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.

I've watched a couple of videos on the stream, but I haven't seen enough yet to understand these results.

Does anyone have a source for lists and the format of this GT?

Orks in second and third place? What?

 Galas wrote:
Orks in second and third place? What?

Yea, I had the same thought. Is it because it isn't ITC? Softer lists?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Usual for one of the Ork lists: 120 boyz, paintboy, tankbustaz, 6 mek gunz, 2 trukz, 2 weirdboyz, mek. He beat out Behemoth nids with a skyshield.

Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.

Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)

I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)

One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.

I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings

 Ordana wrote:
Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.

Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)

I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)

One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.

I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings

That's a real busted rank system. So for all we know the Ork lists maybe won 2x each and that's it?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
Gaming is purely from games played. 6 points for a win, 2 for a draw. 0 for a loss. So winning big is not nearly as important. by 1 or 100 points. it doesnt matter.

Every player picked one of their 5 opponents as 'fav army' and one as 'fav opponent'. Which vote of which is another 1 point (potential 10). Slay warlord, Line Breaker, First Blood and Killpoints were used to sort out ties (which are ofc common with w/d/l scoring)

I don't think the lists were softer. They had a breakdown of the most popular units in the event and #1 was Dark Reapers at 44 units taken across 11 Eldar (assuming the list in the OP is all players.
The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)

One of the top Ork lists was shown on day 1, I missed that game.

I would primarily blame the w/d/l system instead of progressive scoring for the difference in rankings

That's a real busted rank system. So for all we know the Ork lists maybe won 2x each and that's it?

taking 6, 2 and 0. in any combination of 5. How do you get to 26?

4 wins, 1 draw each.

44 units of reapers across 11 Eldar is the definition of softer lists.

That should be 60+ units easily.

And if the games are end of game scoring, Orks would do well, they're the biggest blobs that can just sit on objectives and win.

Personally I would never play in a GW run tournament. Never had a good experience with a GW employee.

 Galas wrote:
Orks in second and third place? What?

Incoming Orks nerf in FAQ next month

 Marmatag wrote:
44 units of reapers across 11 Eldar is the definition of softer lists.

That should be 60+ units easily.

And if the games are end of game scoring, Orks would do well, they're the biggest blobs that can just sit on objectives and win.

Personally I would never play in a GW run tournament. Never had a good experience with a GW employee.

Depends if those are evenly spread or if some Eldar took no Dark Reapers at all. And the size of the units, I suppose.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
44 units of reapers across 11 Eldar is the definition of softer lists.

That should be 60+ units easily.

And if the games are end of game scoring, Orks would do well, they're the biggest blobs that can just sit on objectives and win.

Personally I would never play in a GW run tournament. Never had a good experience with a GW employee.

Depends if those are evenly spread or if some Eldar took no Dark Reapers at all. And the size of the units, I suppose.

That event, like all big events, gathered to both kind of players, those that come to win and those that only want a nice weekend of gaming.

I expect that out of those 11 Eldar lists, many were of the first kind and had no dark reapers. Let's admit it, they are a really bad model, cost a lot and are made in failcast. You take them only if you really need it to win. Those 44 dark reapers were probably concentrated in 3 or 4 lists.

Remember that Dark Reapers are not OP by definition, used in a casual list they are a risky choice. They become OP when you build a list around them (alaitoc + plenty of psy support).

What i really get out of this, is that balance discussion should be gated between [ITC] or [Non ITC] tags. They are different games.

 Marmatag wrote:
44 units of reapers across 11 Eldar is the definition of softer lists.

That should be 60+ units easily.

And if the games are end of game scoring, Orks would do well, they're the biggest blobs that can just sit on objectives and win.

Personally I would never play in a GW run tournament. Never had a good experience with a GW employee.

So you think every eldar is running say 6x10 dark reapers?

Guess LVO 2018 winner list was also soft list then. Only 4 units(which incidentally is what 44 units across 11 eldar lists is average of!).

Interesting. Wasn't LVO marketed as ultimate competition. Yet won by soft list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
I expect that out of those 11 Eldar lists, many were of the first kind and had no dark reapers. Let's admit it, they are a really bad model, cost a lot and are made in failcast. You take them only if you really need it to win. Those 44 dark reapers were probably concentrated in 3 or 4 lists.

4 lists? So 11 units per list? so at minimum 891. Don't think that's exactly optimal way. They are good but they are even nastier when properly supported.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Orks in second and third place? What?

Incoming Orks nerf in FAQ next month

What's interesting is that there are only 2 orks in top 41. 2 and 3 place.

Wait were those 44 units or 44 models? I think they meant 44 models.

Spoletta wrote:
Wait were those 44 units or 44 models? I think they meant 44 models.

an average of 4 units of reapers per eldar army seems realistic.

Spoletta wrote:
Wait were those 44 units or 44 models? I think they meant 44 models.

Now 44 models would be hyper light. 4 units per eldar army averaging now is very realistic for anything half-competive. 4 models per army would be some seriously soft tournament or all eldars would be shooting themselves to foot en masse.

And there goes my theory about non competitive eldar refusing to use such unhandy models...

Spoletta wrote:
And there goes my theory about non competitive eldar refusing to use such unhandy models...

