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.

Timmah wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:When you play a list that is common you know exactly how to defend against it. That is the problem with common builds, everyone knows how to beat them, and they know what they will try to do. For example; I know how to play against Mech Eldar and Seer Councils. Do you know how to beat my list?

This argument is such a complete load of crap. Its like saying competitive 40k players are dumb and can't analyze different threats without the internet telling them how to play.

Blackmoor wrote:
Do they know what the important units are (before it is too late?).

I would hope so, otherwise I am a terrible player.

Of course 40k players can do it without the internet - but you can't completely analyse a list, you can only completely analyse an army, so you need to play it first. If a list is good enough, it defies final analysis until it is on the table. Until you know how the general plans to utilise his units, you don't know what to deal with first, nor how to do it. That is why a good list has flexibility, not just to give the owning general a choice of what to do, but to confuse the opposing general about what he will be doing with it.

Important units are not necessarily the best units in an army. Marine scouts are far from the best in a marine army. Until you know whether they are going for objectives themselves, providing a screen for someone else or trying to kill something, you do not know how important they are.

Timmah wrote:Experience helps you, but it is not the be all end all of list building. Most (All) of the best MTG deck builders can't play a game against a pro to save their life. Same concept here. You don't need to be an amazing player in order to build a good list. List building and actual tactics are 2 very very different things.

Quite apart from comments made elsewhere about the world of difference between MtG and 40K, I'd say that whilst in MtG you can make "a good deck", in 40k, you can generally only make "a good deck for that general". Give Blackmoor or Mundar's lists to someone else and they would probably lose with it. Let them use their own and they may win. The reverse would also likely be true. A general each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own instincts and philosophies. Whenever I play any game, I like to play the long game, keep my guys alive and build towards a sudden, all-crushing finale that is devatasting. Give me an army that relies on taking opportunities when they arise, sacrificing my own troops (in order to kill enemies or to gain a tactical advantage) and so on... well, I can make myself do it, but it goes against my instincts, so it is not what works for me. Hell, even when I play pool I go safety first, and I enjoy watching safety play in snooker more than seeing amazing long pots...

Fifty wrote:
Quite apart from comments made elsewhere about the world of difference between MtG and 40K, I'd say that whilst in MtG you can make "a good deck", in 40k, you can generally only make "a good deck for that general". Give Blackmoor or Mundar's lists to someone else and they would probably lose with it. Let them use their own and they may win. The reverse would also likely be true. A general each has their own strengths and weaknesses, and their own instincts and philosophies. Whenever I play any game, I like to play the long game, keep my guys alive and build towards a sudden, all-crushing finale that is devatasting. Give me an army that relies on taking opportunities when they arise, sacrificing my own troops (in order to kill enemies or to gain a tactical advantage) and so on... well, I can make myself do it, but it goes against my instincts, so it is not what works for me. Hell, even when I play pool I go safety first, and I enjoy watching safety play in snooker more than seeing amazing long pots...

Oh look, just like MTG. Some people can't play control decks to save their lives but they are amazing at combo or aggro or hybrids. Or vice versa.


Also, I would hope "top" players would be able to know how a unit would best/most likely be used by their opponent and counter based on that info.

I agree with Timmah. The tournament sounded like a cake walk for Allan. I was really expecting a lot more out of Shep & Somnicide. It just sounds like the west is a little weaker than the east... with the army that won BoLScon and all.

G

Timmah wrote:

Blackmoor wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying. Do you know how people learn 40k? By experience. If you have experience with the common builds you will do a lot better than you would if you played against an army that you have never seen before.

Experience helps you, but it is not the be all end all of list building. Most (All) of the best MTG deck builders can't play a game against a pro to save their life. Same concept here. You don't need to be an amazing player in order to build a good list. List building and actual tactics are 2 very very different things.

