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.

Redbeard wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:It's too bad that the Ork players who are coming out of the wood work were not playing them through 3 and 4th edition, but are just throwing some Assault on Black Reach box sets together.

Orks were my first tournament army. I took a racetrack worth to Adepticon '06. Finished in the top-10 in the gladiator at Adepticon '07 with the old codex. Did it again this year with the new codex - and haven't really played them much since. They just don't seem like much of a challenge to play anymore, and there's a lot of 'hate' towards ork players now that I never experienced under the old codex.

I liked it more when orks were the underdogs.

Redbeard, I feel ya 100%. I was with "Dok's Toolz", and aside from your team and our team, there were no other Ork teams at Adepticon 2006.

People are treating Orks like the new eldar... it seems Phil Kelly is always behind the armies most hated.

G

sirisaacnuton wrote:I haven't really seen Eldar around at all locally since their fall from grace (i.e. 5th edition). Obviously some good armies can still be made out of the codex, I just haven't been seeing them. What are these high-placing Eldar armies playing?

Torgoch, if you don't mind my asking, what did your Eldar army look like?

It was:

Farseer on bike, both runes, fortune
8 warlocks on bikes, embolden, enhance, destructor

Farseer on bike, runes of witnessing, fortune
8 warlocks on bikes, embolden, enhance, destructor

8 dire avengers, exarch w/bladestorm, diresword
5 rangers
3 jetbikes
1 holoprism

There were quite a few bike councils, but I was the only one with two of them. I suspect a single council + bike autarch backed up by holotank spam is more potent.

Green Blow Fly wrote:People are treating Orks like the new eldar... it seems Phil Kelly is always behind the armies most hated.

G

It's because he writes overpowered codices, plain and simple. First it was Holo falcons, now it's Nob Bikers.

Then with Dark Eldar it'll be...Raider Spam? I don't know.

Which is a pity, he's good at writing codices, just not at balancing the darn things.

And the other pity is that I used to really like Orks.

I'd rather have phil kelly writing the codices instead of Pete "Iron Warriors are the pwn" Haines. Holo falcons were uncool, but have been fixed by 5th edition. Nob Bikers are uncool, but nothing a few demolisher shells won't solve I believe.

Honestly though getting ridding of Andy Chambers was not a good idea. His ork codex stood the test of time.

When ever i think about mech eldar I shudder, those were ddark dark days. I can handle Nob bikers. (Ork player of 9 years) but I,m kinda sad they aren't the lovable under-dogs any more. Time to trade them for Necrons. ( sure hope they don't give crons FnP, too much of that going around already).

For what it's worth, here are the top 10 finishers of the German GT Final 2008:

Orks 87
Chaos Marines 73
Space Marines 63
Tyranids 60
Dark Angels 60
Eldar 60
Orks 60
Orks 57
Dark Eldar 57
IG 56

The German final is 2000 points, only battle, no sports or comp and the old tiered system used with the new missions, victory points are only used as tie-breaker.

The top Orks were one mob Nob-Bikers, 9 kans, Bigmek and 90 boyz. The CSM in second were single lash with Abaddon and zerkers in raider, the marines in third were pods.

I must admit, I find it rather amazing that people are really all that bothered about how they rank up against other people in their expertise in playing a made-up game with man-dollies and dice!

It makes me wonder whether those who obsess about tournament rankings aren't trying to compensate for possible inadequacies in other areas of their lives?

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

I've been playing orks as my main army for about a decade, I started collecting then at the end of second edition.
I popped into my local GW to buy a battleforce to fill out my numbers (so I'd have over 200 infantry), get a few new warbikes and some trukk bits for conversions (much as I hate converting I still delude myself into giving a go).
The staffer I was dealing with started giving me guff for "jumping on the broken orks bandwagon" I gave him a level look and told him I'd been playing them consistently since end of 2nd edition. And I'd been going to that GW for the last 6years on and off.
Turned out he was a bloody space marine player. A space marine player, giving me guff about playing orks? I felt like I was in one of Kid Kyoto's previews.
I'm glad my codex finally has multiple viable builds. And I think all of them are beatable. Nob bikers fear and loathe strength 8. It's probably the players, not the list, that are stomping people. I imagine it takes a fair amount of skill to win with only two scoring units.

A Space Marine player should not give anyone any grief for playing another army.

G

Osbad wrote:

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

I don't play in tournaments, I don't really care if I win or lose as long as the game is fun. But what doesn't make the game fun is Nob Bikers and 180 Ork lists.

