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.

My experience with the BAO:

I was on board with FW being in events, and I still am. I agree that FW units redefined the meta as I expected Cron-Air and saw none. Is that a good thing? I am not sure, but it did allow for a greater diversity of opponents which I can say is good thing. Looking at the top 8 from Indy, the final 2 rounds were a lot of a Cron on Cron action, and that seems like it might be stale for a few people.

I was not surprised to see Demons win and it made even more sense considering the lower amount of flyers.

The venue was as expected. I think the event was about 4 tables over full, but it went smooth after the first morning.

I am a fan of the BAO, and I will probably attend each year until my wife kills me for going.

Here are my suggestions:

Scale up! I know that's the plan so big props there.

Reconsider the time / point level. None of my games came to a natural end besides the one I lost to Liz, because she tabled me in 4....

Stick to your guns: Aside from the timing thing which is a reasonable debate at this point, I agree with all the other calls you have made. You are very humble about your TO experience but your credibility has got to be near the top as one of the countries lead TO's putting on as many events as you guys do. I, as a player, have a lot of respect for the effort and enthusiasm you have for the game and it shows. Saturday Morning SNAFU aside, you guys ran a tight ship and it will get a little easier in a facility that is more conducive of the environment. The BAO was a bad ass event and you guys made playing 40k in a barn with 200+ people around enjoyable. That's tough to pull off.

Now to not sound like I am pure brown nosing, the other thing I want to bring up, and I know it wasn't your fault was the food. Pizza is not that awesome 2 days in a row, and running out of drinks on Saturday was just bunk. I was sooo thirsty on Saturday night and I can't drink beer so I was basically boned for hydration. Again, they hotel will fix this, but this is the only thing that I found less than awesome. If you don't get the hotel for whatever reason, please let me know and I will come up and volunteer for the event and I will bring my taco stand. TACOS FOR THE TACO GOD!

 Reecius wrote:
@Hulk

No worries dude, any and all input is welcome. And don't worry about hurting my feelings, I have thick skin. I write for BoLS after all! haha

Like I said, I am not saying 1500 is the ONLY way, I just find that it works great in a tournament.

One of the things I think a lot of people forget is that we have to plan for the average attendee, not the top 10% who often are those posting on the boards and very vocal. The average attendee doesn't know the rules as well, isn't as fast and doesn't practice as much. They are just a bit slower.

Also, we do have rounds and times between rounds locked down and in the schedule. The problem was that we started late day 1, and with the physical problems of crowding, trouble with acoustics and getting everyone seeing pairings quickly, it made the normally adequate 15 minutes between rounds, not adequate. We had a layering of small issues that turned into larger issues.

I am not saying it can't work at 1750 or even 1850, just that experience has shown me that 1500 works great and results in the highest number of games finishing on time.

Day 2 we started on time and allowed people to start the round early as pairings were up a half hour before the round started, and a ton of games STILL went long, haha. It's like a goldfish growing as big as its tank allows.

As people get better with 6th, and in a setting that would facilitate faster play and better logistics, I think 1750 would work, but logically I don't think anyone would disagree that in the time frame, smaller points values means more finished games and a more leisurely pace.

And no worries about not making it out, man. I understand all too well that we can't afford to go to every event. I never take it personally when someone can't make it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Breng77 and Hulksmash

Thanks for the data, guys!

Now, before we jump to any conclusions about what FW did or did not do, we have to remember that this is 1 sample group, and that there are a million other variables in play. This is just an indicator of what may or may not have occurred, not a definitive answer in any way.

It would be difficult to draw any conclusions from 2 events about the actual impact of FW. As you noted, Missions have a large impact. As do players, if the better players chose to run FW (which you could argue is because it is powerful) then FW will do well, if they choose not to, then likely it will not show as well. What you would need to really show impact is 2 events run with the same missions one with FW one Without. The only statement you could really make (and you would need to see the army composition of all players at both events to do so) is one about the impact the inclusion of forgeworld had on what players percieved to be good army choices. (Did players on the whole take less flyers because of Sabers? Did more players run a certain codex because of FW units? etc.) Even then the difference in missions could explain a lot. Essentially the event would need to survey every attendee about that impact FW had in their games and had on what they chose to bring.

On FW, here is my main problem with your complaint Blackmoor;

If you know all the mainstream armies back to front like you suggest then you also know there are not any dual mounted hammerheads, so you should have said "hey buddy, whats the deal with that hammerhead?" this immediately solved your problem. I played at my first event with FW last month and my first question every round was, whats FW in your army and what does it do? I had no problems despite being annoyed by Vultures and placed 2nd (first place also ran no FW).

After all your falling on the sword that this event was WYSIWYG and so he misrepresented, but then you made assumption based on a model that did not fit that paradigm based on what you knew existed. So you can't really place all the blame on your opponent.

