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.

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

We (well I) didn't specify to our IT guys that those fields needed to be extracted when the final scores were exported at Vegas so I could post them.

I made sure they were included this time through.

Ah cool thanks. It would have been nice to see if anyone had an fun playing me ;-)

You guys are doing a really great job, though! Please keep up the good work.

jfrazell wrote:

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.

There has been talk of doing this among the GT regulars for a while, but it has never progressed beyond the talk stage.

Blackmoor, I sent you my email address in a pm. Send me an email and I'll reply with a PDF of my Vegas tau list.

Blackmoor wrote:

jfrazell wrote:

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.

There has been talk of doing this among the GT regulars for a while, but it has never progressed beyond the talk stage.

One thing we'd be happy to do is provide a batch of tables on a Friday afternoon/evening at a GT if you'd like to run something like this Blackmoor and Nurglitch. I think it would be a really fun, full of smack talking, crazy throwdown event OR it could end up being a chess tournament ; )

If you can get the "system" and players together, we can get you the tables and terrain.

Cheers
Dave

Okay, I'll start a thread in the Rules Proposal forum.

Link

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.

Why would you want to do to tournaments what GW did to the Chaos Codex? Standardizing the lists may or may not test your skill, but it will definitely make for a series of boring games. If you truly want to do what you are proposing, don't do SM vs. Orks. Do SM vs. SM or whatever. That is the only way you can achieve the chess like structure you are looking for. Doesn't that sound horrid?

And you know what the outcome is going to be? The top players, those who build rock solid lists for every army they play, are going to come out on top. Why? Because it does come down to skill, and not some fool rummaging through your underwear drawer and game room, stealing your silk boxers and GT winning army. This, of course, assuming the dice gods are equally generous.

I don't do big tournies, not a priority of mine. But it seems to me that if you want to play with the big boys you build a big boy list. If that means playing with Orks, do it. And its about time too that the Orks got some loving. Poor guys didn't even have stats for their guns in the last book.

And who is going to build these lists that everyone must abide by?

Actually I like what GW did with Codex: Chaos Space Marines. Along with Codex: Eldar and Codex: Orks it got me back into 40k. I don't think that Codex standardized Chaos Space Marine armies at all, although I think the writers could have paid slightly more attention to the way the end-users themselves tend to homogenize via what's called the 'meta-game'.

I think it would make for a series of very interesting and exciting games, especially since I'm well acquainted with the practice of playing two games a session: play one side, have a laugh, and then switch sides to see how it might have played different.

Indeed, having players switch armies is an effective way of taking luck out of the equation without having chess-like zero-sum games. Heck, it's a fantastic tool for empirical game-theory if you're into that sort of thing; the results for switching in multiply-iterated Prisoner's Dilemmas are surprising compared to non-switch series of iterated games.

I mean maybe tournaments aren't your bag. Not really my bag either, from the point of view of paying money to leave the comfort of my own home, or a friend's home, to go hang out with a bunch of smelly strangers in a loud hall where I can't drink, smoke, or snoop a bookcase.

From the point of view of 'wanting to play with the big boys', as you so childishly put it, I think that means turning up and not hiding behind your equipment.

I think the tournament organizers would write the lists for which everyone in the tournament would bring models. Everyone gets the same equipment. This wouldn't just bring the advantage of having everybody starting from the same gaming position. It would also bring the advantage of judging painting scores and sportsmanship, since any painting, conversion, and sportsmanship would not be obscured by differences in composition.

Composition, naturally, would simply not be relevant.

The usual objection to this is that part of Warhammer 40,000 is making up a list, thereby proving some sort of strategic prowess, either by hiding tactical weaknesses or leveraging tactical strengths. Well, so what? If you want to play in that kind of tournament they already exist, and since it would be the player's choice to play in such a "Player's Tournament" people who want to do it that way can, and those who don't needn't both.

It's not like I'm asking that the Grand Tournament format be re-written. I'm just saying how, in my opinion, a competitive Warhammer 40,000 tournament could work.

Nurglitch wrote:

From the point of view of 'wanting to play with the big boys', as you so childishly put it, I think that means turning up and not hiding behind your equipment.