For all you people who say, "Oh but Orks are easy to kill if you do X, Y, and Z. They're also really weak to A, B, and C!"

I definitely recall Eldar players in 4th edition making the exact same claims that some things would kill them easily, and that certain tactics would help you out.

It's a bunch of crock, it really is. It doesn't make your codex any less overpowered.

But at the core, it's really the army I don't respect. I do respect its players, however. Well, most of them.

But really, it's the lists. How can you lose with 180 Ork boys? Really? The only challenge nowadays would be moving all of them and painting all of them. Nob Bikers may fear and loathe Str 8, but when they're getting 4+ cover saves it's not that big of a deal.

And saying that they're beatable doesn't mean anything when they're getting 1st place in all of the tournaments... :S

One thing I noticed in the GT circuit, Daniel Liswood (i think I got the spelling right) Got a best general at Vegas and then a Best Sportsman at Baltimore, all he needs to do is win best painted and he can be the trifecta of the hobby.

Great job Daniel on proving your not only a damn good player but fun to play against.

Free food in Plantation on Saturday night. Give it up Hod.

G

Osbad wrote:It makes me wonder whether those who obsess about tournament rankings aren't trying to compensate for possible inadequacies in other areas of their lives?

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

And how is this any different from any other type of event that pits people up against one another for a prize (imagined or otherwise)?

People who are judgemental about how others derive enjoyment from this hobby makes me ashamed to be a casual gamer.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And how is this any different from any other type of event that pits people up against one another for a prize (imagined or otherwise)?

People who are judgemental about how others derive enjoyment from this hobby makes me ashamed to be a casual gamer.

BYE

Thanks HBMC, new sig.

The reason to care about whether or not one army is consistently taking first place in tournaments isn't the same concern as to why people play in tournaments. I play in local tournaments here for a variety of reasons that aren't pertinent to this discussion. For the importance of the rankings though, it's something that anyone who plays, even casual gamers IMO, should be at least moderately aware of. Reason being, you might play them. And if they're overpowered, even in casual games after a while it gets to be less than fun. Knowing that the army in question tends to win more than it's fair share against some of the more competitive players out there might help you realize that it's not necessarily you playing poorly, so you have more info to decide how you're going to handle it in the future.

GW on the other hand SHOULD be very interested in what armies are taking tournaments, because if things truly are unbalanced, it can affect their sales.

GW influences sales by changing rules, codexes and the model line-up to make one army hot, then make another army hot. The hotness may be in terms of power, or nice models, or both.

This is a continuing process. The only question is whether it is a cleverly planned strategy or a side-effect of the way they let the studio and modellers operate.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Osbad wrote:It makes me wonder whether those who obsess about tournament rankings aren't trying to compensate for possible inadequacies in other areas of their lives?

Makes me proud to only be a casual gamer...

And how is this any different from any other type of event that pits people up against one another for a prize (imagined or otherwise)?

People who are judgemental about how others derive enjoyment from this hobby makes me ashamed to be a casual gamer.

BYE

And people who take stuff posted on the internet seriously make me ashamed to be a forum poster...

oh.... wait...


But, on a more serious note, that whole "competitive drive" thing is, in my humble opinion, rather childish. Some competitions require more intelligence, or native skill, or training, or luck, or money than others, but at their heart lies the desire to prove oneself somehow superior to others in order to feel better about oneself. Its a widely held, normal, human character trait, and I have it myself. Its still bloody childish. And if taken to extremes, dangerous. It's how arms races start for instance.

It needs to be said that if I have a bigger army, or a better football team, or a higher golf handicap, or a stronger win/loss ratio in 40k tournaments than you, it doesn't make me any better of a human being. Sure many tournament players know and understand that. The balanced ones. But we all know of some who tip themselves over that balance and get their panties all in a bunch over a game that is largely down to chance anyhow. And those that "cheat" to somehow delude themselves and others that they are better, and to defraud the genuine better players of their rightful prize money are an order of magnitude lower than this on the evolutionary scale. And its why doping and other forms of cheating are against the law in most mainstream sports. And why if you tried such shennanigans in a Las Vegas you'd be likely waving bye-bye to your kneecaps.

Sure, play to the best of your ability. Sure try your best in everything you do. But, please, please lets keep a sense of proportion. If you want to get *that* dedicated to something, pick something more worthwhile than a game of toy soldiers - the cure for cancer, your local orphanage, eradicating poverty in Africa. Something that *matters* in the world. Not who won some pissy little tournament in the arse end of the world playing an obscure game based around painted plastic little spacemen and dice!