Blackmoor wrote:

That is the difference between you and I. I go out their and play across the country to test my skill and abilities against the best players in the country, in the largest tournaments, and you don’t. In this thread alone I have played Redbeard in Chicago, Darth Diggler in Baltimore, and Green Blow Fly in Tampa, and Mundar in Mesa. I have played in large tournaments from Salem, OR, to San Diego, and from Chicago, to Baltimore down to Orlando. I put into practice what I know rather than sit at home and think about what could be better.

I'm confused, so you have to travel across the country to play the best players? Yet when you do, you say that by bringing an unconventional list, you give them fits and they don't know what to do against it? These don't sound like top players to me...

Redbeard wrote:
But, mechs disadvantages include having a lot of your firepower geared for short-range, so if you get stuck at long range, you're in trouble. Also, if your guys are all embarked, you cut your own ability to put out firepower. A lot of non-top mech players don't know when to get out and when to stay in. 16 bolter shots has value often enough...

What mech armies are you playing??? Tau, IG, Eldar, SM? Which one has only/mostly short range fire power...


Seriously though, if you guys are going to get all bent out of shape because one person on the internet said your tournament wasn't competitive, you really need to develop some thicker skin. 40k isn't in some way special compared to other competitive events. If you are going to post your tournament wins on an internet forum you better be prepared to take the criticism as well as the praise.

Timmah wrote:

You still have set choices to make even if there might be a few more in 40k. And in Type 1 there is a way bigger pool of cards, but that doesn't count for some reason...
(and if you give me the old, type 1 is a coin flip, I will assume your an idiot that knows nothing about MTG)

I've been playing M:TG far longer than you have. Type I isn't included, not because it is a coin flip, but because it isn't given the same level of attention and critique that the more competitive pro-tour types are. I'll happily concede that the Type I environment is more akin to the 40k list building than the competitive types played on the pro tour. However, the level of critique and analysis for Type I is no where near as robust - so it suffers the same problem as 40k in that regard.

Redbeard wrote:
In MTG this would be like telling someone who won a tournament without ever facing a control deck that they did not have the right tools to deal with a control deck. Most people would just agree with you, tell you they accepted the matchup as a near auto loss and say they didn't expect much control and then move on.

In M:TG it's much easier to see that someone doesn't have the tools to deal with something. Rather than agree with you, most intelligent posters here are of the opinion that he did have the tools to deal with a mech army. Perhaps you're just not as good at breaking down army lists as you are at breaking down decks.

For example certain fast assault armies will ruin my tau list. Can I beat them? sure, with some luck/skillful playing. Am I happy to see them across the table? Heck no.

I'm not sure that an army exists that can defeat your finely tuned Tau army, what with your 52-0 record being proudly proclaimed in your sig and all.

I am not offended by any means. Nor was that first post all that humourous (and I doubt humor was your intent). I am also not the one whining about people taking my posts out of context after I posted a trollish comment. You do make good points on occasion, I just wish they didn't start in such a non-constructive manner.

Timmah wrote:Oh look, just like MTG. Some people can't play control decks to save their lives but they are amazing at combo or aggro or hybrids. Or vice versa.


Also, I would hope "top" players would be able to know how a unit would best/most likely be used by their opponent and counter based on that info.

Thing is, you claim to be not antagonising anyone and to be misunderstood, then you use language like above...

Anyway, my MtG days were back in '95 to '96, but I have mana-builder decks that play by the numbers and can be used by practically anyone. I had an Island Sanctuary-Mill Stone(?)-Ivory Tower deck before they even started appearing elsewhere, and it got to a point where my friends would not let me use it... None of my friends could use it successfully, as they never figured out the actual use of it on the table, so you make a good point.

HOwever, by picking apart my flawed 40K-MtG comparison you have inadvertantly undermined your own primary argument that one list is good and another is bad, and agreed with me that different lists are good or bad depending on who is using them, as well as what what they are facing. My tendency would always be to pop heavy units using long-range weaponry. Others do well by closing and using klaws/fusion guns. Neither way is "right", but you don't have the points to overoad on both methods, so go with most of the method that suits you.

You may also hope that "double-top" players would use some units in unconventional ways that would confound the pre-suppositions of "top" players and using their experience against them...