I'm childish, yet you resort to personal attack? Haha, hypocrite much? Personally, I think it means turning up and not hiding behind your inability to play.


"It's not like I'm asking that the Grand Tournament format be re-written. I'm just saying how, in my opinion, a competitive Warhammer 40,000 tournament could work."

As opposed to the non-competitive GT style? Keep em coming, Nurglitch.

What we were thinking about doing is have several people take the same army to a GT and playing, and then at the end comparing battle points to see who did the best with the army.

I think Mauleed first proposed this several years ago as a green skin challenge where a bunch of players would take Orks to a GT. The reason why it was going to be Orks is because they were seen as being the weakest codex (my how times have changed).

That way we can take the variable of the army list out of the equation, and we get to see who is the best player (with that list). Of course in a GT format you still have a difference in opponent’s skill, match ups and the fickle dice gods.

Rated G:

You believe that I resorted to a personal attack? Could you please show me where I did that? Please bold what you believe to be a personal attack.

I suspect it was where I noted that "if you want to play with the big boys you build a big boy list" is a childish expression. It could also be read as an expression of condescension, I suppose, but I can't imagine an adult seriously using that expression with another adult.

As for whether the Grand Tournament style of tournament is competitive, by the standards of competition I'm familiar with, it's not. Moreover, Chris Gohinghorst has provided a quote from the GW US GT Documents.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote: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."

This suggests to me that while the Grand Tournament may be challenging for some people, it has not been designed as a competitive experience.

Nurglitch wrote:Rated G:

You believe that I resorted to a personal attack? Could you please show me where I did that? Please bold what you believe to be a personal attack.

I suspect it was where I noted that "if you want to play with the big boys you build a big boy list" is a childish expression. It could also be read as an expression of condescension, I suppose, but I can't imagine an adult seriously using that expression with another adult.

As for whether the Grand Tournament style of tournament is competitive, by the standards of competition I'm familiar with, it's not. Moreover, Chris Gohinghorst has provided a quote from the GW US GT Documents.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote: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."

This suggests to me that while the Grand Tournament may be challenging for some people, it has not been designed as a competitive experience.

Regardless of what you suppose, it was still an ill remark made toward my person, hence a personal attack. But its okay, I shall think of a happy place and hopefully salvage my self esteem. And if you've never heard that remark made between adults, I wonder at how much time you actually spend with adults. But, I'm a redneck, so maybe its just my uncivilized colleagues.

And if you notice that part in parenthesis that Chris gave us, it says champion. Not only does it say champion, but they reward best general. Sounds very much like it is designed as a competitive experience. Very few people pay that much money to go and lose five games over the course of a weekend. And if they do, I'm sure they knew what they were getting into, and are not the ones complaining. I swear, this comes up every time there is a GT.

Edit: grammar

Pretty much everyone runs marines.

How about everyone has a standard company

i.e. HQ - a captain - he gets Powersword/bolt pistol

a chaplain - croz/Bolt pistol

6 tactical squads - all flamer/ML - vet sarge with chainsword/BP. 10 man each

2 Assault squads - 10 men - 2 plasma pistols - vet sarge gets a power sword.

2 Dev squads - 10 men each. 1 dev is 4 ML + vet sarge with chainsowrd/bp. other dev is 4 HB + same vet.

this would separate the wheat from the chaff

That would really make it a dice roll off - very little AP stuff in there from shooting - so basically, who is hotter on armor rolls.

I do like the idea of marines though. How about including some maneuver elements - this has no points just throwing out ideas -

captain and librarian (each player gets to pick their own powers but must stick through for the whole time - just to add a little bit of customization)
4 troops as you mentioned, 2 in rhinos
1 assault squad
1 unit of bikes
1 dev squad
1 "tank" - equal points either predator/vindicator/whirlwind

I'm actually quite surprised that when seriously competitive gaming groups have completed their play testing, they don't all come to a consensus on which army has the best chance of winning, then all bring the same army to the event.

That is what teams of 'Magic: the Gathering' players do. They all build consensus, then increase their odds of winning by taking the same 'deck'.