Had he explained every unit in his list and the game resulted in a turn 4 loss due to time then that would have been an easy cop out to blame conversions as well I am sure.

My point is if there was a major problem then it should have been vocalized at the event, I mean I have played in my fair share of tournament and the first thing you learn is to speak up rather then wait until you get home and regret.

@red Corsair

Or, since he know what a Rail Gun looks like he could have assumed a TL-Railgun (which it was modelled as) for a FW unit. That would be reasonable right? Then it turns out it's plasma. The point is that if it had been modeled correctly he wouldn't have made the assumption he did. As it was it fired a weapon that the model in no way represented.

Breng77 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
@Hulk

No worries dude, any and all input is welcome. And don't worry about hurting my feelings, I have thick skin. I write for BoLS after all! haha

Like I said, I am not saying 1500 is the ONLY way, I just find that it works great in a tournament.

One of the things I think a lot of people forget is that we have to plan for the average attendee, not the top 10% who often are those posting on the boards and very vocal. The average attendee doesn't know the rules as well, isn't as fast and doesn't practice as much. They are just a bit slower.

Also, we do have rounds and times between rounds locked down and in the schedule. The problem was that we started late day 1, and with the physical problems of crowding, trouble with acoustics and getting everyone seeing pairings quickly, it made the normally adequate 15 minutes between rounds, not adequate. We had a layering of small issues that turned into larger issues.

I am not saying it can't work at 1750 or even 1850, just that experience has shown me that 1500 works great and results in the highest number of games finishing on time.

Day 2 we started on time and allowed people to start the round early as pairings were up a half hour before the round started, and a ton of games STILL went long, haha. It's like a goldfish growing as big as its tank allows.

As people get better with 6th, and in a setting that would facilitate faster play and better logistics, I think 1750 would work, but logically I don't think anyone would disagree that in the time frame, smaller points values means more finished games and a more leisurely pace.

And no worries about not making it out, man. I understand all too well that we can't afford to go to every event. I never take it personally when someone can't make it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Breng77 and Hulksmash

Thanks for the data, guys!

Now, before we jump to any conclusions about what FW did or did not do, we have to remember that this is 1 sample group, and that there are a million other variables in play. This is just an indicator of what may or may not have occurred, not a definitive answer in any way.

It would be difficult to draw any conclusions from 2 events about the actual impact of FW. As you noted, Missions have a large impact. As do players, if the better players chose to run FW (which you could argue is because it is powerful) then FW will do well, if they choose not to, then likely it will not show as well. What you would need to really show impact is 2 events run with the same missions one with FW one Without. The only statement you could really make (and you would need to see the army composition of all players at both events to do so) is one about the impact the inclusion of forgeworld had on what players percieved to be good army choices. (Did players on the whole take less flyers because of Sabers? Did more players run a certain codex because of FW units? etc.) Even then the difference in missions could explain a lot. Essentially the event would need to survey every attendee about that impact FW had in their games and had on what they chose to bring.

5 out of the 7 players I went up against didn't field a flyer, but that's just me. How about the top tables?

I didn't see many flyers on the top tables. Most of the armies had 1 or 2. Lyzz had a single bloodthirster, Cody had a pair of voidravens, and I had a single vendetta. . 3 of the top 10 didn't have a flying vehicle. 6 out of the top 10 had a vendetta or hellturkey. It wasn't a flyer heavy meta.

 Red Corsair wrote:
On FW, here is my main problem with your complaint Blackmoor;

If you know all the mainstream armies back to front like you suggest then you also know there are not any dual mounted hammerheads, so you should have said "hey buddy, whats the deal with that hammerhead?" this immediately solved your problem. I played at my first event with FW last month and my first question every round was, whats FW in your army and what does it do? I had no problems despite being annoyed by Vultures and placed 2nd (first place also ran no FW).

To be honest, I have not seen a hammerhead in so long that I did not think anything about 2 railguns. I had no clue that it was anything other than what it was. There are many armies with many conversions for aesthetics and I am not going to go over every model to see if there is any forge world lurking in there. Everything has to be WYSIWYG and if it isn't, it needs to be explained.

After all your falling on the sword that this event was WYSIWYG and so he misrepresented, but then you made assumption based on a model that did not fit that paradigm based on what you knew existed. So you can't really place all the blame on your opponent.

The rules packet says that they have to be WYSIWYG and it details the procedure to follow if any models are not. There are clear rules of conduct regarding these cases and they fall on my opponent to follow them, not me. Might I suggest that you read them before commenting?

Had he explained every unit in his list and the game resulted in a turn 4 loss due to time then that would have been an easy cop out to blame conversions as well I am sure.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was in no jeopardy of losing this game no matter what my opponent did. I was just noting a problem with the use of forge world. Also, my low-model count army plays very fast. If we do not get through turn #4 it is because of my opponent. There was only one game of mine out of 7 that did not finish by the dice roll and I stated all of the reasons why it didn't.