Redbeard wrote:

I've been playing M:TG far longer than you have. Type I isn't included, not because it is a coin flip, but because it isn't given the same level of attention and critique that the more competitive pro-tour types are. I'll happily concede that the Type I environment is more akin to the 40k list building than the competitive types played on the pro tour. However, the level of critique and analysis for Type I is no where near as robust - so it suffers the same problem as 40k in that regard.

I would disagree with you here, but this argument doesn't really further either cause that much so I will just say lets let this die.

Redbeard wrote:
In M:TG it's much easier to see that someone doesn't have the tools to deal with something. Rather than agree with you, most intelligent posters here are of the opinion that he did have the tools to deal with a mech army. Perhaps you're just not as good at breaking down army lists as you are at breaking down decks.

Ok, so we agree this is just a differing of opinion on whether he has the tools. So what is the problem? I think one way, you think another. We each have our own opinions and each is valid. No need to get mad because I voiced mine.

Redbeard wrote:
I'm not sure that an army exists that can defeat your finely tuned Tau army, what with your 52-0 record being proudly proclaimed in your sig and all.

Sorry, my sig is an on going joke. I am sorry that you didn't understand that, what with the 0-X and 1-X records with my other armies. But please keep taking random shots at me to try and make my opinion less valid...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fifty wrote:
HOwever, by picking apart my flawed 40K-MtG comparison you have inadvertantly undermined your own primary argument that one list is good and another is bad, and agreed with me that different lists are good or bad depending on who is using them, as well as what what they are facing. My tendency would always be to pop heavy units using long-range weaponry. Others do well by closing and using klaws/fusion guns. Neither way is "right", but you don't have the points to overoad on both methods, so go with most of the method that suits you.

Very true. But some lists are just always bad. For example, 60 islands and nothing else in a deck will probably always lose.

And as I said above, it is just an opinion. Its what I believe to be right, hence I voiced my OPINION. Am I wrong? Perhaps, perhaps not. Its just that, an opinion.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I agree with Timmah. The tournament sounded like a cake walk for Allan. I was really expecting a lot more out of Shep & Somnicide. It just sounds like the west is a little weaker than the east... with the army that won BoLScon and all.

G

To be honest I expected more out of me too :-( I am still beating myself up for playing with only half a brain. In the two games I actually played my list as it was intended (concentration of force) I tabled my opponents (well, as near as one can table without number nids).

I think Shep infected me before hand intentionally since I had absolutely destroyed him with my bikes...

Back on topic - Timmah's troll-fu is amazing. I am surprised how many of you are rising to his talk. Which is all it is, he already stated that he doesn't play in tourneys so basically in his theory hammer, Allan's list sucks. You are basically trying to prove a negative here - it doesn't matter what empirical data there is, Timmah's mind is made up and nothing will change it. I would bet cash that Allan could take that list against one that Timmah specifically designed to beat it and still win - because Allan is a good player and his lists look deceptively soft until you see how things work together and the fact that he has a plan for every single unit and is amazingly focused at sticking to it, even when things look bad. He gets that from his experience playing both his army and the game.

I know that looks like I am flaming Timmah, and really, I am not. His mind is made up and nothing will change it. Anyone who has played Allan knows he is a good player and his lists always look decidedly softer than they actually are. There are no wasted points in his list and nothing but lean murder-models.

Congrats on the wins and thanks for all the battle reports (and pictures!) that you guys have taken the time to share! It's a shame that those have gotten lost in the noise of this "debate".

I started a thread in the 40k General asking this question, but I figured I'd post it here too.

Has any of you played/seen played one of the "Best Of" lists that Timmah and others advertise so much? They seem to look alright on paper, but I never see them (or similar lists) in any battle reports, which causes me to wonder if that design style is all it's cracked up to be.

Timmah wrote:And as I said above, it is just an opinion. Its what I believe to be right, hence I voiced my OPINION. Am I wrong? Perhaps, perhaps not. Its just that, an opinion.