How many non-competive anything you expect there to be at tournaments?

The top 2 tables were shown on sunday. Looked like normal competitive armies. They mentioned the #8 list (since he is the cameraman for the GW stream normally) and it was the usual nasty Soup list with Custodian shield-captains on bikes, Guard and I think Celestine (cant remember the exact list)

Doesn't sound that non-competive. Custodian bike HQ's, guard, celestine...Yeah really non-competive!

I wonder what the Chaos lists were. Cynic in me says all variations on the same theme (superfriends) but I really wonder.

Then GW sees this and casually believes the game is nice and balanced.

Nerf Chaos! Nerf Orks!

 Earth127 wrote:
I wonder what the Chaos lists were. Cynic in me says all variations on the same theme (superfriends) but I really wonder.

If i remember correctly, there was only a handful of Primarchs at the event - like 3 BobbyGs and only slightly more Magnus'. Few more Mortys on top of that.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Then GW sees this and casually believes the game is nice and balanced.

Citation needed.
Oh wait, they are bringing out rules/points adjustments. Guess that means the opposite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
I wonder what the Chaos lists were. Cynic in me says all variations on the same theme (superfriends) but I really wonder.

Winning list was
Death Guard Super Heavy Auxillary
Mortarion
Alpha Legion Battalion (all with mark of Slaanesh)
Daemon Prince + wings + 2 malefic talons
Sorcerer + jump pack + force sword
40 cultists
10 cultists
10 cultists
3 obliterators
3 obliterators
World Eaters Battalion (mark of Khorne)
Dark Apostle
Exalted Champion + power sword
8 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
5 Berzerkers
Rhino
Rhino

6e place (who played the final and lost) was about 90 plague bearers, 3 blight crawlers, 2 drones and a bunch of characters and maybe some plague marines, cant remember exactly.

Not so bad as a winning list. The fact that is isn't just a mindless spam of the best models is already something.
You can see that he designed the list with timed threats. "This goes first turn" "this comes turn 2" etc...
IMHO, this is a good designed list and worthy of winning the event.

So this brings up a question: GT did not use ITC missions, just the book missions (not sure if rulebook or Chapter Approved) and we saw a HUGE variance between the recent ITC tournaments and this.

So do we really need ITC missions? I get what they are trying to do, but they seem to be encouraging the current ITC meta, rather than trying to encourage more balanced play which IMHO Is what a tournament needs to have. Other than the eternal war mission in chapter approved that requires you to split your army into three parts, I feel the chapter approved missions encourage a more well-rounded army list, while ITC Champions missions encourage building to achieve/deny secondary objectives.

I guess it's a moot point because ITC is the dominant standard in the USA, but it's food for thought. Could we get away without having specialized missions and just using the book missions maybe with very minor tweaks (I like the static objective placement ITC uses)?

RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?

Know any of the others? I am curious as to variation in the lists or are all of them basicly the same?

 Ordana wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Then GW sees this and casually believes the game is nice and balanced.

Citation needed.
Oh wait, they are bringing out rules/points adjustments. Guess that means the opposite.

Well, after all these rules and points adjustments a Dark Reaper is still 5 pts so... `\_(o.0)_/`

Wayniac wrote:

RE: Winning list, it looks decent (better than the stuff you saw at LVO) although I'm a bit miffed by it basically being a mixed chaos force with two polar opposite gods and then a daemon primarch thrown in just because with no other Nurgle units to be found. Of course, tournament, so that doesn't matter, and it's infinitely better than that Alaitoc/Ynnari Reaper stuff that was what, 5/8 places at LVO?

I'm curious why do you think this is ''infinitely better'' than Competitive Eldar lists? This is just a bog standard chaos cultist bomb, has been very popular since the chaos booked dropped. There was in fact tons of this type of list being used at the LVO. In many ways it's exactly the same as competitive Eldar in that it's mixing and matching various optimal traits, and using the most cost efficient units (in this case Alpha Legion/World Eaters and slanesh cultists/oblits) to create a powerful soup, just like the Ynnari lists.

I think GW could look into nerfing soups if they want to shake up the meta because we seem to have Imperial/Chaos and Eldar soups dominating and because of how they interact it makes it difficult to individually balance units. We see that with guardsman being drafted into every imperial army for eg for cheap cps/relics/traits.

This thread is pure toxic folks, knock it off.

Attacking a tourney format because they don't play the way you do is childish at best.

The variety in that top 25 is what you want right? You don't want a format that rewards only one kind of list (Cough Cough LVO)......

 sfshilo wrote:
This thread is pure toxic folks, knock it off.

Attacking a tourney format because they don't play the way you do is childish at best.

The variety in that top 25 is what you want right? You don't want a format that rewards only one kind of list (Cough Cough LVO)......

Funny you'd think a Nurgle player would actually know what toxic looks like. This has been healthy discussion actually and pointed arguments about the benefits and possible negatives of tourney formats.

Edit: except for the dark reaper posts, Marmatag I really don't see how anything more than 4 units of Dark Reapers is comp.

 Quickjager wrote:

Funny you'd think a Nurgle player would actually know what toxic looks like.

I mean... probably not? Toxic probably looks completely normal to them.