My point is if there was a major problem then it should have been vocalized at the event, I mean I have played in my fair share of tournament and the first thing you learn is to speak up rather than wait until you get home and regret.

As I stated, I had no idea that there was a problem until after I got home. There was no way of knowing what TL Plasma Guns look like, and I did not know that there was even a model for it.

My Experience at the BAO was less than stellar. I think i might be the first Fantasy player to post feedback which is suprising.

We really felt like the red-headed step child at the event, which is common and by no means upsetting, but it is frustrating getting shoved out of 40k players way to "make room" for the more important even. Unlike the back of the hall on day 2, our ears were bleeding with TOs screaming into the mic the timing on the rounds. Obviously a better venue will change all of that.

I know we started late and that has been expressed verbatum but it did goes enough grumbling between rounds by the fantasy players that i'd mention it once again. On day one we had 7 minutes between Game 1 and Game 2, and 15 minutes between 2 and 3. Pretty quick turn around to wait in long lines for the restroom, refill water bottles or even run out to the car to grab a snack.


What was most frustrating though was the judging on paint and comp. A dear friend of mine had a fully converted Orc and Goblin army with blending and extensive freehand on all of his army and banners and bsb. His savage orcs had extensive tattoos painted on each individual. He used many of the advanced techniques and went for the theme with spiders and chariots everywhere. These should have qualified him for full paint scores yet it did not.

Another was the comp hits. We were given the comp rubric, followed it and were still docked random numbers of points. I.E. we were told it'd be 15 point dock for each violation (double lvl 4s, 25% in one unit, 3+ warmachines and double rares) yet even with lists well within, I was docked 25pts and another of our group was docked 40. The only thing i could think of was that, as a High Elf player, i was being docked for having 2 eagles in my list. But a month prior to lists being due I had emailed the question of, since i only have 2 rare choices is it ok if i bring 2 eagles? WIll i still be docked? A timely reply said, "no you won't be, that is meant to discourage things like double hydra and hell pits."

Finally, was the vanishing of the Best of Army awards and the random squirrel prize. I understand that the squirrel prize probably didn't happen, but was quite disappointed that the aforementioned awards were not handed out. The Best Army Awards were promised with trophies. What ever happened to these? Can we still expect them?

Lyz was definitely the first female to win at such a large event! Back in 3rd edition I recall a woman winning a top score at kublacon with a pure slaanesh csm list awhile back with noise marines and daemonettes, but the strategies and rules are so different now with so much more people open on strategies they use. My kudos lyz, you are epic!

A girl also won Best General at the Seattle GT back in like 2003 or 2004 (not sure which). Back when eldar armored companies were impossible to kill

thelordcal wrote:


Another was the comp hits. We were given the comp rubric, followed it and were still docked random numbers of points. I.E. we were told it'd be 15 point dock for each violation (double lvl 4s, 25% in one unit, 3+ warmachines and double rares) yet even with lists well within, I was docked 25pts and another of our group was docked 40. The only thing i could think of was that, as a High Elf player, i was being docked for having 2 eagles in my list. But a month prior to lists being due I had emailed the question of, since i only have 2 rare choices is it ok if i bring 2 eagles? WIll i still be docked? A timely reply said, "no you won't be, that is meant to discourage things like double hydra and hell pits."

I noticed that too. I only should have been docked 15 points, yet I was docked 25.

I think Blackmoor has a valid point. Disregarding any concerns about how Forge World is balanced, there are many reasons Forge World is a pain to use; one of these is rules access. The TL plasma turret for Tau at this moment in time has no 6e rules - FW haven't released a Tau update for 6th ed and pulled the 5th ed one from their downloads page. People use the 5th ed ones by googling "Tau update forge world", but this is deliberately hidden and IMO unreasonable to expect all players in a tournament to do. IA3, the only IA with many of the Tau options is also out of print and rare, so unobtainable for the average player. So, which rules should be used - the latest ones with hidden rules which were pulled 5 months ago or the out of print ones? There's also the issue where some rules are in multiple books, so to know which to use you need to know which book is most recent - for IG players, Apocalypse 2e and Aeronautica are no longer useful, you will now require IA:2 2e to use your models as this is the latest set of rules. There's no indication of this and before purchase you have no way of knowing which rules have been updated, nor which are most recent unless you keep up to date with all FW activity.

Food for thought, if nothing else.

@TheLordCal and Grey Templar

Hey guys, thanks for voicing your opinion.

As for the Comp and Paint issue, I can't really add anything worth while as I didn't control that at all. I emailed Seth (the TO) and asked him to pop in and address those questions. Hopefully he is along shortly.

I can answer the questions about logistics though.

The reason I made the call to put the Fantasy tables in rows with no breaks was because Fantasy games tend to have players stay on their respective sides of the table. In 40K, particularly in 6th ed with Hammer and Anvil deployment (playing the table long ways), you are going around the table all the time.