I think that from the earliest post, people have taken issue with not your opinion, but rather the manner in which you present your opinion.

For example, in your very first post, instead of

Timmah wrote:So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?

you could have gone with

not Timmah wrote:So, I notice there were no XXX builds in those lists. What there was does not appear very competetive to me. Although you added the Bright Lance and Fire Dragons, how do you feel you would have coped with a dedicated XXX build from XXX race? what tactics would you have adopted to handle WWW units? and have you ever considered swapping ZZZ for YYY to address this?

Or even

Timmah wrote:Those armies you faced do not look very competetive to me. I am not certain you would cope well with XXX builds.

But hey, that is just my opinion.

@somnicide:

I am sure he is a great player. All I was trying to say is that since he has almost no long range weaponry (and not much anti tank), he would have a very tough time against a pure mech or gunline force.

I don't see whats so wrong about that.

I am sure his army is amazing against foot armies and drop pod armies that are forced to come to him. But if he has to go get someone, then he is going to have problems.


hehe, noted fifty.
I have already told people that I come across strong though due to my other competitive game environments. I will probably not be changing the way I discuss stuff thanks to 8+ years of previous learned behavior. Obviously the first post had a bit of jest, bit of opinion in it and everyone took it the wrong way.

Timmah wrote:@somnicide:

I am sure he is a great player. All I was trying to say is that since he has almost no long range weaponry (and not much anti tank), he would have a very tough time against a pure mech or gunline force.

I don't see whats so wrong about that.

I am sure his army is amazing against foot armies and drop pod armies that are forced to come to him. But if he has to go get someone, then he is going to have problems.

Then say THAT instead of "Man, was there a single competitive army there? Everyone must have sucked for that army to win." (I know it's not exactly what you said, but that's how "So were there any competitive armies at this tournament?" came across.)

I agree with Timmah. I think that Blackmoor is running a lower tier eldar army list. Six harlequins on foot? A single squad of dragons? 4 jetbikes with a warlock?

However unlike him I am now going to ask blackmoor how he does so well with such an army. Rather then rambling about meta game and list build, I simply want to know why he does well with what he uses. I feel mech eldar are much stronger. He beat a mech eldar player. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he didnt. But regardless, I know I couldnt have won the wild west shootout with a footslogging eldar army, let alone whatever big tooled out lists timmah likes.

This is how adults react to stuff Timmah. See children look at something they dont understand and go "oh thats stupid, he got lucky, I could beat that if I play that"
Adults ask the person "how did you do so well with that, I dont understand it at all".

Of course you would know this if you left your moms basement and actually played in a big event.

Eidolon, I think you might be the pot calling the kettle black, or whichever way round that saying goes.

Timmah wrote:@somnicide:

I am sure he is a great player. All I was trying to say is that since he has almost no long range weaponry (and not much anti tank), he would have a very tough time against a pure mech or gunline force.

I don't see whats so wrong about that.

I am sure his army is amazing against foot armies and drop pod armies that are forced to come to him. But if he has to go get someone, then he is going to have problems.

hehe, noted fifty.
I have already told people that I come across strong though due to my other competitive game environments. I will probably not be changing the way I discuss stuff thanks to 8+ years of previous learned behavior. Obviously the first post had a bit of jest, bit of opinion in it and everyone took it the wrong way.

Now see, that, we can talk about. Long range is really somewhat of a misnomer in 40k these days. Typically you will set up no more than 30" away from your opponent (note that Blackmoor typically will set up his huge blob near the center of the table). An average turn 1 move (with run, if you so choose) will be 9" with a further 6 on the following turn putting you 15" away for your turn 2 shooting. He doesn't have to worry about his army running away thanks to fearless and his guardian squads are large enough that you can't saturate them with enough wounds from a single target to snipe out any good stuff. His Avatar will make contact probably on turn 3 and with him fortuned he is an absolute beast.

