the Army Lists sub-forum.

I won a recent(ish) tournament with the following list. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/508835.page Interestingly enough, I was told by several people that my list was going to fail spectacularly prior to the tournament. (This was the first tournament in my store since 6th ed dropped.) I was told that Drop Pods were weak, Land Raiders now too fragile, and Dreadnoughts not worth their points. I still took first, by a decent margin.

In any event, I hope this helps.

Can I ask why you took the LR as a dedicated transport? You'd get a bit more flexibility if you took it as heavy no?+

As said in the post, to prevent killpoints in case of "big guns never tire"

Overall that list proves a known factor in gaming-lead disadvantage
The "best" choice will always fail, due to the fact everyone is ready for it. the "poor" choice will always work well beyond expected, because nobody will be ready.
Naturally you must still optimize the "poor" choice, but being "not as good", is often better.

Hah well damn! I hadn't thought of that! Wouldn't a scoring av 14 balance that risk though?

I would personally think so, but being alone with no other heavy armor around, even AV14 is not THAT survivable, especially not when its heavy support in BGNT, where they are a prime target.

I recently won a 1500 pt. tournament with my IG. It's my own take on Hybrid IG. IMO, what makes it work is a combination of protective units (i.e., Aegis Defense Line, a blob to meat-shield my units against deep-striking), long-range threats that don't need LOS (Manticores), a high number of scoring units (up to 5), reasonable anti-air (quad gun and 2 Vendettas), a very nice decoy (Plasma Russ with Heavy Bolters), mitigation of night fighting (Chimeras - Every single game I played was night fight and one was night-fight for the entire game...custom mission rules, IIRC), and mobility (Vendettas and Chimeras for delivering troops. In one game, I managed to commandeer my opponent's Icarus lascannon by T3 or 4 )

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/jforum.page?module=posts&action=list&topic_id=532747&viewResults=true

It's this list here, minus the Astropath, autocannons, a melta gun, the SWS, and the PCS' flamers, and adding an Aegis Defense Line with Quad Gun.

Just my opinion, but Mech IG isn't *dead*, it just requires that you max out your heavy hitters (i.e., Heavy Support selections). Most armies can't deal well with AV12 like they could in 5th edition. At least in my meta this is the case...

You can find most of the lists scattered out there on the internet, but I don't think or I don't know of any single site that has all the lists.

I have made a compilation of most of the winners in the tournament up to a couple months back for major 6th ed. GT's. I don't have the lists, but I am sure you can find it by doing some searches. I've already got the legwork down. Note - this list does not include the most recent tournaments.


Indy Open Tomb King Necrons/CSM (1st)

Bay Area Open Lyzz Foster Daemons (1st)

Bay Area Open Alan B IG/SW (2nd)

Battle for Salvation 2012 Andrew Gonyo (Target) GK/IG (1st)

Broadside Bash 2013 Doug Johnson IG/SW (1st)

Colonial GT Brad Nichols (DevianID) GK's (1st)

Colonial GT Andrew Gonyo (Target) DA/IG (2nd)

Crucible 2013 Devin Deldar (1st)

Onslaught 2013 Sean Nayden ( ) Deldar (1st)

Onslaught 2013 Alex Fennell (Everliving) Necrons/CSM (2nd)

Nova 2012 Tony Kopach IG/SW (Best General)

TSHFT 2013 Alan Bajramovic Tyranids (1st)

TSHFT 2013 David Jensen Necrorks (2nd)

Da Boyz 2012 Andrew Gonyo (Target) GK/IG (1st)

Da Boyz 2012 Ben Mohlie Necrons (Best General)

Duel Con GT 2012 Alan Campbell Necrorks (1st)

Beakycon GT 2013 Teddy Woody Necrons (1st)

Beakycon GT 2013 Alex Simon GK/IG (2nd)

Comikaze 2012 Vince Morgadr IG (1st)

Comikaze 2012 Allen Hernandez Deldar (2nd)

Midwest Massacre GT Chaos Daemons (1st)

Midwest Massacre GT Aaron Aleong (Spaguarytine) GK/BT (2nd)

Feast of Blades 2012 Alex Bessinger (whigwham) Daemons (1st)

Feast of Blades 2012 Gareth Hunt Daemons (2nd)

Also Look at the top 3-4 lists for any tournament, because those are the ones that were generally competing for the top spot but may have lost due to the fact of bad dice rolls or just inexperience versus a certain opponent (Tau I'm looking at you).

Anime Expo just wrapped up and had a pretty good showing. You can find the results on Bell of Lost Souls

 BoomWolf wrote:
As said in the post, to prevent killpoints in case of "big guns never tire"

Overall that list proves a known factor in gaming-lead disadvantage
The "best" choice will always fail, due to the fact everyone is ready for it. the "poor" choice will always work well beyond expected, because nobody will be ready.
Naturally you must still optimize the "poor" choice, but being "not as good", is often better.

Poor choice always win? That may be true sometimes, but with choices like the DE Mandrakes (I think that's their name) you can't really win.

 davou wrote:

IN fact, it's a pretty important subsection in economic maths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax#Minimax_theorem

Watch out, we got an economist over here.

Thx ly2, I am a long time fan of your lists because you and mercer are 2 frequent posters on battle reports with competitive army lists.

I will do my research on what you posted

Thank for all the info everyone else listed I will take a look at them too, but I am already seeing a pattern, mostly spam lists but the wining lists always have something different, (80% spam 20% oddity)

I was under the impression that CSM was a pretty competitive army?