We filled the hall to capacity and as you saw, literally couldn't put even one more table in there. As 40K required more space to play, and there were 3 times as many of them as Fantasy, I could see how it would feel like the spacing was unfair. However, as space was a limited resource, and one game requires more of it than the other, I had to make the call.

Timing between rounds was an issue. It is fair to bring it up again as it really did put a strain on things. It is something we are working on now here in this thread and the other BAO thread as well as at the store and among the TOs to fix going forward.

As for the prizes, I do not know what a Squirrel prize is? I have never heard that term before. The Best of Awards were going to be printed out during the event (they were going to be a certificate with the name of the player, the army the played, the event name and year, etc.) and presented to each played in recognition for performing the best with their army. I was never able to print them out unfortunately, as we were so insanely busy and I straight up forgot to do it during the event. Nothing I can say about that other than I fethed up and I am very sorry about it. We would be more than happy to mail them to the folks that earned them, though, as that is on us to fix.

If it makes you feel any better though, Fantasy gets a higher ratio of prize support dollars per person than 40K does. We are very generous with the prize support, and I hope that was conveyed accurately.

I hope that addresses your concerns, and like I said, thanks for speaking up. We definitely had some logistical issues which will be addressed and won't occur next year.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@red Corsair

Or, since he know what a Rail Gun looks like he could have assumed a TL-Railgun (which it was modelled as) for a FW unit. That would be reasonable right? Then it turns out it's plasma. The point is that if it had been modeled correctly he wouldn't have made the assumption he did. As it was it fired a weapon that the model in no way represented.

Right, and I didn't say the other guy had no fault but that simply put things happen at any tournament and it's ridiculous for a seasoned player (blackmoor) not knowing a basic tank that has remained unchanged for 12 years looks like and not even asking the player the very basic question: "whats FW here and what does it do?" Instead he waits until he loses, places bad and then tears down the event? Ridiculous. NO EVENT has ever had perfect rulings on WYSIWYG with regards to balancing conversions. Heck your adeptus mechanicus army on your own blog is all counts as and by that nature changes the way it plays. Every model has an changed silhouette in regards to TLOS hence making it illegal. Heck even Blackmoors bases could be argued that way.

If you say no conversions allowed well guess what? Your finalists in the BAO both had completely illegal armies or should one of them waited to lose to complain after that they had never seen flamers modeled as sirens of tentacles for screamers or lug nuts for griffins( ).

So either you suck it up and realize you as players have responsibility to sort this stuff out, or you can very unrealistically expect the event to cover all possible contingencies at no profit btw.

 Red Corsair wrote:
So either you suck it up and realize you as players have responsibility to sort this stuff out, or you can very unrealistically expect the event to cover all possible contingencies at no profit btw.

Or, you know, you take a reasonable position between the two, and require those who want to bring FW models to actually bring FW models.

At colonial first place was no flyer grey knights, and the top tables saw few flyers. Sean had his all foot eldar dark eldar that did well, nick had demons with a hell turkey added in, Andrew had 1 vendetta ig da, mike had no flyer BA and SW.

As for the representation of fw, I had figured that ig would be the main bringers of forge world units and it appears that was true. Regardless of balance issues and rules availability to players, fw definately favors ig in terms of number and quality of units. Since this is the case that alone is enough for me to shun fw at a tourney the same way I shun the burning skies dueling rules for flyers.

 Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

Now to not sound like I am pure brown nosing, the other thing I want to bring up, and I know it wasn't your fault was the food. Pizza is not that awesome 2 days in a row, and running out of drinks on Saturday was just bunk. I was sooo thirsty on Saturday night and I can't drink beer so I was basically boned for hydration. Again, they hotel will fix this, but this is the only thing that I found less than awesome. If you don't get the hotel for whatever reason, please let me know and I will come up and volunteer for the event and I will bring my taco stand. TACOS FOR THE TACO GOD!

That would be awesome! Providing food for the BAO has always been such a headache. On top of all the other responsibilities we have, ordering, picking up and selling the food is always such a PITA. We tried to get lunch trucks this year, but they all fell through. I seriously hate dealing with food and going to a hotel it will be such a relief to not deal with that crap again! if for whatever reason we do need help, I will be calling on the aid of the Taco Gods! haha

 Red Corsair wrote:

Instead he waits until he loses, places bad and then tears down the event? Ridiculous. .

Since you were there, what did you think of the event? And how did I tear down the event? Everything I said was true.

And as far as losing, his Plasma Guns did not cost me the game. I was going to win and there was nothing that he could do about it.