Oh you simply must be joking. There is no way on this planet that what you wrote above could have been written with any level of serious (or intelligent) thought. No, I simply refuse to see a real point of view in the post above. No. Not at all.

"If you want to get *that* dedicated to something, pick something more worthwhile than a game of toy soldiers - the cure for cancer, your local orphanage, eradicating poverty in Africa..."

Cure cancer... Jesus Osbad... did you really just write all that nonsense? Wow!

It's a hobby, not a life-style choice. It doesn't have to matter 'cause it's something you do for fun, and if people want to be competative about it, in a formal 'tournement' setting or otherwise, who the hell are you to judge?

BYE

No, ok, look you know what, I'm done with this yet.

Everyone, I want you to follow me here and see if you can make the same logical connections that Osbad has made. Imagine this dialogue and see if it makes sense to you:

Person 1: I like playing in tournaments.
Person 2: So do I. Who's coming first in the rankings? What armies are doing well?
Person 1: Let's find out.
Osbad: My God! You want to find out what armies are doing well in a tournament. I'm ashamed that people would take it so seriously.
Me: Who are you to judge how people enjoy their hobby? How is this any differen to any other hobby with any sort of competative element (RC cars, model planes, historical battles, multiplayer console or PC gaming - anything)? How is wanting to know what's good, what's doing well and who isn't a bad thing?
Osbad: GO CURE CANCER IF IT MATTERS SO MUCH TO YOU!
Me: Wha... what? What are you talk-
Osbad: Feed the Africans! FEED THEM!!!!!
Me: It... what? It's a game dude, calm down.
Osbad: The orphans! The orphans! My God why won't someone think of the children!
Me: You must be kidding? It's a game. GAME. It doesn't have to be serious.
Person 1: So... Orks then?
Person 2: Yeah, Orks.

Osbad, it seems the only one here taking it too seriously is you.

BYE

To my mind it's no different to sitting round discussing who's doing well in the football. I mean, that's just a children's game where a bunch of dudes chase a ball around.
And lots of people take that much more seriously than we're taking this.

And yet the hooha and indeed, broohaha over the recent 'Ardboyz (did he or didn't he cheat...DFKDFC) has pointed out exactly *why* many people shun tournaments.

They don't have the same level of 'killer instinct' as a dedicated tournament player, so choose to avoid them. And as soon as you identify yourself as a casual gamer, you are automatically assumed to look down on Tournament play. Which is patently nonsense.

As Osbad said, it's a game. Sure, so is Football and Boxing at the end of the day, but with Fantasy and 40k, there is no money to be won. No real prizes of any note, so why stress so much over it?

I promote Casual Gaming as a good way to enjoy your hobby. That does not mean I rubbish Tournament gaming.

Except I have seen you rubbish tournament gaming in some of your posts.

That actually doesn't bother me.
I'm not sure what tournaments people go to where everyone is a killer instinct jerk, but I tend to find that most tournament gamersjust like getting a lot of good games in against interesting armies.

HBMC mate, there's only one person getting their panties in a wad in this thread mate, and it ain't me.

If you can't spot that actually I am agreeing that it is only a game and shouldn't be taken seriously then I suggest you take a breather, reread my posts and relax.

If you'd taken the time to read the posts correctly instead of getting all hot under the collar, you might have realised that my point was exactly the same one you are making: to whit, if you want to take something seriously to the extent that some appear to do in grieving over codex weaknesses, alleged cheating, etc., etc., then you should chose something more worthy than a game like 40k.

I actually agree with you that it IS only a game, and the problem comes from taking it as more than that.

I've got no problem with tournaments, or players of tournaments, if they don't take it too seriously.

It is precisely the "taking it too seriously", and that I do not that means I find much discussion of 40k on the web patently ridiculous!

Because my rationale for disliking tournament gaming was probed I extend my explanation of why I find over-competitiveness a negative influence on society, but you have taken too great an assumptive leap in then interpreting that explanation as somehow my condemnation of all things tournamenty...

As I believe I said numerous times - I realise that many, probably most, tournament gamers just go along for the fun and don't really bother that much where they place.

As with much in life it is the minority who take things too far that spoil the experience for the rest, and reasonably gently taking the pee out of them, or those that seem to exhibit the beginnings of such behaviour, is hardly a big deal.

Ultimately I am not judging anyone. I am merely pointing out what I feel (and I gave a rational, succinct explanation behind that feeling) is silly. I surely never claimed any right to judge, merely the right to express an opinion about observed behaviour.