I suppose the reason that doesn't happen is because of how personal most people approach the game. There are more people who identify themselves as the player of an army, rather than as a general 40k player. I feel like that fuels a lot more bitterness and angry attacks against players they view as more "spoiled". If a player didn't consider himself a "guard player" then he wouldn't have such a hard time and be so bitter against newer more successful codecies. Financial investments (that are perceived as being overly large), long painting times, and deep immersion in fluff, keep 40k a team game... your team being players who identify with the same codex that you do. You whine together, you celebrate powerful updates together, and you come to each others aid.

I think we need less codex identity, and more system identity, especially in tournaments...

As far as taking the list building element out of the game. Other than for a one-off 'sideshow' type event, its ridiculous. List building is a crucial half to the competitive 40k game. I consider myself a good list builder. There are prolific list builders around too that will see combinations and synergies and efficiency that the average player will not see. That is a skill. If that player cannot combine that with good generalship, he won't be a top finisher. Neither will a player with vast experience and good generalship who couldn't be bothered to have discussions about codex options with his gaming group. Stubbornness and resistance to change fuel complaints about list "cheese" and codex envy.

If you were to propose that a small tourney be played with set lists, then i would propose a small tourney be arranged with set players. Have a group of competent players pulled aside and randomly assign a player to a list for each round, the lists designed by the competitors would be competing, the players would just be proxy generals. I think that could be an equally rewarding experience.

If GW ever brings back the Wulfen, ala 13th Company, the green tide is going to get smacked around.

G

So no inquisition players at all?

Congrats to Niel Cauley for his first GT Overall.

Go WC 2 out of 3 so far.

Let's look a vegas
orks 1, 11, 41, 51, 54, 70
eldar 2, 8, 12
chaos 3, 13, 14
daemons 9, 10
nids 5, 6, 39
sisters 4

didn't want to look everything up but it show's that orks won and that was about it. It wasn't auto wins either.

1 is the army strong? yes there are several good builds coming out of it 3 maybe 4 core types .

2. Niel getting first and Scott third. That has more to do with the players than anything.

3.I talk to Niel and Jeff(the person lending scott the army)about orks almost everyday and for some reason I give advice to Scott too. This has more to do with a real good player having a fine tuned build and understanding the tactical use of it against other armies.

4. so what were the auto win armies in 3rd and 4th edition? were any of them tyranids(before zilla), dark eldar, wych cult, feril orks, speed freeks won with all them so it must be the army not the play?

5. Everyone said the same about double lash , oblits but you don't see them winning everything. What do you see ,Mike doing well with them because he knows the army and is a very good, tactical player. Hell mikes been top 5 all year long with it.

6. look at the toledoites, they are scoring strong in almost every event they go to. what do they have Brad, peter---illyanden, Mike Greg---chaos, wingham(aka the kid)--necrons(what) they are all doing good, WHY--good player that are practiced with there lists

7. green ain't going anywhere, so all you meta game guys have to take the hoard into effect

marc

Shep wrote:I'm actually quite surprised that when seriously competitive gaming groups have completed their play testing, they don't all come to a consensus on which army has the best chance of winning, then all bring the same army to the event.

That is what teams of 'Magic: the Gathering' players do. They all build consensus, then increase their odds of winning by taking the same 'deck'.

I suppose the reason that doesn't happen is because of how personal most people approach the game. There are more people who identify themselves as the player of an army, rather than as a general 40k player. I feel like that fuels a lot more bitterness and angry attacks against players they view as more "spoiled". If a player didn't consider himself a "guard player" then he wouldn't have such a hard time and be so bitter against newer more successful codecies. Financial investments (that are perceived as being overly large), long painting times, and deep immersion in fluff, keep 40k a team game... your team being players who identify with the same codex that you do. You whine together, you celebrate powerful updates together, and you come to each others aid.

I think we need less codex identity, and more system identity, especially in tournaments...

Even competitive players run out of time and/or income they can burn on 40k. That makes it tough to build a new army every time a new codex comes out. Though you do get the odd break, when Jervis writes a codex, I guess....

Players identify with their armies, because players are HEAVILY invested in their armies. Each army represents dedication that puts die-hard football fans to shame.