It was an objective based mission (5 objectives) and my opponent had 3 6-man fire warrior squads as troops, and 3 eldar jet bikes. On turn #2 my combat squaded paladins deep struck into the middle of his army. The last of my interceptors were going to kill one squad, and my paladins were going to kill a fire warrior squad and the eldar jetbikes. On the next turn I was going to kill his last troop. He had no way of killing paladins (ironically those TL plasma guns worked against him since the rail gun would have been much better). I also had 2 small troops that were going to be on objectives out of LOS to his army that he would not be able to get to.

The problem was that we were on the middle tables and were getting into a lot of arguments over every rule (The FW issue was just the tip of the iceberg) and it was just not worth the hassle. I was tired and I was not having fun, so if he wanted to win so badly I conceded the game to him and got an early start on my 6 hour drive home.

Sorry it had to go down like that Blackmoor... You deserve better. Hopefully this will be a lesson learned for TOs that allow Forge World. If you want to bring it then it should be the real thing... Not a confusing cheap substitution.

 Blackmoor wrote:

And as far as Forge World's effect of the meta?

You can compare it to the Indy Open that happened last weekend.

At the Indy open you had Necrons and Chaos doing very well.

At the BAO you have IG doing very well.

I will make the leap and say that this was because of Saber Platforms.

So is it better to have IG on top rather than Necrons?

First off, you've always made a habit of making meta declarations based on the result of each tournament, without considering the myriad of factors that go into an army placing at a certain spot in any event, not the least of which are the players who are actually playing the army at an event. On top of that you also have mission types used in different events, point levels, round length, terrain and of course the random way that pairings can occur throughout the event.

Making ANY kind of claim about the meta based on 1 event (or even a few) is completely ludicrous. The only way any declarations such as what you're making should be made would be after dozens of event data, and even then the data is heavily skewed by soooo many factors you really can't draw any hard conclusions.

For example, who knows how many of those Necron players might have finished in the top 10 at BAO, based on just them being good players. Or who knows if any of the players at the BAO that took Necrons would have finished in the top 10 at the Indy GT? We can never know.

On top of that, at the BAO, just the threat of anti-flyer Sabers might have persuaded top players who would have otherwise taken flyer armies to take something else instead. In other words, the results can end up getting skewed just by the perception players have rather than the actual reality.

This is the same problem that happens anytime a new codex comes out that is super-powerful and after 1 or 2 events people say how amazingly over-powered it is because like 4 of the top 10 finishers are using it. The problem is, this kind of analysis ignores that often the same players are finishing in the top 10 with a different army each year, so they are actually making a judgement call about what army type they think they can best win with and taking that army to the tournament. That kind of behavior completely skews results because you don't know how those players would have finished taking an army besides the FotM codex.


And at the end of the day, if using FW skews the power over from Necrons to IG, then so what? There continues to be some perception that Forgeworld is not a Games Workshop product, when it very clearly is. GW has absolutely no qualms about leaving certain codexes in a sad state for YEARS before they get back around to them, so I don't understand the mindset that if using Forgeworld gives certain armies a bonus somehow this is somehow 'changing' the game...the game is 40K and Forgeworld is part of that game.

I always like doing this, so here is the breakdown of armies played!

Chaos Space Marines x 17
Imperial Guard x 13
Space Marines x 12
Grey Knights x 10
Necron x 10
Dark Angels x 7
Tyranids x 7
Deamons x 6
Eldar x 6
Orks x 6
Tau x 6
Blood Angels x 5
Dark eldar/ Eldar x 5
Sisters of Battle x 5
Space Wolves/ Imperial Guard x 4
Chaos Space Marines/ Deamons x 3
Chaos Space Marines/ Guard x 3
Dark Eldar x 3
Dark Angels/ Blood Angels x 2
Dark Angels/ Imperial Guard x 2
Space Wolves x 2
Black Templar
Chaos/ Necron
Dark Angels/ Grey Knights
Grey Knights/ Necrons
Grey/ Imperial Guard
Orks/ Necrons
Sister Battle/ Grey Knights
Space Marines/ Blood Angels
Space Marines/ Space Wolves
Space Marines/ tau
Tau/Orks



Top 15

Deamons
Space Wolves/ Imperial Guard
Impeial Guard /Chaos Space Marines
Dark eldar/ Eldar
Deamons
Imperial Guard
Chaos Space Marines
Space Wolves
Tyranids
Chaos Space Marines
Tyranids
Imperial Guard
Dark Angels
Chaos Space Marines
Dark Angels/ Blood Angels

I like the spread of armies! Not what was expected, I bet. Frankie called it though, he said we'd see more Chaos than anything else.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
So either you suck it up and realize you as players have responsibility to sort this stuff out, or you can very unrealistically expect the event to cover all possible contingencies at no profit btw.

Or, you know, you take a reasonable position between the two, and require those who want to bring FW models to actually bring FW models.