Whether others choose to match themselves against that opinion or not is their own affair and no concern of mine.

Maybe I should have gone with my initial instinct on reading the thread and simply said "I smell nerd"...?

And I stand with my stated belief, a belief I have seen expressed elsewhere, that over-competitiveness in tournaments is killing the enjoyment of the game for many and risks turning it into something GW never intended it to be. In saying that I neither condemn nor judge those that play in tournaments, merely the minority of players who's lack of perspective and lack of sportsmanship is poisonous to the environment, yet who are rewarded by their perceived success in the tournament scene.

I personally steer well clear of tournaments nowadays, not because of the 90% of great players who participate in them, but because of the 10% of jerk-offs who do. I would never dream to judge whether any individual was a member of the 10% or the 90%, but I would defend to the death my liberty to define in my own terms the behaviours that define in which camp any individual may belong.

And as an adjunct to HBMC's amusing dialogue, I would append my own, which is abscracted from the conversation about the meta-game that has been going on in Dakka and other forums since the growth of the tournament scene:

Person 1: OMG look taking Orks/Eldar/Tyranids means an auto-win for tournaments
Person 2: That sux
Person 3: That's not fair, lets burn GW to the ground for not balancing their codices!
Person 4: Nah, lets just bore the arses off everyone by whinging about it all the time instead.
Osbad: Obsessing about tournament placing is sad. Does it really matter?
HBMC: Burn the heretic! He's a witch!
Person 5: Anyway, Orks autowinning sux. When are Dark Eldar going to get some love?
Osbad: Bring back the Pan-Fo, I need some reviling...

I hope this thread doesn't go into an OT death spiral of back-biting and recrimination.

If it did a moderator would have to lock it.

Back to the point in hand, is there an archive of UK, US and other GTs over the years?

I think the overall point being missed. I dare say that most people want to start any game knowing that they have an equal chance of winning as their opponent. In chess, if I play black, I have the same chance to win as if I play white. The same holds true for all most every game; the two opposing players have an equal chance to win the game from the start. In most games, this is done by mirroring each side, both sides in chess have the exact same abilities and the sides are balanced.

The next factor in winning the game is how knowledgeable/good the player is at the game. While I know how chess works, my chances of beating a master chess player is about zero. I am not as versed or practiced in the game as the master player and as such don't have the knowledge base to pull from in order to counter my opponents moves and win. The skill a player has with the game may be the reason they are really good or really bad at the game. It can improve with practice or may never improve because of how the players thought process works.

Game designers then add in randomness through dice rolling to allow luck to be a bit of a factor so the "bad" player always has at least some chance against the "good" player. I can be the best player in the world at a certain game, but if the dice gods are against me and with my opponent, I can loose. The amount of randomness in the game is determined by the game designers. One would assume that randomness of the dice should be equal between the two players.

Now that the above is established, I as a player accept that I will loose to superior tactics and/or bad dice rolls. It's going to happen and I need to understand it. What I refuse to accept is that the game is not balanced. This means I have an artificially low or high chance to win based on my army comp vs my opponents army comp. Unlike some other games, where I can change sides quickly, miniature games are partially a hobby and as such, changing armies is both expensive and time consuming. If I could drop $100 to add another army, then I wouldn't care as much that the army balance is fluid.

Tournament rankings are an indication of the balance of the various armies. It is assumed that the dice and player skill factors are much less of a factor. The dice because there are multiple games and the skill because a good portion of the players are competitive and have been playing for quite a while; therefore a percentage of them should be skilled. This means when looking across several tournaments, one can see how the armies stack up in balance.

Osbad wrote:


Maybe I should have gone with my initial instinct on reading the thread and simply said "I smell nerd"...?
.......

I personally steer well clear of tournaments nowadays, not because of the 90% of great players who participate in them, but because of the 10% of jerk-offs who do. I would never dream to judge whether any individual was a member of the 10% or the 90%, but I would defend to the death my liberty to define in my own terms the behaviours that define in which camp any individual may belong.

Then why read and THEN post in a thread that is contrary to what you like and start to derail it.

wynnstudio

It's important when comparing tournament results to know the differences between the scoring.

The UK tournaments don't score comp or sports and have a different allocation of points to W/D/L to the USA.

This was mentioned as a reason for the different performance of Tau.

Sports at the the US GT's this year really isn't anything. YOu would have to be a total tool to lose 10 points max. For the top 10 - 20 finishers most had max sports.

It's un-weighted uk w-d-l system that is the major difference.

wynnstudio

at least eldar didnt do too badly