If someone wants to use fast models to stay away, they are not shooting at him and he is taking up an intractable (fearless) position on the objectives, sure he won't kill you, but he will win the game, which is all that matters. His flanking warwalkers are a big enough threat that you might not want to be too cavalier in your placement on the flanks. A 4x6 table with a 24" neutral zone (or less as was the case in some missions this tourney) is frightfully small, as I discovered playing bikes thinking to play the long range avoid the enemy game.

Anyway, just a few observations not so much on Allan's list, as to how he plays it and understands the confines of the game and uses them to his advantage.

Eidolon wrote:I agree with Timmah. I think that Blackmoor is running a lower tier eldar army list. Six harlequins on foot? A single squad of dragons? 4 jetbikes with a warlock?

However unlike him I am now going to ask blackmoor how he does so well with such an army. Rather then rambling about meta game and list build, I simply want to know why he does well with what he uses. I feel mech eldar are much stronger. He beat a mech eldar player. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he didnt. But regardless, I know I couldnt have won the wild west shootout with a footslogging eldar army, let alone whatever big tooled out lists timmah likes.

This is how adults react to stuff Timmah. See children look at something they dont understand and go "oh thats stupid, he got lucky, I could beat that if I play that"
Adults ask the person "how did you do so well with that, I dont understand it at all".

Of course you would know this if you left your moms basement and actually played in a big event.

If you read one of Darth's and Panzerleader's posts, they talk a little bit about how the army works.

In the next couple of days, I am going to de-construct my list and go over why it works and post it either in 40K Tactics or Army Lists.

I find it odd that a lot of people do not understand it. They know it works, they just don't understand how.

Eidolon wrote:He beat a mech eldar player. Maybe he got lucky, maybe he didnt. But regardless, I know I couldnt have won the wild west shootout with a footslogging eldar army, let alone whatever big tooled out lists timmah likes.

4 tanks is not mech eldar sorry to say.

Eidolon wrote:
This is how adults react to stuff Timmah. See children look at something they dont understand and go "oh thats stupid, he got lucky, I could beat that if I play that"
Adults ask the person "how did you do so well with that, I dont understand it at all".

Ah, but I do understand how he did so well. He faced a bunch of foot armies and no mech outside of the "draw" scenario.



Also, can I ask a question?
Why did that SW player drop all his pods in a line across your front lines? Seems like a pretty terrible strategy to me.

Timmah wrote:
Why did that SW player drop all his pods in a line across your front lines? Seems like a pretty terrible strategy to me.

What would you have done?

Fifty wrote:Eidolon, I think you might be the pot calling the kettle black, or whichever way round that saying goes.

Not at all. The problem with Timmah is that rather then trying to find out how something works. He dismisses it. I dont feel that blackmoor had the best eldar list, so that shows he is a better player then me. So I asked him how he uses it to win. Rather then discounting his victories as him simply getting lucky. Same thing with the ard boyz thread. Oh gunline marines placed high, that guy just got lucky.

@Eidolon
Luck plays a huge part in most 40k tournaments because it is not a swiss system. Now playing 5 games does help this, its doesn't correct the flaw in the system.

For example, take a room of 50 random chess players. If I play 5 games against random people (each having won their last game) and Bobby Fischer plays 5 games against random people, I could end with a better record than him despite me being a much much worse player. See?

I've been over why ard boyz makes this situation even worse (by resetting wins/loses after each 3 games).

I did not dismiss his list. I said it would be bad against a certain army type that he did not have to face. Do I think the list is terrible? Maybe. But I never said that.


Winning a 40k tournament does not and will never make your list amazing. At least not until they accept an actually competitive system.


@ the drop pod army:
I'm not positive off the top of my head what I would have done. But playing, "lets set up our guys 12" away and see whose army shoots better (oh and mine comes in piecemeal)" does not seem like a good idea.

Timmah wrote:@Eidolon
Luck plays a huge part in most 40k tournaments because it is not a swiss system. Now playing 5 games does help this, its doesn't correct the flaw in the system.
For example, take a room of 50 random chess players. If I play 5 games against random people (each having won their last game) and Bobby Fischer plays 5 games against random people, I could end with a better record than him despite me being a much much worse player. See?