Your not looking at the big picture. Maybe I wasn't clear here but what makes it not cool for someone to take his FW conversion (especial the guy who pulls best appearance so obviously fulfills the rule of cool) but then makes it fine for your tournament winner to have almost an entire counts as army? Excuse me but you can make a much more compelling argument that her army was more confusing then that guys one tank. Again a tank that doesnt exist in the current rules and should have at least been questioned.

All I am saying is that it was unfortunate that confusion occurred between these two. More importantly that this confusion or alleged problem could have been COMPLETELY avoided with one simple question that should have been asked all weekend.

Players need to own up to their responsibility impacting these events as well. Some of the complaints are just nit picking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yakface wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

And as far as Forge World's effect of the meta?

You can compare it to the Indy Open that happened last weekend.

At the Indy open you had Necrons and Chaos doing very well.

At the BAO you have IG doing very well.

I will make the leap and say that this was because of Saber Platforms.

So is it better to have IG on top rather than Necrons?

First off, you've always made a habit of making meta declarations based on the result of each tournament, without considering the myriad of factors that go into an army placing at a certain spot in any event, not the least of which are the players who are actually playing the army at an event. On top of that you also have mission types used in different events, point levels, round length, terrain and of course the random way that pairings can occur throughout the event.

Making ANY kind of claim about the meta based on 1 event (or even a few) is completely ludicrous. The only way any declarations such as what you're making should be made would be after dozens of event data, and even then the data is heavily skewed by soooo many factors you really can't draw any hard conclusions.

For example, who knows how many of those Necron players might have finished in the top 10 at BAO, based on just them being good players. Or who knows if any of the players at the BAO that took Necrons would have finished in the top 10 at the Indy GT? We can never know.

On top of that, at the BAO, just the threat of anti-flyer Sabers might have persuaded top players who would have otherwise taken flyer armies to take something else instead. In other words, the results can end up getting skewed just by the perception players have rather than the actual reality.

This is the same problem that happens anytime a new codex comes out that is super-powerful and after 1 or 2 events people say how amazingly over-powered it is because like 4 of the top 10 finishers are using it. The problem is, this kind of analysis ignores that often the same players are finishing in the top 10 with a different army each year, so they are actually making a judgement call about what army type they think they can best win with and taking that army to the tournament. That kind of behavior completely skews results because you don't know how those players would have finished taking an army besides the FotM codex.


And at the end of the day, if using FW skews the power over from Necrons to IG, then so what? There continues to be some perception that Forgeworld is not a Games Workshop product, when it very clearly is. GW has absolutely no qualms about leaving certain codexes in a sad state for YEARS before they get back around to them, so I don't understand the mindset that if using Forgeworld gives certain armies a bonus somehow this is somehow 'changing' the game...the game is 40K and Forgeworld is part of that game.

Exalted this for truth!

I could not put this into words better. Complaining about FW after one event and compairing it to the results from another tournament IS ludicrous. FW could be allowed for years without knowing its impact there are so many variable. Any one willing to run a control tournament then apply one variable to the same sample pool of players at another event the fallowing weekend?

And here is the top 15 breakdown:



Really good spread! Compare that to Adpeticon final 16 last year, which was half Grey Knights!

Surprised not to see any Necrons, though. A million reasons for that though. I don't think you need flyers to make a good Cron list, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That should read Tyranids x 2 in the top 15, sorry!

 yakface wrote:


First off, you've always made a habit of making meta declarations based on the result of each tournament, without considering the myriad of factors that go into an army placing at a certain spot in any event, not the least of which are the players who are actually playing the army at an event. On top of that you also have mission types used in different events, point levels, round length, terrain and of course the random way that pairings can occur throughout the event.

Making ANY kind of claim about the meta based on 1 event (or even a few) is completely ludicrous. The only way any declarations such as what you're making should be made would be after dozens of event data, and even then the data is heavily skewed by soooo many factors you really can't draw any hard conclusions.

For example, who knows how many of those Necron players might have finished in the top 10 at BAO, based on just them being good players. Or who knows if any of the players at the BAO that took Necrons would have finished in the top 10 at the Indy GT? We can never know.

On top of that, at the BAO, just the threat of anti-flyer Sabers might have persuaded top players who would have otherwise taken flyer armies to take something else instead. In other words, the results can end up getting skewed just by the perception players have rather than the actual reality.

This is the same problem that happens anytime a new codex comes out that is super-powerful and after 1 or 2 events people say how amazingly over-powered it is because like 4 of the top 10 finishers are using it. The problem is, this kind of analysis ignores that often the same players are finishing in the top 10 with a different army each year, so they are actually making a judgement call about what army type they think they can best win with and taking that army to the tournament. That kind of behavior completely skews results because you don't know how those players would have finished taking an army besides the FotM codex.


And at the end of the day, if using FW skews the power over from Necrons to IG, then so what? There continues to be some perception that Forgeworld is not a Games Workshop product, when it very clearly is. GW has absolutely no qualms about leaving certain codexes in a sad state for YEARS before they get back around to them, so I don't understand the mindset that if using Forgeworld gives certain armies a bonus somehow this is somehow 'changing' the game...the game is 40K and Forgeworld is part of that game.