If you were to propose that a small tourney be played with set lists, then i would propose a small tourney be arranged with set players. Have a group of competent players pulled aside and randomly assign a player to a list for each round, the lists designed by the competitors would be competing, the players would just be proxy generals. I think that could be an equally rewarding experience.

I'm flying back to the UK next February for a very similar an event. 16-20 players, but rather than set lists every other round (its a 9 round, 1K tournament) each player gets randomly assigned someone elses army. I'll post up a report when I get back, and I'm expecting it to be a lot of fun. The idea being that the person who wins has to be good with a variety of armies and army builds.

Shep wrote:I'm actually quite surprised that when seriously competitive gaming groups have completed their play testing, they don't all come to a consensus on which army has the best chance of winning, then all bring the same army to the event.

That is what teams of 'Magic: the Gathering' players do. They all build consensus, then increase their odds of winning by taking the same 'deck'.

I suppose the reason that doesn't happen is because of how personal most people approach the game. There are more people who identify themselves as the player of an army, rather than as a general 40k player. I feel like that fuels a lot more bitterness and angry attacks against players they view as more "spoiled". If a player didn't consider himself a "guard player" then he wouldn't have such a hard time and be so bitter against newer more successful codecies. Financial investments (that are perceived as being overly large), long painting times, and deep immersion in fluff, keep 40k a team game... your team being players who identify with the same codex that you do. You whine together, you celebrate powerful updates together, and you come to each others aid.

I think we need less codex identity, and more system identity, especially in tournaments...

I think list identity does exist, but I think personal style is a much greater factor.

The fact is most people do not play a list that is objectively the most powerful, but rather they play the list that is most powerful within their preferred playstyle.

Man...when did it get alright to hate on Orks? For years, they were everybodies whipping boy. Finally, they have a decent codex and now they are called overpowered and broken?!?! That is a huge swing!

there should be a GT NJ

Apologies if this gets asked a lot, but could someone kindly post the Ork GT lists that everyone's been whining about? I tried doing a search but could only find vague allusions to the green tide and lootas...

Sounds like inflated hype to me... 'gratz to the players!

frgsinwntr wrote:there should be a GT NJ

http://www.thecolonialgt.com

Currently just fantasy but look for a 40k tournament next year as well.

I am interested to know if the Chicago GT will move to a new location next year seeing it was not well supported by the local crowd this year (unfortunately). Florida is a thriving 40k mecca and I suggest bringing it down here to the greater Tampa area.



G

CrabstuffedMushrooms wrote:Apologies if this gets asked a lot, but could someone kindly post the Ork GT lists that everyone's been whining about? I tried doing a search but could only find vague allusions to the green tide and lootas...

I cannot post the lists, but I posted some pictures. The top ork army (Neil's?) is pretty easy to make out from the pics.

stormboy97 wrote:
7. green ain't going anywhere, so all you meta game guys have to take the hoard into effect

marc

I do take Orks into account. Heck, I played Shep's Orks at the LVGT and ended up with a minor win. It looks like I was the only one who slowed him down because he still ended up with the 5th highest battle points, and 11th overall.

I do hate Orks and there are 2 easy reasons why.

#1. Lootas. I hate this unit. Short of a land raider, they will blow most things off of the table, and they are impossible to kill.

#2. Game Turns. This this the big reason for my hatred. I feel that I could win a lot more games against the Orks if I could get a full 6 turns in instead of running out of time after turns 4 and 5. It takes a while to shoot them up and to soften them up to a point where you can go forward and contest/take objectives. The problem is that the Ork horde takes so long to move, it is frustrating to lose when you know that you could win if you had time for another turn. I thought the problem would be fixed at the GTs this year because you have only 1750 points, and 2 1/2 hours to play. Then 5th edition came along, and now you have to run each unit every turn and that takes forever to do.

scotts wrote:

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

Just for sh!%'s and grins, let's check out the AVERAGE Battle Points per army:

[EDIT] -- Tortuga beat me to it. -- [/EDIT]


My big surprise of the list? On AVERAGE, Tau fared better than Eldar!

Eric

Tortuga932 wrote:

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

So, perhaps I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding. LOL

GMTA, tortuga!

Eric