If they each won their last game its not random is it

Ah a smart comment. Anyways I think you know what I meant. If not, I meant the same structure 40k tournaments use.

Anyways my point still stands.

Timmah wrote:Ah a smart comment. Anyways I think you know what I meant. If not, I meant the same structure 40k tournaments use.

Anyways my point still stands.

Whats the same structure 40k tournaments still use? As far as I know if Me and blackmoor both play different people and we are the only two to get full points we are playing each other round 2. Now there are some events that use random pairings the whole time, but those are rare, and the big ones dont do that.

And your point does not still stand.
Thats like saying "the sky is red"
to which somebody replies "actually its blue, look at it"
and then you say "this is true, but my point still stands".

Statements are an expression of facts.
Facts are observations based on logic.
If the logic is rendered invalid, then the statement is no longer a statement, as it does not express a fact.

Timmeh, seriously, you have to take some responsibility for what you put out there. If you express your criticism and curiosity in a dismissive and insulting way, people will react negatively to it.

Now, this may have some validity as an approach. In both this thread and in the ‘Ard Boyz thread, you eventually elicited some more detailed analysis and explanation from Darth, Somnicide, and others. Sometimes being inflammatory and challenging can usefully spur discussion, and goad people into investing more effort into the thread, providing more and more useful data.

But if you post a one-liner like “So were there any competitive lists at this tournament?”, you need to recognize and own up to the unpleasantness you are starting. Complaining about flames draws very little sympathy when you are splashing gasoline around.

Timmah wrote:@somnicide:

...I have already told people that I come across strong though due to my other competitive game environments. I will probably not be changing the way I discuss stuff thanks to 8+ years of previous learned behavior. Obviously the first post had a bit of jest, bit of opinion in it and everyone took it the wrong way.

I think I found the problem.

You refuse to discard your tactical mindset from M:TG. In Magic: The Gathering, you have a set list of cards, and the game is designed so that some cards are always better, which is why they are Uncommon or Rare. They want you to seek out those powerful cards to play with, creating the trading market that a CCG thrives on. This is smart business on their part, and a great way for folks to play a low-commitment game. I played M:TG for about 7 years (From Unlimited through 5th I believe). I was good for my area, quite the collector, and a strategist to boot. I had a control deck that was never beaten, a merfolk islandwalking deck that no one could figure out, and lots of wild sneaky hybrids. I had a great time with it, and developed lean strategies for deck building that I'm sure rival your own, and would still, given the same time and era of playing, and had I not gotten so bored with it.

However, trying to use any of that strategic mindset in 40K is a complete mistake, and here's why I think so:

In Magic, the randomness factor is which card you draw. Cards themselves have a set value for cost, damage output, and damage resistance factor. There are special rules on many cards, but they all come from a pool of universal rules to modify how the card operates in-game. However, very few things change the output of a fight between creatures, other than more outside cards cast into the combat, or onto the participants. You always know how many cards your opponent is holding, and how much land (casting resource) they have left at any time. It's, quite literally, right there on the table. A game with this many constants lacks true finesse, and will always become a game of Rich-Kid Masters; made up of those lucky or wealthy enough to own the statistically most powerful cards in large quantity. Combats are highly abstract, and outcomes are almost always obvious. All strategy occurs in the build-up to the combat, as both players jockey for the conditions on the battle.