I told you that I was taking a leap(an educated guess) that we did not see necrons placing well because of saber platforms. IMHO sabers kept the necrons away not only by beating them on the table top, but also by keeping them away because the necron players did not want to play them because of the SDP, and because a lot of the top players switched to IG and did not take their Necrons. Does this not sound reasonable to you?

And I do not always make declarations about the meta after every tournament. I see a lot of tournaments won my gimmicky lists like seer councils, seraphem and dark eldar beast packs that I think are not very good long term, and only good when taking players by surprise. I will say that necrons are a very good army, and a top tier army, and seem to be standing the test of time. I found it odd that they were not anywhere near the top of the BAO.

To give you an example, Duel Con was run by Reese and it had a ton of Necron flyers and players and it followed the BAO missions. A necron player even won it. Now a few months later no necrons. There has to be a reason for that.

Yes, I have not had many tournaments to look at the data since this is really the first tournament with time to get your forge world ready, but I am not allowed to infer things by the results?

I can also guess and say that Forge World helps IG and it hurts flyer dependent lists (CSM, Necrons), and I think that is fairly obvious without seeing many tournament results. You seem to think I thought that was a bad thing, I was merely pointing it out.

Honestly just the general area play style changes lists. The top ork player here ran lots of battlewagons. I could have rana wagon heavy list but because of how poor that list has done in the SoCal area I didnt bring it. I brought a more fun list that had all my painted items in it, but had I had my two other battle wagons I see several of my games doing better for me.

I dont think forgeworld models really changed anything. Nor did the flyer rule change greatly impact anything that I saw. I got a few extra shots off, no game changer for me.

 Reecius wrote:


things like what you described are unfortunately not within our ability to control. e.

It appears most complaints can be be solved by things under your control. Quality over quantity. You got to big before you could handle it. That's fine. You shot for the moon and missed. Learn and regroup. Go for a little smaller next time with more quality.

As an aide do you really expect someone to travel a far distance and go through what Allan went through in game one? That's awful. If I didn't know any better I'd thought you were giving away free soup with every BAO entry just to pack the place.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alan from Chicago didn't expect to see many Necrons. He thought FW units would keep them away and IG FW were the best option to take. That's according to his blog on Feb. 25th. But what does he know. He doesn't play competitively across the country or win many games .... Uh wait.

 Blackmoor wrote:

I told you that I was taking a leap(an educated guess) that we did not see necrons placing well because of saber platforms. IMHO sabers kept the necrons away not only by beating them on the table top, but also by keeping them away because the necron players did not want to play them because of the SDP, and because a lot of the top players switched to IG and did not take their Necrons. Does this not sound reasonable to you?

And I do not always make declarations about the meta after every tournament. I see a lot of tournaments won my gimmicky lists like seer councils, seraphem and dark eldar beast packs that I think are not very good long term, and only good when taking players by surprise. I will say that necrons are a very good army, and a top tier army, and seem to be standing the test of time. I found it odd that they were not anywhere near the top of the BAO.

To give you an example, Duel Con was run by Reese and it had a ton of Necron flyers and players and it followed the BAO missions. A necron player even won it. Now a few months later no necrons. There has to be a reason for that.

Yes, I have not had many tournaments to look at the data since this is really the first tournament with time to get your forge world ready, but I am not allowed to infer things by the results?

I can also guess and say that Forge World helps IG and it hurts flyer dependent lists (CSM, Necrons), and I think that is fairly obvious without seeing many tournament results. You seem to think I thought that was a bad thing, I was merely pointing it out.

Of course you're able to infer whatever you'd like. I'm just trying to point out the futility of doing so because there are simply too many variables that you ignore to create whatever narrative you are wishing to see from the results...most importantly you typically ignore the players themselves and just look at the army types as though these things play themselves. A Necron army played by player X in one tournament is not the same thing as a totally different Necron army played by player Y in a different tournament.

Duelcon is located in Arizona and the BAO is in Northern California. That alone means there is going to be a totally different host of players involved. There will obviously be a few cross-overs between the two, but *any* change in players involved is going to have a huge impact on the event...arguably even more than army types.

And as I stated in my last post perception can have a major impact on the armies that players choose to bring. A top player that this afraid of Sabres, for example, may decide to cut his losses and go with a different army type instead of his Necrons, so the results of the tournament will end up showing one less Necron player who would have been in the top 10, but we don't know for sure that this player wouldn't have broken the top 10 with his Necron force if he had decided to bring it.

Hell, nor do we even know that if you ran the BAO a 2nd time with exactly the same players and exactly the same starting army draws that we wouldn't have ended up with 1 or 2 Necron armies in the top 15...such is the nature of the luck involved.