In Warhammer 40K (as well as many other real-space tabletop games), you have set army lists. You will always have the entire army you pick, instead of drawing randomly, but you have almost infinite selection when preparing that list. Units do not come in neat points packages; Saying that a SM army utilizes a Tactical Squad means nothing, because there's a hundred different loadouts which vastly change the role and potential of said Tactical Squad. Even two squads with the exact same loadout may have vastly different experiences because this is a DICE based game. When I "attack" with my "Tactical Squad" it doesn't just do 4 and can take 4, I go through a series of rolls (TH,TW) _per shot_ to decide the outcome of the attack. One round, they may do "8" damage, another round, only "2". And as a defender, you then modify that result again with the armor save, if allowed (a whole 'nother level of complexity there), and we find the final outcome. In order to do that, I have a per-model range requirement, and usually a movement requirement (stand still, not run, etc) which also plays into every tactical decision. All you can discuss about 40K is the probability of any action occuring. A Fortuned Avatar may shrug off an attack of "8" from my "Tactical Squad" because average rolling prevails, but it just might not. It just may fall to 4 lucky grot pistols. Or it may wade through enough firepower to destroy Alderaan; unscathed. Strategy is a multi-headed hydra in this game, as what you think may work may fail. You never know exactly how much it's going to take to get something done, you can just estimate and hope not to waste too much. Attacking must be balanced with movement and positioning, unlike Magic. Most units have multiple methods of attack and defense, and the wary tactician must see the potentials for all of them, as well as the enemies', and make decisions based on never being sure of any outcome.

Army design even reflects this quandary in player's decisions on saturation within the battlegroup. How many times have we discussed "How many meltas is enough? Too much?". Or your question "How much long range Anti-Tank is required?". The answer is It's Up To You. As the saying goes, "Your mileage may vary". In a game of M:TG, there is no such dynamic. If something is good, you want as much of it as possible to maximize your odds of drawing it. This philosophy of automatic spamming is invalid in an environment where your units are all available from the start. To be truly efficient, you want _just enough_ so you have points for other things.


You know all this, as I'm sure everyone else here does. I state it for edification, and to point out how ludicrous it is to apply a philosophy of "X Investment in Y Unit that will always have Z Output" is when applied to Warhammer 40K. There are layers upon layers of complexity and chance that go into every action and reaction we see in this game. Very few things are actually constant, and the most we can ever really nail down is _trends of likelyhood_.

There is no Paper, no Scissors, and no Rock.

There are no units that are made better based on rarity as a control mechanism. All units are available to all players at all times. Armies are made to a points limit, and to an FOC chart, but the options within are limitless, and what options we take, we benefit from every game.

So please take a minute to understand why players who love this game feel insulted when you throw around "Rock beats Scissors every time" arguments. In M:TG, Rock does beat Scissors, but in 40K, rare though it may be, every now and then, Scissors really does cut Rock.

In my opinion MtG should not be used to draw any conclusions in regards to 40k. They are much to disimiliar.

G

I just want to jump in and address Timmah really quick.

I get what you are saying, I'm sure you know that there are infinite variables in addition to list building that all factor in to a person winning a tournament. Almost all of those factors are impossible to run a simulation for. You can tech out an army list, create a sample set of results for particular dice rolls, simulate competitive games with as many other armies as your friends own and can proxy. the more friends you have, the more different play styles you can become accustomed to. That will go a long way to prepare you for tourney play.

I am familiar with Stelek's argument about "4th edition lists" and the "weak tourney scene". I have also followed this thread and the 'ard boys thread, and I am familiar with your stance on the same issue. However, both of your stances are based entirely on an irrelevant thesis. The whole topic is a complete fallacy. Let me explain...

The ultimate goal of a competitive tournament player is to win best general at a tournament. the tournament (and all of the opponents in the three or five games) is an unquantifiable variable. It's also completely irrelevant what conditions exist in the tournament, just as long as the ultimate goal is achieved. Stelek argues that other people's lists are terrible and tourney missions are terrible and then cites that as his reason for not choosing to compete in tournaments. Almost everyone can see that for what it is. A thin excuse. You cite your inability to afford the expense of a tourney, which is infinitely more relevant and I'm going to hit on that in a sec. Basically, tournaments and their attendees, and their missions are variable, but the challenge of a tourney player is to accept the variables, use his brain to find a way to win despite facing good lists (or bad ones) and despite facing missions that may be detrimental to your army strength. If you can do that, you'll win. Win consistently and you have proven yourself a good warhammer 40k player, by definition. When you become a semi regular tourney player, you tend to judge the difficulty of an upcoming game based on the man standing across from you. there are certainly important details to take in when looking over an opponents army list, but ultimately, I know if i'll have an easy game or a tough game based on if i know the guy or not (or if he knows a lot of other people at the tourney, in the case of a person i haven't met yet).