So my point to you has always been (even in our private conversations), that making generalizations based on tournament results is so flawed that its basically worthless. But worse, because you are a talented, smart player, people listen to your (and other many other players who do the same) inferences and start to believe these generalizations as being truth...so then before you know it the tagline of 'Necrons can't win when Forgeworld is involved' becomes a common theme and that myth actually helps to fuel people choosing not to bring their Necron armies to events that are using Forgeworld.

@Darth

Well, thanks for the input. I think you are grossly overestimating the ability of the TO to control what is going on. We of course want people to have fun and it is regrettable when things go badly, but come on here, we aren't purposefully trying to make things bad which is the implication you were making. Your tone suggests we intentionally slighted Blackmoor which is asinine. For one, he is my friend personally, for two, what would that gain us?

We gain nothing by packing the event on purpose to the point we can't manage it, that only hurts us long term. This is our profession, this is how we pay the bills. We are in this for the long haul. We want people to walk away form our events stoked, not bummed out.

And yeah, I did know Alan said that FW would keep flyers away, hahaha, he is on Team Zero Comp, and crashed at my house while he was here! We talk often, he is a good friend of mine. He did predict that Forgeworld would dominate Flyers but he also doesn't play FW, he will tell you so himself. That was his guess. 2 of the top 4 armies had fliers though, so what should we infer from that?

Necrons were the 5th most represented army there, so they hardly got scared away. The fact that they didn't make the top 10% could be due to any number of reasons. Saying it was only FW is silly as most of the top armies (7 of them) had flyers, and only 1/3 of them (IRRC) used FW.

So there you go, more flyers than FW in the top 10%. Necrons would have fared no differently.

 yakface wrote:


So my point to you has always been (even in our private conversations), that making generalizations based on tournament results is so flawed that its basically worthless. But worse, because you are a talented, smart player, people listen to your (and other many other players who do the same) inferences and start to believe these generalizations as being truth...so then before you know it the tagline of 'Necrons can't win when Forgeworld is involved' becomes a common theme and that myth actually helps to fuel people choosing not to bring their Necron armies to events that are using Forgeworld.

I do make generalization before all of the data is in, but a lot of people make educated guesses and try to forecast trends. I try to say that I am guessing and I try to avoid stating it as if they are facts. If you can do it for the stock market you should be able to do it for 40k. Here is my guess for Adepticon....you better have some way to deal with helldrakes.

I think necrons can win with forge world, but a lot of people are lazy and just want to play flyers. I think that wraithwing is a very viable army in a lot of different formats, and I do not know why it is not that popular in the US. I also think that there are a lot of good units in the necron codex that no one ever explores because of flyers. That might be one of the benefits of forge world at tournaments is that we might see a diversification of necron armies.

 Reecius wrote:

 Blood Lord Soldado wrote:

Now to not sound like I am pure brown nosing, the other thing I want to bring up, and I know it wasn't your fault was the food. Pizza is not that awesome 2 days in a row, and running out of drinks on Saturday was just bunk. I was sooo thirsty on Saturday night and I can't drink beer so I was basically boned for hydration. Again, they hotel will fix this, but this is the only thing that I found less than awesome. If you don't get the hotel for whatever reason, please let me know and I will come up and volunteer for the event and I will bring my taco stand. TACOS FOR THE TACO GOD!

That would be awesome! Providing food for the BAO has always been such a headache. On top of all the other responsibilities we have, ordering, picking up and selling the food is always such a PITA. We tried to get lunch trucks this year, but they all fell through. I seriously hate dealing with food and going to a hotel it will be such a relief to not deal with that crap again! if for whatever reason we do need help, I will be calling on the aid of the Taco Gods! haha

While I would much prefer to play I wouldn't be entirely opposed to hauling a nice sized charcoal BBQ up there to make some good BBQ. Then again, if you don't do the fairgrounds again I will just be playing.

//begin rambling

I played Chaos/Necrons and, scared about FW skyfire/interceptor units, decided going into the event that I was going to have to take less flyers in order to survive. It was definitely the right call.

I had two games where I would have lost had I not traded in my 3rd flyer, a Night Scythe, for a Veiltek. A third game (one of my two losses) would've been a complete massacre, but instead came down to the wire. That Night Scythe would've gone POOF the second it came into play, and gone with it would be the mobile scoring units which were the main reason I was allying in Necrons in the first place.

I highly doubt I'm the only player that realized taking more than a couple flyers in a competitive FW-inclusive environment would be a bad idea. It's impossible for those armies to place in the top 10 if nobody is playing them.

Yes, there were a lot of Necron armies there. It should also be noted that 90% of them were piloted by less than stellar generals.

Did the inclusion of FW change the environment? Absolutely, it did.

Was that a bad thing? I'm not sure I'd say it was good or bad. Just different.

//end rambling