I can boil this all down to one statement. If the ultimate goal of a tourney player is to win, and he does win, then all other factors, his army, the armies he faced, the missions he played in... are irrelevant. Would a player at a given tourney have a harder time if facing different armies? Sure. Would he have an easier time with a more tuned list? Maybe. But arguing against a tourney champion, especially a consistently high finishing player, is hopeless, and ridiculous. he has acheived the goal he has set out for himself. if you want to educate him, then go to a tournament and show him your stuff.

Now to that. I'll use this tourney as an example for a budgetary planning. I live in los Angeles, I work (you had implied that tourney goers are somehow loaded with money yet don't have jobs earlier), I am one of two recording engineers at a small recording studio, and i can't just call in the morning of and say I'm not coming in. I have clients and sessions booked far in advance. i have a girlfriend who doesn't play 40k. And I'm sure I have other obstacles that I am not thinking of to tourney attendance. I made the decision to attend the wild west shootout, months in advance. I purchased the ticket, then immediately scheduled the friday before the tourney weekend to be a day off. In doing this 8 weeks before it happened, I ensured that nothing could be scheduled on that day. The ticket to WWS was $70. I split a hotel room with AbsoluteBlue for two nights... it was $75 per night. The hotel had a continental breakfast, and lunch was provided by the tourney. We ate dinner both nights, I splurged and spent $25 each night. AbsoluteBlue drove, and I filled his tank one way, for $40.

The total cost in cash output for the entire weekend was $235. You mentioned you had a job. You seem like an intelligent person so I'll assume it isn't minimum wage. If you are a salary employee, you could use a single day of PTO, and lose nothing in wages. If you work hourly, you could stand to lose waht... around $100 for a day's work?

So worst case scenario, around $350 dollars. if traveling to 40k tourneys is something you want to do, and you are an american with a job, I refute your premise that it is too expensive and too difficult to get time off.

Now, i want you to know, that i only went to this trouble to cost it all out and talk about how many days i took off because I like your 40k energy, and I'd love it if you would attend tourneys with us. if you do make it out to one, and you see me there, come on over and introduce yourself. I'd be happy to meet you and make some introductions. If you do go and lose, and lose against lists that aren't "as good" as yours. Don't be alarmed. It happened to me, and still happens to me all the time. Generalship and experience facing different play styles, luck, mission, matchup... The sum total of these factors FAR exceeds army list on impact to your overall battle points. Just take my word for that.

Shep, first off, I did in no way attempt to imply that tournament goers don't have jobs or have crappy jobs. I simply said at the moment I am not able to travel due to travel and money constraints.

Just got outa college so I have loans and living expenses that come first. Also being an accountant, the whole CPA test thing comes first for me. So very little time/money for the first couple years.

Your "the ends justify the means" argument (if that's an alright sum up) does not encourage a competitive, evolving, growing environment. Saying, he won, so that's good enough breeds apathy.

When someone wins, you should look to see what they could do better. That is how competitive formats grow, evolve and ultimately get better.

When someone comes up with an amazing new MTG deck and wins a tournament, do you know what happens? It gets analyzed and picked apart by the community. That way it can be made even better than 1-2 designers could ever make it. See where I'm going with this?

Same with my 40k argument. You look at the top decks or army lists and attempt to improve on those. Not the bottom ones.

You can not compare Magic the gathering deck building to 40k army list building. Most people agree with this. I also think we are getting past the point of hoping you come out to a tournament to play us. I really believe the moment you drop a hint as to where you play there will be some people who will make the journey to you to see first hand how the game should be played.

Timmah wrote: Also being an accountant,

This explains it all. You are a vulgar number cruncher. What in academia is referred to as a 'quantoid.' It explain the purely theoretical rather than real-world basis of your posts.